Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 3 June 2026

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

Date: Wednesday 6 May 2026

Time: 9.30 am

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

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Phil Mauger

Deputy Mayor Victoria Henstock

Councillor Kelly Barber

Councillor David Cartwright

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Tyrone Fields

Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt – via audio/visual link

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

Bede Carran

Interim Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8999

bede.carran@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

Samantha Kelly

Team Leader Democratic Services Support

Tel: 941 6227

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

Karakia Tīmatanga

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

Deputy Mayor Henstock assumed the Chair.

Councillors Coker, Johanson and Keown joined the meeting at 9.31 am.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00057

That the apology from the Mayor for lateness and potential early departure be accepted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

Councillor MacDonald left the meeting at 9.43 am and returned at 9.54 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2026
	Nicola McCormick, Deputy Chairperson, and Maryanne Lomax, Manager Community Governance, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board area report. Marie Pollisco, Chairperson, and Bailey Peterson, Manager Community Governance, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area report. Jackie Simons, Deputy Chairperson, and Chris Turner-Bullock, Manager Community Governance, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area report. Lyn Leslie, Chairperson, and Penelope Goldstone, Manager Community Governance, joined the meeting for presentation of the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board area report. Keir Leslie, Chairperson, and Sophie Bond, Deputy Chairperson, joined the meeting for presentation of the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board area report.
	Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00058 Officer Recommendation accepted without change That the Council: 1. Receives the information in the Monthly Report from the Community Boards - April 2026 Report. Councillor McLellan/Councillor Scandrett Carried
	Attachments a Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board - Presentation to Council b Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Presentation to Council c Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - Presentation to Council d Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board - Presentation to Council e Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - Presentation to Council

3. Public Participation Te Huinga Tūmatanui

3.1 Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

3.1.1

Douglas Williamson

Douglas Williamson spoke regarding a proposal to alleviate problems at the wastewater treatment plant.

The Mayor joined the meeting at 10.14 am and assumed the Chair.

Deputy Mayor Henstock left the meeting at 10.15 am and returned at 10.18 am during consideration of Item 3.1.2.

3.1.2

RiseLink Foundation Charitable Trust

Hassan Hassan and Mohamed Hassan spoke on behalf of RiseLink Foundation Charitable Trust to introduce the Foundation and share its kaupapa and the work it does to support young people and families from refugee, migrant, and ethnic communities in Christchurch.

Attachments

a RiseLink Foundation Charitable Trust - Presentation to Council

3.2 Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

3.2.1

Kay Stieller and Peter Dellaca

Kay Stieller and Peter Dellaca spoke regarding Item 14 - Christchurch Kart Club Relocation.

3.2.2

KartSport Canterbury

Shayne McLaren and Matthew Hamilton spoke on behalf of KartSport Canterbury regarding Item 14 - Christchurch Kart Club Relocation.

Attachments

a KartSport Canterbury - Presentation to Council

3.2.3 Stephen Wood

Stephen Wood spoke regarding Item 15 – Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads.

Attachments

a Stephen Wood - Presentation to Council

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.38 am and returned at 10.41 am during consideration of Item 3.2.4.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.40 am and returned at 10.42 am during consideration of Item 3.2.4.

3.2.4 Helen Broughton

Helen Broughton spoke regarding Item 14 – Christchurch Kart Club Relocation.

Attachments

a Helen Broughton - Presentation to Council

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.45 am during consideration of Item 4.1.

4. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

4.1

Emily Mie presented a petition regarding the installation of traffic lights at the corner of Blenheim Road and Middleton Road.

We, the undersigned residents and concerned members of the community, urgently request the installation of traffic lights at corner of Blenheim Rd and Middleton Rd.

This intersection is located very close to a school, where many students, including young children, must cross the road daily. The road is a major and busy route connect the north and south, with heavy traffic and fast-moving vehicles.

There have been multiple near-miss incidents, and the current situation poses a serious risk to public safety. We are deeply concerned that without immediate action, it is only a matter of time before a serious accident occurs.

While we understand that installing traffic lights requires financial investment, we strongly believe that human life is priceless. Money can be recovered, but lives cannot.

We respectfully urge the authorities to prioritise this matter and take immediate action to improve safety at this location.

Attachments

a Emily Mie - Petition to Council

Councillor McLellan returned to the meeting at 10.49 am during consideration of Items 5, 24, 6, 7, 25, 8, 9 and 26.

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00059

That the Council confirms the Open and Public Excluded (Item 24) Minutes from the meetings held on 1 April 2026 and 22 April 2026.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

6. Council - Annual Plan Minutes - 31 March 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00060

That the Council confirms the Minutes from the Council - Annual Plan meeting held 31 March 2026.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

7. Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee Minutes - 20 March 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00061

That the Council receives the Open and Public Excluded (Item 25) Minutes from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee meeting held 20 March 2026.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

8. Canterbury Waste Joint Committee Minutes - 10 April 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00062

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Canterbury Waste Joint Committee meeting held 10 April 2026.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

9. Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee Minutes - 10 April 2026

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00063

That the Council receives the Open and Public Excluded (Item 26) Minutes from the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee meeting held 10 April 2026.

Councillor Peters/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 16 April 2026

11. Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00064

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendations to Council accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board - 16 April 2026

12. Sumner Tennis Club Proposed Lease: Post Consultation Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00065

Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendations to Council accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Sumner Tennis Club Proposed Lease: Post-Consultation Report.

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

3. Notes that public consultation was carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 as authorised by the Community Board's resolution of 11 May 2023.

4. Approve a lease of up to 35 years less one day to Sumner Tennis and Squash Club Incorporated over the land at 8–14 Heberden Avenue and 140 Nayland Street, as shown on the agenda report in Attachment B, with the annual rental set in accordance with the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy, and subject to the following conditions:

a. The permitted use is restricted to tennis courts and associated activity only, unless approved by the Council;

b. Hours of operation to be determined through the Resource Consent process, with the Club required to implement access controls to enforce approved hours;

c. Low-noise court surfaces and sound-dampening curtains on court fencing to be installed;

d. That within consented hours of use, and when not in active use for club activity, the courts remain accessible without costs to members of the public;

e. Cycle parking to be provided on site;

f. The Club to maintain the berm on the leased frontages;

g. Planting on boundaries adjacent to residential properties to be maintained at a maximum height of 2 metres, to be confirmed through the Resource Consent process;

h. That the courts be moved as close as safely as possible to the cliff end of the park to reduce impact on neighbours. Requests the Manager Property Consultancy take all steps necessary to give effect to the above resolutions, including completing negotiations and finalising and administering the lease documentation, and making any minor amendments required to give effect to these resolutions.

5. Requests the Manager Property Consultancy take all steps necessary to give effect to the above resolutions, including completing negotiations and finalising and administering the lease documentation, and making any minor amendments required to give effect to these resolutions.

Councillor Herz Jardine/Councillor Scandrett Carried

Report from Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board - 7 April 2026

13. Brighton Mall Upgrade

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00066

Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Recommendations to Council accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

a. Cycles at any time.

b. Emergency vehicles at any time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor Barber/Councillor Coker Carried

14. Christchurch Kart Club Relocation

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00067

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

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

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried

For	14	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	3	Councillor Donovan, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Moore
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

The meeting adjourned at 11.22 am and reconvened at 11.43 am. Deputy Mayor Henstock was not present at this time.

Deputy Mayor Henstock returned to the meeting at 11.44 am during consideration of Item 15.

15. Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads

Council Comment

1. Council Officers Stephen Wright and Gemma Dioni joined the table and spoke to a presentation.

2. The Mayor Moved, and Councillor Scandrett Seconded, a Motion which included the following alterations and addition to the Officer Recommendations:

a. Resolution 3 - To provide a single recommendation for consistency and clarity regarding the approach to the use of vertical traffic calming.
Secretarial Note: The original Motion included two additions to provide clarity to the approach, one of which was removed from the Motion during the meeting.

b. Resolution 6 – Requesting for staff to report back with options for a clear, efficient and consistent decision-making process for all vertical traffic calming measures on arterial and collector roads.

3. Councillor Fields Moved, Seconded by Councillor Coker, a Foreshadowed Motion for option two of the officer report, which was to continue with the current practice without formal direction of consistent application principles.

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

Officer Recommendations

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads Report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. local and neighbourhood streets are excluded.

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

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00068

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads Report.

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

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

4. Notes that, where referred to in Recommendation 3 above regarding the use of vertical traffic calming:

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

b. local and neighbourhood streets are excluded.

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

6. Requests that staff report back, by 30 August 2026, with options for a clear, efficient and consistent decision-making process for all vertical traffic calming measures on arterial and collector roads.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett Carried

For	10	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	7	Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

Attachments

a Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads - Staff Presentation to Council

21. Notice of Motion - Ground-based solar generation

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00069

The Mayor’s Notice of Motion accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Requests staff to undertake a city-wide assessment of Council-owned land that may be suitable for medium-term (25–30 years) or long-term (greater than 30 years) lease for ground-based solar generation, including solar farms and other non-roof-mounted solar arrays.

2. Requests staff to report back to the Council on feasible options, opportunities, and considerations arising from the assessment of Council owned land for ground based solar electricity generation, for potential inclusion and consideration as part of the 2027–2037 Long Term Plan.

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

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

22. Mayor's Monthly Report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00070

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

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

Mayor/Councillor Keown Carried

16. Application to Capital Endowment Fund 2025/26 - Te Tahi Youth

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00071

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Application to Capital Endowment Fund 2025/26 - Te Tahi Youth Report.

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

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

Councillor Harrison-Hunt/Councillor Donovan Carried

17. Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00072

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Environmental Partnership Fund allocation - Correction Report.

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

3. Alters the 4 February 2026 Council decision (CNCL/2026/00015) only in relation to the allocation towards Predator Free NB/Coastal Kaitiaki to reflect the grant of $10,000 from the 2025/26 Environmental Partnership Fund, as follows (underlining being the addition):

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

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

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Coker Carried

18. Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00073

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 Report.

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

3. Approves the adoption of the Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036 strategy.

Councillor Moore/Councillor Fields Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	1	Councillor Scandrett
Abstain	0
TOTAL	17

Councillor Moore left the meeting at 12.51 pm and returned at 12.53 pm during consideration of Item 19.

19. 2025 Triennial Elections

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00074

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the 2025 Triennial Elections Report.

Councillor Peters/Councillor MacDonald Carried

20. Notification of Revocation of Part of previous Council decision

Council Resolved CNCL/2026/00075

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Notification of Revocation of Part of previous Council decision Report.

2. Confirms the following decision made by the Finance and Performance Committee on 22 April 2026 in relation to the Duvauchelle Wastewater Treatment Plant (FPCO/2026/00001):

Revokes the following resolutions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the 2022 decision CNCL/2022/00114 to upgrade the Duvauchelle WWTP and irrigate that treated wastewater to land that is part of the Duvauchelle Recreational Reserve.

2. Approves the adoption of Option 1: spray and drip irrigate treated wastewater to the Akaroa Golf Course.

3. Requests Officers incorporate provision for future non-potable reuse.

5.Makes provision in the Long Term Plan for increased operational costs for the Akaroa Golf Club associated with the needs of the scheme.

6.Requests that Officers work closely with the Ōnuku Rūnanga, Akaroa Golf Club, Duvauchelle Primary School and Banks Peninsula Early Learning Incorporated and Trust during the design development and resource consent process.

7.Requests as a minimum that the resource consent application is limited notified to affected parties.

Mayor/Councillor Barber Carried

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.57 pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2026

Mayor Phil Mauger

Chairperson

Report from Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board – 20 April 2026

9. Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/816123
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha Wells, Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

1. The Community Board received deputations on this report from Anne Scott on behalf of Spokes Canterbury, and Fox Bennetts.

2. The Community Board accepted the officer recommendations in full, with additional requests for staff to consider as part of the detailed design process:

a. Adding a kerb cutdown opposite the Blakes Rd intersection, to allow cyclists turning from Blakes Rd to enter the Radcliffe Rd shared path.

b. Enhanced warning signage for the pedestrian crossing point near the railway line.

3. In response to feedback from submitters and the deputations, the Community Board made an additional recommendation that the Council seek advice about lowering the speed limit on Radcliffe Road between Blakes Road and the Northwood Supa Centa.

2. Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

21. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 100 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

22. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 280 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

23. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 382 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 97 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

24. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 269 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 63 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

25. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 21 to 24 above are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

27. Requests advice from staff on lowering the speed limit on Radcliffe Road between Blakes Road and the Northwood Supa Centa.

3. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement 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. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and stopping restrictions and traffic controls made pursuant to any Bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with parking or stopping restrictions described in resolutions 5 to 17 and 20 to 24 below.

4. Approves the following resolutions required for the implementation of the project, relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Radcliffe Road

5. Approves all kerb alignments, traffic islands, road surface treatments, and road markings on Radcliffe Road commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 245 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

6. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A:

a. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 245 metres.

b. On the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

7. Approves all kerb alignments, traffic islands, road surface treatment, and road markings on Radcliffe Road commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 257 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

8. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

a. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 96 metres.

b. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 94 metres.

c. On the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 257 metres.

9. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 291 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A, be resolved as an eastbound Shared Path, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

10. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 397 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 55 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

11. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 302 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 40 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A, be resolved as an eastbound Shared Path, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

12. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 23 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A, be resolved as an eastbound Shared Path, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

13. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 36 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 58 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

14. Approves that in accordance with Clause 21 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 588 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A, be resolved as a bi-directional Shared Path, in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rules: 2004. This Shared Path is for the use by the classes of road users only as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004.

Blakes Road

15. Approves all kerb alignments, traffic islands, and road markings on Blakes Road commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres, as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

16. Approves that in accordance with Section 4 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 that the southbound approach of Blakes Road at its intersection with Radcliffe Road be controlled by a Stop Control, as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

17. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times as detailed on plan TP362601, Issue 1, dated 12/03/2026 and attached to this report as Attachment A.

a. On the western side of Blakes Road, commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres.

b. On the easterly side of Blakes Road, commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres.

18. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 5 to 17 above are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

19. Endorses staff’s recommended delivery staging approach to construct the full intended design for Radcliffe Road and Blakes Road, other than the upgrades to the level crossing, as one phase as soon as possible. The railway level crossing will be delivered when ready to do so.

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board recommend that Council:

20. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 100 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

21. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 280 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

22. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 382 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 97 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

23. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 269 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 63 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

24. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 20 to 23 above are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

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

4. Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Decisions Under Delegation Ngā Mana kua Tukuna

Part C

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement 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.

Radcliffe Road

a. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 245 metres.

b. On the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

a. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 96 metres.

b. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 94 metres.

c. On the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 257 metres.

Blakes Road

a. On the western side of Blakes Road, commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres.

b. On the easterly side of Blakes Road, commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres.

18. Requests staff to consider during the detailed design phase:

a. A kerb cutdown opposite the Blakes Road intersection to allow cyclists to turn from Blakes Road and enter the Radcliffe Rd shared path.

b. Enhanced warning signage for the pedestrian crossing point near the railway crossing.

19. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 5 to 17 above are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

20. Endorses staff’s recommended delivery staging approach to construct the full intended design for Radcliffe Road and Blakes Road, other than the upgrades to the level crossing, as one phase as soon as possible. The railway level crossing will be delivered when ready to do so.

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement	26/259335	116

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvements - TP362601- Issue 1 12-03-2026 For Approval	2026/1077415	132
b ⇩	Consultation submission and staff responses	2026/1077447	134
c	Legal Advice - Radcliffes Road (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	26/640226

Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/259335
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha Wells, Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimari-Harewood Community Board for the Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement scheme design following public consultation.

1.2 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

1. Receives the information in the Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement 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.

Radcliffe Road

a. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 245 metres.

b. On the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 172 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

a. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 96 metres.

b. On the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 94 metres.

c. On the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 257 metres.

Blakes Road

a. On the western side of Blakes Road, commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres.

b. On the easterly side of Blakes Road, commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 183 metres.

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board recommend that Council:

21. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of eastbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the northern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 280 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

23. Approves that a Special Vehicle Lane, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be established on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, commencing at a point 269 metres east of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 63 metres as detailed on plan TP362601, dated 12/03/2026, and attached to this report as Attachment A.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Radcliffe Corridor Improvement project has come about from the need to provide a safe pedestrian and cycling connection between Main North Road and the Spring Grove subdivision.

3.2 The route means there will be impacts on the existing railway level crossing on Radcliffe Road due to the expected increased numbers of pedestrians and cyclists.

3.2.1 Council therefore has an obligation to upgrade this level crossing to manage the increased risk.

3.2.2 The design for the level crossing requires KiwiRail approval which has not yet been granted, so is not included in this report

3.3 Staff have considered the works and provided options for approval in two categories: the permanent design; and staging options:

3.3.1 The permanent design options:

· Approve the recommended design, found in Attachment A

· Do not approve the design

3.3.2 The staging options are:

· Construct all scope as soon as possible, noting that the level crossing upgrade will likely be completed much later than the path

· Construct scope east of Blakes Road as soon as possible, and all scope west of Blakes Road once the level crossing upgrade is ready

· Delay the construction of all scope until the level crossing is ready

3.4 The staff recommendation is to construct the intended design up to the rail crossing, then upgrade the level crossing once the design is approved.

3.4.1 Staff have recommended these as they address community concerns, and provide the connections as soon as possible.

3.4.2 However, staff expect that this will temporarily encourage more users towards a level crossing that has not been upgraded. While this will raise the level of risk at the level crossing itself, the overall impact on users of the corridor has been assessed as lower risk (due to the current risk to users walking on the edge of a narrow, fast and unlit road).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 In the past decade there has been significant growth in residential properties to the east of the railway between Radcliffe Road and Belfast Road, within the Spring Grove subdivision.

4.1.1 This has created an increasing demand for residents to access amenities and services to the west of the railway: schools, shops, cafes, bus services, major cycleway network, etc. However, there is poor pedestrian and cycle access from the subdivision to Main North Road due to a lack of footpaths, and level crossings that do not cater for non-vehicular traffic. Staff are aware of reports of people using the live railway corridor as an access route between Thompsons Road (east) and Sheldon Park.

4.1.2 In the 2015 Long Term Plan a project was initiated that sought to cater for this movement, by crossing the railway line at Thompsons Road. Despite ongoing discussions with KiwiRail over a number of years it was not possible to get agreement for a pedestrian level crossing in this location. A grade separated crossing (under or over-pass) was ruled out for a number of reasons, including high cost, property purchase requirements, and CPTED and privacy concerns. This project was removed from Council’s capital programme as part of the 2024 Long Term Plan.

4.1.3 In the 2021 Long Term Plan a project was initiated for the Radcliffe Corridor Improvement project. As the Radcliffe Road level crossing needed to be linked to any new works at Thompsons Road, little progress was able to be made on this project until the Thompsons Road level crossing was removed from the programme.

4.2 Some of this project is on land which NZTA acquired for the northern motorway, and NZTA is in the process of handing over the land to CCC and vesting it as road reserve, in accordance with the signed memorandum of understanding between CCC and NZTA associated with the Northern Arterial Extension.

4.3 As part of the South-East Belfast Outline Development Plan there are significant further areas of land proposed to be developed for housing in this location. Therefore, it is anticipated that traffic and pedestrian/cycle volumes along Radcliffe Road will increase.

4.4 There have been high-profile campaigns over a number of years by residents, Council/Community Board elected members, and the Members of Parliament to highlight and address the lack of pedestrian and cycle access to these subdivisions.

Network Context

4.5 Both Radcliffe Road and Blakes Road are designated at Collector Roads within the District Plan.

4.5.1 Traffic counted was last carried out on Radcliffe Road in August 2022. Average daily traffic is around 4,600 vpd, with an average speed of 62km/h, and an 85%ile of 68.5km/h. 8.6% of the traffic were heavy vehicles. The area under consideration is not on a bus route.

4.5.2 Posted speed limit is mostly 60km/h along Radcliffe Road, although this reduces to 50km/h at the western end (including over the level crossing), and on Blakes Road.

4.5.3 The road is narrow (around 6m), has minimal shoulder, and is rural in nature. Grass and other vegetation grows up to the seal edge, making it difficult for pedestrians to walk outside the road.

4.6 For cyclists, improved facilities along Radcliffe Road would provide an important link between the major cycleway (Northern Line MCR on Main North Road) and the Northern Corridor Shared Path (parallel to the motorway). This would provide a significant legibility benefit to the overall network.

Scope of the Projects

4.7 A condition of subdivisions is that they construct footpaths along their frontages. However, as developments are not necessarily constructed concurrently or in a sequential way, it can leave gaps in the footpath network between the new and existing facilities.

4.7.1 In this area there are a number of footpaths that do not link to the wider footpath network. While it is anticipated that eventually further developments will fill in many of these gaps, it is not clear how long this will take – some appear to be many years from being constructed.

4.8 To address the poor access, this project is seeking to provide the following:

· a footpath on the eastern side of Blakes Road; from the existing path at approx. 2 Blakes Road, to the intersection with Radcliffe Road

· upgrade the Blakes Road/Radcliffe Road intersection

· crossing facilities near the intersection

· a shared path on the southern side of Radcliffe Road. This will go from the existing path adjacent to the motorway in the east, to the footpath (yet to be installed) outside the recently-constructed retirement development in the west.

· upgrade the Radcliffe Road level crossing, to improve provision for pedestrians

4.8.2 Full path provision will be provided by developers at a later date as the subdivisions are constructed, and therefore has not been included as part of the scope of this project.

Level Crossing

4.9 Council and KiwiRail are working closely on the level crossing upgrade. Staff of the two organisations have agreed to a priority of level crossing upgrades to ensure that attention remains focused on the next priority. The upgrade to Radcliffe Road level crossing is the second highest priority in the Christchurch District (after Scruttons Road).

4.9.1 Level crossings are a known source of risk, as they are a point of conflict between road users and trains. As a “rail participant” under the Railways Act 2005, Council has an obligation to “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that none of the rail activities for which it is responsible causes, or is likely to cause, the death of, or serious injury to, individuals”.

4.9.2 The level crossing at Radcliffe Road was constructed as a single track crossing in a rural area. However, due to growth in the area over recent decades it is missing some of the features that would normally be expected in a urban environment.

4.9.3 There have been 2 incidents at this crossing between 2016 and 2025, one of which was a Serious Injury crash between a train and a car in mid-2024.

4.10 Council’s layout design for the level crossing upgrade was submitted to KiwiRail for approval and staff are currently working with them to finalise the layout design. Note that this is only seeking to manage the additional risk that Council’s path project puts on the level crossing, so will not address all the existing issues at the level crossing.

4.10.1 Once the layout has been approved as compliant with the standards, KiwiRail will review how this integrates with their own systems, and provide Council with an estimate for the rail works.

4.10.2 Due to the time frames for rail work, and the complexity required in integrating these with the existing rail network system, it is likely that the level crossing upgrade will not be constructed for at least 18 months, and possibly longer.

4.11 As the level crossing design requires technical approval from KiwiRail, it has not been included in this report.

4.11.1 A further report will be brought to the Community Board for approval of the layout around the level crossing.

4.11.2 However, feedback was specifically sought from the public on the concept for this facility, so further public engagement will be limited.

Phasing of the Works

4.12 The path along Radcliffe Road is likely to be ready for construction significantly before the level crossing upgrade. This could create a safety and liability risk if pedestrians are encouraged towards a level crossing with no safe, dedicated facility for non-vehicular traffic to cross the railway.

4.12.1 It is likely that the path will induce more pedestrians and cyclists to use the level crossing, and therefore raise the risk exposure at the crossing.

4.12.2 However, there are already users of the level crossing who are currently placed at risk while travelling along Radcliffe Road due to the high speeds of traffic (85%ile speeds ~70km/h), lack of shoulder, and narrow lanes. The provision of a path between Blakes Road and the level crossing would reduce the safety risk for these users.

4.12.3 Staff commissioned a safety analysis to determine if an option to construct the path ahead of the level crossing upgrade would put users in unreasonable danger. This compared the increased risk at the existing level crossing due to more users, vs the reduced risk to current users along the existing road.

4.12.4 While close, the analysis shows that, on balance, constructing the path ahead of the level crossing upgrade is the lower risk option overall.

4.13 The risk at the existing level crossing would need to be mitigated until the full level crossing upgrade is complete.

4.13.1 Therefore, if the board were to select the option to construct the path first, ahead of the level crossing upgrade, staff will investigate low-cost temporary interventions that can reduce the level crossing risk and/or adequately warn users of the risk.

4.14 However, it should be noted that this will, in isolation, raise the level of risk at the level crossing due to the expected increase in users. Therefore, KiwiRail are unlikely to support this approach.

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

Date	Subject
15 Nov 2021	Belfast Park Cycle & Pedestrian Rail Crossing - Project Update
13 Oct 2023	Radcliffe Road Corridor Upgrade project
18 Apr 2024	Thompsons Rd Pedestrian and Cycle Crossing – Overbridge Costings
20 Aug 2025	Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement – Public Consultation
16 Jan 2026	Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement – Public Consultation

5. Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.1 In the options section below, there are two sets of options provided, in two different criteria:

· Permanent Design

· Delivery Staging

5.1.2 The staging options make a minimal impact on overall price (see Financial Implications section below), but do impact on the level and type of risk that Council takes on.

Permanent Design - Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

5.2.1 Option 1 (Preferred option) - Installation of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure

5.2.2 Option 2 - Do nothing

5.3 The following design options were considered but ruled out:

5.3.1 Installing the refuge island on Radcliffe Road closer to the Northern Corridor cycleway crossing - This has been moved 15m further west to align with the natural desire lines of pedestrians travelling west, while avoiding a significant cost increase through increased stormwater infrastructure by installing the crossing west of the intersection.

5.3.2 Installing the shared path along the northern side of Radcliffe Road – This has not been considered further due to the limited road space available to accommodate the shared path. There is also an existing drain along the northern side of Radcliffe Road that would increase the cost of constructing over. The southern side of the road has sufficient space to accommodate the shared path.

5.3.3 Approval of the level crossing layout – until the design has been approved by KiwiRail staff cannot provide a level crossing design for approval by the Community Board. A separate report will be brought once more certainty is gained around the layout.

5.3.4 Reduced speed limit – An option to reduce the speed limit on Radcliffe Road to 50km/h (from 60km/h) was considered. However, as developments fronting directly onto Radcliffe Road have not yet been started, the road retains a semi-rural nature. In this context a 50km/h was not felt to be appropriate, and likely to be poorly observed (current 85%ile speeds are around 68km/h), so the consultation process was not started. This would be better considered once developments fronting onto Radcliffe Road are under construction.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.3.5 Preferred Option: Installation of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure

5.3.6 Option Description: The scope included includes:

· Improvements at Radcliffe Road and Blakes Road intersection

· A shared path along the southern side of Radcliffe Road

· Pedestrian refuge island on Radcliffe Road

· Extension of the footpath on Blakes Road

All areas will receive lighting and drainage upgrades

5.3.7 Option Advantages

· Improve safety for vulnerable road users along Radcliffe Road.

· Provide better pedestrian crossing facilities with the refuge island as pedestrians will be crossing Radcliffe Road in two stages.

· Reduced approaching speeds on Blakes Road with traffic island.

· No stopping to provide visibility at the refuge island and intersection.

· The operational speed of vehicles is anticipated to decrease and be more in line with the posted 60km limit as a result of the proposed design.

· The intersection improvements help to delineate and raise awareness of the intersection to traffic on Radcliffe Road.

· Provides a link in the cycle network between the Northern Corridor (adjacent to the motorway) and the Northern Line Major Cycle Route (along Main North Road)

5.3.8 Option Disadvantages

· High cost for works

· As it provides a slightly circuitous route from Spring Grove to amenities such as Belfast School, it may not fully meet community desires, and may not resolve the issue of illegal access to the railway at Thompsons Road.

· Design may clash with, or restrict design options for, future developments on the southern side of Radcliffe Road.

5.3.9 Option 2: Do nothing

5.3.10 Option Description: Leave existing layout

5.3.11 Option Advantages

· Does not cause clashes with future developments along Radcliffe Road – reduced chance of rework or damage by developers

· Allows funding to be re-allocated to other projects

5.3.12 Option Disadvantages

· Does not address community concerns about pedestrian and cycle access

· Retains existing safety risk for users along Radcliffe Road

· Does not provide an important link in the city-wide cycle network.

Delivery Staging - Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

5.4 The following reasonably practicable construction phasing options were considered and are assessed in this report in relation to the construction of the project:

5.4.1 Option A (Preferred option) - Construct the full intended design, other than the upgrades to the level crossing, as one phase as soon as possible. Complete the level crossing when ready.

5.4.2 Option B - Stage the improvements: Phase 1 - Construct improvements east of the intersection of Radcliffe and Blakes Roads; Phase 2 – Construct the shared path west of Blakes Road and level crossing.

5.4.3 Option C - Delay construction of the full intended design until the upgrade of the level crossing can be constructed.

5.5 Preferred Option A: Construct the full intended design, other than the upgrades to the level crossing, as one phase as soon as possible. Complete the level crossing when ready.

Option Description: This option would involve constructing as soon as they are ready. It is likely that the roading works will be ready before the level crossing upgrade so the works would be split into two phases:

Phase 1 (to progress normally): All works apart from level crossing

Phase 2 (to progress only once ready): Level crossing upgrade

There is currently no certainty around the length of time between phases 1 & 2, but 12-18 months is a likely minimum.

5.5.1 Option Advantages

· The preferred option more quickly provides a safe access for residents of Spring Grove to the Northern Corridor shared path, and therefore to the wider footpath/cycleway networks.

· Building the shared path along the southern side of Radcliffe Road up to the level crossing creates a safe travel route for existing pedestrians and cyclists along the road.

· Building as much of the infrastructure as soon as possible would reduce the risk against inflation.

5.5.2 Option Disadvantages

· Does not meet the full project objectives of the Radcliffe Road corridor improvements and level crossing upgrade at once.

· As the path would likely induce more pedestrian and cycle traffic to use this route, the exposure risk at the level crossing would increase.

· Current users would experience more disruption as the works would be carried out in two phases

· Completing the works in two phases is likely to be more expensive than a single pass, due to remobilisation costs and loss of productivity.

5.6 Option B: Stage the improvements: Phase 1 - Construct improvements east of the intersection of Radcliffe and Blakes Roads; Phase 2 – Construct the shared path west of Blakes Road and level crossing.

5.6.1 Option Description: This option would split the works into two phases:

Phase 1 (to progress normally): Footpath connection along Blakes Road; intersection upgrade, crossing point, and connection to Northern Corridor path

Phase 2 (to progress only once level crossing works are ready): Level crossing upgrade, path along Radcliffe Road (from Blakes Road to the level crossing) is not constructed until the level crossing is upgraded.

There is currently no certainty around the length of time between phases 1 & 2, but 12-18 months is a likely minimum.

5.6.2 Option Advantages

· This option more quickly provides a safe access for residents of Spring Grove to the Northern Corridor shared path, and therefore to the wider footpath/cycleway networks.

· Does not encourage more pedestrian and cycle traffic to the existing level crossing ahead of upgrades

5.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not meet the full project objectives of the Radcliffe Road corridor improvements and level crossing upgrade at once.

· Delays improvements to safety for current pedestrian and cycle users of Radcliffe Road.

· Does not immediately address the key concern of residents wanting improved access to the amenities and services along Main North Road

· Completing the works in two phases is likely to be more expensive than a single pass, due to remobilisation costs and loss of productivity.

5.7 Option C: Delay construction of the full intended design until the upgrade of the level crossing can be constructed.

Option Description: Under this option no works would be constructed until all parts are ready. The likely longest path would be to the level crossing upgrade, which may be 18 months away from completion.

5.7.1 Option Advantages

· Disruption to users would only happen once

· Completing the works in a single phase is likely to be the cheapest, as there is no requirement for remobilisation costs, and productivity can be increased.

· Does not encourage more pedestrian and cycle traffic to the existing level crossing ahead of upgrades

5.7.2 Option Disadvantages

· This option would delay the construction of a connection to the Northern Corridor shared path, and therefore to the wider footpath/cycleway networks.

· Delays improvements to safety for current pedestrian and cycle users of Radcliffe Road.

· Does not immediately address the key concern of residents wanting improved access to the amenities and services along Main North Road

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

Permanent Design

5.8 Staff have arrived at the recommended design option as it addresses safety concerns raised by residents for several years, and has been well supported during consultation.

5.8.1 While the primary intent of the project is improving local access, this recommended design would also provide a key link within the city’s cycle network, so has wider benefits.

5.8.2 The installation of this footpath may impact on future developments on the southern side of Radcliffe Road, however, there are no immediate plans to develop this area, and the impacts are likely to be small.

Delivery Staging

5.9 Staff are recommending that the footpath and other roading works are constructed in full as soon as ready, with the level crossing upgrade to follow once ready. However, staff believe this is marginal - there are clear benefits and disbenefits of each staging option.

5.10 The primary reason for selecting this option is overall safety for users:

5.10.1 Staff acknowledge that this will likely encourage more pedestrians and cyclists towards the level crossing ahead of the upgrade, which will increase the exposure risk at the level crossing.

5.10.2 However, by constructing a shared path along Radcliffe Road between Blakes Road and the level crossing, it will also decrease the risk for existing users navigating a busy, narrow and fast road.

5.10.3 Analysis shows that the overall risk to pedestrian and cycle users of Radcliffe Road will be slightly lower than the existing situation.

5.11 Based on feedback on other level crossings (eg Scruttons Road and Annex Road), staff expect that KiwiRail will have concerns with this option, as the expected increased numbers of users is likely to temporarily increase risk at the level crossing until the upgrade is complete.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 - Do nothing
Cost to Implement	$2.59m	$0
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	$4,234/year	No change
Funding Source	CPMS: 60115	CPMS: 60115
Funding Availability	$3.66m	$3.66m
Impact on Rates	Nil – costs covered by project funding	Nil

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

6.2 The phasing will have a small impact on cost: for options A & B that require the work to be completed in two phases, staff believe there would be an increased cost in the region of $30-50k for remobilisation, additional traffic management, and lower productivity. This remains within the available budget.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Non-Legal Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 There is a risk the construction will cause disruption to the surrounding businesses, schools and residents, and those travelling through or around the construction area.

The mitigation will be to highlight in the contractor tender information the importance of stakeholder engagement, communication and minimising traffic management disruption while balancing this with keeping all road users and contractor staff safe. The importance of minimising disruption will be enforced through the tender evaluation

7.2 There is a risk that this will not address community concerns, as it does not provide the more direct link wanted at Thompsons Road.

The mitigation is to explain the reasons why this is not feasible (see section 4.1).

7.3 There is a risk that KiwiRail will not support the proposed phasing option.

The mitigation is that Council demonstrates that the overall risk to users of Radcliffe Road is lower, despite the increased exposure risk at the level crossing due to increased numbers of people.

7.4 There is a risk that the assumptions of user numbers in the safety analysis are incorrect.

7.5 The mitigation is that Council will carry out before and after monitoring of user numbers.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.6.1 The Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board has the delegated authority to approve the scheme design in Attachment A of this report.

7.7 Other Legal Implications:

7.7.1 Legal advice is contained in an attachment to this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.8 The required decisions:

7.8.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Improving the safety of all road users aligns with the Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes, in particular:

· Be an inclusive and equitable city

· Build trust and confidence in the council – this was achieved through the public consultation process and will continue through engagement with local groups and through the contractor’s communication.

· Reduce emissions – a safe shared path encourages more people to walk and ride around the city.

· Balance the needs of today and the future

7.8.2 Is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the high amount of community interest in the project and the risks to Council associated with its delivery.

7.8.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

7.10 Transport

7.10.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - >=37% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

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

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

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

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

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.11 Consultation started on 27 January 2026 and ran until 17 February.

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

7.12.1 An email sent to 25 key stakeholders, including local residents’ associations, emergency services, Northwood Supa Centa, and Ryman Healthcare. Local groups were asked to circulate the project details within their networks and received an open invite to meet with project staff.

7.13 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage had 948 views throughout the consultation period.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

7.14 Submissions were made by three recognised organisations/businesses and 61 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage.

7.15 Spokes Canterbury and the AA Canterbury/West Coast District Council support the plans, with Spokes also requesting further improvements to enhance cyclist safety. The managers of Northwood Supa Centa would like to ensure a safe crossing area for pedestrians and cyclists into the shopping centre.

7.16 The majority of submitters made comments expressing support or excitement for the project. In addition, comments were made about:

· Wanting to see the plans implemented as quickly as possible / before something bad happens (17)

· The need for safety improvements for the section of Radcliffe Road to the west of the railway (12)

· Speeding vehicles being an issue on Radcliffe Road (8) / that the speed limit should be lowered (6)

· The location of the pedestrian refuge island being unsuitable (4).

7.17 There was also a range of other requests made by submitters. These have been collated, along with staff responses, in Attachment B.

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

7.18.1 Harewood Ward

7.18.2 Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.19 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.21 The decisions in this report are likely to:

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

7.21.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions.

7.22 The proposed design allows for the safe travel of pedestrians and cyclists, thereby encouraging walking and cycling as transport options. This, in turn, decreases traffic volumes.

7.23 Provision to address ponding near the intersection of Radcliffe and Blakes Roads will improve drainage facilities. This will likely reduce flooding during larger rain events.

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

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

8.2 Construction of the proposed design is currently scheduled for Summer 2026/27.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvements - TP362601- Issue 1 12-03-2026 For Approval	26/555602
b	Consultation submission and staff responses	26/639479
c	Legal Advice - Radcliffes Road (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	26/640226

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Natasha Wells - Project Manager

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Amy Rice - Engagement Advisor

May Wong - Engineer - Traffic Investigations

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Approved By

Matt Goldring - Transport Team Leader Project Management

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

10. Events and Festivals Fund
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/314594
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lucy Blackmore, Manager Events and Arts
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the applications made through the 2026/27 Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund process and decide on the allocation of funding.

1.2 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Events and Festivals Fund Report.

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

3. Notes that Public Excluded Attachment C of this report can be publicly released following the completion of the post event reviews.

4. Approves the following allocations from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund as outlined in the Final Evaluation Summary assessments (Attachment A to this report):

Ref No.

Event

Funding Request

Officer Recommendation

Whānau Mārama New Zealand International Film Festival 2026

$35,000

$20,000

Open-Air Summer Shakespeare 2027

$20,000

$10,000

Show Me Shorts Film Festival 2026

$7,752

Lyttelton Arts Festival 2026

$24,256

$14,000

Festival of New Writing 2026

$17,496

Decline

Alice’s Adventure in the Moon Palace – Multicultural Family Musical Theatre 2026

$5,139

Decline

Arts Canterbury Art Play Day 2026

$8,275

Decline

Canterbury Youth Theatre 2026-27

$12,337

Decline

Christchurch Gang Show 2026

$15,000

Decline

Rising Legends NZ 2026

$3,532

Decline

Open Christchurch 2027

$28,200

6th Annual Christchurch Hip Hop Summit 2026

$22,450

$12,000

Christchurch Holi - Festival of Colours 2027 - 2029

Y1: $22,000

Y2: $22,000

Y3: $22,000

Y1: $10,000

Y2: $10,000

Y3: $10,000

Diwali 2026

$25,000

$15,000

Christchurch Eid Festival 2027 - 2029

Y1: $16,927.96

Y2: $16,927.96

Y3: $16,927.9

Y1: $5,000.00

Y2: Decline

Y3: Decline

Korea Day 2026

$5,000

Waitangi Day Commemoration 2027

$15,299

$5000

75 Years of Ukrainian Heritage: A Journey Through Time

$5,000

Decline

Buddha’s Birthday Multicultural for World Peace

$5,000

Decline

Happy Chinese New Year Festival 2027 - top-up request

$40,001

Decline

Carols by Candlelight 2026 - 2028

Y1: $10,430

Y2: $11,628

Y3: $12,378

Y1: $10,430

Y2: $11,000

Y3: $12,000

Orton Bradley Park Spring Fair 2026

$10,740

$10,800

Duke Festival 2027

$22,400

$10,000

Illuminate 2026

$20,000

Decline

Christchurch Comedy Gala 2027

$24,750

$10,653

The Christchurch Easter Show 2027

$10,750

Decline

Christchurch Kids' Show 2026

$22,500

Decline

The Big Sheep Trail Farewell Weekend 2027

$68,000

Decline

National Sustainability Showcase 2026

$25,700

Ineligible

Christchurch Big Band Jazz Festival 2026 - 2028

Y1: $25,000

Y2: $20,000

Y3: $20,000

Y1: $25,000

Y2: $20,000

Y3: $20,000

Coca-Cola Christmas in the Park 2026

$80,000

$40,000

The Big Sing Finale 2026

$25,000

$15,000

Twominds Festival 2027

$85,000

Decline

Christchurch Schools’ Music Festival 2026 - Te Hā Puoro

$29,605

$5,000

The Fifth New Zealand Golden Ribbon Multicultural Arts & Music Festival 2026-2027

$14,150

Decline

Lakes Festival 2026

$40,000

Decline

Run Akaroa 2027

$56,500

$10,000

Christchurch Beach 5s Rugby Fest 2027

$20,000

$12,000

Crater Rim Ultra 2026 - 2028

Y1: $23,500

Y2: $10,000

Y3: $10,000

Y1: $7,000

Y2: $7,000

Y3: Decline

Sea2Sky Challenge 2027 - 2029

Y1: $15,000.00

Y2: $15,450.00

Y3: $15,913.50

Y1: $12,000

Y2: $12,000

Y3: $12,000

International Track Meet 2027

$15,000

Le Race 2027 - 2029

Y1: $15,000

Y2: $15,000

Y3: $15,000

Y1: $10,000

Y2: $10,000

Y3: Decline

The Aramex Kiwi Walk and Run Series 2027

$10,000

Decline

Southern Cross Round the Bays 2027

$50,000

Decline

Hagley Stomp Run 2027

$4,900

Decline

Ruapuna Superbike Grand Prix 2027

$90,000

Decline

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 All the events recommended for support meet the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund criteria and have been evaluated against weightings and prioritised accordingly for support.

Assessment Information and Weightings:

3.1.1 Event offering alignment (20%) - The degree of alignment with the city’s events calendar, including its contribution to a balanced schedule and its ability to fill identified gaps between May and September. This includes date and uniqueness of event concept (is the event unique to Ōtautahi, not an event duplicated elsewhere in the city or surrounds). Events that are free to attend or have significant free aspects will be prioritised.

3.1.2 Community involvement (20%) - The extent to which the event actively involves and connects with community groups, highlighting the distinctiveness of our uniquely Ōtautahi communities. This includes providing lasting benefits to the city, such as supporting local suppliers, fostering community development, promoting local talent, and collaborating with other events to share resources (where appropriate).

3.1.3 Environmental sustainability (15%) - The degree to which the event employs environmentally sustainable practices and reduces their environmental impact.

3.1.4 Accessibility (10%) – The degree to which the event is accessible e.g. cost to attend, multiple transport options, mobility access, companion ticketing.

3.1.5 Organisation capability and application standard (20%) - The level of detail and completeness of the information provided, as well as the demonstrated capacity of the organisation to deliver the event. For an existing event, how effectively the event has been run in the past.

3.1.6 Financial viability (15%) - The extent to which the event is supported by external organisations (e.g., commercial sponsorship, ticket sales, non-Council grants), reducing its reliance on Council funding, with the aim of becoming financially self-sustaining in the long term. This includes consideration of benefits to the local economy.

3.2 The 2026/27 Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund was oversubscribed with 46 eligible applications assessed totalling at $1,147,588.51.

3.3 $521,835 is on budget, less $197,000 which is already committed on multi-year contracts leaving $324,835 available to allocate in the 2026/27 financial year.

3.4 The Council has the discretion to reallocate funding between applications; however, any increase in funding to one applicant will require a corresponding reduction from others. This ensures the total budget is allocated and is within the approved limit.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund

4.1 The purpose of the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund is to provide support for events that enhance regional and local Christchurch as a place to live and visit and to strengthen the distinctive lifestyle, qualities, and identity of Christchurch.

4.2 Applications to this fund were received by Sunday 22nd March 2026. Information provided by the applicants included the event budget and company/organisation details. An event business plan was provided for multi-year applications. Applications have been assessed against the fund criteria, Council strategies and within the total funding available.

4.3 The 2026/27 funding process has followed the same approach as in previous years. Community and regional events were assessed under this fund, while major and mega events are considered separately as part of the broader events ecosystem through the City Partners Group.

4.4 The City Identity Fund, established in July 2024, was created to support iconic community events. In 2025 Word Christchurch Festival and SPACPAC Canterbury PolyFest were referred to this fund for multi-year support.

4.5 No applications to the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund were identified as major or mega events.

Timeline for Assessment

4.6 February 2026: Industry-wide notification of fund opening dates.

4.7 17^th - 20^th February: Pre application meetings were held to explain the eligibility and criteria. A total of 9 event organisers participated in these sessions.

4.8 23^rd February to 22^nd March: Fund open.

4.9 April/May: Applications assessed against the fund criteria and recommendations drafted by Council staff.

4.10 3 June 2026: Final allocation decisions made by the Council at a Council decision-making meeting.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.11.1 Approve the recommended allocations from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund (Preferred).

4.11.2 Alter the amounts recommended by staff to allocate more of less funding to an event (Option 2).

4.11.3 Do not distribute any funding (Option 3).

4.12 No other options were considered.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: Approve the recommended allocations from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund assessed in accordance with the Assessment Information and Weightings (outlined in section 3.1 of this report).

4.13.1 Option Advantages

· The recommended allocations support events that enhance Christchurch as a place to live and visit and have been carefully assessed by staff in accordance with the Assessment Information and Weightings.

4.13.2 Option Disadvantages

· The full allocation of the fund reduces flexibility for elected members to revisit declined applications or increase funding for events they consider under supported.

4.14 Option 2: Alter the individual amounts recommended by staff to allocate more or less funding to an event. An increase in funding to one event will require a decrease in funding to another event to remain within the allocated budget.

4.14.1 Option Advantages

· Provides elected members with flexibility to adjust allocations to reflect to reflect their priorities or support events they consider having greater benefit.

· Enables funding to be redistributed to address perceived underfunding of events.

4.14.2 Option Disadvantages

· Reducing funding to some events may impact their ability to deliver as planned, potentially affecting event delivery.

· Adjustments may not align with the established assessment criteria and weightings applied to all applications.

4.15 Option 3: Do not distribute any funding. The $324,835 available will not be allocated and will instead be retained resulting in a saving for Council.

4.15.1 Option Advantages

· Potential to provide a direct benefit to ratepayers through savings.

4.15.2 Option Disadvantages

· Events and festivals would not receive Council support, which would result in reduced scale, cancellation or loss of events.

· Negative impacts on community wellbeing, city vibrancy and economic activity generated by the events sector.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.16 The Assessment Information and Weightings are outlined in full in section 3.1 of this report. Assessment was undertaken against the following criteria:

4.16.1 Event offering alignment

4.16.2 Community involvement

4.16.3 Environmental sustainability

4.16.4 Accessibility

4.16.5 Organisation capability and application standard

4.16.6 Financial viability

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Preferred Option
Cost to Implement	No additional cost to the Council, allocation of the fund is included in existing budgets
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No additional cost to the Council
Funding Source	Events and Festivals Sponsorship fund
Funding Availability	$324,835 ($521,835 total fund - $197,000 on contract)
Impact on Rates	No additional cost to the Council

5.1 The financial implications for Option 2 are the same as that outlined for the Preferred Option. For Option 3, the funding would not be allocated and result in a saving, but the Council would not achieve the intended outcomes of the fund.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Insufficient funds to meet the requests may result in a negative response from applicants.

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 delegation for the allocation of the Events and Festivals Fund.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

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

6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

· Events Policy Framework

· Community Events Implementation Plan

· Toi Ōtautahi – Art and Creativity Strategy

· Physical Recreation and Sport Strategy Implementation Plan

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

6.6 Citizens and communities

6.6.1 Activity: Recreation, Sports, Community Arts and Events

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 As part of the funding agreement, event organisers are required to consider accessibility. This includes making events as inclusive as possible for people of all abilities, such as providing accessible sites, facilities, and clear information for attendees. This supports Council’s commitment to inclusive and connected communities.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 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.

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

6.10 Local Rūnanga are consulted directly if an event has significant impact on nearby water of land use/environment.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.12 Events that receive sponsorship support from the Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund are expected to meet Christchurch City Council’s event waste management requirements and take reasonable steps to minimise waste and maximise diversion from landfill. Waste management planning and outcomes must be reported as part of the post‑event report

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

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Event organisers will receive notifications regarding the outcome of the 2026/27 Events and Festivals Sponsorship Fund process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Events & Festivals Sponsorship Fund 2026-27 - Final Evaluation Summary	26/1071106	144
b ⇩	Events & Festivals Sponsorship Fund 2026-27 - Final Budget	26/961700	147
c	Events & Festivals Sponsorship Fund 2026-27 - Final Matrix (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	26/961736

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Lucy Blackmore - Manager Events and Arts

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

11. Capital Endowment Fund Drawdown - Kura Tāwhiti Canterbury Foundation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/891482
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Rose Crossland, Acting Manager, Community Support and Partnerships John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the drawdown of Tranche 3 of grant funding, totalling $220,000, currently set aside in the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF), for the Kura Tāwhiti Canterbury Foundation (Foundation), formerly the Christchurch Foundation.

1.2 The report originates from the decision made by the Council on 19 March 2025 CNCL/2025/00200:

[Council] Provides a conditional grant of up to $440,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund over two years to the Christchurch Foundation, payable in instalments over two financial years being as described in Resolution 4a and 4b, and conditional upon a workshop being held, and the Council approving the Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan:

a. Tranche 2: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2025, subject to the Council’s approval of a new Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan in May/June 2025. This decision to be made via a Council report.

b. Tranche 3: Up to $220,000 – payable 1 July 2026, subject to the Council’s approval of the progress in implementing the new Strategic Plan in May/June 2026. This decision to be made via a Council report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the information in the Capital Endowment Fund Drawdown - Kura Tāwhiti Canterbury Foundation 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 drawdown of Tranche 3 totalling $220,000, currently set aside in the Capital Endowment Fund to the Kura Tāwhiti Canterbury Foundation to support operational costs for the 2026/27 financial year.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 On 19 March 2025, the Council approved a grant of $82,500 from the CEF to support the operation of the Foundation known as Tranche 1. The Council also set aside $440,000 in the CEF to support the operation of the Foundation, to be drawn down in two Tranches of $220,000 (Tranches 2 and 3), subject to conditions being satisfied. On 4 June 2025 the Council approved the drawdown of Tranche 2.

3.2 The drawdown of Tranche 3 is conditional on the Council’s approval of the progress the Foundation has made on the implementation of its Strategic Plan via a Council report.

3.3 Pursuant to the implementation of its strategic Plan, the Foundation has undertaken a variety of actions over the past year. These are detailed in section 4.1 of this report below. Following analysis staff believe the Foundation have made sufficient progress implementing their Strategic plan over 2025/2026. This is primarily because they have delivered on the 12-month targets in the Strategic Plan.

3.4 This report provides two options. Council approves the drawdown of Tranche 3, being satisfied that the Foundation have made sufficient progress implementing their Strategic Plan over 2025/2026. Alternatively declining to approve to approve the drawdown of Tranche 3 due to insufficient progress. The preferred option is that Council approve the drawdown.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The funding received from the Council in March and June 2025 enabled the Foundation to continue progress to reposition the organisation for future growth and sustainability. The 12-month targets outlined in the Strategic Plan are summarised below along with the actions undertaken and results achieved. The Christchurch Foundation Strategic plan 2025/27 is attached to this report as Attachment C.

4.2 Explore name change and/or rebrand with stakeholders and Ngāi Tūāhuriri – Achieved.

4.2.1 The name Kura Tāwhiti was gifted by Ngāi Tahu to recognise the new geographical reach across Canterbury. Kura Tāwhiti is the original name for Castle Hill, a place of great significance to Ngāi Tahu.

4.3 Develop a bequest programme – Achieved.

4.3.1 The Foundation has secured commitments for $10 million in bequests.

4.4 Establish an Emergency Fund – Achieved.

4.4.1 An Emergency Fund has been set up in response to the February 2026 storm on Banks Peninsula. The Foundation has partnered with The Rod Donald Trust to open the February 2026 Storm Damage Repair Fund for the recovery of popular walking and cycling tracks on Banks Peninsula. This pilot appeal allows the Foundation to test the framework and develop processes for future events. The Foundation can then set up and tailor the fund very quickly when local emergencies occur so anyone can donate.

4.5 Grow funds under management – Achieved.

4.5.1 Funds under management and reserved funds are currently $3.3million. The Foundation are forecast to distribute over $425,000 to the community this year, an increase of 8% from the previous financial year. It includes:

· Our People Our City Fund – $60,000 has been distributed to nine students to support their education. This fund has now supported 36 students and provided $400,000 in grants since its inception following the mosque shootings.

· Women’s Entrepreneurs Fund - $104,000 has been distributed.

· Canterbury Cricket’s Inclusivity Programme - $50,000 has been distributed.

· Private Fund - $10,000 has been distributed to support the treatment of Lymphoedema.

· Impact100 Canterbury, a new collective giving group of women supporting women and families in the region. $31,000 will be distributed in the inaugural grant round in June 2026 and contribute $3,400 to the Kate Sheppard Women’s Endowment Fund. Two spaces were sponsored by businesses and JB Were provided $4,000 in sponsorship to assist with administration and events costs. This fund has also attracted a 10% administration fee to manage the fund. This is an example of how the Foundation can generate income to support their operational costs.

· Workplace giving - $4,500 has been distributed to various for-purpose organisations from Craigs Investment Partners Workplace Giving programme. The Foundation is also talking with Donorbees about signing up to their workplace giving platform. This will broaden the donor base and allow for matched giving from employers.

· The Plant a Tree campaign is forecast to plant over 1,300 native seedlings since inception whilst also contributing to the Green Philanthropy Endowment Fund.

· A new private fund, the ‘Life Fulfilled Fund’ has been established to support mental health organisations.

4.6 Engage with local businesses “In Business for Good’ programme – Achieved.

4.6.1 The Foundation is meeting with professional services providers (lawyers, accountants, financial advisors, wealth management firms) to ensure a good understanding of the structured giving solutions and other services through the Foundation when advising their clients. This includes Trust transfers. New relationships have been developed with Wealth Management firms Forsyth Barr Limited and Craigs Investment Partners to offer philanthropic solutions for their clients (see attached letters of support Attachment A and B).

4.7 Host one professional advisor event – In progress.

4.7.1 An event is being planned for Wills Month in September. This will bring professional services providers together to raise awareness of the Foundation’s structured giving programme that can be offered in estate planning.

4.8 Engage with Council (staff) – Achieved.

4.8.1 Staff meet regularly with the Foundation to discuss progress and make relevant connections. There have been discussions with the Parks team about what potential collaborations could arise to generate revenue to support Parks projects. The Foundation continues to manage the pass-through funds for TSB’s corporate sponsorship of Tūranga.

4.9 Offer 12-months contracts to staff – Achieved.

4.9.1 The team now comprises 2 FTEs plus contracted financial and project support. The board have three new Trustees and most recently announced the appointment of Colin Mansbridge, CEO of the Crusaders as Co-Chair alongside Anake Goodall.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.10 Preferred Option: Approve the drawdown of Tranche 3, $220,000.

4.10.1 Option Description: Approve the drawdown of $220,000 to support core operation of the Foundation to June 2027.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Secures the Foundation in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula until at least 30 June 2027.

· Allows the Foundation to continue the momentum happening over the past year.

· Provides Councillors strategic and operational oversight prior to any consideration of long-term funding.

· Contemplates the opportunity but does not set any firm expectation on Council funding moving forward.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not guarantee certainty around financial sustainability long-term.

· There may be a higher use for the committed funding.

4.11 Option Two: Decline the drawdown of Tranche 3

4.11.1 Option Description – Decline the drawdown of Tranche 3 and ask staff to work with the Foundation to manage the effects of this decision.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Allows the CEF to be invested in other Council priorities.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Loss of momentum gained over the past year and a reduction in the capacity of the Foundation to upscale its impact.

· A weakened emergency philanthropy response for future local events.

· Reduced capacity for Council-Foundation collaboration on strategic projects.

· Missed opportunity to strengthen a regional giving infrastructure.

· Potential reputational impact. The Council has been an early and visible partner in the Foundation’s transformation. Stepping back may be perceived by donors, partners, mana whenua and the wider community as a withdrawal of confidence which could affect the Foundation’s credibility and ability to attract further investment.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 The degree to which the Foundation have progressed implementing their Strategic Plan over 2025/2026 and met targets. Please see section 4.1 of this report.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 - Decline
Cost to Implement	Grant $220,000	None
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	None	N/A
Funding Source	CEF	N/A
Funding Availability	Immediate	N/A
Impact on Rates	None	N/A

5.1 After accounting for all commitments to the CEF, the current balance available for allocation in 2025/26 is $1,221,289. If the Council accept the staff recommendation the remaining balance will be $1,001,289. The CEF available for allocation will increase by $2,270,000 on July 1, 2026.

5.2 Current applications to the CEF include the Dogwatch Sanctuary Trust. Staff will recommend a grant of $120,000.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that the ongoing need by the Foundation for an operating grant from the Council to remain sustainable is an expectation that the Council can not commit to. This could ultimately result in the wind-up of the organisation.

6.1.1 This risk cannot be mitigated. Any Council consideration for further funding should be considered through the 2027/37 Long Term Plan process.

6.2 There is a risk that, despite the Council’s contribution, the Foundation does not raise the funds to become financially sustainable. This could ultimately result in the wind-up of the organisation.

6.1.2 This risk can be partially mitigated by the Foundation committing to the ongoing implementation of its Strategic plan.

6.3 There is a risk of reputational damage to the Council as some elements of the community may not support further funding of the Foundation and/or see the Council’s CEF better spent elsewhere.

6.1.3 The risk is low given previous funding to the Foundation did not result in significant criticism for Council.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.5 There are no other legal implications other than noting that the Council’s Legal Services Team review the form and function of all funding agreements and formal documentation.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The required decision:

6.6.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. Strategic priorities – Champion Ōtautahi and Manage Ratepayers Money Wisely. Community Outcomes – Cultural Powerhouse and Thriving and Prosperous.

6.6.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the fact that the CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. The application is eligible under both the Civic and Community and Economic Development focus of the CEF and has a strategic alignment. Any long-term decisions around the Council financially supporting the Foundation will be made in the 2027 LTP process.

6.6.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies. Specifically, the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy and the strategic pillar of Te Mahi Preparedness. Specifically, 4.1 Working with communities to prepare for and respond to emergencies and increase climate resilience and adaptation action and 4.2 Support the capacity of the community and voluntary sector to plan, adapt and respond to risk, disruption and change.

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

6.8 Citizens and communities

· Activity: Community Development and Facilities

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 The CEF is a recently consulted level of service in the 2024/34 LTP. The application is eligible under both the community and economic focus of the CEF and has a strategic alignment. Any long-term decisions around the Council financially supporting the Foundation will be made in the 2027 process. The contents of this report have been discussed with the Foundation, no further community views have been sought.

6.10 The decision effects Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.11 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.

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

6.13 The decision the Council is being asked to make involves the allocation of the CEF by way of an eligible application that aligns with the Council’s strategic priorities. Accordingly, the views of Mana Whenua have not been sought.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.14.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The Foundation has funds and campaigns that help make an impact on climate change including the Green Philanthropy Fund, Emergency Fund, Plant a Tree campaign.

6.14.2 Contribute positively to emissions reductions. The Foundation is committed to growing the funds and responding to community need and working with key stakeholders to influence change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council supports the staff recommendation funds will be drawn down accordingly. Any consideration of ongoing financial support for the Foundation will be undertaken through the 2027/37 Long Term Plan process.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Forsyth Barr Limited Letter of Support Kura Tāwhiti Canterbury foundation 20260422	26/928772	156
b ⇩	Craigs Investment Partners letter of Support for Kura Tāwhiti Canterbury Foundation 20260422	26/928762	157
c ⇩	The Christchurch Foundation Strategic Plan 2025 27	26/985076	159

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Rose Crossland - Acting Community Partnerships Manager

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Nick Dean - Finance Business Partner

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

12. Central City Shuttle Scoping Study
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/616953
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jane Cameron, Team Leader, Strategic Transport, Stephen Wright, Head of Transport & Waste.
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 present the findings of the Central City Shuttle Scoping Study and to seek the Council’s approval for the recommended next steps.

1.2 Funding to undertake the Central City Shuttle Scoping Study was allocated and approved through the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives the Central City Shuttle Scoping Study (Attachment A to this 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 handover of the work from the scoping study to the Canterbury Regional Council for integration into existing public transport services improvement work programmes.

4. Writes to the Canterbury Regional Council via the Office of the Mayor to advocate for this work continuing and being integrated into existing public transport services improvement work programmes to support improvements to public transport services within the Central City.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council allocated $200,000 for a Central City Scoping Study (the scoping study) in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

3.2 The purpose of the scoping study was to understand whether there is a case for reinstating a central city shuttle service. The original shuttle operated for 12 years between 1998 and 2011 when it was discontinued after the Christchurch Earthquakes.

3.3 The scoping study has been completed and is provided as Attachment A to this report.

3.4 The findings indicate that while a central city shuttle could deliver targeted benefits, particularly for specific short‑trip movements or areas with limited existing coverage, the central city is well served by a range of transport services and that a new shuttle service would face some regulatory and operational challenges.

3.5 Changes to the Land Transport Management Act enacted in 2023 present a specific regulatory constraint. Now any Council-funded or subsidised shuttle service needs to be delivered through the Canterbury Regional Council and aligned with the statutory Regional Public Transport Plan. In addition, any fully commercial shuttle service would also now need to be approved by the regional council and demonstrate it does not unduly impact subsidised public transport services.

3.6 These changes to regulatory requirements strongly shape the feasibility and delivery options for a central city shuttle. The report therefore provides three options for the Council to consider based on the available regulatory pathways.

3.7 The preferred option is to handover the work to the Canterbury Regional Council to integrate into existing public transport services improvement work programmes. This option supports a coordinated and integrated delivery pathway and best aligns with regulatory requirements and any future funding opportunities.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Context and background informing scoping study

The central city has undergone significant change since 2011

4.1 The original central city shuttle operated for 12-years between 1998 until it was discontinued following the February 2011 Canterbury Earthquake. Since this time, the central city has undergone significant transformation, reshaping how people use and move around the area.

4.2 It is now a more compact, mixed-use environment. The near completion of the anchor projects has strengthened its role as a key destination for cultural, recreational, and event activities for the city. There has also been an increase in residential living, with the provision for higher density living.

4.3 Alongside these shifts in urban form, travel within the central city has also changed. The direction set through the Accessible Central City chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan prioritised walking and cycling, which has made it easier to move around the central area on foot or by bike. More recently, we have seen the rise of micromobility (e.g., e-scooters) in how people get around, with an average of 1800 e-scooter trips per day reported by commercial operators in the central city last year

4.4 The central city is well served by high frequency bus services. Public transport now flows through the central city interchange, with super stops next to the hospital and Manchester Street.

Public transport regulations were amended in 2023

4.5 The public transport system is primarily regulated under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA). This legislation sets the rules for how public transport services are planned, procured, contracted and delivered. The LTMA was amended in 2023.

4.6 Under the LTMA there are now two potential pathways to operating a shuttle service:

· Integral Services: these may only be operated by the regional council or by a territorial authority under contract with the regional council. These services are subsided through local government funding, and are eligible for NZTA funding – however, this requires that they are included in the Regional Land Transport Plan.

· Exempt Services: commercial services (e.g., private bus, shuttle or ferry operators, ride-share services) must be fully privately operated and are not subsidised. However, these services must not financially impact on integral services and require approval from the regional council to operate.

4.7 The regulatory framework now means that approval from the Canterbury Regional Council would be required for either pathway to be advanced. In the case of the exempt approval pathway, Canterbury Regional Council staff advise that a commercial operator would need to apply to operate an exempt service and include details of the operational aspects of a proposed trial and the potential impacts on existing Metro services and the wider public transport network.

Canterbury Regional Council public transport work programme

4.8 Regional councils are primarily responsible for the planning, procurement, and management of public transport services as part of their regional land transport responsibilities.

4.9 There are several potential linkages between this work and the Canterbury Regional Council’s current public transport services improvement work programme that are of note:

· The Canterbury Regional Council have commenced work on a 10-year review of the public transport network (outside the core routes) to identify gaps in service provision and assess future needs, including any service gaps within the central city.

· Motu Move, the new national ticketing solution enables the introduction of fare zones. There is an action in the Regional Public Transport Plan (2025-2035) to consider the investigation of a Christchurch City Central City Zone.

Canterbury Regional Council view

4.10 In recognition of the key role that the Canterbury Regional Council would play in taking this project forward if progressed, Council staff requested their comment to inform this report.

4.11 In response to this request, staff were directed to the submission provided by Canterbury Regional Council on the proposed scoping study during the 2025-26 Annual Plan submission process (see Attachment B).

4.12 The attached notes that the regional council are of the view that:

· there is a good level of public transport accessibility in the central city which will improve further through the implementation of the jointly planned Public Transport Futures and Mass Rapid Transit programmes; and

· while the problem statement for reinstating this service is unclear, if a potential economic case is demonstrated, it could be incorporated into the scope of the 10 year review of the public transport network (noted in para 4.9 above).

Scoping study

4.13 A feasibility study was undertaken to assess whether a reinstated shuttle service could address short-distance travel needs with the central city to inform a decision on whether further investigation should proceed.

4.14 The feasibility study investigates such factors as: changes to the central city since the shuttle last operated; potential shuttle users and market analysis; and some preliminary route testing to understand indicative operational costs and land-use integration parameters within the current central city footprint (see Attachment A for full report).

Summary of findings

4.15 The findings indicate that while a central city shuttle could deliver targeted benefits, particularly for specific short‑trip movements or areas with limited existing public transport coverage, a new shuttle service faces some regulatory and operational challenges. These challenges are important when considering options for next steps.

4.16 The central city is already well served by a wide range of transport options. This means that any additional service would need to be carefully designed, tightly scoped, and clearly justified to add value rather than dilute existing strengths and services.

4.17 Key opportunities and constraints identified are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Opportunities and constraints of establishing a central city shuttle service

Opportunities/positives	Constraints/risks
Potential demand: Engagement undertaken shows broad‑based interest in a shuttle concept. 45 percent of survey respondents reported they would be likely or very likely to use such a service (see community views section below).	Demand sensitivity: Demand exists but it is likely to be highly sensitive to price, service frequency and overall ease of use.
Potential to improve existing services: Potential to address some public transport coverage gaps and improve access to key destinations within the central city. Notably on the west side of the core central city and north-east residential quadrant.	Impact on existing services: There is a risk that the introduction of a shuttle service could displace the pedestrian economy and core bus and tram usage in the central city. This would need to be tested further to fully understand the impacts. Any new shuttle service would need to provide a clear and differentiated contribution to avoid duplicating existing service or undermining the active, walkable character of the central city.
Connections with existing work programmes: Connects with wider opportunities within existing Canterbury Regional Council public transport work programme to improve central city accessibility.	Problem definition: There is a question as to whether such a service is necessary. The compact central area now supports a diverse mix of transport options, including high‑frequency Metro bus services, the heritage tram, extensive walking and cycling infrastructure, and e‑scooters and rideshare. Resident views on the ease of PT travel to and within the central city have also improved.
	Regulatory constraints: There are only two potential pathways to operating a shuttle service, both requiring approval from the Regional Council.

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

Date	Subject
12 May 2025	Central city shuttle proposal: scoping considerations

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

Date	Subject
31 March 2026	PX Staff information session on the Central City Shuttle Scoping Study

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.20.1 Handover to Canterbury Regional Council (preferred): Handover to Canterbury Regional Council to integrate scoping study findings into existing public transport services improvement work programmes.

4.20.2 Test potential for commercial trial: Take market soundings to test feasibility for a fully commercial trail, including regulatory requirements.

4.20.3 Do nothing: Take no further action at this time.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.21 Preferred Option: Handover to Canterbury Regional Council

4.21.1 Option Description: Handover work to Canterbury Regional Council to integrate scoping study findings into existing public transport services improvement work programmes.

4.21.2 Option Advantages

· The regulatory framework requires that all subsidised services need to be operated by or contracted through Canterbury Regional Council. Handing the work over means the approving authority can take responsibility for progressing the work, creating a more streamlined pathway from a legislative perspective.

· Avoids public confusion on responsible authority for bus services in Christchurch.

· The additional modelling, analysis, and stakeholder engagement required to progress the work could be incorporated into the planned 10‑Year Review of the public transport network. This integration with the existing metro network will avoid any impacts on existing services.

· If progressed to implementation, it can be integrated with the existing public transport network, fare structures, ticketing and operator relationships and potential for NZTA subsidy provision. It also enables future considerations such as a central city fare zone.

· Canterbury Regional Council hold in-house expertise on service trial development and therefore leverages existing knowledge and expertise to support the next phase.

4.21.3 Option Disadvantages

· Less opportunity for the Council to influence the service design, as led by the Regional Council.

· Limited funding for new services, it not stack up highly against other priorities and farebox recovery targets. This would need to be tested.

· Longer lead time to implementation if progressed.

4.22 Option: Test potential for commercial trial

4.22.1 Option Description: Take market soundings to test feasibility for a fully commercial trial, including regulatory requirements.

4.22.2 Option Advantages

· Low-risk way to test market appetite and commercial feasibility.

· If feasible, there is the potential for a faster pathway to implementation if there is market appetite, subject to regulatory approval from Canterbury Regional Council.

· Lower direct financial risk to Councils, with service delivery and operating costs borne by the market if there is appetite to progress.

4.22.3 Option Disadvantages

· Regulatory risk remains high – it would need to be demonstrated that it does not negatively impact core public transport network viability to secure approval from Canterbury Regional Council.

· If the impact on core public transport services is substantive, approaching the market could raise expectations that could not be realised.

· Service design, coverage and accessibility outcomes may be driven by private profit rather than public interest objectives with a more limited ability for Council to influence.

· Cannot be integrated with core public transport network fare structures and ticketing systems if there is market appetite to progress and regulatory approvals are received.

· No requirement for private sector operators to continue delivering a shuttle service if commercial outcomes are not met.

· A commercially operated central city shuttle service may impact the viability of established commercial operators, such as, the tram.

4.23 Option: Do nothing

4.23.1 Option Description: Take no further action this time.

4.23.2 Option Advantages

· Avoids any further costs and resource commitments.

4.23.3 Option Disadvantages

· Represents a missed opportunity to integrate scoping study findings into the existing public transport planning and improvement programmes led by Canterbury Regional Council.

· Potential for loss of trust by community and stakeholders who have expressed support for the reinstatement of the shuttle service.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.24 The preferred option, to handover to the Canterbury Regional Council to integrate the scoping study into the existing public transport services improvement work programmes, provides a coordinated pathway for considering further work on public transport services within the central city.

4.25 Given the potential challenges identified through the scoping study – including demand sensitivity, funding viability and impacts on the existing network, further consideration including detailed modelling is required to understand how public transport improvements within the central city could be delivered. Canterbury Regional Council, as the statutory authority responsible for public transport planning and delivery, is best placed to undertake this work.

4.26 Progressing further investigation through the Regional Council enables this work to be considered alongside broader public transport planning already underway, including the 10‑year review of the public transport network. This approach supports integration with the existing public transport network and reduces the risk of unintended impacts on current services.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option Handover to CRC	Option 2 Test commercial trial pathway	Option 3 Do nothing
Cost to Implement	Staff resource to complete handover	Procurement cost and staff resource	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost	No cost	No cost
Funding Source	Strategic Transport budget	Strategic Transport budget	N/A
Funding Availability	Funds avail. from current budget	Funds avail. from current budget	N/A
Impact on Rates	Nil impact	Nil impact	Nil impact

5.1 Of the $200,000 allocated to the Central City Shuttle Scoping Study $100,032 has been spent to complete the study (Attachment A).

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Each option presents different risks. These have been outlined in the options analysis above.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Land Transport Act 2003

6.2.2 An amendment to Land Transport Management Act in 2023 means there are two pathways (integral or exempt services) for operating public transport services.

6.2.3 For the proposal to proceed under either pathway it needs to be delivered through Environment Canterbury and be aligned with the statutory Regional Public Transport Plan.

6.2.4 Further, any exempt services must not financially impact any existing integral services.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 The legal implications are identified above.

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 as it relates to the Council’s priorities of achieving accessible and well-connected neighbourhoods and communities and creating a thriving and prosperous city.

6.4.2 Is assessed as a low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by an assessment against policy criteria and nature of the decision which is one of process at this point in time.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, notably the Central City Action Plan.

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.6 In the 2025 Annual Plan, submitters were asked whether they support undertaking a scoping study for a central city shuttle service. 477 residents responded – 58% said yes and 42% said no.

6.7 A workshop was held with partner organisations Canterbury Regional Council, Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand, Venues Ōtautahi and Christchurch NZ. At this workshop, it was difficult to understand a clear need for the shuttle and define obvious user group(s). It was decided to work towards broad-based demand rather than being tied to a specific user group(s).

6.8 As part of the scoping study, staff reached out to 43 key central city stakeholders including schools, body corporates, resident associations, business associations, accommodation providers, and representatives of the youth and disability sectors.

6.8.1 11 responded, with most positive about the concept of a central city shuttle.

6.8.2 Most said that it was neither easy nor difficult to get around the central city currently.

6.8.3 Five suggested that more public transport provision would make it easier for people to travel around the central city.

6.8.4 A supplementary engagement report, provides an overview what was already known about community views and what was learned through key stakeholder engagement. This is available in the appendices to Attachment A.

6.9 A representative survey was undertaken with a stratified random sample of the Life in Christchurch Panel (n=535)

6.9.1 45% of respondents said that they were likely or very likely to use the shuttle.

6.9.2 Approximately a quarter of respondents thought that a shuttle should be free, with the average person willing to pay $1.50.

6.9.3 55% of respondents find it easy or very early to travel within the central city currently (20% find it difficult or very difficult).

6.9.4 39% of respondents conveyed that there are areas in the central city that they find difficult or challenging to get to.

6.9.5 When asked what would make it easier to travel within the central city, 51% discussed changes to make the central city more car friendly, 27% discussed changes to improve public transport, 24% sought changes to make it more cycling friendly, and 17% to make it more pedestrian friendly.

6.9.6 The full analysis of the central city alternative transport scoping survey is available in the appendices to Attachment A.

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

6.10.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board

6.11 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board view is reflected through its Community Board Plan for the current term, which it adopted on 11 May 2026 following community consultation. The Board records in its priorities that it will continue to advocate for the reinstatement of a central city shuttle service. This reflects its understanding of the local community interest in improving connectivity within the central city.

6.12 The Board notes that the connectivity of the central city and its integration into the wider network is of metropolitan significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.13 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. This is primarily because the decision is confirming next steps and not a substantive project in its own right.

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 as the decision relates to the process pathway only.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council approves the recommendation to hand-over this work to the Canterbury Regional Council, staff will prepare a letter to be sent via the Office of the Mayor advocating for its inclusion in the 10-year review currently underway.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Central City Shuttle Feasibility Study - 18 March 2026	26/949125	185
b ⇩	2025-06-23 ECan response Central City Shuttle Annual Plan 25-26 scoping study proposal	26/674294	265

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Helaina Gregg - Principal Advisor Policy

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Jane Cameron - Team Leader Transport

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

Stephen Wright - Head of Transport & Waste Management

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

14. Civic Financial Services - Annual Report 2025 and Annual General Meeting 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/1089271
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bruce Moher, Interim General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s nomination of a proxy and alternate to vote at Civic Financial Services Limited’s (Civic’s) Annual General Meeting (AGM) to be held in Wellington on 19 June 2026, to issue voting instructions and to present Civic’s financial performance for the financial year ending 31 December 2025.

1.2 This report has been written after receiving Civic’s AGM and Annual Report documents on 22 May 2026. The Notice of Meeting for the AGM is at Attachment A, Civic’s Annual Report 2025 is at Attachment B and the Minutes of the 2025 AGM are at Attachment C.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receives Civic Financial Services Annual Report 2025 and Annual General Meeting 2026 documents;

2. Appoints the Council’s Group Financial Controller as proxy and the Chief Financial Officer as alternate to cast the Council’s votes at the Annual General Meeting to be held in Wellington on 19 June 2026 at 11:30am;

3. Agrees to cast the following votes at Civic Financial Services’ Annual General Meeting 2026:

a. Agenda item 2 – in favour of approving the Minutes of the 2025 Annual General Meeting;

b. Agenda item 3 – in favour of receiving the Annual Report 2025;

c. Agenda item 4 – in favour of re-appointing Ken Morris as a non-independent director and Sue Bidrose as an independent director to the Civic Financial Services’ board;

d. Agenda item 5 – to note the Civic Financial Services’ board’s intention to update the company’s constitution;

e. Agenda item 6 – in favour of the appointment and remuneration of Deloitte as the Auditor;

f. Agenda item 7 – to note that director remuneration will increase by the Consumer Price Index; and

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Civic’s AGM is being held in Wellington on Friday 19 June 2026 at 11.30am with remote attendance available. It is proposed that the Council appoints its Group Financial Controller as proxy and Chief Financial Officer as alternate to cast the Council’s votes, and to issue voting instructions.

3.2 There are seven agenda items but only three require shareholder votes – item 2 to approve the minutes of last year’s AGM, item 3 to receive the Annual Report for 2025 and item 6 to appoint and remunerate the Auditor.

3.3 The remaining four items are administrative – item 1 to receive apologies, item 4 to confirm the re-appointment of directors, item 5 to note the directors intend to update the company’s constitution and item 7 to note that directors fees will increase in accordance with consumer price index changes, as agreed by shareholders in 2017.

3.4 The re-appointment of directors does not need a shareholder resolution as there are no competing candidates. Sue Bidrose (independent director but formerly chief executive of Dunedin City Council, first appointed in 2024) and Ken Morris (non-independent director from Waipa District Council, first appointed in 2023) are both retiring by rotation at the AGM and are standing for re-election.

3.5 Civic’s AGM documents arrived on 22 May 2026 within the specified timeframe in Civic’s constitution (clause 13.6.1) for the notice of meeting to be issued of not less than 10 working days before the meeting. Nevertheless, it is a very tight timeframe for a council shareholder to work to. Staff will request that Civic gives consideration to extending this timeframe as part of the board’s review and updating of its constitution, which it has signalled in the AGM agenda.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council has a 12.6% ownership stake in Civic. There are 73 other local authority shareholders with the largest stakes held by Auckland Council, Christchurch City Council, Hutt City Council, Dunedin City Council, Wellington City Council, Palmerston North City Council and Invercargill City Council. Together this group hold 52.54% of the shares in Civic.

4.2 Civic is not a Council-controlled organisation. It is exempted under section 6(4)(f) of the Local Government Act 2002 due to its previous insurance activities that brought it under the Municipal Insurance Act 1960 (now repealed).

4.3 Civic’s main business is the administration of superannuation schemes for local government employees. Investment funds under management are around $0.7 billion as at December 2025 (2024 $0.63 billion). These funds pass through Civic to its independent fund managers.

4.4 The Civic board comprises the following members:

Name	First Appointed
Craig Stevenson, Independent and Chair of Civic; previously CE New Plymouth District Council.	2021
Sue Bidrose, Independent, CE AgResearch; previously CE Dunedin City Council.	2024
Nicola Mills, Independent, CFO City Rail Link Ltd.	2022
Martin Grenfell, CE Tauranga City Council.	2023
Ken Morris, Deputy CE/GM Business Support Waipa District Council.	2023

Annual General Meeting 2026

4.5 Civic’s agenda for its 2026 AGM includes standard business that require shareholder voting are the following agenda items, all of which staff recommend the Council (through its proxy or alternate) votes in favour of:

· Agenda item 2 – minutes of the 2025 AGM;

· Agenda item 3 – receiving the Annual Report 2025; and

· Agenda item 6 – appointment and remuneration of Deloitte as the Auditor.

4.6 The remaining four items are administrative – item 1 to receive apologies, item 4 to confirm the re-appointment of directors, item 5 to note the directors intend to update the company’s constitution and item 7 to note that directors fees will increase in accordance with consumer price index changes (as agreed by shareholders in 2017).

4.7 The re-appointment of directors does not need a shareholder resolution as there are no competing candidates. Sue Bidrose (independent director but formerly chief executive of Dunedin City Council, first appointed in 2024) and Ken Morris (non-independent director from Waipa District Council, first appointed in 2023) are both retiring by rotation at the AGM and are standing for re-election.

4.8 Although the directors are intending to update the constitution, it is important to note that amendments can only be made with 75% shareholder approval which will presumably be sought at next year’s AGM.

Financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2025

4.9 The majority of Civic’s income is derived from fees for administering superannuation schemes for circa 11,000 local authority employees.

4.10 The following table sets out Civic’s operating performance and financial position for the financial year ending 31 December 2025:

	Actual 2025 $000	Last year 2024 $000	SOI target 2025 $000
Revenue	3,846	3,591	3,695
Expenses	3,823	3,328	3,561
Surplus before tax	23	263	134
Total assets	10,978	10,896	-

4.11 Against the same period in the prior year, Civic’s pre-tax surplus is lower by $241,000 largely from increased revenue of $255,000 from administration fees earned on the higher level of funds invested (2025: $0.700 billion; 2024 $0.629 billion), offset by higher operating costs of $495,000 largely from increased ‘other expenses’ of $220,000 (which includes fees paid to investment fund managers that increase in line with funds under management) and consultancy costs of $53,000 most likely relating to the RiskPool litigation that Civic is managing. Employee remuneration increased by $223,000 and audit fees across the Civic group of companies increased by $41,000.

4.12 Against the SOI target the pre-tax surplus is lower by $111,000. Revenue was higher by $151,000 while costs increased by $262,000 for the same reasons as discussed above.

4.13 Civic has only two performance targets in its SOI, neither of which are particularly informative about its operations. These are to provide superannuation and savings products and services to at least 90% of local authorities (actual for 2025 is 92%) and to be retained as administration manager for the Local Authority Protection Programme, Riskpool, Civic Liability Pool and Civic Property Pool (i.e., the schemes in run-off).

4.14 Staff have previously raised with Civic that more compelling key performance targets would be returns achieved for local government employee-members of Civic’s KiwiSaver schemes relative to the market.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.15 The only reasonably practicable alternative option for the Council is to abstain from voting at the AGM.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 There are no financial implications for the Council arising from this report. Civic meets its operating costs from its own revenues.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no risks relating to the AGM 2026 and the Annual Report for 2025. Staff have previously raised governance concerns with the Council which still remain.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

· Local Government Act 2002.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

· Section 120 of the Companies Act 1993 - ‘Annual meeting of shareholders’.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions sought:

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

· Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the extent to which the decisions could impact the community.

· Are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in terms of the exercise of good governance practices.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.6 The decisions in this report do not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decisions in this report have no impact on adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions, as they are governance decisions, not operational.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The next step is for the Council’s proxy or alternate to attend Civic’s AGM remotely and vote in accordance with the Council’s instructions.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Civic Financial Services - AGM 2026 Agenda	26/1093969	278
b ⇩	Civic Financial Services - Annual Report 2025	26/1093980	281
c ⇩	Civic Financial Services - Minutes of AGM 2024	26/1093976	317

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author	Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO
Approved By	Bruce Moher - Interim General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

Actions Register Ngā Mahinga

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

· Open at the time the agenda was generated.

· Closed since the last ordinary meeting agenda was generated.

Open Actions Ngā Mahinga Tuwhera

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	9 May 2026	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Hearings Panel report on the Gloucester Street "Streets for People" Trial	2 October 2024	15 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	18 May 2026	Corporate Services Management	Corporate Services Management
Notice of Motion - Feasibility of free overnight parking at Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre	16 July 2025	18 May 2026	RS&E	Management
Tsunami Alerting System Review	18 June 2025	29 May 2026	CS&P	CDEM
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
2025/2026 Biodiversity Fund Allocation	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
2025/26 Capital Endowment Fund - March 2026	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Discretionary Response Fund March 2026	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee - draft Terms of Reference	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Pihipihi Lane: Name Correction	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Walking Access Act 2008 - Request to be a Controlling Authority	4 March 2026	3 June 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Legal Services
Climate Change Portfolio Lead Report	3 July 2024	5 June 2026	SP&R	Coastal Hazards
Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial	20 August 2025	5 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Lyttelton Street safety improvements	6 August 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Selwyn Street pedestrian and cycle safety improvements	6 August 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Spreydon, Somerfield, Waltham, Beckenham CRAF - Strickland Street/Somerfield Street safety improvements	10 September 2025	26 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
66E Hills Rd - Sale of Land	16 July 2025	30 June 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 June 2026	Parks	Planning & Policy
Infrastructure Amendments - Parks	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
Notice of Motion - Investigation into the viability of a clearway on Memorial Avenue	4 February 2026	30 June 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Other Amendments - Planning, Property and Miscellaneous	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	F&P Unit	Management
Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project	29 August 2019	30 June 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Welles Street Temporary Improvements	17 September 2025	30 June 2026	Professional & Technical Services	Project Management
Yaldhurst Memorial Hall	25 June 2024	30 June 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
2025-26 Sustainability Fund Allocation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	SP&R	Coastal Hazards
Beach Hospitality Limited - Landlord Consent to Improvements and Request for Further Lease	2 April 2025	1 July 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant Pond Odour Mitigation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	TW	Management
Hagley Park & Botanic Gardens - No Stopping & Mobility Park Parking Restrictions - Update	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Future of Lichfield Street Carpark	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	F&P Unit	Management
International Relations Update	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	OM&CS	Management
Notice of Motion - Parker / Gilberthorpes / Waterloo Intersection Signalisation	1 April 2026	1 July 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Grant an Easement for Utilities Over a Council Reserve	10 April 2024	8 July 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	31 July 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Application to Capital Endowment Fund 2025/26 - Te Tahi Youth	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Brighton Mall Upgrade	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Christchurch Kart Club Relocation	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	Parks	Management
Environmental Partnership Fund - Correction to report	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	CS&P	Partnerships & Planning
Land disposal - NZTA SH76 Brougham St Corridor Improvements	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Notice of Motion - Ground-based solar generation	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	F&P Unit	Management
Notification of Revocation of Part of previous Council decision	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Sumner Tennis Club Proposed Lease: Post Consultation Report	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	Transport & Waste	Traffic Operations
Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads	6 May 2026	30 August 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Democratic Services
Traffic calming on collector and arterial roads	6 May 2026	30 August 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Cashmere - Penruddock Roundabout	4 March 2026	31 August 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Acquisition of Deeds Land Along with Road Stopping and Amalgamation - Corner Harmans and Voelas Roads Lyttelton	5 February 2025	30 September 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Acquisition of Land 657 Pages Road Christchurch, Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project	5 March 2025	1 October 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Report Requests	25 June 2024	31 October 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Property Disposal, Millstead Oaks Subdivision, Casebrook.	1 April 2026	27 November 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Hearings Panel Report to the Council on the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2025	3 September 2025	30 December 2026	Parks	Parks & Recreation Planning
27 Hunters Road & 43 Whero Avenue, Diamond Harbour – FENZ and Te Pā o Rākaihautū Unsolicited Proposals	5 June 2024	31 December 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Koukourarata Port Levy - Bach on Public Land ( Road Reserve)	16 April 2025	31 December 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Hearings Panel Report on Lincoln Road Peak Hour Bus Lane Proposal	7 July 2022	1 June 2027	Transport & Waste	Project Management
Cathedral Square Roading Network- Worcester Boulevard from Oxford Terrace to Cathedral Square (Area 9B)	4 March 2026	31 July 2027	Transport & Waste	Project Management

Actions Closed Since the Last Meeting Ngā Mahinga kua Tutuki nō Tērā Hui

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	DUE DATE	ACTION CLOSURE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Ōtākaro-Avon Stormwater Management Plan	19 June 2024	29 May 2026	22 May 2026	TW	Asset Planning Water & Wastewater
Annual Plan 2025/26	24 June 2025	30 April 2026	18 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Manchester Street Bus Gate Trial	20 August 2025	30 April 2026	4 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Amendments to the Register of Delegations	17 September 2025	30 April 2026	1 May 2026	Legal & Democratic Services	Legal Services
New Footpaths Programme	17 September 2025	20 May 2026	18 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
Dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) 3 R Tulett Park Drive Casebrook	4 February 2026	31 December 2026	4 May 2026	F&P Unit	Property Consultancy
Environmental Partnership Fund	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	5 May 2026	Parks	Management
Notice of Motion - Investigation into the viability of a clearway on Memorial Avenue	4 February 2026	6 May 2026	6 May 2026	Transport & Waste	Asset Planning
Toi Ōtautahi 2026-2036	6 May 2026	5 August 2026	8 May 2026	RS&E	Events & Arts

6. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 2 February 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/921999
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

7. Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 17 April 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/922061
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor, luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Helen White, General Counsel / Director of Legal & Democratic Services

8. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - May 2026
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/1061396
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report May 2026	26/1062137	36
b ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report May 2026	26/1062109	54
c ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report May 2026	26/1062106	64
d ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report May 2026	26/1062104	77
e ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report May 2026	26/1062141	84
f ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report May 2026	26/1062139	100

13. Elected Member Appointments
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/70434
Reporting Officer Te Pou Matua:	Matthew Pratt - Strategic Advisor

15. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	26/1021167
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
9.	Radcliffe Road Corridor Improvement
	Attachment c - Legal Advice - Radcliffes Road	s7(2)(g)	Maintain Legal Professional Privilege	It is necessary to withhold this information from the public in order to maintain legal privilege.	31 March 2028 When the permanent level crossing update is under construction.
10.	Events and Festivals Fund
	Attachment c - Events & Festivals Sponsorship Fund 2026-27 - Final Matrix	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	Commercially sensitive information about individual events. This includes details around sponsorship and budgets.	8 July 2027 After the next Events and Festivals annual allocation.
17.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 2 February 2026			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
18.	Public Excluded Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 17 April 2026			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
19.	Remuneration for Independent Members of a Council Committee	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	The public interest does not outweigh the obligation to protect the privacy of the independent members of a Council Committee.	1 June 2027 When the Committee's Independent members and Chair have been advised of the Council Decision.
20.	Appointments to Council Organisations	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	The public interest does not outweigh the obligation to protect the reputation of individuals being considered for appointment to the governing body of council organisations.	29 May 2026 Following the notification of decision to individuals