Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee

A black text on a white background

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Finance and Performance Committee

Open Minutes

Date: Wednesday 23 July 2025

Time: 9.31 am

Venue: Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, Fendalton

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Phil Mauger

Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Kelly Barber

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Tyrone Fields

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt - via audio/visual link

Councillor Victoria Henstock

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Andrei Moore

Councillor Mark Peters

Councillor Sara Templeton

Principal Advisor

Bede Carran

General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / CFO

Tel: 941 8999

bede.carran@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

David Corlett

Democratic Services Advisor

Tel: 941 5421

david.corlett@ccc.govt.nz

Website: www.ccc.govt.nz

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00125

That the apologies from the Mayor for lateness, Councillor Barber for a possible early departure, and Councillor Scandrett for absence be accepted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Coker Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

Partial interests were declared for item 11 - Council-controlled organisations - Final Statements of Intent 2025/26 as follows:

· Councillors Henstock and McLellan (ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd),

· Councillors Scandrett and Barber (Venues Ōtautahi),

· Councillors Baber, Gough and Peters (Transwaste Canterbury Ltd),

· Councillors MacDonald, Gough and McLellan (Civic Building Ltd),

· Councillor Peters (Riccarton Bush Trust),

· Councillor Fields (Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust),

· Deputy Mayor and Councillor Peters (Central Plain Water Trust).

Councillors MacDonald and Coker declared an interest in Item 12 Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statements of Intent 2025/26 and public excluded Item 15 – Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Reappointment of Directors to CCO Boards.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00126

That the minutes of the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 25 June 2025 be confirmed.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Coker Carried

Councillor Henstock joined the meeting at 9.33 am during consideration of Item 4.

4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

4.1 Lyttleton Port Industrial Relations

Mark Wilson and Gerald Loader from the Rail & Maritime Union and Maritime Union of NZ spoke regarding Lyttleton Port and Industrial Relations.

5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

7. One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha - Elected Members' Update

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00127

Officer recommendation accepted without change

Part B

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha - Elected Members’ Update Report.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Templeton Carried

8. Council submission on updated resource management national direction

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00128

Officer recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Council submission on updated resource management national direction Report.

2. Approves lodging the Council submission on the Resource Management National Direction packages (Attachment A, Attachment B, Attachment C and Attachment D) to the Ministry for the Environment.

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

4. Delegate to the Head of Planning and Consents any correction, or amendments of a minor nature arising from the Council meeting.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

Attachments

a Council Submission – Key Themes MS

9. Internal Audit Charter

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00129

Officer recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Internal Audit Charter 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 the Audit and Risk Management Committee’s recommendation that the draft Internal Audit Charter be adopted.

4. Adopts the draft Internal Audit Charter as presented.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Barber Carried

10. Shovel Ready Funded MCR Route Descope

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00130

Officer recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Shovel Ready Funded MCR Route Descope 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. Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to complete negotiations regarding the descoping of the following sections of Major Cycle Route from the “Shovel Ready” funding agreement:

a. Heathcote Expressway MCR - Scruttons Road Level Crossing

b. Northern Line MCR - Alongside railway (Old Blenheim Road to Matai Street West)

c. Nor'West Arc MCR - Annex Road (Birmingham Drive to Blenheim Road)

d. South Express MCR - Waterloo Road (Kyle Park to Finsbury Street)

4. Notes that this does not remove the projects from the Council’s capital programme.

5. Requests staff to report back on the financial impacts of the descoping to inform future Long Term or Annual Plans.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Keown Carried

Councillor Coker assumed the Chair for consideration of Item 11.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.06 am and returned at 10.08 am during consideration of Item 11.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.20 am and returned at 10.22 am during consideration of Item 11.

11. Council-controlled organisations - Final Statements of Intent 2025/26

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00131

Officer recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the Statement of Intents for 2025/26 for the following Council-controlled Organisations:

· ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd;

· Venues Ōtautahi Ltd;

· Transwaste Canterbury Ltd;

· Local Government Funding Agency;

· Civic Building Ltd;

· Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd;

· Riccarton Bush Trust;

· Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust; and

· Central Plains Water Trust.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Moore Carried

Secretarial note: Those Councillors who declared an interest in an individual organisation (refer Item 2 above) took no part in the debate or vote on that organisation’s Statement of Intent.

Election of a Chair

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00132

The Finance and Performance Committee resolved that the Deputy Mayor be appointed Chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee for Items 12, 13, and public excluded Items 14 and 15.

Councillor Coker/Councillor MacDonald Carried

The Mayor joined the meeting at 10.34 am during consideration of Item 12.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.44 am and returned at 10.46 am during consideration of Item 12.

The meeting adjourned at 10.49 am and reconvened at 11.25 am.

12. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Final Statements of Intent 2025/26
	Committee Comment Councillor Johanson moved the original Officer Recommendations and included the additional recommendations 5,6,7, and 8. Deputy Mayor Cotter seconded the motion. The Committee voted on Motions 1-4 which were declared carried. The Committee voted on Motions 5 to 8 separately as follows: Motion 5 was declared carried by way of a division 10-2. Motion 6 was declared carried by way of a division 9-5. Motion 7 was declared carried by way of a division 9-5. Motion 8 was carried without a division being called for.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s final Statement of Intent for 2025/26; and 2. Notes the modification to EcoCentral Ltd’s Statement of Intent for 2024/25 to amend its emission reductions performance target from ‘year on year reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity (per tonne handled)’ to ‘year on year reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions’. 3. Advises comments, if any on the proposed modification to EcoCentral Ltd’s Statement of Intent (SOI); and 4. Notes that forecast dividends from Christchurch City Holdings Ltd to the Council of $65 million in both 2025/26 and 2026/27 and $66 million in 2027/28 are consistent with the Annual Plan 2025/26.
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00133 Part C That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s final Statement of Intent for 2025/26; and 2. Notes the modification to EcoCentral Ltd’s Statement of Intent for 2024/25 to amend its emission reductions performance target from ‘year on year reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity (per tonne handled)’ to ‘year on year reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions’. 3. Advises comments, if any on the proposed modification to EcoCentral Ltd’s Statement of Intent (SOI); and 4. Notes that forecast dividends from Christchurch City Holdings Ltd to the Council of $65 million in both 2025/26 and 2026/27 and $66 million in 2027/28 are consistent with the Annual Plan 2025/26. Councillor Johanson/Deputy Mayor Carried Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Coker, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00134 5. That the Committee notes, with concern, the decline in industrial relations at LPC and the ongoing legal disputes over employment matters. The division was declared carried* by 12 votes to 2 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Gough, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger and Councillor Keown Councillor Johanson/Deputy Mayor Carried Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Coker, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00135 6. That the Committee notes, with concern, the proposed reduction in engagement targets within the new Lyttleton Port Company Statement of Corporate Intent. The division was declared carried* by 9 votes to 5 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock and Councillor Keown Councillor Johanson/Deputy Mayor Carried Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Coker, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item.
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00136 7. That the Committee requests a meeting when appropriate between: - the chairpersons of CCHL and LPC, - the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and the local Banks Peninsula Councillor - the Branch Secretaries of the RTMU and MUNZ The division was declared carried* by 9 votes to 5 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Templeton *Against:* Mayor Mauger, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock and Councillor Keown Councillor Johanson/Deputy Mayor Carried Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Coker, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00137 8. That the Committee reconfirms it desire for LPC to work collaboratively to improve employment relations in accordance with the Statements of Corporate Intent 2024 and 2025. Councillor Johanson/Deputy Mayor Carried Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded Councillor MacDonald and Councillor Coker, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item

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

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00138

Part C

That Bryan Pearson (Chair), Mathew Slatter (CE) and Sue Taylor (EA) from Christchurch City Holdings Ltd remain after the public have been excluded for Item 15 as they have knowledge that is relevant to this item and will assist the Committee.

AND

That at 11.56am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 343 to 344 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.54 pm

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.56 pm

CONFIRMED THIS 27^THDAY OF AUGUST 2025

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Chairperson

7. Key Organisational Performance Results - Year End (June) 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1210742
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning & Performance Peter.Ryan@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 To provide Council with an overview of performance towards delivering year one of our Long-Term Plan 2024-34 (LTP), our ‘contract with the community’.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Key Organisational Performance Results - Year End (June) 2025 Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 This is a regular report focused on a suite of the ‘vital few’ organisational performance targets and forms a key component of the Council’s Performance Framework and its reporting.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The key organisational performance targets include:

· Service Delivery (levels of service (LOS)).

· Capital Projects (both milestone delivery and planning).

· Value for Money (finance – activity budgets and capital programme budgets).

4.2 This report provides year end performance results against Executive Leadership Team (ELT) performance priority targets for year-one of the LTP 2024-34.

4.3 This is the final Key Organisational Performance Results report for the current Council term. Reporting for the 2025/26 year will be prepared for Committee as soon as the Council committee structure and meeting dates are set, post-Election.

4.4 Community Level of Service delivery (87.5%) sees a decrease of 1.6% from May (net -3 LOS), while achieving the ELT performance target (85%).

4.5 Management Level of Service delivery (89.1%) shows an improvement of 1.4% from May (net +4 LOS), achieving the ELT performance target (85%).

4.6 Capital project milestone delivery (80.2%) sees a decrease of 2.9% from the May forecast. Capital Programme milestone delivery has not achieved the ELT performance target (85%).

4.7 Capital planning, for FY2026 planning target has been achieved, with the FY2027 / FY2028 planning (88.4%) not achieving the ELT target of 90%.

4.8 Activity budgets, actively managed to budget (79.5%), a decrease of 5.1% from May, not achieving the ELT organisational target (100% of activities are actively managed to budget).

4.9 Deliver Capital Programme within approved budget (-$73.4M), a further increase to the underspend of -$25.8M while achieving the ELT target (=/< $0).

5. Service Delivery

*B = Black, no data. R = Red, will miss target. A = Amber, requires intervention. G = Green, will achieve target.

5.1 Looking ahead, the Corporate Planning and Performance team will continue to support Heads of Service to deliver clear commentary and remedial actions and improved service delivery performance.

5.2 Community Level of Service delivery (87.5%) sees a decrease of 1.6% from May, while Management LOS delivery (89.1%) sees an increase of 1.4% from May. Overall, both achieving the ELT performance targets (85%).

5.2.1 Between May forecasts and June year-end actuals, 1 Community and 11 Management level of service exceptions have achieved target at year-end.

5.2.2 Offsetting this improvement are 3 Community and 7 Management level of service targets previously forecast to achieve target that did not achieve target at year-end.

5.2.3 The updated view of Service Delivery is attached to this report (Attachment A). each quarter (September, December, March, year-end) is a view of all levels of service by activity. It is:

· summary analysis of delivery and budget performance targets for major Council activities

· underpinned by level of service detail by activity, before

· listing specific exceptions detail and business commentary.

5.3 The scatter-diagram below shows forecast activity LOS delivery performance (Community and Management LOS), against forecast activity budget performance (over- or under-spend).

· Across all listed activities, level of service delivery forecasts range from 59.3% to 100% achieved, while all but 8 activities were on or below budget at year-end.

· The vertical y-axis shows forecast service delivery (LOS) performance.

· A blue circles on a black background

AI-generated content may be incorrect. The horizontal x-axis shows forecast budget over/underspend (scaled to relative budget).

6. Responses to questions from Councillors

6.1 There are no outstanding questions from Councillors.

7. ELT Performance Priority: Capital Projects delivery

7.1 Capital project milestone delivery performance achieved 80.2%, decreasing a further 2.9% from May, not achieving the ELT target of 85%.

7.2 The capital delivery target relates to projects Council is responsible for delivering, including Council-funded and externally funded projects.

7.3 Alongside capital underspend of -$73.4M, -13.3%, (which excludes One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha, and refer to Section 8.4 for more analysis), 80.2% of capital projects are meeting their ‘whole of life’ project milestones for the first year of the recently adopted LTP 2024-34. This is the lowest result over the last four years (previous 3 years vary between 84.0% and 86.0% aggregated milestone delivery achieved.

7.4 Key contributors to these results for 2024/25 (milestones and spend) are the activities Water Supply, Wastewater Treatment Collection and Disposal, Stormwater Drainage, and Flood Protection and Control Works.

7.5 Capital project milestone delivery for these activities ranges between 58.0% and 72.7%, contributing -$41.3M to the -$73.4M programme underspend.

· A summary analysis of delivery and budget performance targets for major Council activities can be seen in Attachment A, and

· A summary table of capital programme project milestone and budget spend performance for all relevant activities can be seen in Attachment B.

7.6 As yet it is unclear what impact (positive or negative) the adopted programme deferrals for 2025/26 or pending ‘ring-fencing’ of water services will have on the success of the future year delivery programme for these activities.

7.7 Looking ahead to 2025/26, in line with the Chief Executive performance targets with Council, ELT have set revised targets to monitor capital performance:

· Project milestone delivery (whole of life) is separated into targets for Watchlist and Non-Watchlist projects. Target remains at least 85% milestone delivery.

7.8 Capital programme budget spend target is to within a range, between 0% to -10%. This means that comments and remedials actions will be triggered if the programme forecast moves to overspend, or underspend by more than 10%.

7.9 Reporting against these revised targets to ELT and Finance and Performance Committee begins in August. To support the revised targets new year reporting will include a breakdown of forecast capital performance against targets across all relevant activities (similar to Attachment B).

7.10 Capital planning performance

· Funding programme budgets allocated for FY2026 by 31st March 2025 is reported at 90%, achieving ELT’s target of 90%.

· Budget drawdowns for FY2027 and 2028 by 30th June 2025 is reported at 88.4%, from 84.3% as reported for May, not achieving ELT’s target of 90%.

7.11 For further information and underlying project detail, refer to the Capital Programme Performance Report.

8. ELT Performance Priority: Value for Money

8.1 The overall Council budget remained underspent. The purpose of this organisational performance target is to drive improved budgeting at activity level, and actively manage any forecast overspend at local level.

8.2 79.5% (31/39) of activities achieved budget (nett controllable cost, after carry-forwards), not achieving the ELT target of 100% 31 of the 39 activities met 100% of budget, noting that total activity expenditure across Council is overall within budget.

8.3 For more information refer to Attachment A (summary of performance targets for major Council activities, with detailed levels of service results, exceptions, activity budget results, with manager commentary) and to the Financial Performance Report.

8.4 Overall capital programme budget expenditure is forecast at an underspend of $73.4M, a further increase to the underspend of $25.8M since May, achieving ELT’s target of within approved budget (= < $0). The ELT performance goal and the result includes core and externally funded work, regardless of funding source, but excludes One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.

8.5 More detailed information is available in the Financial and Capital Programme Performance reports.

8.6 Set out below is a forward view of capital delivery performance for the LTP 2024-34 (financial), which looks at commitments for the first three years of the LTP 2024-34, as well as confirmed capital delivery in preceding LTP-cycles against plan.

8.7 This view takes into account the adopted capital programme from the LTP 2024-34 as updated through the Annual Plan 2025/26, adopted on 24-26 June 2025. (Adjustments to years 2025/26 and 2026/27.)

8.8 The extended black line is the full planned delivery budget including One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha (as adopted through the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26).

8.9 The extended blue line shows the full Council planned delivery budget (excluding One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha, and before any confirmed carry forwards):

· from a consistent $488M to $483M planned budget for the three years (2021-24);

· to between $554m to $713M planned budget for the three years (2024-27) (as amended through the Annual Plan 2025/26).

8.10 The Council capital delivery (green line) result for 2024/25 is $480M against the programme budget of $554M (rounded) (blue line). This equates to 86.7% of budget spent.

8.11 A graph of a cost of a cost

AI-generated content may be incorrect. Figures align with the Financial and Capital Programme Performance reports.

8.12 Risks around spend were raised to Committee in the January Performance Report and subsequently followed up by councillor discussion, leading to the deferral of $71.5M in the final AP.

8.13 However, with final capital spend below forecast ($480M, -$73.4M under budget, excluding One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha) that still leaves the current year (2025/26) programme of $555M ($648M including One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha), an increase of $75M ($168M) on current spend (before carry-forwards). It should be noted that Council’s record for annual core capital spend is $502M (average of $478M over the last 3 years).

8.14 If the proposed capital carry forwards noted in the Finance Performance Report – June 2025 (Recommendation 3, Section 6.3, and Attachment C) are accepted, future years’ capital programme will then stand at $775.4M for 2026/27 and $711.0M for 2027/28 (remaining at $555M for 2025/26 – all excluding One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha). However, it is relevant to note that there are a number of adjusting factors that need to be considered when assessing this amount. Most importantly is that the 2026/27 capital programme is still to be assessed and evaluated as part of the Annual Plan development for its deliverability. That process still has some way to go before an initial capital programme is presented back to Council.

8.15 An additional point to note is that when developing this analysis, what emerged is how savings on contracts for capital works are being measured and presented within the capital programme. Staff are looking to clarify this issue and will report back on options to record and measure accurately at both a programme and project level any savings. Reporting back will include options for Council input into use of identified and measurable savings.

8.16 However, while spend is an input to the capital programme; its outcome is actual delivery on the ground. In this respect delivery against project complete milestones is the critical factor in assessing capital performance. There are mature processes in place to move these project milestones if required, so a high level of delivery can reasonably be expected.

8.17 At the end of 2024/25 whole of life milestone delivery for the core capital programme stood at 80.2%. The current 2025/26 programme is significantly larger financially, and the 2026/27 year much larger still - see graph above. The next LTP commences delivery in the 2027/28 year.

8.18 Management will engage with the new Council on developing the draft 2026/27 Annual Plan soon after the October 2025 election. However, as noted above staff are preparing a re-phased capital programme - one scaled to ensure greater deliverability of project complete milestones - for Council to consider.

8.19 This step, plus the clarification of how procurement savings are realised, should drive improved capital performance which will be tested both as part of the Annual Plan and the LTP development.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Service Delivery Summary (Levels of Service)	25/1443370	25
b ⇩	Capital Programme project milestone and budget performance summary by activity	25/1520741	247

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Amber Tait - Performance Analyst

Meg Wedlock - Performance Analyst

Boyd Kedzlie - Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

8. Financial Performance Report - June 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1362589
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Bruce Moher, Head of Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, 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 provide the Committee with an update on Council’s financial performance for the year ended 30 June 2025. It also outlines recommendations regarding the treatment of budget carry-forward requests and the operational surplus. In addition, the report presents year-end information on treasury compliance, rates, general debt, and insurance claims.

1.2 This is a monthly report that is presented to the Committee.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Financial Performance Report - June 2025 Report.

2. Approves operational carry forward requests from 2024/25 of a net $18.4 million (as detailed in Attachment B), to enable completion of workstreams in 2025/26 or later.

3. Approves net capital carry forwards to 2024/25 of $57.4 million (as detailed in Attachment C) to cover work completed in 2024/25 partly offset by carry forwards to enable completion of capital projects in 2025/26 or later.

4. Approves net capital revenue and funding carry forwards of $17.0 million, and on-lending carry forwards as detailed in Attachment C.

5. Approves the budget and funding reallocation of $6.91 million to fund capital expenditure relating to FY25 weather events.

6. Confirms the following treatment for the 2024/25 operating surplus of $47.5 million:

a. Notes that $20.0 million was resolved to be applied to debt reduction in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

b. Notes that $17.0 million was resolved to be applied to a rates reduction in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

c. $0.5 million of unspent weather event contingency budget to be transferred and added to the $1.6 million sitting in the Adverse Event fund, which will provide $2.1 million for any future weather event that exceeds the normal annual budget provision of $0.5 million.

d. The balance of $10.0 million be applied to debt reduction, reducing 2025/26 borrowing and saving $0.8 million annually thereafter.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 The year end operating surplus is $56.5 million before carry forwards. After allowing funding of $9 million for carry forward requests, the available cash surplus is $47.5 million. Material items contributing to the result are (amounts in () are revenues received):

Material Items	Budget ($million)	Var after C/F
Waste Management / Resource Recovery – recycling & processing fees cost savings & improved revenues	46.6	14.1
Insurance costs – reduced following negotiations	38.3	7.9
Personnel Costs – vacancies	267.0	5.1
Net Debt Servicing costs – lower borrowing & favourable hedging	90.7	5.0
Subvention receipts – higher CCO taxable income	(11.3)	5.0
Transport Street Lighting – savings in electricity costs due to LED lighting and new contract pricing	5.1	2.6
Rates Revenue – Rates overstrike and higher than planned rates penalties	(766.1)	2.6
Recreation & Sport Participation revenues – Higher than planned community use of pool and fitness centre facilities	(21.7)	2.5
NZTA Opex subsidy – underspends on streetlighting, consultants (reducing amount claimable from NZTA) and additional expenditure for weather events (not claimable)	(28.8)	(3.6)
Other minor variances	100.9	6.3
Total Operating Surplus		47.5

3.2 The actual year end operating surplus was $4.3 million greater than forecast in the May report. The improvement is largely revenue related, principally interest revenue ($1.0 million), rates penalties ($0.8 million), insurance recoveries ($1.7 million) and interest expenses ($0.3 million).

3.3 Total capital expenditure is $63.8 million (8.6%) underspent at year end; primarily due to Three Waters ($41.1 million, 19.6%), Transport ($15.1 million, 12.9%) and Digital ($7.0 million, 23.8%) projects, these are partially offset by early spend at the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha ($9.7 million, 5.1%) and Shovel Ready / CRAF projects ($5.5 million, 33.3%). Further information is provided in the Capital Programme Performance Report.

4. Operational Surplus Treatment

4.1 Of the $47.5 million cash operating surplus:

4.1.1 $20.0 million was resolved to be applied to debt reduction in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

4.1.2 $17.0 million was resolved to be applied to a rates reduction in the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

4.1.3 Similar to previous years, the $0.5 million weather event contingency budget was not required to be allocated to Units this year and it is recommended that it be added to the $1.6 million in the adverse events fund, increasing the available funds to $2.1 million.

4.1.4 The remaining surplus balance of $10.0 million is recommended to be applied to debt repayment as would usually occur. This is financially prudent, seen as good practice and if used to reduce 2025/26 borrowing, will reduce ongoing costs by $0.8 million p.a. (lower debt repayment $0.3 million and lower interest cost $0.5 million) in the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

4.1.5 Part of the 2023/24 operating surplus was retained as a contingency provision ($6 million). This currently stands at $5.4 million with a further $0.3 million to be allocated to Turanga Bore remediation. The drawdown during the year of $0.6 million relates to the bore ($0.4 million) and Libraries pay ($0.2 million). It is recommended that the balance be retained for future contingencies.

5. Operating Revenue and Expenditure

5.1 Operating expenditure covers the day to day spend on staffing, operational activities and maintenance, along with the revenue sources used to support these expenses.

5.2 Operating revenue exceeds expenditure as it includes rates revenue for capital renewals and debt repayment. This ‘capital’ revenue is referred to below as ‘Funds not available for Opex’ and is removed to show the year end cash operating surplus or deficit.

	Annual Results			After Carry Forward		Forecast Comparison
$m	Actual	Budget	Var	C/ fwd	Var	May	Var
Operational
Revenues	(1,090.3)	(1,079.5)	10.8	(2.3)	13.1	8.6	4.5
Expenditure	771.7	828.4	56.7	20.7	36.0	34.6	1.4
Funds not available for Opex	262.1	251.1	(11.0)	(9.4)	(1.6)	-	(1.6)
Operating (Surplus)/Deficit	(56.5)	-	56.5	9.0	47.5	43.2	4.3

5.3 The year end operating surplus variance after carry forwards is $47.5 million. Summaries of the material current and forecast revenue and expenditure variances are highlighted below.

5.4 Revenue is $13.1 million (1.2%) greater than budget at year end after carry forwards. Key drivers of actual and forecast revenue variances to budget include: (amounts in () are unfavourable variances, i.e. revenues below budget)

Variance ($m)	Annual Budget	Var after C/F
Subvention receipts – higher CCO taxable income	11.3	5.0
Resource Recovery Transfer stations, organics processing and landfills	14.0	4.1
Building & Planning consent volumes (see cost variances)	35.0	3.2
Recreation & Sports pools and fitness centres increased participation	21.7	2.5
Rates penalties	5.3	1.6
Other Transport recoveries (traffic management, corridor access fees, AMDS recoveries, tram license fees & Lichfield carpark commercial rent)	11.9	1.4
Rates overstrike	760.8	1.0
Resource Recovery Eco-Central rebate unbudgeted	-	0.8
Transport parking compliance fines	4.9	0.6
Excess Water charges (Residential 0.5m, Commercial 0.2m)	5.2	(0.7)
Hagley Park parking fees – delay and volume	2.2	(1.6)
Resource Recovery MFE Levy reduction	9.0	(2.0)
NZTA Opex subsidy - underspends on streetlighting and consultants, reducing amount claimable	28.8	(3.6)
Interest revenue (largely offset by lower on-lending costs)	57.4	(3.7)
Other revenues	112.0	4.5
Total	1,079.5	13.1

5.5 Expenditure is $36.0 million (4.3%) under budget after carry forwards at year end. Key drivers of actual and forecast expenditure variances to budget include: (amounts in () are unfavourable variances, i.e. expenses are greater than budget)

Expenditure Variances ($millions)	Annual Budget	Var after C/F
Waste Management lower recycling processing fees and organic processing fees, and landfill costs	69.6	11.2
Debt Servicing (lower on-lending & favourable hedging, largely offset by reduction in interest revenue)	148.1	8.7
Insurance costs	38.3	7.9
Personnel costs (units with vacancies which were planned to be filled)	267.0	5.1
Transport – street lighting electricity costs, savings due to change to LED lighting and new pricing	5.1	2.6
Rates on Council owned properties	36.8	1.2
Three Waters – staff time capitalisation	(7.8)	(0.7)
Transport – due to weather events	53.4	(0.8)
Parks – under recovery of staff time capitalisation offset by internal plant purchases higher demand	(6.4)	(1.5)
Building Consenting & Planning Consenting – additional costs outsourcing consent processing to meet LoS, due to volumes and staff shortages (offset by increased revenue).	6.9	(2.5)
Other minor variances	217.4	4.8
Total	828.4	36.0

· The funds not available for opex negative variance is caused by lower drawdowns from special funds, due to lower expenditure on related activities including: The Christchurch Cathedral Restoration Grant $7.0 million not paid

· The Capital Endowment Fund $2.3 million unallocated and/or grants not released

· The Community Housing Fund $1.3 million underspent.

5.6 Operational variances and explanations by Activity are shown in Attachment A.

5.7 Operational carry forward requests for 2024/25 total $18.4 million (including $7.0 million for the Christchurch Cathedral Restoration grant deferred by Council), as detailed in Attachment B. By comparison 2023/24 carry forwards were $14.1 million. Strengthening Community grants are automatically carried forward per Council resolution.

6. Capital Expenditure and Revenue

6.1 This section covers the capital programme spend and funding relating to it.

	Annual Results			After Carry Forwards		F/Cast Comparison
$m	Actual	Budget	Var	C/F	Result	May	Var
Core Programme	457.1	535.6	78.5	72.7	5.8	7.9	(2.1)
External Funded Programme	23.2	18.2	(5.0)	(5.6)	0.6	(0.1)	0.7
Less unidentified Carry Forwards	-	-	-	-	-	(7.8)	7.8
Core/External Funded Programme	480.3	553.8	73.5	67.1	6.4	-	6.4
One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha	199.9	190.2	(9.7)	(9.7)	-	-	-
Total Capital Programme	680.2	744.0	63.8	57.4	6.4	-	6.4
Revenues and Funding	(351.5)	(337.1)	14.4	(16.9)	31.3	23.3	8.0
Borrowing required	328.7	406.9	78.2	40.5	37.7	23.3	14.4

Capital Expenditure

6.2 Total capital expenditure is $63.8 million (8.6%) underspent at year end primarily due to Three Waters ($41.1 million, 19.6%), Transport ($15.1 million, 12.9%) and Digital ($7.0 million, 23.8%) projects. The underspend is partially offset by early spend on the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha ($9.7 million, 5.1%) which will be funded by bring back from 2026/27 (noting that overall the project remains on track) and Shovel Ready / CRAF projects ($5.5 million, 33.3%).

6.3 Proposed carry forwards of $57.4 million are intended to be allocated across the remaining years of the 2024 Long-Term Plan as shown in Attachment C. The timing and deliverability of the capital programme will be re-evaluated in the 2026/27 Annual Plan to ensure alignment with delivery capacity and strategic priorities.

Weather Events

6.4 Unbudgeted capex requirements for Banks Peninsula weather events during April/May 2025 have been identified and estimates quantified per below.

CPMS	Project Description	Budget Change FY25	Budget Change FY26	Budget Change FY27	Total
82176	FY25 April Weather Event Remediation – Lighthouse Road Slip Stabilisation	93,853	1,000,000	1,000,000	2,093,853
82140	Delivery Package – FY25 April Weather Event Remediation Transport	88,303	1,000,000	1,136,000	2,224,303
81827	FY25 March Weather Event Remediation Transport – Bossu Road Bridge Reconstruction	10,155	300,000	450,000	760,155
81705	FY25 March Weather Event Remediation Transport – Road, Slope and Drainage Works in Wainui	151,696	850,000	825,000	1,826,696
	Total	344,007	3,150,000	3,411,000	6,905,007

6.5 To enable completion of these essential works, it is recommended that the balance of the unspent capital works budget (largely Digital projects now funded from opex) be reassigned to these projects. An amount of $6,458,479 is available, the balance of $446,528 is recommended to come from the 23/24 contingency held, which will reduce it to $4.65 million.

Capital Revenues and Funding

6.6 Capital revenues and funding is $31.3 million higher than budget at year end after carry forwards. This is due to the CWTP $55.0 million insurance recovery and higher development contributions being collected, partly offset by lower Crown recoveries and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) capital funding assistance ($29.8 million) due to a budget overstatement in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

7. Special Funds

7.1 The annual movements and balance of the Housing Account and Capital Endowment Fund are shown in Attachment A (page 7).

7.2 The balance of funds available for allocation from the Capital Endowment Fund as at 30 June 2025 was $1.669 million.

8. Treasury

Policy Compliance

8.1 All Treasury risks are within Policy limits, with no breaches projected over the coming year:

Risk Area	Compliance	*Plain-language meaning*
Liquidity Risk	Yes	(cash availability)
Funding Risk	Yes	(spread of debt maturities)
Interest Rate Risk	Yes	(managing interest costs)
Counterparty Credit Risk	Yes	(not all eggs in one basket)

Borrowing

8.2 Council’s total gross borrowing for FY-25 is shown below (in $ millions):

Jun-24 Actual

Jun-25 Actual

Full Year Change

Ratepayer-funded Debt

To fund Advances to Related Parties

1,799.3

781.5

2,122.2

701.7

322.9

-79.8

Gross Borrowing

2,580.8

2,823.9

243.1

8.3 Advances to related parties are primarily to Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (currently $604.4 million, down by $76.8 million in FY-25). Interest earned on these advances fully off-sets Council’s related borrowing costs. This table excludes cash and other financial investments, which are mostly held for working capital purposes.

Funding & Interest Rate Risks

8.4 Council’s projected funding requirements, per financial year, are shown below. These are split between existing debt maturities (green) and expected new borrowing requirements (grey). Existing debt is well spread over the coming decade, although there is elevated concentration risk in FY-26 due to the extent of planned new borrowing – Council has sufficient market access to manage this risk.

A graph of a graph showing a number of years

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

8.5 Council’s interest rate risk is managed to reduce the volatility of interest costs from year to year. Most existing Council debt (87%) has been fixed for at least the next three years, which will limit the impact of market volatility on future borrowing costs. The budget was prepared in anticipation of a fall in the Official Cash Rate to 3% by Christmas 2025, so market movements during the financial year were already reflected in budgeted (shown in the table below):

	Jun-25	Jun-26	Jun-27
Ratepayer-funded Debt	4.9%	4.8%	4.8%

8.6 For context, Council’s average funding cost was 5.1% in FY-24 and 5.2% in FY-19 (pre-Covid). It is expected to rise again from FY-28, towards a long-term average of about 5%.

9. Rates Debt

9.1 Rates debt increased $0.8 million in the June 2025 quarter, as shown in the table below. Rates debt is $3.0 million higher than March 2024. As a percentage of total rates, the debt remains relatively stable, and while it is difficult to identify specific causes for the increase, it is potentially attributable to adverse economic /cost of living conditions over the last year, increase in total rates struck year-on-year and reflected in the slight rise in the graph below.

$ million

Mar 2025

Jun 2025

Change Comment

Rates Debt	30.2	31.0	0.8	Total rates debt has remained stable this quarter.
Current year overdue	27.6	28.9	1.3	Jun 2024 $26.4 million
Previous years arrears	2.6	2.1	(0.5)	Jun 2024 $1.6 million
No. properties with arrears over $20,000	55	62	7

9.2 The graph below shows 90+ days rates debt as a percentage of the annual rates strike in the respective year, with a three-month moving average to smooth the quarterly cycle. This indicates how well rate arrears are being managed over time.

A graph of a graph with blue lines

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

10. General Debt

10.1 The increase in general debt as shown below is due to NZTA claims which is a timing difference, Greater Christchurch Partnership and Canterbury Regional Council as well as higher resource consents revenues.

$ million

March 2025

June
2025

Change Comment

General Debt

7.4

15.4

8.0

Road’s funding of $6.4 million were received, high value resource consent invoices for $1.1 million were issued in June and infrastructure claims amounted to $0.6 million.

3 – 6 months

0.2

0.0

6 m

months +

1.3

1.2

-0.1

10.2 General debt of $64,417 has been written off this quarter ($35,020 relates to write-offs relating to regulatory debt). The total debt write-off for the financial year 2024/25 is $198,296 compared to $218,201 for the 2023/24 financial year.

11. Insurance Claims

11.1 The table below outlines the number of events that have been notified by Council against its insurance policies as well as claims against Council from third parties for the Apr – June 2025 quarter.

	Policy	Claims / Notifications		Estimated Cost
	Policy	Above excess	Below excess	Estimated Cost
Claims by Council	Motor Vehicle	1	0	$5,000
	Material damage	1	0	$270,000
Claims against Council	PI / PL	0	0	$0

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A – Operational & Capital breakdown by activity - June 25	25/1486332	257
b ⇩	Attachment B - 2024-25 Opex Carry Forward Requests	25/1486331	264
c ⇩	Attachment C - 2024-25 CAPEX Carry Forward Requests	25/1486325	268

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mitchell Shaw - Reporting Accountant

Karthik MG - Reporting Accountant

Steve Ballard - Group Treasurer

Martin Zelas - Team Leader Rates Operations

Adrian Seagar - Manager Insurance & Asset Management

Approved By

Bruce Moher - Head of Finance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

10. Long Term Plan 2027 - Project Update and Risk Assessment
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1479394
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, LTP Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report is a response to a request from the Chair, Finance & Performance Committee for an analysis of challenges and risks likely to impact upon the Long-term Plan 2027 – 2037 (LTP) process as well as;

1.1.1 Demonstrating the mitigations staff will take to address those risks; and

1.1.2 Seeking feedback from the Committee on those mitigations.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Note the challenges and complexities that various reforms will generate for the 2027 Long-Term Plan process.

2. Note that in developing the next Long-Term Plan it will be important to:

a. clarify the relationship between the LTP process and other overlapping internal processes so that accountabilities are clear and milestones are fully aligned.

b. provide a structured approach to the review of Levels of Service with early clarification of roles and responsibilities.

c. deliver an aligned and integrated LTP process that meets the requirements of reforms (e.g. Local Water Done Well, Resource Management Act reform, and the proposed Local Government Systems Improvement Bill, which may include rates capping.)

3. Note the key principles and processes for the development of the LTP set out in Attachment A to this report.

4. Note that staff will commence preparation of financial scenarios for the next Annual Plan and draft Long-Term Plan which will address the impacts of local government reform (including a rates cap as foreshadowed by central government) and that these scenarios will be workshopped with the incoming Council.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Oversight of the LTP process is delegated to the Finance and Performance Committee as part of its Terms of Reference.

3.2 The upcoming LTP process will be complex. It contains changes and risks arising from a range of legislative reforms including Local Water Done Well, Resource Management System reform and the proposed changes to the Local Government Act in the Local Government Systems Improvement Bill. The risks are summarised below, followed by the proposed mitigations.

3.3 It should be noted that the mitigations outlined in this report apply to organisational readiness for the LTP; not to the process and engagement expectations that the post-election Council will direct in its Letter of Expectation.

3.4 Many councils across New Zealand have commenced, or will shortly commence, project planning for the upcoming LTP process so they are ready to respond to their respective Councils expectations after the October 2025 triennial elections.

3.5 Based on best practice provided by Taituarā, agreement between governance and management on LTP priorities and parameters (which we do through Council’s Letter of Expectation) should occur between November 2025 – February 2026, with updates to the Community Outcomes, Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, level of service (LOS) review, activity plans, capital programme and budgets phased through 2026.

3.6 Most Councils aim to achieve broad consensus around their draft LTP by December 2026 so that community consultation, adoption and finalisation can take place between January and June 2027.

3.7 Legislative reform is proposed for the local government sector: these reforms are set to have implications on LTP content, process and audit, although the extent and timing remains uncertain.

3.8 Risks posed by internal processes: the relationship between the LTP process and other overlapping internal processes must be clarified early so that accountabilities are clear and milestones are fully aligned.

3.9 LOS review will be critical to the LTP 2027 process: a structured approach as well as roles and responsibilities must be clarified early as to what levels of service will be delivered across Council’s activities.

There are audit risks around the LTP process.

3.10 Recent LTPs show a trend of increasingly focused requirements from the Office of the Auditor-General. It is fully expected, based on audit’s approach in previous LTPs, that the range of reforms set out below (Section 4) and how well Council is addressing them will be areas of focus in the upcoming audit.

3.11 The associated risk is that if Council cannot deliver an aligned and integrated LTP process that meets the requirements of reforms, eg having consultation that provides an effective basis for public participation in the Council’s decisions, it may well result in a qualified audit report and subsequent reputational damage.

3.12 The LTP project team and Audit NZ have previously identified misalignment and duplication across Council processes as key barriers to effective LTP preparation. Audit NZ has previously advised that misaligned and duplicated processes contributed to additional audit fees and were a factor in the consideration of an Emphasis of Matter for the 2024 LTP. While this outcome was ultimately avoided, the underlying risk remains, and staff are developing a project framework that will address and eliminate these recurring issues.

4. Local Government reforms will have impacts on LTP2027

4.1 Major reforms are underway across local government, adding complexity to the development of LTP 2027. These include changes to:

4.1.1 Water Services Delivery – the Government’s Local Water Done Well reforms

4.1.2 Local Government Role and Purpose – changes under the Local Government Systems Improvement Bill

4.1.3 Resource Management System – new approaches to land use, infrastructure planning, and environmental management

Reform to Water Services Delivery

4.2 The reform to water services delivery (Local Water Done Well) is reasonably well-defined. The Council has opted to keep water services in-house, and staff are now working through its implementation.

4.3 There is some unresolved detail – for example, the nature of the separate strategies, plans and budgets for Council’s in-house water entity, and their relationship with current LTP plans and budgets – but overall, their impacts seem reasonably well defined. With that said, there is a need to be mindful that the legislation (Local Government (Water Services) Bill) is at Bill stage and is not expected to be enacted until late this year or early next. Even once it passes, staff anticipate a further amendment bill will be required to address any outstanding gaps or technical issues.

Reform to the Local Government Role and Purpose

4.4 The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill (the Bill), introduced in July 2025, aims to reduce pressure on council rates by refocusing local government on core services and improving transparency and accountability.

4.5 The bill proposes amendments to the Local Government Act 2002, including redefining the purpose of local government, enhancing performance measurement and reporting, prioritising core services, and providing regulatory relief to councils.

4.6 Staff are currently in the process of preparing a Council submission on the Bill.

The Introduction of ‘rates capping’

4.7 The current Bill does not introduce a rates capping mechanism; however, the Government is working on developing a rates cap policy, which is expected to be before Cabinet before the end of the year. The provisions in the Bill are intended to foster the principles of a rates capping system so it can be applied in the future.

4.8 While the scope and timing of a ‘rates cap’ is not clear, if it is implemented in the current Government term it may impact the LTP, including level of service review and prioritisation of the capital programme.

Removal of the four well-beings

4.9 All references to the four well-beings will be removed from the LGA by the Bill. This has been reflected in a revised purpose of Local Government, which will be:

· (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

· (b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses; and

· (c) to support local economic growth and development by fulfilling the purpose set out in paragraph (b).

4.10 This change will also be reflected in the definition of ‘Community Outcomes’, which Council is required to set as the strategic focus for the LTP. Community Outcomes will be defined as:

· “the outcomes that a local authority aims to achieve in meeting the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions”

Revised description of the Council’s core services

4.11 The statutory description of core services has been revised and largely reflects the description that was repealed in 2019. These core service will be:

· network infrastructure (i.e. water and roads),

· public transport services,

· waste management,

· civil defence emergency management, and

· libraries, museums, reserves, and other recreational facilities.

4.12 While core services do not include economic development, this is now emphasised in the purpose of local government. Regulation, consenting and land use planning activities, are still statutory obligations for councils.

Other key changes that the Bill introduces

4.13 In addition to the headline changes, the Bill contains several other provisions that will affect how councils plan, operate, and report on their activities. These changes aim to increase transparency, improve performance monitoring, and give councils more flexibility in certain areas. Key measures include:

· Making six-yearly service delivery reviews (s17A) optional.

· Clarifying that third party-contributions to capital projects for which development contributions are charged can be targeted to specific project drivers.

· Publish key council performance indicators on the Department of Internal Affairs website, starting mid-2025. The first tranche of data is being published by DIA in July 2025.

· Expand existing regulation-making powers so new benchmarking standards can be set which will support the assessment of (for example) council governance, asset management and service delivery alongside the existing requirements around council financial management.

· Require councils to report on their use of contractors and consultants.

Reforms to the Resources Management System

4.14 The Government is continuing to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA), building on amendments to the RMA introduced in 2024. The RMA is set to be replaced this parliamentary term with two new acts: the Planning Act and the Natural Environment Act.

4.15 The Planning Act will primarily address land-use planning and infrastructure development, whereas the Natural Environment Act will focus on protecting and enhancing natural resources, including land, air, freshwater, and marine environments. It is anticipated that the bills will be released in October 2025, following the local government elections. Both acts will be supported by a single set of national directions.

4.16 The reforms will narrow the scope of the resource management system and the effects it controls, with the enjoyment of private property rights as the guiding principle. The intention is that a shift to a more permissive approach will unlock development and streamline planning processes. This has the potential to create LTP challenges in terms of asset planning and trying to project where growth will happen.

4.17 In addition, a package of national direction was recently released. Council submitted on the proposed changes to national direction.

4.18 A discussion document is also anticipated on urban development, which will inform changes introduced as part of the broader reform to the resource management system.

4.19 Given the details of the new resource management system have yet to be released, it is difficult to quantify the impact on the LTP process at this point. Until specific details emerge these changes are best considered as emerging risk.

LTP Implications from the Reforms

4.20 Early process preparation is essential. The combined effect of these reforms means LTP 2027 will need a more agile and nuanced approach, one that adapts to evolving legislation, reflects the changing role of local government, and anticipates further regulatory shifts.

4.21 This will require process design that builds in flexibility and scenario-based planning so reform impacts can be addressed as they become clearer. That said, there will also need to be a ‘single source of truth’ on LTP process governance, accountabilities, processes and milestones.

4.22 Council will also need strong governance and planning structures, as well as strategic and policy capability, to assess the implications of reform in real time and to update key documents, such as the Community Outcomes, Financial Strategy, and Infrastructure Strategy, accordingly.

4.23 If key reforms are enacted late in the LTP cycle, they could affect consultation, audit processes, and the overall integrity of the plan. The LTP will also need to integrate separate water services plans and budgets in a way that remains compliant with LGA requirements, adding to the planning and coordination challenge.

LTP Mitigations to the Reform Uncertainty

4.24 To help mitigate uncertainties created by the reform programme, the LTP’s core strategic components will be developed in a way that builds in flexibility, ensures compliance, and keeps them adaptable to late-stage legislative changes. These will take shape early in the process and begin to provide some direction in early 2026.

· Community Outcomes – Set the high-level direction for the LTP by describing the long-term results Council wants to achieve for the community through its provision of services. They will guide priorities, service levels, and investment choices.

· Infrastructure Strategy – Focuses on the most significant long-term infrastructure challenges, their timing, and the options for addressing them. It provides essential context for decision-making, rather than serving as a full capital programme or LTP planning tool, and will align with separate water services strategies, plans, and budgets.

· Financial Strategy – Establishes the framework for managing Council’s finances, balancing affordability, sustainability, and strategic priorities. It must remain flexible enough to respond to any rates cap and clearly demonstrate a pathway for reducing investment in non-core activities.

5. Internal risks to the LTP process

5.1 During the 2018, 2021 and 2024 LTPs an internal risk to the LTP process (as opposed to content) was fragmentation within the project. This was driven by accountabilities and milestones becoming blurred or duplicated.

5.2 At the Heads of Service / ELT meeting of 15 May 2025 the LTP project team presented some principles for developing the LTP. These were developed to minimise risks to the project and agreed with the Chief Executive, CFO (as LTP Executive Sponsor) and ELT (refer Attachment A):

· ‘One Team’ – there must be a single LTP process and plan. Community Outcomes, Infrastructure Strategy, Financial Strategy, and activity plans etc. need to stay aligned on process, content and timings.

· ‘Making It Happen’ – once the single project plan is agreed, changes must be approved by the LTP Project Team. Teamwork, no surprises.

· ‘We have listened’ – preparation of an integrated LTP process may commence, but LTP content must be built on guidance from the new (post-election) Council via their Letter of Expectation.

5.3 In summary, the process staff are establishing is a one team approach, avoiding the misalignment and duplication noted above, changes are approved through an LTP project team and the development of the LTP must be guided by the strategic direction set by the Council. This approach acknowledges that while technical groundwork and preliminary preparation may commence prior to the election, the LTP must ultimately reflect the priorities, values, and expectations articulated by the incoming Council through their Letter of Expectations. This is to ensure development of the LTP by staff is aligned with Mayor and Councillor leadership, and responsiveness to community mandates.

5.4 Feedback has been requested and received from ELT and Heads of Service. This mostly involved simplification of certain processes, especially for internal services, but the principles above received support.

5.5 A high-level summary of the proposed LTP27 phasings is set out in Attachment B and the governance structure in Attachment C.

LTP Mitigations to Internal Process Risks

Strategic Direction will be Developed Early

5.6 The Community Outcomes, Financial Strategy, and Infrastructure Strategy will need to start taking shape early in the term of the new Council and be designed so they can respond to ongoing strategic guidance from the Mayor and councillors.

5.7 To be effective, direction from these strategic documents needs to be received before levels of service are reviewed, and before the capital programme and budgets are developed.

5.8 The Community Outcomes, Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, and supporting plans must also be agile enough to respond to any ‘core service’ definition changes, rates capping and any changes arising from reforms.

Asset Management Processes will be Aligned with the LTP Development

5.9 Asset management teams are starting to develop baseline Asset Management Plans, including early work on whole of life costs, technical service levels and the implications for capital programme planning. These plans are asset management tools in their own right (not LTP specific products) but they will provide critical input into the formation of the LTP.

5.10 Updates to the AMPs adopted through the 2024 LTP will be formally reflected in the LTP 2027 adoption process, ensuring alignment without compromising their independence or ongoing development.

Information and LTP Documentation will be Accessible and Transparent

5.11 The full suite of LTP documentation will remain transparent to the Mayor and Councillors and the community through the life of the LTP. This will include any updates that may be required by an LTP rates cap, or by the new Council, or arising from the updating of Community Outcomes, strategies, capital prioritisation process, activity plan or level of service review arising from the LTP process that is now being developed for implementation in 2026/27.

A Detailed Level of Service Review will be Undertaken

5.12 The LTP 2021 level of service review process was relatively light, and Council opted to not review levels of service for the LTP 2024. The potential for rates capping and the implications of the broader reforms makes LOS review a much more likely part of the LTP 2027 process.

5.13 The scope of that review remains unknown until the Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill receives assent, the Letter of Expectation is received from the new Council, and parameters of the updated Community Outcomes, FS and IS are understood.

5.14 However, the review must be structured around achievement of agreed Community Outcomes (to avoid ad hoc cherry-picking of LOS) and must engage councillors actively and extensively.

6. LTP Mitigations to Potential Audit Risks

6.1 The LTP project team will engage early with Audit NZ, specifically to test the draft Community Outcomes, Financial Strategy, and Infrastructure Strategy at while they are in development. The project team will also seek assurance that our approach to LTP and asset management alignment are sufficient to meet LGA 2002 requirements.

6.2 Additionally, the Project Sponsor and Project Manager will provide regular monthly progress reporting to Finance & Performance Committee (or equivalent) matched by similar reporting to ARMC on LTP project milestones and risks, including the risks set out above and their mitigations.

6.3 It should be noted that Audit NZ has recently advised that due to the complex nature of reforms additional audit fees may be expected for the 2027 process.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Return to the Council per Recommendations (Attachment A) with a draft project plan and RACI, to ensure that the organisation is ready to work with Council post-election.

7.2 Staff will commence preparation of financial scenarios for the next Annual Plan and draft Long-Term Plan which will address the impacts of local government reform (including a rates cap as foreshadowed by central government) and that these scenarios will be workshopped with the incoming Council. This means clear options for opex reductions and increased revenue, as well as options to reduce the capital programme to a demonstrably deliverable level for both the Annual Plan and Years 1-3 of the LTP. The net impact of these options must place Council’s financial position within the likely or potential impacts of reforms.’

8. CCC Business Unit Consultation

8.1 This report and its Recommendations were approved by ELT (as LTP Steering Group) on 24 July 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	LTP 2027 - Recommendations	25/1582201	311
b ⇩	LTP 2027 - High Level Phasing	25/1479603	312
c ⇩	LTP 2027 - Governance Structure	25/1582202	313

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Tim Ward - Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

11. Development Contributions Policy 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1676373
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Secretarial Note: At its meeting on 20 August 2025 the Council considered the Development Contributions Policy 2025 report (the Policy). During the meeting:

· A Motion (Original Officer Recommendations) to adopt the Policy was Moved by Councillor Coker and Seconded by Councillor McLellan.

· The following amendment to Motion 3 (amending the Policy shown as underlined below) was Moved by Councillor MacDonald and Seconded by Councillor Keown:

3. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report) subject to the following amendments:

a) 3.3.1 Life of existing demand credits

Existing demand credits expire 20 years after the previous development on a site last exerted demand on infrastructure. The Council considers this a reasonable time within which a developer can redevelop a previously used site. If, over the preceding 20 year period, a lot has not been used for either residential or non-residential purposes, the land will be regarded as undeveloped and deemed to have 1 HUE existing demand credit.

b) 3.3.4 Considerations when assessing existing demand credit for non-residential development

Credits will be assessed based on the previous use of the site using the highest level of actual or otherwise verifiable demand from the past 20 years.

c) 3.3.5 Other considerations when assessing existing demand credit for any development

The Council may require a developer to provide supporting information relating to the demand a site previously exerted on Council infrastructure. The decision to accept the accuracy of the information provided by the developer is at the sole discretion of the Council.

d) Agrees to provide a remission for developments assessed under a previous development contributions policy to receive the benefit of the 20-year life of existing demand credits provision, as adopted in Development Contributions Policy 2025. This applies only to developments where Code Compliance Certificate or Section 224c certificate has not been issued.

e) Agrees to cap the per-HUE development contributions charges for properties within the central catchment at 30% of the charges set out in Appendix 1 of the draft Development Contributions Policy.

· A Procedural Motion to let the report lie on the table and be considered at the 27 August 2025 Finance and Performance Committee meeting was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett. This was to enable further information to be provided regarding amendment 3e above. The Procedural Motion was declared carried by way of division.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025.

1.2 The Council has previously received the written and oral submissions on the draft policy and resulting staff advice.

1.3 The Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA’) requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions or financial contributions and to review it every three years. As the Council’s policy was last adopted in 2021, it is due for review.

1.4 An earlier version of this report was first presented at the 24 June 2025 Council meeting. At this meeting, the Council resolved[1] to defer a decision on the draft policy until development contribution rebate schemes could be considered.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Policy 2025 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. Adopts the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Attachment A to this report).

4. Agrees that the Development Contributions Policy 2025 will come into force from 1 September 2025.

5. Delegates to staff to correct any typographical or minor drafting errors in the Development Contributions Policy 2025.

6. Agrees to remit the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous development contributions policy and the Development Contributions Policy 2025 where the total assessment is reduced under the 2025 policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Development contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to provide infrastructure to service growth development. Developers that benefit from growth are charged a development contribution to reflect the principle that growth should pay for growth. If the Council does not collect development contributions that reflect the cost of growth, then any shortfall is paid for by ratepayers.

3.2 Section 102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions or financial contributions. The Development Contributions Policy (‘the policy’) must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. This includes the policy being reviewed at least once every three years.

3.3 The policy has been under review since mid-2023. On 19 February 2025, the Council resolved to commence public consultation on the draft policy[2]. Consultation ran from 25 February to 26 March 2025 and submitters were heard between 3 and 15 April 2025 as part of the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 process.

3.4 A post-consultation workshop was held with the Council on Monday 19 May where submitter feedback and staff advice were discussed. The workshop focused on issues where submitters requested changes to the policy. Elected member feedback has informed the final draft policy that is presented for adoption.

Policy changes reflect principle of averages

3.5 Many of the key policy changes proposed are designed to ensure the development contribution assessment provisions are aligned with the overarching principle of averaging.

3.6 The LGA provides for averaging or grouping of different development types. The policy is built on the assumed average demand for a range of development types and for most developments this averaging will be sufficient to determine a development contribution requirement.

3.7 The policy should only look to adjust when actual demand is either half or double assumed demand. This threshold aligns with the Ryman Healthcare v Auckland Council objection decision. In this decision, the Commissioner accepted that that a 50% threshold was appropriate for demonstrating a substantial reduction in demand.

3.8 The current (2021) policy, however, provides several discounts when this threshold has not been met. The policy does not do the same for developments where actual demand is slightly higher than the averages. This approach has caused revenue leakages because the Council is reducing the development contribution requirements within the averages built into the policy. This means ratepayers are currently subsidising the cost of growth.

Growth projections and charges reflect a return to ‘normal’

3.9 Another change between the current and draft policies is the per-Household Unit Equivalent (‘HUE’) development contributions charges. Development contribution charges are calculated by dividing cost to deliver the growth component of an asset by the number of new or additional households.

3.10 Overall, the charges in the draft policy have increased compared to the 2021 policy, however the 2021 charges were unusually low primarily due to a high rate of growth projected due to post-earthquake population shifts and changes in the district. The growth modelling that underpins the draft policy reflects a ‘return to normal’ growth patterns in the district. Consequently, the draft charges reflect a return to more normal development contributions charges and are in line with the pre-2021 charges.

Clear split in opinions between developers and non-developers

3.11 Forty-four submissions were received on the policy, most from developers or those associated with the development sector. With respect to the policy changes, there is a clear split in views between those submitters who have (developers) and those who have not (non-developers) paid development contributions before. This reflects the choice that the Council must make in deciding whether or not ratepayers should subsidise growth development or growth should pay for growth.

Incorporation of feedback into the draft policy

3.12 Staff have made changes to the draft policy as a result of feedback received from submitters and elected members. The proposed post-consultation changes are outlined in section 10 of this report. A track changes version of the final draft policy is included as Attachment B.

4. Follow up to 24 June Council meeting

4.1 The draft policy was presented for approval at the 24 June Council meeting. At this meeting, the Council resolved[3] to defer a decision on the draft policy until development contribution rebate schemes could be considered.

4.2 Elected members have previously received staff advice that the 2021 policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing towards additional projects approved in the 2024 Long Term Plan (‘LTP’). As development contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes ratepayer funded.

4.3 Development contributions rebate schemes are also ratepayer funded because a rebate is the Council agreeing to waive a development contributions requirement to incentivise a desirable development type. Staff therefore advise that this policy should be adopted if the Council is to agree to any new rebate schemes. Otherwise, the Council would be providing rebates on top of development contributions charges that are currently too low to cover the cost of providing growth infrastructure.

Impact of capital programme deferrals on development contributions

4.4 At the 24 June meeting, elected members discussed the impact on development contributions of an Annual Plan 2025/26 decision to defer $70m worth of capital expenditure. Staff note most of these projects are not growth and are not in the 2025 policy. Any change to development contributions would likely be a very minor because the Council will still collect development contributions for the project as long as it stays in the capital programme.

4.5 Development contributions charges are directly tied to the Council’s investment and projects in the LTP capital programme. The development contributions model factors in when the asset will be delivered as part of the calculation of the charges. The model is designed to ensure total development contributions collected for the growth component of an asset equals the Council’s total costs after accounting for interest and inflation.

4.6 If a project were pushed out into a later LTP year, there may be a minor change to the development contributions charge for that project. The development contributions charge would not necessarily go down if a project is pushed out because the model uses inflation-adjusted capital expenditure figures for future projects.

4.7 If growth projects remain in the capital programme, which these projects do as they have been deferred not removed, staff are obligated to include them in the policy.

4.8 The policy review is not the avenue to add or remove projects from the capital programme. Nor are decisions made in the policy review about what projects will or will not be delivered.

4.9 Further, going forward it is intended to review the schedule of assets in the policy on an annual basis. This will ensure the schedule of assets in the policy remain relatively current.

5. Background/Context Te Horopaki

5.1 Under the LGA the Council is required to have a policy on development contributions (s102(2)(d)) and to review it every three years (s106(6)). The current policy was adopted in July 2021 and a review of the policy is required.

5.2 Development contributions enable the Council to recover a fair share of the cost of providing infrastructure to service growth development from those who benefit from the provision of that investment.

5.3 Development contributions are a cost recovery tool for the growth component of projects agreed to in the capital programme. If the Council did not recover these costs from development contributions, the costs would be recovered from rates.

5.4 The policy details the methodology used to establish development contribution charges per HUE, the resulting cost of those charges, the methodology used to assess a development for the level of development contributions required and various process requirements associated with operating a fair and consistent development contributions process.

6. Policy review process

6.1 Development contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to provide infrastructure to service growth development. The revenue is used to pay down debt taken out to initially fund the investment in growth infrastructure.

6.2 The policy has many discrete inputs, all of which must be reviewed as part of any policy review process. These include residential growth model, business growth model, transport growth model, capital expenditure programmes related to growth, interest and inflation rate forecasts and reviews of the numerous methodologies used as the basis for the calculation and assessment of development contributions.

6.3 In addition, this review process has included reviewing the use of catchments to calculate and assess development contributions. This review has also been an opportunity to evaluate the content and structure of the policy to improve clarity and legibility.

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

Date	Subject
22 November 2024	Draft Development Contributions Policy
13 February 2025	Development Contributions Policy review
3 March 2025	Going for Housing Growth Pillar 2 - Infrastructure Funding and Financing Tools
15 April 2025	Development Contributions Policy Review
23 April 2025	Development Contributions Financial Information
15 May 2025	Development Contributions Rebates
22 May 2025	Development Contributions Policy - follow up to workshop
17 June 2025	Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

6.5 Ten information sessions/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
18 July 2023	Development Contributions Policy Review
28 November 2023	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
30 April 2024	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
13 August 2024	Council's Growth Model: Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme, Parks Network Planning, and Development Contributions
29 October 2024	Development Contributions Policy
26 November 2024	Draft Development Contributions Policy – Draft Charges
4 February 2025	Draft Development Contributions - Catchments
18 March 2025	Changes to infrastructure funding and financing tools
6 May 2025	Development Contributions Rebates
19 May 2025	Development Contributions Policy Review - Summary of Submissions

7. Community Views and Preferences

7.1 In June 2024, early conversations with the Halswell Residents Association were had at their Councillor’s request. This particularly concerned how catchments work and growth components within transport projects.

7.2 Later that month, staff presented to the Property Council New Zealand South Island Regional Committee on all main policy changes. This was to give them a chance to ask questions face-to-face prior to public consultation opening.

7.3 Staff presented on or discussed the draft policy at several Developers’ Forums (as well as sending emails about consultation delays) from mid-2024 until consultation opened. At these meetings there was clear concern about the increase in development contribution costs.

7.4 Public consultation started on 25 February and ran until 26 March 2025.

7.5 Consultation details, including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero mai | Let’s talk webpage were advertised via:

· An email sent to over 420 identified stakeholders, including residents’ associations, developers, interest-groups, and Kōrero mai subscribers who requested to be notified when projects like this opened for feedback. A follow-up email one week before consultation closed was also sent to these stakeholders.

· A Newsline story was published, receiving 469 views. This was shared to Council’s Facebook page, where 10,741 accounts were reached and 1,153 users interacted (commented, interacted, clicked etc.).

· Consultation documents were available at all libraries and service centres.

7.6 The Kōrero mai | Let’s talk page had 1, 504 views throughout the consultation period.

7.7 Staff hosted a webinar on the consultation that was attended by 10 people at the time and has been viewed 126 times since.

Hearing of submissions

7.8 Submissions on the draft policy were heard alongside submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 in April 2025.

7.9 Submissions were heard by the full Council, chaired by the Mayor. The hearing was open to the public and livestreamed on the Council’s website.

Overview of submissions

7.10 Submissions were made by 11 recognised organisations, 18 businesses and 15 individuals. All submissions will be available on the Kōrero mai webpage.

7.11 Of the 44 submitters, 24 (55%) have previously paid development contributions or anticipate paying them within the next three years. 20 (45%) haven’t paid them and don’t expect to.

7.12 Overall, when asked whether submitters supported the Development Contributions Policy Review, 23% (10) said yes, 20% (9) somewhat, 27% (12) said no, and the remaining 30% (13) didn’t know or didn’t answer this question.

A pie chart with text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

7.13 Submitters who have never paid development contributions and don't anticipate doing so were nearly twice as likely to support the policy review. Specifically, 30% of these submitters (6 out of 20) expressed support, compared to 17% of those who have paid (4 out of 24).

7.14 A thematic analysis of submissions is available in section 8.

Council workshop on consultation feedback

7.15 A workshop was held on submissions and proposed post-consultation changes on Monday 19 May.

7.16 At the workshop, elected members were informed on matters related to consultation, feedback from submitters on the draft policy and resulting staff advice. Elected members had the opportunity to provide feedback to staff as to their preferred policy positions and to ask questions and seek clarification on the policy and associated issues.

8. Principles of Setting and Calculating Development Contributions

Background - principles of averaging

8.1 The LGA allows for the use of averaging by development types. This means developments within a development type category will be assessed as having the same level of demand, regardless of individual variations.

8.2 A HUE is the unit of demand used in the policy to calculate development contributions charges and determine the development contributions requirement for each development. A HUE represents the average demand a household places on Council infrastructure and it is assumed that all single households place this level of demand on Council infrastructure. This is an efficient method of assessing development contributions for residential development. Non-residential developments are assessed as a proportion of the HUE.

8.3 The policy assumes the average household contains 2.6 people, which is consistent with the growth modelling used in the LTP 2024-34.

8.4 The base unit measures for the HUE are outlined in clause 3.2.1 of the draft policy and are summarised below. The base units are updated as part of each policy review to ensure an accurate reflection of average household demand.

Activity	Demand per HUE
Water supply	644.30 litres per day
Wastewater	572 litres per day
Stormwater and Flood Protection	367 m²impervious surface area (ISA)
Transport	6.35 vehicle trips per day

Background - Special assessments

8.5 The policy is based on average demand for a range of development types. Development contributions required for non-residential development are calculated as a multiple of the HUE. For the transport, water supply and wastewater activities the development contribution requirement is calculated according to the average demand on infrastructure per square metre of gross floor area (‘GFA’) by business type. For stormwater and flood protection the development contribution is calculated according to the impervious surface area (‘ISA’) of the development. The non-residential HUE equivalences (also referred to as HUE multipliers) are detailed in Part 8 of the draft policy.

8.6 For most developments, the use of the HUE equivalences will be appropriate to determine a development contribution requirement. There will be some developments, however, where actual demand is significantly different to the demand assumptions built into the policy. In these instances, the Council will undertake a special assessment or an actual demand assessment.

8.7 The threshold for a special assessment is when actual demand is half or double what is built into the policy. This aligns with the Ryman Healthcare v Auckland Council objection decision. In this decision, the Commissioner accepted that that a 50% threshold was appropriate for demonstrating a substantial reduction in demand.

8.8 The draft policy did not propose to remove the special assessment provision from the policy. Some submitters appeared to confuse special assessments and remissions, but these are quite different issues in the policy. Issues related to remissions are detailed below.

9. Submission feedback and workshop discussion

Residential unit adjustments

9.1 The Council assesses each residential unit at a base rate of 1 HUE. However, there will be circumstances where actual demand is half or double assumed demand and therefore it is appropriate to provide a residential unit adjustment.

9.2 Providing some kind of adjustment for small and/or large residential units is common across development contributions policies. Councils across New Zealand have taken a range of approaches to providing these adjustments.

9.3 The Council has used GFA to make small residential unit adjustments since 2007. However, there is no data that correlates the GFA of a residential unit with number of usual residents or with demand on infrastructure. In 2024, 45% of building consents were for homes less than 100m². This means the Council is providing a discount for close to half of all new homes, which is not what the policy is intended to do.

9.4 Census data shows that the greater the number of bedrooms in a residential unit the more people are likely living in it. The more usual residents in a residential unit, the greater level of demand on Council services.

Average number of usual residents per dwelling type as at Census 2023

Dwelling type	One bedroom	Two bedrooms	Three bedrooms	Four bedrooms	Five bedrooms	Six bedrooms	Seven bedrooms	Eight bedrooms
Average residents	1.36	1.82	2.56	3.19	3.83	4.80	5.07	5.10

9.5 The draft policy proposes to move to bedroom-based adjustments as a result.

Small residential unit adjustment

9.5.1 What was consulted on: The draft policy proposed moving to a residential unit adjustment based on bedrooms and keeping a small unit adjustment for one-bedroom residential units only. This will ensure that the Council only adjusts for developments that fall outside the assumptions built into the policy.

9.5.2 Feedback from submitters: There were mixed views on change to small unit adjustment. Five submitters supported the change, eight were opposed and three expressed mixed views. Several submitters also requested the Council introduce an adjustment for two-bedroom units. Two submitters asked that the small unit adjustment just be applied to developments in the central city.

9.5.3 Staff advice in workshop: 2023 Census data shows that the average one-bedroom residential unit in Christchurch has 1.36 usual residents living in it. As an average household is 2.6 people, this dwelling type is assumed to put half the average demand on Council infrastructure.

9.5.4 With respect to a two-bedroom adjustment, 2023 Census data confirms that the average two-bedroom residential unit in Christchurch has 1.82 people, which does not meet the threshold for a special assessment under the policy. If a change were to be made, the large residential unit adjustment would need to come down, either to four or five bedrooms, to reflect that an adjustment has been made within the averages and ensure the Council continues to recover the cost of growth from new development. This would increase the administrative complexity of the policy and staff do not recommend making this change.

9.5.5 There is no data that would support having a one-bedroom adjustment just for central city developments.

9.5.6 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the small residential unit adjustment as proposed.

9.5.7 Recommendation for final policy: One-bedroom residential units will be assessed at 0.6 HUE for all activities.

Large residential unit adjustment

9.5.8 What was consulted on: The draft policy introduced a large residential unit adjustment for dwelling types of seven or more bedrooms assessed at 1.4 HUE. This was intended to ensure the development contribution charge better reflects the usually higher demand on infrastructure from larger homes.

9.5.9 Feedback from submitters: There were mixed views on the change to the large residential unit adjustment with two supporting, four opposed and three expressing mixed views. Some submitters questioned whether the threshold should be lower or whether the adjustment should increase with each additional bedroom.

9.5.10 Staff advice in workshop: 2023 Census data shows that the average seven-bedroom residential unit in Christchurch has 5.07 usual residents living in it. As an average household is 2.6 people, this dwelling type is assumed to put double the average demand on Council infrastructure.

9.5.11 Some submitters also asked whether the adjustment could be for 0.4 per additional room. 0.4 HUE is effectively the equivalent of one person so the Council could add 0.4 per additional room for seven bedrooms and over. However, census data does not support this change; eight-bedroom homes have only a slightly higher number of residents compared to seven-bedroom homes. The overall impact of a change like this is likely to be minimal given the small number of dwellings of this size in the district. Therefore, staff did not recommend this change.

9.5.12 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the large residential unit adjustment as proposed.

9.5.13 Recommendation for final policy: Houses with seven or more bedrooms are charged an additional 0.4 HUE for all activities except for stormwater.

Stormwater discounts

9.6 The Council currently provides two reductions for stormwater activity. Both are out of alignment with the special assessment threshold in the policy and the draft proposed changes to bring the assessment of the stormwater activity back into line with the overall principle of averages as discussed in section 7.

Developer provided infrastructure

9.6.1 What was consulted on: The draft policy provides that stormwater reductions will only be provided in instances where developers provide on-site stormwater mitigation and the resulting demand on Council infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in the policy. This would see relatively minor adjustments (such as for the installation of a rainwater tank) cease.

9.6.2 Feedback from submitters: There were mixed views on the proposal to bring stormwater adjustments for developer provided infrastructure into line with the special assessment provisions of the policy as outlined in paragraphs 7.5 – 7.7. Four submitters supported the change, six were opposed and two expressed mixed views

9.6.3 Staff advice in workshop: The change is intended to bring stormwater adjustments into line with the rest of the policy. The Council will still undertake a special assessment if the development exerts a level of demand on infrastructure that will be significantly different from the level of assumed demand in the policy for that type of development.

9.6.1 Staff follow a set methodology to determine degree to which demand on the Council's network has been mitigated by the developer provided infrastructure. Each relevant development is reviewed using this methodology.

9.6.2 Staff note that on occasion, developer-provided infrastructure is vested with the Council, but the assessment receives a stormwater discount of less than 50% due to the level of mitigation provided. Council may consider it fair to include a provision for these sites to still receive a stormwater adjustment due to the asset being vested.

9.6.3 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors expressed concern about increased flood risk as a result of infill development. Staff discussed the strategies, standards and programmes in place to manage stormwater in infill areas.

9.6.4 Recommendation for final policy: In instances where developers provide stormwater infrastructure, a special assessment will be done only when the demand on Council stormwater infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in the policy.

9.6.5 An additional provision is proposed to allow for a reduction in the stormwater development contributions assessment for developments where stormwater infrastructure is vested with the Council regardless of whether the mitigation provided has reached the threshold for a special assessment. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.

Stormwater discount for attached multi-unit developments

9.6.6 What was consulted on: The draft policy proposed the Council cease providing a stormwater discount for developments with at least two attached multi-units on this basis that the ISA averages built into the policy already takes into account smaller residential units and changing development patterns.

9.6.7 All base unit demand assumptions have been updated as part of this review. Average ISA per site (parcel) has been reduced from 427m² to 367m² as a result. This reflects the changing development patterns and increased intensification.

9.6.8 A special assessment would still be triggered if the threshold is met in line with the special assessment provisions of the policy.

9.6.9 Feedback from submitters: Ten submitters commented on the proposal to remove the multi-unit adjustment for stormwater. Submitters presented mixed views - two supported the change, five opposed it and three expressed a mixed view.

9.6.10 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors expressed concern about increased flood risk as a result of infill development and questioned whether there should be any discounts provided for multi-unit developments.

9.6.11 Staff advice in workshop: Staff noted that under the broader principles of the policy, the Council would still need to provide some kind of actual demand assessment for developments where actual ISA was less than half of the ISA assumptions built into the policy. Staff suggested a compromise would be to change the provision so that if the special assessment threshold is met, multi-unit developments will be assessed as though the entire site is impervious (as opposed to using the ISA stated on the plans).

9.6.12 Recommendation for final policy: The assessment for the stormwater activity will be undertaken using the HUE multipliers outlined in paragraph 7.4 of this report. If the assessment results in assumed demand (ISA) that is more than double the area of the development site, the development site will instead be assessed as though it is 100% impervious. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.

Remissions

9.7 What was consulted on: The current policy includes a clause that provides for the Council to remit some or all development contribution charges for a development in “unique and compelling circumstances”. The original intent of this clause was to allow for the Council to address a matter directly associated with the development contributions charge. The clause is being used more widely with developers appealing to the Council to remit development contributions charges for a range of reasons including that the organisation applying provides services to the community.

9.8 The remission provision was removed from the draft policy.

9.9 An alternative remission provision was also drafted and included in the consultation material. The alternative clause clarified that it is the development itself (not the developer or future occupier of the site) that must be unique, and that the development must be sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development contribution requirement does not create a new precedent.

9.10 Feedback from submitters: Thirteen submitters commented on the removal of the remissions provision. There were mixed views on removing remission clause with some submitters confusing remissions and special assessments, and some confusing remissions and rebates. Submitters did not express a preference for one remission clause over the other.

9.11 Staff advice in workshop: The term ‘remission’ is used differently by different councils in their development contributions policies. The Council's policy uses the term ‘remission’ to refer to the Council intervening on a development contributions assessment when there is something about the development that has not been considered in drafting the policy and therefore the Council considers it necessary to address an aspect of the assessment via a remission.

9.12 However, many councils use the term 'remission' to refer to an actual demand remission - where demand is materially different to the assumed demand built into the policy. The Council's policy refers to this as a special assessment.

9.13 There is no proposal to remove the ability for developers to seek a special assessment (or actual demand assessment) provided that the threshold is met (of actual demand being half assumed demand).

9.14 Noting the feedback received on remissions, more generally, staff proposed the Council adopt the inclusion of the alternative remission clause.

9.15 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the proposal to use the alternative remission clause.

9.16 Recommendation for final policy: The alternative remission clause be included in the policy. This is wording is outlined in section 10 of this report.

Life of existing demand credits

9.17 What was consulted on: The Council position has been to limit the life of existing use credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired in the last four years on buildings and sites of former buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes – particularly in the central city. This issue was reconsidered as part of this review and the policy retained the ten-year life of existing demand credits.

9.18 Feedback from submitters: Ten submitters commented on the life of existing demand credits. Eight submitters asked that the life of credits clause be extended either to 20 years or indefinitely. Two submitters supported retention of the current provision.

9.19 Staff advice in workshop: There is no explicit requirement under the LGA to provide existing demand credits. The Department of Internal Affairs provides guidance[4] on developing development contributions policies. While the guidance does not provide direction of how to set existing demand credit policy provisions, it does contemplate that councils might limit the life of credits based on when previous demand was exerted on a site

“The DCP should specify conditions that must be met before historic credits will be granted. Commonly used criteria relate to:

· The land or building currently generating a demand for the relevant service, possibly setting limits on how far back in time the council will look to consider previous development and uses. The land or building currently generating a demand for the relevant service, possibly setting limits on how far back in time the council will look to consider previous development and uses”.

9.20 The purpose of existing demand credits is to recognise that development may not result in additional demand on infrastructure. Therefore, only net additional demand attracts a development contribution requirement.

9.21 The Council provides credits to assess for net additional demand, promote equity and encourage timely redevelopment.

9.22 The LGA requires the Council to manage its infrastructure assets in a way that promotes prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of assets. Providing existing demand credits requires the Council to effectively “reserve” infrastructure capacity and guarantee infrastructure capacity (which developers would not be required to pay for) for the life of the credits. This creates increased risk for Council the longer the credit is in place but unused.

9.23 Managing that risk would require the Council to operate its infrastructure in such a way as to always carry capacity sufficient to honour the credits. This means infrastructure would need to have a high level of unused capacity sitting waiting for redevelopment to again take up capacity once used at some point in the past. This is not an efficient or prudent way to manage infrastructure and will result in other ratepayers carrying the cost of having that capacity available.

9.24 In terms of actual asset planning, the Council does not reserve capacity – capacity operates on a first-in-first-served basis. Once a site stops exerting demand on Council infrastructure, that capacity is diverted elsewhere. Therefore, the policy is more generous than asset planning. Existing demand credits are a concession the Council makes in a funding policy only.

9.25 The current policy setting, where existing demand credits expire after ten years strikes a balance between managing infrastructure capacity wisely, being fair to ratepayers in that a liability to provide infrastructure to service these lots is not in place forever and being fair to developers in recognising that development has occurred on a site previously.

9.26 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, a question was asked about the rationale to limit the life of existing demand credits and what approaches were taken by other councils. Staff advised that other councils have taken a range of approaches from providing no existing demand credits through to providing for credits to have a perpetual life.

9.27 Staff also noted that walking back a change to existing demand credits would be very difficult and advised that a rebate scheme would be a sensible way to deal with central city sites. Work on a rebate for existing demand credits is being progressed separately.

9.28 Recommendation for final policy: Existing demand credits expire 10 years after a site last exerts demand on Council infrastructure.

Fee for development contributions assessments

9.29 What was consulted on: The draft policy included a provision for the Council to charge a fee for development contributions assessments.

9.30 Feedback from submitters: Submitters presented mixed views on the Council charging a fee for development contributions assessments. Seven submitters were opposed, although several submitters appear to be mistaking the fee for the Development Contributions Team to complete an assessment with development contributions charges. Six were supportive of the proposal.

9.31 Staff advice in workshop: The proposed fee for development contributions assessments is a one-off, flat fee charged at invoicing. It was included in the draft Annual Plan 2025/26 fees and charges and is $100 including GST.

9.32 The fee remains the same regardless of how many times a developer or their agent contacts the Development Contributions Team or whether the assessment is amended or revised. The Development Contributions Team time is not charged for as part of a building and/or resource consent application; it is currently paid for by rates only.

9.33 It is fair that the cost of preparing a development contributions assessment is funded by the developer because they both benefit from the assessment of their development and cause the assessment to be required through submitting their development for consent.

9.34 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no further guidance on the fee for development contributions assessments as proposed.

9.35 Recommendation for final policy: At the time of invoicing, a fee to cover the cost for the Council to administer the development contribution assessment will be invoiced alongside the development contribution requirement. The development contribution assessment fee is set out in the Council’s schedule of fees and charges.

HUE equivalences/multipliers

9.36 What was consulted on: A range of changes have been made to the HUE equivalences or HUE multipliers, most notably the policy reverts to using a land or activity-based methodology for transport activities. The HUE equivalences cover a range of land-use types and are outlined in Part 8 of the policy (Tables 4, 6 and 8).

9.37 Feedback from submitters: Three submitters opposed the proposed HUE equivalences for residential units and care suites in retirement villages. One submitter opposed the changes to activity-based HUE multipliers. Another submitter requested all non-residential assessments be conducted as actual demand assessments.

9.38 Staff advice in workshop: The retirement village HUE equivalences are based on stated average occupancy of 1.3 in a unit in an objection to the Council in addition to the Ryman objection decision. Staff have previously completed a survey of all retirement villages and confirmed the average water use was accurate and are therefore comfortable with this HUE equivalence.

9.39 It was also noted the retirement village community facilities are not assessed for development contributions and these facilities are assessed as ancillary to the residential spaces.

9.40 Staff agreed with submitters that residential units in retirement villages could be assessed at 0.1 HUE for the reserves activity.

9.41 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, staff were asked why industrial, and warehousing and logistics development types were separated in the policy. Staff advised the decision was made to separate the industrial and warehousing/logistics categories, recognising the growth in warehouse-based activities and the differing demands these sectors place on land use and Council services.

9.42 Recommendation for final policy: Residential units to be assessed at 0.1 HUE for the reserves activity. Several clarifications are recommended for Table 4 of the policy; these are outlined in section 10 of the report. No other changes recommended for the HUE equivalence or land-use types.

Active Travel and Public Transport catchments

9.43 What was consulted on: No changes were proposed to the Active Travel and Public Transport catchments between the current and draft policies.

9.44 Feedback from submitters: One submitter requested the public transport catchment be amended to include Marshland Road. One submitter requested that Templeton be included in the active travel catchment.

9.45 One submitter felt that Lyttleton should be excluded from active travel.

9.46 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May workshop, councillors asked why Marshlands Road was excluded from the Active Travel catchment and why Templeton was not part of the Public Transport catchment.

9.47 Recommendation for final policy: Staff have made small changes to the Active Travel and Public Transport catchments to reflect submitter and elected member feedback. The final catchment maps are included in Appendix 3 of the policy.

9.48 As active travel includes footpaths and cycleways, it is fair Lyttleton is included in this catchment.

Development contributions charges

9.49 Feedback from submitters: Some developers submitted that the increase in charges may impact the viability of developments and affordability of new homes.

9.50 Staff advice: Development contributions is a cost recovery tool for the growth component of projects that are in the Council’s capital programme. Development contribution charges are calculated by dividing cost to the growth component of an asset by projected growth.

9.51 The overall capital programme increased from $5.78B in 2021 to $6.51B in 2024. The cost of the growth component of those projects also increased – from $730M in 2021 to $923M in 2024.

9.52 The 2024 growth forecast has a slower rate of growth in all aspects compared to 2021 (an average 0.52% per annum over 30 years compared to 2.06% in 2021). Growth projections that informed the 2021 policy were significantly higher than in the previous policies due to post-earthquake population shifts and changes in the district. Statistics New Zealand’s projections that have informed the 2025 policy reflect the ‘return to normal’ growth patterns in the district.

9.53 The increase in growth capital expenditure, combined with slower growth projections compared to the 2021 LTP, has resulted in development contributions charges that are higher than in the 2021 policy. These charges are, however, in line with pre-2021 charges.

9.54 While the charges in the 2025 policy have increased compared to the 2021 policy, the 2021 charges were unusually low. If Council were to set development contributions lower than what is contained in this policy this would require ratepayers across the district to meet the cost of the foregone revenue.

9.55 Workshop discussion: At the 19 May 2025 workshop, councillors provided no feedback on the development contributions charges.

9.56 Recommendation for final policy: Development contributions charges are outlined in Appendix 1 of the policy.

10. Submitter feedback on issues not discussed at workshop

Neighbourhood Parks and Road Network catchments

10.1 What was consulted on: The policy proposed to move the neighbourhood parks and road network catchments from a concentric configuration to localised catchments.

10.2 Feedback from submitters: There was overall support for the move to localised catchments, but some submitters requested that the catchments be made smaller.

10.3 Staff advice: Smaller catchments increase the complexity of developing and operating the policy and the range of per-HUE charges across those catchments also tends to increase, which may have unintended consequences for funding growth. Some small catchments may pay very high, targeted contributions, while others may pay very low contributions, depending on how the catchments are drawn.

10.4 Additionally, the risk of under-recovering the cost of growth infrastructure increases with smaller catchments especially if modelling has not allocated growth in the correct places. Overall, the smaller the catchments, the greater the risk of error in the policy. This risk is reflected in the number and size of the catchments for these activities.

10.5 Recommendation for final policy: No changes to Neighbourhood Parks and Road Network catchments

Three Waters catchments

10.6 What was consulted on: The policy proposed to move to fewer and larger catchments for the three waters activities.

10.7 Feedback from submitters: There was mixed support for these catchments, with two opposed, two supportive and one suggesting sub-catchments may be required.

10.8 Staff advice: Before 2021, water supply and wastewater activities were grouped into a district-wide catchment. The 2025 policy proposes to return to larger catchments for these activities to address several issues.

10.8.1 Nature of water infrastructure in the district: The Council has a unique integrated water network which isn’t necessarily reflected in our current catchments. The new catchments better reflect the Council’s integrated delivery of water services. Additionally, infrastructure within the urban catchment is interconnected within the city and three waters projects generally benefit the related wider infrastructure network.

10.8.2 Unpredictable growth and need to be responsive: The Council’s capital spending for growth-related three waters infrastructure will need to become more dynamic, reacting to patterns of intensification. Around two-thirds of all new residential development is occurring in infill areas, and it is likely this trend will continue. There is a lack of certainty with respect to where that growth is going to occur

10.8.3 Whilst three waters infrastructure plans consider growth for the next 50 years, LTP growth funding is allocated 10 years in advance with specific projects identified every three years. Development contributions based on smaller catchments may cause under collection for growth provision not yet ring-fenced in the LTP. Furthermore, because infrastructure plans are not fully aligned with the LTP funding period, there may be misalignment when LTP provision has not yet been made for development triggering upgrades. A grouped catchment will ensure that development contributions are collected from all new development on a fair and equitable basis.

10.9 Recommendation for final policy: No changes to Three Waters catchments

Pause review

10.10 Feedback from submitters: A number of submitters suggested the Council pause the review the of the Development Contributions Policy with some submitters stating development levies would be coming in in September 2025 and implying the draft policy, if adopted, would only be in effect for a few months. This is not correct. The Government has indicated legislation will be introduced in September 2025 and will be enacted by mid-2026. Levies will come into effect from mid-2027.

10.11 Staff advice: Until new legislation is enacted, councils have a legislative requirement to have a policy on development contributions and to review it every three years. The Council’s current Development Contributions Policy was adopted in July 2021, and it is due for review.

10.12 The current policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing towards additional projects approved in the 2024 LTP. As development contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes ratepayer funded.

10.13 Recommendation for review: Staff do not recommend the policy review be paused.

Other comments made during hearing of submissions

Accuracy of technical inputs

10.14 During the hearing of submissions, some submitters questioned the accuracy of the cost allocations/capital programme.

Growth projections

10.14.1 The growth inputs for the policy are based on the Statistics New Zealand medium population and household growth scenarios. This is consistent with past development contributions policies. Christchurch has historically tracked very closely to the medium projections, and they remain a good indication of future growth.

10.14.2 The Council’s growth models are used to distribute future growth to a sub-city level. These models are all connected and talk to each other, to tell a consistent growth story. The growth models have been peer-reviewed by external agencies and have been found to be fit for purpose

10.14.3 The models consider both intensification and greenfield development. The capacity inputs into the model include a picture of both infill and greenfield capacity.

Cost allocations for capital projects

10.14.4 The cost allocation process, which identifies the growth component of each asset is outlined in Part 6 of the draft policy. Council staff review each capital project and determine the allocation of cost drivers: renewal, backlog, increase in current level of service or growth. Only the cost of infrastructure to service growth is funded from development contributions. The cost allocation methodology takes account of causation (the reason the asset is being provided), as well as who benefits from the project. The methodology to determine the exact allocation between the cost drivers varies between the activities.

10.14.5 The capital programme, and the projects to be delivered for which the Council collects development contributions, has been informed by the 2024 growth model. The cost allocations for projects not yet delivered, therefore, reflect projected growth. Projects that have already been delivered (that is, are noted as 'complete' in the Schedule of Assets) remain unchanged.

Trigger to assess for development contributions

10.15 One submitter commented that the Council has an incorrect trigger to assess for development contributions in the draft policy.

10.16 Section 198(2A) of the LGA requires councils assess for development contributions under the policy in force at the time the consent/authorisation application was submitted, accompanied by all required information. Section 4.1.3 confirms the Council will assess using the policy in force at the time the complete application for consent is received.

10.17 The developer will be formally notified of their development contribution requirement as part of the granting of the consent application.

11. Incorporation of feedback into the draft policy

11.1 The consultation and hearing process allowed submitters to share their insights, comments and suggestions with the Council about the policy proposals. As a result of these considerations, staff have incorporated the following items into the draft policy:

11.1.1 Clause 3.2.4 (4): “The development provides infrastructure to be vested with the Council, which reduces the impact of the development’s demand on Council stormwater infrastructure, prior to discharge into the Council network”.

11.1.2 Clause 3.2.5: “Residential units in retirement villages and care suites are assessed for development contributions as set out in Table 4”.

11.1.3 Clause 5.6: “The Council considers that there may be a development that is so unique it has not been anticipated by the policy, so much so that the Council considers the full development contribution assessment to be unfair and unable to be remedied under the provision of a special assessment.

The development, itself, must be sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development contribution requirement would not create a new precedent in terms of the Council’s current interpretation and application of the policy.

In these cases, the Council may, at its sole discretion, consider and grant a full or partial remission of development contributions in cases where it is satisfied this threshold has been met.

The developer must write to the Chief Executive seeking a remission and explaining how the development has met this threshold and why the Council should grant a full or partial remission in the interest of fairness. The explanation must be specific to the development (not the developer or intended future occupier) and the features of the development that make it unique”.

11.1.4 Table 4: Footnote: “Community facilities within a retirement village for the predominant use of residents and their guests are not subject to a development contribution requirement”.

11.1.5 Table 4: 0.1 HUE reserve assessment for retirement units.

11.1.6 Table 4: Care suites are not charged for the community infrastructure activity.

11.2 At the 19 May 2025 workshop, elected members expressed concern about providing discounts for attached multi-unit developments, citing the importance of stormwater infrastructure in managing the impact of increased intensification in infill areas. The following has been added to the draft policy:

11.2.1 3.2.2.5: “Developments of two or more attached residential units on a single lot will be assessed for the stormwater and flood protection based on the HUE rates outlined in section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. If assessed HUEs result in ISA that is more than double the area of the development site, the development site will instead be assessed as though it is 100% impervious”.

11.3 On review of the final draft policy, staff considered the wording of 3.2.4 could be amended to better reflect the description of the tables contained in Part 8 of the policy.

11.3.1 Clause 3.2.4: Where a development is not consistent with the land use or business type as detailed in Part 8 of the policy the Council may require a special assessment for development contributions for the activities considered to be outside the expected demand. Situations where this may be required include:

1. Where the type of development proposed is not adequately covered by Tables 4, 6 and 8.

2. Where the demand for an activity from the development is expected to be more than double the value identified as average for that type of development as set out in Tables 4, 6 and 8.

……

A developer may ask the Council to consider undertaking a special assessment if:

The development is expected to place less than half the assumed demand on infrastructure for the value identified as average for that type of development as set out in Tables 4, 6 and 8.

12. Transitional provision

12.1 Staff note the policy may result in lower development contributions charges for some Akaroa Harbour developments compared to the 2021 policy. Charges for Akaroa Harbour under the 2021 policy are $68,189.73 including GST compared to $44,083.25 including GST under the 2025 policy.

12.2 Section 198 (2A) of the LGA requires the Council to undertake its assessment of development contribution requirement under the development contributions policy in place at the time it receives a complete application for resource consent, building consent or authorisation to connect to Council infrastructure.

12.3 Given the difference in the development contributions requirements in Akaroa between the two policies, there is risk that developers may surrender consents and then reapply for consent to trigger a new development contribution assessment under the 2025 policy. This is an inefficient use of Council consenting resources.

12.4 Clause 4.1.5 of the policy provides for a remission of the difference in cost between a development contributions assessment undertaken under a previous policy and the 2025 policy where the charge is less under the 2025 policy. A remission is only available where the developer could lawfully surrender a resource consent or building consent and reapply for consent and thereby trigger a requirement for a new development contribution assessment under the 2025 policy.

12.5 The development would still be assessed under the provisions of the relevant policy in accordance with section 198(2A) of the LGA, it would just receive the benefit of the lower per-HUE charge.

13. Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

13.1.1 Adopt the draft policy.

13.1.2 Decline to adopt the policy.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

13.2 Preferred Option: Adopt the draft policy.

13.2.1 Option Description: The Council would resolve to adopt the draft policy.

13.2.2 Option Advantages

· Complies with legislative requirements and ensures development contributions charges accurately reflect current capital costs required to service growth development. It also provides an opportunity to make updates to the policy provisions.

13.2.3 Option Disadvantages

· Charges would increase for most development types under the new charges. However, these new charges accurately reflect the cost to Council to service growth infrastructure.

13.3 Decline to adopt the policy.

13.3.1 Option Description: The Council would resolve to not adopt the draft policy and direct staff to continue working on the review.

13.3.2 Option Advantages

· This option would benefit developers who would continue to be assessed for development contributions under the 2021 policy, which contains significantly lower than average charges.

13.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· The 2021 development contributions charges do not accurately reflect the Council’s current costs to service growth development. This option therefore disadvantages ratepayers who would cover the difference between the Council’s actual costs to provide growth infrastructure and the charges developers are paying under the current policy.

· This does not comply with the legislative requirement to review the policy every three years.

14. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

14.1 Cost to Implement – The cost of reviewing the policy and undertaking community engagement is funded through existing operational budgets. This work has been undertaken over more than one year and is funded as a general cost of business rather than a discrete cost attributed to the project.

14.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Annual policy and administration costs vary depending on the policy work required and the level of development needing to be assessed.

14.3 Funding Source – The cost of preparing and administering the policy comes from the general rate. The policy proposes to charge an administration fee at invoicing stage to cover some of the costs associated with administering this policy. In the previous 12 months, 900 development contributions invoices were issued, so the anticipated revenue associated with this fee is around $90,000.

15. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

15.1 Development contributions can be a litigious area of local government activity often with significant financial implications for developers and councils. Because of this there is a significant body of case law regarding what can and cannot be done under the provisions of a development contributions policy.

15.2 As with any decision made by the Council, there is a risk of judicial review. The policy (or parts of it) could be quashed by the High Court if the policy is challenged and the Court finds the decisions made relating to the policy are unlawful or procedurally unfair. This is a risk of any decision made by Council, but one that can be minimised as much as possible by ensuring that the policy has been through a stringent review process and that the Council adheres to an appropriate and fair consultation process.

15.3 The Council’s Legal Services Team has provided advice throughout the policy development process including full review of the proposed policy to ensure the review and resulting policy reflect legislative requirements.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

15.4.1 Section 102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions.

15.4.2 The policy must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Council to review its development contributions policy at least once every three years.

15.5 Other Legal Implications:

15.5.1 This report and the policy have been reviewed and approved by the Council’s Legal Services Team.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

15.6 The required decisions:

15.6.1 Do align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, particularly the strategic priorities to manage ratepayers' money wisely and actively balance the needs of today's residents with the needs of future generations.

15.6.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by importance of the policy to the wider community who are largely unaffected (low significance) and to property developers of Christchurch district (medium significance) who are directly affected through the requirement to pay development contributions.

15.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular the decisions support the Council’s approach to funding the provision of infrastructure to service growth development outlined in the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

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

15.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

15.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

15.9 Consultation on the draft policy was undertaken in in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of the LGA. Consultation and submitter feedback is outlined in section 6 of this report.

15.10 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

15.13 This is a funding policy. The Council had a development contributions rebate scheme for Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga developments, but the rebate scheme sits outside the scope of this policy.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

15.16 The policy details how the Council will fund infrastructure to service growth development. Climate change considerations are dealt with outside the scope of this policy.

16. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

16.1 If adopted by the Council, the policy will come into effect from 1 September 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (Under Separate Cover)	25/1145731
b ⇨	Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025 (with track changes) (Under Separate Cover)	25/1145732

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

12. Development Contributions Rebate Schemes
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1677128
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst Hannah Ballantyne, Senior Engagement Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Secretarial Note: At its meeting on 20 August 2025 the Council considered the Development Contributions Policy 2025 report (the Policy) (refer to Item 7 of the Council Agenda). During the consideration of the Policy a Procedural Motion was Moved by the Mayor and Seconded by Councillor Scandrett, to let both the Policy report and the Development Contributions Rebate Schemes report lie on the table and be considered at the 27 August 2025 Finance and Performance Committee meeting. When put to the vote the Procedural Motion was declared carried by way of division.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Council of the outcome of the engagement taken on development contributions rebate schemes for development in the central city, and for the Council to make a decision whether to adopt the schemes.

1.2 The first scheme provides a rebate for the expired existing demand credits on central city sites where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024. There is an option for the Council to extend this to all sites within the Four Avenues.

1.3 The second scheme provides a rebate for central city development, where the residential component comprises at least six storeys.

1.4 This work has been undertaken to respond to a request from elected members indicating an interest in considering rebate schemes alongside the review of the Development Contributions Policy. The schemes reflect the preferences indicated by elected members in workshops with staff.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Development Contributions Rebate Schemes Report.

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

3. Agrees to adopt the existing demand credit rebate scheme (Attachment A of this report).

4. Agrees to adopt the central city high density residential rebate scheme (Attachment B of this report).

5. Delegates to the General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services authority to approve the final scheme criteria documents to reflect any changes requested.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Development Contributions Rebate Policy (‘rebate policy’) enables the Council to implement rebate schemes to help achieve certain strategic development goals.

3.2 The Development Contributions Policy (‘the policy’) has been under review since mid-2023. During briefings and workshops on the policy review, elected members expressed an interest in new development contributions rebate schemes alongside the adoption of the new policy.

3.3 Elected members provided guidance to staff on their rebate preferences on Tuesday 6 May and Monday 19 May 2025. As a result, two draft rebates were prepared:

· The existing demand credits rebate scheme provides a rebate for the expired existing demand credits on sites within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024.

· The central city high density residential rebate scheme provides a rebate for development within the Four Avenues of the central city, where the residential component comprises at least six storeys.

3.4 These proposed rebates reflect the Council’s strategic goals of a vibrant central city that is attractive to residents, visitors and investors.

3.5 On Wednesday 18 June 2025, the Council resolved[5] to commence consultation on the draft schemes. Consultation ran from 23 June to 14 July 2025. Forty submissions were received on the proposed schemes.

3.6 The Council heard from submitters on Tuesday 5 August 2025. At this meeting, elected members also discussed the feedback and proposed schemes with staff. As there was no consensus with respect to elected member views, the proposed schemes are presented for consideration without amendment.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) enables councils to charge development contributions to help fund infrastructure to service growth development. Development contribution requirements must be consistent with the provisions of the LGA. This requires a consistent and transparent approach to be taken in setting a development contributions requirement and there is very little scope for adjustments to meet the Council’s strategic development goals.

4.2 As a result, the Council’s rebate policy was established in 2015 to enable the Council to promote its strategic objectives by establishing rebate schemes for strategically desirable development types.

4.3 The rebate policy has several key principles to be considered when setting schemes including:

· A rebate scheme will only be considered where there is a clearly identified benefit to the wider community. For example, to encourage development to occur faster or on a larger scale than it would without a rebate scheme in place.

· Rebate schemes should not be used solely to address issues of affordability for the developer.

· Development contributions rebates are to address specific situations for a finite period of time.

· Any rebate scheme should be as user-friendly for the developer as possible while being as efficient as possible for the Council to administer.

4.4 A rebate is the waiving of development contributions. The LGA does not allow councils to require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it. Development contribution rebates therefore must be treated as revenue foregone by the Council and are funded by rates.

Development Contributions Policy and rebate schemes

4.5 Rebates sit outside the policy and are only intended to encourage certain development types. They are not designed to ‘fix’ elements of the policy and their existence should not be perceived as such. While elected members have asked for rebates to be considered alongside the policy, staff advice is that the two are separate matters.

4.6 Elected members have previously received staff advice that the 2021 policy does not reflect the Council’s actual costs to deliver growth infrastructure. Developers are currently paying development contributions based on significantly outdated costs and are not contributing towards additional projects approved in the 2024 Long Term Plan (LTP).

4.7 As development contributions are a one-off payment and councils cannot require other developers to pay for infrastructure capacity that has been taken up by a development that has not paid for it, the difference in revenue becomes ratepayer funded.

4.8 Staff do not recommend adopting development contributions rebates schemes without adopting the 2025 policy. To do so would mean the Council is undercutting its development contributions revenue twice – first by continuing with unusually low charges and then by waiving development contributions requirements on top of that.

4.9 If the policy is adopted with any amendments extending the expiry of existing demand credits, then the rebate scheme would become superfluous, and staff recommend that the rebate scheme for expired existing demand credits in the central city not be adopted.

5. Proposed rebate schemes

Rebate for expired existing demand credits in central city (Attachment A)

5.1 The Council provides existing demand credits to assess for net additional demand, promote equity and encourage timely redevelopment. The Council’s position has been to limit the life of existing demand credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired on sites of buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes – particularly in central Christchurch.

5.2 The Council has limited the life of existing demand credits since 2006. Initially existing demand credits had a life of five years and had to have been paid for. In 2007, the Council rewrote the policy with a working group of councillors and developers. The expiry of credits was then changed to ten years and the requirement removed for development contributions to have been paid for previously.

5.3 The policy does not require development contributions to have been paid in order for a site to receive the benefit of the credits and sites developed pre-2004 were not required to pay development contributions at the time of construction.

Consulted scheme criteria

5.4 The proposed scheme is for any development within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on the lot on or after 1 March 2024. Staff also consulted on extending the scheme to all sites with the Four Avenues.

5.5 The rebate is for the existing demand credits on the site, assessed based on the previous use of the site using the highest level of actual or otherwise verifiable demand between 3 September 2010 and 3 September 2020. Essentially, the scheme provides developers with the credits that were sitting on the development site the day before the first earthquake on 4 September 2010.

5.6 It is proposed the total funding limit of the scheme is $5 million and for the scheme to expire on 30 June 2027 or when the total scheme funding is fully allocated. This intended to align with the introduction of development levies and encourage timely uptake. Rebates schemes can be extended by Council resolution.

Rebate for six storey residential development in central city (Attachment B)

5.7 The Council has set an ambition to have 20,000 central city residents by 2028. The current estimated population is 9,160[6]. The Council has a range of Plans, Strategies and programmes of work intended to facilitate an increase in the number of central city residents.

5.8 The Council has also set the goal to create a range of housing choices, including high density housing. This is reflected in Project 8011 and the South-East Central Neighbourhood Plan.

5.9 Despite the progress of residential development in the central city, there remains a lack of higher density residential development typologies with developers currently preferring attached townhouse and lower-rise apartment developments.

5.10 The proposed scheme is intended to encourage higher density residential development in the central city. Higher density housing could boost population growth in this area.

Consulted scheme criteria

5.11 The proposed scheme is for any residential development within the Four Avenues of the central city. The residential development, or residential component, must comprise of at least six storeys.

5.12 The rebate is for 100 per cent of the development contribution requirement.

5.13 Because the purpose of the rebate is to support more permanent residents in the central city, the draft rebate excludes any property used for any purpose other than residential, including short term guest accommodation. The developer will be required to register a covenant on each title to limit the use of residential units within the development to residential use only.

5.14 It is proposed the total funding limit of the scheme is $2 million. The scheme will expire on 30 June 2027 or when the total scheme funding is fully allocated. This intended to align with the introduction of development levies. Rebates schemes can be extended by Council resolution.

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

Date	Subject
15 May 2025	Development Contribution Rebates
17 June 2025	Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

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

Date	Subject
6 May 2025	Development Contributions Rebate Schemes
19 May 2025	Development Contributions Policy - workshop on submissions and post-consultation changes and Development Contributions Rebate Schemes

6. Options analysis

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

6.1.1 Introduce a rebate for the value of expired existing demand credits in the central city.

6.1.2 Introduce a rebate for residential develop with six or more stories in the central city.

6.1.3 Do not introduce any rebate schemes.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.2 Option One: Introduce a rebate for the value of expired existing demand credits in the central city.

· Option Description: The proposed scheme is for any development within the Four Avenues of the central city where the existing structure was in place on or after 1 March 2024.

· Option Advantages

· Could encourage timely redevelopment of final central city sites that are pending redevelopment.

· Allows the Council to be targeted in the outcomes of the scheme by focussing on unrepaired buildings that may be considered unsightly and impact negatively on the perceptions of the central city.

· Option Disadvantages

· Depending on the funding limit agreed by the Council, a rebate would result in between $5 million and $30 million loss of development contribution revenue or funding for the Council, which will be subsidised by ratepayers.

· This scheme excludes sites that have been demolished already, and some developers may consider that it unfairly penalises developers who cleared their sites while rewarding others that did not.

6.3 Option Two: Introduce a rebate for residential development with six or more storeys in the central city.

· Option Description: The proposed scheme is for any residential development, comprising at least six storeys, within the Four Avenues of the central city.

· Option Advantages

· Could encourage greater residential intensification of the central city.

· Supports the development of a residential typology that has had poor uptake in the city.

· Supports the Council’s goal to increase the number of permanent residents in the central city.

· Option Disadvantages

· Depending on the funding limit agreed by the Council, a rebate would result in between $2 million and $10 million loss of development contribution revenue or funding for the Council, which will be subsidised by ratepayers.

· The requirement of the covenant to restrict short stay accommodation could result in low uptake of the scheme.

6.4 Option Three: Do not adopt any new rebate schemes.

· Option Description: The Council could decide not to adopt any new rebate schemes.

· Option Advantages

· The Council would not forgo any development contributions revenue.

· Option Disadvantages

· The Council would miss an opportunity to encourage and support desired development types in the central city.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

7.1 Funding Source – The funding for the schemes is development contribution revenue foregone rather than budgeted expenditure. This results in the Council’s borrowing requirement increasing, due to the lost capital revenue. The greater the funding limit of the schemes, the greater the impact on rates.

7.2 Cost to Implement – The cost to implement and administer the rebate scheme will come from existing operational budgets.

7.3 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The ongoing costs of the schemes relate to the foregoing of development contribution revenue. This revenue would have been used to reduce new borrowing required in the provision of infrastructure to service growth development. The cost incurred accumulates as the scheme funding is drawn on.

7.4 The estimated impact on rates has been based on the scheme limits as consulted on and is outlined in the table below.

	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
DC Rebate Drawdown	$2.0m	$3.0m	$2.0m	$0.0m
DC Rebate Rates Impact	0.01%	0.02%	0.02%	0.01%

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 Risk – The draw down on the available funding is quicker than expected and exhausts available funds.

8.2 Mitigation – Staff will monitor the uptake of the schemes. If required, the Council or Finance and Performance Committee could approve an extension of the funding limit.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

· The Council requires development contributions in accordance with sections 102, 106 and 197AA-211 of the LGA.

· The Development Contributions Rebate Policy enables the Council to establish development contributions rebate schemes for strategically desirable development types.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.4 The required decisions:

8.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework in particular the community outcome to be a thriving and prosperous city.

8.4.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected, financial cost of the schemes and difficulty in reversing the decision once made.

8.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Development Contribution Rebate Policy provides for the Council to adopt rebate schemes for strategically desirable development types.

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

8.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

· Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.7 On 5 June 2025 a memo was sent to the Development Forum members regarding the proposed rebate schemes and consultation timelines.

8.8 Consultation started on 23 June and ran until 14 July 2025.

8.9 Consultation details including links to the project information shared on the Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk webpage were advertised via:

8.10 An email sent to 430 identified stakeholders, including followers of the Development Contributions Policy Review consultation, developers, residents’ associations, and subscribers to Kōrero mai who elected to be notified when consultations of this nature open.

8.11 A Newsline story published (receiving 853 views) and shared to Council’s Facebook page twice (receiving 35k views combined).

8.12 The Kōrero mai | Let’s Talk page had 456 views throughout the consultation period.

8.13 Staff met with the Inner City West Neighbourhood Association to answer their questions prior to making a submission.

Summary of Submissions Ngā Tāpaetanga

8.14 Submissions were made by 17 recognised organisation and 23 individuals. All submissions are available on our Kōrero mai webpage.

8.15 17 submitters (42%) have paid Development Contributions before or anticipate paying them in the next two years.

8.16 Submitters were asked whether they support the proposed existing demand credits in the central city rebate scheme. Here, 13 submitters (33%) said yes, 11 (28%) said somewhat, and 14 (40%) said no.

8.17 What submitters liked about this scheme:

· It encourages development (14)

· It recognises that development had occurred on the site previously (9)

· It provides assistance to landowners who are still recovering from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (6)

· It encourages a vibrant central city (4)

· Development encourages a large rating-base for Council (4)

8.18 What submitters didn’t like about this scheme:

· Ratepayers providing handouts or subsidies to developers (7)

· The funding limit limiting the impact that this scheme could have (5)

· The 30 June 2027 expiry making it unfeasible for many, particularly for complex buildings (5)

· The potential exclusion of vacant sites from the scheme penalising landlords who proactively cleared their site(s) for to health and safety or aesthetic reasons (4)

8.19 A further nine submitters challenged the expiry of development contribution credits at all.

8.20 Submitters were asked if this scheme were to go ahead, whether it should be limited to buildings standing on 1 March 2024 or be extended to include vacant sites. Here, 9 submitters (31% of those who responded to this question) said that the scheme should be limited to buildings standing, while 20 (69%) thought that it should be extended.

8.21 Submitters were also asked, what funding limit they would support for the scheme, if any. Here, no one selected 2 million, five agreed with the proposed 5 million, while three supported 10 million, two 20 million, and ten 30 million.

8.22 Submitters were asked whether they support the six-story residential development in the central city rebate scheme. Here, eight submitters (20%) said yes, 10 said somewhat (25%), and 20 (50%) said no.

8.23 What submitters liked about this scheme:

· It encourages development (7)

· It encourages density in the right place (6)

8.24 What submitters didn’t like about the scheme:

· The height threshold (9) – many of these submitters suggested that 2 or 3 storeys would be more appropriate

· Ratepayers providing handouts or subsidies to developers (8)

· The financial benefit it provides to developers only and/or no evidence that developers will pass on savings (6)

· Council encouraging high-rise buildings (6)

· That factors other than development contributions are what make building six storey development unfeasible (5)

· The funding limit limiting the impact that this scheme could have (4)

· The 30 June 2027 scheme expiry (too soon) (4)

8.25 Submitters were also asked, if any, what funding limit they would support for the scheme. Here, one selected 1 million, three agreed with the proposed 2 million, while two supported 3 million, two 5 million, and seven supported 10 million.

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

8.26.1 Central ward

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

8.29 The Council has a separate rebate scheme, which seeks to encourage residential and community development on Māori freehold and Māori-owned general land within the Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga zone of the Christchurch District Plan.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

8.31 There are no direct climate change impact considerations associated with the decision required. However, the residential rebate scheme looks to incentivise increased housing density in the central city which could contribute to the Council’s emissions reduction goals.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Staff will make any required amendments to the schemes as agreed to by Council. The decision will be communicated to stakeholders as required.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Rebate Scheme Criteria - Existing Demand Credits	25/886936	348
b ⇩	Rebate Scheme Criteria - Central City High Density Residential	25/885000	350

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Hannah Ballantyne - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

14. 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1573048
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Matthew Pratt, Principal Policy Advisor, Strategic Policy & Resilience Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, Property Consultancy
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

Secretarial Note: This item was on the agenda of the 6 August 2025 Council meeting and was withdrawn and deferred to the Finance & Performance Committee meeting to allow time for Council Officers to provide further information. This information is provided in Attachment F to this report.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Council regarding the future use of the Council-owned land and buildings located at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road.

1.2 The Council approved the sale of the property in June 2021. At its 4 September 2024 Council meeting in accordance with Standing Order 6.8:

“Item 13 – 151 Gilberthorpes Road – Future Use issues and Options was withdrawn from the agenda on the basis that new information was presented at the meeting and to allow time for staff to come back with further information on use of the facility by interested community groups”.

1.3 This report is staff generated and outlines the current status of the property, presents viable options for its future use, and recommends a course of action to address the ongoing inertia.

1.4 The recommendations ensure that the site will be used in a way that aligns with the Council’s strategic priorities, delivers value to the community, and supports long-term sustainability for the site.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options 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 sale of 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road (described as Part Lot 1 DP 9514 and part Lot DP 15320 held in Record of Title CB674/99 and Lot 2 DP 20850 held in Record of Title CB6C/339) to the Purapura Whetu Trust for community and social housing purposes and subject to:

a. The Purapura Whetu Trust being responsible for securing all required resource, building or other statutory consents required to operate from the Land; and

b. The sale being at a financially viable figure having regard to market value.

4. Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager to do all things necessary to make any decisions at his sole discretion that are consistent with the intent of this report to implement the recommendation above including but not limited to finalising the documentation necessary to implement the sale.

5. Notes that staff will continue to work with the MenzShed and the Filipino Church (if required) to help meet their needs at other existing Council owned community locations.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The sale of the Council owned property at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road was approved by the Council through the Council’s Long Term Plan 2021 - 31.

3.2 An initial Expression of Interest (EOI) process was conducted in 2022, followed by a second process, at the request of Council, in 2023. Both processes attracted proposals from local community groups, however, none of the submissions were assessed as sustainable or financially viable in the long term.

3.3 In September 2024, a staff report was due to be presented to the Council recommending the sale of the property at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road.

3.4 This recommendation was prompted by growing interest from several community-based entities expressing a desire to develop the site for social and affordable housing. The staff report acknowledged that, while previous EOI processes had not yielded viable proposals, the renewed interest in housing development presented a potential opportunity to repurpose the site in a way that aligned with the Council’s strategic objectives and address local housing needs.

3.5 Following deputations to the Council, the September 2024 staff report recommending the sale of the property was withdrawn. The Council resolved to provide community-based groups with additional time to develop and submit proposals for the future use of the site.

3.6 To facilitate this, a Request for Proposal (RFP) process was initiated in March 2025. The outcome of this process forms the basis and purpose of this report, which seeks a decision on the future use of the property at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road.

3.7 Following the RFP process, three proposals were received from not-for-profit community-based entities: Purapura Whetu Trust, Home Capital Partners, and Filipino Church (God’s Ministry Christian Church).

3.8 Each proposal was evaluated against a set of criteria designed to ensure alignment with Council objectives and long-term viability. The criteria included: conceptual plan, funding and financial viability, capability and experience, and community impact.

3.9 Following this evaluation, the proposal from Purapura Whetu Trust was identified as the preferred option. Staff recommend the sale of the property to Purapura Whetu Trust based on the strength of their submission and its potential to deliver meaningful outcomes for the local community.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Context

4.1 The property at 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road was identified as not meeting Council’s retention criteria and therefore considered for disposal through the Council’s 2021-2031 Long Term Plan (LTP). This resulted in a resolution to declare it surplus and therefore sell it.

4.2 The property (the land and the Hall and Barracks buildings) has been vacant since January 2022.

4.3 An initial Expression of Interest (EOI) in 2022 sought proposals from parties interested in taking over ownership of the property on an as is where is, no cost to Council, basis.

4.4 Four EOI’s were received from commercial entities interested in clearing the site for development as social / affordable housing. A further EOI from a coalition of Hornby Community groups was declined on the basis that it lacked a sustainable business case and a staff assessment that the coalitions property requirements could be satisfied within other existing Council owned community facilities.

4.5 Subsequent steps to sell the property were suspended following the Council’s approval of a Notice of Motion at its March 2023 meeting (CNCL/2023/00025) which required staff to:

“Put on hold the commencement of the sale of 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road, Hornby, for at least 6 months to allow time for the community to refine their work on alternative options, including community ownership and operation of part or all of the facility, noting that there has been insufficient time for this to occur in robust and genuine manner”.

4.6 Two alternative EOI proposals on behalf of the coalition of Hornby groups were subsequently received. The resulting staff report to be considered at the 4 September 2024 Council meeting recommended that the Council sell the property as the two proposals failed to provide for a sustainable, financial, no cost to ratepayer solution.

4.7 However, in accordance with Standing Order 6.8, the report was withdrawn as follows: “Item 13 – 151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options was withdrawn from the agenda on the basis that new information was presented at the meeting and to allow time for staff to come back with further information on use of the facility by interested community groups (referenced as “MenzShed, the Filipino Church, etc”).

4.8 As such, the future use of the vacant property has been the subject of continued discussions, meetings and reports over a four-year period and there is yet to be a decision about the future use of the property.

4.9 To address this inertia, and to enable the Council to reach a decision based on sound community and social outcomes, and sustainable financial principles, a Request for Proposal (RFP) process was initiated, the outcome of which is the purpose of this report.

The Property

4.10 The property is situated on the corner of Gilberthorpes Road and Kaniere Avenue in Hei Hei. Access is currently off Gilberthorpes Road. The fee simple site has a land area of 3146m2 and is held in two contiguous titles outlined green and pink in Figure 1 below.

151 Gilberthorpes Road (Green) – Part Lot DP 9514 and Part Lot DP 15320 (CB674/99) – 2245m2.

153 Gilberthorpes Road (Pink) – Lot 2 DP 20850 (CB6C/339) – 901m2.


Figure 1	Figure 2

4.11 There are two buildings on the site.

4.12 The Hall Building (A), constructed circa 1960, is a single-storey portal framed building with reinforced and filled concrete masonry walls. It incorporates a main hall with ancillary office and kitchen space and rear toilet block with a gross floor area of around 200m2.

4.13 The Administration Building (B) comprises a number of interconnected single storey former barrack buildings of weatherboard construction dating from the 1940’s, providing general office and toilet facilities.

4.14 The land and buildings were acquired by the Council from The Presbyterian Church Property Trustees in the late 1990’s. Their intended use as a multicultural centre failed to materialise as envisaged and the property has remained vacant since the departure of the last tenant (Te Puawaitanga o Ōtautahi) in January 2022.

Current Physical Status of the Land and Buildings

4.15 The land and buildings have been vacant and fenced off to the public since January 2022.

4.16 Both buildings are generally suitable for occupation in terms of the structural code but require significant works to meet a healthy building standard to achieve building and fire code compliance and consent prior to reoccupation.

4.17 A broad assessment of the works required, and associated costs, for both buildings is appended as Attachment A.

4.18 Hall Building: repair and refurbishment costs are broadly estimated to be in the region of $360,000, a significant portion of which is associated with the demolition and rebuild of the rear toilet block, works to achieve code compliance and general site works.

4.19 Administration Building: the northwest part of the building was damaged by fire in August 2022 and demolished (refer Figure 2 above). The remainder of the building, which consists of aging, semi-temporary, construction is in poor condition. Estimated costs to strip out, refit and potentially rebuild the buildings to meet current code requirements could be as much as $1,000,000.

4.20 The estimated timeframe (excluding design and consenting) for completing the repair and compliance work to either of the buildings to enable re-occupation is in the order of 6 to 9 months.

4.21 Estimated costs to demolish each building is in the order of $30,000 - $50,000.

Planning Context

4.22 The site, which is flat and categorised TC1 Grey, has frontages to both Gilberthorpes Road and Kaniere Avenue. It is zoned Residential Suburban and is suitable for intensive development with the usual services available at the property boundary.

4.23 Permitted activities include housing, educational and spiritual activities, welfare and community garden activities, social housing, multi-unit residential complexes and retirement villages.

4.24 Resource consent requirements will be dependent on the nature of the activity and design proposed for the site.

4.25 Environment Canterbury’s Listed Land Use register has no hazardous activities and industries noted on the site.

Request for Proposal (RFP)

4.26 In context, there is no LTP-approved Council funding for the repair, operation or management of the property. Proposals were invited from respondents committed to operating the site for community-based purposes on an as is where is, no cost to Council, basis.

4.27 The RFP noted that respondents may include community groups, not-for-profit organisations and church groups as well as entities interested in developing the site for community purposes or social / affordable housing.

4.28 The RFP process went live on 31 March 2025 and closed on 6 June 2025.

4.29 The RFP was advertised via the GETs website, The Press and Council’s Public Notice site. Details were also provided to the Council’s Community Governance Managers for circulation to their respective Community Boards and extensive local networks.

4.30 Three submissions were received.

Response 1 - Purapura Whetu Trust Proposal

4.31 The Purapura Whetu Trusts (PWT) preference is to own the land and buildings. Their proposal is based on purchasing the property at a viable figure having regard to market value. A copy of their proposal is appended as Attachment B.

4.32 PWT is a not-for-profit Māori health, wellbeing and social service provider in the Canterbury region addressing mental health needs within the local Māori and wider community to enable supported housing people ‘to have a home, a stable and constant place to live, love, grow and become citizens of Otautahi’.

4.33 The proposal is to demolish the Administration Building, redevelop the site for community housing with outdoor communal areas and repurpose the existing Hall as a community hub for the wider Hornby community.

4.34 Their staged concept is to provide 15-23 one bed and two bed units. This will include 15 single unit dwellings for male and female rangatahi aged 16 to 24 who have been in Oranga Tamariki or Youth Justice care.

4.35 The additional tenants will meet social housing criteria and will either be: young parents with State care history; women coming out of Refuge or residential care; women reintegrating into society after time in prison; Kaumatua in an intergenerational living community for ongoing support for our rangatahi; those who may be on a wait list for the Youth Hub Hostel in Bealey Avenue.

4.36 The Hall will be available for use as a communal space for group / support activities for the tenants and a community hub available for use and hire by the wider Hei Hei and Hornby community e.g. Church service on Sundays, community meetings during the weekdays and evenings and regular sports events.

4.37 The design and construction of Stage 1 is expected to take 18 months. A similar period is anticipated for Stage 2, which contemplates the demolition and replacement of the Hall with a purpose-built communal and community hub building with staff office space and activity space as well as additional housing.

4.38 PWT’s proposal provides robust financials with audited accounts, positive cashflows, detailed capital and operational budgets, confirmed funding sources and strong financial partnerships. As such it indicates that the proposal would be funded by the PWT with or without external funding i.e. no cost to the Council.

4.39 PWT has extensive experience and a track record in developing and operating successful community-based facilities for their 27 wellbeing services across multiple sites.

4.40 Development of the property would be managed by Rangzen Pro, who have considerable experience in managing and delivering community housing and community hall construction / development projects.

4.41 Day to day operation would be managed by PWT’s Purapura Whetu Management and Ngā Maihi staff and team onsite.

Response 2 - Home Capital Partners Proposal

4.42 Home Capital Partners’ (HCP) preference is to own the land and buildings. Their proposal contemplates the property being transferred to HCP for a nominal sum of $1. A copy of their proposal is appended as Attachment C.

4.43 HCP is part of the Home Group which is a collective of organisations with a shared purpose: ‘Through Homes, flourishing communities – because a home is the foundation of a thriving life’.

4.44 HCP is an investment fund manager which collaborates and partners with Community Housing Providers and other stakeholders to use investment funds to create affordable, secure, and healthy housing solutions.

4.45 Their concept has been developed in conjunction with the Greater Hornby Residents Association (GHRA), Filipino Church (God’s Ministry Christian Church), Te Whare Awhero and Hornby MenzShed.

4.46 It contemplates the demolition of the Administration Building, retention and refurbishment of the Hall (and potential future extension), the provision of 400m2 for a MenzShed (Hornby Chapter) and the construction of eight (8) Older Persons Housing (OPH) villas.

4.47 HCP propose that the OPH will address a critical shortage of fit-fit-purpose accessible housing for over 65’s in the area. The extended Hall will provide Te Whare Awhero with a base for its social services and a shared space for multiple community stakeholders.

4.48 A staged design and construction timeframe of around 24 months is envisaged beginning with site clearance and demolition, enabling works, repairs to the Hall, and then proceeding with the new build elements (MenzShed and OPH villas).

4.49 From a capital expenditure perspective HCP’s proposal suggests that it has the financial capability and committed resources necessary to fund the development and ongoing maintenance of the OPH and refurbishment and extension of the Hall ‘at no net cost to Council’. In this context HCP’s model is to partner with Councils, Government, Community Housing Providers, Impact Investors and Philanthropic Donors to provide the required investment funds.

4.50 It is not clear from the proposal response, however, exactly how this model would be implemented. HCP’s financial status is unclear as is their financial position within the project. The financial information provided is limited. It is also apparent that the development would be contingent on a significant interest only loan with no indication of how that debt would be serviced during design and construction when there would be no rental income.

4.51 The Hall is intended to operate under a head lease arrangement with operational costs being funded through lease and hire income. The MenzShed would construct and own their own building and lease their space from the head lessee.

4.52 Aside from HCP, the Home Group encompasses: Kainga Maha (residential development management company); Home Construction (construction company); Te Wawata Kainga (property and tenancy management service); and Home Foundation (charitable trust and Kaitiaki of the Home Group). This collaboration, and experienced personnel, has delivered and managed a number of similar community focused development initiatives.

Response 3 – Filipino Church (God’s Ministry Christian Church) Proposal

4.53 The proposal from the Filipino Church assumes ownership of the Hall and utilising only around 50% of the land area of 151 Gilberthorpes Road (shown cross-hatched in Figure 1 below) under a ground lease at a peppercorn from the Council. The balance of the site, including the Administration Building, would not be required. A copy of their proposal is appended as Attachment D.


Figure 1	Figure 2

4.54 Their concept plan (refer Figure 2 above) envisages upgrading the Hall and toilet, providing an area for the MenzShed and incorporating an outdoor basketball court. It is noted that a larger land area would likely be required to accommodate these features.

4.55 The Filipino Church clearly have a strong community ethic and have access to an experienced construction workforce. However, the general approach to the design, consenting and construction process and the costs associated with that appears to be under-estimated. Equally the funds available to the Filipino Church for capital works are relatively limited.

4.56 Operating income would be derived from community groups and other users of the Hall.

4.57 In isolation this proposal would require the Council to subdivide the site and run a further process (i.e. RFP, open market sale) to resolve the future use of the balance of the site, including the demolition of the Administration building.

4.58 It is noted that the Filipino Church have collaborated with HCP and MenzShed in developing their proposal. Given that both the PWT and HCP proposals intend to retain and upgrade the Hall for community purposes it is suggested that these may provide better, and more feasible, options for accommodating the requirements of the Filipino Church.

RFP Evaluation

4.59 The submissions were reviewed and evaluated by a panel of three: one each from the Council’s Community Support and Partnerships, Finance, and Facilities and Property Units. Probity was provided by the Legal and Democratic Services Unit.

4.60 The RFP responses were graded in relation to the RFP weighted attribute criteria, summarised as follows:

· Eligible Applicant - 10%: an incorporated non-profit with charitable purpose, charitable trust, church group, community housing provider, or private entity committed to a community use.

· Concept Plan – 15%: a clear vision for the site/buildings including a high-level implementation plan.

· Funding & Financial Viability – 50%: a robust business case demonstrating secured financial resources (at no cost to Council) including: pre-planning (design, consents); structural repairs and site works; demolition and subdivision (if required); staged development; cash-flow projections.

· Capability and Experience – 10%: demonstrate an ability to manage, deliver and operate the proposed community initiative.

· Community Impact – 15%: demonstrate the extent of community benefit and outreach.

4.61 The RFP responses were graded with results as scheduled below:

	Purapura Whetu Trust	Home Capital Partners	Filipino Church (GMCC)
Ranking	1	2	Fail – Funding and Financial viability

4.62 The completed evaluation process has determined Purapura Whetu Trust as the preferred respondent, with Home Capital Partners second. The Filipino Church submission was deemed a fail due principally to insufficient financial and project delivery information.

Valuation and Costs to Council

4.63 In April 2024 Bayley’s were commissioned to provide an independent valuation report to inform this decision-making process. This assessment of value has been updated recently and is referenced within the Public Excluded Attachment E.

4.64 The current book value of the property is $857,000. The rateable value is $820,000.

4.65 These factors would inform negotiations around the sale of the property.

4.66 The total costs associated with the facility including both non-controllable costs (depreciation, insurance, and rates) and controllable costs (maintenance and operating expenses), amounted to $138,609.84 over the three fiscal years from FY 2023 to FY 2025.

4.67 Annual breakdown:

· FY 2023: $45,417.43

· FY 2024: $47,736.47

· FY 2025: $45,455.94

4.68 These figures reflect the ongoing financial commitment required to maintain the property in its current state.

4.69 In addition to direct facility costs, it is estimated that approximately $80,000 in staff time has been charged to the disposal process for the property since June 2021, when the Council approved the sale through the LTP process.

4.70 This figure reflects the cumulative staff effort involved in managing the ongoing decision-making, community engagement, and administrative processes related to the property.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.71.1 Purapura Whetu Trust Proposal: PWT purchase the property, demolish the Administration building, develop and operate the site for 15-23 social housing units and repurpose (and eventually redevelop) the Hall for PWT staff, tenant and wider community use.

4.71.2 Council Retains the Property: repairs the Hall, demolishes the Administration Building, leases the land and Hall building to community groups.

4.71.3 Council Sells the Property: as is where is on the open market.

4.72 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.72.1 Retain the Status Quo: the land and buildings remain fenced and closed.

The property continues to deteriorate, provides a target for ongoing vandalism and the inertia around the future use of the site will continue indefinitely.

4.72.2 Home Capital Partners Proposal: HCP acquire the property for $1, demolish the Administration Building, develop and operate the site for 8 Older Person Housing (OPH) villas, repurpose (and potentially extend) the Hall for community use and provide space for a MenzShed building.

All proposals provide community space through the repurpose of the hall. In comparison to PWT’s proposal HCP’s mixed model delivers more community use, less social housing and a lower financial benefit to the ratepayer. The proposal comes from a new subsidiary of a Group with a proven track record, however, there is a lack of clarity in the proposal around the financial and development framework.

4.72.3 Filipino Church (God’s Ministry Christian Church) Proposal: repurpose the Hall, set aside space for a MenzShed building and a basketball court and utilise approximately one third of the site on a ground lease.

Although well intentioned, and with a strong community focus, their proposal lacked financial and funding rigour and under-estimated the likely costs and resources required to support the lifecycle of a project of this nature. In isolation the proposal would require the Council to invest in the sub-division of the site and further work required to determine the future use of the balance of the site.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.73 Option 1 (Preferred Option) - Purapura Whetu Trust Proposal

4.74 Option Description: PWT purchase the property, demolish the Administrative Building, develop and operate the site for 15-23 social housing units and re-purpose (and eventually redevelop) the Hall for PWT staff, tenants and wider community use.

Advantages	Disadvantages
A positive response to ongoing inertia and vandalism	MenzShed requirements not accommodated on site
No cost to Council	Possible negative response from neighbours
Council receives revenue from the sale of the property
Council’s unbudgeted CAPEX/OPEX liability is extinguished
Significant social housing / community benefit
Hall repurposed for community / other uses – i.e., Filipino Church, GHRA etc.
Staff continue to work with MenzShed / other groups to resolve their accommodation requirements

4.75 Option 2 - Council Retain and Repair the Property

4.76 Option Description: Council repairs the Hall, demolishes the Administration Building, leases the land and re-purposed Hall building to community groups.

Advantages	Disadvantages
The property remains in Council ownership	Unbudgeted CAPEX – Hall Repair and siteworks (c$360k); Demolition (c$50k);
Hall and land available for use by community groups	Unbudgeted OPEX – annual repair, maintenance and management (c$10 - $20k)
A positive response to the current inertia and vandalism	Retention not supported by the Council’s approved Community Facilities Network Plan 2020 – i.e. community need is adequately provided for within existing Council community facilities
	While there is claimed demand for additional community space, the evidence that the existing network of facilities is failing to meet this is less clear.
	Direct impact on rates

4.77 Option 3 - Council Sells the Property

4.78 Option Description: as is where is on the open market.

Advantages	Disadvantages
No cost to Council (net of selling agents fees)	No control over the development / future use of the site
Council receives revenue from the sale of the property	Potential use of the site to address social housing and / or local community issues cannot be guaranteed
Council’s unbudgeted CAPEX / OPEX liabilities extinguished
A positive response to the current inertia and vandalism

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.79 The key elements of the three proposals received are outlined above at 4.31 to 4.58. These were evaluated against the weighted RFP criteria listed at 4.60 to 4.62 and further discussed, together with several other alternative options, within the ‘Options Description’ section above at 4.73 to 4.78.

4.80 This evaluation process has determined that the proposal from the PWT provides the most favourable option in terms of beneficial social and community outcomes and, also, in terms of an as is where is, no cost to Council, basis.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option – PWT Proposal	Option 2 – CCC Retain & Repair Property	Option 3 – CCC Sell the Property
Cost to Implement	Nil (staff time only)	Est $410k to repair the Hall/Demolish Admin Building (forego sale proceeds)	Nil (selling agents fees / legal costs deducted from sale proceeds)
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Nil (assuming early sale)	Est $10-20k per annum	Nil (assuming early sale)
Funding Source	Unbudgeted	Unbudgeted	Unbudgeted
Funding Availability	Unbudgeted	Unbudgeted	Unbudgeted
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nominal	Nil

5.1 With regard to property sales, the Council has an LTP revenue budget of $3.0 million per annum. Revenue from the sale off the property to PWT will provide a significant contribution and reduce the risk of not achieving that target.

5.2 This report has been reviewed by Finance.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Although site security is in place, further delay is likely to increase the ongoing risk to the land and buildings of vandalism and arson. While the property remains unoccupied the negative visual and anti-social impact on the adjoining neighbours and neighbourhood will continue.

6.2 There may be some residual feedback from immediate neighbours regarding the provision of social and community housing on the site.

6.3 While considered low, there is a risk around securing a mutually acceptable Sale and Purchase Agreement with the PWT.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.4.1 The disposal of the property was approved by the Council through the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 (resolution C-LTP/2021/00106 (M191A).

6.4.2 The powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

6.5 Other Legal Implications:

6.5.1 The legal consideration is the Council’s ‘Disposal of Council Property’ policy which was addressed when the property was deemed available for disposal through the 2021-2023 LTP process.

6.5.2 The previous owner of the property, The Presbyterian Church Property Trustees, declined the opportunity to purchase the property pursuant to section 40 Public Works Act 1981.

6.5.3 Ngāi Tahu confirmed that they have no right of first refusal over the site.

6.5.4 This report has been reviewed by Legal Services.

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. The decision will facilitate the sale of an operationally redundant property and save ongoing repair, maintenance and holding costs and, through development of the site, mitigate the existing vandalism and arson issues.

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 recognising that the decision is of a local nature, affects a small number of the city and local community and recognises that the preferred proposal provides shared community space in addition to the available space within existing Council community facilities.

6.6.3 Is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies as the disposal of the property is provided for within the 2021-2031 LTP.

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

6.8 Citizens and communities

6.8.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.0.1.1 Support the development of strong, connected and resilient communities by supporting the provision of a sustainable network of community facilities - 78 - 82 Facilities

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 Through the LTP 2021-31 process, the Council made the decision in June 2021 to sell 57 properties that were no longer required for their purposes. One of the properties declared surplus was 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road.

6.10 In arriving at the decision, the Council undertook both general and targeted consultation, resulting in over 500 submissions. Targeted consultation went to Community Boards, the 6 Rūnanga, Ngāi Tahu (both Iwi and corporate), tenants, and housing providers. 253 submissions clearly supported disposals, 54 clearly opposed and 180 suggested a mix of outcomes. There were no submissions on Gilberthorpes Road.

6.11 The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board was aware of the consultation and made a submission on other properties but did not mention Gilberthorpes Road.

6.12 Following the adoption of the 2021-31 LTP where the sale of 151-153 Gilberthorpes Road was approved, there was a level of surprise within the local Hornby and Hei Hei communities over the decision. Community members expressed a lack of awareness of the proposal within the LTP and requested that the facility be retained for community use.

6.13 The Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board ‘s submission to the 2022-23 Annual Plan included that “The Board….supports in principle the disposal of properties that are surplus to the Council’s requirements but cautions against disposal of property for which there is or could be a current or future community use….the Board has become aware that there are now a number of potential community uses being put forward for these premises and it therefore ask that the disposal of this property be revisited”.

6.14 Two subsequent widely promoted EOI processes were run which attracted proposals from local community groups. None of these were assessed as sustainable or financially viable which precipitated the 2024 staff report to Council recommending the sale of the property.

6.15 A further process, the RFP which is the subject of this report, was initiated to provide a further opportunity for local community groups and community-based entities to submit sustainable ana financially viable proposals for the future use of the property.

6.16 The decision affects the Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.17 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.

6.18 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.

6.19 The proposal to dispose of the property has been communicated to Mana Whenua through the LTP and the previous EOI process.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.20 The decision attempts to create certainty over the future use of the property. The preferred use and development of the property is unlikely to have a direct effect on climate change or emissions reduction.

6.21 Users of the facility will ultimately access the site through a range of transport measures, which are considered by other Council policies and regulatory processes.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Council resolves to approve the Officer recommendation, which endorses a prior Council resolution, staff will negotiate the sale of the property to PWT on an as is where is, no cost to Council, basis.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇨	Cost Estimates (Under Separate Cover)	25/1405208
b ⇨	Purapura Whetu Trust Proposal (Under Separate Cover)	25/1408419
c ⇨	Home Capital Partners Proposal (Under Separate Cover)	25/1475322
d ⇨	Philipino Church (GMCC) Proposal (Under Separate Cover)	25/1476055
e	Property Purchase Context (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/1418994
f ⇩	Recommendation Regarding Gilberthorpes Road Disposal and Further Consultation	25/1632583	394

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Matthew Pratt - Principal Policy Advisor

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

15. Lighthouse Road Land Stability Project
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1427986
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Sean Nilsson, Project Manager and Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The report is a response to the slip that took place on Lighthouse Road, Akaroa, which resulted from the early May 2025 severe weather event.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to advise Elected Members of expert opinion as to the residual land instability and the recommended steps to monitor and remediate the impacted land.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Lighthouse Road Land Stability Project 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 proceeding with the following recommended option selections

I. 1B: Continue monitoring, and

II. 2B: Undertake full reconstruction of the affected section of road, and

III. 3A: Complete drainage work to lower the groundwater in the landslip in conjunction with the Lighthouse Road land stability project.

4. Approves drawing down funds from provisions set aside from the 2024/25 financial year.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Due to the severe weather event that took place in early May 2025, a slip (land movement) occurred on Lighthouse Road (Slip) which resulted in the road being closed and properties downslope of the slip being evacuated.

3.2 There remains a risk of further land movement being triggered if a similar severe weather event occurs in the future, if the risk is not mitigated.

3.3 Council has a statutory duty to abate known nuisances under both the Local Government Act 2002 and Health Act 1956. Further detail and analysis of the Council’s liability to remediate the Slip is considered in the Background/Context section of this Report.

3.4 Staff are seeking direction from Council whether it should proceed with remedial works associated with the Slip, continue to monitor long term, or do nothing.

3.5 The staff recommendation is to continue to monitor the land impacted by the 2025 Slip, reconstruct the public road and undertake some form of remediation of the land via drainage works to lower the level of groundwater in the landslip.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Context

4.1 As a result of a severe weather event (300mm+ rain), between 29 April and 2 May 2025, a state of emergency (SOE) was declared in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. During this weather event, a large mass of land of approximately 20,000 m3 reactivated on a hillside above Lighthouse Road, Akaroa.

4.2 Land movement resulted in damage (cracking) to Lighthouse Road and the adjacent land above the road.

4.3 In the immediate aftermath of the weather event, a geotechnical assessment was undertaken that warranted closure of the road and evacuation of five properties located downslope of the Slip.

4.4 While no further significant movement has occurred since the severe weather event, there remains a risk of further land movement being triggered and/or debris material being released from the hillside if the risk is not mitigated.

4.5 The hillside is being actively managed by Council staff via various monitoring and risk management tools. It is of note that the site has not experienced another intense rainfall event since the May 2025 event.

4.6 While actively in place, risk management protocols enabled a revision of the overall risk situation such that it was deemed acceptable for Lighthouse Road to open with restricted access to residents and essential services only.

4.7 Properties located within the potential path of a debris flow event have been able to be re-occupied by residents. The risk management protocols alone did not enable a local business (Caldera Winery) to re-open to the public under BAU conditions and this business has remained closed to the public until further clarity on the risk situation could be provided.

4.8 At a minimum, it is expected that minor movement may occur over the winter period due to rain events and as the land continues to settle.

4.9 No debris material has been released to date. A head scarp approximately 200 mm wide and 100 m long has opened in the hillside, with various tension and compressional cracks subsequently mapped within the surface of the land mass.

4.10 Following borehole drilling investigations completed in July, a report has been obtained from independent geotechnical consultants, Engeo, which has provided an improved understanding of the land.

4.11 This investigation has resulted in a revision of the risk situation such that the majority of properties impacted by this event are no longer considered at risk of a potential debris flow event, including Caldera Winery which has now commenced reopening plans.

4.12 Based on the current monitoring regime remaining in place, access restrictions have also been removed for Lighthouse Road. Considerations remain for the impact of the slip on the road, the property immediately above the road for which the slip has occurred on, and the property immediately below the road.

Background

4.13 A slip occurred in 1994 adjacent to the current slip. Remedial works were undertaken by the Banks Peninsula District Council. A map of land with a distance

AI-generated content may be incorrect. Aerial view of a road and a mountain bike track

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

4.14 The 1994 slip was triggered by a similar rainfall event (275mm over a 3-day period) but experienced a consistent rate of movement even after rainfall had ceased. A decision was made at the time to unload the slip by removing 3,000 m3 of material from the head, which stopped the consistent creep.

4.15 Additional works were completed over the period of a year following, including further unloading and installation of horizontal drains into the land to reduce ground water pressure within the land mass.

Work Required to Remediate 2025 Slip

4.16 Following borehole drilling investigations completed in July, a report has been obtained from independent geotechnical consultants, Engeo, which has provided an improved understanding of the land. This report outlines the potential hazard mitigation options, based on the information obtained to date and various modelling work completed based on this information.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

Monitoring:

1A Do nothing: Disestablish the current monitoring and data collection regime and complete no further work in response to this event.

1B Long term monitoring: Continue the current monitoring and data collection regime. Envision that the monitoring programme would need to be in place for a number of years, such that long-term patterns of movement (if there are any) are well known and understood by all Stakeholders.

Road reinstatement: (approx. 100m length). The following options would be expected to be inclusive of long-term monitoring.

2A Undertake a basic repair (resurfacing only) of the road.

2B Undertake full reconstruction of the road incorporating additional resilience to withstand

some future movement of the adjacent land.

Engineered solutions for the land: The following options would be expected to be inclusive of long-term monitoring and road reinstatement.

3A Undertake drainage work to lower the groundwater in the landslip by dewatering (drilling of horizontal drains). The drilling of drains will require an easement or a form of encumbrance which the landowner has been asked to grant. The easement or encumbrance will allow Council to maintain these drains over time. Drained water will need to be managed carefully to not create drainage issues elsewhere on this hillside. Drainage improvements within the road corridor to assist with management of any extracted water could be incorporated as part of road reconstruction works.

3B Earthworks to reduce the driving force of the landslip (unloading).

4.18 The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.18.1 Apply to the District Court for an order under section 33 of the Health Act 1956 that the owner of the Land abate the nuisance.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.19 Recommended Option: A combination of 1B + 2B +3A

4.19.1 Option Description: 1B: Continue monitoring, 2B: Undertake full reconstruction of the affected section of road and 3A: Complete drainage work to lower the groundwater in the landslip.

4.19.2 Option Advantages

· Long term monitoring will continue to provide significant forewarning of any critical landslip movement. More data collected over time will inform the final design of any remediation works and provide ability to confirm the residual risk situation following the completion of any works.

· Lighthouse Road will have additional resilience to withstand some potential future movement, reducing the requirements for on-going maintenance and disruptions to road users.

· Completing drainage work on the landslip has the better chance of achieving a meaningful increase in the factor of safety compared to unloading. An increase in the factor of safety will mean a more stable slope is achieved, which reduces the chances of further movement occurring that could damage Lighthouse Road and/or injure road users and damage neighbouring land.

· Minimal invasive work (e.g. earthworks) required to be completed on private property.

4.19.3 Option Disadvantages

· Council will bear all the remediation costs where it cannot be categorically determined whether Council has in fact any liability.

· Drainage work is not guaranteed to achieve a factor of safety >1.5 which is the considered representative of having long-term static conditions. A residual risk is expected to remain.

4.20 Alternative Option: 1A: Disestablish the current monitoring and data collection regime and complete no further work in response to this event.

4.20.1 Option Advantages

· Council incurs no further cost in relation to the Slip.

4.20.2 Option Disadvantages

· May not take into account all statutory obligations, and failure to comply with all requirements may have adverse legal consequences for Council.

· Reputational risk from not carrying out any physical works

· No improvements in resilience obtained with regards to the road and the land.

4.21 Alternative Option: 1B: Long term monitoring only

4.21.1 Option Advantages

· Long term monitoring will continue to provide significant forewarning of any critical landslip movement and provide ability to further understand the residual risk situation.

4.21.2 Option Disadvantages

· Reputational risk from not carrying out any physical works

· No improvements in resilience obtained with regards to the road and the land.

4.22 Alternative Option: 2A: Continue monitoring and undertake a basic road repair

4.22.1 Option Advantages

· Council incurs minimal further capital costs in relation to the Slip by reinstating the previous level of service provided by Lighthouse Road.

4.22.2 Option Disadvantages

· Lighthouse Road is likely to experience further damage over time reducing the life of the asset and requiring more frequent maintenance and disruption to road users.

· No improvements in resilience obtained with regards to the road and the land.

4.23 Alternative Option: 2B: Continue monitoring and undertake reconstruction of the road

4.23.1 Option Advantages

· Lighthouse Road will have additional resilience to withstand some potential future movement, reducing the requirements for on-going maintenance and disruptions to road users.

4.23.2 Option Disadvantages

· Higher costs than option 2A

· Higher levels of disruption to road users during construction

· No improvements in resilience obtained with regards to the land.

4.24 Alternative Option: 3B: Continue monitoring, undertake full reconstruction of the road and complete unloading of the landslip.

4.24.1 Option Advantages

· Completing unloading work on the landslip is expected to slightly increase the factor of safety. An increase in the factor of safety means a more stable slope is achieved, which reduces the chances of further movement occurring that could damage Lighthouse Road and/or injure road users and damage neighbouring land.

4.24.2 Option Disadvantages

· Unloading is not expected to be as effective as drainage (dewatering) with geotechnical models indicating the maximum increase in factor of safety being to 1.2. A residual risk is expected to remain.

· More invasive work (e.g. earthworks) required to be completed on private property compared to a drainage solution.

· Resulting cut slopes into the hillside have the potential to risk further slope instability

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option 1B + 2B + 3A	Option 2 1B +2A	Option 3 1A
Capex Costs	$1,650,000	$220,960	$220,960
Opex Costs	$350,000	$350,000	$160,106
Total	$2,000,000	$570,960	$381,066

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Budget risk: Budget provision has been made and carried forward from FY2024/2025: Refer Finance End of Year report

6.2 Engineering/delivery risk: Engineering risk has been mitigated through testing and monitoring regime. Refer Engeo report.

6.3 Reputational risk: If no action is taken to remediate the Slip there may be a perception that public safety is not a council priority. Further reputational risk would arise if the Director-General of Health considers that the risk of any nuisance is so great that they deem it necessary to undertake the work themselves –again there may be a perception that public safety is not a council priority.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.4 Legal considerations are attached as an attachment to this Report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. As this relates to public safety, it specifically aligns with the “be an inclusive and equitable city” and “build trust and confidence” strategic priorities.

6.5.2 It is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. While the number of residents that live on Lighthouse Road is small the impact of any future slips is considerable due to the limited nature of any alternative means of getting in and out and has a considerable impact on businesses located on Lighthouse Road and/or use Lighthouse Road as a means of access to their business.

6.5.3 It is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

Transport

Activity: Transport

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

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

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

6.8.1 Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.11 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.11.1 Contribute neutrally to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

6.11.2 Contribute neutrally to emissions reductions.

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

6.13 The decisions in this report are unlikely to affect traffic movements on Lighthouse Road in any significant way.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Subject to Council approval it is recommended that:

· Staff Proceed with recommended option (1B + 2B +3A) with the following noted provisions:

· Continue to collect more data from the boreholes installed in July. More data will inform the final design of appropriate remediation works to the road and land.

· Allow for a coordinated design to be completed between a drainage solution and road reconstruction, noting drained water from the landslip will need to be managed carefully to avoid creating drainage issues elsewhere.

· Work with the community and businesses to minimise disruption during the peak summer period.

7.2 Noting that road reconstruction works should not occur in winter, it is recommended that these works are programmed to occur following the 25/26 summer season.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Legal Advice Lighthouse Road Slip (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	25/1688475
b ⇩	ENGEO 2025.08.07 - Lighthouse Road Draft Geotechnical Report Rev 3	25/1685659	405

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Ron Lemm - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Sean Nilsson - Project Manager

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Approved By

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

16. Council submission: Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1494211
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tom Lee, Principal Policy Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the Council submission on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill (the Bill).

1.2 The Governance and Administration Select Committee is calling for feedback on the Bill, with submissions due on Wednesday 27 August 2025.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Council submission: Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill Report.

2. Approves lodging the Council submission on the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill (Attachment A) to the Governance and Administration Select Committee.

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

4. Delegates authority to the General Manager Strategy, Planning and Regulatory Services to oversee final editorial changes to correct any typographical or formatting errors in the submission.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill (the Bill) is currently at the Governance and Administration Select Committee with submissions on the Bill due on Wednesday 27 August 2025. Staff have prepared the attached draft submission (Attachment A) for the Council’s approval.

3.2 The Government’s intent for the Bill is to focus local authorities’ attention on spending ratepayers’ money effectively, particularly in an environment where there are cost of living concerns. Rates increases have been identified as a cause of household inflation and the Bill attempts to address factors causing rates increases to ease the pressure on households.

3.3 The draft submission states that, while the Bill is well-intentioned, it does not target the key drivers of rates increases. The submission questions the effectiveness of the Bill and some of its assumptions and objectives.

3.4 The Bill is important for the Council, as it amends local government’s purpose and defines a list of core services that the Council will be required to have regard to when making decisions and when reporting on performance. The Bill also imposes a range of obligations on the Council and amends some of the regulatory requirements of the Council.

3.5 The Council expects to spend approximately 93% of rates revenue on core services in 2025/26 and the new purpose statement and list of core services is unlikely to substantially change what the Council is delivering. The submission recommends adding an additional core service relating to the regulatory functions that local authorities are required to do.

3.6 Some of the provisions in the Bill that clarify or ease the Council’s work are welcome, but the submission also identifies the risks regarding some of the Bill’s provisions. For example, those regarding benchmarking and reporting, plans to introduce a rates peg, standardising standing orders, and the removal of the requirement to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council-controlled organisation directors.

3.7 The submission also urges the government to do more to ease the regulatory and procedural burden to assist local authorities, for example, reviewing and reducing the Council’s auditing requirements. The submission also notes that local authorities can often bear the cost of central government policy changes that are imposed on local government and a more collaborative approach is needed.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Bill was introduced on 15 July and was read for a first time and referred to Governance and Administration Select Committee for public consultation on 17 July 2025. Submissions are due on Wednesday, 27 August 2025.

4.2 The objective of the Bill is to address cost of living concerns by amending the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) to reduce pressure on rising council rates. Rates are seen as a driver for household inflation and the Government is concerned that rates rises are being exacerbated by a lack of fiscal discipline among councils, including spending on activities that stray from core services and spending more than necessary on the basics.

4.3 Staff presented on the Bill at two Council workshops on 22 July and 12 August 2025. The first workshop provided an overview of the Bill and the second sought the Council’s feedback on the proposed submission approach developed by staff. The draft submission was circulated on 12 August for feedback and a drop-in session was held on 14 August.

Summary of changes

4.4 The Bill amends the Act to:

4.4.1 refocus the purpose of local government. This includes removing all references in the Act to the four aspects of community wellbeing and amending the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Act to emphasise cost-effectiveness and local economic growth. A list of five core services that local authorities “must have regard to” is added under a reinstated and updated section 11A.

4.4.2 better measure and publicise council performance. The Bill enables regulations to be made that prescribe the activities that Councils must plan and report on (e.g. in Annual and Long-Term Plans), and to create benchmarks for assessing council performance. Councils must also report on contractor and consultant expenditure.

4.4.3 prioritise core services in council spending. An additional financial management principle is added, which is that councils must have regard to the purpose of local government and the core services of a local authority when determining its financial management approach.

4.4.4 strengthen council transparency and accountability. This includes having a standardised code of conduct (including for Community Boards) and standing orders, and requiring chief executives to ensure Elected Members have access to documents they need to perform their duties. Two new governance principles are also added, stating that local authorities should foster the free exchange of information and expression of opinions by Elected Members and a responsibility of Elected Members to work collaboratively.

4.4.5 provide regulatory relief to councils. This includes: modernising public notice requirements; removing the requirement of 6-yearly service delivery reviews; clarifying interim chief executives/others can sign for lending arrangements; clarifying third party development contributions can be targeted; extending Chief Executives’ second term from two years to five years; and removing a requirement for councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council-controlled organisation (CCO) directors.

4.5 Notably, the Bill does not include provisions to implement a rates peg. However, the Bill’s explanatory notes discusses this concept and states that the Bill aims to encourage the financial management principles that a rates peg system would foster. The Minister of Local Government has signalled that a rates peg model will go to Cabinet before the end of the year.

4.6 The Minister of Local Government has also indicated future work is planned on reviewing the Long-Term Plan framework and auditing requirements, and potentially other council planning and reporting requirements. While not part of this current Bill, future amendments to the Act are possible.

Summary of submission

4.7 The submission notes that the Bill is well-intentioned with its objective to ease the rates burden on households. However, it does not target the key drivers of rates increases, which are market pressures, such as inflation (particularly regarding construction and infrastructure), interest rates, insurance rates, and other market forces. These pressures influence rates increases more than a focus on the four aspects of community wellbeing or because the Council lacks fiscal discipline.

4.8 Using the Bill’s definition of core services as a guide, the Council expects to spend approximately 93% of rates revenue on core services in 2025/26. The new purpose statement and listing of core services is unlikely to substantially change what the Council is delivering.

4.9 The submission supports that the Bill still provides scope for councils to use their discretion to fund activities that are not explicitly captured by the list of core services. Councils should be able to act in accordance with the aspirations and best interests of the communities they represent and there may be times when a council may determine that funding activities outside of the core services is both appropriate and necessary.

4.10 The submission proposes that the Bill recognises as a core service the regulatory functions and activities of local authorities, as this is an important and necessary part of the Council’s work.

4.11 Some of the proposals in the Bill, particularly those that clarify obligations or ease regulatory burden, are welcome (such as those regarding publishing requirements, lending arrangements, development contributions, and the chief executive’s tenure).

4.12 The submission urges that the government continue to do more to ease the regulatory and procedural burden on local authorities, as these often come at a cost. Policies that would simplify planning, reporting and auditing requirements would be supported by the Council. The submission also notes the cost that central government imposes on local government through policy changes. Councils are required to implement policy changes but often bear the cost of doing so and the Council would support measures that reduce this cost and provide a more collaborative approach to funding.

4.13 Some of the Bill’s proposals have risks and the submission identifies the policies where these risks are present and suggests ways that may be mitigated. This includes the limitations of benchmarking and reporting, the financial risk relating to a rates peg, standardising standing orders, the interpretation and application of some of the language in the Bill, and the risks associated with removing the tikanga Māori provision regarding CCOs.

4.14 In some areas, the Bill provides regulation-making powers, but not the detail that will form the basis of the policy. It is therefore hard to know what the impact of the Bill will be in these areas, and we will only know once the regulations and further policy decisions are made. However, the submission provides feedback on what the government can consider when making this policy. For example, that the requirements on local authorities are proportionate, well-defined, and are not an administrative burden. It is not clear how local government might be able to input into the future development of policy and regulations, so an opportunity for local authorities to participate in these processes is also sought.

4.15 The full submission is attached as Attachment A.

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

Date	Subject
12 August 2025	Council submission: Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill – draft submission circulated

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

Date	Subject
22 July 2025	Recent Government Announcements Update - proposed changes to the Local Government and Resource Management Acts - Agenda of Council Workshop - Tuesday 22 July 2025
12 August 2025	Council submission: Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill – proposed submission approach – Agenda of Council Workshop - Tuesday, 12 August 2025

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.18 The only reasonably practicable option considered and assessed in this report is that the Council prepares a submission on the Bill.

4.19 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external agencies’ consultation processes.

4.20 The Bill is important for the Council as it amends the Council’s purpose and defines a list of core services that the Council will be required to have regard to when making decisions and when reporting on performance. The Bill imposes a range of obligations on the Council and amends some of the regulatory requirements of the Council. The scope of the Bill is discussed in section 4.4 above. It is entirely appropriate for the Council to make a submission on this Bill and this is recommended.

4.21 The alternative option would be to not submit on the proposed changes. This course of action is not recommended in this case, as Council would miss an opportunity to provide feedback and influence government policy that directly relates to the purpose and role of the Council.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Not to submit
Cost to Implement	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost	No cost
Funding Source	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost
Funding Availability	Available	No cost
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates.	No cost

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The decision to lodge a council submission is low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Any person or organisation can submit on Government Bills during the select committee process.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

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

6.3.2 The Legal team has contributed to and provided feedback on the submission.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

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

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be community interest in the proposed direction, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance.

6.4.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.1 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework - Triennial (every three years) reconfirmation of the Strategic Framework and Infrastructure Strategy.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The decision of the Council to make a submission on the Bill does not directly impact the community and community views have not been sought by staff.

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 to make a submission involves matters of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.10 The matters of interest relating to Mana Whenua in the Bill are the provisions that removes the requirement for councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing CCO directors, and the increased focus on cost-effectiveness in the purpose of local government.

6.11 Views on these matters were provided by the Council’s Treaty Partnerships Team and are reflected in the submission. Papatipu Rūnanga were also contacted about the Bill and the Council’s intent to make a submission.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 A decision to make a Council submission on the Bill is unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Subject to approval, the draft submission on the Bill (Attachment A) will be lodged with the Governance and Administration Select Committee on Wednesday 27 August 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Council Submission - Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill	25/1583792	523

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Thomas Lee - Principal Policy Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

[7] Attachment B is being released, with redactions under s7(2)(h) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).

Chair	Councillor MacDonald
Deputy Chair	Councillor Coker
Membership	The Mayor and all Councillors
Quorum	Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd
Meeting Cycle	Monthly
Reports To	Council

13. Matatiki Hornby Centre Close-out
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/931781
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Nigel Cox, Head of Recreation Sports and Events
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

9. Capital Programme Performance Report - FY25 Year End
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1280639
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Nicky Palmer, Head of Programme Management Office
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

17. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Annual General Meeting 2025 - Appointment of Proxy and Voting Instructions
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/848231
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

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

18. Infrastructure Working Group Findings
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1239870
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Stevens, Head of Procurement & Contracts
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

Author	Luke Stevens - Head of Procurement & Contracts
Approved By	Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
14.	151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options
	Attachment e - Property Purchase Context	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations	The Council needs the to consider the preliminary financial details relevant to the possible purchase of the property by the Purapura Whetu Trust. These details are currently confidential, release of which would prejudice subsequent negotiations.	15 December 2025 As and when an unconditional Agreement is entered into by Council and the Purapura Whetu Trust
15.	Lighthouse Road Land Stability Project
	Attachment a - Legal Advice Lighthouse Road Slip	s7(2)(g)	Maintain Legal Professional Privilege	Contains legal advice, maintaining professional privilege outweighst public interest	15 August 2027 Following completion of all works and with the consent of the General Counsel/Head of Legal Servcies
20.	Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 23 July 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
21.	Visibility of Capital Project Budget Changes: June/July 2025	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The report contains information on specific projects being tendered in the open market and the commercial sensitivity of the information means that it must remain confidential in order to protect the Council's commercial position, and withholding the information at this time is reasonable and outweighs the public interest.	30 June 2027 This report can be released to the public once all commercial negotiations and contracts have been concluded, and subject to the approval of the Head of Procurement and Contracts.
22.	CWTP Activated Sludge Construction Delegation	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	The commercial sensitivity of the content outweighs the public interest until the contract is awarded.	1 December 2025 Once the contract under the procurement plan has been entered into.
23.	Procurement Plan for Transport Technology Maintenance Contract	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	The commercial sensitivity of the content outweighs the public interest until the contract is awarded	24 April 2026 Once the agreement to be entered into under the Procurement Plan has been signed.
24.	Procurement Plan for WW Grassmere Wet Weather Storage Facility	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	The commercial sensitivty of the content outweighs the public interest until the contract is awarded	27 February 2026 Once the agreement entered into under the Procurement plan has been signed
25.	Riskpool Update	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	This information must remain confidential to protect Riskpool's position when dealing with reinsurers. Should this information be released it may result in additional cost to ratepayers, which outweighs the public interest in this matter.	31 December 2026 This report may be released once Riskpool completes the closure of the fund years in question.
26.	Insurance renewal update	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Some details of Council's insurance strategy must remain confidential otherwise Council would be put at a disadvantage when seeking insurance cover at a reasonable cost.This is considered to outweigh the public interest.	31 December 2026 This report may be released after the end of the 2025/2026 cover year, however specific details regarding financials and policy terms must remain confidential.
27.	Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd - Re-appointment of Directors	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the reputation of the candidates,the protection of which outweighs the public interest.	29 August 2025 After the Finance and Performance Committee has made decisions at its meeting, noting with redactions necessary to protect the privacy of named individuals including Attachment A which will be permanently withheld.
28.	Procurement Plan for Detailed Design and Construction - Pages Road Bridge Renewal Project	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	The commercial sensitivity of the content outweighs the public interest until the contract is awarded	16 February 2026 Once all agreements entered into under the Procurement Plan have been signed
29.	Land Purchase	s7(2)(i)	Conduct Negotiations	The Council is currently negotiating to purchase land. The release of information at this time may impact the vendor. Information can be released once the negotiation is complete.	28 November 2025 On transfer of the land to Council.

Finance and Performance Committee of the whole - Terms of Reference Ngā Ārahina Mahinga