Submissions on the City Council Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25

Heard Submissions

Volume 8A

Supplementary

Friday 22 May 2015

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25 SUBMITTERS WHO WISH TO BE HEARD

FRIDAY 22 MAY 2015

Submission Time Submitter Page No No 9.30 am 12487 Michael Sweeney 3 9.35 am 13378 Gillian Lord-Falconer 5 9.35 am 12528 Kate Burtt 3 Supplementary 9.40 am 13621 Margaret Hean 6 13638 Grant MacKinnon 9.45 am 7 14174 DGM Group - Grant MacKinnon 9.50 am 13271 Tim Burrows 18 9.55 am 13672 Linwood Woolston Schools - Lee Walker 20 12519 Sport Canterbury - Julyan Falloon 10.05 am 24 14775 Sport New Zealand - Emma Weenink, Darron Charity 10.20 am 13128 Christopher Baker 40 10.25 am 13244 Gavin Bodger 51

10.30 am 14762 Central Riccarton Residents' Association Inc - G Wilson 4 Supplementary 10.35 am 14685 Murray Jamieson 53 10.40 am 14018 Brian and Dawn Stead 58 10.45 am 14662 Paul Pink 60 10.50 am 11942 D & P Foster Family Trust - Donald Foster 62 10.55 am 14752 Bruce White 64 11.00 am Morning Tea 11.15 am 14789 The Enviroschools Foundation - Kristen Price 65 11.25 am 13068 Helen Tait 67 11.30 am 13029 Greening The Red Zone - Ashley Campbell 70 11.40 am 14748 Akaroa Civic Trust - Rosie Davidson 76

11.50 am 14666 Bruce Campbell 9 Supplementary 12 11.55 am Supplementary 13028 Tenants Protection Association (Chch) Inc - Helen Gatonyi (from volume 7, page 125) 12.05pm 12604 Self and four companies - Antony Gough 17 Supplementary 12.15 pm Break 12.30 pm LUNCH 1.00 pm 13741 Sustainable Otautahi Christchurch - Marney Ainsworth 81 1.10 pm 13369 Jacqueline Thomas 88 1.15 pm 13722 Quentin McKenzie 90

1.20 pm 13739 John Ryan 186 (volume 8) 1.25 pm 13738 SCAPE Public Art - Deborah McCormick 91 1.35 pm 12522 CCC Public Art Advisory Group - Dame Adrienne Stewart 97

- 1 - CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25 SUBMITTERS WHO WISH TO BE HEARD

FRIDAY 22 MAY 2015 (Continued)

Submission Time Submitter Page No No 1.45 pm 12987 Charles Drace 99 12300 Dominic Brownin and 1.50 pm 20 & 21 12304 Lynda Pilling Supplementary 2.00 pm Break Verbal 2.05 pm Sue McLaughlin N/A Submission Federated Farmers of New Zealand 2.10 pm 14751 101 - Nick Clark and Frank Brenmuhl 2.20 pm 13025 Selene Teevale 106

2.25 pm 14453 Lynette Wills 107

2.30 pm 12670 Brian Pegler 23 Supplementary 2.35 pm 14773 Gavin and Faye Barclay 24 Supplementary 2.40 pm 13658 Avon-Otakaro Network - Evan Smith 109

2.50 pm 14835 Eastern Vision - Evan Smith 115 3.00 pm Afternoon Tea 3.20 pm 14852 Paulus Telfer 119

3.25 pm 14799 Bernard Calder 123

3.30 pm 14776 Barry Hopping 128

3.35 pm 14787 Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust - Maree Burnett 130

3.45 pm 13221 The Canterbury Community Trust - Louise Edwards 166

3.55 pm 14792 Peter Tuffley 168 East Christchurch Water Sports Community Trust 4.00 pm 13815 25 - David Goodman Supplementary 4.05 pm 13619 Ministry of Education - Simon Cruickshank 169

4.15 pm 14736 Colleen Philip 170

4.20 pm 14623 Celeste Donovan 172

4.25 pm 13195 Geoffrey Knight 174

4.30 pm 13260 Connect Canterbury - Tane Apanui 175

4.40 pm 13084 Katie Nimmo 178 Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology 4.45 pm 13019 27 - Teresa O'Neil Supplementary 4.50 pm 13739 Joseph Ryan (moved to 1.20pm) 186

4.55 pm 14573 Howard Livingston 187

4.55 pm 13766 Christian Jordan 30 Supplementary

- 2 - Submission No. 12528 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25

- Received via Have Your Say -

Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Kate Burtt Postal Address (Street)*: 32 Panorama Rd Postal Address (Suburb): Sumner Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8081 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: For myself If you are Representing a Group or Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Your role in the Organisation: Date Sent: 24/04/2015 12:32:00 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Cell: 027 232 7637 Email 2: [email protected]

Submission:

Arts Funding for Christchurch The sustainability of the arts in all its forms in Christchurch is fundamental to a healthy community.

The arts be they music, visual or performing give our city its soul. The CCC must commit to this as part of a vibrant and cohesive urban society. Arts organisations are extraordinarily innovative and resourceful in achieving their funding. The support of the CCC however gives other funders confidence that the city is committed to the arts.

- 3 - Submission No. 14762

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25 - Received via Email -

Name: G Wilson Email: [email protected] cc:

Sent: Tuesday, 28 April 2015 9:09 AM

Subject: Submission Your Submission: Attached is the submission of the Central Riccarton Residents' Association Inc

Representatives of our Association wish to make an oral submission.

Please acknowledge by email receipt of this submission.

Yours sincerely

G Wilson Secretary, Central Riccarton Residents' Association Inc

- 4 - SUBMISSION OF THE CENTRAL RICCARTON RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION INC ON THE LONG TERM PLAN AND RATING POLICY

1. “Strategic” Assets

“Shortly after the February 2011 quake when Cantabrians were invited to partake in something called Share an Idea, they got on board big time, the results revealing that a convention centre and a super-size sports stadium weren't uppermost on the wish list…. When you ask citizens to buy into a feel-good share idea scheme, and employ people to read each and every one of them, to disregard the suggestions is to patronise them.” - Jane Bowron “” April 27, 2015

1.1 Convention Centre: Our concern is not only with the cost of construction, even though that may be paid for by a third party, but the long term maintenance and the cost to the ratepayers for that maintenance. We believe it would be better to delay the construction until a proper financial long term maintenance plan is presented. This unknown cost is not acceptable to ratepayers especially as the need for a convention centre has not been established, especially when there are major convention centres in Auckland and Queenstown.

1.2 Stadium: The stadium should not just be deferred but the proposal should be dropped altogether as there is no need for a stadium of the proposed scale on that site. The present Addington stadium works well, is popular with spectators and could be extended at the northern end of the ground and upgraded. The example of other cities who have built stadiums beyond the financial capability of the community to support them – such as Dunedin City Council – should act as a warning to decision-makers. If Canterbury Rugby want a much bigger stadium, they can afford to build one themselves or do so with a partner such as Ngai Tahu and then they can hire out their own stadium to whomever they choose.

2. Ratepayer-owned Assets

2.1 Surplus land in council ownership that will not be required in the future for sports facilities, reserves or roading projects should be sold off before asset sales are considered. Assets should only be retained if they making an acceptable return and if they are not they, should be examined as to what changes could be made to increase the return. Note: The management of Lyttelton Port Company needs to be urgently reviewed so that safety of workers is guaranteed. The whole structure of asset management salaries has to be re-assessed to be on a more reasonable and less inflated basis. The bonus system has been abused in rewarding those who are doing no more than the job expected of them for which they are paid already high salaries.

3. Riccarton Community Centre

This Community Centre has been closed since September 2010. Councillors were not told the truth about the state of the building. Indeed, Councillors were misled because of private agendas among some senior staff. It took two years to have some rooms which were always greater than 100% NBS to be re-opened for public use, and then only begrudgingly. Extravagant claims were made at a Community Board meeting in January 2014 that a new Community Centre would be open in 18 months’ time and that there was no need for any community participation in the organisation of the project. As our Association expected, basically nothing has been achieved since and residents and ratepayers living in the area have been shut out from contributing ideas. Central Riccarton is the most densely populated area in Christchurch; it is very multi-ethnic and has a very high proportion of rental properties. A large percentage of the population is under 25. Increasing numbers of people have been moving from other parts of Christchurch into the area since 2011 and there are no signs of this trend diminishing – indeed quite the opposite. The Christchurch City Council should endorse and support Councillor Chen’s drive to have a temporary or new Community Centre fully open in 2015.

- 5 - Control and management of community facilities such as this should be devolved to the community which will ensure that they are regularly and properly maintained and upgraded and not allowed to deteriorate.

4. Adopt these policies to increase revenue or cut expenditure and, therefore, lower the proposed rate impost:

4.1 Council Staffing

4.1.1 Council is top heavy with managerial staff and a sinking lid policy should be instituted. There should be a curb on top salaries which are completely out of touch with reality (particularly in comparison with the average Christchurch citizen’s wage). In the private sector, managers are held accountable for their actions. There has been NO accountability in the recent past for managers who have performed badly thereby costing the ratepayers, in some instances, millions of dollars. There needs to be a much greater drive for efficiency and effectiveness because often projects undertaken by council staff seem to take a lot of time and resources (which equals money) and result in the production of poor and often unworkable solutions.

4.1.2 Expensive projects such as the Riccarton Super Bus Stop and the changing of the Riccarton Road layout should be questioned as to whether the end result is value for money. There are many ways, especially smaller scale projects, to improve existing road and bus systems (such as Park and Ride, and better traffic management) that could be considered first.

4.1.3 No staff member should have a Council credit card. All staff members should apply for reimbursement of legitimate Council expenditure on the production of valid receipts. The use of credit cards has been grossly abused in the past.

4.2 Contracts

4.2.1 All contracts should be contestable with no preferred contractors. The need to engage contractors when the work can easily be carried out by staff must be questioned.

4.2.2 All sports that lease council land, and this includes , must pay their own maintenance upkeep, and leases should be set at a realistic figure bearing in mind the user.

4.2.3 There needs to be a robust policy of quality control across all “completed” contracts to check that the work has not only been done but done properly, and invoices should not be paid merely on receipt of the invoice.

4.3 Development and Discretionary Funding

Community Boards’ Youth Development Fund and the Community Boards’ Discretionary Fund should be suspended for the next three years across all Community Boards. One Community Board alone gets $66,000 from Council to disperse for purposes that are not the province of the ratepayer. A general sense of entitlement to funding from Council has grown up and with Council costs accelerating this is an area where obvious savings can be made. The individuals and organisations that have applied for Council funds in the past can seek funds from other bodies such as trusts specifically set up for the purpose of supporting the community or they can intensify their own fund raising. We object to grants being given for wages. Council should also look at its own grants policy.

- 6 - 4.4 Council and Community Board Meetings

4.4.1 Councillors and Community Board members should not be paid for the time they spend away from Christchurch on personal holidays outside the annual official holiday break of Christmas and January. Some of these holidays have been for two or three months on end.

4.4.2 Catering for all Council and Community Board meetings and their committees should be restricted to tea, coffee, water and biscuits. Members of Council and Community Boards are remunerated adequately and should pay for their own food as do the vast majority of workers in Christchurch.

4.5 Post and Courier Services

4.5.1 There should be a large reduction in the use of post and courier by the Council. Many rates-related items and for the hire of Council-owned facilities should be sent by email including bills, submission replies, and newsletters. A small discount for consumers who accept electronic means of communication and direct debit or automatic payment systems (as many utilities and commercial firms do) would be an incentive. The current paper work around the hire of community facilities is abysmal and wasteful of ratepayer money.

4.5.2 There should be a policy that only in an exceptional circumstance should fastpost be used.

4.6 Business Rating

4.6.1 A small business being operated out of a privately-owned house means the owner of that house pays business rates on that property.

4.6.2 Our Association is firmly of the view if a person owns houses/flats/appartments/sections which are not primarily used for housing their own or immediate family or whanau, then those properties should be charged business rates. Owning multiple houses or landbanking is a business investment the aim of which is to earn income or at some future time make a profit and should consequently attract business rates. Many of the owners of these multiple properties are receiving an income far in excess of what a small business owner operating out of a privately-owned house (and paying business rates) receives.

4.6.3 The Council should immediately lobby the government to ensure that houses/flats/appartments rented out are subject to a warrant of fitness and conform to the insulation code and a minimum standard of heating and habitability and that there be a public register of such properties along with a note of their compliance or lack of compliance.

4.7 Council Decision-making Process

Too many decisions are being made in committee which leaves the public unable to analyse whether the decisions were justified and whether information has been withheld by the staff. Inexperienced new councillors rely heavily on the staff for information, but as past incidents have shown councillors are not always given the full reports, and sometimes the recommendations of staff reflect the staff bias rather than the impartiality of the related facts. Debates which take place under public scrutiny will be more financially robust and will result in huge savings of expenditure over the long term.

Conclusion

- 7 - Considerable savings can be made in a multitude of small ways and not just on the major spending items. Our Association sees evidence of a gross waste of ratepayer money by Council on a DAILY basis. If this Council does not drastically cut the proposed rate rise of more than 33% over the next four years then pressure will come from ratepayers and residents on the government to appoint a Commissioner for Christchurch City, because as Minister Brownlee has told the Council so many city ratepayers are on fixed and low incomes and are unable to support such a rise.

- 8 - SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN.

From. Bruce Campbell.

542 Yaldhurst Rd.

Ph. 021774991. email. [email protected]

Zone R5

Christchurch.

Re letter received from CCC. Dated the 19th 0f March 2015.

Title. General Rates-Qualification Criteria for the Lower Rural Rate.

Signed by Steve Ballard.

I object to the proposal, based on the following three points.

(1) The basis of user pays. (2) The rural use of the property. (3) The limited use and enjoyment of the property due to the restrictions of a CCC owned company.

THE BASIS OF USER PAYS

The property receives limited services from the CCC. It is not connected to the CCC sewerage system or water supply.

The capital cost and the ongoing maintenance of these privately funded and maintained services would approximate to the existing rebate.

The provision of these services by the CCC to residential properties, contributes to the valuation of these properties from which the rates are struck.

In the existing rural situation the owner provides the cost of this contribution to the value of the property that is used for rating calculations.

Additional to the lack of CCC supplied services the electricity supply to our property, because of the rural location, is poor to the point where we have had to install a 20KVA generator at considerable cost to get a guarantee of supply.We only get rural services. Not residential services.

I object on the basis of natural justice and fairness.

- 9 - THE RURAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. AS DESIGNATED BY THE CCC.

In the discussion paper put out by the CCC in 2011, Titled. North West Review Area the following were identified as significant issues.

Natural resources.- The area contains aquifers and ground water recharge areas, water courses and versatile soils.

Noise - There is a 50 dBA contour around the airport which would impact noise sensitive activities.

Access .

District Plan - The majority of the area is within the rural 5 Airport Influences Zone where the purpose is to continue primary production (farming) whilst managing land use activities to avoid compromising the airport’s operation.

Recreation facilities- this area is accessible and close to a number of residential suburbs.

______

Our property at 542 Yaldhurst Rd. is in alignment with the city council objectives.

The operation conducted on this property is an intensely farmed Organic Export Apple Orchard.

It is certified for organic production by BioGro. (BG 3934) and certified by AsureQuality to Global Gap export requirements. ( EG 261)( It is the only organic export orchard in Canterbury.)

These certifications confirm that the highest standard of environmental farming is being complied with.

We are an employer of local labour which contributes to the local economy.

We are a genuine rural operation and also meet the forgoing CCC concerns.

For the land use to meet the CCC’s aspirations the rural rebate should be maintained to encourage rural use of the land.

To arbitrarily use a given area, such as 5 hectares, to determine what is rural and what is not, independent, of what function is being carried out, shows a lack of objectivity.

I object on the basis that 542 Yaldhurst Rd is a “RURAL PROPERTY” even though the area is only 3.823 hectare.

- 10 -

THE LIMITED USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY, DUE TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF A CCC. OWNED COMPANY. ( Applicable to rural 5 only)

Because of the dominance of the Christchurch International Airport over Rural 5 zone, the free use of the land is very limited.

For this reason the land has limited long term potential and is only suited for rural use.

The CIAL has the ultimate authority over the use of the land not the land owner. The use of the land keeps getting further restricted as CIAL, keep getting further restrictions added into the CCC L.T.P

The CIAL limits the potential of the land and dictates what the land can be used for but carries no share of the rate burden.

I object on the basis that the free use of the land in R 5 is severely curtailed.

The letter from the CCC states that “the purpose of the proposal is not to increase or decrease rates” infers that the proposed change is neutral as far as the rate take is concerned. This is not the case. It results in a considerable increase to the council income.

If the Council needs more income I suggest an upfront and honest approach where the Council levies all rate payers for a capped number of years for a fixed purpose. ie the period of the LTP . A levy that is transparent, would be acceptable to the majority of Ratepayers.

I for one would be happy to contribute.

Yours respectfully.

Bruce Campbell

- 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - - 15 - - 16 - - 17 - Submission No. 12604 (2 of 2) CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25 - Received via Email - Name: Antony Gough Email: [email protected]

Harcourt Gough; [email protected]; Isabel Shearman ([email protected]); Lisa Williams; [email protected]; Clive Weston ([email protected]); Laurie cc: Rose; [email protected]; Margo Perpick; Maureen Taane; Michele Hider; Philip Richards; [email protected]; Shaun Stockman; Tim Dearsley ([email protected])

Sent: Tuesday, 28 April 2015 11:58 AM

Subject: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025

Your Submission: Dear Sir

Please find below my submission regarding the council Draft Long Term Plan for 2015-2025.

Submitter;- Antony Thomas Gough Address;- 30 Heaton Street, Christchurch 8052. Contact;- Daytime phone 03 379 2259 Cell phone 0274 33 1428

I am submitting this on behalf of the following;

My self - Antony Thomas Gough Hereford Holdings Ltd The Avon on Terrace Ltd Gough McKinnon Ltd The Terrace Car Park Ltd

I wish to present at the hearings personally.

Submission Details:

1: Rates It concerns me that the general rates increase is 11.2% with a commercial rates differential of 66% this means that rates increases for most significant commercial properties will be closer to 11% plus the differential. This will put a huge burden on those who choose to rebuild this city and in the long term wuill be unsustainable. We should be looking to reduce the rates differential in the coming years. We should be looking to get less funds from rates and more from details as below.

2. Sale of non-strategic assets. I fully support the selling down of non-strategic assets but to retain 51% for the following companies. Retain 51% for Christchurch International Airport Ltd Retain 51% for Littelton Port Company Ltd Retain 51% of Orion New Zealand Ltd Retain 51% of Enable Services Ltd. Retain 51% of EcoCentral Ltd.

I see no reason to retain any holding in City Care Ltd and Red Bus Ltd. These are simply businesses that the council competes with other providers in and we no longer have a need to be in these businesses.

We should also be looking at all other assets and questioning which are needed and which are no longer required to run the city. We need to get back to basics and look to own only those assets that are needed to run the city and dispose of all other assets. - 18 -

3. Community Housing. Nice to have but this is an area we as rate payers cannot afford to be in. I know the comment is that it has no rates support but it involves a large amount of capital that is showing no real return to the rate payers on. It should be sold off to another entity and the capital released to help pay for the huge funding shortfall.

4. Major Anchor Projects. We should be reviewing these to prioritise those that are really needed now and delaying others. Projects that should be considered for delay are as follows.

Town Hall. I question the need for repairing the James Hay Theatre as we now have a very good available within two blocks of the James Hay theatre. Former AMI Stadium. We cannot afford this new stadium in the medium term. This is particularly so with the insurance side so unresolved. The current temporary stadium is perfectly adequate for the next ten years. Central Library. This could be put out to a private developer and leased back by council so saving $75 million. Central City Multi-sport Facility. This should be relooked at to see if some parts can be delayed.

5. Car Parking. Central City Car Parking has the potential to stall the CBD revival. This needs to be given a greater degree of priority that it has enjoyed over the past four years. More active Private, Public Partnership options should be actively pursued.

6. Priority Bus Lanes. I support the priority bus lanes and particularly the ones proposed for Riccarton Road. If we are wishing to encourage more bus use then this form of transport needs to be a faster alternative to taking one’s own car.

7. Cycle Ways. I support cycle ways but question the level of expenditure in the medium term. Another nice to have but at a cost we can afford. The proposed level off spending in this area is too high.

8. All programs of repair need to be carefully reconsidered.

All areas of expenditure need examining.

Antony Gough Managing Director

The Terrace Oxford Terrace PO Box 1330 Christchurch 8140 New Zealand m: +64 (0) 27 433 1428 [email protected] theterrace.co.nz

- 19 - Submission No. 12300 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25

- Received via Have Your Say -

Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Dominic Brownin Postal Address (Street)*: 59 Halsey Street Postal Address (Suburb): South Brighton Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8062 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: For myself If you are Representing a Group or Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Your role in the Organisation: Date Sent: 20/04/2015 5:53:54 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Home: 03 388 9844 (available 18th May onwards) Email 2: [email protected]

Submission:

South Brighton Motor Camp may close in 2015 There are no good reasons to close the camp. If the council do not wish to invest in the camp there is a simple solution which is to issue a land only lease and allow the existing lease holders to rebuild the camp.

This has significant advantages to both the council and the lease holder:

• It would remove the current disconnect between leased facilities and business requirements. • It would release the council from any CAPEX requirements and require minimum OPEX spend. • Zero exposure for the council for any future events. • CCC gets to keep a valuable asset. • Meets CCC’s current brand image of moving forward together. • There is no requirement to maintain land if camp remains open. • Local economy retains support of valuable tourist dollars. • Long term residents retain their homes. • Future land use not greatly impacted by flood risk, real or perceived. • Much needed accommodation for tourists, locals going through rebuild/repair and the rebuild workforce. • Best use of reserve land. • Creative solution to move forward. • Keep an asset alive that has been in existence since the 1940’s. • Christchurch’s tourism industry does not loose an accommodation provider ranked one of the highest by independent feedback. - 20 - Submission No. 12304 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25

- Received via Have Your Say -

Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Lynda Pilling Postal Address (Street)*: 59 Halsey Street Postal Address (Suburb): South Brighton Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8062 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: For myself If you are Representing a Group or Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Your role in the Organisation: Date Sent: 20/04/2015 4:43:07 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Home: 03 388 9844 (available 18th May onwards) Email 2: [email protected] Submission:

Closure of the South Brighton Holiday Park Information regarding the land is incorrect The Recreation and Sports Facilities LTP refers to 'extensive damage to the land'. To the contrary accurate information as regards to the impacts of the earthquakes can be found in CERA's Stage 3 Land Report available to the public at; http://cera.govt.nz/land-information/land-damage

We have also undertaken a geotechnical investigation which can be viewed at http://www.southbrightonholidaypark.co.nz/sbhp_geotech.pdf Highlights of the report are: Minimal liquefaction No lateral spreading No elevation change Minimal cracking Land suitable for TC1 classification under the SLS (25 yr seismic event category) and TC2 classification under the ULS (500 yr seismic event category)

Infrastructure costs are excessive The roading and sewer are shared with the tennis club. If the camp were to close the repairs would still be required for the tennis club. Infrastructure costs should be shared between the two facilities not just attributed to one. The costs also seem a little excessive with just one remaining break in the pipe and approximately 10m of tarmac that needs replacing. SCIRT have already lined about 40m of our sewer. - 21 - Building costs are excessive Building costs are based on Like 4 Like replacement, this is not necessary, the operation could be restructured i.e. just rebuild one amenity block at a saving of $600,000. The workshop is effectively just a large storeroom and does not require rebuilding, another saving of $300,000. Alternative solutions could be engaged to repair the Office/Dwelling i.e. LIFT and repair foundations at a further saving. No due diligence has been made to explore solutions other than direct replacement. No impacts of the loss of the camp to the local economy have been considered. The customers and long term residents contribute a conservative $500,000 to the local economy annually. Loosing this asset will have a huge impact to the economy and community.

Costs - Forecast CAPEX vs Actual Spend The LTP does not reflect the actual cost to the council or any of the benefits to the economy of keeping the camp open. $2,300,000 Stated CAPEX requirement for Like 4 Like replacement -600,000 Savings if just one amenity block built -300,000 Savings if workshop not rebuilt -225,000 Halving of infrastructure costs to reflect shared facilities -100,000 EQC payment for Dwelling -800,000 Forecast insurance payout for rebuilt facilities ** ? Budget/life cycle funds for replacing amenity blocks as identified in South Brighton Reserve Management Plan prior to the quakes

$275,000 ACTUAL cost to council*

*Further savings could be achieved by taking a different approach to the Office/Dwelling structure i.e. Lift and repair foundation. **These funds should be used to repair facilities already identified and budgeted for replacement prior to the quakes.

- 22 - Submission No. 12670 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25

- Received via Have Your Say -

Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Brian Pegler Postal Address (Street)*: 35 Karanga Road Postal Address (Suburb): Christchurch Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 7682 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: For myself If you are Representing a Group or Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Your role in the Organisation: Date Sent: 25/04/2015 11:50:00 AM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Home: 03 318 7676 Email 2: [email protected]

Submission:

Change Logo CCC -Raised middle finger? Greetings Apart from CCC logo having Fonterra colours it is out of date. While it may have symbolised the Cathedral, at present one could be forgiven thinking it looks like a 'raised middle finger" Even looks like middle finger is wrapped in a large white rubber glove? As Oscar Wilde said "I can resist anything except temptation", I am tempted to suggest the present logo be donated to prostrate awareness. Jokes aside -we do need new logo. Why not invite young people of City to design one?

- 23 - - 24 -

SUBMISSION ON THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN MAKING SMART CHOICES 2015-2025

To: Long Term Plan Submissions Christchurch City Council [email protected]

Submitter: East Christchurch Water Sports Community Trust

Contact person: David Goodman (Chairperson) Postal address: c/- Anderson Lloyd PO Box 13831 Christchurch 8141 Email: [email protected] Phone: 03 379 0037

Signature:

Date: 28 April 2015

East Christchurch Water Sports Community Trust ("the Trust") wishes to present its submission at the hearing.

East Christchurch Water Sports Community Trust

1. The Trust was established in 2014 to pursue a flat water recreational water sport facility at Kerr's Reach, Dallington. The Trust has the dual goals of benefiting and promoting flat water sports and recovery in the eastern suburbs (including cultural, social and ecological recovery).

2. The Trust's project concept is a large lake and flat water sports facility developed near the Avon River/Ōtākaro, surrounded by paths and cycle ways, ponds, trees and native plants. It is intended that the project be a community asset providing an environment and facilities for a range of recreational activities with broad public appeal.

3. The Trust's objects include consultation with the community, stakeholders and authorities regarding the project, and raising of funds to facilitate the project.

SJE-902675-4-6-V2 - 25 -

Residential Red Zone

4. The Trust supports the sentiment contained in the Consultation Document1 regarding the enormous opportunity to use the to reinvent our city and create a legacy for future generations. The Trust believes there is an unprecedented opportunity to utilise the Residential Red Zone for sport and recreation, and in particular to meet the demand recognised over many years for a flat water sports facility in Christchurch.

5. The Trust's vision is for a lake for greater Christchurch, whanau, young people and our visitors, creating an environment for sport and recreation linking the city to the sea.

6. As an eastern Christchurch anchor project, a flat water sports lake and surrounding cycleways and planting would create a fantastic community partnership and provide a valuable natural asset that would: (a) Increase participation in sport and recreational activities, - rowing, kayaking, waka ama, dragon boating, cycling, walking and leisure; (b) Complement connect other projects along the Avon River/Ōtākaro corridor; (c) Inspire family time and reflection; (d) Create opportunities for talented young sportspeople; (e) Attract national and international events; and (f) Provide support to and complement possible solutions to wider challenges around transport infrastructure, hydrology and flood mitigation as examples.

7. The Trust supports provision of $6.4 million for the future use of the residential red zone transformational legacy project as discussed in the Consultation Document and identified in the draft Long Term Plan as "Aspirational Red Zone and other catalyst projects"2. The Trust seeks retention of this funding in the final Long Term Plan.

1 Page 59 2 ID 21133, page 238

SJE-902675-4-6-V2 - 26 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 DRAFT CHRISTCHURCH CITY LONG TERM PLAN 2015-2025

SUBMISSION BY CHRISTCHURCH POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

TO: Christchurch City Council PO Box 73016 CHRISTCHURCH 8154

NAME OF SUBMITTER: Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology

SUBMISSION ON: The draft Christchurch City Long Term Plan 2015-2025

SUBMITTER ADDRESS: Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology PO Box 540 CHRISTCHURCH

Please note the different address for service below

SUBMISSION BY CHRISTCHURCH POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT) lodges a submission on the draft Christchurch City Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

BACKGROUND

CPIT is one of New Zealand’s largest tertiary institutions, educating approximately 30,000 students per annum and employing approximately 2,000 staff.

CPIT has two key campus facilities located in Christchurch; being the City Campus (Madras Street) and Sullivan Avenue located in Opawa. They also own additional land at Hassals Lane, Opawa (Seven Oaks) which is currently occupied by an independent school.

The City Campus is located within the Central City and occupies an entire city block defined by Moorhouse Avenue, Madras Street, St Asaph Street and Barbadoes Street. It also has a number of off campus activities and buildings located within the immediate vicinity of the City Campus. These include dedicated administrative and teaching functions, and student accommodation (Otautahi House).

CPTI delivers high quality tertiary education services. As part of its ongoing commitment to the delivery of such services is has, over the years, invested heavily in additional infrastructure so as to provide the best facilities for staff and students and to strengthen the institution as a desirable,

Page | 1

- 27 - functional and effective educator. Given the location of the City Campus, and the significant investment in the campus, CPIT can be seen as a significant contributor to Central City revitalisation – both in terms of its day to day activities and in the participation and contribution by staff and students in nearby business, leisure and residential activities.

SUBMISSION

CPIT is concerned about the lack of an identified capital works item to address pedestrian/traffic safety concerns on Madras Street.

Within this context, CPIT’s submission is concerned principally with the following component of the draft Long Term Plan:

 Draft Long Term Plan Volume 1  Capital Programme

The Capital Programme consists of projects the Council proposes to fund, as well as projects considered for funding but that are not included in the proposed programme.

CPIT is concerned at the absence of any specified item to address safety concerns associated with pedestrian movements across Madras Street between the City Campus and adjacent retail outlets on the western side of Madras Street.

CPIT staff and students regularly observe pedestrian/vehicle conflicts as pedestrians attempt to cross Madras Street. CPIT has previously raised this issue with the Council in submissions on previous Long Term Plans and is concerned that the issue remains unrecognised.

Given this, CPIT requests that the draft Long Term Plan be amended to make provision for investigations into this safety issue and provision for subsequent remedial capital works as required.

SPECIFIC RELIEF

Given the above, CPIT seeks the following specific relief:

That the Long Term Plan be amended to:

 Make provision for investigations into pedestrian safety issues at Madras Street adjoining the CPIT City Campus; and

 Make provision for subsequent remedial capital works as required.

HEARING

CPIT wishes to be heard in support of its submission at the hearing scheduled to occur in May.

Page | 2

- 28 - SIGNED for and on behalf of Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology

…………………………………… Teresa O’Neil Consultant Planner Resource Management Group

Dated: 24 April 2015

Address for service of Submitter:

Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology C/- Resource Management Group Limited PO Box 908 Christchurch Box Lobby CHRISTCHURCH 8140

Attention: Teresa O’Neil

Telephone: (03) 903 5231 Email: [email protected]

Page | 3

- 29 - Submission No. 13766 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25

- Received via Have Your Say -

Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Christian Paul Jordan Postal Address (Street)*: 66b Winters Rd Postal Address (Suburb): Redwood Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8051 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: For myself If you are Representing a Group or Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Your role in the Organisation: Date Sent: 28/04/2015 12:00:00 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Cell: 027 2750 212 Email 2: [email protected]

Submission:

Anchor Projects The council is not in a position to spend the amounts committed on these projects and all projects should be deferred to some extent or renegotiated with Central Government. Deferral could be until a change in the position on these projects is made by the Central Government.

If AMI stadium is repaired by the insurer, there would be no cost to the ratepayer.

The sports facilities should be staged or downgraded to bring them within insured amounts, as should car parking.

The library building should also be downgraded or staged. How is the land cost $27m when the old library site was already owned by the council and the new site is not that significantly more expensive?

In all perhaps $250 m could be stripped from the budget.

- 30 - Council Housing The council intends have nearly 2400 units losing $5m per annum.

Even excluding perhaps $3m pa in new building, this is still a -0.5% return on a half billion dollar asset. Private landlords would generally return 5% net on assets.

The council should not be subsidising housing to such an extent. This is the role of central government.

Why is housing which losses money being retained when assets producing strong returns are proposed to be sold?

Development Contributions DCs are virtually flat across the city.

A 100m2 flat on a rear site in Woolston will likely cost more in DCs than on a 500m2 mansion in Fendalton. This means that affordable houses are discourage (paying perhaps 40% of land value on DCs) and large homes are encouraged.

This means that the council is forced to pick up the pieces providing more loss making social housing.

Cut DCs for cheaper homes and you will receive more rates revenue and spend less providing social housing.

Rates rises Rates rises should be kept to a minimum and the goal should be rates reductions over the medium term.

This can be done by measures outlined above.

- 31 -