Christchurch City Council Mayor Lianne Dalziel, Councillors Paul Lonsdale and Phil Clearwater

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (UDSIC)

Held at Environment Canterbury 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch on Friday 13 May 2016 commencing at 9am

PRESENT: Selwyn District Council Mayor Kelvin Coe (Nominated Chair)

Environment Canterbury Commissioners Dame Margaret Bazley, Peter Skelton and Rex Williams

Selwyn District Council Councillors Mark Alexander and Malcolm Lyall

Waimakariri District Council Councillor Kirstyn Barnett

New Zealand Transport Agency (observer) Jim Harland

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (observer) Kelvan Smith

Canterbury District Health Board (observer) Murray Cleverley

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Bill Wasley (Independent Chair), Mayor David Ayers and Councillors Neville Atkinson and Jim Gerard (Waimakariri District Council), Tā Mark Solomon and Lisa Tumahai (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu), and David Meates (Canterbury District Health Board).

Moved: Mark Alexander Seconded: Malcolm Lyall

The Committee resolved to grant speakers' rights to Councillor Kirstyn Barnett and Murray Cleverley.

Moved: Dame Margaret Bazley Seconded: Peter Skelton

2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

No declarations were made.

3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Nil.

* UDS partners in respect of this matter are the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Environment Canterbury, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, New Zealand Transport Agency, Canterbury District Health Board and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 13.05.2016

4. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

The Committee received the minutes of the previous meeting of 8 April 2016.

Moved: Malcolm Lyall Seconded: Paul Lonsdale

5. WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS

1. Demographics

The purpose of this workshop session was to provide Committee members with an overview of projected demographic changes in Greater Christchurch and to discuss their likely implications.

Presentations were received from: - David Price, Principal Analyst - Monitoring and Research, Christchurch City Council "UDS 2043 - Who will be living here in 30 years time?" - Keith Tallentire on behalf of Bill Cochrane, University of Waikato "Population Change - Long Run Demographic Trends in New Zealand"

Committee members made the following comments on the topics covered by the presentations:

· 2018 Census will highlight ongoing changes post-2013 Census which this presentation data is drawn from, including: o travel patterns to work, school and recreation o ratios of employment to working population from further employment growth in the districts · the aging population is affecting all areas and will have an impact on services and infrastructure which needs factoring into existing areas and new developments o need to know if aging population is evenly spread – or if there is a difference across suburbs or townships o changes in the activities of 65+ age group including continuing working, leisure, opportunities for volunteering o more and local community spaces and health facilities o accessible public transport services o differing models and service provision for youth · there are stark implications for housing typologies, particularly the need for smaller houses o possibility of further enabling reconfiguration of existing large houses into smaller units through planning provisions o more detailed information required on which areas and suburbs are most impacted and which have the most potential for change · technological changes could also impact on potential service changes required o transport changes (e.g. self-drive vehicles) and the demand for public transport o centralised vs distributed and individualised service models (e.g. library services) · need to review and assess council spending - are we spending money on the right things and in the right locations? Need to challenge our assumptions and our current paradigm · data highlights the need to continue to attract migrants with the right skills, including self- employed and entrepreneurs · need to create a database for greater Christchurch which draws together necessary information to assist UDS thinking and for wider communication and planning purposes.

2. Draft Greater Christchurch Resilience Plan

The purpose of this workshop session was to provide Committee members with an overview of the draft Greater Christchurch Resilience Plan, to seek feedback on interdependencies and opportunities for collaboration, and to discuss UDSIC endorsement of the Plan.

Presenters for this item were: - Mike Gillooly, Chief Resilience Officer, Christchurch City Council - John Vargo, Resilient Organisations - Jon Richards, Christchurch City Council - Anna Elphick, Canterbury Development Corporation - Sandy Brinsdon, Canterbury District Health Board - John Meeker, Principal Advisor Urban Regeneration, Christchurch City Council

Tea break taken from 10.25am to 10.47am.

Te Marino Lenihan, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu gave an apology from Diane Turner, and provided the meeting with a Ngāi Tahu perspective on resilience and the issues being discussed. He noted that resilience was important to Ngāi Tahu and that Ngāi Tahu was keen to be a part of the process to define that for Greater Christchurch.

Committee members made the following comments on the topics covered by the presentations:

· Continuing need to demonstrate clearer linkage and integration with the UDS Update and UDS Review processes, including: o inclusive language (such as 'community' and 'place') and correctly referencing and distinguishing between Greater Christchurch and Christchurch City o avoiding duplication with, and explaining how this Plan informs, the UDS Review (signalled for post-election) as distinct from UDS Update happening now · Is it preferable to reframe the Plan as a Christchurch City Resilience Plan? o enables CCC to get on and achieve actions o have components immediately required for Greater Christchurch area brought into the UDS Update, leaving the rest to UDS Review o make the Plan available to partners willing to pick-up on aspects of Resilience Plan · what the Plan defines and incorporates as 'resilience' and the understanding of this term within the community may be different, i.e: o not just physical/infrastructure resilience o not just in response to earthquakes and natural hazards but wider shocks and stressors o better prepared for the future - building resilience, Disaster Risk Reduction and sustainable development · how does/will the plan pick up on natural environment issues and the outcomes of the recent Ngāi Tahu workshop, such as the health and vitality of the city's rivers and estuaries o Ngāi Tahu values and connections to the environment are woven through all the goals of the Plan and it highlights a partnership approach to achieving natural environment aspirations · ensure resilience links and integrates with regional hazards work underway o the Plan takes a wider view if risk and its components such as understanding, literacy, acceptance, and risk management o flooding risk is part of this but the Plan does not specifically mention Waimakariri river stopbanks · the Plan represents a programme of actions around which we can collaborate now ahead of a UDS Review, it also helps connect with regional work, central government agencies and work on resilience occurring internationally o it provides important information to contribute to the UDS Review o developed through working with partners via a partners working group, CEAG and UDSIC, as well as a wider expert advisory group o intention is to bring the full Plan to UDSIC next meeting on 10 June

o the Plan will be shared with the stakeholder who have contributed to its development through further engagement · need to consider the benefits and risks of, and the ability to, accelerate the UDS Review to assist in the integration of the two initiatives o 2018 Census will provide information and an evidence base important to particular elements of the UDS Review and any change to the RPS

Moved: Paul Lonsdale Seconded: Rex Williams

That the Committee receive the presentations.

6. OVERVIEW OF URBAN WATER ISSUES

The purpose of this report was to provide the Committee with an overview of urban water issues to complement the UDSIC presentations and discussions occurring with regard to the UDS Refresh.

Moved: Paul Lonsdale Seconded: Phil Clearwater

That the Committee note the report.

Luncheon adjournment from 12.19pm to 1.00pm

5. WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS (CONTINUED)

1. Urban Water

The purpose of this workshop session was to provide Committee members with an overview of urban water issues impacting Greater Christchurch and to discuss their likely implications and the respective roles of UDSIC and Zone Committees.

Presentations were received from: - Jenny Webster-Brown, Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management - Christina Robb, Programme Manager, Canterbury Water Management Strategy, Environment Canterbury

Committee members made the following comments on the topics covered by the presentations:

· small settlements have similar challenges to those highlighted in the city however the level of urban intensity is less and so the degree/severity of contaminants is generally less · a consolidated model for groundwater recharge would assist current thinking and planning o currently models developed by ECan, Golder Associates, Aqualink etc all of which have limitations and assumptions which further analysis can help refine o better understanding of the water balance between extraction and recharge, including the impact of the CPW scheme · greater attention could be paid to demand management o current culture of green lawns with little thought to water use o promote sensible use of water, particularly demand levelling and timing of use o paying for water based on use, incentives for installing rainwater tanks o greater visibility and awareness of current costs, including through rating information o work with Zone Committees and other community networks · need to be honest about the timeframes and costs involved in improving water quality o lag times for contaminants through the system e.g. nitrates

o river bank planting enhancements need to be combined with other methods to reduce the underlying contaminant loads · reducing contaminants arising from new development o current trend for copper roofs, cladding and other uses o zinc roofs for industrial land use not always powdercoated unlike residential o NIWA did some unpublished research into contaminant sources breakdown i.e. industrial, residential, vehicles o equity between new and existing development obligations · recognise and integrate Ngāi Tahu values and link with resilience discussion on natural environment.

Moved: Paul Lonsdale Seconded: Rex Williams

That the Committee receive the presentations.

The meeting ended at 2.05pm.