CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

THURSDAY 28 MAY 2015

9.30AM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET

Watch Council meetings live on the web: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

AGENDA - OPEN

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

Thursday 28 May 2015 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street

Council: The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Raf Manji, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.

1. APOLOGIES 1

2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING OF 30 APRIL 2015 AND 14 MAY 2015 1

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1

5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS 1

6. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 19

7. REPORT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 29 METTING OF 7 MAY 2015

8. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 51 MEETING OF 7 MAY 2015

9. CITY CARE LAND DRAINAGE CONTRACT TWO YEAR EXTENSION 57

10. RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY SERVICE: FUNDING REQUEST 58

11. COMMUNITY FUNDING: SOCIAL ENTERPRISE 67

12. AMENDMENT OF DELEGATIONS – SOCIAL HOUSING REBUILD AND REPAIR PROGRAMME 71

13. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE PROVISIONAL LOCAL ALCOHOL POLICY (LAP) 75

14. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING 121 OF 6 MAY 2015

15. JOINT CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS AND THE 125 HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD'S ME ETING OF 5 MAY 2015

16. LGFA - AMENDMENT TO DOCUMENTS 139

17. WASTE BYLAW REVIEWS 233

18. CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED – DEVELOPMENT CHRISTCHURCH LIMITED 303 PROGRESS REPORT

19. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT FROM HOUSING TASKFORCE 307 (TO BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)

20. NOTICES OF MOTION 307

21. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 307

1 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

1. APOLOGIES

2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING OF 30 APRIL 2015 AND 14 MAY 2015

Attached.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

4.1 PUBLIC FORUM

A period of up to 30 minutes available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process (standing order 3. 19. 2).

4.2 DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

A period of up to 30 minutes for deputations that have made application and been approved by the Chairperson (standing order 3. 19. 3).

5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

2 3

MINUTES

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 30 APRIL 2015

PRESENT: Lianne Dalziel, The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Raf Manji, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner.

The Mayor noted the recent devastating earthquakes resulting in large loss of life in Nepal and also recognised the recent death of Frana Cardno, who served as Mayor of Southland District from 1992 to 2013.

The Mayor led the Council, staff and members of the public in a minute's silence.

1. APOLOGIES

Nil.

2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING OF 26 MARCH 2015, 1 APRIL 2015 AND 16 APRIL 2015

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the minutes of the Council meetings of 26 March 2015, 1 April 2015 and 16 April 2015 be confirmed.

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

4.1 PUBLIC FORUM

Lyn Wiggins and 3 others presented a petition on behalf of 6,630 others noting that the signatories "reject the Council's Long Term Plan recommendation to close the South New Brighton Motor Camp. Whilst acknowledging financial and environmental issues which will require adaptation, feasible and self-sustaining options do exist, which will provide significant benefits to Brighton and greater Canterbury."

The petition was forwarded to be considered as part of the Long Term Plan.

John Stringer, Christchurch Ambassador addressed the Council regarding the homelessness in restart mall and issues of safety, and suggested that a temporary intervention facility and assistance be provided to assist young people.

The matter was referred to the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee.

4.2 DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

There were no deputations.

5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Refer to the petition presented above. 4 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 04. 2015

17. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the report be received and considered at the meeting of the Council on 30 April 2015.

6. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the information contained in this report be received.

7. REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 31 MARCH 2015

1. AUDIT NEW ZEALAND MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Gough, that the Council receive the Audit New Zealand 2014 Management Report and note the management actions arising from the recommendations with respect to revaluation of assets and capitalisation of SCIRT costs.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Gough, seconded by Councillor Manji, that the report as a whole be adopted.

The Council adjourned at 10.30 am and resumed at 10.51 am.

8. REPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS PANEL MEETING OF 21 APRIL 2015

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council adopt the draft submission on Environment Canterbury's Proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan as amended.

At the beginning of Paragraph 3 add The Council congratulates Environment Canterbury for its cooperative and proactive approach to addressing what are very challenging issues in relation to heating individual homes and the wider public health issues around air quality.

In addition to Paragraph 5 add That the Council encourages Environment Canterbury to be responsive to the circumstances of the community affected by the impacts of the 2010/2011 earthquakes which have resulted in delays in progressing insurance/EQC claims meaning a significant number of residents remain in broken, damaged homes, difficult to heat and keep dry which was not expected and to the extent that it is able to under the National Environmental Standards to extend deadlines relating to emission limits.

9. REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 14 APRIL 2015

1. WAIMAIRI ROAD AT DOVEDALE AVENUE - SIGNALISED PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE CROSSING

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:

1.1 Approve the scheme designs for a pedestrian crossing, controlled by traffic signals be installed on Waimairi Road, 18m south of Dovedale Avenue as detailed in Attachment 1.

1.2 Make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, the Traffic and Parking Amendment Bylaw 2014, and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 5 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 04. 2015

9 Cont'd

Traffic Controls

1.3 Approve that all traffic controls including give way controls at the intersection of Dovedale Avenue and Waimairi Road, be revoked.

1.4 Approve that a shared pedestrian/cycle crossing, controlled by traffic signals be installed on Waimairi Road located at a point 11 metres south of its intersection with Dovedale Avenue in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, and as detailed on Attachment 1.

1.5 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and raised islands at the Dovedale Avenue and Waimairi Road intersection as detailed on Attachment 1.

1.5 Approve that a give way control be placed against Dovedale Avenue at its intersection with Waimairi Road.

1.6 Approve that all traffic controls on the eastern side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 119 metres south of its intersection with Wadeley Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 42 metres.

1.7 Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of south bound bicycles only, be established on the eastern side of Waimairi Road against the kerb, commencing at a point 119 metres south of its intersection with Wadeley Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 42 metres. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

1.8 Approve that all traffic controls on the western side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 26 metres south of its intersection with Dovedale Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres.

1.9 Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of north bound bicycles only, be established on the western side of Waimairi Road against the kerb, commencing at a point 26 metres south of its intersection with Dovedale Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

Parking and Stopping Restrictions

1.10 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Waimairi Road from its intersection with Wadeley Road to a point 196 metres south of its intersection with Wadeley Road, be revoked.

1.11 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Waimairi Road, commencing at its intersection with Wadeley and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

1.12 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Waimairi Road, commencing at a point 69 metres south of its intersection with Wadeley Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 127 metres.

1.13 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 51 metres, be revoked.

1.14 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Waimairi Road, commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 51 metres. 6 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 04. 2015

9 Cont'd

1.15 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Waimairi Road commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 82 metres, be revoked.

1.16 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Waimairi Road, commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 82 metres.

1.17 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Dovedale Avenue, commencing its intersection with Waimairi Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 32 metres be revoked.

1.18 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Dovedale Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

1.19 Approve that a Bus stop be created on the southern side of Dovedale Avenue, commencing at a point 13 metres west of its intersection with Waimairi Road, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

10. EASEMENT OVER OLD SCHOOL RESERVE 172 MAJOR HORNBROOK ROAD

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lonsdale, seconded by Councillor East, that the Council:

10.1 Receive the information and that the following resolutions from 14 August 2014 be approved.

10.2 Require that the applicant is responsible for arranging the repair and maintenance of the easement facility, and for the associated costs, so as to keep the easement facility in good order and to prevent it from becoming a danger or a nuisance.

10.2.1 The Unit Manager Corporate Support is authorised to finalise and conclude the granting of the easement.

10.2.2 All costs associated with the grant of the easement are recovered from the applicant together with compensation of $8,625.

10.2.3 Subject to 2.1.1, exercise the powers of the Minister of Conservation referred to in the First Schedule of the Reserves Act 1977 and Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12 June 2013 pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 for the easements identified in the agreement between the parties dated 9 June 2014.

Councillor Johanson asked that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

11. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECOVERY PROGRAMME PROGRESS REPORT

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lonsdale, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council:

11.1 Receive the Natural Environment Recovery Programme Progress Report for October 2014 to March 2015 and invite the Chief Executive to report back on the issues raised at the next meeting of the Council:

SCIRT discharge consent issue Porritt Park regarding future use of the park Waste Environmental Management Team report on asbestos demolition waste and dust management. 7 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 04. 2015

12. MAYORS REPORT TO COUNCIL - A VIABLE FUNDING MODEL FOR CITY AND SUBURBAN REGENERATION

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lonsdale, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the Council:

12.1 Request the Christchurch City Holdings Limited Board to capitalise an existing shelf company by providing equity of $1.5m over each of the next two years as a means of funding the operational budget and working capital needs for a Council Controlled Trading Organisation to be known as Development Christchurch Limited and review at the next annual plan.

12.2 Request that following approval by the Christchurch City Holdings Limited Board that Christchurch City Holdings Limited will report back to the Council on the process it would propose for the establishment phase of the company.

12.3 Noting that reporting will take place monthly to the Strategy and Finance Committee with a full report face to face to that committee every three months.

12.4 Board appointments will be subject to approval by the Council.

12.5 All projects and desired project outcomes will be subject to approval by the Council.

12.6 The Statement of Intent is subject to approval by the Council.

13. ALCOHOL RESTRICTIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES AMENDMENT BYLAW 2014 – REPORT TO CORRECT ERROR IN MAP

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council:

13.1 Replace the map for the Riccarton/Ilam Alcohol Ban Area that is contained in the Schedule of Permanent Alcohol Ban Areas in the Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009, with the map that is set out in Attachment 1 in the agenda.

13.2 Publicly notify the resolution to replace the map.

18. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL'S SUBMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY REVIEW

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council approve the submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the Environment Canterbury Review.

14. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

At 12.59 pm it was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 135 of the agenda be adopted. 8 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 04. 2015

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the public be readmitted at 1.32 pm at which point the meeting concluded.

CONFIRMED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2015

MAYOR

9

MINUTES

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 14 MAY 2015

PRESENT: The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Raf Manji, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner.

1. APOLOGIES

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Manji.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the apology be accepted.

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Councillor Turner declared an interest in items 6.1 and 31.9.

3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

3.1 PUBLIC FORUM

There were no speakers at the public forum.

3.2 DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Two deputation requests were accepted:

3.2.1 Alex and Tracy Stewart and Isaac Walker addressed the Council regarding item 6.1, the removal of a holiday bach on legal road in Port Levy.

The Council decided to set aside Standing Order 3.19.8 to allow a third person to speak as part of the deputation.

3.2.2 Rick Lewis and Peter Ramsden Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata addressed the Council regarding item 6.1 also.

6. REPORT OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 18 MARCH 2015

Councillor Turner took no part in this item.

Paula Smith, Chairperson, joined the table for the discussion on this item.

1. REMOVAL OF HOLIDAY BACH ON LEGAL ROAD IN PORT LEVY

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the item lie on the table to enable further discussions and to seek further advice.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor East, that the report as a whole be adopted.

10 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Nil.

5. REPORT OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 11 MARCH 2015

Pam Richardson, Chairperson, tendered her apology.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the report be received.

7. REPORT OF THE BURWOOD PEGASUS COMMUNITY/BOARD MEETING OF 30 MARCH 2015

8. REPORT OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 9 APRIL 2015

Andrea Cummings, Chairperson, tendered her apology.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor East, that the reports of 30 March 2015 and 9 April 2015 be received.

9. REPORT OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 20 APRIL 2015

1. PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITION - QEII PARK

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:

1.1 Request the Mayor and the Chief Executive to meet with the Ministry of Education and representatives of Shirley Boys High School and Avonside Girls High School in order to explore the range of options with respect to the sale of a portion of Queen Elizabeth II Park for the relocation of the schools prior to the discussion of the sale.

1.2 The Mayor and Chief Executive will brief the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board prior to authorising staff to commence unilateral discussions with the Ministry of Education for the sale of a portion of Queen Elizabeth II Park for the relocation of Shirley Boys High School and Avonside Girls High School in accordance with paragraphs 4.1 – 4.5 of the report in the Agenda.

1.3 Instruct staff to report back to Council once an agreement in principle is reached, in respect to the sale of a portion of Queen Elizabeth II Park.

2. INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE TWO NEW INTERSECTIONS ON PRESTONS ROAD AND CYCLE LANES ALONG PRESTONS ROAD FROM OASIS GROVE TO TE KORARI DRIVE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the Council:

2.1 Installation of Traffic Signal at Te Korari Drive and Prestons Road with all the associated road markings as shown in (Attachment 2).

2.2 Installation of Traffic Signal at Te Rito Street and Prestons Road with all the associated road markings shown in (Attachment 2).

2.3 Installation of special vehicle (cycle) lanes and shared pedestrian and cycle path on Prestons Road between Te Korari Drive and Oasis Grove as indicated in (Attachment 1).

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report as a whole be adopted. 11 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

The Council adjourned from 10.35 am to 10.50 am at which point Councillor Buck assumed the Chair.

10. REPORT OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 30 MARCH 2015

11. REPORT OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 13 APRIL 2015

Val Carter, Chairperson, tendered her apology.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the reports of 30 March 2015 and 13 April 2015 be received.

The Mayor returned at 10.55 am

12. REPORT OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 1 APRIL 2015

13. REPORT OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 15 APRIL 2015

Islay McLeod, Deputy Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the reports of 1 April 2015 and 15 April 2015 be received.

14. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 17 MARCH 2015

1. RICCARTON/WIGRAM WARD – NAMING OF NEW RESERVES

Mike Mora, Chairperson, tendered his apology.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:

1.1 Approve the proposed reserve names, subject to checking there are no current conflicting names being used as specified in Attachment One, and the Board’s recommendation be referred to the Council for adoption.

1.2 Approve the proposed classification of the reserves as per the Reserves Act 1977 s16 (2A) as specified in Attachment One, and the Board’s recommendation, be referred to the Council for adoption.

2. WIGRAM ESTATES LIMITED – LAND EXCHANGE AND SALE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:

2.1 Exchange part of Lot 54 (coloured orange on the plan attached) for Lot 70 (coloured green on the plan attached) owned by Wigram Estates Limited. The exchange to be at equivalent value, that is no monetary transaction is required in the exchange.

2.2 Sell the lot coloured pink on the attached plan to Wigram Estates Limited at market valuation plus or minus 10 per cent but in no event less than $216,000 inclusive of GST, being the Council’s initial purchase cost.

2.3 Grant the Property Consultancy Manager delegated authority to negotiate and conclude all matters at his sole discretion associated with the land exchange and sale.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report as a whole be adopted.

12 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

15. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 31 MARCH 2015

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report be received.

16. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 14 APRIL 2015

1. KIRKWOOD SUBDIVISION - ROAD RESERVE - CHANGE OF RESERVE CLASSIFICATION

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council, pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, hereby resolves to dedicate the existing road reserves more particularly described as Lots 36 and 37 DP 335365 and Lot 567 DP 375351 as road.

2. RICCARTON ROAD AT PURIRI STREET - SIGNALISED CROSSING

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:

2.1 Approve that the existing zebra pedestrian crossing on Riccarton Road located at a point 40 metres west of its intersection with Puriri Street, be removed.

2.2 Approve that a pedestrian crossing, controlled by traffic signals be installed on Riccarton Road located at a point 40 metres west of its intersection with Puriri Street.

2.3 Approve the road marking and central island changes as detailed on attachment 1.

2.4 Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance off 51 metres be revoked.

2.5 Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Rattray Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres, be revoked.

2.6 Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Rattray Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Shands Crescent (the eastern intersection), be revoked.

2.7 Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Shands Crescent (the eastern intersection) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance off 35 metres, be revoked.

2.8 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

2.9 Approve the a Bus Stop be installed on the north side of Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 31 metres east of its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

2.10 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 47 metres east of its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of four metres.

2.11 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Rattray Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

2.12 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Rattray Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Shands Crescent (the eastern intersection). 13 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

16 Cont'd

2.13 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at its intersection with Shands Crescent (the eastern intersection), and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

2.14 Approve the Bus Stop be installed on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 17 metres west of its intersection with Shands Crescent (the eastern intersection) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

2.15 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Riccarton Road, commencing at a point 31 metres west of its intersection with Shands Crescent (the eastern intersection) and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

2.16 That staff report back to the Board on the provision of a P5 parking time limit or similar control on Riccarton Road outside the Naresh Dairy.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the report as a whole be adopted.

17. REPORT OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 1 APRIL 2015

Mike Davidson, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the report be received.

18. REPORT OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 15 APRIL 2015

1. GROYNES RESERVE PROPOSED PLAYGROUND RENEWAL

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the matter be referred back to the Community Board for further consideration.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the report as a whole be adopted.

19. REPORT OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 20 MARCH 2015

20. REPORT OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 17 APRIL 2015

Paul McMahon, Chairperson and Melanie Coker Board member, joined the table for discussion of this item.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the reports of 20 March 2015 and 17 April 2015 be received.

26. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST RAWHITI GOLF COURSE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the Council:

26.1 Authorise officers to enter into discussions with the Rawhiti Golf Club Incorporated over the operation of the Rawhiti Golf Course and report back to the Council in sufficient time to inform the Council's consideration of the 2015/2025 Long Term Plan in June 2015. 14 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

26 Cont'd

26.2 Resolve that safeguards to manage identified risks detailed in section 3.4 of the report are incorporated into any discussions with the Rawhiti Golf Club Incorporated over the operation of the Rawhiti Golf Course.

27. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON MOTOR CAMP

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor East, that the Council:

27.1 Conduct an expression of interest process, once public notification of the remainder of the Natural Hazards chapter of the District Plan Review has occurred for the development and operation of a motor camp or similar on the site of the existing South New Brighton Motor Camp including the relevant information summarised in section 3.9 of this report.

27.2 Instruct officers to report back to the Council before the end of November 2015 with the results of the expression of interest and any other relevant information to inform the Council's decision making on the South New Brighton Motor Camp.

27.3 Authorise officers to conduct preliminary discussions with the existing lessees and report back to the Council prior to conducting the expression of interest with legal advice as to whether an arrangement can be entered into with them.

The Council adjourned at 12.10 pm and resumed at 1.37pm

21. REPORT OF THE REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE MEETING OF 22 APRIL 2015

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the report be received.

22. REPORT OF THE STRATEGY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF 23 APRIL 2015

Councillors Gough and Johanson took no part in items 22.1 to 22.3

1. HALF YEAR REPORT (FINANCIAL STATEMENTS) FOR CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED, CIVIC BUILDING LIMITED, TUAM LIMITED, ROD DONALD BANKS PENINSULA TRUST, RICCARTON BUSH TRUST, CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR ENERGY TRUST, WORLD BUSKERS FESTIVAL TRUST, VBASE LIMITED AND NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY LIMITED

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council receive the half-year reports for the following Council Controlled Organisations:

1.1 Christchurch City Holdings Limited;

1.2 Civic Building Limited;

1.3 Tuam Limited;

1.4 Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust;

1.5 Riccarton Bush Trust;

1.6 Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust;

1.7 World Buskers Festival Trust;

1.8 Vbase Limited; and 15 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

22 Cont'd

1.9 New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited.

2. DRAFT STATEMENTS OF INTENT FOR CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED, ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED, CHRISTCHURCH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY LIMITED, ENABLE SERVICES LIMITED, CITY CARE LIMITED, RED BUS LIMITED, ECOCENTRAL LIMITED, CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED AND CRIS LIMITED

It was resolved on the motion of Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council:

2.1 Accept the draft statements of intent for the following entities:

2.1.1 Christchurch City Holdings Limited

2.1.2 Orion New Zealand Limited

2.1.3 Christchurch International Airport Limited

2.1.4 Lyttelton Port Company Limited

2.1.5 Enable Services Limited

2.1.6 City Care Limited

2.1.7 Red Bus Limited

2.1.8 EcoCentral Limited

2.1.9 Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Limited

2.1.10 CRIS Limited.

2.2 Request CCHL to consider the following points for its SOI.

2.2.1 Amending its Mission Statement section on page 3 of the SOI to read as the following:

Following the series of damaging earthquakes since September 2010, the Council has undertaken a comprehensive review of its financial position, including an evaluation of its commercial assets in conjunction with CCHL.

As a result of this review, the Council has proposed a financial strategy that, amongst other initiatives, envisages the sale of some of CCHL’s equity investments. This proposed strategy is referred to generally, and in this SoI, as the "Capital Release Programme". The Council is consulting with the community on the adoption of this financial strategy as part of the process for adopting its Long Term Plan, which is due to be finalised in June 2015. CCHL will work with the Council to implement the final form of the Capital Release Programme, if adopted as part of the Council's Long Term Plan, and other objectives stated in this SoI must be read in light of this exigency. In implementing the Capital Release Programme, however, the directors of CCHL will not be required to act in a manner which would be inconsistent with their duties at law.

2.2.2 Adding a further objective on page 4:

To assist the Council in implementing the Capital Release Programme, if adopted as part of the Council's Long Term Plan.

2.2.3 Amending objective 3 on page 14 to read as the following: 16 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

22 Cont'd

CCHL will co-operate with the Council in implementing its Capital Release Programme, if adopted.

CCHL will cooperate with Council in the identification of suitable investors to acquire partial stakes in infrastructure companies in line with the Council's strategic objectives.

2.24 Amending the acquisition/divestment policy further to require CCHL to seek the consent of Council prior to the acquisition of any new physical assets of any material value or equity investments in entities outside the Council Group. The following wording is suggested for point 2 of the Acquisition/divestment policy.

CCHL will seek the Council's approval before acquiring any physical assets of any material value or equity investments in entities outside the Council group

Where CCHL is disposing of any physical assets or equity investments outside the Council group, CCHL will seek the Council's approval only if the value of such assets or investments exceeds 1% of CCHL's total assets at the start of the financial year. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision does not refer to assets that appear on the Council's list of strategic assets.

2.3 Request CCHL to include the following in its feedback to its subsidiaries:

5.3.1 It is suggested that the paragraph below be added to the SOI of Orion New Zealand Limited, Christchurch International Airport Limited, Lyttelton Port Company Limited, City Care Limited and Red Bus Limited in the locations identified in paragraph 3.8.2 above.

Christchurch City Council Capital Release Programme

Following the series of damaging earthquakes since September 2010, the Council has undertaken a comprehensive review of its financial position, including an evaluation of its commercial assets in conjunction with Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL). As a result of this review, the Council has proposed a financial strategy that, amongst other initiatives, envisages the partial sale of some of CCHL’s equity investments. This proposed strategy is referred to generally, and in this SOI, as the "Capital Release Programme". The Council is consulting with the community on the adoption of this financial strategy as part of the process for developing its Long Term Plan, which is due to be finalised in June 2015. The Company will work with CCHL to implement the final form of the Capital Release Programme, if adopted as part of the Council's Long Term Plan, and other objectives stated in this SoI must be read in light of this exigency. In implementing the Capital Release Programme, however, the directors of the Company will not be required to act in a manner which would be inconsistent with their duties at law.

3. DRAFT STATEMENTS OF INTENT FOR CIVIC BUILDING LIMITED, TUAM LIMITED, ROD DONALD BANKS PENINSULA TRUST, RICCARTON BUSH TRUST, CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR ENERGY TRUST WORLD BUSKERS' FESTIVAL TRUST, VBASE LIMITED AND NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY

It was resolved on the motion of Mayor, seconded by Councillor East, that the Council:

3.1 Accept the draft Statements of Intent for the following Council Controlled Organisations:

3.1.1 Civic Building Limited

3.1.2 Tuam Limited

3.1.3 Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust (Request that the Trust investigate funding for the Build Back Smarter campaign and Eco Design advisers.)

3.1.4 World Buskers Festival Trust 17 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

22 Cont'd

3.1.5 New Zealand Local Government Funding Authority Limited.

3.2 Accept the draft Statements of Intent for the following Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and that the CCOs consider the following comments when finalising the Statement of Intent:

3.2.1 Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust

That Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust should consider:  limiting the key indicators that it wishes to report against to its key/significant areas. The number of indicators and measures proposed will require a significant amount of reporting at half year and year end which is greater than would be expected for a trust of this size;  including some explanation for the increase in operating expenses from that indicated in the 2014/15 Statement of Intent; and  Insist that the Trust review its investment policy in light of the receivership of Prometheus Finance or adding a regular formal assessment of its investments to the policy to ensure that there is appropriate consideration of the risks of these investments to the Trust.

3.2.2 Riccarton Bush Trust

That Riccarton Bush Trust provides additional information on the projects which make up the proposed capital funding.

3.2.3 Vbase Limited

That Vbase:  investigate the long-term profitability of the Company and potential asset ownership structures with a view to making the company profitable as soon as possible; and  advise the Council should there be any significant changes in the assumptions which underpin the financial forecasts contained in the draft Statement of Intent.  Request that Vbase retain the $300,000 community discounts but review the Sponsorship value.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the report as a whole be adopted.

Councillor Manji returned at 1.45 pm.

23. REPORT OF THE GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF 17 APRIL 2015

It was resolved on the motion of Mayor, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the Council agree to the revised Terms of Reference for the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) as endorsed by the UDSIC at its meeting on 17 April 2015 and noted in the Committee Recommendation 4.1 to 4.5 of the minutes (attachment 1).

24. RELOCATION OF THE CHRISTCHURCH KART CLUB AND THE CANTERBURY GREYHOUNDS, CARRS RESERVE, HALSWELL

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that this report be received and referred to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board for recommendation.

25. REPORT OF THE REPRESENTATION REVIEW WORKING PARTY

Councillor Buck returned to the meeting at 2.15 pm.

Councillor Jones returned to the meeting at 2.20 pm. 18 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 14. 05. 2015

25 Cont'd

25.1 It was resolved unanimously on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the Council's preference is that the Banks Peninsula community be combined with other communities to form a ward that complies with the definition of “fair representation” under Section 19V (2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 preserving the option of the Akaroa/Wairewa community be treated as an isolated community.

25.2 Councillor Johanson moved, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the Council decide that its preference is to propose a member-population ratio closer to the metro New Zealand city average of 1:16,500.

The motion when put to the meeting was declared a tie on electronic vote No. 1, by 7 votes apiece (the status quo prevailed) the voting being as follows:

For (7): Councillors Chen, Clearwater, Cotter, Johanson, Livingstone, Scandrett and Turner

Against (7): The Mayor and Councillors Buck, East, Gough, Jones, Lonsdale and Manji.

Councillor East moved That the Council decide that its preference is to propose a member-population ratio models from the status quo 1:26,000 to the New Zealand average of 1:16,500.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Scandrett and when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 2 by 10 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:

For (10): Councillors Buck, Chen, Clearwater, Cotter, East, Johanson, Livingstone, Lonsdale, Scandrett and Turner

Against (4): The Mayor and Councillors Gough, Jones and Manji

25.3 It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the Council direct the Representation Review Working Party to develop and present to Council representation options based on the decisions made in 25.1 and 25.2.

28. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

29. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

At 3.59 pm it was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 275 of the agenda be adopted.

CONFIRMED THIS 28 DAY OF MAY 2015

MAYOR

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 19 CE Report #24 due to the timing of some major projects. A number of This trend is likely to continue as we promote the need to permanent savings are also contributing. We will carry report these incidents so prevention measures can be put in Foreword forward $91m of the underspend. place before more serious accidents occur. The most common injuries are sprains and strains caused by lifting or This Report provides a summary of the Council’s The outputs of the organisation’s Building Control Group moving objects or from slips or trips. organisational performance for April 2015. continue to increase. In April, the Building Control Group processed 937 consents. Overall, 99 per cent of total There were 53 staff who completed training in April. The Report covers the following areas: consents were processed within the 20 days statutory time  Organisational Performance frame. Key internal projects continue. Great for Christchurch is a programme to make the Council more efficient, effective and  Service Delivery Building queries remain the highest percentage of calls responsive to our residents. A procurement workstream is  Community Engagement received by the Council, at 23 per cent. We received 43,461 already up and running and two more Great for Christchurch  Media calls to our call centres overall during April 2015. workstreams will soon be up and running after the Executive  People Leadership Team agreed in early May that the programme  Key Internal Projects Our online channels continue their steady increase in should move into its next phase. The two new workstreams  Chief Executive Activities popularity. During April, we received 244,278 visitors to the are Customer and Community and Middle/Back office. Council website. The Council’s Facebook page grew to more  Canterbury Development Corporation Update than 14,000 fans and our Twitter following grew to almost Canterbury Development Corporation had a busy month in  Natural Environment Recovery Programme 9000. April and report back on their efforts to promote Canterbury within New Zealand and overseas. New opportunities for residents to interact with Council are in Executive Summary the pipeline. Online dog re-registration payments are ready This report also includes a Natural Environment Recovery The most significant activity for the organisation this month for public release in June, while a mobile application allowing Programme (NERP) update with information about Porrit was consultation on the Long Term Plan (LTP). Submissions residents to make service requests using their smart phones Park, the SCIRT horizontal infrastructure repair programme on the LTP and its supporting documents closed on 28 April is now live. and asbestos. 2015. There was another pleasing decrease in the overall number Almost 3000 submissions were received on the LTP, with of complaints, from 116 in March to 90 in April. This is the over 600 individuals or groups indicating they would like to second lowest number of complaints since September 2014. speak at public hearings in May. The main topics were Areas with a noteworthy decrease in complaints were building Recommendation eastern suburbs issues, asset sales, the proposed financial consents, enforcement, facilities, parks, streets and wheelie strategy and rates increases, major cycleways, inner city bins. It was also pleasing to see complaints about staff drop That the information contained in this report be received. parking and the stadium. yet again from nine to six.

Other consultation and engagement activity also continues, The Council’s media team report another busy month with with transport projects a current focus. Consultation and 263 enquiries received. There was interest in the LTP, many engagement took place for Riccarton Road Bus Priority, of the projects under consultation and the repair and rebuild while the next round of Central City traffic changes of various facilities. associated with An Accessible City commenced in April. Thirty-five Local Government Official Information and Overall, the Council continues to perform well and at this Meetings Act (LGOIMA) requests were received in April, stage is on track to deliver at least 85 percent of its Level of fewer than last month. Almost half related to the rebuild or the Service targets. However, a close focus on the target is LTP, with the remainder covering a range of topics. needed as the current level is 85.7 per cent and further drop over the fourth quarter usually occurs. There were 36 health and safety accidents and incidents reported in April, down on the previous month. However, The full capital programme budget will not be spent and this there was an overall increase compared with the remains a key risk for the organisation. For the year to date, previous year. This was in the categories of first aid and near 37 per cent of budget has been spent; with a forecast miss incidents. programme spend of 59 per cent. The underspend is mainly COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 20 Performance Report Financial Snapshot Capital Expenditure ($m) This report summarises the Council’s progress for the month Statement of Financial Performance ($m) ending 30 April 2015 towards fulfilling the commitments outlined in the Annual Plan. Performance is assessed against:  Level of service delivery  Earthquake rebuild expenditure  Operating expenditure  Long Term Plan project milestones  Capital expenditure  Building consent processing The Council is still on track to deliver at least 85 per cent (%) of its level of service targets. However forecast performance Earthquake Rebuild ($m) has dropped from 89.6% in December to 85.7% at the end of April. A further drop this quarter is likely, so this target must be regarded as at risk. The full capital programme will not be spent. Only 37% of the planned budget has been expended. With just two months left in the financial year, there is little scope for further improvement. This month we continued to process 99% of building consents within the statutory timeframe. With the year to date figure at Operational results 87.9% it will not be possible to meet the statutory requirement Revenues are $8m ahead of budget year to date mainly due of 100% by year end. to higher corporate revenues (interest, dividends, subventions receipts and rates) and are forecast to remain so. Service Delivery Above target 0.7% Operating Expenditure ($000) Expenditure is below budget for the year to date, mainly due Actual 85.7% to the timing of earthquake response projects. These will be underspent by $18m at year end and carried forward, partly Risk of under delivery offset by unbudgeted District Plan Review costs of $7.6m.

Operating Expenditure The net result is currently $49m ahead of budget and forecast Variance $29.6m below plan to remain $19m better than the budgeted $74m operating Actual $336.4m deficit. $10m of the $19m is flagged to be carried forward to On target complete specific projects.

Capital Expenditure Capital expenditure Variance $83.5m below plan For the year to date, 37% of budget has been spent; with a forecast programme spend of 59%. The underspend is mainly Actual $100.2m due to the timing of three waters, roading and strategic land High risk of under delivery projects. A number of permanent savings are also contributing, mainly in three waters and fleet and plant Earthquake Rebuild purchases. $91m of the under spend will be carried forward. Variance $139.9m below plan Earthquake Rebuild Actual $367.9m Rebuild costs incurred for the year to date represent 33% of High risk of under delivery annual budget, the majority of which is work delivered by SCIRT. Forecast expenditure has reduced with only 41% of Building Consents this year's programme now expected to be delivered. Carry Below statutory target forwards of $640m have been identified.

Actual YTD 87.9% Improving COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 21 compared with 5556 in March due to lost time from Easter Service Delivery and Anzac Day. Te Hapua: Halswell Centre Levels of Service (LOS) With the arrival of new inspectors we are pleased to say our The most recent data on Levels of Service (LOS) at 30 April wait times are on the way down. Commercial is currently at is at 85.7 per cent, slightly above the 85 per cent target. The one day out and residential is down to four days. We have trend over years indicates a drop of several percent is likely in unfortunately received two more resignations so recruitment quarter four, so a focus on LOS during the last part of the will be an ongoing exercise. year will assist in achieving the target. As mentioned last month, we have started a project to Building Consent Update rationalise some of our inspections and we will provide more Time- Accept- Total Cost Grant- Total Cost information next month. This will give us greater capacity to frames ed of ed of meet current demand from the sector, particularly across low Consents Consents risk residential buildings.

20 – 223 $69,952,287 215 $62,449,918 Resource Consent Update 26 April Note, the following figures do not include Temporary

27 193 $30,241,343 184 $31,850,979 Accommodation applications. The Te Hapua: Halswell Centre sign is now up, promoting the April – Month Number of Resource 3 May proper name of the new facility that is due to open in late Consents Received November this year. In June, we are planning three 4 – 10 180 $39,696,384 217 $46,439,863 March 2015 350 recruitment evenings to share our vision for the library and May the facility as well as the recruitment and selection process. April 2015 255 We are expecting both internal Council staff and external 11 – 211 $33,329,757 225 $61,319,672 applicants to attend these evenings. 17 May Reading to Dogs Libraries Update The Reading to Dogs programme continues strongly and is fully booked out every month. This programme involves In April, the Building Control Group processed 937 consents. Spreydon earthquake internal repairs complete children reading stories to trained and tested rescue dogs, Spreydon Library was closed for repairs on 20 April and There are 1090 currently on hold where Requests for which builds the child’s confidence reading aloud. We have reopened on schedule on Monday 4 May. The internal repairs Information (RFIs) have been made of applicants. There were added one more session this term at Upper Riccarton Library, for earthquake damage were carried out and the opportunity 756 residential consents processed within 20 working days which brings us to a total of three per week. Media continue to redecorate other areas was taken. The work was (99 per cent) and 81 commercial consents were processed to show an interest in this programme. within 20 working days (94 per cent). Overall, 99 per cent of completed to a high standard by Buildtech and their the total consents were processed within the 20 days contractors. Closing and reopening a library is a complicated statutory time frame. process and there were a wide number of library services and providers involved.

Accreditation IANZ are still scheduled to attend in August. The Building Dragonsource Control Group continues its good work from 2014, with From April, customers can access Dragonsource, a database continual monitoring and auditing of our systems and of popular Chinese language eMagazines for online processes. reading. Topics range from business and economics to family, fashion, entertainment, film and travel. The

eMagazines can be in traditional and/or simplified Chinese; Inspections We have seen a slight reduction in the number of calls taken and different formats – full text, replica to the print version, and audio. During the first month customers down- to book inspections during April. During April, the Inspections loaded over 1000 titles in each of the three formats. Scheduling team received on average 320+ in-bound calls each day. From these calls, about 265 inspections were completed daily. In April, 5095 inspections were undertaken COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 22 Elected Elected Engagement Engagement Community Engagement Project Status Member Project Status Member Numbers Numbers Consultation Engagement Engagement Delivering the Capital Programme has kept the Waimairi Road Consulta- Riccarton/ 45 consultation An Consulta- Council CERA-organised Consultation and Communications Team at full capacity pedestrian tion Wigram leaflets Accessible tion open briefing pre-consultation with during this period. There are numerous projects in various signals and closed on Community distributed to City 28 April – 23 February. key stakeholders. stages of consultation/engagement, feedback evaluation safety 2 April Board seminar nearly property Consultation 26 May 2015 Hagley/ Consultation material improvements 2015. 17 March 2015. owners and 380 No. 3 2015 Ferrymead distributed to and report preparation. The team also presented a number Plan Riccarton/ emailed to other Community ~1000 including all of projects to elected members for approval, including a approval Wigram key stakeholders. Board adjacent property signalised pedestrian crossing on Waimairi Road. This phase. Community briefing owners, a wide range project was an excellent example of community, staff and Board 4 March of transport related elected member collaboration to "fast track" approval and recommendation 2015. stakeholders, address an urgent safety issue for students and staff at to Council 14 ITEC 2 April community groups Canterbury University. April 2015. 2015. and associated Approved by Approved by organisations. Council on 30 Council to Approximately 20 Consultation and engagement for Riccarton Road Bus April 2015. commence submissions to date Priority and the next round of Central City traffic changes consultation and around 20 Levi Skate Consulta- Extraordinary 1006 associated with An Accessible City commenced. on 16 April individuals or groups Park – Sumner tion meeting of the submissions and a 2015. have attended one of Submission numbers for both of these projects were lower closed on Hagley/ 362 signature the drop-in sessions. than initially anticipated, however submissions typically 2 April Ferrymead Com- petition by close of increase towards the end of the consultation period and 2015. munity Board on consultation. the Riccarton Road project has followed that trend. Plan 5 May 2015. 20+ deputations approval and ~400 Gayhurst Consulta- Burwood 730 Consultation The Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board approved the phase. residents Road Bridge tion closed Pegasus and leaflets distributed to Hagley/ Levi Skate Park proposal at an extraordinary meeting on 5 attended the and 7 April – 21 nearby property approaches April 2015. Ferrymead owners and other key May 2015. The meeting was well attended by an Extra-ordinary Community Board – proposed Plan Community stakeholders. estimated 400 residents, as well as media. There were Meeting on 5 May interim safety approval Board more than 20 deputations from individuals or groups on 2015. improve- stage. recommen- the proposal. The Levi project has provided a number of ments dation to challenges for staff and elected members alike, however it Wainui Consulta- Subcommittee of Information sent to Council on18 is an excellent example of what community consultation/ Wastewater tion Council and 675 May and 20 engagement is all about. Although there was some closed. Chair of Akaroa/ stakeholders, via May for Council community division, it is positive that residents are taking Consulta- Wairewa email, hand tion Community delivery and post. consideration part and getting actively involved in decisions that affect evalua- Board have had Two drop-in on 28 May their community. Further legal action from a group of tion and pre-consultation sessions: 2015. residents who do not support the proposal or the report meetings with Civic Offices Community Board decision is a possibility. prepara- key stakeholders Thursday 12 tion. and worked March 2015 – Riccarton Consulta- A number of Consultation material Planning and preparation for the next round of Dudley alongside staff at attended by seven Bus Priority tion closed elected distributed to Creek consultation on the Banks Avenue and alternative drop-in sessions. property owners. 20 April – members ~ 2000 including all bypass options is progressing. Consultation is scheduled Deputations on Wainui Saturday 18 May have adjacent property the project were 15 March 2015 – 2015. attended one owners, a wide range to get underway in late May or early June 2015. The heard at the LTP attended by 26 consultation document will be delivered to property owners Consulta- or more of of transport related hearings on 20 property owners. tion the stakeholders, and occupiers near Banks Avenue and the alternative May 2015. A total of 88 sub- evaluation information community groups bypass options, with flyers going to a wider area. Infrastructure, missions by close and report drop-in and associated Individual property owner meetings associated with work Transport and of consultation on prepara- sessions held organisations. in the up-stream sections of Dudley Creek, approved by Environment 30 March. tion. over the Approximately 400 Council on 12 December 2014, are ongoing. Committee consultation posters on buses and (ITEC) report is period. at key locations plus scheduled for 4 2000 flyers Further details of project consultation/engagement and June 2015. elected member activity during April/May 2015 follow. distributed. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 23 Project Status Elected Engagement Community Engagement Community EngagementMember Numbers Customer Services and Online Channels Engagement Long Term Plan Call Centre During April the community engagement focus was public Riccarton Consulta- Riccarton/ 150 leaflets We received 43,461 calls during April 2015 and achieved a Road tion closed Wigram distributed consultation on the draft Long Term Plan. Eleven community service level of 70 per cent, and 71 per cent for the year to Pedestrian on 2 March Community directly affected meetings were held around all wards, along with breakfast date. Building remains the highest percentage of calls Signals 2015. Board property owners meetings for NGO and community groups and business received, at 23 per cent, an increase of 3 per cent from Plan recommenda- and other community representatives. Attendance varied at meetings, March. approval tion to Council stakeholders. while local networks, groups and organisations also ran their phase. 14 April 2015. 42 responses own meetings to discuss and prepare submissions too. Customer Service Desks Report consid- including late ered by Council submissions. April was a quieter month for service desks as rates for Area The Mayor's Chair ran for five sessions, giving people a on 14 May 1 and 2 are not due until May. There were 5066 customer 2015. chance to come in and speak to councilors on any LTP- transactions in April across all desks. A temporary staff related matter. A highlight of the final session was a class of member has been employed to help resource the Walk in Buchan Consulta- Spreydon / 262 Consultation primary school students who shared their vision for a greener, teams during the upcoming busy period for rates and dog Playground tion closed Heathcote Com- leaflets sustainable city – built of chocolate! registrations. Redevel- 6 May munity Board distributed to

opment 2015. held over a nearby property In total, 2908 submissions were received, with 669 people or Evaluation report on a pro- owners and Infoline of posed land ex- other key organisations requesting to be heard at the public hearings. We received 1774 emails through this email channel in April, consultation change with stakeholders. In addition, there were 1,827 comments made to our posts on down slightly on March 2015. feedback Sikh Community 63 respondents. the Council's Facebook page during the consultation period. and report on 15 May Land exchange Planning continued for the installation of technology in time to Complaints preparation. 2015. The report at enable the public to present to the LTP Hearings remotely via There was another pleasing decrease in the overall number Board would like Community the internet/Skype technology. The Council Chamber and the of complaints, from 116 in March to 90 in April. This is the to meet with Board meeting two Committee meeting rooms on the second floor at the second lowest number of complaints since September 2014. concerned 15/5/15 has Civic Offices are being set up with this capacity. In time, this residents and been held over The only increases were in the policy area (from three to five) business to next meeting will become an everyday way of interacting with the Council. – one about the recording of calls, one about the LTP owners to better in order to have For this LTP process it will certainly be a symbol of continued process, one regarding the testing of tsunami sirens and two understand their a public meeting. efforts to increase opportunities for community participation in about the proposed cost of new Council facilities. There were concerns before decision-making. three complaints about the Council's website – all concerned making a final about a lack of information and/or difficulty locating decision. Pacific Fono information. The Hagley-Ferrymead Board and staff hosted a Dudley Pre- No elected Approximately well-attended Fono with representatives from Pacific Areas with a noteworthy decrease in complaints were building Creek consultation member activity 1500 communities to discuss LTP-related issues, sowing the seed consents (from 30 to 20), enforcement (from 12 to seven), Capacity phase. required at this consultation for continued conversations and relationships. facilities (from six to four), parks (from six to four), streets Improve- Planning point for the documents will (from 18 to 14) and wheelie bins (from nine to four). It was ments and prepa- upstream works. be circulated to Support for Nepal also pleasing to see complaints about staff drop yet again ration for directly affected Following the severe earthquake in Nepal, staff worked with the next property owners/ from nine to six. These covered various areas of the Council round of occupiers and representatives from the local Nepalese community and the – two about housing, three for building control and one about Dudley other Student Volunteer Army to host a candle-lit vigil in Victoria facilities. Creek stakeholders, Square on Friday 1 May. About three hundred people heard consultation with speeches, including from Mayor Lianne Dalziel, lit candles in Online Channels relating to approximately the shape of NZ 4 NEPAL and enjoyed fellowship. Nepalese During April, we received 244,278 visitors to the Council Banks 1000 families clearly enjoyed the opportunity to meet up and share website (9.47 per cent more than in March 2015). Of the Avenue and leaflets time together following their country's disaster. the alterna- distributed to a visits, 62.4 per cent were returning visitors and 37.6 per cent

tive wider area were new visitors. The Council’s Facebook page grew by 795 bypass. highlighting the A condolence book is being compiled of written messages to 14,302 fans. The top post was a promotion about cycling to consultation and gathered at all libraries and service centres. This will be sent the library, with 682 likes, 87 comments and 102 shares. Our where to go for to the Mayor of Kathmandu. Over $10,000 was donated to Twitter feed grew by 205 followers to 8,977. further Red Cross boxes that we distributed to libraries and service information. centres. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 24 Media Media Outlet Question Media Outlet Issue/Enquiry The Press/Christchurch Council's support of Nepal The Press/ Eastern Sport and Recreation From 21 April to 17 May 2015, the Council’s Media Star/Newstalk ZB/ following the earthquake on 25 Christchurch Star/ Centre. Manager received media enquiries covering the following 263 Radio Live/University April, including the candle-lit vigil. Newstalk ZB key issues: of Canterbury TV3/TV1/CTV/ Upcoming FIFA U20 World Cup. Media Outlet Issue/Enquiry Journalism student Newstalk ZB/The NZ Herald/ The Press/ Follow-up on Mayor's China trip, Christchurch Star/The Operation and budget for Rawhiti Press Radio NZ/CTV the biggest learnings and the Press Golf Course and future of South future relationship potential. Brighton Holiday Park. Christchurch Star/ The People's Choice alternative plan. The Press/Christchurch Update on horizontal infrastructure LGOIMA Requests Press Star review. The Press/ Interviews with Charles Montgom- The Press/Radio NZ/ Vicki Buck did interviews and A total of 35 LGOIMA requests were received in April, Christchurch Star/ ery, urban design expert who was Newstalk ZB/Radio a meeting on homelessness with including: Newstalk ZB/Plains in Christchurch. Live key stakeholders.  Six from secondary and tertiary students undertaking FM Christchurch Star/ Dogs at Bottle Lake Forest getting research The Press/ Reading to Dogs programme at Newstalk ZB sick.  Six from the offices of Members of Parliament Christchurch Star/ libraries. The Press/Christchurch Outlining role of Development  Three from media Freelancers/NZ Star/Radio NZ/ Christchurch. Broadcasting School/ Newstalk ZB/Radio  Two from professionals connected to the rebuild University of Live (building, engineering, etc.) Canterbury Journalism Australia's Today Visit by Prince Harry and the city's  One from a law firm students Show/The Press/ rebuilding efforts to date and The Press/ ANZAC Day Newstalk ZB/Prime going forward. Also road closures Ten requests related to earthquake damage, the rebuild or Christchurch Sat/ News around the royal visit. the city's long-term recovery. Four related to past or current Newstalk ZB/Radio The Press/Newstalk Earthquake damage to New LTPs. Other topics included heritage grants, individual NZ/3 News ZB/Radio NZ/ Brighton Pier: what the homes and properties, and various forms of Council income Christchurch Star/The Council's Remuneration Authority Christchurch Star/CTV repairs involve, cost, and a time- or expenditure. Press/Newstalk ZB/ figures for 2015/16 and Council's line for the work. The number of requests for each business group is listed Radio NZ feedback to Remuneration Au- Newstalk ZB/ The Public consultation on future use thority on its recommendations. below. One request involved several groups, so the total Press of residential red zone. below exceeds the number actually received. The Press/3 News Developers complaining about the Christchurch Star/The Repair work being done on Bridle consenting process at Council. Press Path track.  Corporate Services Group: 6 NZ Broadcasting Update on LAP Christchurch Mail/CTV/ Proposed Riccarton Road  Building Control Group: 4 School/University of Newstalk ZB passenger lounge and bus priority Canterbury Journalism lanes.  Operations Group: 8 student/Newstalk ZB/ The Press/Newstalk ZB Rebuild update. Is Council on  Strategy and Planning Group: 7 Radio Live/Radio NZ schedule for new Central Library  Finance Commercial Group: 5 Newstalk ZB/Radio LTP process and consultation. and repairing pipes and roads? NZ/The Press/Prime/ Campbell Live Councillor Manji did a follow-up  Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild Group: 3 CTV/University of interview to one he gave a year  Community and Democracy Services Group: 3 Canterbury Journalism ago on the changing face of the student Blueprint and how be believed it One request related to the Mayor’s Office. needed to develop/adapt four The Press/ Levi Skate Park proposal at years on. His focus was on the Christchurch Star/ Sumner. There were 24 requests that received responses, or were role of the Council / people of Newstalk ZB/NZ otherwise resolved, during April. Christchurch in the next phase of Broadcasting School/ regeneration. Christchurch Mail COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 25

People Numbers Leaving (April 2015) Includes fixed term employees, excludes casuals and seasonal Exit Survey Comments and Feedback Workforce employees. As the Exit Survey Data is only collated every six months,

New Appointments (April 2015) please refer to November and December 2014 data as Does not include casual employees. provided in the Chief Executive’s January Report.

Action Part- Fixed April Action Part- Fixed April Type Group Full –time time Term overall Type Group Full-time time Term overall Training and Development There were 53 staff who completed training in April. Hiring- Leav- Employee CCC Total 18 7 10 35 ing CCC Total 17 6 11 34

Building Control Building Group 4 - 1 5 Normal Control Business Event Group 1 - 1 2 Bookings Corporate Services Prevention of OOS 16 Group 4 2 3 9 Corporate Treaty of Waitangi 15 Operations Services Group 3 4 1 8 Group 6 - 3 9 Facilities Step Up to Leadership 12 and Community Infrastruc- and Recruitment and Selection 9 ture Democracy Rebuild 4 - 2 6 Services - 1 3 4 Work Smart CSR Basic Skills 1

Community Operations and De- Group 8 5 2 15 mocracy 53 Services 2 1 2 5 Total Trained in April Strategy Financial and and Planning Commercial Group 1 - 1 2 Group 1 - 1 2 Rehire CCC Total 2 2 4 8

Corporate Strategy Services and Group 1 - 1 2 Planning Group 1 - 1 2 Operations Group 1 2 2 5

Overall Building result 17 6 11 34 Control Group - - 1 1

Overall result 20 9 14 43 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 26 People Mitigation strategies in place for accident reduction Types of accidents in April The Health and Safety Specialists team within Human The types of accidents and incidents reported in April Resources promote, support and advise on Health and include dog bites, burns, cuts, bruising, verbal abuse and Health and Safety Safety matters. pain and discomfort conditions from computer work or The table (below) shows the number of staff accidents for the book handling The most common injury is sprains and period 1 July 2014 – 30 April 2015. There are also Health and Safety Committees across the strains caused by lifting or moving objects or from slips organisation where managers and staff work together to or trips. improve health and safety outcomes. Overall trends Managers have a responsibility to investigate accidents/ The graph (below) shows an overall increase in the incidents reported and put in place mitigation measures or numbers of accidents reported. This increase compared controls to prevent further occurrences. These measures with the previous year is in the categories of first aid and may include training, education or the provision of protective near miss incidents. clothing or equipment. Mar April Total

YTD This trend is likely to continue as we promote the need to report these incidents so that prevention measures can

be put in place before more serious accidents occur. Lost time Injury (LTI) 3 4 27

Medical Injury (MI) 14 8 100

First Aid Injury (FAI) 19 9 125

Near Miss (NM) 9 2 55

Pain and Discomfort 5 13 80

Total Incidents 387 reported 50 36

Days lost 82 66 388

ACC Claims 9 10 90

Serious Harm Notifications to Worksafe NZ 2 1 7

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 27 Online Services ) Event Key Internal Projects  Online dog re-registration payments have been tested Over the last month, the Chief Executive attended the following internal and external key stakeholder meetings: Great for Christchurch and are ready for public release on 1 June.  We are currently planning and scoping out the online  Burwood-Pegasus Community Board Meeting The opportunities identified by the Great for Christchurch services platform project to determine timing,  Chairs of local Rῡnanga team went to ELT for approval in early May. Great for resources and delivery. A vendor has been selected Christchurch is a programme to make the Council more  Chief Executive, Department of Prime Minister and for online services. efficient, effective and responsive to our residents. Cabinet  Citizen Request for Service – this mobile application  Chief Executives' Advisory Group New workstreams in Customer and Community and Middle/ for the public to lodge service requests went live on 18  Chief Executive, Air New Zealand Back office are now getting underway. In April, ELT agreed May.  People and Culture Committee to get some procurement opportunities underway Other updates  Senior Leaders' Forum immediately and is already seeing returns.  Development of SharePoint has begun. SharePoint is a platform for managing intranets, documents and  Farewells of two retiring staff collaborative online workspaces. A development site is  Weekly meetings with CERA and CERA CEO People and Culture Committee available and scoping out business needs is In April, the People Culture Committee launched its intranet underway. page, which will have regular posts and updates on the  Business-wide and public change of address form CDC Update Committee's work plus profiles of committee members. The being implemented. committee held its third 2015 meeting in early May. Ideas to  A Great for Christchurch collaborative internal website This section of the report profiles the key activities 'break down bureaucracy' were discussed, as well as how has been established. undertaken during the month by the Canterbury best to engage with the Great for Christchurch Programme. Development Corporation (CDC). An initiative to visit units alongside senior leaders was explored. 1. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Chief Executive Activities (MBIE) and Treasury CEO’s and senior leadership teams spent the day in the region, a very successful day Over the last month, the Chief Executive attended the showcasing the innovation system and regional economic CERA Transition following events on behalf of the Council: development. We have had excellent feedback from both Council staff have continued to meet with CERA and Date (2015) Event Treasury and MBIE on the event. Government officials to discuss strategic, operational and transactional issues related to the CERA transition. The 9 April Visit to Dean's Head, with CERA’s Chief Executive 2. Work on international education has spiked during the Mayor is on the Transition Advisory Board. Ensuring our month with progress on the ICT grad school proposal, a preparedness for transition is the key focus at present. 9 April Extraordinary Meeting, Burwood/ Pegasus Community Board successful mission to India alongside Education NZ and Immigration NZ and a workshop hosted by Hekia Parata that 9 April LTP Public Meeting, Hagley/ Long Term Plan (LTP) Process Update reinforced the signals of an increased focus on regional Ferrymead Ward development by central government. The draft LTP has been with the community for extensive 10 April Visit to City Mission consultation. This feedback is being analysed at present and 3. CDC team in Melbourne as part of the “Aussie Jobs Fair’ will inform Council's decision in adopting a final Long Term 14 April LTP Public Meeting, Burwood/ initiative with MBIE, continue to get very good response to Plan at its meetings 23-26 June. Pegasus Ward Christchurch as a potential destination and there is a marked 16 April Society of Local Government difference in the views of the respective economies Website Upgrade Managers (SOLGM) Forum and (Christchurch is regarded as being in an enviable position). The ccc.govt.nz upgrade project is well underway. Key Masterclass milestones so far include: 21 April LTP Breakfast Forum for 4. Callaghan Innovation have approved our funding proposal for $200k for the High Performance Work Initiative. This is the Sign off on two levels of the site structure Community Groups  second year this programme has been run, it is very pleasing  Developing the site structure with the business 23 April Speech to Members of U3A (University of the Third Age) to have the continuity.  Developing and designing landing pages, content pages 24 April Mayoral Dinner with Delegation 5. CDC is participating in a business engagement group for from Sichuan, China  Loading the site structure. the FIFA U20 World Cup aimed at making the most of the 25 April ANZAC Day services commercial business and business attraction opportunities from the event. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 CLAUSE 6 28 CDC Update Continued Natural Environment Recovery Programme Asbestos demolition waste and dust management Potential issues surrounding asbestos, demolition waste and 6. We had a first session on the development of the Visitor SCIRT and the wastewater network rebuild dust management identified during the processes to Strategy with all of the key stakeholders. Currently wastewater flows through the wastewater treatment remediate land and start construction work in central plant are up to 60 per cent higher than pre-earthquake. There Christchurch are typical of a number of sites around 7. CDC attended a session on the development of a cruise is a risk the wastewater network rebuild will not achieve equal Canterbury following the earthquakes. These are risks are terminal for Lyttelton Port, but there is a funding shortfall or better than pre-earthquake overflow frequencies and managed through a number of avenues. against budgeted development cost that will require a volumes. What is being done to address this shortfall in solution. capacity? The Waste and Environmental Management Team (WEMT), along with other agencies, uses the following approaches: 8. A video conference call with a Chinese business, we are It is not known yet if the rebuild of the damaged parts of  Attending meetings during key times of deconstruction in early discussions with them about establishing a presence Christchurch's sewer network will return the system to pre- and land clearance in Christchurch. earthquake levels for the frequency and volume of wet  Requiring waste management plans outlining what weather overflows. waste is going where

Natural Environment Recovery Programme  Reviewing and, if appropriate, endorsing disposal A new post-SCIRT hydraulic model is being developed to options outlined by contractors predict whether the system will perform better or worse than  Auditing waste streams to ensure they are going pre-earthquakes but it needs testing (field calibration). This where the waste management plan said they would This is additional information requested by Councillors will take place in winter 2016 as the SCIRT rebuild of the following the Natural Environment Recovery Programme sewer network nears completion. This testing needs to take  Increased monitoring of known contaminated sites to Report to Council on 30 April 2015. place in the winter to spring period to coincide with highest ensure appropriate management likely ground water levels, as ground water levels have a  Regular, proactive site visits to all sites – green zone, Porrit Park update significant impact on infiltration into pipes (about two-thirds of red zone, central city, residential and commercial Severe earthquake damage meant Porritt Park could no the network is below average ground water levels).  A dedicated officer as point of contact for precinct longer be leased to Canterbury Hockey for sporting and work recreational purposes. In November 2014, Celebration Dry weather overflows are still much higher than pre-  Creating a joint-agency asbestos aware website (see Church Lions Sports Trust offered to take up the lease and earthquake frequencies. This largely reflects the damage to, reinstate sporting and recreational facilities for the wider image below) and the fragility of, the network. Currently flows have returned  Agencies working together and sharing information community at no cost to Council. Officers advised to pre-earthquake levels but we have had a prolonged period under the WEMT joint agency model Celebration Church Lions Sports Trust that the land was of dry weather and ground water levels are very low. Flows unsuitable, provided geotechnical reports and offered to look have at times been up to 75 per cent higher than pre-  Worksafe-led seminars for the industry and public to for alternatives. Celebration Church Lions Sports Trust earthquake flows. further educate people on potential asbestos issues. decided to proceed and Burwood/ Pegasus Community Board supported their request in line with their delegated The SCIRT rebuild does not repair all pipe faults but leaves in This is additional authority. place faults that have at least five years of life remaining. information requested by CCTV footage showed most of these faults did not impact the Councillors following the Officers managed an Expression of Interest Process. One network. All large and medium sized points of infiltration into Natural Environment expression of interest was received from Celebration Church the network are being repaired under the SCIRT Recovery Programme Report Lions Sports Trust. Following Council's process officers are programme. In areas where pressure sewers, and to a lesser to Council on 30 April 2015. preparing a report to the Council, through the Burwood/ extent areas where vacuum sewers are installed, there will be Pegasus Community Board, recommending that Council do a significant reduction in groundwater infiltration. Work is not enter into a lease agreement for Porritt Park. The report underway on a new consent for wet weather overflows in will follow standard Board and Council reporting processes. Christchurch but it will not be finalised until the model is calibrated. Out of courtesy and a commitment to keep stakeholders informed officers have advised the Celebration Lions Sports

Trust of their recommendation and will now work with

Celebration Church Lions Sports Trust on suitable alternatives.

29 Clause 7 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015

A meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport, and Environment Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 7 May 2015 at 8.30am.

PRESENT: Councillor Phil Clearwater (Chairperson) Councillors Pauline Cotter (Deputy Chairperson), Vicki Buck, David East and Tim Scandrett

APOLOGIES: Councillor Buck arrived at the meeting at 8.36am and was absent for part of item 2. Councillor East left the meeting at 9.35am and was absent for the public excluded items.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. NEW ZEALAND POST DELIVERY MODE

Contact Contact Details

General Manager, Culture Leisure and N . Executive Leadership Team Parks Member responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and City N Officer responsible: Streets Y DDI: 941 8938 Author: Paul Burden Road Corridor Operations Manager

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 New Zealand Post (NZ Post) has requested approval to operate new delivery vehicles on the footpath. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the outcome of the discussions and trial carried out to demonstrate these vehicles.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 A trial was carried out to determine the impact of the proposed NZ Post vehicles on footpath infrastructure in Christchurch. It was determined that there would be minimal impact on footpath infrastructure and that NZ Post should be given approval in principle to operate its new vehicles on the footpath with agreement from the Council for specific routes subject to suitable management agreements being put in place.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 NZ Post is reviewing the way it delivers mail to meet the reducing demand for standard letters and the increasing demand for package delivery. The current methods of delivery do not allow it to easily accommodate these new customer demands. It is reviewing frequency of delivery as well as mode of delivery. This report deals with the delivery mode.

3.2 NZ Post propose to use two new vehicles that will operate on the footpath. The vehicles are also street legal so under current legislation will need specific authorisation from the Road Controlling Authority for them to operate. The two vehicles are a three wheeled motorcycle with a trailer and a four wheeled vehicle similar to a mobility scooter or golf cart without a trailer. These vehicles have been trialled last year for three months in Auckland City and Hutt City and a full scale commercial trial has started in New Plymouth. Clearly, NZ Post is making progress and will make investment decisions after the New Plymouth trial.

30 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee 7. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

3.3 To date, we have had a meeting with NZ Post where we discussed concerns specific to Christchurch City that may need to be addressed prior to any authorisation being granted. This formed the basis of the trial to demonstrate how the vehicles operate in practice.

3.4 The Auckland and Hutt City trials both suggested that there were no operational issues with the vehicles using the footpaths safely and the public raised no significant issues. However, the trials did not appear to address maintenance issues specifically. In Christchurch, there are many concerns about footpaths that the larger vehicles may have an impact on, particularly since the earthquakes. Concerns include:

 how the vehicles may damage berms, particularly when passing infrastructure like signs and power poles  how the vehicles cope with overhanging hedges and how the drivers react to them  whether the deep kerb and channels will cause problems  how the vehicles will impact on the footpath construction of variable quality, much of which is unknown.

3.5 These are particularly a concern where there is no subsidy from Central Government for upgrading or maintaining footpaths.

3.6 A short trial was carried out to attempt to quantify some of these problems. The trial was effectively a dummy run where the driver simulated mail delivery along specific routes using both vehicles and was observed and filmed. It was intended that the routes will be representative of the variety of different footpath environments. The delivery was observed to see how often they impact on berms or need to drive onto the street and how they interact with pedestrians and vehicles accessing properties and anything else unforeseen.

3.7 Results of the observations were used to assess whether there is concerning impact on berms and infrastructure. The experienced operator was a company trainer. He was unfamiliar with the routes so his driving may be typical of a postie.

3.8 If the trial is considered successful, an agreement to allow the vehicles to use footpaths could be made. This agreement would include the standard operating conditions from NZ Post that postal delivery workers (posties) are expected to adhere to and could include an agreement on rectifying issues that may arise such as damage to footpaths or berms. It is anticipated that the decision to grant approval would be made at a political level.

3.9 At this stage, the Council can withdraw the approval at any time if NZ Post does not behave as expected.

3.10 It should be noted that the vehicles are street legal and they can be used on road without any further approval from the Council. The only jurisdiction the Council has is when the vehicles leave the carriageway and drive along the footpath.

3.11 It should also be noted that NZ Post already has in place procedures for it to rectify damage caused to berms by its posties. Its cycles are allowed to use the footpath by law and are sometimes the subject of complaints from residents where they regularly cross a berm.

31 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee 7. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

4. COMMENT

4.1 The trial was carried out on the morning of 19 March 2015 around some of the streets in Papanui. Councillors were invited to view the vehicles at the Restell Street service centre before the trial. The vehicles were driven on the road from the service centre to the start of the route at St James Avenue. The route covered St James Avenue, Bellvue Avenue, Blighs Road and Ashmore Road. These roads had sufficient variety of footpath types to indicate whether there would be issues with either vehicle. Note that Ashmore Road is a private road and use of the road by NZ Post is not controlled by the Council.

4.2 The Kyburz was the first vehicle trialled. The driver frequently left the footpath and drove onto the road to avoid infrastructure (power poles) on the narrow footpath and then returned to the footpath at the next vehicle crossing. No issues were observed with the vehicle manoeuvring onto or from the carriageway.

4.3 It was noted that the vehicle cut across the corners of the berms at several points on the first section of St James Avenue near Harewood Road where the footpath was narrowest. The driver was attempting to pull into the driveway to access the letterbox. Whether this would have caused damage over the longer term with regular use is difficult to determine. The Kyburz was deliberately driven onto a berm to show its effect on the berm and no tyre tracks or damage were observed on a single pass.

4.4 The Paxster was then driven along the same route. Due to the vehicle being wider, there were sections where the vehicle drove along the edge of the footpath and on the berm. This is likely to cause damage over time, especially in wet weather. As part of the management plan, NZ Post would need to instruct the driver to drive on the road on these sections if the Paxster was to be used in these locations. The Paxster also cut the corners of the berms more frequently than the Kyburz due to its size.

4.5 The Paxster struck a number of overhanging trees and hedges due to its greater height and width.

4.6 During the trial, only one pedestrian was encountered and the driver stopped to allow the pedestrian to pass as expected. No vehicles entering or exiting properties were encountered.

4.7 The results of the trial clearly demonstrated that the vehicles can be safely driven on the footpaths and are unlikely to cause significant damage to berms. Whether drivers will be careless and drive over berms without considering the effect can only be proved over time. This will need to be carefully written into the approval to ensure that NZ Post continues to be responsible for its drivers and for repair of the damage they cause. The long term maintenance effect of using the vehicles on the footpath cannot be determined until the vehicles are used regularly along specific routes.

4.8 Both of the vehicles clearly have different operational requirements and will not be suitable in all situations. NZ Post will need to consider the effects of each vehicle and how they will be used safely and without damage on each route. They may not be used exclusively but may form part of the fleet along with the existing bicycles, motorcycles and foot delivery.

4.9 The trial can be considered a success and that the approval to operate these vehicles on footpaths should be granted to NZ Post subject to suitable agreements on routes and maintenance. The agreement may need to specify the roads on which each vehicle is acceptable so that if an errant driver is causing problems on specific routes, only those routes could have approval removed if necessary.

32 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee 7. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

4.10 At this stage, NZ Post are wanting a commitment in principle that approval will be given assuming no further issues arise during trials so that they can complete their business case with further details to follow once they have confirmed their proposal.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no financial implications.

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council approve in principle that New Zealand Post may use the Paxster and Kyburz vehicles on Christchurch footpaths for the exchange of letters using the following wording:

“Christchurch City gives approval in principle (pursuant to subclause 2, section 2.13 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule-amendment 2009) to use the Integrated Delivery Vehicles Kyburz DXP and Loyd Paxster on Christchurch City Council controlled footpaths.

In order to obtain full approval for use of these vehicles on our network, New Zealand Post would need to:

 Confirm the exact locations that you are intending to use each vehicle,  Have gained New Zealand Police approval,  Have current New Zealand Transport Agency approval to operate the vehicles,  Undertake all necessary training of staff,  Provide an approved management plan including a commitment to repair damage caused by the vehicles,  Submit a communication plan for Christchurch City residents and representative advocacy groups for people with disabilities, including the Blind Foundation, to explain the use of these vehicles.”

7. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopt the Staff Recommendation with alteration to the first bullet point as indicated below:

 Confirm the exact locations that New Zealand Post intends you are intending to use each vehicle,

33 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee 7. 5. 2015

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Tim Croskery and Holden Hohaia from New Zealand Post Group addressed the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee regarding New Zealand Post's proposed use of new delivery vehicles. They also answered a number of questions from the Committee.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD MONTHLY UPDATE

The Committee received the information in the report.

PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS

4. APOLOGIES

The Committee resolved to receive and accept an apology for lateness from Councillor Buck and an apology for early departure from Councillor East.

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil were received by the Committee.

6. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

The Committee resolved to adopt the resolution to exclude the public as set out on pages 43-46 of the agenda and permit Sara Templeton, Chairperson of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board, and Davina McNickel, Team Leader Contaminated Sites at Environment Canterbury, to stay for consideration of this item due to their particular relevant interest and knowledge.

The Committee resolved to readmit the public at 10.52am at which time the meeting concluded.

CONSIDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2015

MAYOR

34

INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE35 1

NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY NATIONAL OFFICE WAKA KOTAHI 50 Victoria Street Private Bag 6995

Wellington 6141

New Zealand Reference number: ADCl 4.02 2 T 64 4 894 5 400 F 64 4 894 6100 2 7'h February 2014 www.nzta.govt.nz

Matt Scott NZ Post Limited Private Bag 3 9990 Wellington Mail Centre Lower Hutt 5 045

ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTATION FOR AN IMPORTED VEHICLE

The purpose of this notice is to acknowledge that the motor vehicles specified in Schedule l, can be accepted for entry-level certification as being compliant with EC standards applicable to a class LB vehicle , subject to the conditions specified in Schedule 2 .

Schedule 1: Vehicle details

Make: Kyburz Model: DXP Year of Manufacture : 201 4 VIN/Chassis No: TCK61 6741 D8406226 TCK61 6741 D8406227 TCK61 6741 D8406228

Schedule 2: Conditions

l) This original letter must be retained by the TSD agent on one of the vehicle files and a photocopy on the other two vehicles ; and. 2) ) A copy of the EC Certificate of Conformity for each vehicle must be supplied to the TSD agent and retained on the vehicle file 3) ) All other entry-level certification requirements must apply.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Waititi Vehicle Compliance Specialist Delivery , Customer Access , Assessments New Zealand Transport Agency 36 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE37 1 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE38 1 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE39 1 40 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE41 1

Integrated Delivery Agent Information for Councils INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE42 1 Background

. Today the New Zealand Post Group operates three last mile delivery networks (Postie, Courier and Box) and is experiencing a changing environment with a decrease in letter volume at the rate of 7% per annum. Physical mail decline is a global trend and has necessitated change for all global postal operators.

. The current delivery modes for urban Posties are bicycle, motorcycle and walking. The group operates 1546 rounds. The predominant and default delivery mode for New Zealand Post is by bicycle, with walking and motorcycles used where appropriate or conditions require. The default delivery mode for Courier product is by van.

INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE43 1 Objectives of discussion

The purpose of this information pack is to:

. Give an overview of New Zealand Post’s Integrated Delivery Agent programme, and

. Present the results of our successful vehicle trials to date

We are aiming to meet, to:

. Understand particular requirements or concerns in regard to proposing to operate mid-range vehicles as part of our future delivery network, based on the evidence gathered in the trials we have already completed,

. Establish a pathway to authorising the use of mid-range vehicles on the footpath, to support further investment in this mode by NZ Post, and begin that process

. Ultimately, gain approval to operate mid range vehicles on the footpath in the near future, pending a successful business case

INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE44 1 Integrated Delivery Agent?

. Given the potential change in product volumes and mixes, we need to investigate whether the current delivery modes in urban areas (predominantly cycle & van) will be appropriate to deliver future product mixes, or whether new delivery modes will be more suitable.

. The Integrated Delivery Agent (IDA) project has been formed, under the umbrella of the Network of the Future Programme, to explore what is the optimal combination of delivery agents and modes to deliver our future product set (5 year view) and how do we move to this model.

Core questions “What is the ‘optimal’ combination of delivery agents that we need to deliver our future product set – less mail, more parcels and other product?

How do we move to this model?

Page 4 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE45 1 IDA - Progress to date

. The IDA programme has been underway since late 2012.

. Gained NZTA support to trial new delivery vehicles – operating under exemption with a view to formalise

. Integrated delivery agent model trialled in Lower Hutt, with support of Hutt City Council. Exemption granted to trial the vehicles on the footpath – no issues through the trial. The purpose of the trial was to validate desk top modelling assumptions prior to the submission of a Strategic Case to Board

. The real benefit comes from using the vehicle on the footpath i.e. how bicycles are used. The new vehicles are not effective unless used on the footpath – road use requires the driver to dismount/walk to the delivery point

. New vehicle test underway in Auckland (a very simplified version of the Hutt City trial), with support of Auckland Transport and Community Boards. Exemption granted to operate the vehicles on the footpath for the duration of the testing period

. Currently exploring the case for further rollouts, including engaging with councils to gain views and understand appetite prior to further investment

Page 5 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE46 1 IDA – Developing proof of concept

. The objective of the IDA trial has been to test the new delivery modes (i.e. 3 wheeled Kyburz & 4 wheeled Paxster) and to test the performance of discrete delivery agent & product combinations. The trial had two phases:

Phase One - The first phase of the trial was focused on testing the performance of the new vehicles with existing products (mail and parcels). We tested how fast the modes travel, how often posties need to dismount at the letterbox, how easy it is to get up and down driveways, how much the new vehicles can carry, and how far they can travel. We compared the performance of mid- range vehicles against the performance of existing cycles/vans

Phase Two - Involved introducing new products (i.e newspapers and unaddressed) and repeating our earlier tests. We used this approach of ‘building-up’ the trial deliberately so we can measure and learn about the impact of each individual change (i.e. new vehicles or new products). Specifically we measured the ‘incremental impact’ of the new products (i.e preparation time, dismount and time at the letterbox, impact on speed of travel, capacity and range).

. We know these new vehicles are proven to work overseas, but these tests helped us understand whether or not they are suited to New Zealand conditions, and if they are, what type of rounds they might be suited to.

6 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE47 1 IDA – Proof of Concept

Measurement Category Early Results (compared to a standard bike) Conclusions

Suitability for Delivery . Easy to use (“take a bit of getting used to…performing better than expected….potential role for these in delivery”) . Great manoeuvrability (especially Kyburz) The modes work in NZ . Good height to access letterboxes (esp. compared to a Motorbike)

Speed of Travel . Performance varies +/- compared to a standard bike . Significantly faster travel to/from the rounds Mid-range are faster on some rounds and slower on others

Efficiency at the Delivery . Time to deliver takes longer (requires more dismounts, harder to prep Decision to invest for the majority of rounds will be Point before delivery) dependent on new products and the ability to . Individual dismounts are longer than a cycle, but faster than a rationalise delivery fleets overall (i.e at a Group motorcycle level)

Capacity . Plenty of capacity (no overflow bags required to date, yet to require the trailer) Good capacity & range to handle possible future product sets Range . Upper range is circa 50-60km (i.e 2 rounds, under light loads)

Strategic Modelling and In parallel to the trial we are also doing further work on : Business Case Build . Refining the “effort” and “cost/revenue” models as the basis for the business case build . Evaluating the likelihood of securing new business and NZTA/Council exemptions, as well as the lead times for procuring new modes

Page 7 INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE48 1 Engaging with Councils

. The success of this programme of work is contingent on working in partnership with local authorities

. These new/changing modes require discussion over the use of vehicles on footpaths for the purposes of delivering mail & parcels – we are looking to have these discussion prior to progressing with the programme

. Local authorities are able to grant permission to NZ Post to operate these vehicles on the footpath, this is crucial to any future move to these vehicles.

. We’re keen to share the strategic rationale and key learning’s from the IDA Trial and pilot as part of a discussion around the potential use of these vehicles in the future

. We are still working through the specifics of If, When, and Where, but we’re keen to discuss operating these vehicles in principle.

. We are keen to understand what steps will be required to gain approval to operate these vehicles on the footpath, and to commence that process

INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE49 1 Appendix: Trialled Vehicles

NT110Motorbike Bicycle (for Loyd Paxter Kyburz DXP (for reference) reference) Dimensions 1120 x 2150 900 wide (with 700 wide with 800 x 1950 (trailer is 900 x 1400) (Width/length, mm) panniers) panniers) Weight 400kg 280kg (trailer 50kg) Payload 300kg 120kg (trailer additional 150kg) Max Speed 45km/hr (limited) 45 km/hr (limited) ~80km/hr ~25 km/hr Power output 4kw - electric 2.4kw - electric 5kw (petrol) - Battery Range 57km (measured) 42km (measured with trailer) - - NZTA classification NA – light goods w/ several LB – 3 wheeled motorcycle - - exemptions INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE50 1 Appendix: Operational considerations

Supplementary to existing modes . The Integrated delivery agent will supplement existing modes in the area, not completely replace them. Posties on foot, bike and courier vans will still be part of the mix.

Network Design . The eventual network design will take into account concerns in high-risk areas such as schools/rest homes/ hospitals. Although we are keen to minimise restrictions, we can look at ways to accommodate concerns in these kinds of areas. . The modes will be primarily used in residential areas

Training . All Posties who operate the mid-range vehicles receive comprehensive training on the safe operation of these vehicles by certified motorbike trainers, prior to being able to operate them. This includes covering the safe operation of these vehicles on the footpath, and . A copy of the NZPG training guidelines is available on request.

Speed . The midrange vehicles are limited to 10km/hr on the footpath (by law). Given that the vehicles operate in a very stop-start manner, the opportunity to reach unsafe speeds on the footpath is very limited.

Page 10

51 Clause 8 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 7. 5. 2015

A meeting of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee was held in Committee Room 1 on 7 May 2015 at 1pm.

PRESENT: Councillor Andrew Turner (Chairperson) Councillors Glenn Livingstone (Deputy Chairperson), Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Tim Scandrett and Paul Lonsdale

APOLOGIES: Councillors Yani Johanson for lateness, Jamie Gough, Ali Jones, Paul Lonsdale, Yani Johanson and Jimmy Chen for early departure.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. APPROVAL OF CHANGE IN SCOPE OF WORK AND THE GRANT RECIPIENT AND BUILDING OWNER

Contact Contact Details

Chief Planning Officer Strategy and Y PA Diane Campbell, 03 941 8281 General Manager responsible: Planning Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Y PA Grace De Leon, 03 941 8812 Officer responsible: Manager Brendan Smyth, Heritage Team Leader Y 03 941 8934 Author:

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 The Committee considered a report seeking their recommendation to the Council to approve a change in the scope of works of a previously approved Central City Landmark Heritage Grant and approval for a change in the grant recipient following a change in building ownership.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 The West Avon Apartments Building (constructed in 1936) has been identified as having prominence and visual distinction on its central city corner site. A Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $800,000 was allocated to the building by Council in April 2014. Since this time the original building owners, Elizabeth and Keith Marshall have sold the building and the new owner is the 'Peebles Ecars Trust'. The proposed future use of the building has changed from residential to commercial. The external appearance of the building will however remain largely unaltered and it will retain its landmark status.

PHOTOGRAPH, JANUARY 2014

52 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee 7. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 On the 24th April 2014 Council approved a Central City Landmark Heritage grant of $800,000 for repairs and upgrade work to the building at 279 Montreal Street. The site is at a key location across from the Council’s Civic Offices and the Arts Centre, both of which attract large numbers of visitors. The building is on one of the main pedestrian routes between the city centre and the Botanic Gardens. The building is also adjacent to the one way system which channels significant numbers of people in vehicles directly past the building. The proposal was to conserve, repair and seismically strengthen the building for residential use.

3.2 The building owners, Elizabeth and Keith Marshall decided not to pursue the repair and upgrade option and sold the building to the Peebles Ecars Trust. This new owner considers that the best use of the building is for commercial purposes, rather than residential, and is keen to retain the external appearance of the building. The external Art Deco form and detailing including the metal windows and the existing feature entrance doors on Montreal Street will be retained. The internal layout is being altered to allow for structural upgrades to take place which will include new reinforced concrete block walls to replace the unreinforced brickwork walls and new structural floor and ceiling diaphragms to be created. The original main internal staircase with overhead roof-light will be retained along with the tiled entrance lobby.

4. COMMENT

4.1 The distinct Art Deco styling and form of the building and it's prominent corner location close to the Arts Centre drew the new owner to purchase the building in an 'as is where is state' with no insurance funds for repairs. The desire to retain the architectural features of the building may mean that it is more difficult to lease to commercial tenants given the limited sound and thermal performance of the Art Deco style original windows. The new owner views the Central City Landmark Heritage grant as a strong incentive to retain as much of the exterior of the building as possible. The grant will enable the retention of the original facades with the existing metal windows and allow alternative options to be considered to improve insulation such as adding secondary double glazing on the inside.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no additional financial implications associated with this request for a change in the scope of works and for a different grant recipient.

6. STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That the Council approve the change in the scope of works for the West Avon Apartments building and approve transfer of the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant to the new owner of this heritage building.

Councillor Yani Johanson requested that his vote against 6.1 be recorded.

53 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee 7. 5. 2015

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

2. AMENDMENT OF DELEGATIONS – SOCIAL HOUSING REBUILD AND REPAIR PROGRAMME

The Committee failed quorum for this item.

The report will be considered the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee at its' extraordinary meeting on 26 May 2015 and by the Council on 28 May 2015.

3. REVIEW OF 2009 SMOKEFREE PUBLIC PLACES POLICY – BRIEFING PAPER

The Committee considered the report and decided to lay the report on the table until their next meeting in June pending further information.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - Councillor Glenn Livingstone declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the decision making of item 5.3.

5. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

5.1 SOLARCITY

Chris Freear addressed the Committee with a proposal to install solar power for Council facilities.

The Committee decided to request that staff arrange a workshop in regard to solar energy generation opportunities presented by Council owned facilities and buildings; also social housing stock, electric vehicle conversion, use of other electric vehicles and electrified public transport and an update on work already underway by the Housing Taskforce in relation to this matter.

5.2 INFORM (INTERAGENCY NETWORK FOR MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES)

Shirley Wright (Christchurch Resettlement Services) and Wayne Reid spoke to the Committee requesting that the Council consider progressing a multicultural policy.

The Committee decided to request that staff prepare a stock take of strategies, plans, previous work and resolutions related to this issue including their comments on the recommendations in the INFORM deputation to enable members of the Committee and staff to meet with INFORM in June.

5.3 COMMUNITY HOUSING TRUST

Garry Moore (Community Housing Trust) addressed the Committee about the possibility of using Council land for social housing.

The Committee decided to endorse staff working on the intensification of social housing sites and request that staff consider:

5.3.1 All options / opportunities to recycle / re-use houses.

5.3.2 All opportunities for the use of Council land for this purpose including leasing land.

54 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee 7. 5. 2015

5 Cont'd

5.4 HISTORIC PLACES CANTERBURY

Mark Gerard spoke to the Committee and circulated information about Historic Places Canterbury, Duncan's Building and High Street, and 'Older, Smaller, Better' (measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality).

The Committee decided to request staff to provide an update to the Committee on Duncan's Building and High Street, and following this provide an update to Historic Places Canterbury.

The Committee noted that an invitation has been sent to Minister Barry which has been acknowledged and a meeting is to be set in the near future.

The Committee further decided to request staff to arrange a workshop on the public realm network plan for heritage advocates and interested groups / individuals. The Committee noted that the workshop will include district plan information.

The Committee also decided to refer the information on 'Older, Smaller, Better' [provided by Mark Gerard] to Christchurch City Council Heritage staff for comment.

6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES REBUILD MONTHLY UPDATE

Staff spoke to the Committee with an update on the Council approved priority projects being delivered by the Community Facilities Rebuild Unit.

The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.

7. MAJOR FACILITIES REBUILD MONTHLY UPDATE

Staff updated the Committee on the Council’s major facilities rebuild.

The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.

8. ANCHOR PROJECTS MONTHLY UPDATE

Staff provided an update on the Council’s anchor projects.

The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.

9. HOUSING OPERATIONS MONTHLY REPORT – MARCH 2015

Staff spoke to the Committee on key aspects of the Council’s Housing Unit operations for March 2015.

The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.

10. SOCIAL HOUSING REBUILD AND REPAIR PROGRAMME UPDATE (MARCH 2015)

Staff provided the Committee with an update of the Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme for March 2015.

The Committee decided to receive the information provided in the report.

55 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee 7. 5. 2015

11. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION TABLE

The Committee failed quorum for this item. The Committee will consider the information at their extraordinary meeting on 26 May 2015.

12. MEMORANDUM - LEASING HOUSES FOR THE HOMELESS

The Committee considered a memorandum seeking agreement for staff to further investigate the Council underwriting the leasing of private rental properties to house homeless people.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee agree that staff further investigate the Council underwriting the leasing of private rental properties to house homeless people including the:  level of MSD funding available for both the Income Related Rent Subsidy and wrap-around support, and  capacity of Community Housing Providers to undertake this service, and  interest in the private sector of leasing houses to Community Housing Providers to house the homeless on the basis of a guaranteed rent for a 12 month period.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee decided to approve that staff, through the Housing Taskforce (by way of a Chairpersons report to the Council meeting on 28 May 2015) investigate helping additional provision of housing, including underwriting the leasing of private and other rental properties to house homeless people including the:

 level of MSD funding available for both the Income Related Rent Subsidy and wrap-around support, and  capacity of Community Housing Providers to undertake this service, and  interest in the private sector of leasing houses to Community Housing Providers to house the homeless on the basis of a guaranteed rent for a 12 month period.

Councillor Ali Jones requested that her vote against the Committee recommendation for item 12 (above) be recorded.

PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS

13. APOLOGIES

The Committee resolved to accept an apology for lateness from Yani Johanson who arrived at 1.10pm and was absent for part of clause 5.1. Apologies for early departure were also accepted from Jamie Gough who left at 5pm and was absent for part of clause 12, and clauses 15, 16, 17, and 20, Yani Johanson who left at 5.20pm and was absent for clauses 17 and 20, Ali Jones and Paul Lonsdale who left at 5.40pm and were absent for part of clause 17 and clause 20, and Jimmy Chen who departed at 6.04pm at which point the meeting failed quorum and no further items were considered.

56 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee 7. 5. 2015

14. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE EVENTS AND FESTIVALS WORKING GROUP

The Communities Housing and Economic Development Committee resolved to amend bullet point three of the terms of reference for the Events and Festivals Working Group (amendment highlighted in bold italics below).

"The purpose of the Events and Festivals Working Group is to:  Provide strategic oversight and direction on events and festivals that recognise the many cultures in Christchurch  Facilitating partnerships and collaborative funding models and sponsorship opportunities across the arts, culture and events sectors  Contribute to the development of an events and visitor tourism strategy."

Councillor Yani Johanson requested to join the Events and Festivals working group.

The Chairperson and all the members of the working group were present and agreed that Councillor Yani Johanson be included in the membership of the Events and Festivals Working Group.

15. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the following reports be received and considered at the meeting of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee on 7 May 2015:

 Memorandum - Leasing Houses for the Homeless  Resolution to Exclude the Public  Head Tenants Report [Public Excluded]  Memorandum - Andrews Crescent [Public Excluded]

16. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 209 of the open agenda and page 243 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

The public were readmitted to the meeting at 6.05pm at which point Councillor Jimmy Chen left and the Committee failed quorum.

The meeting concluded at 6.05pm.

CONSIDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2015

MAYOR

57 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

9. CITY CARE LAND DRAINAGE CONTRACT TWO YEAR EXTENSION

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer, Operations N Member responsible: Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, City Water and Waste N Author: Tim Joyce, (Acting) Unit Manager City Y DDI 941 6401 Water and Waste

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 At its meeting on 8 May 2014, Council resolved to (21, 1.1): Authorise the Acting General Manager, City Environment Group to enter into negotiations with City Care Limited for a one year extension to the contract term of the current Maintenance of Urban Parks contract and the Maintenance of Waterways and Land Drainage (subsequently renamed Land Drainage).

1.2 The effect of this resolution was to extend City Care's Land Drainage contract until 30 June 2015.

1.3 The purpose of this report is to request a further two year extension until 30 June 2017.

1.4 This would bring the contract back in line with the original intent of, subject to meeting key performance indicators, having a minimum five year contract (from 2012), but without having the options of contract extensions for a further five years.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 At its meeting on 8 May 2014 the Council had considerable discussion on City Care's performance under the current Land Drainage contract.

2.1.1 The performance queries stemmed from the recent rainfall events which caused considerable flooding in parts of the city. As hindsight now proves, this flooding was not a result of poor contractor performance, but the nature and intensity of the rain events.

2.1.2 Coinciding with the rain events there was a broken water main in Rose Street outside Cashmere High School. The break was a result of poor workmanship carried out by a contractor to the Ministry of Education when installing a new water main connection to Cashmere High School. City Care, through their Operations and Maintenance Contract for Water and Wastewater services responded within their required timeframe. They were able to isolate the problem and carry out repairs for the Ministry of Education. The flooding in Rose Street was not a result of poor contractor performance under the City Care Land Drainage Contract.

2.2 City Care has achieved 100 percent contract KPI compliance during the term of their current Land Drainage contract.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 While identifying a number of opportunities for increased performance and more appropriate risk sharing in the Land Drainage contract, the current performance is more than acceptable and when combined with the current needs and risk of the activity, it is important that continuity of service is maintained.

3.2 City Care should, as per the commitment given to them in 2012, be put back in the position they would have been, had the original contract proposed in the Request for Proposal been offered.

3.3 This means that City Care would be offered a variation to their Land Drainage contract to extend the base contract term by two years to align with the original term.

3.4 Since the award of the contract the Stormwater and Land Drainage functions have been moved from Transport and Greenspace Unit to the City Water and Waste Unit (CWW). 58 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

9 Cont'd

This move has allowed staff to take a fresh look at City Care's activities, work practices and performance.

3.5 City Care has achieved 100 percent contract KPI compliance during the term of their current contract. CWW continue to monitor their performance across all aspects of the contract. They have stepped up in respect of having proactive response plans relating to predicted wet weather events.

3.6 The two year contract extension will enable CWW time to:

3.6.1 Refine and improve the B2B (Business to Business) reporting functionality between the Council and City Care to ensure accurate and timely billing and real time reporting of the cost of maintaining each asset.

3.6.2 Complete the update of the asset data in SAP (Council's accounting and asset management software system.)

3.6.3 Write a performance based contract to go to tender in the open market.

4. COMMENT

4.1 The Council needs a full two years to complete its asset data capture, verify its completeness and to put together a tender document that contains full and complete scope of works which aligns with our current move away from prescriptive based contracts to performance based contracts

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 This work undertaken through this Contract is currently budgeted for and is included in the draft LTP.

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

6.1 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer, Operations Group to enter into negotiations with City Care Limited for a two year extension to the contract term of the current Land Drainage contract within the current budget. 59 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

10. RESIDENTIAL ADVISORY SERVICE: FUNDING REQUEST

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director, Community and Democracy Member responsible: Services Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Community Governance and Support. Author: Senior Project Advisor, Community Y Kevin Bennett extension 8576 Support

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council's agreement to a grant of $50,000.00 being approved for the Residential Advisory Service from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 The Residential Advisory Service (RAS) was established in 2013 with a Memorandum of Understanding which provides for the purpose of the RAS as being:

 The Parties will establish a service to support property owners through the insurance and repair / rebuild processes associated with the Canterbury earthquakes (Service).  The Parties, whilst recognising the integrity and policies of each other, agree to work together in a spirit of cooperation and in accordance with agreed Terms of reference to fund and support the outcomes of the Service in accordance with the funding model.  The Participating Insurers’ participation in the Service does not bind them to act outside their contractual and commercial rights and obligations with respect to their respective customers or the operation of their businesses.

2.2 The parties to the RAS include: Chief Executive of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Earthquake Commission (EQC), Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) and the Christchurch City Council (CCC).

2.3 At its meeting of 12 December 2014, the Council resolved to:

 Agree to an amendment to the "Memorandum of Understanding, Cooperation between agencies in greater Christchurch involved in providing a residential advisory service" being negotiated by the Director of the Office of the Chief Executive to reflect the Council’s financial contribution being established at a total of $100,000.00.

 Agree to the grant of $100,000.00 referred to above being paid upon confirmation that the amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding detailed in 6.1 above has been agreed.

2.4 RAS has now requested that the Council provide a grant of $50,000.00 as a contribution towards the operation of the service for the 2015/16 year.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 On 13 July 2012 the Christchurch City Council wrote to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery requesting that an “insurance tribunal and advocacy service” be set up in Christchurch. 60 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

10 Cont'd

3.2 On 19 April 2013 the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Authority announced the delivery of the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) and on 16 May 2013 this service was officially launched.

3.3 A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed, with the parties to this MOU being the Chief Executive of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Earthquake Commission (EQC), Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) and the Christchurch City Council (CCC).

3.4 The MOU provides for the purpose of the RAS as being:

 The Parties will establish a service to support property owners through the insurance and repair / rebuild processes associated with the Canterbury earthquakes (Service).  The Parties, whilst recognising the integrity and policies of each other, agree to work together in a spirit of cooperation and in accordance with agreed Terms of reference to fund and support the outcomes of the Service in accordance with the funding model.  The Participating Insurers’ participation in the Service does not bind them to act outside their contractual and commercial rights and obligations with respect to their respective customers or the operation of their businesses.

3.5 Clause 9 of the MOU provides for the term of this MOU to take effect on the day it is signed by the Parties and to continue for a term of twelve (12) months until it expires. As the MOU had been signed by the other Parties involved, in accordance with Clause 9 of the MOU it became effective on 16 May 2013 and expires on 15 May 2014; The MOU was subsequently extended for the 2014/15 year.

3.6 The Memorandum of Understanding has not been signed by the Council but the Council has been represented on the Residential Advisory Service Governance Group by the Council’s General Manager, Culture, Leisure and Parks as an interim measure.

3.7 The following table illustrates funding received by RAS for the two years 2013/14 and 2014/15, from parties to the MOU:

Year Funding Amount Party $ 2013/14 Insurers 325,600.00 EQC 114,400.00 CERA 233,000.00

2014/15 Insurers 439,723.00 EQC 154,500.00 CERA 314,940.00

3.8 Funding requested from CCC for the same periods was :

2013/14 $207,000.00 2014/15 $279,285.00

The request for funding for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 years was discussed in a report considered by the Council on 12 November 2014 and at that meeting the Council resolved to make a contribution of $100,000.00 from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund representing $50,000.00 for each of the two periods. 61 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

10 Cont'd

3.9 At the Residential Advisory Service governance meeting held on 12 March 2015, it was confirmed that the service should continue for a further twelve months and approved theattached draft budget for the forthcoming year.

3.10 The Residential Advisory Service has requested a grant of $50,000.00 from the Council as a contribution towards the operation of the service for the 2015/16 year. This would equate to 3.9% of the attached draft budget.

3.11 The following table illustrates RAS funding requests for 2015/16 from parties to the MOU:

Year Funding Party Amount $ 2015/16 Insurers 300,000.00

EQC 300,000.00 CERA 631,200.00 CCC 50,000.00

3.12 The service was reviewed by Deloitte and a copy of their report of January 2014 was released to the Christchurch City Council and subsequently reported to the Council in November 2014. In summary, this review report found that the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) is operating a model which is largely achieving its intended objectives for residential property owners of greater Christchurch. The RAS is improving Christchurch property owner's collective understanding of the rebuild, repair and resettlement processes and is assisting them in making progress with their individual situations. The service incorporates and co-ordinates the provision of advice, guidance and support at zero cost to the property owner. It has become an effective operation since its initial launch and has improved its value to property owners by adding further capabilities where appropriate.

3.13 A table of statistics relevant to the operation of RAS follows :

RAS May 2013 to May 2014 May 2014 to current

Contacts 4637 4939

Face to Face 999 1319

Connected to other services/organisation 461 128

Cases finalised/ closed 374 931

Did not commence until August Referrals to Technical Panel 192 14

4. COMMENT.

4.1 The Council's 2013/14 and 2014/15 contribution of $100,000.00 was paid in March 2015, upon confirmation from RAS that the Memorandum of Understanding was to be amended in accordance with the Council's resolution of 12 December 2014.

4.1.1 This contribution of $100,000.00 was based on grants of $50,000.00 being awarded to RAS for each of the periods 16 May 2013 to 15 May 2014 and the 2014/15 year. 62 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

10 Cont'd

4.2 The contribution of $50,000.00 now sought is in addition to the contribution detailed in 4.1.1 above.

4.3 It is considered appropriate that the Council contribute to the continued operation of RAS for a further twelve month period. The establishment of this service was a CCC initiative and it has proven to be a useful service which is meeting a need in the community.

4.4 At the Council meeting of 12 May 2011 it was resolved:

That the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund was established, and will continue to be maintained, by the Council as a “public fund” (as described in section LD 3(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act 2007) exclusively for the purpose of providing money for any one or more charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes related to and in particular to provide relief to the people of Christchurch from the adverse effects of the 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 earthquakes, and associated aftershocks, by providing money for any activity or work required as a result of those events that:

(i) contributes to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch, and (ii) assists in:  remedying hardship suffered by individuals, groups, community organisations and businesses, and/or protecting, repairing damage to or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.  4.5 The Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund essentially operates as a trust with the Council acting as the trustee. As trustee, the Council is bound to apply the monies only for the purposes specified in the Council resolution above.

4.6 In terms of the activities that can be funded by the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief, the first requirement is that any grant be used to contribute to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "infrastructure" generally as "the foundation or basic structure of an undertaking" and specifically as "the installations and services (power stations, sewers, roads, housing etc) regarded as the economic foundation of a country". The word “infrastructure” therefore implies the undertaking of physical works.

4.7 However, paragraph (b) (i) of the resolution refers to "…any activity or work required as a result of those events that contribute to the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure of Christchurch…" It is therefore not necessary that the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund's monies be applied solely to rebuilding actual physical infrastructure, but it is necessary that the monies be applied to any work or activity that contributes to such rebuilding. Therefore, whilst the focus of the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund is the rebuilding of the social and physical infrastructure ("bricks and mortar"), it can also be used for any activity which contributes to that outcome.

4.8 In addition, any grant from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund must also assist in either remedying hardship or protecting, repairing or enhancing the physical fabric of the city.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The funding of $50,000.00 is able to be met through the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund. 63 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

10 Cont'd

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council agree to a grant of $50,000.00 being approved for the Residential Advisory Service, as its contribution towards the cost of operating the service in 2015/16; this grant to be met from the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund. 64 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 65 66 67 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

11. COMMUNITY FUNDING : SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director Community and Democracy Member responsible: Services. Officer responsible: Unit Manager Community Governance & Support. Author: Senior Project Officer, Community Y Kevin Bennett ext 8576 Support

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council's approval to the funding of Social Enterprise projects for charitable purposes being a component of the Council's Discretionary Response Fund.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 An outcome of the review of funding schemes by the Council Funding Working Party was that a report to Council is to be prepared seeking a policy change to allow the funding of social enterprise projects.

2.2 Included in the Council's current grants schemes are :

2.2.1 Strengthening Communities Fund. The purpose of this fund is to support community focused organisations whose projects contribute to the strengthening of community wellbeing in the Christchurch City area. This year applications opened on 20 April 2015 and close on 2 June 2015 and funding will be available to successful applicants from the beginning of September 2015.

2.2.2 Discretionary Response Fund. The purpose of this fund is to assist community groups where their project funding request falls outside other Council funding criteria and/or closing dates. This fund is also for emergency funding for unforeseen situations. For the 2015/16 round applications open on 1 July 2015 and close on 30 June 2016, or when the fund is expended. Funding will be available for a twelve month period, from the date of approval.

2.3 The Department of Internal Affairs has adopted the following description of Social Enterprise

2.3.1 An organisation that trades in order to support social, cultural, or environmental goals. This definition contains the following three main elements :

 A social, cultural or environmental mission that achieves public or community benefit.

 A substantial portion of income derived from trade ( 50 per cent or more, or a demonstrable intention to reach this level).

 Reinvestment of the majority, or all, of profit/surplus in the fulfilment of the organisation's mission.

2.3.2 A further defining point is that social enterprises are private entities that are self governing and have the independent authority to wind up their own operations.

2.3.3 For many charitable trust boards and incorporated societies (often referred to as "not-for-profit organisations" as they do not allow pecuniary gain for their members or officers), deriving income from the sale of goods and services is not new .Where such trading becomes the major source of income, the organisation may be described as a social enterprise. 68 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

11 Cont'd

2.4 The Canterbury Community Trust has set up a special fund called the Social Enterprise Fund. The vision of this fund is "To enhance the reputation of Canterbury as an idyllic place to live and visit, and provide the following community returns:

 Help support employment opportunities and outcomes  Encourage innovation and self sufficiency  Encourage community participation.

2.4.1 The Canterbury Community Trust has a requirement that Social Enterprise projects meet at least one of the following five pillars :

 Social  Cultural  Economic  Environmental  Scientific

2.4.2 This Social Enterprise Fund is contestable and is not intended to be a substitute for the Canterbury Community Trust's core function "business as usual" applications.

2.5 A number of other organisation throughout New Zealand also have an involvement in the funding/operation of Social Enterprise projects. This involvement includes the Government partnering with Hikurangi Foundation to help build a national social enterprise incubation and development service to provide expert support resources , and one-on -one advice from bases in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

3. COMMENT

3.1 It is envisaged that Social Enterprise projects would be assessed as a component of the Council's Discretionary Response Fund (DRF), within the funding allocated to the DRF.

3.2 As applications are able to be made to the Discretionary Response Fund over a twelve month period it is considered this would be a more appropriate source of funding for Social Enterprise projects than the Strengthening Communities Fund which is only open for applications for a limited period each year i.e. April - June.

3.3 The criteria to be used in assessing applications for Social Enterprise grants would be broadly based on the following:

 The project contains strong social, cultural or environmental elements  A substantial portion of income is derived from trade (50% or more).  Reinvestment of the profit/surplus in charitable purposes.  Community participation is encouraged as a fundamental component of the project and/or its outcomes.The project contributes significantly towards the organisation's self sufficiency

3.4 The enabling of Social Enterprise grants as part of the Discretionary Response Fund scheme is a logical development and would go some way towards assisting projects becoming self sufficient in time.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 As Social Enterprise grants would be funded from the Council's Discretionary Response Fund any financial impact would be limited to the funding allocated to the Discretionary 69 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

11 Cont'd

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

5.1 Agree to the Council's grant schemes policies being amended to allow the funding of Social Enterprise projects for charitable purposes as a component of the Council's Discretionary Response Fund.

70 71 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

12. AMENDMENT OF DELEGATIONS – SOCIAL HOUSING REBUILD AND REPAIR PROGRAMME

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer, Operations N Member responsible:: Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Housing N Author: David Bailey, Housing Rebuild Y DDI 941 8083 Liaison Manager

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 This report proposes amendments to the delegations for the Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme (the programme) in order to improve the efficiency of the approval process and project completion times.

1.2 This report is in response to feedback received at the Communities, Housing and Economic Development (CHED) Committee meeting held on 5 March 2015 when the initial proposal to amend delegations was presented for consideration.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Council has received a total of $57.7 million from the global Earthquake Commission (EQC) settlement for the repair and rebuilding of the Council's social housing portfolio. Negotiations are continuing with the main insurer on the claims that are over cap. The total insurance settlement for earthquake damage to the housing portfolio is expected to be insufficient to repair and/or replace all the earthquake damaged housing stock.

2.2 To date the programme utilising the EQC settlement has:

2.2.1 Expended $15 million to build 12 new units, re-open 41 closed units and complete 368 open unit repairs.

2.2.2 Obtained approval to build a further 49 new units (at the cost of $9.8 million).

2.2.3 Estimated $17 million is required to re-open 73 closed units.

2.3 Monthly programme status and financial reports providing detail on progress are presented to CHED and Council.

3. COMMENT

3.1 The Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme includes:

3.1.1 Priority One: rebuild and reopen 133 units to increase the housing portfolio to at least 2,366 units by 2017/18. This comprises:

 Building 49 new units,

 Repairing and re-opening 73 closed units

 Purchasing 11 owner occupier units (when a willing seller exists).

3.2.2 Priority Two: complete essential repairs on the housing portfolio's open units that address critical health and safety and/or asset integrity issues

3.2 The current delegations applicable to the Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme are contained in the – “Facilities Rebuild Plan". In this plan the Council has delegated the following: "Each project within the programme of work to increase the Housing portfolio by 133 units and/or complete essential repairs to open units, would be subject to the following financial delegations to enter into contracts for the purchase of materials, works and services explicit to the Social Housing Repair and Rebuild Programme: 72 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

12 Cont'd

3.7.1 Not exceeding $100,000: Housing Unit Manager.

3.7.2 Not exceeding $500,000: exercised by any of Chief Operating Officer, Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild or the Chief Financial Officer.

3.3 To achieve the repair and reopening of 73 closed units and the completion of essential repairs further planning, scoping and preparation of reports for consideration and decision is required.

3.4 When a project under the programme exceeds $500,000 it must be presented to CHED and the Council for consideration. This involves a time period of six to ten weeks from when the project plan information is completed and a recommendation is provided by Council officials until it receives consideration and a decision by the Council. This slows the overall project completion timeframe.

3.5 It is proposed to amend the delegations to change the limit from $500,000 to $1,000,000 for projects to require Council approval. The new delegations are proposed to read “Each project within the programme of work to increase the Housing portfolio by 133 units and/or complete essential repairs to open units, would be subject to the following financial delegations to enter into contracts for the purchase of materials, works and services explicit to the Social Housing Repair and Rebuild Programme:

3.5.1 Not exceeding $100,000: Housing Unit Manager.

3.5.2 Not exceeding $500,000: exercised by any of Chief Operating Officer, Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild or the Chief Financial Officer.

3.5.3 Not exceeding $1,000,000: exercised by the Chief Financial Officer jointly with either one of the Chief Operating Officer or Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild”.

3.6 This change to the delegations is relevant to eight projects that will achieve the programme to repair and reopen 73 closed units and the completion of essential repairs.

3.6.1 Three of these eight projects could be in excess of $1 million: Airedale Courts - 20 closed units, Cecil Courts - 10 closed units and Tommy Taylor Courts - 12 closed units. Under the proposed amendment to the delegations these projects would be presented to CHED and Council for their consideration and decision.

3.6.2 Five of the eight projects could be in the excess of $500,000 but be less than $1,000,000: Concord Place - eight closed units, Whakahoa - five closed units, Cedar Park - 19 open unit essential repairs, Gloucester Courts weather tightness essential repairs and Waltham Courts - 26 open unit essential repairs. Under the proposed amendment to the delegations these projects would be presented to the Chief Financial Officer and one of the Chief Operating Officer or Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild for their consideration and decision. This will reduce approval times for these projects by six to ten weeks.

3.8 All projects will be subject to the same Council Officer robust peer review and approval processes that occur now prior to being reported to CHED and the Council. This ensures projects will provide value to the social housing portfolio and remain within budget.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The Register of Delegations will require updating. 73 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

12 Cont'd

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

5.1 Approve the proposed amendment to the delegations for the Social Housing Rebuild and Repair programme that:

Each project within the programme of work to increase the Housing portfolio by 133 units and/or complete essential repairs to open units, would be subject to the following financial delegations to enter into contracts for the purchase of materials, works and services explicit to the Social Housing Repair and Rebuild Programme:

1. Not exceeding $100,000: Housing Unit Manager

2. Not exceeding $500,000: exercised by any of Chief Operating Officer, Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild or the Chief Financial Officer

3. Not exceeding $1,000,000: exercised by the Chief Financial Officer jointly with either one of the Chief Operating Officer or Director Council Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild.

Note: The Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee will consider this matter at a meeting on 26 May 2015 and its recommendation will be forwarded to the Council 74 75 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE PROVISIONAL LOCAL ALCOHOL POLICY (LAP)

Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Chief Planning Officer Officer responsible: Claire Bryant Y Ext 8876 Acting Unit Manager Strategic Policy Author: Ruth Littlewood, Senior Policy Analyst

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report enables the Council to consider and make decisions on the recommendations made by the Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) Hearings Committee in its report to the Council (Attachment 1); specifically the recommendation to publicly notify the provisional LAP so that the appeals process can commence.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) a territorial authority can develop a LAP that sets local licensing restrictions and conditions for off-licensed premises (e.g. supermarkets and bottle stores) and on-licensed premises (e.g. bars, restaurants, taverns and clubs) in its district. The object of the Act is the safe, responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol and minimising the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol. The purpose of a LAP is to help to achieve the object of the Act.

2.2 In 2012- 2013 the Council undertook extensive research, stakeholder and community engagement, and completed the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) as part of preparing a provisional LAP. A wide range of views from community members, industry stakeholders and the statutory consultees (Police, Medical Officer of Health and licensing inspectors) informed the policy and there were 4,060 submissions on the draft LAP. Following the LAP hearings and deliberations in August–October 2013, the Council resolved to produce a provisional LAP and recommended that the incoming Council publicly notify the provisional LAP.

2.3 In February 2014 the current Council decided not to take the next step of notifying the provisional LAP. At that time the Council preferred to await the outcome of the first round of appeals on other authorities' LAPs before proceeding with notification.

2.4 The Alcohol Regulatory and Licencing Authority (ARLA)1 has released (April 2015) decisions on the first three substantive appeal hearings. The staff assessment is that these decisions are generally supportive of the content of the provisional LAP particularly with regard to the focus on the minimisation of alcohol related harm. Staff have also assessed the effect of the 18 month 'delay' in notifying the LAP. Staff conclude that the current LAP remains fit for purpose; other LAPs have been developed over similar time frames and the provisional LAP is generally well aligned with recent December 2014 amendments to the District Plan (Central City Recovery Plan). The District Licencing Committee has asked the Council to progress the LAP to assist the committee in making decisions.

2.5 There are three main options with regard to a LAP; to notify the current provisional LAP, not to have a LAP and to rely on the Act's provisions alone, or to recommence the process for making a (new) LAP. If Council decided to make a new LAP, the Act requires Council to undertake (further) consultation with the statutory consultees before preparing a new draft LAP and undertaking another SCP. The Council could then adopt and notify a new provisional LAP to allow the appeals process to begin.

2.6 The outgoing Council’s recommendations to the current Council with regard to the LAP included:

1 The Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) is a nationally appointed body chaired by a judge. ARLA considers and determine appeals on provisional LAPs; this is in addition to its role in deciding licence applications referred to it by district licensing committees and applications to suspend or cancel licences or manager’s certificates.

76 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13 Cont'd

2.6.1 Publicly notify the provisional Local Alcohol Policy, enabling the appeals process to commence as set out in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. 2.6.2 Review the Local Alcohol Policy as required by the Act (i.e. after the LAP is in force2) and that a review include consideration of matters such as:  The effectiveness of the LAP in minimising alcohol-related harm.  Location and density provisions for new off-licensed premises in suburban areas.  Appropriateness of the size and footprint of Christchurch Central Area A as the Central City rebuilds. 2.6.3 Develop measures to monitor the effectiveness of the Local Alcohol Policy.

2.7 The Council may now decide if it wishes to proceed further with the provisional LAP by publicly notifying it, to enable submitters the right to appeal. This Council cannot amend this provisional LAP – it can only choose whether or not it wishes to have a LAP and therefore whether or not to notify it. If it decides not to notify and still wants a LAP in some form, a new draft LAP must be developed, the SCP repeated and a new provisional LAP produced.

2.8 Under the Act the next step is for the Council to give public notice in a daily newspaper and on its website stating that it wishes to adopt a LAP and the requirements for making an appeal. Any submitter on a draft LAP, the Medical Officer of Health and the Police may lodge an appeal against any 'element' of the provisional LAP. All appeals are lodged with ARLA which hears and decides the appeals. There is only a single ground for an appeal and the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that the element appealed against is unreasonable in the light of the object of the Act.

2.9 Except where appellants withdraw their appeals or reach agreement with the council and other parties, appeals are heard in public by ARLA. An appellant has no right to a further appeal from ARLA's decision. Following resolution of the appeals, a council may adopt a LAP and bring it into force on a day "stated by resolution". If the LAP contains maximum hours or one-way door provisions which differ from those which applied previously the Council is required to give a minimum of three months' notice of the change.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The Act came into full effect from 18 December 2013. Its object is that the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly, and harm caused by excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised. Harm includes any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, or harm to society generally or the community directly or indirectly caused, or contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol.

3.2 The Act allows Councils to develop Local Alcohol Policies for their district, in consultation with its community, concerning licensing premises to sell and supply alcohol. The local District Licensing Committee3 (DLC) and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority4 (ARLA) must have regard to the LAP when making licensing decisions.

3.3 A LAP can only deal with the following matters relating to licensing:  The location of licensed premises near certain types of facilities, such as schools  The density of licensed premises by specifying whether further licences or types of licences should be issued for premises in the district or in a particular area  ‘One-way door’ conditions for licensed premises that would allow patrons to leave premises but not enter or re-enter after a certain time  Discretionary conditions in a licence  Restrictions/extensions to the Act’s maximum trading hours: 8am-4am for on-licences (e.g. pubs/bars/restaurants) and 7am-11pm for off-licences (e.g. bottle stores /supermarkets).

2 The Act requires a review no later than 6 years after a LAP comes into force 3 District Licensing Committees will consider all licence and managers’ certificates’ applications and renewals. 4 The Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority determines applications referred to it by district licensing agencies and applications to suspend or cancel licences or manager’s certificates that are lodged by Police or inspectors. 77 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13 Cont'd

3.4 The new national default trading hours became law from 18 December 2013, meaning immediate changes for some local on- and off-licences. A very small number of on-licensed premises (bars and hotels primarily) had their hours brought back to 4am and some off- licences (mostly supermarkets) had their trading hours for selling alcohol shortened - though many already traded within the parameters of the new default hours.

3.5 The Act stipulates a staged process for developing a LAP. 1. Council must gather required information, develop a draft LAP and consult with its community on it using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP). 2. Following deliberations on submissions on the draft policy, a provisional LAP may be publicly notified and submitters can appeal to ARLA. 3. Once appeals are resolved, a Council can adopt a LAP, which the DLC must have regard to in making licensing decisions in the district. 4. A district’s LAP must be reviewed within six years, or earlier if a Council chooses.

3.6 The Act requires councils to gather considerable information about its district’s alcohol issues prior to developing a draft policy. Councils must consult with the statutory agencies of the district, the Medical Officer of Health, the Police and liquor licensing inspectors. The Council sought information from these agencies and engaged widely with stakeholders during policy development. A committed working group of key stakeholder representatives met over six months to discuss licensing issues. A robust, randomised survey of community opinions on the sale/consumption of alcohol was undertaken (1,700 respondents), supplemented by a social media-based survey of young people (616 responses).

Key references:  Survey of 1,700 community members’ views on alcohol5  Survey of 600+ young people’s views on alcohol6  Literature review of tools for reducing alcohol-related harm  Evidence by the Police, Canterbury Medical Officer of Health and licensing inspectors  Summary of Community Boards’ views on alcohol issues in their wards  Summary of issues and views identified by key stakeholders7.

3.7 Following this preparatory research, the Council decided in February 2013 to proceed immediately with developing a LAP. The decision reflected strong community concerns about local alcohol-related harm and the Council’s recognition of the need for clarity, certainty and consistency about alcohol licensing matters as the city and hospitality sector rebuilds post-earthquakes – in the Central City in particular.

Key references:  Report from the Planning Committee to the Council recommending the SCP be undertaken for the draft LAP8  Cost benefit economic analysis of provisions in the draft LAP, commissioned by the Council9.

5 Christchurch City Council (2013). Community opinions of alcohol research report. Undertaken by Research First for the Council at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/policies/groups/alcohol/CCCCommunityViewsAlcoholReport2013. pdf 6 Christchurch City Council (2013). Survey of Facebook survey of young people’s views on alcohol. Available at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/policies/groups/alcohol/2013AlcoholYouthSurveyresults.pdf 7 This and the 3 preceding references, see: Christchurch City Council (2013). Material presented in report to the Council recommending the draft LAP undertake the SCP, 8 May 2013. Available at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/meetingsminutes/agendas/2013/May/Council16May2013OpenAgendaFull.pdf#pagenum=2 09 8 Ditto 9 Christchurch City Council (2013). Costs and benefits of the draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP). Undertaken by Covec for the Council. Available at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/policies/groups/alcohol/CostsandBenefitsofCCCDraftLAP- Final%20Report.pdf 78 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13 Cont'd

3.8 The development of a LAP was assessed to have a medium to high level of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance Policy10 and the definition of significance in the Local Government Act 2002. The preparation of a draft and provisional LAP complied with the requirements in section 78 of the Act and the SCP was undertaken in accordance with sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Council’s legal advice is that the content of the provisional LAP meets the requirements of the Act, and its policies may not be considered unreasonable in light of the object of the Act. Detailed legal advice was provided to Councillors at all stages of developing the LAP.

3.9 The SCP ran from 31 May–1 July 2013. Staff worked hard to encourage submissions from stakeholders, individuals, community groups and organisations. The consultation was promoted widely in newspapers, social media advertisements and postings on the Council and other websites, posters in public places, by staff at mall stands and visits to tertiary institutions, and word-of-mouth via staff attendance and distribution of materials at community liaison meetings across the City and Banks Peninsula.

3.10 The Council received 4,060 submissions, representing a very wide range of sectors, views, local communities and individuals. Over four days, 161 submitters presented their submissions to a Hearings Committee of the whole Council. The Committee deliberated for 16 hours over six weeks to consider the submissions, produce the provisional LAP, and form its recommendations for the new Council to publicly notify the provisional LAP.

Key reference:  Summary of the 4,060 submissions received on the draft LAP11.

3.11 The Hearings Committee made several changes to the draft LAP. The Committee’s report records in some detail the matters raised in submissions on each provision proposed in the draft LAP and the Committee’s discussion, response and rationale.

3.12 The most significant change made to the draft LAP was to enlarge the area within the central city where on-licensed premises can trade until 3am. It also altered the one-way door restriction within this Central City area to become a discretionary condition applied as appropriate by the DLC, rather than a requirement.

3.13 The final provisional LAP is Attachment 1. In summary, its main provisions are:

 Maximum trading hours for off-licensed premises (e.g. supermarkets and bottle stores) of 9am-9pm (all trading hours described are for Monday through Sunday).  Maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day for on-licensed restaurants/cafes.  Maximum trading hours of 24 hours per day for on-licensed hotels with respect to their sale of alcohol to their lodgers.  Maximum trading hours for taverns/bars/pubs/clubs in the area defined in the provisional LAP as Christchurch Central Area A (refer Map 1) of 8am-3am the following day.  Maximum trading hours for night-clubs in Christchurch Central Area A of 5pm-4am the following day, together with a direction to address a variety of matters.  Maximum trading hours for taverns/bars/pubs/clubs in Christchurch Central Area B (refer Map 1), suburban centres and rural townships of 8am-1am the following day.  One-way door restriction applied at any on-licensed premise at the discretion of the DLC.  One-way door restriction to be applied where appropriate by the DLC when an on-site special licence is issued (for a single or series of events). Maximum trading hours for special licences can be up to 24 hours per day.

10: Due to the timing of the assessment, it is the 2009‐19 LTCCP version of the Policy that was referenced.

11 Christchurch City Council (2013). Summary and analysis of submissions received during the SCP, from 31 May – 1 July 2013. Available at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/policies/groups/alcohol/DraftLAPSummaryandanalysisofsubmissio nsJuly2013.pdf . 79 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13 Cont'd

 No further (i.e. new) off-licences to be issued for bottle stores or taverns unless they are located on land zoned ‘Business’ or ‘Town Centre’ or in the case of a green-fields growth area, located open land zoned ‘Living G’, provided that the ‘Living G’-zoned site is within a business area shown on a Council-approved Outline Development Plan.  A range of discretionary conditions that the DLC can impose on on-licensed premises; for example, requirement for additional security staff after ‘X’ hour, installation and operation of CCTV cameras on the exterior of, and within premises, effective exterior lighting, restrictions on the size (e.g. doubles) and time of ‘last orders’ and the management of patrons queuing to enter premises.  There are no provisions relating to the density of on- or off-licensed premises or their proximity to certain types of facilities or sensitive areas.

NEXT STEPS 3.14 Public notification of the provisional LAP enables submitters’ appeals within 30 days. The only ground for appeal is that an element of the provisional LAP is unreasonable in the light of the Act (section 81(1)). The resolution of appeals will be decided by ARLA.

3.15 The Council can adopt the LAP following the resolution of any appeals. The Council is then required to give licensees at least three months' notice of any change to their maximum hours of operation. Once a LAP is in force, the DLC and ARLA must have regard to the LAP in their decisions on granting and renewing all liquor licences and in hearing appeals. A LAP only has legal effect once it has been adopted by the Council and has come into force.

4. COMMENT

4.1 The Council decided in February 2014 to await the first decisions of ARLA before deciding whether to notify the LAP. The decisions on the first three substantive appeal hearings provide guidance to councils as to appeals and the appropriate purpose and content of a LAP. Firstly ARLA has said that it is for the appellant to show that the LAP 'element' is unreasonable in light of the object of the Act. The burden of proof is on the appellant to prove its case and a council is not required to be sure that a particular element of its PLAP will minimise alcohol-related harm. A precautionary approach, provided there is an evidential basis supporting it, can be used to see if a LAP will achieve the statutory object. The ARLA decision on the appeals on the Wellington LAP also considers the appropriate purpose and content of a LAP; ARLA makes it clear that a LAP should not have broader social and economic objectives such as promoting a lively nightlife or the economic wellbeing of a particular area or class of premises. Staff conclude therefore that the provisional LAP contains appropriate provisions having regard to the object of the Act.

4.2 While there has been 18 month delay in notifying the LAP, a number of LAPs around the country have gone through similar 'gestation' periods. While some LAPs which were in preparation at the same time as the Christchurch draft LAP are further advanced in the process, others e.g. Auckland Council's LAP, are at the same stage. In respect of the District Plan the provisional LAP is generally well aligned with the recent December 2014 amendments to the District Plan (Central City Recovery Plan). In terms of on the ground developments, some business owners have existing late night premises or propose to open new late night premises outside Central Area A of the LAP. However as neither the current Act nor previous sale of liquor legislation provide for the equivalent of 'existing use rights under the RMA' for alcohol licences, such developments do not undermine the effect of the LAP; presumably business owners will have factored into their business models the likelihood of the LAP coming into force.

80 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13 Cont'd

4.3 Throughout the development of the LAP, there was agreement by the statutory consultees, many other stakeholders, submitters, elected members and the community that Christchurch should have its own LAP, rather than rely on the general provisions in the Act and that the LAP should provide certainty for investment. There was consensus that alcohol-related harm is a very serious issue in Christchurch (as elsewhere), that our binge drinking culture and pre- or side-loading habits need to change and that local controls are needed. Although recognising that LAPs are a limited tool, and that other factors, such as central government pricing controls and legislated measures to reduce access to alcohol are more powerful, the statutory consultees and many others are certain that licensing provisions can make a very important, positive contribution to reducing alcohol-related harm.

4.4 The LAP Hearings Committee’s recommendations to the Council with respect to the LAP are summarised in paragraph 6. This Council can choose to adopt all, some or none of the Committee’s recommendations. It cannot amend the provisional LAP, without going through a further round of SCP consultation. The broad options open to the Council are as follows.

4.4 Option 1: Accept the recommendation to notify the Provisional LAP This is the preferred option of staff. It means the Council will decide that it continues to wish to have a LAP for Christchurch City and publicly notify the provisional LAP as soon as practicable, enabling submitters’ appeals to be made to ARLA.

4.5 In the view of staff, continuation of the process to complete a first iteration of a LAP and agreement to schedule a review of the LAP together with accompanying work to reduce alcohol-related harm best reflects the community’s desire to see alcohol issues addressed promptly and thoroughly in the district.

4.6 Option 1 is strongly supported by the District Licencing Committee, the statutory consultees - the Police and the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health - and many other submitters. Also by providing clear direction as to the location of late night premises, the LAP provides a level of certainty and clarity for investors in both late night premises and related businesses.

4.7 Option 2: Do not proceed with a LAP This option means that the Council does not proceed with a LAP at all - instead relying on the provisions in the Act to guide decisions on licensing matters in the district, including the new national maximum default trading hours for on- and off-licensed premises. This is not consistent with the view of the majority of submitters who believe that the City should have a LAP to address local issues. It is not the preference of the District Licencing Committee have requested a LAP to provide community guidance for their decisions.

4.8 In weighing up the evidence and findings from the preparatory work in developing a LAP, it was clear to the then Council that although the licensing issues that a LAP can deal with are not a ‘silver bullet’, they can be effective measures integral to a community’s approach to tackling the serious issue of alcohol-related harm. The Hearings Committee reiterated this opinion in deliberating on the submissions received during the SCP.

4.9 Throughout the development of the LAP, the statutory consultees and many stakeholders advocated that shorter trading hours will be one effective way to reduce alcohol-related harm and contribute to changing the binge-drinking culture.

4.10 Option 3: Develop a new draft LAP This option means that the Council does not publicly notify the provisional Local Alcohol Policy and recommences development of a new draft LAP following the steps in section 78(2) of the Act, including completion of a second SCP.

81 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

13 Cont'd

4.11 Preparation of a new draft would be time-consuming and expensive. A small minority of stakeholders would support a recommencement of the LAP process. This option would not create certainty for prospective businesses wishing to establish in the city as part of the rebuild. There is a risk that, in the absence of a LAP, businesses act on assumptions about their hours of operation which prove to be unfounded when the Council subsequently introduces a LAP. This type of situation has already happened according to some businesses that submitted on the draft LAP - further delay will exacerbate this.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The current City and Community Long-Term Policy and Planning Activity in the Three Year Plan provides for costs associated with notification of the provisional LAP (Option 1). While ARLA may require the Council to do further work on any issues arising from appeals, it is anticipated that these can probably be addressed through existing budgets. A further review of the first iteration of the LAP would be scheduled in to future years' work programmes within budgets provided in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

5.2 If the Council decides to recommence the development of a LAP (Option 3), there will be considerable costs involved. The work will need to be scheduled in to the City and Community Long-Term Policy and Planning Activity work programme for 2015/16 (to be agreed with the Council) and will result in a range of other work not being undertaken or deferred. There are no direct financial costs associated with Option 2 (i.e. not proceeding with a LAP).

6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

6.1 Resolve to publicly notify the provisional Local Alcohol Policy (Attachment 1) as soon as practicably possible in accordance with section 80 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, enabling the appeals process to commence as set out in that Act.

82 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 83 - 1 -

HEARINGS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL ALCOHOL POLICY 2013

Author: Local Alcohol Policy Hearings Committee

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. This is the report of the Committee of the Council1 (the Committee) that deliberated on submissions made on the draft Local Alcohol Policy (LAP). It outlines the processes undergone to develop the LAP, summarises submissions received on the draft LAP and the Committee’s deliberations. It documents the Committee’s decisions on the provisional LAP and recommends that after 18 December 2013 the Council publicly notifies the provisional LAP, to enable opportunity for appeals from submitters. It also recommends the Council undertakes a continued work programme to further minimise alcohol-related harm in the community. A final version of the provisional LAP, recommended for notification, is in Attachment 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The purpose of a LAP is for local authorities, through alcohol licensing policies, to minimise alcohol-related harm in their community and ensure that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol is undertaken safely and responsibly. A LAP can only deal with matters relating to licensing:

• The location of licensed premises near certain types of facilities, such as in specific neighbourhoods or near schools or churches. • The density of licensed premises by specifying whether further licences or types of licences should be issued for premises in the district or in a particular area. • ‘One-way door’ conditions for licensed premises that would allow patrons to leave premises but not enter or re-enter after a certain time. • Discretionary conditions in a licence. • Restrictions or extensions to the maximum trading hours set in the new Act which are: 8am - 4am for on-licences (such as pubs and restaurants) and 7am - 11pm for off- licences (such as bottle stores and supermarkets).

3. The Council resolved in February 2013 to develop a LAP for the district. A draft policy was developed, in consultation with the Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing inspectors, and following engagement with a range of key stakeholders. A survey of community views was carried out to assess community attitudes to alcohol; this was supplemented by a Facebook-based survey of younger people’s views. These and other views gathered from stakeholders informed the development of the draft LAP, along with discussions and workshops with the Planning Committee, the Council and Community Boards.

4. The Council assessed the adoption of a LAP to have a medium to high level of significance. Given this level of significance, the Council considered that a full and robust consultation process was needed to meet the requirements of part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 79 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 also required the Council to consult on the draft policy using a special consultative procedure before it produced a provisional LAP.

5. On 16 May 2013, the Council approved a draft LAP for consultation. The draft LAP attracted strong interest from stakeholders and the wider community. A total of 4,060 submissions were received, 1,053 from the standard Have your Say process and notably 3,000 received via social media-based processes. A Committee of the full Council was delegated to hear submitters, deliberate on those submissions and decide on the form of the provisional LAP.

1 The Committee of the Council comprising the Mayor and all Councillors was appointed to hear and deliberate on submissions. The Committee was chaired by Councillor Wells and included Councillors Beck, Buck, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Johanson, Livingstone and Reid. The Mayor absented himself from the hearings and deliberations; Councillors Carter and Keown declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the hearings nor deliberations; and Councillors Broughton and Button attended only a short part of the four-day hearings and therefore did not participate in the deliberations.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 84 - 2 -

The Committee was chaired by Councillor Sue Wells. The Mayor absented himself from the Committee, along with Councillors Carter and Keown who declared conflicts of interest. Councillors Broughton and Button attended the hearings for only a short time each, and therefore did not participate in the deliberations.

6. The public hearings were held on 29, 30, 31 July and 2 August, with 161 of the 168 scheduled submitters appearing before the Committee. Submissions were received from 161 groups and organisations. They included statutory bodies such as the Police, Canterbury District Health Board and all eight Community Boards; business and industry groups on behalf of a range of hospitality venues, retail and tourism interests; health sector organisations; community and neighbourhood groups and organisations representing Māori and youth interests.

7. A large number of off- and on-licensees, hospitality staff and providers of live entertainment submitted, writing candidly about their business and work experiences, their contribution to the city’s livelihood and lifestyle, and their vision for a rebuilt Central City, in particular. Many health and social service professionals and staff, residents and representatives of local neighbourhoods likewise made submissions, detailing their experiences in dealing with the incidence and aftermath of alcohol-related behaviour and harm.

8. There was a huge diversity of views expressed and also a breadth of manner in which these views were expressed, from detailed well-reasoned discussions to submissions which simply ticked the boxes for agree/disagree statements. A summary of all the submissions received was circulated to the Committee prior to the commencement of the Hearings and was made publicly available as part of the Hearings’ agenda papers.

9. Following the Hearings, the Committee deliberated over several meetings during August – October 2013. Throughout the deliberations, the object of the Act and the goals of the draft LAP were at the forefront of the Committee members’ minds. In discussions, they often referred back to the key legislative objectives of minimising alcohol-related harm and ensuring the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.

10. The goals of the draft policy kept the Committee focussed on achieving a LAP that is the best balance between contributing to a safe, healthy city and encouraging licensed environments that foster positive, responsible drinking behaviours, while contributing to a liveable, attractive city with a LAP that reflects local communities’ character and amenity, along with their values, preferences and needs.

11. The Committee decided that it wished to recommend a provisional LAP to the incoming Council. It resolved to make a number of changes to the draft LAP. In summary, these were:

• Alteration of the definition of a night-club so that it must be an entertainment venue open only at night which provides music and space for dancing and/or other live entertainment and where the principal income is derived from activities other than the sale of alcohol. • Provision for night-club licences to be located only in Central Area A and have maximum trading hours of 5pm-4am the following day. Night-clubs must meet a range of specific conditions relating to patron and pedestrian safety, ensure protection of on- site and adjacent amenity, and comply with any of the discretionary conditions imposed by the DLC, along with meeting the criteria in sections 105 and 106 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. • Alteration of the one-way door restriction in Central Area A to become applicable at discretion of DLC rather than a mandatory requirement. • Provision for lodgers at hotels to drink at their hotel bar at all hours of the day or night. • Amendment of the footprint of Central Area A by enlarging it to include areas not already within and bounded by the Eastern and Southern Frame and the Avon River, but excluding premises facing onto the Square and a section of Oxford Terrace facing north to the Avon River between Colombo and Madras Streets (with consequential amendment to Central Area A). Also, the enlarged Area A includes the area between St Asaph St, Moorhouse Ave, Durham and Madras St and the site on the east corner of Moorhouse Ave and Madras St. • Definition of Lyttelton as a suburban centre rather than a rural township, but with no change to trading hours for on-licensed premises there.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 85 - 3 -

• Amendment of the definition of bottle store so that cellar doors premises (premises where the principal business carried on is the manufacture of wine) are excluded from location regulations in the LAP for the purpose of selling their own wine.

12. The following provisions remained unchanged, aside from either minor editorial corrections or for the purpose of adding additional clarification.

• Maximum trading hours of 9am-9pm for off-licensed premises (with corrective amendment changing hotels to on-licences) throughout the Christchurch City territorial area. • Maximum trading hours of 8am -1am the following day for cafes and restaurants throughout the Christchurch City territorial area. • Maximum trading hours of 8am-3am the following day for bars, pubs, taverns and clubs in Central Area A (note: footprint of the area was amended as above). • Maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day and a discretionary one-way door restriction for bars, pubs, taverns and clubs for Central Area B. (note: night-clubs were excluded from this area as part of resolution above). • Maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day and a discretionary one-way door restriction for bars, pubs, taverns and clubs in suburban centres and rural townships (note: night-clubs were excluded from this area as part of resolution above) • Location of premises (new bottle stores and taverns). • Discretionary conditions for on-licensed premises, off-licensed premises and special licences.

13. It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the provisions of the provisional LAP, as recommended to the incoming Council for notification, come within the parameters of section 77(1) of the Act and that the draft LAP does not contain policies on any matter not relating to licensing.

14. The Committee recommends to the Council that it resolves to:

a) Publicly notify the provisional Local Alcohol Policy, enabling the appeals process to commence, as set out in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

b) Commence a review of the Local Alcohol Policy within two years (or within a suitable timeframe in recognition of the changing nature of the city) and that a review include consideration of matters such as:

• The effectiveness of the LAP in minimising alcohol-related harm. • Location and density provisions for new off-licensed premises in suburban areas; • Appropriateness of the size and footprint of Christchurch Central Area A as the Central City rebuilds; • Rewards-based incentives for best practice licensees.

c) Immediately consider any appropriate regulatory policy or bylaw by which alcohol- related harm can be further minimised.

d) Undertake an Alcohol Strategy and/or other collaborative initiatives, as a wider means of minimising alcohol-related harm in the community, such as education programmes and inter-premise and precinct initiatives/accords.

e) Consider advocacy to central Government or other ways of addressing the community’s preference for it being an offence to be drunk in a public place; and consider further advocacy to central government for a review of policies such as minimum pricing of alcohol.

f) Develop measures to monitor the effectiveness of the Local Alcohol Policy.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 86 - 4 -

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED LOCAL ALCOHOL POLICY (LAP)

Preliminary work with stakeholders

15. During 2012, the Planning Committee received briefings about the draft alcohol reform legislation and possible approaches to developing a LAP that the Council could take, should it be included as a provision. Following enactment in December 2012 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (the Act), the Council resolved unanimously on 14 February 2013 to commence development of a draft LAP. It agreed that addressing alcohol-related harm in the community is a priority for the Council and there is a need to act promptly to provide an appropriate local licensing environment to complement the implementation of the new Act.

16. A working group of Council and external stakeholder representatives met eight times during 2012 and early 2013 to canvass and share issues, views and expert knowledge about alcohol-related harm and licensing matters in the district. This group included Christchurch City Council staff from Inspections and Enforcement, Liquor Licensing Inspectors/District Licensing Agency, Legal Services, Communications, Community and Safety Team and Strategy and Planning, and external representatives from Medical Officer of Health for Canterbury, Police, Community and Public Health (CPH), Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), ACC, Hospitality New Zealand (HNZ), BevIntel (hospitality industry business support), CERA, Health Promotion Agency (HPA), Progressive Enterprises Limited, Foodstuffs Limited, bottle stores/taverns, chartered clubs and Ngāi Tahu2.

17. All key stakeholders were supportive of the Council developing a LAP promptly, urging the Council to address alcohol-related harm in the district as soon as possible, and to take the opportunity of what some called the ‘perfect storm’ created by the earthquakes to rebuild with a better environment for licensed premises in the Central City in particular. On- licensees emphasised the need for early certainty about the location and trading conditions that they would be able to operate in the Central City (especially hours and discretionary conditions), in particular. During development of a draft LAP stakeholders identified a range of issues about licensing of premises to sell alcohol. An underlying culture of pre- and side- loading and binge drinking was acknowledged by many stakeholders as the cause of much of the alcohol-related harm. Most stakeholders agreed that a LAP can include positive policy interventions that can mitigate the negative effects of this drinking culture.

18. Staff consulted beyond this group during the development of a draft LAP, in order to gauge the nature and severity of alcohol-related harm in the city. Staff hosted two forums with invited stakeholders on Friday 1 February 2013 and Tuesday 5 February 2013. Invitations were sent to a variety of stakeholder and community groups. The two forums were attended by over 140 representatives from the health sector and community organisations, hospitality and retail sectors, the Police and residents’ associations. Throughout the development of the draft LAP staff sought the views of those with whom Council is required to consult: Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing Inspectors. They also sought the views of the community through a number of channels, including young people, Community Boards, tertiary institutions, Ngāi Tahu, and Christchurch Hospital clinicians.

19. A number of deputations were requested by stakeholders and made to the Planning Committee and Council meetings whenever the draft LAP was on the agenda. The generous commitment of time and input by all key stakeholders to the process of developing a draft LAP was noteworthy and greatly valued by the Committee. It is clearly based on effective and respectful working relationships between stakeholders, and reflects their strong, shared interest in achieving a LAP that addresses local issues.

Community views

20. As part of its information-gathering, the Council undertook a survey of community views on attitudes to alcohol-related harm and alcohol in the community. Research First was commissioned to conduct a randomised survey of community views about alcohol in the community (people aged 18 years and older). The final number of respondents was 1,700.

2 Ngāi Tahu chose to support the policy’s development through its own engagement processes with its Rūnanga and has facilitated engagement opportunities for staff to meet with iwi representatives.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 87 - 5 -

This is a response rate of 41 per cent, which is comparatively very high for this type of survey, and indicates the strong community interest in alcohol-related matters. The survey asked a sample of residents for their views and perceptions about use, availability and negative effects of alcohol, location and trading hours of on- and off-licensed premises, one- way door restrictions and local alcohol bans. The survey also asked about the respondents’ personal alcohol use and whether their use of alcohol had changed following the 2011 earthquakes.3

21. In order to find out the views of young people, a briefer, customised version of the survey was placed on Facebook and widely advertised through young peoples’ groups. A total of 616 people completed the survey to the end, and a further 111 answered at least some of the questions.

Consideration of issues

22. The need for a wider, strategic approach to minimising alcohol-related harm in the community was repeatedly raised in discussions by stakeholders and elected members. It is well-recognised in the literature on alcohol-harm reduction that fully addressing the complex issues that contribute to the alcohol-related harm and a negative drinking culture requires multiple methods and interventions.

23. The Planning Committee discussed preliminary provisions of the draft LAP at a workshop on 6 March 2013, and subsequently at a Councillors’ workshop on 26 March 2013, Planning Committee meeting on 3 April 2013, and at an additional Planning Committee workshop on 11 April 2013. To ensure clarity of purpose and its continued commitment, the Council agreed on 24 April 2013 that the Planning Committee should continue to work with staff and stakeholders to formally prepare a draft LAP. Following direction received at these workshops and meetings, staff prepared a draft LAP.

Development of a draft policy

24. A comprehensive report on the draft policy’s development was presented by the Planning Committee to the Council meeting on 16 May 20134. At this meeting the Council agreed to take a draft policy for consultation. It appointed a Committee of the Council comprising the Mayor and all Councillors to hear submissions, deliberate on those submissions and decide on the form of the provisional LAP. Councillor Wells was elected chairperson of the Committee. 5

Policy context

25. The wide ranging impacts of the 2011 earthquakes on Christchurch have created a uniquely complex, and problematic context for the development of a LAP for Christchurch; decisions such as determining the appropriate location of late night premises are far more difficult in the absence of a functioning central city and uncertainty as to the form and timing of its recovery/rebuild. However the Committee is convinced of the benefits of a LAP including providing those with residential and commercial property interests in central Christchurch with much needed certainty and clarity. Given the ongoing changes to the city the Committee recommends that this LAP is reviewed within a significantly shorter time than the six yearly review required by the Act.

26. The Council has previously submitted its views and strong concerns about alcohol-related harm in this community to central government, through the Law Commission’s review of alcohol issues and during the development of the alcohol reform legislation. The Council made submissions to the Law Commission following the publication of the Alcohol in our lives issues paper and to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee with regard to the

3 Research First (2012). Survey of community attitudes to alcohol. Available at: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/thecouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/policies/groups/alcohol/alcoholpolicy.aspx

4 Christchurch City Council (2013). Report from the Planning Committee to the Council, 14 May 2013. Available at page 205: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/meetingsminutes/agendas/2013/May/Council16May2013OpenAgendaFull.pdf 5 Christchurch City Council (2013). Minutes of the Christchurch City Council meeting held on 16 May 2013, item 26. Available at : http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/meetingsminutes/agendas/2013/May/CBCOUNCIL16MAY2013-minutes.pdf

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 88 - 6 -

Alcohol Reform Bill. In its submissions, the Council has consistently supported the introduction of local alcohol policies that would enable local authorities to address licensing issues in locally appropriate ways. In its submission on the draft Alcohol Reform Bill the Council supported measures that will “strengthen the Council’s ability to manage or prevent alcohol-related problems arising from licensed premises. Alcohol-related problems have been a big issue for the city for a number of years.” It also supported “greater community involvement in managing alcohol in the district” and expressed particular support for the Bill’s allowance for local alcohol policies to provide differently for different parts of its district.6

27. The Council currently has an Alcohol Policy (2004) which addresses some licensing matters, but this policy is not legally enforceable and the new District Licensing Committee (DLC) will have no regard for it. However, the new Act gives legal standing to LAPs that are developed according to its requirements. The Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw (2009) and its three amendments will continue to be enforced.

Legislative framework

28. The Act allows Councils such as the Christchurch City Council to develop Local Alcohol Policies (LAPs) for their territorial area. A LAP is a set of policies made by a Council in consultation with its community concerning the licensing of premises for the sale and supply of alcohol. Once a LAP is in place, the local DLC and the national Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority must have regard to the LAP when making decisions on licence applications.

29. A LAP can only deal with matters relating to licensing; through a LAP, communities are able to set the direction on some or all of the following matters:

• The location of licensed premises near certain types of facilities, such as in specific neighbourhoods or near schools or churches. • The density of licensed premises by specifying whether further licences or types of licences should be issued for premises in the district or in a particular area. • ‘One-way door’ conditions for licensed premises that would allow patrons to leave premises but not enter or re-enter after a certain time. • Discretionary conditions in a licence. • Restrictions or extensions to the maximum trading hours set in the new Act which are: 8am - 4am for on-licences (such as pubs and restaurants) and 7am - 11pm for off- licences (such as bottle stores and supermarkets).

30. In addition, a LAP may apply differently to different kinds of licensed premises. If a council does not have a LAP in place, licensing decisions will be directed by the criteria set out in the Act (s105) and the default maximum opening hours.

Legislative requirements

31. The Act sets out the process which the Council must use to adopt a LAP. First, the Council must produce a draft policy. When producing the draft policy, the Council must have regard to the following factors set out in section 78(2) of the Act:

a) the objectives and policies of its district plan; and b) the number of licences of each kind held for premises in its district, and the location and opening hours of each of the premises; and c) any areas in which bylaws prohibiting alcohol in public places are in force; and d) the demography of the district's residents; and e) the demography of people who visit the district as tourists or holidaymakers; and f) the overall health indicators of the district's residents; and g) the nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.

6 Christchurch City Council (2009). Submission on the Alcohol Reform Bill to the Committee Secretariat, Justice and Electoral Select Committee. 15 February 2011. Available at: http://www1.ccc.govt.nz/Council/proceedings/2009/October/CnclCover22nd/Clause12attachment.pdf.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 89 - 7 -

32. The Act requires that a territorial authority must not produce a draft policy without having consulted the Police, Licensing inspectors, and Medical Officers of Health. Under the Act, the Council is able to ask the Police, Licensing inspectors, and Medical Officers of Health for any information they hold relating to any of the matters in paragraphs (c) to (g) above, and those persons are to make reasonable efforts to provide the Council with that information. Consultation with the Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing Inspectors occurred through both the working party of key stakeholders described in paragraph 16 above and through separate meetings with these statutory partners.

33. The Council has undertaken the steps required by the Act. As outlined in paragraph 23, the Planning Committee considered key issues relating to licensing matters at several workshops during 2012 and 2013 and both Planning Committee and Council workshops considered preliminary policy provisions.

CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSIONS

34. The public consultation period for the draft Policy ran from 31 May 2013 to 1 July 2013. At the start of the consultation the Statement of Proposal and an accompanying letter were mailed out to 1,248 licensees and emailed to 322 of these whose email addresses were available. This information was also sent to approximately 150 other key stakeholders, and to all residents’ associations and Community Boards. Christchurch City Council libraries and service centres had multiple copies of all consultation documents available.

35. Research First, the company contracted by the Council to carry out a Community Survey about attitudes to alcohol in 2012, posted out a flier and letter to 1,602 people who had completed the Survey and for whom they had correct postal addresses. This mail out was performed by Research First as the addresses of survey participants is confidential .

36. At the start of the consultation, all Christchurch high schools and a range of youth-focused organisations were sent the link to the Statement of Proposal, an email introduction and collateral material. They were asked to put a link to the CCC Facebook page on their respective Facebook pages and a set of prompt questions was included, for possible use in classroom discussions.

37. There was advertising about the consultation in The Press, local community newspapers (including ethnic papers), regular media releases to citywide and community newsletters and papers to sustain interest in the consultation, frequent advertisements on Facebook (specifically targeting Christchurch users in a younger demographic). The Press online site and radio advertisements; and posters were distributed to a wide range of over 60 public venues, including cafes and notice boards in community spaces.

38. In addition to the Have your Say website and printed consultation documents, staff attended 28 different information sessions that covered all wards. Three public information sessions were held, at CPIT Marae, Te Puna Wanaka; North City Church hall, Papanui, and the Cashmere Club, Beckenham. Three drop-in sessions were held at Malls: The Hub at Hornby, Eastgate and South City. Further drop-in sessions were held at the University of Canterbury, the Lyttelton Farmers Market, and Parklands and New Brighton Libraries. Organised sessions were held with the Riccarton Ilam Community Safety Joint Working Party, the Migrant Forum, and the Halswell Residents’ Association. The remaining 15 organised sessions were a mixture of Network, Liaison, and Advisory Group meetings. Collateral materials were available at each session. Many organisations at the Network, Liaison, and Advisory Group meetings took a number of fliers and posters to distribute and display at their places of work.

39. The consultation document included the Summary of Information, the Statement of Proposal with the draft LAP provisions and a Central City map showing the proposed different opening and closing times for taverns, bars, pubs, clubs and night-clubs. It also included other policy options considered by the Council and reasons why these were not included in the draft Policy, Frequently Asked Questions and the Submission Form.

40. Submissions could be made through the Have your Say website, by email or in writing either on the submission form or on plain paper.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 90 - 8 -

41. Have your Say submissions lodged:

Through the Council website or by email: 749 Hard copy submission form: 304 Total: 1,053

42. The Have your Say Submission Form provided submitters with five questions. The first question had eight subsections, each with a three-scale response option (Agree, Neither agree or disagree, Disagree), the opportunity to give reasons for their answers if they disagreed, as well as the opportunity to say what they would like the provisions to be changed to. Question 2 had the same three-scale response option. Questions 3 and 4 asked what submitters thought about the aspects of the draft LAP and Question 5 asked for any other comments.

43. The questions were:

Q1 Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following provisions in the draft LAP. (a) The proposed maximum trading hours for on-licensed premises such as bars, taverns, clubs and night-clubs in the Central City. (b) The proposed maximum trading hours for on-licensed premises such as bars, taverns, clubs and night-clubs in other parts of the city, including Lyttelton, Akaroa and Victoria Street. (c) The proposed maximum trading hours for on-licensed premises such as restaurants and cafes in all parts of the city. (d) The proposed maximum trading hours for off-licensed premises such as supermarkets, bottle stores and grocery stores in all parts of the city. (e) The proposed one-way door restrictions on bars and night-clubs in the Central City. (f) The proposed controls on the location of new bottle stores. (g) The proposed controls on the location of new taverns. (h) The proposed special licence and discretionary conditions. Q2 Overall, do you support the direction of the draft Local Alcohol Policy? Q3 What are the best aspects of the draft Local Alcohol Policy? Q4 What aspects of the draft Local Alcohol Policy do you think need to be changed? Q5 Do you have any other comments either about the content of the draft Local Alcohol Policy or about other matters which you want included in the Local Alcohol Policy?

44. During the consultation submitters made wide use of social media to express their views. Hospitality New Zealand organised its own online submission form (Facebook-based) that was completed by 1,929 people. Submissions were based on responses to questions such as:

• Do you think other areas around Christchurch should also have later trading? • What do you consider is an appropriate closing time for the Central Christchurch hospitality area? • Would having earlier closing times for bars and a one-way door at 1am make you drink less? • Do you believe that a one-way door in the Central City will assist in reducing alcohol- related issues? • If the hours for off-licence sales were reduced, would you still purchase alcohol for the night prior to going out for a night or would you go to a bar/restaurant earlier instead? • Do you believe that areas ‘like Riccarton, Merivale, Shirley etc’ should be addressed as specific precincts that are separate from the City and other suburban areas and what is an appropriate closing time for them? • Based on what you know of the LAP, do you support the direction taken by the Council to reduce the hours of trading for bars, restaurants and night-clubs throughout Christchurch? • Does restricting the nightlife in Christchurch and the Central City reduce your desirability to stay in Christchurch and recommend Christchurch to others?

45. The Save Christchurch Nightlife Facebook-based submission form attracted 1,078 responses. The form had a series of statements/questions with ‘Yes’ as the pre-filled answer (agreement with the statement), along with a final option for further comments. In the printed version of the submissions, these statements needed to be ticked to indicate support. The

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 91 - 9 -

focus of the statements was the proposed trading hours for on-licenses and the one-way restriction in the Central City area:

1. It is not fair to stop me from going out for a drink and a dance or to see a band or deejay after 1am just because a minority of people behave badly. Closing for night-clubs should be 5am. 2. It is not fair that I can only drink in a small part of the CBD – it will not provide enough variety of places to go nor cater for the diversity of cultures that a vibrant city should include. The same closing hours should apply throughout the entire city. 3. I do not think a one-way door is a bad idea in itself but 1am is too early. 4. If CCC and Police were to genuinely work in partnership with late night entertainment businesses they could find more effective ways of keeping troublemakers out of bars and clubs and away from the CBD, so the rest of us can have a social life. 5. A well thought out policy could include stricter standards for bars that open later and measures like electronic data sharing between bars/ID scanning. 6. Over-regulation and excessive control won’t fix the city’s issues and will only cause resentment. 7. If Council proceed with this policy it will make it very unattractive for me to stay here. 8. Christchurch once had a world-class reputation for its emerging and underground club scene; this will be no more. 9. I want to be heard.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

46. The Council received 4,060 submissions on the LAP; 1,053 submissions through the Council’s Have your Say process; 1,929 from submissions based on Hospitality New Zealand’s Facebook survey and 1,078 submissions based on the Save Christchurch Nightlife Facebook form.

47. Submissions were received from 161 groups and organisations. They included statutory bodies such as the Police, Canterbury District Health Board and all eight Community Boards; business and industry groups on behalf of a range of hospitality venues, retail and tourism interests; health sector organisations; community and neighbourhood groups and organisations representing Māori and youth interests. All other submissions were assumed to be from individuals though, from the nature of their comments, quite a number of these were writing as individual licensees or business owners.

48. A large number of off- and on-licensees, hospitality staff and providers of live entertainment submitted, writing candidly about their business and work experiences, their contribution to the city’s livelihood and lifestyle, and their vision for a rebuilt Central City, in particular. Many health and social service professionals and staff, residents and representatives of local neighbourhoods likewise made submissions, detailing their experiences in dealing with the incidence and aftermath of alcohol-related behaviour and harm.

49. Almost all submissions addressed the licensing matters that the Act says can be included in a LAP: trading hours, the location of premises, density and proximity to certain types of facilities; one-way door restrictions and discretionary conditions. There was a huge diversity of views expressed and also a breadth of manner in which these views were expressed, from detailed well-reasoned discussions to submissions which simply ticked the boxes for agree/disagree statements. As already noted, the submissions collated via the Hospitality New Zealand and Save Christchurch Nightlife social media had question and statement prompts different to those used in the Have your Say documentation.

50. One hundred and sixty eight individual submitters or organisations requested to be heard by the Committee appointed to hear from submitters. Of these, 161 appeared. Councillor Wells chaired the Committee, which met for four full days on 29, 30 and 31 July 2013 and 2 August 2013. The Mayor absented himself from the Committee, along with Councillors Carter and Keown who declared conflicts of interest. Councillors Broughton and Button attended the hearings for only a short time each, and therefore did not participate in the deliberations.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 92 - 10 -

51. A summary of all the submissions received was circulated to the Committee prior to the commencement of the Hearings and was made available as part of the Hearings’ agenda papers.7

COMMENTS ON THE POLICY AS A WHOLE, AND GENERAL COMMENTS

Have your Say submissions

52. Opinions on most provisions in the LAP were expressed strongly, reflecting diverse and committed views. In the case of several provisions, views were near evenly split between those in support and those opposed to the draft LAP. There was wide consensus that alcohol does cause harm in the community and that steps need to be taken to minimise it. However, there was little consensus as to the extent to which this is a matter for individuals, central government, local authorities, retail sector or hospitality providers to take responsibility for.

53. The Police, Medical Officer of Health and several other health-related organisations commended the Council for taking a firm stance in the draft LAP to thwart the harm caused by alcohol in the community. They see a mandatory one-way door as a crucial tool for reducing late-night harm in the Central City in particular, strongly support a reduction in off- licensed premises’ maximum trading hours, along with endorsing the other provisions in the draft LAP. However, other submitters were critical that the draft LAP would harm and impede the city’s recovery and the return of hospitality to the Central City, deter young people and tourists from living or visiting the city and the provisions would do nothing to reduce alcohol-related harm as it did not (and could not) tackle the underlying root causes – low price and easy availability.

54. Of the Have your Say submissions, 51 per cent gave overall support for the draft policy’s direction, 44 per cent opposed it and 5 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed. The ‘best aspects’ of the draft LAP were identified as:

• Restrictions on off-licences’ trading hours for selling alcohol. • One-way door restriction in Central Area A. • Restrictions on location of new bottle stores and taverns. • Distinction between on-licence trading hours in Central Area A and those in suburban/residential areas, including Victoria St. • A commendable first step in addressing alcohol-related harm and will contribute to reducing binge drinking, preloading and alcohol-related harm.

55. Whilst almost 15 per cent of Have your Say submitters wanted no changes to the draft LAP, the majority identified ways in which it needed improvement – most commonly:

• Fewer restrictions for on-licensed venues in the Central City and in some suburban areas, including a less restrictive, or removal of, the one-way door policy • More restrictions for off-licensed premises.

56. When asked for further comments about the draft LAP’s content, almost half who responded criticised it for the following:

• The proposed on-licences’ trading hours in the Central City (in particular) and one-way door restriction will drive young people from the city and turn it into an unattractive ‘retirement village’ • The provisions are ham-fisted and penalise the whole hospitality sector for the sake of curbing the behaviour of a minority and drinking behaviours for which they are not responsible (preloading and binge drinking fuelled by cheaper off-licence purchasing) • The provisions will have unintended consequences such as dumping dissatisfied drinkers en masse onto the streets earlier • The policy will encourage more, comparatively uncontrolled, drinking at home

7 Christchurch City Council (2013). Draft Local Alcohol Policy 2013. Summary and analysis of submissions received during the Special Consultative Procedure, from 31 May - 1 July 2013. Available at: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/meetingsminutes/agendas/2013/July/DraftLAP_29-31July_2August2013_Agenda.pdf

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 93 - 11 -

• The proposed 1am one-way door in Central Area A will drain suburban premises’ business by pushing drinkers into travelling into the Central City before the 1am close- off.

Submissions from the Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing Inspectors

57. These statutory bodies’ submissions were strongly supportive of the draft LAP as an important tool to address alcohol-related harm in Christchurch. Specific matters in their submissions, e.g. relating to density of licensed premises, are addressed throughout the following sections of the report under subheadings ‘Matters raised by submissions’ and ‘Committee discussion and response’. At the hearing these submitters reinforced their support for ‘key’ draft provisions relating to the maximum hours for on- and off-licences, the compulsory one-way door provision and for late night (3 am) licences to be allowed only within Central Area A.

Hospitality New Zealand submissions

58. Most of the comments and responses by these submitters related to on-licensed premises’ provisions and their perceived impacts on lifestyle, business viability and the reputation of the city as an attractive, vibrant place to live and visit. Over 1,100 submitters suggested a variety of areas for later trading, for example Riccarton, Merivale and Addington/Lincoln Rd. A large number of submitters thought that if there was a mandatory one-way door in the Central City, they would drink the same amount or more, just in a shorter time so that they can get to bars before the restriction commenced; others said that they would stay home or go to parties instead, as it would not be worth travelling into town.

59. The main points made in opposition to a mandatory one-way door were:

• People refused entry will cause problems on the streets • The proposed start time of 1am is too early and it will cause an outflux of patrons from suburban bars wanting to reach the Central City before 1am • It will encourage people to remain drinking in comparatively uncontrolled drinking environments at home/friends/parties in suburban areas rather than travelling into the Central City • It will inhibit people’s movement between bars to meet people, listen to different music and visit different venues.

60. Views on appropriate trading hours for on-licensed premises ranged from 24-hour opening, to 4am or 5am closing, allowing longer hours for bars providing entertainment, and premises being able to determine their own hours or on a case-by-case basis. It was recognised that proximity to residential areas, noise issues and competency of premise management should be taken into account into granting trading hours.

61. Some submitters commented that they did support the draft LAP and others’ partial support was tempered by comments about refinements e.g. the Central City late-closing area needs to be larger, and that some bars need to stay open longer.

62. However, a majority disagreed with the draft LAP, with common reasons being: it will not keep young people and tourists in the city; there will be more alcohol-related issues with the changes in hours of trade and the city will miss the chance to develop a vibrant nightlife. Earlier closing hours will cause disruption in residential areas with more house parties and will do nothing to address the alcohol-related problems of the city.

63. Music and entertainment venues are ‘punished’ by the policy. Musicians and hospitality workers said that they will think about moving from the city and that the draft LAP would make the city unattractive to rebuild workers. Students, graduates and young professionals said that nightlife is important in deciding where to study, live and work and the draft LAP would be a deterrent. Others commented that they no longer live in Christchurch and one of the reasons for leaving was the lack of nightlife in the city after the earthquakes.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 94 - 12 -

Save Christchurch Nightlife submissions

64. Overall the Save Christchurch Nightlife-collated petition/submissions were strongly opposed to the provisions relating to on-licensed premises. Most submitters only completed the tick- box section of the submission form, without adding additional comments (see paragraph 44 for full text of questions):

• 1am closing punishes the majority for sake of a minority who misbehave. Closing for night-clubs should be 5am. (More than 98 per cent agreed.) • The same closing hours should apply throughout the entire city, to cater for diversity and create vibrancy. (94 per cent agreed.) • One-way door are not a bad idea but 1am is too early. (More than 92 per cent agreed.) • CCC and Police need to find more effective ways of dealing with troublemakers so the rest of us can have a social life. (More than 94 per cent agreed) • Include stricter standards for bars that open later and measures like electronic data sharing between bars/ID scanning. (More than 90 per cent agreed.) • Over-regulation and excessive control won’t fix the issues. (More than 93 per cent agreed.) • The LAP will make it very unattractive for me to stay here. (90 per cent agreed) • The city’s world-class reputation for its emerging/underground club scene will be lost (More than 90 per cent agreed.).

65. Additional comments were made by about 130 of the Save Christchurch Nightlife submitters. In summary:

• The drinking culture is the problem and changing the times that bars can be open will not change this. Better education, parenting and public awareness are needed. • The late night hours should apply to all the Central City within the Four Avenues, with some mention also of Lincoln Road, Riccarton and Lyttelton. Late licenses should depend on the history of responsibility of the bar, not on where it is located. • One-way doors are a good idea, but 1am is too early and it will deter some patrons from coming into the Central City at all. There will be an outflux of patrons at earlier-closing bars in order to get to others before 1am. People want to move between bars to listen to music and meet friends. • Without late night bars, there will be house parties which are less well-controlled than bars. • Young people and tourists are important to this city: it needs young people to rebuild, start future businesses and add vibrancy. • Shift workers and hospitality workers need somewhere to go after they finish work. The policy will negatively affect hours of employment, jobs and incomes of hospitality and food employees, taxis, transport operators, musicians and bands. • There is a need for night-clubs that can run later than 3am. Musicians and bands play late at night and the reputation that Christchurch once had for good music events will be damaged if all night events can’t be hosted.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE

66 The Committee had regard to following additional information and reports in making decisions:
“Costs and Benefits of the draft Local Alcohol Policy”, A report prepared for Christchurch City Council, Covec July 2013.
“Risk based licensing fees – Identifying risk factors for the New Zealand context”,
Ministry of Justice, 2013. Wellington.
“Off-licence purchasing and consumption patterns. Research conducted for the draft Local Alcohol Policy for Wellington City Council. June 2013.
A presentation to the Committee by Sue Ramsey, Christchurch City Council Team Leader Crime Prevention (Community & Safety Team,),on the appropriate size and location of a late night area for Christchurch addressing community safety concerns.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 95 - 13 -

COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE DRAFT LAP

Note: The following sections of this report refer to the conclusions arrived at by the Committee on a range of issues raised in submissions on the LAP. In general the Committee tried to reach a consensus on each issue. For a number of issues this was not possible. The Committee’s conclusion is therefore not necessarily supported by all members of the Committee in each case.

Deliberations process

67. The Committee deliberated on the submissions over five meetings during August and September 2013, with a final meeting in early October 2013. At the final meeting it reaffirmed the resolution to recommend to the incoming Council that a provisional LAP be publicly notified after 18 December 2013 and agreed to additional recommendations to the incoming Council for further work it may wish to consider.

68 Throughout the deliberations, the object of the Act and the goals of the draft LAP were at the forefront of the Committee members’ minds. In discussions, they often referred back to the key legislative objectives of minimising alcohol-related harm and ensuring the safe and responsible sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.

69. The goals of the draft policy kept the Committee focussed on achieving a LAP that is the best balance between contributing to a safe, healthy city and encouraging licensed environments that foster positive, responsible drinking behaviours, while contributing to a liveable, attractive city with a LAP that reflects local communities’ character and amenity, along with their values, preferences and needs.

HOURS FOR OFF-LICENCES

Proposal

70. The draft LAP (provision 2.1.1) proposed that off-licence premises be able to sell alcohol up to the maximum trading hours of 9am-9pm each day. The default maximum trading hours in the Act are 7am-11pm. Current trading practices vary between types of off-licences and specific premises but in general the proposal will reduce trading hours for sale of alcohol at supermarkets, in particular.

Matters raised in submissions

71. The Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing inspectors strongly supported this provision. They cited a body of evidence that shortening the hours when alcohol can be purchased from off-licensed premises has a significant effect on reducing harmful drinking behaviours. It can mitigate the prevalent binge drinking culture by reducing availability of alcohol for late-night consumption in uncontrolled environments such as house parties, home and side-loading locations. Availability is one of the key factors in determining patterns of alcohol consumption: reducing hours of sale at off-licences is the best tool available to local government authorities to contribute to the Act’s objective of minimising alcohol-related harm.

72. Supermarkets and retail trade associations vigorously opposed this provision: they said it will have substantial negative impacts on business, employment and the convenience of shoppers and is not justified by empirical evidence. They referred to their experience and reputation as responsible retailers of alcohol and referred to data showing that less than two per cent of supermarket sales are for alcohol only and that few sales of alcohol to young people (18-24) occur between the hours of 7am-9am and 9pm-11pm.

73. The hospitality sector supported the provision, as an effective way of reducing pre- and side-loading and encouraging patrons to arrive earlier at the comparatively safe drinking environments of on-licensed premises (compared to less safe, uncontrolled environments at home and at house parties).

74. Of the Have your say submissions, 55 per cent agreed with the proposed provision, 36 per cent disagreed and 9 per cent indicated neither/nor. Many of those who supported the provision saw it as an effective way to reduce the availability of alcohol and reduce pre-

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 96 - 14 -

loading. Of the Hospitality New Zealand submissions, whilst there was some support for a reduction in the maximum trading hours for off-licensed premises and recognition that it is a ‘good start’ to changing drinking habits, other submitters thought that the hours would disadvantage people who need or prefer to purchase alcohol during their normal grocery shop which may be early morning or in the evening, and those who don’t work standard hours. Others thought that a change in hours will not affect the amount purchased. The Save Christchurch Nightlife submission form did not include a question about off-licensed premises’ hours and the additional comments did not refer to this provision.

Committee discussion and response

75. The Committee noted that the supermarket sector reports a low percentage of total alcohol sales occurring after 9pm so it does not believe it to be unreasonable to stop trading of alcohol after this time nor will it greatly affect many shoppers’ opportunities to purchase alcohol. Any inconvenience will be outweighed by the benefit that reduced hours will have on inhibiting later-evening ‘tipping point’ purchases by drinkers unwisely topping up their supplies.

76. The Committee heeded the strong advice of the Medical Officer of Health, Police and Licensing inspectors that reduced trading hours for alcohol at off-licences is a key component in reducing alcohol-related harm and negative drinking behaviours. It was firm in its resolve that consistent trading hours were vital in order to stop unfair and undesirable trading-off between retailers, so the same provisions needed to apply across all off-licensed premises. It noted that adjacent and some other local authorities may choose different maximum trading hours but affirmed that it was reflecting Christchurch community’s views by proposed hours that are less than the default maximum allowed. The Committee noted the weight of submissions in support of the proposed maximum trading hours. In deliberating on this provision, the Committee took into account that many submitters sought shortened trading hours as a positive step towards addressing the prevalence of binge drinking in uncontrolled environments. It saw the proposed 12 hours’ trading each day as providing sufficient time for shoppers, in all work and lifestyle situations, to be able to purchase alcohol, and reflected the community’s message that ‘enough is enough’.

77. Some Committee members preferred earlier maximum trading hours of 9am-7pm on the grounds of sufficiency and further emphasising the policy’s strong signal that the community is determined to reduce alcohol-related harm and change the way it drinks. The Committee resolved that provision 2.1.1 remain unchanged except for a correction, by amendment, relating to hotel in-bedroom mini-bars. This amendment was made on the advice of staff that hotel in-bedroom mini-bars fall within the on-licence category of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, rather than off-licence category.

HOURS FOR ON-LICENCES – RESTAURANTS AND CAFES

Proposal

78. The draft LAP proposed maximum trading hours for restaurants and cafes in all Christchurch of 8am–1am the following day.

Matters raised in submissions

79. From Have your Say submitters, there was 53 per cent support for this provision (2.2.1), with 35 per cent opposing it and 12 per cent indicating neither/nor. Those in support considered the trading hours reasonable and encouraged food to be eaten with alcohol. Many thought that restaurants and cafes generally close earlier than 1am unless they are attached to a bar or night-club and do not cause noise and control problems, unless they become bars later in the evening. A few thought the closing time should be earlier, such as midnight.

80. Opponents felt that these hours were too restrictive, would stifle the economy and take away freedom of choice. They favoured later closing times and earlier opening times: early closing times would not contribute to a vibrant city and would deter young people and business investment.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 97 - 15 -

Committee discussion and response

81. The Committee decided that the proposed 8am-1am maximum trading hours largely reflected current licensing conditions and there was neither the evidence to support nor strong community wish to warrant any alteration. Given the proximity of many cafes and restaurants to residential living areas, the hours were considered appropriate.

CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL CITY AREA A – TRADING HOURS AND AREA DEFINED

Proposal

82. Provision 2.2.2 allowed maximum trading hours of 8am–3am the following day for on- licensed premises within a defined area, called Christchurch Central Area A (Area A). Area A was based on those areas identified as Entertainment Precincts (defined by noise control provisions), in the District Plan (revised as part of development of CERA’s Christchurch Central Recovery Plan), with the exception of Victoria St.

Matters raised in submissions

83. This provision generated the most topic-specific submissions, both with regard to the size of Area A, its exclusion of Victoria St, and the hours of trading proposed. The Police and Medical Officer of Health, along with other health sector submitters supported a consolidated area and proposed trading hours in the draft LAP’s Area A. However, the Police and Medical Officer of Health did suggest that Area A be enlarged to include all the area within and bounded by the Frame and Avon River – that being a legible area for people to recognise as the late night ‘go to’ area. They are keen to see any area where late-night hours are allowed kept contained within a single area, enabling manageable law enforcement by the Police and minimising migration issues between different strips or areas of late-night premises. They endorsed provision 2.2.2 but see a mandatory one-way door as a crucial, integral part of effective management of Area A (see more below, under discussion on one-way doors).

84. With regard to the footprint of Area A, many submitters - particularly from the hospitality sector - emphasised that it is far too small to accommodate the anticipated number of premises that will return to the Central City, and that land and lease costs within Area A will prohibit many from setting up there anyway. It was noted that Area A is indeed smaller than the pre-earthquake equivalent noise provisions area in the Central City. The effect of high land and leasing costs and delayed accessibility to red-zoned areas in the Central City has resulted in the set-up and/or morphing of cafes into bars in areas outside of here – particularly on Victoria Street, St Asaph St and Lincoln Rd. Submitters felt that these premises’ initiative, in bringing an early return of bars in the wider Central City area, was being defeated and ‘punished’ now by provision 2.2.2. Licensees who have already invested in opening or re-opening premises in the Central City area reasoned that they did so on the assumption that they would be operating under the existing licensing framework: the proposed LAP would challenge the viability of their underlying business decisions and investment. Concerns were expressed that the smallness of Area A would put further pressure on land/lease costs within, making it unaffordable for smaller, boutique-style bars to set up, depleting the area of a vibrant mix of hospitality and choices for patrons.

85. The exclusion of Victoria St from Area A drew vigorous and opposing submissions. Individual residents and the local neighbourhood association strongly supported provision 2.2.2 as in their view it recognises the long-standing and highly-valued residential character of the area and the spatial unsuitability of it as a late night entertainment area (proximity of premises to residential living and the consequential negative behaviour and unpleasant effects, loss of sound buffers, inadequate space for public transport options). However, premises operating on Victoria St submitted that they operate very well-run premises and are working collaboratively with fellow licensees to address matters of amenity and good order. In their opinion, the inclusion of the area in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan as an entertainment precinct, and resource consenting decisions to date, vindicate their location and current trading hours there. They felt that the presence of the Casino on Victoria St (with 24 hour opening) is a further endorsement of the area as appropriate for

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 98 - 16 -

late-night trading. Victoria St was seen by many submitters as a successful and popular late-night area to visit, offering a welcome bar scene for younger people post-earthquake.

86. Submitters representing the tourist industry requested that provision 2.2. be amended to allow hotels to sell alcohol to lodgers (i.e. guests staying in hotels) at any time of the day or night. They saw the proposed maximum trading hours (either in Area A or B, or suburban areas) as a deterrent to attracting visitors to the city. They cited examples such as business visitors or conferees who may want to continue interacting after the completion of a conference dinner or event, or musicians and support crews wanting to relax and socialise after a late-night entertainment gig.

Committee discussion and response

87. The Committee recognised the need to achieve a balance - between wanting to contain late-night trading in a manageable area, with stimulating a return of hospitality and night-life activity, encouraging licensees who have made an early return to the greater Central City area, supporting complementary residential and hospitality activities, and ensuring the rebuilt Central City is a safe place for visitors and residents where alcohol-related harm can be minimised. The Committee discussed at length where it thought appropriate to extend Area A. Some members of the Committee expressed opposing disquiet at the extent to which Area A was proposed to be enlarged: this ranged from believing it had ‘crept’ to being more than threefold its original footprint to concern that even enlarged it still constrained business opportunity and innovation.

88. The Committee concluded that the inclusion of the rest of the area within the Frame (bordered by the South and East Frame and the River) provided a legible and sensible extension that did not compromise aspirations to encourage the Central City as a liveable city for residents. However, it acknowledged concerns it had heard about the potential negative effects of later-night closing in the Square (undesirable mass congregating point and possible disruption to overlooking hotels and their guests). The inclusion of the area bounded by Moorhouse Ave, St Asaph, Madras and Durham Streets, and the eastern corner of Madras St and Moorhouse Ave corner was discussed in terms of its suitability and relative land/leasing affordability for enabling additional space for innovative hospitality to establish itself. The area was seen as more suitable for late-night trading as it has a mixed used zoning, than the area in the north-west around Victoria St and the cultural precinct, where there was residential living already well-established. The Committee queried whether it was favouring this area unevenly in comparison with Victoria Street. It agreed that the latter was distinguished by the close proximity of long-established residential neighbourhoods to entertainment premises and, despite the nearby location of the Casino with its 24/7 trading hours (exempt from the LAP), it was not in essence an area where late- night trading was favoured in the long-term. The Committee discussed whether the area around the proposed stadium anchor-project should be included in Area A. It was agreed that although this may be appropriate in the future, until the orientation and configuration of the stadium is better known it was not feasible to identify a desirable vicinity to where late- night activity would be safely undertaken, so deferred any decision.

89. It was decided that the area around the Arts Precinct and west of the Avon River was better suited to 1am than later 3am closing, based on the rationale that the river acted as a natural separation and retained the later night premises within a legible, manageable area (in terms of enforcement) and also that the area included residential living.

90. The Committee was resolute in staying with its proposal that Victoria St be excluded from Area A, on the grounds described above in paragraph 85, that it is more appropriately suited to earlier closing times due to the nearby proximity and density of long-established residential living, and it will encourage the desired concentration of late-night activity within a single area in or near the eastern and southern Frame.

91. The Committee concluded its detailed discussions on these matters by resolving that Area A needed to be bigger by enlarging it to include the area within the Frame that is east-of-the- Avon but excluding all sites facing onto the Square. It also extended Area A to include the area bounded by Moorhouse Ave, St Asaph, Madras and Durham Streets, and the eastern corner of Madras St and Moorhouse Ave.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 99 - 17 -

92. The Committee recognised the potential benefit to the city’s tourism industry of enabling late-night in-house entertaining for hotels’ own lodgers. Travellers should be able to treat their hotel like their home by enjoying a convivial drink in a lounge area rather than just in a hotel bedroom. Therefore, the Committee thought it reasonable to amend provision 2.2 and that it was unlikely to diminish the overall provision’s intent to reduce alcohol-related harm. Therefore, it resolved to allow hotels (citywide) to sell alcohol to their lodgers 24 hours per day.

NIGHT CLUBS IN THE CENTRAL CITY

Proposal

93. The draft LAP treated night-clubs in the same way as bars, taverns, clubs and pubs, with regard to respective trading hours and one way door restrictions in Areas A and B and the rest of the city. The latest a night-club could remain open was therefore 3am.

Matters raised in submissions

94. Many submitters wrote and spoke vigorously about the value of, and their preference for, late-night entertainment premises, particularly for hosting live music, dance and DJ entertainment. Pre-earthquake Christchurch had a strong reputation for fostering new talent, hosting local and international new and renowned music performers, and for a lively late-night club scene. Loss of venues and access to the Central City has severely quelled this. Night-clubs provide a comparatively well-controlled environment for young people, in particular, to party, dance and socialise until early morning. Entertainment at night-clubs take the focus off drinking alcohol.

Committee discussion and response

95. The Committee was greatly impressed by the submissions of young people who spoke passionately about wanting to stay in Christchurch, but for whom an active late-night social scene was an important ingredient of their decision to stay. Committee members were heartened by these submitters’ strong commitment to make the city once again a fun place to socialise, study and live. However, they were also conscious of both the experience and evidence of the Police and health professionals of the clear connection between later trading hours and increased alcohol-related harm.

96. The Committee struck a balance in the decision that they reached. They amended the definition of a night-club to stipulate that it must only open at night, provide music and space for dancing and/or other live entertainment and the principal income (i.e. more than 50 per cent) is derived from activities other than the sale of alcohol. Night-club licences would only be granted in Central Area A and with maximum trading hours up to 5pm–4am the following day. A 4am maximum closing time was considered sufficient and intermittent need for later trading (for an international act, for example) could be managed through application for a special licence. Limiting night-clubs to location only within the commerce-dominant Central Area A was intended to minimise potential negative impacts on residential neighbourhoods. The Committee also agreed that night-club licensees must meet a number of specific conditions (safety and amenity-related) detailed in the LAP and any of the policy’s discretionary conditions imposed by the DLC.

CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL CITY AREA B – TRADING HOURS AND AREA DEFINED

Proposal

97. Provision 2.2.3 of the draft LAP proposed that all parts of the Central City that is zoned for business and mixed use, except for those parts included in Area A, be classed as Christchurch Central City Area B (Area B), with maximum trading hours of 8am–1am on the following day. (The one-way door restriction within this provision is discussed separately below).

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 100 - 18 -

Matters raised in submissions

98. Submissions relating to Area B tended to be made within the context of comments about Area A’s relative smallness and inadequacy. Regarding the maximum trading hours for on- licensed premises in the Central City, the overall level of satisfaction with the provision 2.2 from Have your Say submitters was evenly split, with 48 per cent each supporting and opposing, and 4 per cent neither supporting nor opposing them. There were few submissions about Area B specifically: they tended to either support in principle the differentiation in closing times between Area A and B or opposed it on the grounds that the earlier hours were an unreasonable curbing of late-night activities and would diminish the Central City’s appeal. Submissions on the inclusion of Victoria St in Area B have been summarised in paragraph 82, as part of the discussion on Area A.

Committee discussion and response

99. The Committee sought to reinforce the Council’s commitment to a strong, vital Central City core re-establishing. It therefore retained provision 2.2.3 unchanged - in effect reinforcing Area A as the heart of the late-night area and encouraging diverse mixed use and residential uses outside of that, by allowing earlier, more appropriate closing times for bars, taverns and clubs. The footprint of Area B was amended to include the Frame area west-of- the-Avon, and the premises facing onto the Square. As described above, the area bounded by St Asaph, Madras and Durham Streets and Moorhouse Ave, and the eastern corner of Moorhouse Ave and Madras St were altered to become part of Area A.

MAXIMUM TRADING HOURS AND ONE-WAY DOOR RESTRICTIONS IN SUBURBAN CENTRES AND TOWN CENTRES

Proposal

100. Provision 2.2.4 allows taverns, bars, pubs, night-clubs and clubs in suburban centres and rural townships maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day and for a one-way door restriction to be imposed at the discretion of the DLC.

Matters raised in submissions

101. Many submitters supported provision 2.2.4, because they thought it provided appropriate trading hours in areas where there is residential living and that suburban areas did not need late-night activities. However, there were also many other submitters who thought it was unreasonable to limit premises’ hours in local areas: it discouraged local socialising and would severely impact on some suburban premises’ viability. This latter concern was often made in conjunction with objections to the proposed mandatory one-way door in the Central City (causing suburban outflux).

102. There was wide agreement that premises in close proximity to residential living should not have later hours (such as 3am). But there was strong feeling by some that there was little harm caused by premises that were located away from residential areas so they could have later hours - particularly in those areas that have started-up or become popular post- earthquake (e.g. parts of Riccarton, parts of Lincoln Rd/Addington).

Committee discussion and response

103. The Committee debated the range of views they had heard about this provision - from broad agreement in principle to the differentiated hours in suburban/ town centres to Central City, to strong disagreement with regard to specific areas and premises. It recognised that there were instances where local on-licensed premises act as a strong, valued focal point in local communities, particularly post-earthquake where there is a shortage of community meeting places or facilities. The Committee also acknowledged the sense and safety in neighbourhood premises being able to provide for people’s socialising/entertainment needs close to home and local connections. Some Committee members did not think that one-size- fits-all approach in provision 2.2.4 was appropriate across the city because it failed to recognise that some suburban bars operate more like late-night central venues and offer an appreciated diversity to suburban socialising. Also, it did not take into account the changed operating style or establishment of numerous premises in the likes of Addington, Merivale, Woolston and Riccarton following post-earthquake displacement from the Central City.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 101 - 19 -

Conversely, concerns were voiced that allowing later trading hours in some or all suburban areas threatened the “residential fabric” of the city.

104. However, the Committee was cognisant of the Police concerns about the difficulties in providing law enforcement across dispersed late-night areas/premises, and the higher vision of focussing late-night entertainment in a single, Central City area. Also, it was keen to avoid the perpetuation of a ‘donut effect’ post-earthquake, where late night activity has shifted to outside the Central City. Therefore, it resolved to accept provision 2.2.4 unchanged. The Committee decided to amend the policy’s definition of a ‘township’ to exclude Lyttelton, in recognition of its different character to that of the rural township of Akaroa. Therefore Lyttelton falls within the definition of a Suburban Centre (i.e. maximum trading hours of 8am until 1am the following day and a discretionary one-way door restriction where appropriate).

ONE-WAY DOOR RESTRICTIONS

Proposal

105. The draft LAP (provision 2.2.2) proposed a mandatory 1am one-way door restriction for on- licensed taverns/bars/pubs/night-clubs/clubs in the Christchurch Central Area A where they may have maximum trading hours up to 3am. A discretionary one-way door restriction was proposed for taverns/bars/pubs/night-clubs/clubs in Christchurch Central Area B (provision 2.2.3) where premises may have maximum trading hours up to 1am. A discretionary one- way door was proposed for elsewhere in the city, as part of the discretionary conditions (2.5.1).

Matters raised in submissions

106. The Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing inspectors all supported these provisions. They argued the one-way door was a successful tool in pre-2011 Central City Christchurch, albeit voluntary, to reduce alcohol-related harm and serious crime in the “Strip” area. Most effective as a mandatory tool, they see it as an essential ingredient to safe management of patrons and pedestrians in the early hours of the morning, by reducing migration and encouraging patrons to reach their last drinking place earlier. They cited evidence in support of the effectiveness of the mandatory one-way door policy, particularly combined with other harm-reducing tools, in places such as Newcastle, Australia.

107. Overall the mandatory one-way door was one of the most-opposed provisions in the draft LAP. Of the Have your Say submissions, 49 per cent supported the provision, 43 per cent opposed it and 8 per cent neither supported nor opposed it. However, there was widely- shared opposition to a mandatory one-way door provision by the 1,929 Hospitality New Zealand-gathered submissions and opposition to a 1am one-way-door in the 1,078 Save Christchurch Nightlife-gathered submissions. Typically these submitters commented that the 1am one-way door was far too restrictive, would ‘kill the night life’ and was not an effective tool for reducing harm. It unfairly punished on-licensed premises by excluding later-arriving patrons and would have the consequence of draining suburban premises unreasonably early in the night, so that drinkers could get to the Central City in time for the 1am restriction on entry. Some submitters challenged the conclusion that the pre-2011 Central City one- way door was sufficiently successful in reducing harm and crime.

Committee discussion and response

108. The Committee supported the concept of one-way door restrictions.. However, it recognised a complex mix of intended and unintended consequences that a mandatory one-way door can impose on late night drinking behaviours and hospitality premises’ activity. It was cognisant of the views expressed by many younger people that a mandatory one-way door will curtail their social life considerably and make the city unattractive to them, and the hospitality sector’s concerns that it will diminish their revenue, business viability and patronage, and cause an outflux of patrons from the suburbs around midnight. The Committee was worried about the potential for disturbances caused by migrating drinkers from suburb to Central City.

109. As described above the Committee was ambivalent about the effects of compulsory one- way door controls, concerned that the evidence presented on one-way door controls

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 102 - 20 -

revealed both intended and unintended consequences; the desire to reduce barriers to the Central City’s recovery as an entertainment area led the Committee to prefer to allow the DLC’s application of a discretionary one-way door on a case-by-case basis. The Committee is confident that, in this first LAP the additional assessment criteria given to the DLC in the Act and the range of discretionary conditions in the LAP will provide for flexibility in granting licensing conditions: an effective package of measures can be put in place to mitigate specific issues at a premise or cluster or premises.

110. However the Committee recognised that a review of the one-way door provision may be needed as the Central City recovers and a different policy response required. The Committee was keen to signal to on-licensees that participation in a voluntary one-way door, for example, as part of area or precinct accord would be a positive way for them to demonstrate industry best practice and be a factor in their being granted maximum trading hours.

SPECIAL LICENCES

Proposal

111. Provision 2.3.1 of the draft LAP proposed that a one-way door restriction could be applied where appropriate, at the discretion of the DLC. A note described the general way in which hours for special licences are granted for on- and off-site applications.

Matters raised in submissions

112. No submissions were received that specifically referred to provision 2.3.1. Submissions on other discretionary conditions as they relate to special licences are discussed in paragraph 124 below.

Committee discussion and response

113. The Committee accepted provision 2.3.1 and the accompanying note unchanged, but on staff advice added an amendment (clause 2.3.2) to explicitly clarify that the maximum trading hours that could be granted for a special licence could be up to 24 hours per day, Monday to Sunday – as is current practice.

LOCATION OF PREMISES

Proposal

114. Provisions 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the draft LAP restricted the opening of new off-licence bottle stores and on-licensed taverns as follows: no further licences will be issued unless the bottle store or tavern is located on land zoned ‘Business’ or ‘Town Centre’, or, in the case of a green-fields growth area, located on land zoned ‘Living G’ provided that the Living G zoned site of the proposed bottle store is within a business area shown on an Outline Development Plan approved by the Council’.

Matters raised in submissions

115. Of the Have your Say submissions, 59 per cent agreed with provision 2.4.1 (new bottle stores) and 52 per cent agreed with provision 2.4.2 (new taverns). Respectively, 22 per cent and 26 per cent opposed these provisions and 19 per cent and 22 per cent neither supported nor opposed them. Those submitting in agreement thought there were sufficient bottle stores and taverns already. Some recommended that a check should be kept on density, especially in lower socioeconomic areas and near schools, and there were too many in residential areas (most references were to bottle stores). Opposing submitters considered that location should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and restrictions would inhibit business growth. Others opposed provisions 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 as they do not go far enough to reduce density of premises and there should not be any bottle stores or taverns in residential areas or within given suggested distances from schools or churches (e.g. 0.5km and 3km).

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 103 - 21 -

116. One winery noted there was no separate definition for winery off-licences (cellar doors) and thus these are categorised with taverns and bottle stores. Since there is no mention of rural zones they said this could adversely affect new vineyards trying to set up a cellar door operation on their sites in a way that is not the case in neighbouring districts.

117. Some submitters said the views of local schools and communities should be taken into account when issuing licences in their area, citing recent examples where local communities have had mixed success in having their views taken into account in licensing decisions on new bottle stores. Neither the Hospitality New Zealand nor the Save Christchurch Nightlife submission forms asked a specific question about location matters, so did not attract individual comments.

Committee discussion and response

118. The Committee accepted the provisions unchanged in this version of the LAP, albeit tempered by dissatisfaction and disappointment. It was recognised by all the Committee that provisions 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 do not adequately reflect the evidence, concerns and issues that many submitters raised regarding the links between the incidence of alcohol-related harm and the density and location of licensed premises in local areas. The Committee acknowledged that there is community support - from individuals, neighbourhood groups and Community Boards in particular - for greater input into licensing decisions about bottle stores in local neighbourhoods. The committee’s concern is that the Act’s restrictions, as to who may object to licence applications, can lead to community views not being heard or taken sufficiently into account in licensing decisions. The committee initially supported the inclusion of a policy in a LAP providing for community representatives to have increased input to licensing decisions. The committee concluded however, after receiving further legal advice not to include such a provision as it was unlikely to be within the legal scope of a LAP; moreover even if such a provision is appropriate, a further SCP would be required to bring this LAP in line with those submissions.

119. On legal advice but following much discussion, the Committee concluded that its ability to introduce greater density and location provisions to this LAP at this stage of the process was therefore very limited. The addition of any such provisions, not included in the Statement of Proposal, may be challenged on the grounds of being unreasonable in terms of not having followed a fair consultative process. The Committee was reassured by the criteria in sections 105 and 106 of the Act that the DLC must take into account in deciding whether or not to approve or renew a licence (i.e. the extent of the effects on the amenity and good order of a locality of a new or renewed licence).

120. The Committee will recommend to the Council that further work be undertaken on understanding the links between density of licensed premises in local areas, particularly where there is lower socio-economic demographic and higher deprivation and their proximity to ‘sensitive’ facilities (e.g. schools) and alcohol-related harm in the community, and ways in which local communities can have an effective ‘say’ in local licensing decisions be explored further. This further research should inform a subsequent review of the LAP. Controlling and limiting density of off-licensed premises in some suburban areas was seen by the Committee as a very important tool for reducing alcohol-related harm, especially in vulnerable communities, and all members expressed a strong hope that a subsequent LAP would be able to better address these matters.

121. An alteration was made to the draft LAP’s definition of a bottle store so that it excluded cellar doors. This was in recognition of matters raised in relation to wineries’ cellar door sales operations, which would be unreasonably disadvantaged by the constraint in location to business-zoned land.

DISCRETIONARY CONDITIONS – ON-LICENCES, OFF-LICENCES AND SPECIAL LICENCES

Proposal

122. A range of discretionary conditions were proposed in the draft LAP for on-licence premises (2.5.1), off-licensed premises (2.5.2) and special licences (2.5.3). These measures aimed to protect amenity and good order and improve the safety of patrons and visitors in and near premises, encourage responsible drinking behaviours, ensure licensees have sufficient

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 104 - 22 -

industry experience to be best practice operators before they are given later trading hours, and provide for adequate management of premises at busy times. A cap on the number and duration of special licence applications by a premise was proposed.

Matters raised in submissions

123. Comparatively few submissions were received on the proposed discretionary conditions. Fifty per cent of Have your Say submitters agreed with the proposed provisions 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3; 21 per cent opposed and [a high] 29 per cent said they neither supported nor opposed them. Submitters opposing the conditions noted the following:

• The discretionary conditions are too restrictive, unnecessary and place too great a cost and onus on the premise owner. For example, providing additional security staff late at night should be made at the bar or club owner’s discretion – they understand their business needs. • The restricted trading hours placed on first time licensees will inhibit their ability to establish a reasonable market share and would deter new entrepreneurs from setting up business at all. A three-month trial period instead was suggested. • Discretionary conditions should include restrictions on signage relating to special prices and offers such as ‘happy hours’. • The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) recommended that discretionary conditions include a requirement for training for staff across all licence types.

124. The special licence provision 2.5.3. drew some submissions in relation to discretionary conditions:

• The proposed limit on special licence applications per year would inhibit the live music/entertainment scene: it would mean that entrepreneurs could not get enough special licences to serve all their gigs and events. This would diminish their business opportunities and profitability. • The limited number of venues (especially post-earthquake) available for such events would further exacerbate this – a smaller number of venues are running a greater number of events. Similarly, clubs and suburban hotels would be disadvantaged – they are helping to fill a large gap in need for community-style venues and should not be thwarted by limits on special licence applications. • The limits on special licences would do nothing to reduce alcohol-related harm.

Committee discussion and response

125. The Committee thought that judicious application of discretionary conditions to premises was an effective and responsive way to improve purchasing and drinking environments, so it chose not to alter any of the conditions proposed, despite concerns expressed by some submitters about the undue cost they could place on licensees.

126. Guided by legal advice, it did not recommend adding additional conditions to the provisions that may be deemed unreasonable and outside the scope of a LAP. The Committee envisaged that some of the submitted suggestions for further discretionary conditions would be usefully investigated and hopefully progressed as part of a wider, strategic approach to reducing alcohol-related harm in the future.

MATTERS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED POLICY

127. The introduction to the LAP’s Statement of Proposal invited submissions on precincts and precinct-based accords. Although these are out of the scope of a LAP they may be appropriate for consideration as part of, for example, an alcohol strategy.

Submissions about Precincts

128. Precincts, or identified areas where late night or a particular type of hospitality/entertainment activity can be carried out in an identifiable and cohesive way, were specifically commented on by almost 10 per cent of submitters, including many licensees and providers of late night entertainment. There was a range of positive comments about the appeal of precincts and the opportunity they provide for enriching hospitality and entertainment activities.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 105 - 23 -

Submitters using the Hospitality New Zealand and Save Christchurch Nightlife’s process were particularly supportive of providing areas where late night entertainment, night-clubs and music gigs could thrive. Many spoke of the great reputation the Christchurch live music scene once had and how that was threatened by the proposed 3am maximum closing time in Central Area A and 1am closing elsewhere (the latter being where suitable, affordable premises or land is more likely located to cater for late night entertainment venues).

129. Submitters saw advantages of hospitality or entertainment-focused precincts. They would:

• Enable purpose-designed amenity e.g. crime prevention and crowd management techniques • Foster collaborative licensees’ initiatives to manage patron behaviour through, for example, sector accords, initiatives such as ID-scanning, CCTV • Allow attractive growth of clusters of activity in appropriate areas that can reflect diverse types of hospitality • Create suitable space for late night night-clubs and music venues to operate – the need for an area/areas where night clubs and live music gigs can happen is urgently needed.

130. Areas noted by submitters as potentially suitable for development into precincts included St Asaph Street, Riccarton Road, Addington, Merivale and the Palms. Victoria Street was mentioned by a number of submitters (both licensees and users of the area) as a successful precinct, albeit problems relating to its adjacency to residential living were strongly noted in representative and individual submissions from nearby residents.

131. Later trading hours, aligned with Central Area A, were seen as a crucial point of difference essential for precincts in suburban areas such as Merivale, Riccarton, Addington and Victoria Street. Licensees from the likes of former SOL Square and Victoria Street commented on the popularity of their prior/existing precinct approach with patrons, and their significant contribution to the Central City’s vitality. Though not recommending precinct development, other submissions advocated for later trading hours for premises in suburban areas such as Lyttelton and Hornby. Such areas are seen to be important centres or hubs for local socialising and later hours are a sensible way to provide residents with accessible, neighbourhood social venues without the need for late night cross-town travel.

Submissions about Accords

132. The effectiveness of local, sector accords between licensees and supported by the Police, Council and inspectors was favoured by 19 premises in two submissions. They were seen as an effective tool for developing positive collaboration between premises in a local area and a means of working together to pro-actively manage patron behaviour both inside, outside and nearby to premises. Numerous examples of collaborative initiatives achieved and planned were detailed in the Victoria Street Precinct Accord Group’s submission.

133. The Victoria Street Precinct Accord Group recommended that its active precinct accord be formally recognised in the LAP and regard be given to it in licensing decisions. Similarly, the collective of Addington/Riccarton-licensees submitted that an accord could be developed in their area and recognised in the LAP, with regard being to it in resource consent and licensing decisions. The effectiveness of such accords was, however, challenged by others such as the Victoria Neighbourhood Association. On legal advice, the Committee decided that although it had asked for submissions on matters relating to accords, and it was supportive in principle of their development, it should not include any provision relating to participation in or establishment of precincts in this LAP, as it could be seen as being outside its legal scope.

Submissions about other matters outside the scope of this LAP

134. The following matters raised by submitters were out of scope of this LAP but could be included within an alcohol strategy, or in some cases included in a subsequent LAP:

• Development of local area or precinct accords between licensees (as discussed above) • Co-ordination and improvements to late-night transportation options especially taxi services with regard to availability, price and better security • Sharing of information with and between licensees

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 106 - 24 -

• Additional alcohol ban areas and better enforcement of alcohol ban areas • Citywide alcohol ban in public places. • Provision or support of late-night activities and entertainment which are not focussed on alcohol • Improved street cleaning and rubbish collection in entertainment precincts • Advocacy to the Government e.g. on alcohol minimum pricing and advertising • Better police enforcement of existing laws and bylaws regulating on-premise and off- premise behaviour • Education initiatives e.g. social marketing campaigns about preloading • Collaboration with venue managers and event organisers to continuously improve alcohol management.

135. There were a number of submissions which sought policies/actions which could not be included in either the LAP or in an alcohol strategy as they would require changes to the current law. They included:

• Price restrictions (minimum price at off-licences, maximum price at on-licences) • Additional opportunities for people to comment on or object to applications for licences • Removal of alcohol from sale at supermarkets • A raised drinking age • Changes to the drink-driving limit • Laws against being intoxicated in public • Limits on the amount of alcohol sold • RTD (ready-to-drink) sales’ restrictions • Restrictions on the advertising and marketing of alcohol.

Range of evidence and views presented to the Committee

136 Before summarising the recommended changes to the proposed LAP below the Committee wishes to comment on the very wide range of views and supporting information provided by submitters in their written material and at the hearings. While there was almost universal agreement about the significant nature of the problems associated with alcohol-related harm and support for the development of a local policy of some kind, there the consensus ended. The divergence of views and evidence as to the appropriate policies for the LAP was such that one submitter’s evidence was on occasion directly contradicted by that of another. Nor was there any consensus as to where the blame/responsibility should lie for the level of alcohol-related harm in the city. Without exception all licensees were at pains to point out how seriously they took their responsibilities and how well they operated within the licensing framework (including in many cases doing more than was required). A common theme from submitters was that the problems of alcohol-related harm were caused by someone else. Submitters who held on-licences referred repeatedly to the effects of off-licences in fuelling a drinking culture of pre- and side-loading outside controlled (licensed) premises while those representing off-licences pointed only to their own excellent record as licensees and highlighted the police data which showed high levels of alcohol-related offending associated with late night (on-licence) premises.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED POLICY

137. Following deliberations on the 4,060 submissions, the Committee decided that it wished to recommend a provisional LAP to the incoming Council. It resolved to make the following changes to the draft LAP. The draft LAP, with the changes made by the Hearings Committee highlighted is attached to this report as Attachment 2. In summary, these were:

• Alteration of the definition of a night-club so that it must be an entertainment venue open only at night which provides music and space for dancing and/or other live entertainment and where the principal income is derived from activities other than the sale of alcohol. • Provision for night-club licences to be located only in Central Area A and have maximum trading hours of up to 5pm-4am the following day. Night-clubs must meet a range of specific conditions relating to patron and pedestrian safety, ensure protection of on-site and adjacent amenity, and comply with any of the discretionary conditions imposed by the DLC, along with meeting the criteria in sections 105 and 106 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 107 - 25 -

• Alteration of the one-way door restriction in Central Area A applicable at discretion of DLC rather than a mandatory requirement. • Provision for lodgers at hotels to drink at their hotel bar/mini-bar at all hours of the day or night. • Amendment of the footprint of Central Area A by enlarging it. Area A is to include additional areas within and bounded by the Eastern and Southern Frame and the Avon River, but excluding sites facing onto the Square and a section of Oxford Terrace facing north to the Avon River between Colombo and Madras Streets. Also, that Area A include an area outside the Southern Frame between St Asaph St, Moorhouse Ave, Durham and Madras St and including the site on the east corner of Moorhouse Ave and Madras St. • Definition of Lyttelton as a suburban centre rather than a rural township, but with no change to trading hours for on-licensed premises there. • Amendment of the definition of bottle store so that it excludes cellar doors (premises where the principal business carried on is the manufacture of wine).

138. The following provisions remained unchanged, aside from either minor editorial corrections or for the purpose of adding additional clarification:

• Maximum trading hours of 9am-9pm for off-licensed premises (with corrective amendment changing hotels to on-licences) throughout the Christchurch City territorial area. • Maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day for cafes and restaurants throughout the Christchurch City territorial area. • Maximum trading hours of 8am-3am the following day for bars, pubs, taverns and clubs in Central Area A (note: footprint of the area was amended as above). • Maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day and a discretionary one-way door restriction for bars, pubs, taverns and clubs for Central Area B. (Note: night-clubs were excluded from this area as part of resolution above.) • Maximum trading hours of 8am-1am the following day and a discretionary one-way door restriction for bars, pubs, taverns and clubs in suburban centres and rural townships (Note: night-clubs were excluded from this area as part of resolution above.). • Location of premises (new bottle stores and taverns). • Discretionary conditions for on-licensed premises, off-licensed premises and special licences.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Process to date

139. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 allows territorial authorities to make LAPs which relate to the sale, supply, or consumption of alcohol within their districts. It is not mandatory to have such a policy.

140. Under section 77(1), a LAP may include policies on any or all of the following matters relating to licensing (and no others):

a) location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas: b) location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises of a particular kind or kinds: c) location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to facilities of a particular kind or kinds: d) whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned, or any stated part of the district: e) maximum trading hours: f) the issue of licences, or licences of a particular kind or kinds, subject to discretionary conditions: g) one-way door restrictions.

141. A LAP must not include policies on any matter not relating to licensing, and paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) do not apply to special licences, or premises for which a special licence is held or has been applied for.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 108 - 26 -

142. The Act states that a LAP may provide differently for different parts of its district, may apply to only part (or two or more parts) of its district, and may apply differently to premises for which licences of different kinds are held or have been applied for.

143. The Act sets out the process which the Council must use to adopt a LAP. First, the Council must produce a draft policy. (The Council produced a draft policy in May 2013.) When producing the draft policy, the Council was required to have regard to the following factors set out in section 78(2) of the Act:

• the objectives and policies of its district plan; and • the number of licences of each kind held for premises in its district, and the location and opening hours of each of the premises; and • any areas in which bylaws prohibiting alcohol in public places are in force; and • the demography of the district's residents8; and • the demography of people who visit the district as tourists or holidaymakers; and • the overall health indicators of the district's residents; and • the nature and severity of the alcohol-related problems arising in the district.

144. Furthermore, the Act also provides that a territorial authority must not produce a draft policy without having consulted the Police, inspectors, and Medical Officers of Health. Under the Act, the Council is able to ask the Police, inspectors, and Medical Officers of Health for any information they hold relating to any of the matters in paragraphs (c) to (g) of section 77(1), and those persons are to make reasonable efforts to provide the Council with that information. The Council carried out this consultation. A summary of their views was included in the report from the Planning Committee to the Council received on 16 May 20139. The Council requested and was provided with information relating to the matters in paragraphs (c) to (g) of section 77 (1).

145. Once the Council has produced a draft LAP, and it decides to continue to have a LAP, it must produce a provisional LAP by using the special consultative procedure to consult on the draft LAP. Again, when producing the provisional LAP, the Council must have regard to the matters stated in section 78(2) of the Act. The legal requirements for conducting a special consultative procedure are set out in sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002. Paragraphs 33 to 50 above detail the conduct of the special consultative procedure. The Committee, having given due regard to the matters in section 78(2) of the Act, and having given due consideration to all written submissions received and all oral submissions presented, resolved to produce a provisional LAP.

146. It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the elements of the provisional LAP, as recommended to the incoming Council for notification, come within the parameters of section 77(1) of the Act, and that the draft LAP does not contain policies on any matter not relating to licensing.

Next steps

147. The next step in the process is for the incoming Council to give public notice of the provisional LAP, the rights of appeal against it, and the ground on which the appeal may be made. The sections in the Act dealing with the notification of a provisional LAP and subsequent appeals do not come into force until 18 December 2013.

148. It is noted that a person or agency that made submissions as part of the special consultative procedure on a draft LAP, has 30 days after its public notification to appeal to the licensing authority against any element of the provisional LAP. (The Police or Medical Office of Health have a right to appeal an element whether or not they made a submission.) Persons who do not make submissions do not have a right of appeal. The only ground on which an element of a provisional LAP can be appealed against, in terms of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, is that it is unreasonable in light of the object of the Act.

149. The object of the Act is set out in section 4 and provides as follows:

8 Note that a district’s residents include people who have holiday homes there. 9 Christchurch City Council (2013). Report from the Planning Committee to the Council, 14 May 2013. Op cit.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 109 - 27 -

“(1) The object of this Act is that— (a) the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and (b) the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol includes— (a) any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol; and (b) any harm to society generally or the community, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury of a kind described in paragraph (a).”

150. The Legal Services Unit considers that the elements of the provisional LAP are not unreasonable in light of the object of the Act. The Committee has reached a view on the elements of the LAP with regard to all information presented to it. The elements are considered reasonable in that they aim to promote the safe and responsible sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol, as well as minimising the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol.

Significance assessment

151. As noted above, the Council assessed the adoption of a LAP to have a medium to high level of significance for the Council in terms of the Council’s Significance Policy10 and the definition of significance in the Local Government Act 2002. This was because of the likely consequences for the district. (For example, if adopted it will set the maximum trading hours for licensed premises in the city). It will potentially directly and indirectly affect a large number of persons being licensees, patrons of licensed premises, enforcement authorities, and health providers. In due course, the Council in performing its role as a DLC will need to have regard to the LAP for each decision it makes on any licensing application.

152. Given this level of significance, the Council considered that a full and robust consultation process was needed to meet the requirements of part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 79 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 also required the Council to consult on the draft policy using a special consultative procedure before it produced a provisional LAP.

153. It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the Council has, to date, met the requirements of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the Local Government Act 2002 with regards to the formulation and production of the provisional LAP.

COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL’S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

154. The Committee recommends to the Council that it resolves to:

a) Publicly notify the provisional Local Alcohol Policy, enabling the appeals process to commence, as set out in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

b) Commence a review of the Local Alcohol Policy within two years (or within a suitable timeframe in recognition of the changing nature of the city) and that a review include consideration of matters such as:

• The effectiveness of the LAP in minimising alcohol-related harm;

10 The significance of any issue, proposal, decision, or any other matter that concerns or is before Council, its Committees, or Community Boards, will be determined on a case by case basis in terms of its likely impact on, and likely consequences for: a) the current and future social, economic, environmental or cultural wellbeing of Christchurch; b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in the issue, proposal, decision or matter; c) the capacity of the Council to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so. (http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/ltccp2009-19volume2-policyondeterminingsignificance-docs.pdf )

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 110 - 28 -

• Revisiting location and density provisions for new off-licensed premises in suburban areas; • Appropriateness of the size and footprint of Christchurch Central Area A as the Central City rebuilds; • Rewards-based incentives for best practice licensees. c) Immediately consider any appropriate regulatory policy or bylaw by which alcohol-related harm can be further minimised. d) Undertake an Alcohol Strategy and/or other collaborative initiatives, as a wider means of minimising alcohol-related harm in the community, such as education programmes and inter-premise and precinct initiatives/accords. e) Consider advocacy to central Government or other ways of addressing the community’s preference for it being an offence to be drunk in a public place; and consider further advocacy to central government for a review of policies such as minimum pricing of alcohol. f) Develop measures to monitor the effectiveness of the Local Alcohol Policy.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 111

Attachment 1(a) PROVISIONAL LAP resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXPLANATORY MATERIAL

1.1 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) has the following objects:

(a) that the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and (b) the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.

1.2 Harm is defined very widely and includes: • any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness or injury, and harm to individuals or the community, either directly or indirectly caused by excessive or inappropriate alcohol consumption.

1.3 The Act allows territorial authorities to make a local alcohol policy (LAP). The LAP is a set of policies, made by the Council in consultation with its community, about the sale and supply of alcohol in its geographical area. Christchurch City Council has decided to develop a LAP for its district and to set different restrictions and conditions for identified areas within the district.

1.4 Once the LAP comes into force, the Council’s District Licensing Committee (DLC) and the Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority (ARLA) must have regard to the policy when they make decisions on licence applications.

1.5 Through a LAP the community is able to:

• Limit the location of licensed premises in particular areas or near certain types of facilities, such as in specific neighbourhoods or near schools or churches; • Limit the density of licensed premises by specifying whether new licences or types of licences should be issued in a particular area; • Impose conditions on groups of licences, such as a “one-way door” condition that would allow patrons to leave premises but not enter or re-enter after a certain time; • Recommend discretionary conditions for licences; • Restrict or extend the default maximum trading hours set in the new Act, which are:

• 8am - 4am for on-licences (such as pubs and restaurants) • 7am - 11pm for off-licences (such as bottle stores and supermarkets).

CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING LICENSING APPLICATIONS

1.6 The purpose of the LAP is to provide local guidance for the Council’s District Licensing Committee in deciding whether to issue a licence.

1.7 Under section 105 of the Act, the District Licensing Committee has to have regard to a range of matters in addition to “any relevant local alcohol policy” when considering a licence application. The types of matters include:

• the object of the Act; • the suitability of the applicant; • the design and layout of any proposed premises; • whether (in its opinion) the amenity and good order of the locality would be likely to be reduced, to more than a minor extent, by the effects of the licence; • whether (in its opinion) the amenity and good order of the locality are already so badly affected by the effects of the issue of existing licences but— o … it is nevertheless desirable not to issue any further licences.

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 1 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 112

1.8 The Act says that a licence may be refused if the issue of the licence, or the consequences of the issue of the licence would be inconsistent with the LAP (section 108). (This requirement does not apply for the renewal of licences). The Act also says that a licence may be made subject to conditions if the issue of the licence, or the consequences of the issue of the licence, would be inconsistent with the LAP (section 109).

GOALS OF THE LAP

1.9 The Local Alcohol Policy provides direction for the District Licensing Committee so that licensing decisions:

• Contribute to Christchurch being a safe and healthy city; • Reflect local communities’ character and amenity and their values, preferences and needs; • Contribute to the recovery of a liveable, attractive city; • Encourage licensed environments that foster positive, responsible drinking behaviour and minimise alcohol-related harm.

OBJECTIVES OF THE LAP

1.10 The objectives of the LAP are to provide a policy which:

• Reflects the views of local communities as to the appropriate location, number, hours and conditions that should apply to licensed premises within their communities; • Facilitates the return of late-night entertainment venues to the Central City; • Provides certainty and clarity for applicants and the public as to whether a proposed license application will meet the criteria of the LAP; • Provides effective guidance for the decisions of the District Licensing Committee and the Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority in Christchurch.

DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS LAP

1.11 When reading this LAP, the following words and phrases have been used (note, please check the Act where a section has been referred to):

Types of licences

• on-licences where the licensee can sell and supply alcohol for consumption on the premises and can let people consume alcohol there (see section 14 of the Act);

• off-licences where the licensee sells alcohol from a premises for consumption somewhere else (see section 17 of the Act);

• club licences where the licensee (eg a club) can sell and supply alcohol for consumption on the club premises by authorised customers (see section 21 of the Act); and

• special licences which can be either on-site or off-site special licences. With an on-site special, the licensee can sell or supply alcohol, for consumption there, to people attending an event described in it. With an off-site special, the licensee can sell the licensee's alcohol, for consumption somewhere else, to people attending an event described in it (see section 22 of the Act).

Notes: Some premises hold more than one licence – for example an on-licence bar may also hold an off- licence and be able to sell alcohol which is consumed off the premises.

The Act allows special licences to be issued for up to 12 months. Unlike other kinds of licence special licences are not subject to the Act's default maximum hours for on-licenses (8 am to 4 am ) but can apply up to 24 hours a day.

The Act does not apply to duty-free sales of alcohol at international airports. Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 2 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 113

The LAP will not set maximum trading hours for the sale of alcohol at a casino as the law states that the hours of an on-licence for a casino are the hours that the casino is lawfully open.

1.2 Other terms airport bar means premises that are within or attached to an airport; and used or intended to be used in the course of business principally for selling or supplying alcohol to air travellers arriving at or departing from the airport (refer section 5(1)) bottle store means retail premises where (generally speaking) at least 85% of the annual sale revenue is expected to be earned from the sale of alcohol for consumption somewhere else, excluding cellar doors (refer section 32(1)) bar in relation to a hotel or tavern, means a part of the hotel or tavern used principally or exclusively for the sale or consumption of alcohol (refer section 5(1)) café has the same meaning as restaurant in terms of the licence cellar door means a small shop located on a winery property, which is limited to providing the following services and products to its customers:
Tastings of the wine grown and produced from the winery property only; and
Sale of packaged wine grown and produced from the winery property only, for consumption elsewhere. club means a body that— (a) is a body corporate having as its object (or as one of its objects) participating in or promoting a sport or other recreational activity, otherwise than for gain; or (b) is a body corporate whose object is not (or none of whose objects is) gain; or (c) holds a permanent club charter (refer section 5(1)) grocery store grocery store means a shop that— (a) has the characteristics normally associated with shops of the kind commonly thought of as grocery shops; and (b) comprises premises where— (i) a range of food products and other household items is sold; but (ii) the principal business carried on is or will be the sale of food products (refer sections 5(1) and 33(1)) hotel means premises used or intended to be used in the course of business principally for providing to the public— (a) lodging; and (b) alcohol, meals, and refreshments for consumption on the premises (refer section 5(1)) restaurant means premises that— (a) are not a conveyance; and (b) are used or intended to be used in the course of business principally for supplying meals to the public for eating on the premises (refer section 5(1)) night-club an entertainment venue open only at night which provides music and space for dancing and/or other live entertainment and where the principal income is derived from activities other than the sale of alcohol rural township the township of Akaroa town centre suburban centres those areas where land is zoned ‘Business’ or ‘Town Centre’, or, in the case of a green-fields growth area, located on land zoned ‘Living G’ supermarket means premises with a floor area of at least 1 000 m2 (including any separate departments set aside for such foodstuffs as fresh meat, fresh fruit and vegetables, and delicatessen items) (refer section 5(1))

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 3 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 114

tavern (a) means premises used or intended to be used in the course of business principally for providing alcohol and other refreshments to the public; but (b) does not include an airport bar (refer section 5(1)). (i.e., an airport bar is not treated as a tavern for alcohol licensing purposes)

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 4 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 115

2.0 PROVISIONS

2.1 Hours for off-licences

2.1.1 The following maximum trading hours apply to all off-licensed premises in the Christchurch City territorial area:

Maximum trading hours All off-licence sales including over the counter sales Monday to Sunday 9am to 9pm

2.2 Hours for on-licences

Note: To avoid any doubt, for the purpose of the provisions in 2.2, the maximum trading hours specified apply to on-licensed premises where the licensee holds an on-licence or a club licence.

Note: On-licensed premises with a night-club licence are only allowed to be located in Christchurch Central Area A.

2.2.1 The following maximum trading hours apply to all on-licensed premises that are restaurants or cafes in the Christchurch City territorial area:

Maximum trading hours Restaurants/cafes Monday to Sunday 8am until 1am the following day

2.2.2 The following maximum trading hours apply to all on-licensed premises that are hotels in the Christchurch City territorial area with respect to the sale of alcohol to their lodgers.

Maximum trading hours Hotels Monday to Sunday 24 hours per day

2.2.3 Except for provision 2.2.2 the following maximum trading hours and one-way door restrictions apply to all on-licensed premises that are taverns/bars/pubs/clubs in Christchurch Central Area A:

Christchurch Central Area A covers the areas shown in red on Map 1 which includes both the Category 1 and Category 2 Entertainment Precincts (excluding Victoria St) in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the other areas shown.

Maximum trading hours Taverns/bars/pubs/clubs Monday to Sunday 8am until 3am the following day One-way door restriction Discretionary condition where appropriate

2.2.4 The following maximum trading hours apply to all on-licensed premises that are night-clubs in Christchurch Central Area A:

Maximum trading hours Night-clubs Monday to Sunday 5pm until 4am the following day One-way door restriction Discretionary condition where appropriate

Note: In considering approval for a night-club to operate maximum trading hours of 5pm – 4am, the following matters should be addressed by the District Licensing Committee, in addition to the discretionary conditions in the LAP and criteria in sections 105 and 106 of the Act: • A crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) assessment of the prospective or existing premises and location to assess safety risks (e.g. proximity to transport nodes, public car parks, residential, visitor accommodation or retail premises)

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 5 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 116

• Licensee’s active participation in a precinct accord, if one is in existence ( which could include e.g. information-sharing between premises about banned customers or persons of interest) • Sufficiency of pedestrian space in the immediate area around the premise to accommodate anticipated numbers of passing and gathered non-patrons and safe dispersal of patrons • Degree of safe separation of pedestrian space from vehicle traffic outside and near to the premise’s public entrance and exit • Provision for end-of-night cleansing routines of the exterior perimeter and immediate vicinity • Ease of accessibility for emergency services • Licensee’s record as a best practice operator.

2.2.5 The following maximum trading hours and one-way door restrictions apply to all on-licensed premises that are taverns/bars/pubs/clubs in Christchurch Central Area B:

Christchurch Central Area B covers the area as shown in blue on Map 1 which includes the Category 2 Entertainment Precinct for Victoria Street.

Maximum trading hours Taverns/bars/pubs/clubs Monday to Sunday 8am until 1 am the following day One-way door restriction Discretionary condition where appropriate

2.2.6 The following maximum trading hours and one-way door restrictions apply to all on-licensed premises that are taverns/bars/pubs/clubs in suburban centres and rural townships:

Maximum trading hours Taverns/bars/pubs/clubs Monday to Sunday 8am until 1am the following day One-way door restriction Discretionary condition where appropriate

Note: Where a LAP does not specify maximum trading hours, the default maximum trading hours in the Act apply. However, on any licensing application, the District Licensing Committee has a discretion to set the permitted trading hours as more restrictive than the default trading hours. Similarly, where a LAP does set maximum trading hours, the District Licensing Committee also has a discretion to set the permitted trading hours as more restrictive than the maximum trading hours in the LAP.

2.3 Special licences:

2.3.1 The following one-way door restrictions apply to all premises in respect of which an on-site special licence is issued:

One-way door restriction Discretionary condition where appropriate

Note: The hours (opening and closing) and duration of a special licence are set, having regard to the nature of the event or series of events. Special licences may be issued both for off-site consumption (e.g. wine sales from a market stall) or for on site consumption, e.g. at a private function or when a bar has a special licence to open earlier/close later for significant events. Generally for premises holding existing on-licences, the conditions of a special licence premises will specify a closing time no more than two hours later than permitted by their on-licence and the terms of special licences for premises outside Christchurch Central Area A of Map 1 of the LAP, generally require premises to close at/before 1am.

2.3.2 The following maximum trading hours apply to all premises in respect of which a special licence is issued:

Maximum trading hours Monday to Sunday Up to 24 hours per day

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 6 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 117

2.4 Location of premises:

2.4.1 From the date this LAP comes into force, no further off-licences are to be issued for any premises being a bottle store unless that bottle store is located on land zoned ‘Business’ or ‘Town Centre’, or, in the case of a green-fields growth area, located on land zoned ‘Living G’ provided that the Living G zoned site of the proposed bottle store is within a business area shown on an Outline Development Plan approved by the Council’.

2.4.2 From the date this LAP comes into force, no further on-licences are to be issued for any premises being a tavern unless that tavern is located on land zoned ‘Business’ or ‘Town Centre’, or in the case of a green-fields growth area, located on land zoned ‘Living G’, provided that the Living G zoned site of the proposed tavern is within a business area shown on an Outline Development Plan approved by the Council.

Note: The LAP can go further than the district plan or be more restrictive in its provisions but cannot permit activities not allowed by the District Plan. The operative district plan for Christchurch City provides for licensed premises either within the Business and Town Centre zones or by resource consent.

2.5 Discretionary conditions:

Note: The Act provides for the LAP to include policies to guide the District Licensing Committee and the Alcohol Regulatory Licensing Authority as to discretionary conditions that are appropriate. This policy guidance is in addition to the particular provisions of the Act in relation to discretionary conditions including s117 of the Act which permits the Committee and Authority to issue any licence subject to “any reasonable conditions not inconsistent with this Act”.

2.5.1 On-licences

Conditions relating to the following matters may be appropriate for on-licensed premises:

• Provision of additional security (staff) after ‘x’ hour • The installation and operation of CCTV cameras on the exterior of, and within premises • Provision of effective exterior lighting • Restrictions on the size (e.g. ‘doubles’) and time of ‘last orders’ • Management of patrons queuing to enter the licensed premise • Restriction on the use of outdoor areas after ‘x’ hour • ‘One-way door’ restrictions • That where a licence is granted for the first time (first time meaning premises where the prospective licensee has never held a liquor licence previously or is operating a premises that has never been a licensed premises before), the trading hours are more restrictive than the maximum trading hours contained in this LAP.

The following conditions may be appropriate for on-licensed premises such as BYO restaurants:

• Qualified manager to be on duty during busy periods e.g. Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights • That where a licence is granted for the first time (first time meaning premises where the prospective licensee has never held a liquor licence previously or is operating a premises that has never been a licensed premises before), the trading hours are more restrictive than the maximum trading hours contained in this LAP.

Conditions relating to the following matters may be appropriate for on-licensed Club premises depending on the size and nature of the club:

• A requirement for a qualified manager to be present when alcohol is available for sale during busy periods e.g. more than 100 people are on the Club premises. Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 7 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 118

2.5.2 Off-licences

Conditions relating to the following matters are appropriate for bottle stores:

• Supervised designation of all bottle stores to ensure unaccompanied minors do not enter bottle stores • Display of safe drinking messages/material

2.5.3 Special licences:

Conditions relating to the following matters are appropriate for special licenses:

• Any special licence for a series of events should not be for a period exceeding 6 months • No premises should have more than 20 events under special licence in any 12-month period.

Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (LAP), resolved by the Committee of the Council, 7 October 2013 8 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 13 119

9 120 121

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 Clause 14

REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 6 MAY 2015

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. MAIN ROAD PARKING AT REDCLIFFS VILLAGE

Contact Contact Details David Adamson, Director Council Executive Leadership Team Facilities and Infrastructure Member responsible: Ross Herrett, Acting General Manager Officer responsible: Infrastructure Rebuild Author: Michael Thomson, Transport Engineer Y DDI: 941 8950

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Hagley/Ferrymead Board’s request to the Council for allocation of funding from Operating Surplus for raised platforms on Main Road in Redcliffs Village as outlined in the Main Road Master Plan.

The Board has approved under delegated authority parking provision changes on Main Road at the Redcliffs Village Shops.

1.2 This is a staff initiated report to the Board in response to the final outcome of the consultation relating to the installation of Traffic signals at the Main Road/Augusta Street intersection.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 While this current parking proposal is a result of the Augusta Street/Main Road traffic signals installation, there are a number of overlapping projects at this location, which have been reported to the Board, or the Board being aware of, as follows:-

(a) Coastal Pathway Project - reported to this Board at its 19 March 2014 meeting, followed by the Board’s Chairperson’s report to the Council at its meeting on 27 March 2014. (b) Main Road Master Plan, also reported to Council at its 27 March 2014 meeting. (c) Main Road earthquake kerb and channel/roadway repairs. (d) Augusta Street/Main Road traffic signals. These are the outcomes of significant negotiations with the Foodstuffs Company regarding the redevelopment of the Redcliffs New World supermarket.

2.2 The consequential parking removal required, as a direct result of the traffic signals met with opposition from the local business proprietors. Following consultation on this specific parking issue, a post reply paid information leaflet was distributed, detailing the indented parking bays as detailed on Attachment 1. There was support for the current proposal, as existing parking will be retained.

2.3 Board members will be aware of the originally proposed reduction of kerbside parking as a result of the Coastal Pathway project. Attachment 1 illustrates that all kerbside parking will be retained following consultation on that particular project.

2.4 The hearing panel for the Main Road Master plan made the following comments: "The hearing panel notes the various concerns raised about the concept design for the Redcliffs Village Centre roading design in relation to minimum width standards and loss of car parking. The hearings panel as such recommends that there is urgent public consultation on the detailed design proposed for this area of the plan that incorporates the SCIRT works and Main Road proposal."

122 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 6.5.2015

1 Cont'd

3. COMMENT

3.1 The recommendations before the Board relate to parking on the southwest side of Main road, either side of the Augusta Street intersection. The extent of the revocation and then reinstatement of kerbside restrictions, as detailed on Attachment 1 extends beyond the actual proposed indented parking bays. This is to facilitate a section of continuous, (but separate from other sections) kerbside restriction that is to be contained within the one approval /resolution. The approval /resolution of the bus stop on the southeast side of Augusta Street, formalises this bus stop.

3.2 These resolutions – to provide additional parking, take account of the community consultation and hearings panel comments.

3.3 The parking bays have been consulted on and the final layout has received full support from adjacent businesses. One bay was amended as a result of concerns from the Dentist.

3.4 The Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

3.5 The Council has delegated the authority to install parking and stopping restrictions in this part of Christchurch to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board.

3.6 The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

3.7 The recommendations align with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012 – 2042.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 This project is estimated to cost $40,000 and is to be funded from the Kerb and Channel Renewal Programme.

5. BOARD CONSIDERATION

The Board considered the report on this matter, was advised of consultation undertaken on Main Road parking and that the report is seeking approval of the concept plan and the principle of the work, not approval of the detailed work.

The Board received tabled correspondence from Peter Croft, property owner in Redcliffs, raising concerns with the report on Main Road Parking at Redcliffs Village and the report recommendations. The Board decided to request that the Infrastructure Rebuild Liaison Manager contact Peter Croft to respond to the matters raised.

6. BOARD DECISION

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolved to adopt the staff recommendations:

6.1 Approve the kerb alignment changes (indented parking bays) outside 176,184 and 186 Main Road, as detailed on Attachment 1.

6.2 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 124 metres be revoked.

6.3 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 56 metres be revoked. 123 28. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 6.5.2015

1 Cont'd

6.4 Approve that the stopping and parking of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

6.5 Approve that the stopping and parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at a point 33 metres northwest of Augusta Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 40 metres.

6.6 Approve that the stopping and parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at a point 78 metres northwest of Augusta Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 46 metres.

6.7 Approve that the stopping and parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

6.8 Approve the a bus stop be installed on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at a point 27 metres southeast of its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

6.9 Approve that the stopping and parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Main Road, commencing at a point 41 metres southeast of its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

7. BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

The Board decided to request that the Council allocate funding of $80,000 from Operating Surplus to be used to fund raised platforms on Main Road in Redcliffs Village, as outlined in the Main Road Master Plan, to allow synergy with the current SCIRT works.

The Board noted that this request be presented to the Council by way of a Chairperson's Report at the earliest opportunity.

Staff Note: Although Council's operating result is forecast to be better than planned it is still being funded by borrowing. Therefore there is no surplus to be allocated to other projects.

124 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 6.5.2015

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1

125 Clause 15 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

JOINT REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS AND HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARDS 18 AND 20 MAY 2015

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. GLOUCESTER STREET AND GAYHURST ROAD BRIDGE AND APPROACHES

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team General Manager, Culture Leisure and N Member responsible: Parks Officer responsible: Joint Interim Manager, Transport and N City Streets Author: Mark Millar, Senior Traffic Engineer Y DDI: 941 5289

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the recommendation of the Hagley/Ferrymead and Burwood/Pegasus Community Boards that the Council approve interim safety improvements to the approaches to the new Gayhurst Road Bridge. The Boards are also asked to approve the safety improvement matters that fall under their delegated authority.

1.2 This is a staff initiated report in response to the reopening of the Gayhurst Road Bridge and associated traffic management changes required.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 This report details the proposed safety works at the Gloucester Street/Avonside Drive intersection and its approaches. This proposal is an interim measure until more is known about developments in the red zone and future traffic flows.

2.2 The proposal includes staggering the intersection of Gloucester Street and Avonside Drive, and installing Stop controls on the east and west approaches of Avonside Drive to Gloucester Street. Other features include narrowing the Gayhurst Road approach to the new bridge, shared pedestrian/cycle paths on the bridge and its approaches, and give way controls to cyclists crossing the Avonside Drive/Gloucester Street intersection on the shared path.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Damage was sustained to the Gloucester Street/Gayhurst Road Bridge as a result of the earthquakes. The bridge was demolished in 2014 and a new bridge has been constructed in the same location. The new bridge is scheduled to open in the middle of this year, with a specific date yet to be determined.

3.2 Gayhurst Road and Gloucester Street are currently designated as Collector Roads. When the Gayhurst Road Bridge reopens it will again provide a key link between the city and residential suburbs to the north.

3.3 A large portion of the land immediately to the north and northwest of the intersection of Gloucester Street and Avonside Drive is now red zoned.

3.4 Traffic signals at the Avonside Drive intersection with Gloucester Street were installed in 1994, and were removed because of bridge construction works. 126 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

3.5 A proposal last year to close Avonside Drive by forming a cul-de-sac at the eastern approach to Gloucester Street was presented to a Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board pre-consultation seminar on 14 July 2014. Three days later the Council resolved: “That the Council has not approved consultation on the stopping of roads in the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward and request that an urgent report be prepared that covers details of the proposal, the process and the funding model for referral to the Board and the Council.”

3.6 The proposal was effectively put on hold and the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board also indicated that extensive consultation with the community should take place before any changes to roading in this area or decisions on the future use of red zone land.

3.7 The Hagley/Ferrymead and Burwood/Pegasus Community Boards were briefed on developments in the red zone at a joint seminar on 23 March 2015 and were advised that the replacement Gayhurst Road Bridge was due to be completed mid 2015. They were also shown the current consultation plan outlining traffic changes on the bridge and its approaches. This proposal would be reviewed when more information was available about developments in the red zone and future traffic movements.

3.8 Approved roading plans must be implemented before the bridge can reopen.

4. COMMENT

4.1 The boundary between the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward and the Burwood/Pegasus Ward runs along the middle of the Avon River. As a result, this report contains recommendations for both Community Boards. A report was presented to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board on 18 May 2015 with the remaining project resolutions, and the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board on 20 May 2015. Each Board will consider resolutions relating specifically to the ward that they represent.

4.2 It is proposed to stagger the intersection of Avonside Drive and Gloucester Street and install Stop controls on the west and east approaches to the intersection on Avonside Drive. The Avonside Drive approaches to Gloucester Street will be narrowed to a single three metre lane. This will allow traffic on either side of Avonside Drive to cross Gloucester Street safely. Right turning vehicles off Gloucester Street will be able to wait for any oncoming traffic on a central flush median.

4.3 The proposal narrows the road width on the Gayhurst Road approach to the Avonside Drive intersection in order to slow traffic and provide space for landscaping and a shared pedestrian/cycle path on the eastern and western sides of Gayhurst Road. Landscaping will physically separate vehicles and cyclists in the reconstructed section of Gayhurst Road.

4.4 It is proposed to provide shared pedestrian and cycle paths on the bridge and its approaches. Give Way controls will be installed to indicate cyclists should Give Way to traffic when travelling north and south through the intersection of Gloucester Street, Avonside Drive.

4.5 This interim proposal will provide safe movement of traffic across the new Gayhurst Road Bridge and through the Avonside Drive/Gloucester Street intersection for all road users.

4.6 Prior to the installation of traffic signals in 1994, this intersection had a high number of crashes, the majority of which were east-west traffic on Avonside Drive colliding with north-south traffic on Gloucester Street. 127 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

4.7 The volume of east-west traffic on Avonside Drive has reduced significantly and is expected to remain low. The proposed design encourages motor vehicles to use Woodham Road (an arterial road) and Gloucester Street (a collector road) rather than using Patten Street, Retreat Road and Avonside Drive to access Avonside Drive (east).

4.8 Provision will be made in the proposal for future construction of the Avon/Otakaro Major Cycleway Route proposed in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan by building up the southern bank of the river.

4.9 There are currently no on-road cycle facilities on Gayhurst Road and Gloucester Street. The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan identifies both as recreational routes. In addition, with the vacant red zoned land immediately north of the Avon River on Gayhurst Road, vehicle operating speeds are likely to be higher than in built up areas. For these reasons, it is proposed to provide cycle facilities along Gayhurst Road, Gloucester Street and through the intersection of Gloucester Street and Avonside Drive.

4.10 It is proposed to close Dallington Terrace, Locksley Avenue and Rupert Place where they intersect with Gayhurst Road as detailed on Attachment 1.

5. CONSULTATION

5.1 The consultation plan for the Gayhurst Road Bridge and its approaches was considered by the Hagley/Ferrymead and Burwood Pegasus Community Boards at the joint meeting on 23 March 2015.

5.2 The consultation leaflet, Gayhurst Road Bridge and Approaches – proposed interim safety works, was delivered to 580 properties and also sent to other key stakeholders on 7 April 2015.

5.3 Of the 25 respondents, 16 generally supported the plan, four did not support it, and five did not indicate a view.

5.4 Four submitters commented on the need for pedestrian and/or cycle links between Locksley Avenue, Gayhurst Road and Dallington Avenue. Pedestrian and cyclist connections to the bridge on the north side of the river have not been constructed. The priority is for through traffic – pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles – to travel from Gloucester Street to Gayhurst Road over the new bridge. The Council will need to provide access over Gayhurst Road for pedestrians and cyclists if access to this area remains.

5.5 Another four submitters expressed concern about visibility, particularly the right hand turn from Avonside Drive onto the bridge. The project team has responded that visibility will not be an issue because Avonside Drive will be raised to tie in with the Gayhurst Road Bridge vertical alignment.

5.6 The absence of traffic signals in the consultation plan was not supported by five respondents who regarded this form of traffic control as the safest option. They were informed that the traffic signals were removed during construction of the bridge and will not be replaced as part of the current proposal. Without the signals, the intersection could not be left as a four-arm crossroads because of the historic crash record prior to the installation of the lights. As a result the intersection has been staggered with a flush median for right turning traffic. The removal of the signals will provide space for the Avon/Otakaro Major Cycleway Route. 128 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

5.7 Four submitters referred to the single lane approaches from Avonside Drive to Gloucester Street, meaning that right turning traffic may slow traffic flow. The proposed road layout encourages motor vehicles to use Woodham Road (an arterial road) and Gloucester Street (a collector road) rather than using Patten Street, Retreat Road and Avonside Drove to access Avonside Drive east.

5.8 Concerns about the safety of cyclists were expressed by four respondents. Submitters were told that different options have been considered for the intersection and the proposed layout will provide the safest option of all road users. Cyclists have been provided with a direct crossing point on Gloucester Street which is proposed on the shared path. This is part of the proposed Avon/Otakaro Major Cycle Route. This interim plan will be reviewed as the proposals for the red zone are developed.

5.9 Two submissions related to bus services. Environment Canterbury has indicated that the Orbiter will resume using the Gloucester Street/Gayhurst Road route when the bridge reopens. Two bus stops are located just south of the bridge but there will be no stops in the project area’s red zone. The 3.5 metre wide traffic lanes designed to help slow traffic on the northern approach to bridge, will allow for buses and emergency vehicles.

5.10 Pedestrian safety was also raised by two submitters. The narrowing of the road will reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians.

5.11 Concern has been expressed about the possible loss of parking outside the dairy on the corner of Gloucester Street and Avonside Drive. One additional car park is proposed on Avonside Drive by the dairy. However, one existing car park will need to be removed to make way for the proposed build-out in front of the dairy.

5.12 As a result of the consultation and further technical advice, the below amendment to the plan for the Community Board decision and recommendation and Council approval is for:

5.12.1 The no stopping lines (along the tree lined area on the carriageway) on the north side of Gayhurst Bridge, on both sides of the road has been extended. This is to address safety concerns and to ensure vehicles do not park on this portion of the carriageway.

5.13 A consultation summary letter has been sent to all submitters, together with the plan for Community Board approval, details of the Community Board meetings, how to request speaking rights and a copy of all the submissions (with names/addresses removed for privacy reasons) and project team responses.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 A betterment contribution of $668,000 for the installation of the traffic calming measures was recommended to the Council on 20 December 2013. Council deferred, subject to consultation and engagement with the local community. Funding for Gayhurst Bridge betterment is still available for this project from the Council Building and Infrastructure betterment borrowing allowance should Council wish to apply them to this project. The roading construction funding will be from the earthquake repair budget as part of the cost sharing agreement. 129 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD:

It is recommended that the Council:

7.1 Approve an allocation of $668,000 from the Council Infrastructure/Building betterment borrowing allowance for the Gayhurst Road Bridge to fund both the Hagley/Ferrymead and Burwood/Pegasus improvements.

Gloucester Street/Avonside Drive Intersection – Traffic Control

7.2 Approve that all traffic controls including traffic signals at the original alignment of the intersection of Gloucester Street and Avonside Drive be revoked.

7.3 Approve that all traffic controls on Gloucester Street from the original alignment of its intersection with Avonside Drive to a point 13 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive, at the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River, be revoked.

7.4 Approve that all traffic controls on Gloucester Street from the original alignment of its intersection with Avonside Drive to a point 36 metres south of the original alignment of its intersection with Avonside Drive be revoked.

7.5 Approve that all traffic controls on Avonside Drive from the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street to a point 72 metres east of the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street, be revoked.

7.6 Approve that all traffic controls on Avonside Drive from the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street to a point 55 metres west of its intersection with Gloucester Street be revoked.

7.7 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes, footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Gloucester Street at the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive.

7.8 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes, footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Gloucester Street at the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive and extending to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward in the centre of the Avon River, at a point 29 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive.

7.9 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes, footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Gloucester Street at the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive and extending to a point 35 metres south of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive.

7.10 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes, footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Avonside Drive at the intersection of Avonside Drive with Gloucester Street and extending to a point 72 metres east of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive.

7.11 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes, footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Avonside Drive at the intersection of Avonside Drive with Gloucester Street and extending to a point 55 metres west of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive. 130 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

7.12 Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound cycles only, be established on the east side Gloucester Street, against the kerb commencing at a distance of 20 metres south of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

7.13 Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles only, be established on the west side Gloucester Street, against the kerb commencing at a distance of 20 metres south of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 7 metres. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

Gloucester Street/Avonside Drive Intersection- Shared Pathways – Traffic Control

7.14 Approve that the pathway on the west side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 29 metres to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.15 Approve that the pathway on the west side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.16 Approve that the pathway on the east side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 18 metres to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.17 Approve that the pathway on the east side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.18 Approve that the pathway on the north side of Avonside Drive commencing at its intersection with Gloucester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 29 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.19 Approve that the pathway on the north side of Avonside Drive commencing at its intersection with Gloucester Street, and extending in an westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. 131 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD:

It is recommended that the Council:

7.1 Approve an allocation of $668,000 from the Council Infrastructure/Building betterment borrowing allowance for the Gayhurst Road Bridge to fund both the Hagley/Ferrymead and Burwood/Pegasus improvements.

7.2 Approve that the Council authorisation, in pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3 (1) of the Land Transport Rule-Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, to the head teacher of Saint Pauls Primary School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the school crossing point as specified on Gayhurst Road, located at a point 94 metres north of its intersection with Rupert Place, be revoked.

7.3 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes (including separation kerb between bicycles and motor vehicles), footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Gloucester Street north of the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward in the centre of the Avon River extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gayhurst Road, Locksley Avenue and Dallington Terrace.

7.4 Approve the lane marking changes, kerb build out changes, kerb alignment changes, (including separation kerb between bicycles and motor vehicles), footpath alignment changes, and raised textured surfaces on Gayhurst Road from its intersection with Gayhurst Road, Locksley Avenue and Dallington Terrace and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 230 metres.

7.5 Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound bicycles only, be established on the west side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a distance of 84 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 205 metres. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

7.6 Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound bicycles only, be established on the east side of Gayhurst Road, commencing at a distance of 73 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 185 metres. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

7.7 Approve that the pathway on the west side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 54 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. 132 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

7.8 Approve that the pathway on the east side of Gloucester Street commencing at a point 44 metres north of its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.9 Approve that the pathway on the west side of Gayhurst Road commencing at a point 54 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, be resolved as a bi- directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

7.10 Approve that the pathway on the east side of Gayhurst Road commencing at a point 44 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 31 metres, be resolved as a bi- directional shared pedestrian/cycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

8. BOARD CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD

The Board received staff advice that once the bridge was open the Orbiter and other bus routes, and associated bus stops, will be reinstated. An upgrade to traffic lights would be considered in the future. Parking had been provided for the Gloucester Street Dairy. Staff undertook to consider the matters raised by Mark Beanland of the Dallington Residents Association in his deputation to the meeting.

8.2 BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD

The Board considered the report and discussed the layout which may change in the next five years depending on decisions on the use of residential red zone land. Foot bridges have been taken out for safety but will be put back at some stage. Abutments will be built on both sides of the road and a cycle lane project is coming in the future. Staff undertook to consider the matters raised by Mark Beanland of the Dallington Residents' Association.

9. BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD

That the Staff Recommendation be adopted.

Refer to Clause 1 continued (Part C) of these minutes for the Board's delegated decision on this matter.

9.2 BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD

That the staff recommendation be adopted.

Refer to Clause 1 continued (Part C) of these minutes for the Board's delegated decision on this matter.

133 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARDS

1. GLOUCESTER STREET AND GAYHURST ROAD BRIDGE APPROACHES (CONT'D)

HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD:

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council that it approve interim safety improvements to the approaches to the new Gayhurst Road Bridge. The Board were also asked to approve the safety improvement matters that fell under its delegated authority.

Subject to the Council approving items 1.1 to 1.19 (Part A) of these minutes, the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolved under delegated authority to:

Avonside Drive – West of its intersection w ith Gloucester Street – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

1.20 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the northern side of Avonside Drive commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 38 metres be revoked.

1.21 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Avonside Drive commencing at Gloucester Street, and extending in a westerly and a northerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

1.22 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the southern side of Avonside Drive commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres be revoked.

1.23 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Avonside Drive commencing at the new alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

Avonside Drive – East of its intersection with Gloucester Street – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

1.24 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the northern side of Avonside Drive commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres be revoked.

1.25 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Avonside Drive commencing at Gloucester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

1.26 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the southern side of Avonside Drive commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Gloucester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres be revoked.

1.27 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Avonside Drive commencing at Gloucester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

1.28 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 24 metres east of Gloucester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres. 134 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

Gloucester Street – South of its intersection w ith Avonside Drive – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

1.29 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the western side of Gloucester Street commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 40 metres be revoked.

1.30 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Gloucester Street commencing at Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 40 metres.

1.31 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the eastern side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 27 metres be revoked.

1.32 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

Gloucester Street – North of its intersection w ith Avonside Drive – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

1.33 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions located on the eastern side of Gloucester Street commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12.8 metres up to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River be revoked.

1.34 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Gloucester Street commencing at the original alignment of its intersection with Avonside Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres up to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River.

1.35 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Gloucester Street commencing at Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 29 metres up to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River be revoked.

1.36 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres up to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River.

Gloucester Street/Avonside Drive Intersection – Traffic Control

1.37 Approve that a Stop Control be placed against the west approach of Avonside Drive at its intersection with Gloucester Street.

1.38 Approve that a Stop Control be placed against the east approach of Avonside Drive at its intersection with Gloucester Street.

Gloucester Street / Avonside Drive Intersection- Shared Pathways – Traffic Control

1.39 Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the south approach of Gloucester Street at its intersection with Avonside Drive in the shared path on the western side of Gloucester Street.

1.40 Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the south approach of Gloucester Street at its intersection with Avonside Drive in the shared path on the eastern side of Gloucester Street. 135 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

1.41 Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the north approach of Gloucester Street at its intersection with Avonside Drive in the shared path on the western side of Gloucester Street.

1.42 Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the north approach of Gloucester Street at its intersection with Avonside Drive in the shared path on the eastern side of Gloucester Street.

Refer to Clause 1 (Part A) of these minutes for the Board's recommendation to the Council on this matter.

BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD:

The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council that it approve interim safety improvements to the approaches to the new Gayhurst Road Bridge. The Board were also asked to approve the safety improvement matters that fell under its delegated authority.

Subject to the Council approving Clauses 1.1 to 1.10 (Part A) of these minutes, the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolved under delegated authority to:

Gayhurst Road and Gloucester Street – North of the Av on River – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

1.11 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Gloucester Street commencing at the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward, at the centre of the Avon River, at a point 13 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 25 metres to the intersection of Gloucester Street, Locksley Avenue, Dallington Terrace and Gayhurst Road be revoked.

1.12 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Gayhurst Road commencing from the intersection of Gloucester Street, Dallington Terrace and Gayhurst Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 260 metres be revoked.

1.13 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Gloucester Street commencing from a point 54 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres to the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River.

1.14 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Gayhurst Road commencing from a point 54 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

1.15 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Gloucester Street commencing from the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River at a point 15 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres to the intersection of Gloucester Street, Locksley Avenue and Gayhurst Road be revoked.

1.16 Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Gayhurst Road commencing from the intersection of Gloucester Street, Locksley Avenue and Gayhurst Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 229 metres be revoked.

1.17 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Gloucester Street commencing from a point 44 metres north of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres to the Ward Boundary at the centre of the Avon River. 136 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

1 Cont'd

1.18 Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Gayhurst Road commencing from a point 44 metres of the intersection of Gloucester Street with Avonside Drive, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 230 metres.

Gayhurst Road – North of the Avon River – Traffic Control

1.19 Approve that all traffic controls on Gloucester Street from the Ward Boundary of the Burwood/Pegasus Ward with the Hagley/Ferrymead Ward at the centre of the Avon River extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Locksley Avenue, Dallington Terrace and Gayhurst Road be revoked.

1.20 Approve that all traffic controls including stop controls at the intersection of Gayhurst Road, Dallington Terrace and Locksley Avenue be revoked.

1.21 Approve that all traffic controls on Gayhurst Road from the intersection of Gloucester Street, Locksley Avenue, Dallington Terrace and Gayhurst Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 229 metres be revoked.

1.22 Approve that all traffic controls at the intersection of Rupert Place with Gayhurst Road be revoked.

1.23 Approve that the existing zebra pedestrian crossing on Gayhurst Road located at a point 72 metres north of its intersection with Rupert Place be revoked.

1.24 Approve that Locksley Avenue be closed at its intersection with Gayhurst Road.

1.25 Approve that Dallington Terrace be closed at its intersection with Gayhurst Road.

1.26 Approve that Rupert Place be closed at its intersection with Gayhurst Road.

Refer to Clause 1 (Part A) of these minutes for the Board's recommendation to the Council on this matter.

137 COUNCIL 28. 5. 2015

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 18. 5. 2015

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 20. 5. 2015

ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 1

138 139 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

16. LGFA - AMENDMENT TO DOCUMENTS

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Financial Officer Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance manager Author: Funds & Financial Policy Manager Y 941-8447

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 This report recommends the execution of certain changes to Council's borrowing documentation with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), for the purpose of:

1.1.1 Avoiding a potential increase in compliance requirements under the Financial Markets Conduct Act; and

1.1.2 Making some administrative adjustments to the documentation governing these borrowing arrangements.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Council sources the bulk of its borrowing requirements through the LGFA, which provides a collective debt-raising service for a range of local authorities across the country. Debt raised through LGFA is more reliable (in terms of the volume that can be borrowed) and a lower cost than debt raised through bank lending or Council issuing debt securities in its own name.

2.2 In essence, the arrangement involves four types of financial securities:

2.2.1 Shares in LGFA are owned by participating local authorities (including Christchurch City Council);

2.2.2 LGFA raises money by issuing debt securities in its own name to external investors;

2.2.3 These funds are on-lent to councils, by councils issuing debt securities in their individual names to LGFA; and

2.2.4 In order to meet regulatory and prudent requirements around liquidity and capital adequacy, LGFA issues "borrower notes" to borrowing councils - i.e. each time a council borrows through LGFA, a small portion of that borrowing is lent back to LGFA to support its financial stability and credit rating.

2.3 Only one of these four types of securities involves any outside party (LGFA's debt securities issued to external investors); it is LGFA's responsibility to ensure on-going legal and regulatory compliance for these. For the other three, the original documentation was designed to minimise compliance requirements, as the only parties involved were LGFA and the participating councils.

2.4 From 1 June 2015, the Financial Markets Conduct Act may impose increased compliance requirements on these three types of securities, unless the governing documentation is adjusted to ensure that both LGFA and participating councils fall within the definition of wholesale investor under the Act. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to achieve this objective. Affected documents are:

2.4.1 Equity Commitment Deed,

2.4.2 Multi-Issuer Deed, and

2.4.3 Note Subscription Agreement. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

16 Cont'd

2.5 Secondarily, LGFA has taken the opportunity to make some operational adjustments to the documents. Affected documents are:

2.5.1 Multi-Issuer Deed: provides for shorter notice periods when councils borrow from LGFA, plus some administrative changes;

2.5.2 Notes Subscription Agreement: removes the requirement for councils to invest in Borrower Notes where their borrowing through LGFA is in the form of commercial paper, plus an administrative change to the definition of the interest rate; and

2.5.3 Shareholder Agreement: provides for LGFA to enter into hedging arrangements with parties other than the government's Debt Management Office, plus some administrative changes.

The changes are required because of changes to the legislation and the initial proposal was received from LGFA late April.

The execution documents themselves were not received from Simpson Grierson until late Friday 15 May.

The legislation changes 1 June and Simpson Grierson have advised that LGFA will not do any more tenders until after all documents are completed, meaning that the June tender will be cancelled.

CCHL were intending to borrow through that tender.

3. COMMENT

3.1 The proposed amendments are considered to be administrative and non-controversial in nature, with no impact on the substance of or risks associated with Council's involvement with LGFA. The support of all participating councils is required, and is expected to be given.

3.2 The desired adjustments require each participating council to execute the relevant documents and return them to LGFA via Simpson Grierson. For Christchurch City Council, the required documents are:

3.2.1 Amendment Deed, to adjust the original Equity Commitment Deed (Appendix 1);

3.2.2 Amendment Deed, to adjust the original Multi-Issuer Deed (Appendix 2);

3.2.3 Amendment Deed, to adjust the original Notes Subscription Agreement (Appendix 3); and

3.2.4 An LGFA Shareholders' Resolution (Appendix 4), to adjust the original Shareholder Agreement (unlike the previous three, the Deed to adjust this Agreement will be executed by LGFA - the Council needs to execute a Shareholders' Resolution (as a shareholder of LGFA) to enable them to do this).

3.3 All documents have been provided by Simpson Grierson, who have confirmed that they are in an appropriate form for execution.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 None arising from the proposed amendments. Failure to obtain participating councils' approval would increase legal compliance relating to council borrowing through LGFA, in particular the need to develop product disclosure documents under the Financial Markets Conduct Act. In such circumstances, it might not be possible to access funding through LGFA until the issue had been resolved. 141 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

16 Cont'd

5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

5.1 Note that:

5.1.1 The proposed amendments to the documents governing the Council's borrowing arrangements with the Local Government Funding Agency are considered to be administrative and non-controversial in nature, and that accepting them will have no financial implications for the Council; and

5.1.2 The documents appended to this report have been provided by Simpson Grierson, and confirmed by them as in an appropriate form for Council execution.

5.2 Resolve to:

5.2.1 Accept and adopt the proposed amendments in the form appended to this report; and

5.2.2 Authorise two elected members to execute the following documents in the Council's name:

5.2.2.1 Amendment Deed relating to the Equity Commitment Deed (Appendix 1);

5.2.2.2 Amendment Deed relating to the Multi-Issuer Deed (Appendix 2);

5.2.2.3 Amendment Deed relating to the Notes Subscription Agreement (Appendix 3); and

5.2.2.4 An LGFA Shareholders' Resolution to amend the Shareholder Agreement (Appendix 4)

5.2.3 Authorise two elected members and the Chief Executive to complete whatever further forms or administrative matters may be required to enable these documents to achieve the objectives outlined in this report (Appendix 5).

142 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 143 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 144 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 145 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 146 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 147 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 148 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 149 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 150 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 151 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 152 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 153 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 154 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 155 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 156 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 157 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 158 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 159 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 160 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 161 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 162 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 163 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 164 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 165 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 166 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 167 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 168 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 169 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 170 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 171 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 172 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 173 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 174 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 175 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 176 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 177 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 178 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 179 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 180 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 181 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 182 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 183 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 184 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 185 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 186 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 187 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 188 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 189 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 190 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 191 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 192 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 193 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 194 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 195 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 196 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 197 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 198 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 199 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 200 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 201 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 202 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 203 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 204 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 205 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 206 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 207 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 208 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 209 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 210 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 211 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 212 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 213 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 214 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 215 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 216 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 217 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 218 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 219 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 220 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 221 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 222 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 223 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 224 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 225 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 226 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 227 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 228 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 16 229

CHIEF EXECUTIVE CERTIFICATE

I, Karleen Edwards, the Chief Executive of Christchurch City Council (Council) certify as follows:

1. RESOLUTIONS

1.1 The Council has, by all necessary resolutions duly passed (Resolutions):

(a) approved the transactions contemplated by the documents referred to in the schedule to this certificate (Documents), or delegated sufficient authority to the person(s) who has approved those transactions to give that approval; and

(b) authorised execution of the Documents by the Council, or delegated sufficient authority to the person(s) who authorised execution of the Documents to give that authorisation.

1.2 The Resolutions remain in full force and effect.

2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT

For the purposes of section 118 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Act), in entering into the Documents and performing its obligations under the Documents, and all other documentation contemplated by or entered into in connection with the Documents, the Council has complied with the Act.

3. DUE EXECUTION

The Documents have been properly executed by the Council.

4. ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATIONS

4.1 All necessary regulatory or statutory authorisations, consents, approvals or licenses in relation to the Council's entry into the Documents have been obtained and are current and satisfactory.

4.2 The representations and warranties set out in clause 6.1 of the multi-issuer deed (Multi-Issuer Deed) dated 7 December 2011 between, among others, the Council and New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Limited are true, accurate and correct in all material respects as of the date of this certificate by reference to the facts and circumstances existing on that date.

4.3 No Event of Default, Potential Event of Default or Event of Review (each as defined in the Multi-Issuer Deed) has occurred and is continuing in relation to the Council.

This certificate is given by me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Council in good faith on behalf of the Council and I shall have no personal liability in connection with the issuing of this certificate.

2889435 v1 1 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 16 230

DATED:

SIGNED:

______Karleen Edwards Chief Executive Christchurch City Council

2889435 v1 2

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 16 231

SCHEDULE "Documents"

1. Amendment and restatement deed dated on or before the date of this certificate in relation to the Equity Commitment Deed.

2. Amendment and restatement deed dated on or before the date of this certificate in relation to the Multi-Issuer Deed.

3. Amendment and restatement deed dated on or before the date of this certificate in relation to the Notes Subscription Agreement.

4. Ordinary resolution dated on or before the date of this certificate approving certain amendments to the Shareholders' Agreement.

Words and expressions defined in the Multi-Issuer Deed have the same meanings in this Schedule.

2889435 v1 3

232 233 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

17. WASTE BYLAW REVIEWS 2015

Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Chief Planning Officer Y Diane Campbell, ext. 8281 Officer responsible: Acting Strategic Policy Unit Manager Y Claire Bryant, ext. 8876 Author: Senior Policy Analyst Y Ruth Littlewood, ext. 5574

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

On 30 January 2014 the Council:

1.1 Noted the ten-year programme of bylaw reviews.

The purpose of this report is:

1.2 To report on the reviews of the Christchurch City Council solid and trade waste bylaws

1.3 To make the following recommendations to the Council; that the Council retain the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 and adopt for consultation the proposed Cleanfill and Licenced Waste Handling Bylaw 2015 and proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2015.

2. SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

2.1 Following amendments made to the LGA in 2014, the new Significance and Engagement Policy 2014 (the Policy) allows for greater clarity and certainty to the community on matters such as bylaw development or reviews.

2.2 Staff have assessed the two draft replacement waste bylaws according to ten criteria provided in the Policy guidance document1 including: a) the number of people affected and /or with an interest; b) the level of impact on those people most affected; and c) the level of community interest. Both the Cleanfill and Licenced Waste Handling Bylaw 2015 and the Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 are assessed as proposals of low significance in terms of the Policy. This is because in terms of the Policy's criteria, a relatively small number of people are affected by the bylaws, the changes will have a low level of impact on those directly affected and there is likely to be little community interest in the changes,

2.3 The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires councils to consult the public on new bylaws and bylaw amendments using either the special consultative procedure (section 83) or 'other' consultation (section 82). For proposals of low significance, s82 'other' consultation is generally considered appropriate. Staff recommend that the Council follow a similar process to an SCP but with more user friendly, simple documents. The proposed consultation process will include: public notices, sending a summary of the proposed bylaw changes to all stakeholders and those directly affected (current licensees under the Trade Waste, Cleanfill and Licensed Waste Handling bylaws) inviting written comments and providing for the hearing of oral submissions.

3. SUMMARY

3.1 The review of the Christchurch City Council four waste bylaws is part of the Council’s ten- year ‘rolling’ programme of bylaw reviews. Council staff have prepared this report following a staff review of the current bylaws: Trade Waste (2006), Licenced Waste Handling Facilities (2007), Cleanfill Licensing (2008) and Waste Management (2009).

3.2 Extensive input into the review and preparation of the draft bylaws has been provided by staff from the Water and Waste, Assets and Network, Legal Services and Compliance and Monitoring units. Staff of the Strategic Policy Unit have also consulted the Community Boards and invited input from other stakeholders e.g. Ngai Tahu, the zone committees (Canterbury Water Management Strategy) and Environment Canterbury. While there has been some interest in the bylaw reviews, there has been limited feedback to date from these parties.

1 Guidance notes for staff, Applying the Significance and Engagement Policy (2014) in Council decision‐making. Version 1, February 2015. 234 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

17. Cont'd

3.3 Following the initial consultation with units of the Council and the community boards, staff assessed the current bylaws, including analysis of current provisions and a range of alternative provisions. For each bylaw, staff considered whether it would be preferable to retain the current bylaw, amend the bylaw or to make a new (replacement) bylaw. A summary analysis for the proposed new (replacement) bylaws including reasons for the staff recommendations are provided in the ‘Section 155 Reports’ (Attachments 1) and (Attachment 3).

3.4 The s155 review of the 2009 Waste Management Bylaw (Attachment 5) found that this bylaw remains fit-for purpose and staff recommend that Council retain the 2009 Waste Management Bylaw unchanged. However staff propose minor amendments to the terms and conditions of the 2009 bylaw. While the Council could resolve to amend terms and conditions without going through a formal consultation process, staff propose a public consultation process alongside that for the bylaw proposals.

3.5 The staff considered the option of making amendments to the current Trade Waste (2006), Licenced Waste Handling Facilities (2007), and Cleanfill Licensing (2008) bylaws but concluded that, having regard to the large number of changes required, that the preferable option would be to draft two replacement bylaws, the Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 (Attachment 2) and a combined bylaw, the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Bylaw 2015 (Attachment 4).

4. BACKGROUND

4.1 Councils are required to periodically review all bylaws made under the Local Government Act 2002, and the review of the Christchurch City Council waste bylaws is part of Council’s ongoing bylaw review programme. In order to support the current review, staff have prepared ‘Section 155 'reports’ on the review of the current bylaws, and their proposed replacements which are discussed below in Section 5 of this report.

5. COMMENT Review of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2006 5.1 Staff have identified a considerable number of (mostly minor) improvements which should be made to the 2006 bylaw and therefore recommend that rather than amending numerous bylaw clauses, that Council replace the 2006 Trade Waste bylaw with a new Trade Waste Bylaw 2015.

5.2 The most significant proposed change is to the "Permitted discharge characteristics" (clause 2.4 of Schedule 1A) of the 2006 bylaw. Under the 2006 bylaw, discharges of fats, (including oils and grease) which are not derived from animals or vegetables cannot exceed a maximum concentration of 200grams per cubic metre, while animal and vegetable fats are allowed a higher concentration (up to 500grams per cubic metre). The proposal in the draft bylaw is to reduce the maximum concentration for animal and vegetable fats to the same level as these other fats i.e. 200grams per cubic metre of trade waste. This change will ensure that many of our trade waste customers who generate large amounts of greasy wastewater are pre-treating their discharge more effectively, and to the same standard enforced by other councils e.g. Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. There will be a transitional provision for the coming into force of this change.

5.3 The proposed amendment should lead to increased protection of the Council's sewerage system and a reduction in Council's costs in repairing and maintaining the network. Reducing the amount of fat, which enters the CCC wastewater network will reduce the likelihood of sewage overflows (an ongoing concern) and reduce the cost of clearing fat within the network (this year to date $130,000; with an additional $49,500 spent on responding to fat blockages).

235 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

17. Cont'd

5.4 There are perhaps 500 currently 'registered' trade waste dischargers who may be impacted by the proposed changes in terms of additional one-off or relatively minor ongoing costs e.g. more frequent cleaning of grease traps or additional plumbing or drainage work.

While in terms of the criteria under the Significance and Engagement Policy the impact of such additional costs is considered to be of 'low' significance this bylaw proposal is likely to generate a high level of interest from those directly affected. In addition the council has to comply with the (additional) requirements of s148 of the LGA for trade waste bylaws. For these reasons the proposed consultation will be more extensive than the standard s 82 process; it includes notification of the Minister of Health and a two month consultation period (as required by s148). In addition, all (1000+) registered and consented dischargers of trade waste will be invited to make a submission and sent a consultation document which includes a summary of the bylaw changes and submission form.

5.5 The other proposed changes to the trade waste bylaw update, clarify or improve the wording and format of the 2006 bylaw but do not have a significant effect on most discharges of tradewaste. They include:

Clause 2(a) Expanded purpose clause to read "to protect public health and the environment". This will make it clear that one of the purposes of the trade waste bylaw is to control trade waste discharges for public health purposes. New clause 17 This clause deal with 'tankered' waste more effectively than the 2006 bylaw. Clause 17 sets out clear and specific requirements for disposal of 'tankered' waste in comparison with the 2006 bylaw. Clause 5 Definitions Includes for clarification a definition of hydro excavation wastewater. The use of high pressure water to drill holes (hydro excavation) is a 'new' technique for excavation. Excavation waste does not come within the definition of tradewaste and continues to be excluded from the network. Clause 18 A new provision about trade waste agreements. This clause recognises and provides for written agreements with occupiers for the discharge and reception of trade wastes into the sewerage system. Agreements made by made in addition to or in place of a consent. Clause 10 Amendments including an additional explanatory note to clarify the application process for permitted trade waste discharges and consented trade waste discharges. Improvements to the wording in relation to: Clause 8 Classification of discharges and Clause 19, technical reviews and variations of trade waste consents. Clause 20 Clarifying that payment of charges is required by the due date Clauses 24, 25, 26 & 27 Amendments to clarify the requirements for flow metering, estimating discharges, sampling and analysis, and monitoring.

In addition throughout the bylaw there is more consistent use of terms e.g. "occupiers" rather than dischargers, additional explanatory notes and minor improvements to wording, numbering and format.

Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 and Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007

5.6 These two bylaws provide for the handling and management of waste. The management and disposal of contaminated waste is dealt with under other legislation e.g. HSNO Act. The operations the current bylaws regulate have much in common e.g.in some cases waste handling occurs in conjunction with and on the same site as clean fill deposition. Having carried out an s155 review of these bylaws (Attachment 3) staff conclude that the preferred option is to merge the two bylaws and make a single replacement bylaw the draft Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015.

236 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

17. Cont'd

5.7 The number of people directly affected by the proposed bylaw is 'low' (approximately 30, the number of existing cleanfill and waste handling facility licence holders) and the level of impact on these people affected, largely the annual costs to operators (annual compliance and monitoring fees) is similarly assessed as 'low'. The level of wider community interest is also expected to be low. The recommended consultation is standard one month public consultation as per S 82 of the LGA. All licence holders will be individually notified of the proposed bylaw changes.

5.8 The main changes in the proposed new bylaw are: Clause 3 Including this clause, a Purpose clause in the new bylaw. The 2007 and 2008 bylaws both lacked a 'Purpose' clause. Clause 3c Improvements to ensure that Council can collect more accurate waste data and information to meet the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. Clause 4 A reduction in the amount of vegetative matter from 2 per cent to 1 per cent that can be disposed of with natural hardfill and 'other hardfill'. In 2008 the hearings panel recommended that the vegetative content be changed from 2 to 1 per cent at the time of the next(this current) review of the Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw. Clause 4 Addition of new or improved definitions in the interpretations clause including hydro- excavation material (note, also included in the definitions within the Trade Waste Bylaw). Clause 4 The definition of 'other hardfill' has been moved from the schedule and included within the definitions of the new bylaw. Clause 4 Deletion of Gib board, MDF, particleboard, plywood, roofing iron and untreated timber as materials which qualify as 'other hardfill'2. These materials were listed in Schedule A (Licensed Materials) of the 2008 cleanfill bylaw. The reason for this change is that, taking a precautionary approach, these materials are not considered to be inert (i.e. their components could leach into the water table). Under the new bylaw, these materials will be required to be sent to landfill or otherwise recovered at source. Clause 4 Allow the Council to set licence and annual fees through the Annual or Long-Term Plan 'l fees and charges'. Currently, any change to fees requires a bylaw amendment. Clause 7.1(b) Introduce an annual licensing fee for waste handling operations to cover the costs of monitoring these facilities. Under the current bylaw there is a single one off charge when the licence is issued for a period of 10 years.

5.9 The Council is required under the Waste Minimisation Act to monitor and manage waste generated within the district. Christchurch City has faced particular challenges in this regard as a result of earthquake related demolitions. Overall the changes are designed to enable the Council to better monitor and manage waste handling and the deposition of cleanfill, including for some temporary waste handling operations which have been developed following the 2011 earthquakes.

Waste Management Bylaw 2009

5.10 This bylaw provides standards for waste collected via the Council's district wide kerbside and transfer station services. (It does not set out the levels of service for these activities, which are decided in the long term and annual planning processes.) Staff have prepared an s155 report on this bylaw (Attachment 5) and recommend no changes to this bylaw. This bylaw is still considered to be fit-for-purpose although staff recommend some minor changes to the associated Terms and Conditions as follows.

2 'Gib board, MDF, particleboard, plywood, roofing iron and untreated timber ‐ total less than 1% by volume per load' 237 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

17. Cont'd

Terms & Conditions for Waste Management Bylaw 2009

5.11 The Terms & Conditions (T&C) are not part of the bylaw, therefore, any changes can be made by Council resolution and no specific consultation is required. However, staff propose to issue a public notice in conjunction with notification of the bylaws, advising the public of proposed changes. The main changes proposed include: Clause 4 - clarification of the volumes of the standard set of three wheelie bins. Clause 10 - a clause which allows, at Council's discretion for some property occupiers, a rubbish-only service to be provided in place of bin collection. Clause 12 (i) - providing greater clarity and detail for what recyclable materials Council will accept, are able to be mechanically and financially recovered. Clause 15 (v) - confirming the current bylaw policy of charging the replacement cost for a wheelie bin where the property owner or occupier fails to notify Council within twenty-four hours of a wheelie bin having been stolen. Clause19 - stating that cardboard may not be placed on the street by private commercial operators for collection.

Legal issues 5.12 Section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) provides for the review of bylaws. The first review must happen within five years of a bylaw being made and subsequently, within ten years of the date of any (previous) review. As the Council’s current waste bylaws replaced existing bylaws, the statutory deadline for the next review is within 10 years of the last review. The Council has endorsed a ten year bylaw review programme which brings forward the review of these bylaws and avoids the problem of having a large number of reviews being undertaken simultaneously.

5.13 Section 160(1) of the Act requires a local authority to review a bylaw by making the determinations required by section 155; whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; and, if a bylaw is considered the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem, before making the bylaw, whether the proposed bylaw (a) is the most appropriate form of the bylaw; and (b) gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the bylaw must also be consistent with the NZBORA).

5.14 Following the review of a bylaw and the local authority’s ‘determinations’ as to whether or not to make a new bylaw or to amend an existing bylaw the community is consulted in terms of s82 or s83 (special consultation procedure). No consultation is required to retain an existing bylaw unaltered.

5.15 In addition to the specific statutory requirements above, the law requires that any bylaw must be an intra vires (within the statutory powers that authorise the bylaw), certain and reasonable. There is a considerable body of case law on ‘reasonableness’ in the bylaw context. The Courts have noted that in ascertaining the reasonableness of a bylaw, they will look to the surrounding facts, including the nature and condition of the locality in which it is to take effect, the problem it seeks to solve or proposes to remedy and whether public or private rights are unnecessarily or unjustly affected.

Section 155 Reports 5.16 Staff have prepared reports (Attachments 1, 3 and 5) to assist the Council in making the determinations required by section 155 of the Act. A Section 155 report makes an assessment as to whether a bylaw is needed and whether an amended bylaw or new bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing any perceived problems. The reports provide a summary of bylaw options and conclusions as to the preferred option.

Conclusions 5.17 Staff conclude that following the review of the Council's waste bylaws as outlined above, it would be appropriate for the Christchurch City Council to retain the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 unchanged while amending its terms and conditions, and to make two replacement bylaws: the Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 and the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015.

238 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

17. Cont'd

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The cost of public notices and general communications related to the consultation process will be funded through the City and Community Long-term Planning and Policy Activity budget.

7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That staff recommend to Council:

7.1 That the Council, in respect of its review of the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 and the Terms and Conditions under the bylaw:

(a) Receives the section 155 report (Attachment 5); and (b) Resolves to retain the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 which meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that: (i) The bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; and Is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and (iii) Does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (c) Resolves that the Council's intention to amend the Terms and Conditions is publicly notified for community input.

7.2 That the Council, in respect of its review of the Trade Waste Bylaw 2006 and its proposal for a replacement bylaw: Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2015:

(a) Receives the section 155 report (Attachment 1) (b) Resolves that the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 (Attachment 2) meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that: (i) A bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; and (ii) The proposed bylaw, subject to the outcome of consultation with the community is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and (iii) The proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (c) Resolves that the the proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 is adopted for consultation.

7.3 That the Council, in respect of its review of the Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 and of the Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007 and its proposal for a replacement bylaw: Christchurch City Council Cleanfill and Waste handling Operations Bylaw 2015

(a) Receives the section 155 report (Attachment 3) (b) Resolves that the proposed Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015 (Attachment 4) meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, in that: (i) A bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem; and (ii) The proposed bylaw, subject to the outcome of consultation with the community is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and (iii) The proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under, and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (c) Resolves that the the proposed Cleanfill and Waste handling Operations Bylaw 2015 is adopted for consultation.

7.4 Resolves that the consultation documents be made available for public inspection at Council Service Centres, Council Libraries and on the Council’s website during the consultation period, and authorise staff to determine the form of the consultation documents and the specific persons and/or organisations to whom the consultation documents will be distributed.

7.5 Resolves that a hearings panel be appointed to hear submissions on the proposed bylaws and the changes to the terms and conditions, deliberate on those submissions and to report back to the Council on the final form of the bylaws by November 2015. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 239

Review of the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2006 / Proposed Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2015

Section 155 Report Introduction 1. Currently the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2006 regulates the management of trade waste discharges into public sewers in order to:  protect the Council's sewerage system infrastructure and storm water system;  provide a basis for monitoring discharges from industry and trade premises and for charging trade waste users of the sewerage system; 2. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), the Council is required to review its bylaws at five and then ten yearly intervals. The Christchurch City Council Trade Waste 2006 is due for its 10 yearly review by 2016. The Council is undertaking this review now as part of a series of rolling bylaw reviews; in 2015 four waste-related bylaws are being reviewed. 3. When the Council reviews a bylaw, section 160 of the Act requires the Council to review the bylaw by making the determinations required by section 155. 4. Under section 155, the three determinations are –

 Whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem or issue; and  If the Council decides that a bylaw is (still) appropriate, whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and  Whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

5. The following analysis has been undertaken for the purposes of reviewing the Trade Waste Bylaw 2006, and making a replacement bylaw, the proposed Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2015.

What are the perceived problems?

6. The Council undertook a review prior to making the existing Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2006. For the purpose of this 2015 review, the Council has considered whether or not the previously identified problems still exist and whether there are any new issues that need to be addressed.

7. The staff assessment is that the problems that existed in 2009 still exist and that there are additional matters that should be dealt with the bylaw. New issues and problems which should be covered by the bylaw include:  The 2006 bylaw permits a maximum concentration of 500grams per cubic metre of animal and vegetable fats and oils in a 'permitted' trade waste discharge. This is a much higher concentration than allowed for other fats and oils. The proposal is to reduce the maximum level of animal and vegetable fats in trade waste to 200 grams per cubic metre of trade waste which is the same level as the 'other' fats and oils. The proposed change would bring Christchurch bylaw in line with a number of metropolitan trade waste bylaws and address perceived problems with the current standard. Staff consider that the current standard is inadequate and leads to sewage overflows and pipe blockages with significant environmental and public health consequences as well as financial cost to the Council.

TRIM 15 /595007

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 240

 Staff consider that the 2006 bylaw rules as they apply to tankered waste are inadequate and not in line with current best practise. There is a need for better bylaw controls over the discharge of tankered waste.  Since the earthquakes, there has been a significant increase in waste water derived from hydro excavation work (high pressure water used for ground excavation). Hydro Excavation Wastewater (HEW) is not suitable for disposal through the sewerage system because of its high level of non-organic solids e.g. sand and must be disposed of at an approved site. Staff recommend that the bylaw should include a new definition (Hydro Excavation Wastewater) and explanatory note to make it clear that hydro excavation wastewater is not trade waste and cannot be disposed of through the sewerage system.  The 2006 bylaw has no specific provision for the trade waste agreements that the Council may choose to enter into e.g. with Selwyn District Council. The proposal is to provide for written agreements with dischargers of trade wastes which can be in addition to or in place of a consent.  There is a need to address the failure of some dischargers to pay Trade Waste Charges by the due date in the clause relating to the payment of charges  Staff have identified that improvements could be made to the wording of clauses dealing with the application process, permitted discharges, technical reviews and variations of trade waste consents, flow metering, estimating discharges, sampling and analysis, and monitoring.  In addition staff recommend a range of minor amendments e.g. additional explanatory notes and various minor improvements to wording, numbering and format.

Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems?

8. In undertaking this review, the Council has considered the range of options for addressing the perceived problems including whether (or not) a bylaw is the most appropriate tool of addressing the perceived problems. The options:  Revoke the current bylaw and not replace it. This is not a preferred option because a bylaw is assessed as the most efficient and effective tool to manage a large number of discharges.  Status Quo – Retain the current bylaw without amendment: This is not the preferred option because the current bylaw could be improved. Proposed improvements include new provisions to address problems identified since the last review and a range of minor changes to wording, format, numbering etc.  Amend the current bylaw: An amendment bylaw is not the most preferred option given the large number of recommended changes.  Replace the current bylaw with a new bylaw: This is the preferred option.

9. The Local Government Act provides specifically for trade waste bylaws and a bylaw is the most appropriate tool to manage the many (more than 1000) discharges of trade waste in the district. Staff recommend that the Council replace the current bylaw with a new bylaw, i.e. the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2015.

What is the most appropriate form of bylaw? 10. The most appropriate form of bylaw is one that:

 Helps achieve the Council’s Community Outcomes, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013 and other strategic planning documents  Is not inconsistent with other Christchurch City Council bylaws;  Allows for exceptions and special circumstances;

TRIM 15 /595007

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 241

 Is within the legal power of the Council to make bylaws under s145 and s146 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 64 of the Health Act 1956.  Is not inconsistent with the NZBORA.

11. Staff undertook a clause by clause review of the 2006 bylaw and concluded that with minor changes most clauses are still fit for purpose. The minor changes include renumbering the clauses, changing format and/or wording to clarify meaning or to align better with other bylaws and updating references e.g. to more recent bylaws. In addition staff propose a number of substantive changes to the bylaw; the two main options considered for these more substantive changes were the retention of the current bylaw provision, or making a new provision. The following questions were asked:  does the proposed amendment address an identified problem and/or is it necessary for the efficient management of trade waste,  does it provide an appropriate level of control,  is it consistent with other Council bylaws,  is it specific and easy to interpret for the public and Council's officers,  is this provision enforceable? 12. The 'substantive' changes proposed to the 2006 bylaw are summarised in Table 1 to this report.

Are there any NZBORA implications? 13. In reviewing the current bylaw and proposing a new replacement bylaw, the Council is required to consider whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New NZBORA. Section 155(3) of the Act states that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the NZBORA. 14. The NZBORA specifically identifies four types of rights, these are:  Life and security of the person;  democratic and civil rights;  non-discrimination and minority rights;  search, arrest and detention. The proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 does not give rise to any implications under the NZBORA

Conclusion 15. Having reviewed the Trade Waste Bylaw 2006, in terms of section 155 of the Act,  The proposed Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 is determined to be the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems and  is considered to be the most appropriate form and  does not give rise to implications under the NZBORA and  is not considered to be inconsistent with the NZBORA.

TRIM 15 /595007

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 17 242

Table 1: Summary of substantive changes proposed in the draft Trade Waste Bylaw 2015

Topic/Issue Proposed Summary of proposed change Reasons for change and staff comments clause(s) No. Purpose and scope 1(a) Add reference to public health. Sub-clause to read "protect public The protection of public health is integral to the health and the environment" purpose of a trade waste bylaw. Tankered Waste 2(e) Add new purpose in relation to tankered waste " Changes are designed to protect the sewerage 5-definition Add new definition of 'tankered waste' system. The 2006 Bylaw does not adequately provide for trade waste discharges from tankers. 17 (new The new clause 17 requires people transporting and discharging clause) trade waste to meet defined standards, hold certain licenses and keep specified records when transporting and discharging tankered waste. Hydro Excavation 5-definition New definition of Hydro Excavation Wastewater (HEW)… "means Additional definition and explanatory note for Waste-water (HEW) any water and the suspended solids mixture derived from hydro completeness. excavation works" Hydro excavation (drilling using high pressure water e.g. to lay a pipe) is a relatively new type of excavation which produces waste water high in non- organic solids such as sand or silt as well as other contaminants. HEW does not come within the definition of trade waste and is not permitted to be discharged to the sewerage system. Application for a consent Clause 10 & The proposed clause and explanatory sets out the requirements for The proposed wording is simpler and sets out the explanatory making an application for a trade waste consent. requirements for consents more completely than in note the equivalent clause 3.2 of the 2006 bylaw. Trade Waste New clause Provides for the Council to enter into agreements in addition to or This clause specifically provides for the small Agreements 18 instead of trade waste consents. number of situations where trade waste agreements are a useful or necessary tool to 'regulate' discharges into the system e.g. where a discharge originates from outside the Christchurch City territorial area. Flow metering Clause 24 Rewords Clause 5.1.6 of the 2006 Bylaw Clarifies the bylaw requirements in respect to calibration of flow meters. Schedule 1A. Permitted Table "A trade waste containing fat, oil or grease must not exceed Maximum concentration for (all) fats to be 200g/m3 Discharge 1A.2.4 200g/m3" for the reasons set out in paragraph 7 above. Characteristics

TRIM 15 /595007

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 243

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL TRADE WASTE BYLAW 2015

1

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 244

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Short title and commencement 4 2 Purpose and scope 4

Part 1 Preliminary provisions 3 Compliance with other Acts 5 4 Application of this bylaw 5 5 Definitions and Abbreviations 5

Part 2 Trade waste discharges and consents 6 Control of discharges 11 7 Storage, transport, handling and use of hazardous materials 11 8 Classification of trade waste discharges 11 9 Registration of all occupiers 12 10 Application for a trade waste consent 12 11 Information and analysis 13 12 Consideration criteria 13 13 Decision on an application 14 14 Conditions of consent 15 15 Duration of permitted discharges 16 16 Duration of conditional consents 17 17 Tankered waste discharges 17 18 Trade waste agreements 18 19 Technical review and variation 18 20 Suspension or cancellation of the right to discharge 19

Part 3 Requirements to meet certain conditions of consent 21 Pre-treatment 20 22 Dental facilities 21 23 Mass limits 21

Part 4 Sampling, analysis and monitoring 24 Flow metering 22 25 Estimating discharge 23 26 Sampling and analysis 23 27 Monitoring 24 28 Disinfected / super chlorinated water 25

Part 5 Bylaw Administration 29 Review of decisions 25 30 Accidents and non-compliance 25 2

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 245

31 Charges and payments 25 32 Authorised officers 26 33 Transfer or termination of rights and responsibilities 26 34 Service of documents 27 35 Offences 27 36 Transitional provisions 28 37 Powers of the chief executive 28 38 Revocation 28 39 Christchurch City Council General Bylaw 28

Schedule 1A Permitted Discharge Characteristics 29 Schedule 1B Prohibited Characteristics 34

3

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 246

The Christchurch City Council makes this bylaw pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002

1. SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT (1) This bylaw is the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2015.

(2) This bylaw comes into force on [insert date]

2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE (1) The purpose of this bylaw is to control and monitor trade waste discharges into public sewers in order to: (a) protect public health and the environment; (b) promote cleaner production; (c) protect the sewerage system infrastructure; (d) protect sewerage system workers; (e) protect the stormwater system; (f) ensure compliance with consent conditions; (g) provide a basis for monitoring discharges from industry and trade premises; (h) provide a basis for charging trade waste users of the sewerage system to cover the cost of conveying, treating and disposing of or reusing their wastes; (i) ensure that the costs of treatment and disposal are shared fairly between trade waste and domestic dischargers; (j) encourage waste minimisation; and (k) encourage water conservation.

(2) This bylaw provides for the: (a) acceptance of long-term, intermittent, or temporary discharge of trade waste to the sewerage system; (b) establishment of three grades of trade waste: permitted, conditional and prohibited; (c) evaluation of individual trade waste discharges to be against specified criteria; (d) correct storage of materials in order to protect the sewerage and stormwater systems from spillage; (e) correct disposal of tankered waste to protect the sewerage system; (f) installation of flow meters, samplers or other devices to measure flow and quality of the trade waste discharge; (g) pre-treatment of waste before it is accepted for discharge to the sewerage system; (h) sampling and monitoring of trade waste discharges to ensure compliance with this bylaw; (i) Council to accept or refuse a trade waste discharge; (j) charges to be set to cover the cost of conveying, treating and disposing of, or reusing, trade waste and the associated costs of administration and monitoring; (k) administrative mechanisms for the operation of the bylaw; and (l) establishment of waste minimization and management programmes (including sludges) for trade waste producers.

4

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 247

PART 1

PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

3 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ACTS (1) Nothing in this bylaw derogates from any of the provisions of the Health Act 1956, the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Building Act 2004, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) and its regulations or any other relevant statutory or regulatory requirements including Canterbury Regional Council and any Christchurch City Council policies and procedures.

(2) Any person discharging in the sewerage system must comply with the requirements of any relevant legislation.

4 APPLICATION OF THIS BYLAW (1) This bylaw will apply to all trade premises within the Council district where trade waste is discharged or sought or likely to be discharged to the sewerage system operated by the Council or its agents. This bylaw also applies to tankered waste collected for the purpose of discharge to the sewerage systems operated by the Council or its agents.

(2) Pursuant to section 196 of the Act the Council may refuse to accept any type of trade waste which is not in accordance with this bylaw.

5 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS (1) In this bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

ACCESS POINT is a place, compliant with all relevant legislation, where access may be made to a private drain for inspection (including sampling or measurement), cleaning or maintenance.

ACT means the Local Government Act 2002

ANALYST means a testing laboratory approved in writing by an authorised officer on behalf of the Council.

APPROVAL or APPROVED means approval or approved in writing by the Council, either by resolution of the Council or by an authorised officer.

AUTHORISED OFFICER means any officer appointed by the Council as an enforcement officer under section 177 of the Act as an enforcement officer with powers of entry as prescribed by sections 171to 174 of the Act.

BIOSOLIDS means a sewage or sewage sludge derived from a sewage treatment plant that has been treated and/or stabilised to the extent that it is able to be safely and beneficially applied to land. Biosolids includes products containing biosolids (e.g. composts and blended products).

CHARACTERISTIC means any of the physical, biological or chemical characteristics of a trade waste and may include the level of a characteristic.

5

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 248

CLEANER PRODUCTION means the implementation on trade premises, of effective operations, methods and processes appropriate to the goal of reducing or eliminating the quantity and toxicity of wastes. This is required to minimise and manage trade waste by:

(a) using energy and resources efficiently, avoiding or reducing the amount of wastes produced;

(b) producing environmentally sound products and services;

(c) achieving less waste, fewer costs and higher profits.

CONDENSING WATER or COOLING WATER means any water used in any trade, industry, or commercial process or operation in such a manner that it does not take up matter into solution or suspension.

CONDITIONAL TRADE WASTE means trade waste that has, or is likely to have, characteristics which exceed any of the characteristics defined in Schedule 1A, but which does not have any prohibited characteristics as defined in Schedule 1B. A conditional trade waste may include characteristics outside these requirements, as provided for in clause 1A1.1 in Schedule 1A.

CONSENT means a consent in writing given by the Council and signed by an authorised officer authorising a person to discharge trade waste to the sewerage system.

CONSENT HOLDER means the person who has obtained a consent to discharge or direct the manner of discharge of trade waste from any premises to the Council’s sewerage system, and includes any person who does any act on behalf or with the express or implied consent of the consent holder (whether for reward or not) and any licensee of the consent holder.

CONTAMINANT includes any substance (including gases, odorous compounds, liquids, solids and micro-organisms) or energy (excluding noise) or heat, that either by itself or in combination with the same, similar, or other substances, energy or heat –

(a) when discharged into water, changes or is likely to change the physical, chemical, or biological condition of water; or

(b) when discharged onto or into land or into air, changes or is likely to change the physical, chemical, or biological condition of the land or air onto or into which it is discharged; or as described or contained in the RMA and HSNO Acts.

CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES means those procedures developed and used to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the actual and/or potential adverse effects of these activities on the environment from an unexpected or unscheduled event resulting in discharge, or potential discharge of contaminants of concern into the sewerage system.

COUNCIL means the Christchurch City Council.

DISCONNECTION means the physical cutting and sealing of any of the Council’s water services, utilities, drains or sewer for use by any person. 6

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 249

DOMESTIC SEWAGE means foul water (with or without matter in solution or suspension therein) discharged from premises used solely for residential purposes.

DRAIN means private drain.

FOUL WATER means the discharge from any sanitary fixtures (any fixture which is intended to be used for sanitation – the term used to describe activities of washing and/or excretion carried out in a manner or condition such that the effect on health is minimised, with regard to dirt and infection) or sanitary appliance (an appliance which is intended to be used for sanitation which is not a sanitary fixture – included are machines for washing dishes and clothes).

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS means raw material, products or wastes containing corrosive, toxic, biocidal, radioactive, flammable, or explosive materials, or any material which when mixed with the wastewater stream is likely to generate toxic, flammable, explosive or corrosive materials or any other material likely to be deleterious to the Council sewer or the health and safety of Council staff and the public; or any hazardous substance as defined in HSNO.

HYDRO EXCAVATION WASTEWATER (HEW) means any water and the suspended solids mixture derived from hydro excavation works. The following note is explanatory and does not form part of this Bylaw: Hydro excavation work uses high pressure water to excavate the ground often for the purpose of laying pipes and cables. Hydro excavation waste water (HEW) contains high levels of silts and other contaminants and cannot be discharged to the sewerage system. HEW is not from a trade or industrial process and therefore falls outside the definition of tradewaste.

MANAGEMENT PLAN means the plan for management of trade waste operations on the premises, and may include provision for cleaner production, waste minimisation, monitoring and recording of discharges, contingency management procedures, and any relevant industry Code of Practice.

MASS LIMIT means the total mass of any characteristic that may be discharged to the sewerage system over any 24 hour period, or as Council may determine from time to time, from any single point of discharge or collectively from several points of discharge.

MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION means the instantaneous peak concentration that may be discharged at any instant in time.

OCCUPIER means the person occupying trade premises connected to the sewerage system and discharging either permitted trade wastes or conditional trade wastes.

PERMITTED TRADE WASTE means a trade waste that meets the characteristics defined in Schedule 1A of this bylaw.

POINT OF DISCHARGE means the boundary between the public sewer and a private drain, but for the purposes of monitoring, sampling and analysis, will be as agreed with the occupier.

PRE-TREATMENT means any processing of trade waste designed to reduce or vary any characteristic in a waste before discharge to the sewerage system in order to comply with a trade waste consent.

7

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 250

PREMISES means any of the following:

(a) a property or allotment which is held under a separate certificate of title or for which a separate certificate of title may be issued and in respect to which a building consent has been or may be issued; or

(b) a building or part of a building that has been defined as an individual unit by a cross-lease, unit title or company lease and for which a certificate of title is available; or

(c) land held in public ownership (e.g. reserve) for a particular purpose; or

(d) individual units in buildings which are separately leased or separately occupied.

PRIVATE DRAIN means that section of drain between the premises and the point of connection to the sewerage system. A private drain is owned and maintained by the owner or occupier.

PROHIBITED TRADE WASTE means a trade waste that has prohibited characteristics as defined in Schedule 1B.

SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES means the list of items, terms and prices for services associated with the discharge of trade waste as approved by the Council. (These rates and charges do not form part of this bylaw).

SEWAGE SLUDGE means the material settled out and removed from wastewater during the treatment process.

SEWER means the sewerage system owned and maintained by the Council and where the context so requires extends to include all associated plant and equipment and the Council’s wastewater treatment plants.

SEWERAGE SYSTEM means the system for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and trade waste, including all sewers, pumping stations, pressure or vacuum systems, storage tanks, sewage treatment plants, outfalls, and other related structures operated by the Council and used for the reception, treatment and disposal of trade waste.

STORMWATER means all surface water run-off resulting from precipitation.

TANKERED WASTE is water or other liquid, including waste matter in solution or suspension, which is conveyed by vehicle for disposal, excluding domestic sewage discharged directly from house buses, caravans, buses and similar vehicles. For the purpose

TEMPORARY DISCHARGE means any discharge of an intermittent or short duration. Such discharges include the short-term discharge of an unusual waste from premises subject to an existing consent.

TRADE PREMISES means:

(a) any premises used or intended to be used for any industrial or trade purpose; or

8

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 251

(b) any premises used or intended to be used for the storage, transfer, treatment, or disposal of waste materials or for other waste management purposes, or used for composting organic materials; or

(c) any other premises from which a Contaminant is discharged in connection with any industrial or trade process;

(d) any other premises discharging other than domestic sewage to the sewerage system; and includes any land or premises wholly or mainly used for agricultural or horticultural purposes.

TRADE WASTE

(a) means any liquid or gas, with or without matter in suspension or solution, that is or may be discharged from a trade premises to the Council’s sewerage system in the course of any trade or industrial process or operation, or in the course of any activity or operation of a like nature; and

(b) includes tankered waste, condensing or cooling waters, stormwater, and domestic sewage which cannot be practically separated.

WASTEWATER means water or other liquid, including waste matter in solution or suspension, discharged from premises to a sewer.

WORKING DAY means any day of the week other than:

(a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, the Sovereign’s birthday, Labour Day; and

(b) a day in the period commencing with the 25th day of December in a year and ending with the 2nd day of January in the following year.

(2) In this Bylaw, the following abbreviations apply: o C degrees Celsius

B boron

BOD5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Br2 bromine

Cl2 chlorine

CN cyanide

9

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 252

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

F fluoride

FOGs fats, oils and greases g/m3 grams per cubic metre

GST goods and services tax

H2S hydrogen sulphide hr hour kg/day kilogram per day

L litre

L/s litre per second

LTP Long Term Plan

M3 cubic metre max. maximum mg/L milligram per litre mL/L millilitre per litre mm millimetres

MSDS material safety data sheets

N nitrogen

P phosphorus pH measure of acidity/alkalinity s second

SO4 sulphate

TSS total suspended solids

UV ultra violet

10

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 253

UVT ultra violet transmission

11

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 254

PART 2

TRADE WASTE DISCHARGES AND CONSENTS

6 CONTROL OF DICHARGES (1) No person may: (a) discharge, or allow to be discharged, any trade waste to the sewerage system except in accordance with the provisions of this bylaw and any consent granted by the Council;

(b) discharge, or allow to be discharged, a prohibited trade waste into the sewerage system;

(c) add or permit the addition of condensing or cooling water to any trade waste which discharges into the sewerage system unless allowed by a conditional consent; or

(d) add or permit the addition of stormwater to any trade waste which discharges into the sewerage system unless allowed by a conditional consent.

(2) In the event of failure to comply with subclause (1), the Council may physically prevent discharge to the sewerage system.

7 STORAGE, TRANSPORT, HANDLING AND USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(1) All persons on trade premises will take all reasonable steps to prevent the accidental entry of any hazardous materials from entry into the sewerage system as a result of leakage, spillage or other mishap.

(2) No person will store, transport, handle or use, or cause to be stored, transported, handled or used any hazardous materials in a manner that may cause the material to enter the sewerage system and cause harmful effects.

8 CLASSIFICATION OF TRADE WASTE DISCHARGES

(1) Trade waste discharges are classified as one of the following types: (a) permitted (consent required);or

(b) conditional (consent required); or

(c) prohibited (not consentable).

(2) The Council is not obliged to accept any trade waste. No application for a trade waste consent will be granted where the trade waste discharge would contain, or is likely to contain, characteristics which are prohibited unless the prohibited characteristic can be treated so as to allow a conditional trade waste consent to be granted.

12

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 255

9 REGISTRATION OF ALL OCCUPIERS

(1) All occupiers, including those in the permitted category, must be registered with the Council. Such registration shall be in a form prescribed by the Council.

10 APPLICATION FOR A TRADE WASTE CONSENT

(1) Every person who does, proposes to, or is likely to: (a) discharge into the sewerage system any trade waste (either continuously, intermittently or temporarily); or

(b) vary the characteristics of a discharge where a consent has previously been granted or vary the characteristics of a permitted discharge to the extent where it may fail to meet the requirements of Schedule 1A; or

(c) vary the conditions of a consent that has previously been granted including any change to the method or means of pre-treatment of a discharge;

must complete an application in the prescribed form for the consent of the Council, for the discharge of the trade waste or for consent to the variations.

(2) In any application for a trade waste consent, the Council reserves the right to deal with the owner, as well as the occupier of any trade premises.

(3) At its discretion, the Council may dispense with the requirement for an application for a consent under subclause (1).

The following note is explanatory and does not form part of this Bylaw, but it is intended to explain its general effect: The Council does not generally require occupiers to make a formal application for a consent where their discharge is classified as permitted under the Bylaw. However, the Council reserves the right to require a new application for variations to discharges and discharges in certain circumstances. For example, where Council officers suspect that the discharge is no longer complying (clause 19) or following the suspension or cancellation of the right to discharge (clause 20).

(4) Where the trade premises produce trade waste from more than one process, a separate process sheet will be included for each process in any application for a consent.

(5) The applicant will ensure that the consent application and every other document accompanying the application is properly executed and any act done for, or on behalf of, the eventual consent holder (whether for reward or not) in making any such application will be deemed to be an act of the consent holder.

(6) Every application for a consent will be accompanied by a trade waste application fee in accordance with the Council’s Schedule of Rates and Charges. The fee must be paid before the Council processes the application.

13

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 256

11 INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

(1) On the receipt of any application for a consent to discharge from any premises or to alter an existing discharge, the Council may:

(a) require the applicant to submit any additional information which it considers necessary to reach an informed decision:

(b) require an application to be supported by an independent report/statement completed by a suitably experienced and external auditor to verify any or all information supplied by the applicant:

(c) require the applicant to submit a management plan:

(d) whenever appropriate have the discharge investigated and analysed as provided for in clauses 24 and 26.

(2) The Council will notify the applicant of any requirement under this clause within 10 working days of receipt of the application. When the requested information has been received the Council will continue to process the application and will have another 15 working days to make a decision on the application.

12 CONSIDERATION CRITERIA

(1) In considering any application for a trade waste consent to discharge from any trade premises into the sewerage system or an application to discharge tankered waste into Council approved facilities for tankered waste, and in imposing any conditions on such a consent, the Council will take into consideration the submissions of the applicant as well as the quality, volume, and rate of discharge of the trade waste from such premises or tanker in relation to: (a) the health and safety of Council staff, Council’s agents and the public;

(b) the limits and/or maximum values for characteristics of trade waste as specified in Schedules 1A and 1B of this bylaw;

(c) the extent to which the trade waste may react with other trade waste or wastewater to produce an undesirable effect, e.g. settlement of solids, production of odours, accelerated corrosion and deterioration of the sewerage system etc;

(d) the flows and velocities in the sewer, or sewers and the material or construction of the sewer or sewers;

(e) the capacity of the sewer or sewers and the capacity of any sewage treatment works, and other facilities;

(f) the nature of any sewage treatment process and the degree to which the trade waste is capable of being treated in the sewage treatment works;

(g) the timing and balancing of flows into the sewerage system;

14

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 257

(h) any statutory requirements relating to the discharge of raw or treated wastewater to receiving waters, the disposal of sewage sludges, beneficial use of biosolids, and any discharge to air, (including the necessity for compliance with any resource consent, discharge permit or water classification);

(i) the effect of the trade waste discharge on the ultimate receiving environment;

(j) the conditions on resource consents for the sewerage system and the residuals from it;

(k) the possibility of unscheduled, unexpected or accidental events and the degree of risk these could cause to humans, the sewerage system and the environment;

(l) consideration for other existing or future discharges;

(m) the amenability of the trade waste to pre-treatment;

(n) any existing pre-treatment works on the premises and the potential for their future use;

(o) cleaner production techniques and waste minimisation practices;

(p) the requirements and limitations related to sewage sludge disposal and reuse;

(q) the control of stormwater;

(r) any management plan;

(s) tankered waste being discharged at an approved location; and

(t) the availability of alternative collection and disposal systems for putrescible wastes.

13 DECISION ON AN APPLICATION

(1) Within 15 working days (or such greater time as may be allowed by the Council) of the date of receipt of an application complying with this Bylaw and/or all requirements under clauses 10 and 11, whichever is the later, the Council will, after considering the matters in clause 12 action one of the following in writing: (a) acknowledge the trade waste discharge in the application is a permitted discharge and inform the applicant of the decision; or

(b) grant the application as a conditional trade waste consent and inform the applicant of the decision and the conditions imposed on the discharge by issuing the appropriate notice of consent; or

(c) decline the application and notify the applicant of the decision giving a statement of 15

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 258

the reasons for refusal.

(2) Granting a consent or permitting any discharge under this bylaw does not relieve the occupier from any obligations to obtain any other consent or permission for the discharge under any other statutory requirement or obligation of the occupier.

14 CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

(1) Any consent may be granted subject to such conditions that the Council may impose, including but not limited to: (a) the particular public sewer or sewers to which the discharge will be made;

(b) the maximum daily volume of the discharge and the maximum rate of discharge, and the duration of maximum discharge;

(c) the maximum limit or permissible range of any specified characteristics of the discharge, including concentrations and/or mass limits determined in accordance with Clause 4.2;

(d) the period or periods of the day during which the discharge, or a particular concentration, or volume of discharge may be made;

(e) the degree of acidity, or alkalinity of the discharge at the time of discharge;

(f) the temperature of the trade waste at the time of discharge;

(g) the provision by, or for the consent holder, at the consent holder’s expense, of screens, grease traps, silt traps or other pre-treatment works to control trade waste discharge characteristics to the consented levels;

(h) the provision and maintenance at the consent holder’s expense of inspection chambers, manholes or other apparatus or devices to provide safe and reasonable access to drains for sampling and inspection;

(i) the provision and maintenance of a sampling and analysis programme, and flow measurement requirements, at the consent holder’s expense;

(j) the method or methods to be used for the measuring flow rates and/or volume and taking samples of the discharge for use in determining compliance with the consent and for determining the amount of any trade waste charges applicable to that discharge;

(k) the provision and maintenance by, and at the expense of, the consent holder of such meters or devices as may be required to measure the volume or flow rate of any trade waste being discharged from the premises, and for the calibration of such meters;

(l) the provision and maintenance, at the consent holder’s expense of such services, (whether electricity, water or compressed air or otherwise), which may be required, 16

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 259

in order to operate meters and similar devices including safe sampling points of access as may be required;

(m) at times specified, the provision in a Council approved format by the consent holder to the Council of all flow and/or volume records and results of analyses;

(n) risk assessment of damage to the environment due to an accidental discharge of a chemical;

(o) the provision and implementation of a management plan;

(p) waste minimisation and management;

(q) cleaner production techniques;

(r) remote monitoring and/or control of discharges;

(s) third party treatment, carriage, discharge or disposal of by-products of pre-treatment of trade waste (including sewage sludge disposal);

(t) requirement to provide a bond or insurance in favour of the Council where failure to comply with the consent could result in damage to the Council’s sewerage system, its treatment plants, or could result in the Council being in breach of any statutory obligation;

(u) the amount, if any, of cooling water, condensing water or stormwater which cannot practically be separated from trade wastes, that may be included with the discharge;

(v) the cessation of a consent to discharge putrescible wastes to the sewer when the Council has provided or arranged an alternative commercial collection and disposal system; and

(w) any other conditions that the Council considers appropriate and are necessary to meet the requirements of this bylaw.

15 DURATION OF PERMITTED DISCHARGES

(1) A permitted trade waste discharge is able to be discharged indefinitely.

(2) Subclause (1) is subject to- (a) the prevention of a discharge under clause 6(2);

(b) the suspension or cancellation of a discharge under clause 20; or

(c) the Council undertaking a technical review of the permitted discharge under clause 19 and determining that the occupier must apply for a conditional consent, in accordance with this Bylaw. Where the occupier is required to apply for a conditional consent, no new discharge is permitted before the granting of such a 17

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 260

consent.

16 DURATION OF CONDITIONAL CONSENTS

(1) A conditional consent remains in force until it expires at the end of the terms prescribed in the consent.

(2) The term prescribed in the consent must be not more than two years unless the applicant satisfies the Council of one or more of the following matters: (a) the nature of the trade activity, or the process design and/or management of the premises are such that the consent holder has a demonstrated ability to meet the conditions of the consent during its term:

(b) cleaner production techniques are successfully being utilised, or that a responsible investment in cleaner production equipment or techniques is being made:

(c) significant investment in pre-treatment facilities has been made, such that a longer than two year period of certainty for the amortizing of this investment is considered reasonable:

(3) If subclause (2) applies, in the Council's discretion,- (a) the term of the consent may be no greater than 5 years; and

(b) the reissuing of a consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

(4) This clause is subject to- (a) the prevention of a discharge under clause 6(2);

(b) the suspension or cancellation of a discharge under clause 20; or

(c) the Council undertaking a technical review of the consent under clause 19.

(5) In all cases where the consent holder changes, or there is a change of use, a new application for a conditional trade waste consent is required.

17 TANKERED WASTE DISCHARGES

(1) The Council will only accept tankered waste for discharge at an approved location.

(2) The following requirements apply to all tankered waste: (a) tankered waste will not be discharged into the sewerage system by any person or consent holder not compliant with the Ministry for the Environment’s Liquid and Hazardous Wastes Code of Practice;

(b) tankered waste must be transported by a person who holds a Registered Offensive Trade License and is licensed to discharge domestic septic tank or industrial wastes;

(c) there must be material safety data sheets (MSDS) available to the Council detailing the contents of any tankered waste; 18

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 261

(d) tankered waste must be pre-tested to determine its character if the contents of the waste are not known. Specialist advice on pre-treatment or acceptance may be required. The cost of all analyses and advice will be borne by the Registered Offensive Trade License Holder;

(e) tankered waste must not be picked up and transported to the Council's disposal site until appropriate arrangements and the method for disposal have been determined by the Council;

(f) in order to prevent cross-contamination, the tanker must be thoroughly washed between tanker loads of a varying waste categories, or will not be accepted for disposal into the sewerage system;

(g) 24 hours notice must be given to the Council for the disposal of wastes other than those sourced from domestic septic tanks; and

(h) where the tankered waste contains hydro excavation wastewater, it must be taken to an approved facility or location.

(3) To avoid any doubt any person who disposes of or causes to be disposed, tankered waste either by incorrect disclosure of contents (characteristics and/or amount) or dumping into the Council’s sewerage system at other than the prescribed location will be in breach of the Bylaw.

18 TRADE WASTE AGREEMENTS

(1) The Council may, at any time and at its discretion, enter into a written agreement with any occupier for the discharge and reception of trade wastes into the sewerage system. Any such agreement may be made in addition to or in place of a consent.

(2) Any agreement with the Council to discharge trade waste into the sewerage system which was in force immediately prior to the commencement of this bylaw, is, for the purpose of this bylaw, treated as if it were a trade waste agreement referred to in subclause (1).

19 TECHNICAL REVIEW AND VARIATION

(1) The Council may at any time during the term of a consent (including a permitted discharge), undertake a technical review of the consent.

(2) The reasons for a review may include (without limitation): (a) the level of consent holder compliance, including any accidents, spills or process mishaps; or

(b) the Council has good reason to believe that the quantity and nature of the discharge changes, or is likely to change, to such an extent that it becomes non-compliant, and/or it becomes either a Conditional or Prohibited Trade Waste; or

(c) new information becomes available; or 19

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 262

(d) there is a need to meet any new resource consent imposed on the discharge from the Council’s treatment plant or there are any changes in the resource consent conditions held by the Council; or

(e) there is a need to meet other legal or environmental requirements imposed on the Council.

(3) Following such a review, and after the Council consults with the consent holder, the Council may, by written notice to the consent holder,- (a) vary any condition to such an extent as the Council considers necessary; or

(b) require an occupier discharging permitted trade wastes to apply for a conditional consent in accordance with clause 10(1).

(4) A consent holder may at any time during the term of a consent, by written application to the Council, seek to vary any condition of a consent, as provided for in clause 10(1).

20 SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION OF THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE

(1) The Council may suspend or cancel any consent or right to discharge trade wastes at any time following 15 working days’ written notice to the consent holder or occupier: (a) for the failure to comply with any condition of the consent or any clause or Schedule of this bylaw;

(b) for the failure to maintain effective control over the discharge;

(c) for the failure to limit in accordance with the requirements of a consent the volume, nature, or composition of trade waste being discharged;

(d) in the event of any negligence which, in the opinion of the Council, threatens the safety of, or threatens to cause damage to any part of the sewer system or the treatment plant or threatens the health or safety of any person;

(e) if any occurrence happens that, in the opinion of the Council, poses a serious threat to the environment;

(f) in the event of any breach of a resource consent held by the Council issued under the RMA;

(g) for a failure to provide and when appropriate update a Management Plan if this is required under the consent;

(h) for a failure to follow the management plan provisions at the time of an unexpected, unscheduled or accidental occurrence;

(i) for a failure to pay trade waste charges by the due date; or

20

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 263

(j) if any other circumstances arise which, in the opinion of the Council, render it necessary in the public interest to cancel the consent or right to discharge trade wastes.

(2) During the 15 working day notice period the Council will consult with the consent holder or the occupier. If any process changes require more than 20 working days, reasonable time may be given to comply with the consent conditions.

(3) Notwithstanding subclause (1), any consent or right to discharge trade wastes may at any time be immediately suspended or cancelled by the Council on giving to the consent holder or occupier written notice of that suspension or cancellation if: (a) any prohibited substance is discharged;

(b) the Council is lawfully directed to withdraw or otherwise to terminate the consent summarily;

(c) any trade waste is unlawfully discharged;

(d) if the continuance of discharge is, in the opinion of the Council, a threat to the environment, safety of individuals or public health;

(e) if the continuance of discharge may, in the opinion of the Council, result in a breach of a resource consent held by the Council; or

(f) in the opinion of the Council the continuance of the discharge puts at risk the ability of the Council to comply with conditions of a resource consent and/or requires identified additional treatment measures or costs to seek to avoid a breach of any such resource consent.

(4) The Council reserves the right to physically prevent discharge to the sewer as part of the suspension or cancellation under either subclauses (1) or (3).

(5) The Council must give written notice withdrawing a suspension before a consent holder or a occupier resume discharging from the premises.

(6) Any suspension that has not been withdrawn after 3 months since the suspension was imposed results in a cancellation of the consent or permitted discharge.

PART 3

REQUIREMENTS TO MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

21 PRE-TREATMENT

(1) The Council may approve a conditional trade waste consent subject to the provision of appropriate pre-treatment systems to enable the occupier to comply with the bylaw. Such pre-treatment systems must be provided, operated and maintained by the occupier at their 21

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 264

expense.

(2) Refuse or garbage grinders, and macerators must not be used to dispose of solid waste from trade premises to the sewerage system unless approved by the Council as a conditional consent.

(3) The occupier must not, unless approved by the Council as a conditional consent, add or permit the addition of any potable, condensing, cooling water or stormwater to any trade waste stream in order to vary the level of any characteristics of the waste.

22 DENTAL FACILITIES

(1) All dental facilities require a consent, which must include an approved amalgam trapping maintenance and disposal system where relevant.

23 MASS LIMITS

(1) A conditional trade waste consent may impose controls on a trade waste discharge by specifying mass limits for any characteristic.

(2) Mass limits may be imposed for any characteristic. Any characteristic of a discharge with a mass limit imposed must also have a daily maximum concentration not exceeding the value scheduled in Schedule 1A, unless approved otherwise.

(3) When setting mass limit allocations for a particular characteristic the Council will consider: (a) the operational requirements of and risk to the sewerage system, and risks to occupational health and safety, public health, and the ultimate receiving environment;

(b) whether or not the levels proposed pose a threat to the planned or actual beneficial reuse of biosolids or sewage sludge;

(c) conditions in the sewerage system near the trade waste point of discharge and elsewhere in the sewerage system;

(d) the extent to which the available industrial capacity was used in the last financial period and is expected to be used in the forthcoming period;

(e) whether or not the applicant uses cleaner production techniques within a period satisfactory to the Council;

(f) whether or not there is any net benefit to be gained by the increase of one characteristic concurrently with the decrease of another to justify any increased application for industrial capacity;

(g) any requirements of the Council to reduce any contaminant discharge of the sewerage system;

(h) how great a proportion the mass flow of a characteristic of the discharge will be of 22

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 265

the total mass flow of that characteristic in the sewerage system;

(i) the total mass of the characteristic allowable in the sewerage system, and the proportion (if any) to be reserved for future allocations; and

(j) whether or not there is an interaction with other characteristics which increases or decreases the effect of either characteristic on the sewer reticulation, treatment process, or receiving water or land.

PART 4

SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND MONITORING

24 FLOW METERING

(1) Flow metering may be required by the council in any of the following circumstances: (a) on discharges when there is not a reasonable relationship between a metered water supply to the premises, and the discharge of trade waste; or

(b) when the council will not approve a method of flow estimation; or

(c) when the discharge represents a significant proportion of the total flow/load received by the Council.

(2) The consent holder is responsible for the supply, installation, calibration, reading and maintenance of any meter or devices as required by the council for the measurement of the rate or quantity of discharge of trade waste. Any meter or flow devices are subject to the approval of the council, but remain the property of the consent holder.

(3) Records of flow and/or volume must be available for viewing at any time by the Council, and must be submitted to the Council at prescribed intervals by the consent holder in a format approved by the Council.

(4) Meters must be located in a position approved by the Council which provides the required degree of accuracy and must be readily accessible for reading and maintenance. The meters must be located in the correct position according to the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

(5) The consent holder must arrange for in situ calibration of the flow metering equipment in accordance with NZS10012:Part 1 upon installation and at least once a year thereafter to ensure its performance. The meter accuracy must be ±10 % but with no greater a deviation from the previous meter calibration of ± 5%. A copy of independent certification of each calibration result must be submitted to the Council.

(6) Should any meter installed for the specific purpose of measuring a trade waste discharge, be found, after being calibrated, to have an error greater than that specified in subclause (5) as a repeatable measurement, the Council may:

(a) make an adjustment to the fee calculation in accordance with previous readings and 23

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 266

the consent holder must pay or be credited according to such adjustment; or

(b) where the consent holder can explain the reason for the error and establish a reasonable basis for an adjustment, make a reasonable adjustment to the fee calculation.

25 ESTIMATING DISCHARGE

(1) Where no meter or similar apparatus is required, the Council may estimate the discharge on: (a) a proportion of the water supplied to the premises (or other such basis as seems reasonable) be used for estimating the rate or quantity of flow for the purposes of charging; or

(b) previous discharge at a time of similar operating conditions; or

(c) the flow measurement during the immediately preceding charging period; or

provided that when by reason of a large variation of discharge then the Council may take into consideration other evidence for the purpose of arriving at a reasonable estimate

(2) If these cannot be achieved then the Council has the right to require installation of a Council approved flow measurement at the consent holder's expense.

(3) Where in the opinion of the Council, a meter has been tampered with, the Council (without prejudice to the other remedies available) may declare the reading void and estimate the discharge as provided above in subclause (1).

26 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

(1) As determined by the Council sampling, analysis and monitoring may be undertaken to determine if: (a) a discharge complies with the provisions of this bylaw;

(b) a discharge is to be classified as a permitted, conditional, or prohibited, refer to clause 8(1);

(c) a discharge complies with the provisions of Schedule 1A for permitted discharge and any consent to discharge; and

(d) trade waste charges are applicable to that discharge.

(2) The sampling, preservation, transportation and analysis of the sample will be undertaken by an authorised officer or agent of the Council, or the person discharging in accordance with the “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water”/accepted industry standard methods, or by a method specifically approved by the Council. The person discharging will be responsible for all reasonable costs.

(3) Where a dispute arises as to the validity of the methods or procedures used for sampling or analysis, the dispute may be submitted to a mutually agreed independent arbitrator. 24

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 267

(4) Where a dispute arises as to the results from analyses used for charging purposes, the Council may estimate the characteristics for the billing period. The estimation shall be based on previous discharges under similar operating conditions. If for some reason this could be unreasonable then the council may take into consideration other relevant evidence for the purpose to base its charges on, and the consent holder must pay according to such estimate.

27 MONITORING

(1) The Council is entitled to monitor and audit any trade waste discharge for compliance. Monitoring may include any of the following: (a) a sample and analysis will be carried out as specified in clause 26(2):

(b) the Council will audit the sampling and analysis carried out by a self-monitoring trade waste consent holder. Analysis will be performed by an IANZ Approved laboratory:

(c) the Council will audit the trade waste consent conditions including any management plans.

(2) At the discretion of the Council all costs of monitoring will be met by the occupier either through direct payment to the laboratory or to the Council in accordance with the Council’s charging policy.

(3) Where required, a grab or composite sample can be split equally into three as follows: (a) one portion of the sample goes to the trade waste occupier for appropriate analysis and/or storage;

(b) a second portion of the sample will be analysed at a laboratory approved by the Council;

(c) a third portion of the sample is retained by the Council for 20 working days, for additional analysis if required.

(4) Due consideration will be applied to any changes that could occur in retained trade waste samples and provisions to mitigate against changes will be adopted where practicable.

(5) In all cases the samples will be handled in an appropriate manner such that the characteristics being tested for are, as far as reasonably possible, preserved properly.

(6) All samples will be preserved, handled, transported and delivered to an approved laboratory according to approved standards.

(7) In situations where monitoring is not specifically required, it is the responsibility of the consent holder to ensure that any discharge from the trade waste premises complies with this bylaw, and any other related bylaw.

25

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 268

28 DISINFECTED / SUPER CHLORINATED WATER

(1) Any water used during the repair and construction of water mains will be de-chlorinated prior to the discharge into the sewerage system. Application for a temporary discharge consent will be made.

PART 5

BYLAW ADMINISTRATION

29 REVIEW OF DECISIONS (1) If any Person is dissatisfied with any decision by an authorised officer made under this Bylaw, that Person may, by notice delivered to the Chief Executive not later than 20 working days after the decision by the authorised officer is served upon that person, request the Chief Executive to review any such decision and such a decision will be final.

(2) Nothing in this clause will affect any right of appeal or review available at law.

30 ACCIDENTS AND NON-COMPLIANCE (1) The occupier will inform the Council immediately on discovery of any accident including spills or process mishaps which may cause a breach of this Bylaw.

(2) In the event of any accident occurring on premises for which there is a consent then the Council may review the consent under clause 20 or may require the consent holder, within 20 working days of the date such requirement is notified to the consent holder in writing, to review the contingency management procedures and re-submit for approval the management plan with the Council.

(3) In the event of an accident occurring on the premises of a permitted trade waste discharge, the Council may require the occupier to apply for a conditional trade waste consent.

31 CHARGES AND PAYMENTS

(1) The Council may recover fees and charges in accordance with the Act and in accordance with Council’s Schedule of Rates and Charges.

(2) All charges will be invoiced in accordance with Council’s standard commercial practice. The invoice will provide each occupier with a copy of the information and calculations used to determine the extent of any charges and fees due, in regard to a discharge.

(3) The occupier is deemed to be continuing the discharge of trade waste and will be liable for all charges, until notice of disconnection is given.

(4) All fees and charges payable under this Bylaw will be recoverable as a debt. If the person 26

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 269

discharging fails to pay any fees and charges under this Bylaw the Council may cancel the right to discharge in accordance with clause 20.

(5) In all cases the Council may recover costs associated with damage to the Council sewerage system and/or breach of this Bylaw in accordance with sections 175 and 176 of the Act.

32 AUTHORISED OFFICERS

(1) Any authorised officer may at any reasonable time enter any premises believed to be discharging trade wastes to determine any characteristic of any discharge by: (a) taking readings and measurements; or

(b) taking samples of any solids, liquids or gaseous material or any combination or mixtures of such materials being discharged; or

(c) observing accidental occurrences and clean-up; or

(d) carrying out any inspection and/or assessment of the premises, including acquiring photographic evidence.

33 TRANSFER OR TERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(1) A trade waste consent to discharge will be issued in the name of the consent holder. The consent holder will not, unless written approval is obtained from the Council: (a) transfer to any other party the rights and responsibilities provided for under this Bylaw, and under the consent; or

(b) allow a point of discharge to serve another premises, or the private drain to that point to extend by pipe or any other means to serve another premises; or

(c) in particular and not in limitation of the above, allow trade waste from any other party to be discharged at their point of discharge.

(2) Renewal of a trade waste consent on change of ownership of premises will not be unreasonably withheld if the characteristics of the trade waste remain unchanged.

(3) The occupier will give two working days notice in writing to the Council of their requirement for disconnection of the discharge connection and/or termination of the discharge consent, except where demolition or relaying of the discharge drain is required, in which case the notice will be within 7 working days. The occupier will notify the Council of the new address details for final invoicing.

(4) On permanent disconnection and/or termination the occupier may at the Council’s discretion be liable for trade waste charges to the end of the current charging period.

(5) When an occupier ceases to occupy premises from which trade wastes are discharged into the sewerage system any consent granted will terminate but without relieving the occupier from any obligations existing at the date of termination.

27

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 270

34 SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS

(1) Any notice or other document required to be given, served or delivered under this Bylaw to the occupier may (in addition to any other method permitted by law) be given or served or delivered by being: (a) sent by pre-paid ordinary mail, courier, or facsimile, or email to the occupier to their last known place of residence or business;

(b) sent by pre-paid ordinary mail, courier, or facsimile, or email to the occupiers at any address for service specified in a consent to discharge;

(c) where the occupier is a body corporate, sent by pre-paid ordinary mail, courier, or facsimile, or email to, or left at its registered office; or

(d) personally served on the occupier.

(2) If any notice or other document is: (a) sent by post it will be deemed received on the first day (excluding weekends and public holidays) after posting;

(b) sent by facsimile or email and the sender’s facsimile or email machine produces a transmission report indicating that the facsimile or email was sent to the addressee, the report will be prima facie evidence that the facsimile or email was received by the addressee in a legible form at the time indicated on that report; or

(c) sent by courier and the courier obtains a receipt or records delivery on a courier run sheet, the receipt or record of delivery on a courier run sheet will be prima facie evidence that the communication was received by the addressee at the time indicated on the receipt or courier run sheet, or left at a conspicuous place at the trade premises or is handed to a designated person(s) nominated by the consent holder then that will be deemed to be service on, or delivery to the consent holder at that time.

(3) Any notice or document to be given, served or delivered will be signed by an authorised officer.

35 OFFENCES (1) Every consent holder, or owner or occupier of trade premises who: (a) fails to comply with or acts in contravention of any provision of this bylaw; or

(b) breaches the conditions of any consent to discharge granted pursuant to this bylaw; or

(c) fails to comply with a notice served under this bylaw,

commits an offence under section 239 of the Act, and is liable to a fine as specified in section 242 of the Act, or the issue of an Infringement notice under section 245 of the Act.

28

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 271

36 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

(1) Any application for a consent to discharge trade waste made under the Christchurch City Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2006 for which a consent has not yet been granted at the time of this new bylaw coming into force will be deemed to be an application made under clause 10(1) of this bylaw.

(2) Subject to subclause (3), every existing trade waste consent granted under any previous bylaw will continue in force as if it were a consent under this bylaw until it reaches its expiry date.

(3) Every occupier that discharges trade waste containing fat, oil or grease must comply, as soon as practicable with the permitted discharge characteristic set out in Schedule 1A, clause 1A.2.4.

(4) If an occupier fails to comply with subclause (3), the Council may give the occupier notice in writing (under section 459(1) of the Local Government Act 1974) requiring any work specified in the notice to be carried out within the timeframe specified in the notice.

(5) Where the occupier fails to carry out any required work within the time period specified in the notice under subclause (4), the Council may - (a) exercise its powers under section 459(6) of the Local Government Act 1974 in addition to any other remedies the Council may have; and

(b) exercise its discretion under clause 20 to suspend or cancel any consent or right to discharge trade wastes.

37 POWERS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

(1) The Chief Executive may determine and prescribe the manner or time in which (a) any forms are drafted or utilised, and

(b) flow metering, monitoring, sampling, or analysis is to be undertaken.

38 REVOCATION

(1) The following bylaw is revoked: Christchurch City Council Trade Wastes Bylaw 2006.

39 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL GENERAL BYLAW

(1) The provisions of the Christchurch City Council General Bylaw 2008 and any bylaw passed in amendment or substitution are implied into and form part of this Bylaw.

29

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 272

SCHEDULE 1A

PERMITTED DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS

1A.1 Introduction

1A.1.1 The nature and levels of the characteristics of any trade waste discharged to the Council sewerage system must at all times comply with the following requirements, except where the nature and levels of such characteristics are varied by the Council as part of a consent to discharge a trade waste. If a discharge characteristic is not specifically mentioned in this Schedule and it is not referred to in Schedule 1B it can be the subject of a conditional trade waste consent

1A.1.2 The Council will take into consideration the combined effects of trade waste discharges and may make any modifications to the following acceptable characteristics for individual discharges the Council believes are appropriate.

1A.1. The nature and levels of any characteristic may be varied to meet any new resource consents or other legal requirements imposed on the Council, as provided for in clause 20.

1A.2 Physical characteristics

1A.2.1 Flow The maximum instantaneous flow rate must be less than 2.0 L/s.

1A.2.2 Temperature The temperature must not exceed 40 °C.

1A.2.3 Solids (a) Non-faecal gross solids will have a maximum dimension which must not exceed 15 mm.

(b) The suspended solids content of any trade waste will have a maximum concentration which must not exceed 600 g/m3.

(c) The settleable solids content of any trade waste must not exceed 50 mL/L.

(d) The total dissolved solids concentration in any trade waste will be subject to the approval of the Council having regard to the volume of the waste to be discharged, and the suitability of the drainage system and the treatment plant to accept such waste.

(e) Fibrous, woven, or sheet film or any other materials which may adversely interfere with the free flow of sewage in the drainage system or treatment plant must not be present.

1A.2.4 Oil and grease 30

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 273

(a) There must be no free or floating layer.

(b) There must be no discharge of fats, oil and grease containing substances that will become viscous between 0 deg C and 65 deg C.

(c) A trade waste containing fat, oil or grease must not exceed 200g/m3.

1A.2.5 Solvents and other organic liquids There must be no free layer (whether floating or settled) of solvents or organic liquids.

1A.2.6 Emulsions of paint, latex, adhesive, rubber, plastic (a) Where such emulsions are not treatable these may be discharged into the sewer subject to the total suspended solids not exceeding 600 g/m3 or a concentration agreed with the Council.

(b) The Council may determine that the need exists for pre-treatment of such emulsions if it considers that trade waste containing emulsions unreasonably interferes with the operation of the Council treatment plant e.g. reduces the percentage UVT (ultra violet transmission).

(c) Emulsions of both treatable and non-treatable types may only be discharged to the sewer at a concentration and pH range that prevents coagulation and blockage at the mixing zone in the public sewer.

1A.2.7 Radioactivity Radioactivity levels must not exceed the Office of Radiation Safety Guidelines.

1A.2.8 Colour No waste may have colour or colouring substance that causes the discharge to be coloured to the extent that it impairs wastewater treatment processes or compromises the treated sewage resource consent to discharge held by the Council.

1A.3 Chemical characteristics

1A.3.1 pH value The pH must be between 6.0 and 10.0 at all times.

1A.3.2 Maximum concentrations The Maximum Concentrations permissible for the chemical characteristics of an acceptable discharge are set out in Table 1A.1 and Table 1A.2.

31

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 274

TABLE 1A.1 – GENERAL CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS

(Mass limits may be imposed, - refer to clause 23)

3 The BOD5 must not exceed 600 g/m .

Characteristic Maximum concentration

(g/m3)

MBAS (Methylene blue active substances) 500

Ammonia (measured as N) – free ammonia 50 – ammonium salts 200

Kjeldahl nitrogen 500

Total phosphorus (as P) 150

Sulphate (measured as SO4) 500

1500 (with good mixing)

Sulphite (measured as SO2) 15

Sulphide – as H2S on acidification 5

Chlorine (measured as Cl2) – free chlorine 3 – hypochlorite 30

Dissolved aluminium 100 Dissolved iron 100

Boron (as B) 25

Bromine (as Br2) 5

Fluoride (as F) 30

Cyanide – weak acid dissociable (as CN) 1

32

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 275

TABLE 1A.2 – HEAVY METALS

(Mass limits may be imposed, refer to clause 23)

Metal Maximum concentration

(g/m3)

Antimony 10 Arsenic 5 Barium 10 Beryllium 0.005 Cadmium 0.5 Chromium (trivalent and hexavalent) 5 Cobalt 10 Copper 5 Lead 10 Manganese 20 Mercury 0.005 Molybdenum 10 Nickel 5 Selenium 10 Silver 2 Thallium 10 Tin 20 Zinc 10

33

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 276

TABLE 1A.3 – ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND PESTICIDES

(Mass limits may be imposed, refer to clause 23)

Compound Maximum concentration

(g/m3)

Formaldehyde (as HCHO) 50

Phenolic compounds (as phenols) excluding chlorinated phenols 50

Chlorinated phenols 0.02

Petroleum hydrocarbons 30 1 Halogenated aliphatic compounds

Monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 5

Polycyclic (or polynuclear) aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 0.05 Halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (HAHs) 0.002 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.002 Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) 0.002 each

Pesticides (general) (includes insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and excludes organophosphate, organochlorine and any pesticides not registered for use in New Zealand) 0.2 in total

Organophosphate pesticides 0.1

34

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 277

SCHEDULE 1B

PROHIBITED CHARACTERISTICS

1B.1 Introduction This schedule defines Prohibited Trade Wastes.

1B.2 Prohibited characteristics

1B.2.1 Any discharge has prohibited Characteristics if it has any solid liquid or gaseous matters or any combination or mixture of such matters which by themselves or in combination with any other matters will immediately or in the course of time:

(a) Interfere with the free flow of Sewage in the Sewerage System;

(b) Damage any part of the Sewerage System;

(c) In any way, directly or indirectly, cause the quality of the treated sewage or residual Biosolids and other solids from any sewage treatment plant in the catchment to which the waste was discharged to breach the conditions of a consent issued under the RMA , or water right, permit or other governing legislation, or commercial arrangement;

(d) Prejudice the occupational health and safety risks faced by sewerage workers and sampling technicians;

(e) After treatment be toxic to fish, animals or plant life in the receiving waters;

(f) Cause malodorous gases or substances to form which are of a nature or sufficient quantity to create a public nuisance; or

(g) Have a colour or colouring substance that causes the discharge from any sewage treatment plant to receiving waters to be coloured.

1B.2.2. A discharge has a prohibited characteristic if it has any amount of:

(a) Harmful solids, including dry solid wastes and materials which combine with water to form a cemented mass;

(b) Liquid, solid or gas which could be flammable or explosive in the wastes, including oil, fuel, solvents (except as allowed for in Schedule 1A), calcium carbide, and any other material which is capable of giving rise to fire or explosion hazards either spontaneously or in combination with sewage;

(c) Asbestos; 35

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 17 278

(d) The following organo-metal compounds:

Tin (as tributyl and other organotin compounds);

(e) Any organochlorine pesticides;

(f) Any health care waste prohibited for discharge to the sewerage system by NZ Standard 4304 or any solid wastes from any hospital, clinic, office or surgery of a medical or veterinary facility or laboratory, convalescent or nursing home or health transport facility; including, but not limited to: hypodermic needles; syringes; instruments; utensils; swabs; dressings; bandages; or any paper or plastic item of a disposable nature; or any portions of human or animal anatomy; Plus infectious or hazardous wastes deemed to pose a threat to public health and safety.

(g) Radioactivity levels in excess of the Office of Radiation Safety Guidelines.

36

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 279

Review of the Christchurch City Council Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007 and Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 / Proposed Christchurch City Council Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015

Section 155 Report Introduction 1. Currently the Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007 regulates the management of the waste handling facilities and imposes suitable conditions around operation, terms and conditions, and handling requirements. 2. Similarly, the Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 regulates the management of all cleanfill sites in the district, including the type of materials permitted. 3. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), the Council is required to review its bylaws at five and then ten yearly intervals. The Council is undertaking these review now as part of a series of rolling bylaw reviews, in this case, reviewing these two bylaws concurrently with two related bylaws. 4. When the Council reviews a bylaw, section 160 of the Act requires the Council to review the bylaw by making the determinations required by section 155. 5. Under section 155, the three determinations are:  Whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem or issue; and  If the Council decides that a bylaw is (still) appropriate, whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and  Whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

6. The following analysis has been undertaken for the purposes of reviewing the Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007 and the Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008, with the view of merging these two bylaws into a proposed new Christchurch City Council Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015.

What are the perceived problems?

7. For the purpose of this review, the Council has considered whether or not those problems still exist and whether there are any new issues that need to be addressed. The assessment is that the problems that existed in 2007 and 2008 are still present and that there some new problems can be better addressed by creating a new bylaw that combines many common aspects of the existing bylaws.

8. Common problems identified are:  Current inability to collect accurate waste data and information to meet legislative requirements.

 Difficulty in monitoring temporary waste handling or storage sites which have been allowed under emergency legislation since the 2010/11 earthquakes.

 Current inability for the Council to set realistic licence and annual fees contained within the bylaws with any change to fee structure requiring a bylaw amendment and public consultation.

 The amount of vegetative matter being disposed of with hardfill material. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 280

 Both of the bylaws currently lack a purpose clause.

 Management of hydro-excavation material in technological processes which have emerged since the bylaws were last amended.

 Disposal of materials to and in cleanfill sites which are not considered to be inert when they interact with the environment, particularly groundwater.

Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems?

9. In undertaking this review, the Council has considered four options for addressing any perceived problems. This requires the Council to consider whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems. The options considered are to: retain the two bylaw (status quo); amend the bylaws; replace the bylaws with a new bylaw; revoke the bylaws and not replace them.

10. The analysis undertaken suggests the preferred option is to combine the existing Cleanfill Handling Bylaw 2008 and Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007 to produce the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015. This option recognises the similarity between the two bylaws and the emergence of significant changes since the previous review.

Additionally, there are benefits in having a single bylaw.as this will reduce administrative costs to Council.

What is the most appropriate form of bylaw? 11. The most appropriate form of bylaw is one that:  Helps achieve the Council’s Community Outcomes, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013 and other strategic planning documents  Is not inconsistent with other Christchurch City Council’s bylaws;  Allows for exceptions and special circumstances;  Is within the legal power of the Council to make bylaws under s145 and s146 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 64 of the Health Act 1956.  Is not inconsistent with the NZBORA.

12. As the preparation of a new combined bylaw is considered to be the most appropriate approach, staff have prepared a clause by clause analysis of the proposed provisions for the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Bylaw 2015.

13. The clause by clause analysis is set out in Table 1. In preparing this analysis, two main options were identified with respect to most bylaw clauses: retaining the current provision, or making a new provision. In considering which of the options is the most appropriate, the following questions were asked:  Does the clause address an identified problem?  Does it provide an appropriate level of control?  Is it consistent with other Council bylaws?  Is it specific and easy to interpret for the public and Council's officers?  Is this provision enforceable?

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 281

14. The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the bylaw:  Improvements to ensure that Council can collect more accurate waste data and information to meet the requirements of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

 Allow the Council to better manage the changes to the regulatory framework since the 2010/11 earthquakes in terms of the need to monitor temporary waste handling or storage sites which may or may not be on the same site as a cleanfill operation.

 Allow the Council to set licence and annual fees through the Annual or Long-Term Plan. Currently, any change to fees requires a bylaw amendment.

 A reduction in the amount of vegetative matter from 2 per cent to 1 per cent that can be disposed of with natural hardfill and 'other hardfill'. In 2008 the hearings panel recommended that the vegetative content be changed from 2 to 1 per cent at the time of the next (this current) review of the Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw.

 Including a Purpose clause in the new bylaw. The 2007 and 2008 bylaws both lacked a 'Purpose' clause.

 Addition of new or improved definitions in the interpretations clause including hydro- excavation material (note, also included in the definitions within the Trade Waste Bylaw).

 Removing, Gib board, MDF, particleboard, plywood, roofing iron and untreated timber as materials which qualify as 'other hardfill'. These materials were listed in Schedule A (Licensed Materials) of the 2008 cleanfill bylaw. The reason for this change is that, taking a precautionary approach, these materials are not considered to be inert (i.e. their components could leach into the water table). Under the new bylaw they will be required to be sent to landfill or otherwise recovered at source.

 The definition of 'other hardfill' has been moved from the schedule and included within the definitions of the new bylaw.

 Various minor improvements to wording, numbering and format.

15. In addition to the recommended clauses described in Table 1, staff gave consideration to a number of other possible bylaw inclusions or provisions suggested by people and organisations including those from the community boards, Environment Canterbury, Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited and Council staff. 16. Staff conclude that a new bylaw, the Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015, addresses the issues outlined in Table 1 and is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

Are there any NZBORA implications? 17. In reviewing the current bylaw and proposing a new replacement bylaw, the Council is required to consider whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New NZBORA. Section 155(3) of the Act states that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the NZBORA. 18. The NZBORA specifically identifies four types of rights, these are:  Life and security of the person;  Democratic and civil rights;  Non-discrimination and minority rights; COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 282

 Search, arrest and detention. The proposed Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015 does not give rise to any implications under the NZBORA. Conclusion 19. Having reviewed the Cleanfill Handling 2008 Licensed Waste Handling Facilities 2007 Bylaws, in terms of section 155 of the Act,  The proposed Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015 is determined to be the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems; and  The proposed Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015 is considered to be the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and  The proposed Cleanfill and Waste Handling Bylaw Operations 2015 does not give rise to implications under the NZBORA and is not considered to be inconsistent with the NZBORA. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 283

Proposed 2015 Bylaw clause Existing Cleanfill Bylaw comparative Existing LWHF Bylaw Reasons for change and staff clause comparative clause comments

3. PURPOSE NO PURPOSE CLAUSE NO PURPOSE CLAUSE Current drafting style of Council's The purpose of this Bylaw is to: bylaws is to include a purpose/object of the bylaw clause a. Regulate and monitor operators collecting, managing, storing and using cleanfill and waste within the City through a licensing process; b. Protect, promote and maintain public health and safety; c. Provide comprehensive data and information for planning and waste management and minimisation purposes.

4. INTERPRETATION LICENCE MONITORING Handle in relation to waste To make the definitions New and amended definitions include: FEE means the fee set out in Schedule includes but is not limited to comprehensive. C which may be any collection, sorting, Annual licence fee: definition replaces emended by the Council from time to consolidation, storage or licence monitoring fee time by resolution. processing of waste.

CLEANFILL means material that does Cleanfill: definition of cleanfill now excludes licensed refuse station hydro-excavation material. not undergo any physical, means a place or facility chemical or biological transformations carrying out a waste Disposal: new definition, has the same that will cause operation licensed under meaning as in the Waste Minimisation Act adverse environmental effects or health this Bylaw. 2008 effects and includes materials in Schedule A. waste operation means any Handle: same definition but has added that it operation which handles excludes transporting of waste waste and has a waste COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 284

output of more Hydro-excavation material: new definition - than 50 tonnes of waste per means the suspended solids and/or mixture annum. For the purposes of of solids and waster derived from hydro this definition waste output excavation works. does not include any waste Have moved the definitions for cover transported to a licensed material, natural hardfill and other hardfill refuse station or a Cleanfill (which were in Schedule A of the Cleanfill Site. Bylaw 2008) into the definitions section.

New definition for 'transfer station' that replaces 'licensed refuse station': Transfer station means land or buildings to which waste is delivered for sorting and/or compaction before being taken away for disposal

Waste operation (changed definition): Means a transfer station and any other land or buildings at which more than 50 tonnes of waste per annum is delivered and/or stored and then sent for disposal within the Council's district, or sent for further processing and/or disposal outside the Council's district.

5. CLEANFILL SITES AND WASTE 3. CLEANFILL SITE LICENSING 4. WASTE OPERATION Necessary and consequential changes in combining two bylaws. OPERATIONS REQUIRE LICENSING LICENSING (1) No person shall permit or suffer any land owned or controlled by that person Addition in proposed new clause (1) No person may allow any land owned or 4.1 No person shall carry on to be used for the disposal of Cleanfill 5(2)(b) that as well as the other controlled by that person to be used for the or permit or suffer any land unless the Council has granted a hardfill being sourced directly from disposal of cleanfill or for a waste operation or facility owned or controlled Licence to a person in relation to that the land, information about the unless: by that person land and unless such disposal is to be used for a waste other hardfill must be given Council can collect more accurate COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 285

(a) the Council has granted a licence to a undertaken in accordance with the operation unless: waste data and information person in relation to the use of that land for a terms and conditions of the Licence. (a) The Council has granted cleanfill site or waste operation; and This provision shall not apply to land a licence to a person in used for the disposal of Cleanfill where relation to that waste (b) the cleanfill site or waste operation is such disposal: operation; and undertaken in accordance with the terms and (b) That waste operation is conditions of the licence. (a) Consists solely of: carried on in accordance with (i) Natural Hardfill, and/or the terms and conditions of (2) No licence is required for land used for (ii) Cover Material, or the relevant licence. the disposal of cleanfill where such disposal: (iii) Not more than 50 cubic metres, or such greater amount as the (a) consists solely of: Council in its discretion may allow, of other Cleanfill measured over (i) natural hardfill and/or cover material; any continuous 12 month period. and/or (b) is of Cleanfill sourced directly from (ii) not more than 50 cubic metres, or such that Land. greater amount as the Council in its discretion may allow, of other hardfill measured over any continuous 12 month period; or

(b) is more than 50 cubic metres of other hardfill provided it is sourced directly from the same land where it is being disposed of, and provided information is given to the Council about the type and quantities of the other hardfill.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 286

6. LICENCE APPLICATIONS Clause 3 Necessary and consequential changes in combining two bylaws. (1) An application for a cleanfill or waste (2) An application for a Licence must be operation licence must be made to the made to the Council and be Council on the form provided by the Council accompanied by a License Application and be accompanied by a licence application Fee. fee. (3) In considering any application for a (2) In considering whether to grant or refuse Licence the Council will take into an application for a licence the Council will consideration the following factors: take into consideration the following factors: (a) Any relevant resource consents administered by the Council and the (a) Any relevant resource consents Regional Council in terms of the administered, or that will be required, by the Resource Management Act 1991; Council and the Regional Council in terms of (b) Previous disposal on site; the Resource Management Act 1991; (c) Previous compliance history on the site; (b) Previous use of the proposed land; (d) Compliance with requirements of the Bylaw at the time of application for (c) Previous compliance history of the a applicant; Licence. (e) Any other factor which the Council (d) Any other factor which the Council considers at its own discretion to be considers at its discretion to be relevant. relevant.

(3) If a licence application is refused, the Council will provide the applicant with written reasons for the Council's decision.

Clause 3 5. LICENCE TERMS AND 7. LICENCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONDITIONS Clause 3(4)(b) of the Cleanfill (4) Every Licence whether granted 5.1 Licences shall not be Bylaw is to be removed. There is (1) Every licence is subject to the following under this Bylaw or under the transferable to any other no need to provide for this terms and conditions: Christchurch City Cleanfill Licensing person. exemption in the Bylaw as Council Bylaw 2003 is subject to the following staff consider this should be a rare Conditions applicable to all licences terms and conditions: 5.2 Every licence shall be occurrence and if necessary an … subject to the following terms exemption application can be COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 287

(a) Licences are not transferable to (b) The Licensee may seek the prior and conditions: made to the Council under the any other person or any other written consent of the Council to the (a) The term of the licence General Bylaw. land. disposal of materials other than shall be ten years; … Licensed Materials at the Cleanfill Site. Clause 5.2 of the LWHF Bylaw to (b) The licensee must pay an The Council may at its entire discretion (c) The licensee shall pay the be removed. No need for the term annual licence fee in advance grant its consent subject to such terms licence fee to the Council in of a waste operation licence to be on 1 July each year (which fee and conditions as it thinks fit. one sum on or before the specified. will be on a pro-rata basis where commencement date of the the licence is granted during the … licence; Introduces an annual licence fee financial year). (d) The Licensee must pay an annual (d) The licensee shall: for waste operations, to be Licence Monitoring Fee. For a License (i) keep and maintain written consistent with cleanfill operations. (c) The licensee must keep and granted under this Bylaw the first records on the data specified The annual fee will better reflect maintain records on the data Licence Monitoring Fee is payable in Schedule B for 5 years the administration cost to the specified in Schedule A for 5 upon the application for a licence, and from Council of administering the years. The licensee must supply thereafter annually on the anniversary the date on which the licences and the information the records to the Council at date of the issue of the License. relevant consignment of collection year to year rather than such intervals and in such form …. waste is handled by the one fee paid at the time the licence as the Council may from time to (f) The Licensee shall keep and licensee’s licensed refuse is obtained. There will be no new time specify. maintain written records on the data station or such lesser time as fee required to be paid until 1 July specified in Schedule B for 5 years the Council may from time to 2016. (d) The Council has the right to take from the date of receipt of each load of time all reasonable steps, including: Cleanfill or such lesser time as the specify; and Amendments to when licence fee Council may from time to time specify. (ii) supply the records to the is paid to relate to new Council (i) inspecting the cleanfill The Licensee shall supply the records Council at such intervals and financial year not on anniversary of site or waste operation to the Council at such intervals and in in such form as the Council licence application such form as the Council may from time may from time to time with or without notice; and to time specify. The Council specify; shall have the right to take all (e) The Council shall have (ii) inspecting all relevant reasonable steps, including Cleanfill the right to take all invoices and other Site inspections with or without notice reasonable steps, including: and inspection of all relevant invoices (i) inspecting the licensee’s documentation held by and other documentation held by the licensed refuse station or the licensee, for the Licensee, to audit the records for the waste operation with or purposes of ensuring compliance with without notice; and purposes of auditing the the Licence. (ii) inspecting all relevant licensee’s performance invoices and other and determining (g) Such other terms and conditions as documentation held by the COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 288

compliance with the terms the Council deems fit. licensee, for the purposes of auditing the licensee’s and conditions of the (5) Licenses are not transferable to any performance and determining licence; and other person. compliance with the terms and conditions of the licence; (e) Such other terms and conditions and as the Council considers (f) Such other terms and appropriate, at its discretion. conditions as the Council deems fit.

5.4 To compensate the licensee for the cash (sic) of complying with its obligations 5.4 Redundant and unnecessary under Clause 5.2(d) the clause which has never been Chief Executive may from exercised. time to time specify an amount to be paid to the licensee. Improvements to wording and Cleanfill site licence conditions Clause 3 conversion figure now specified in

(4) Every Licence whether granted the Bylaw to improve (f) No material other than natural understanding hardfill, other hardfill or cover under this Bylaw or under the material may be disposed of at a Christchurch City Cleanfill Licensing cleanfill site. Bylaw 2003 is subject to the following terms and conditions: (g) The volume measurement of cleanfill is made on an on truck (a) Subject to clause 3.4 (b), no basis. Where loads comprise a material other than Licensed Materials mixture of natural hardfill and shall be disposed of at the Cleanfill other hardfill it will be recorded Site. as other hardfill irrespective of the volume percentage split …(e) Volume measurement shall be between the groups. For those made on an on truck basis. Where cleanfill sites using weight loads comprise a mixture of Natural measurements, a weight to Hardfill and Other Hardfill material COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 289

volume conversion figure of 1 group types, it shall be recorded as cubic metre to 1.636 tonnes Other Material irrespective of the must be used to calculate the volume percentage split between the appropriate volumes for the groups. For those Cleanfill Sites using purposes of data specified in weight measurements, a weight to Schedule A. volume conversion figure, as specified from time to time by the Council, shall be used to calculate the appropriate volumes in order to record the data as required in terms of Clause 3.4.(f).

Waste operation licence conditions 5.2 New clause ensures that data is (b) The licensee shall comply collected on waste. (h) The licensee must comply with with the relevant handling any relevant handling requirements; requirements determined by the Council under clause 8. 5.3 Where this Bylaw or the terms of the relevant licence (i) The licensee must weigh all require waste to be weighed waste on a certified weighbridge the licensee must carry out for the purposes of the data such weighing on a Council specified in Schedule A. approved weighbridge.

6. HANDLING No change. No handling 8. HANDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE REQUIREMENTS requirements imposed on any OPERATIONS waste operation under the 2007 (1) In determining the handling 6.1 In determining the Bylaw clause but staff consider requirements for waste operations the handling requirements the this clause should be retained, so Council may consider: council may consider: a requirement could be quickly imposed if required. This is ……(rest of clause unchanged …… appropriate in light of temporary from Clause 6 2007 Bylaw) post-earthquake arrangements. Before any handling requirements are imposed the clause requires a discussion with the applicant first.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 290

Clause 3(4): No similar clause in this May not have to use special 9. AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE A (c) The Council may from time to time bylaw consultative procedure to amend The Council may from time to time by by resolution (following a special Schedule as a result of recent resolution amend Schedule A of the consultative procedure) remove from or LGA02 amendments Bylaw. The amendment will take effect add materials to Schedule A of the from a date determined by the Council, Bylaw. The removal or addition will take with one month notice, or such longer effect from a date determined by period as the Chief Executive decides, the Council, with one month notice, or being given to the public of the such longer period as the Chief effective date of the amendment. Executive decides, being given to the public of the effective date.

Same Same 10. CHRISTCHURCH CITY GENERAL BYLAW Same Same Same 11. OFFENCE AND PENALTY Clause is the same as two bylaws being reviewed, except reference added to an offence under the bylaw also being punishable by a fine not exceeding $20,000.00 as provided for in section 66 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

Saves the current fees schedules 12. REVOCATIONS AND SAVINGS until new fees are consulted on (1) This Bylaw revokes the Christchurch City and put in place under the annual Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 and the plan consultation for the 2016/17 Christchurch City Licensed Waste Handling financial year Facilities Bylaw 2007 (2) Despite the revocation in clause 12(1) the fees schedules of both bylaws are not revoked until 1 July 2016.

Schedule A - lists the natural hardfill, Schedule A -Sets the licence Schedule A of the Cleanfill bylaw SCHEDULE A COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 17 291

cover material and other hardfill that fee of $225 has been moved to the definitions New proposed bylaw only has one schedule - are cleanfill materials. clause in the new bylaw, except the information required to be supplied to Schedule B - lists the waste that Council under both bylaws. Schedule B - lists the waste data data required to be provided 'Gib board, hardboard, MDF, required to be provided. particleboard, plywood, roofing iron and untreated timber' have Schedule C - Sets the licence been removed from the list of application fee at $250 plus GST and 'other hardfill' items. the monitoring fee at $3470 plus GST.

292 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 293

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

CLEANFILL AND WASTE HANDLING OPERATIONS BYLAW 2015

Pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 2002 and the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, the Christchurch City Council makes this Bylaw.

1. SHORT TITLE

This Bylaw may be cited as the Christchurch City Council Cleanfill and Waste Handling Operations Bylaw 2015

2. COMMENCEMENT

This Bylaw comes into force on [1 December 2015]

3. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Bylaw is to:

a) Regulate and monitor operators collecting, managing, storing and using cleanfill and waste within the City through a licensing process;

b) Protect, promote and maintain public health and safety;

c) Provide comprehensive data and information for planning and waste management and minimisation purposes.

The following note is explanatory and is not part of the Bylaw: Compliance with this Bylaw does not remove the need to comply with all other applicable Acts, regulations, bylaws, and rules of law, which may include the need to apply for a resource consent from the Council or from the Regional Council.

4. INTERPRETATION

In this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

annual licence fee means the fee set out in Council's list of fees and charges that covers the administration and monitoring for licences granted under this or any former Bylaw

cleanfill means natural hardfill, other hardfill and cover material that will not undergo any physical, chemical or biological transformations that will cause adverse environmental effects or health effects, and excludes hydro- excavation material

cleanfill site means the land in respect of which the Council has granted the licensee a licence to allow the land to be used for the disposal of cleanfill.

Council means the Christchurch City Council COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 294

cover material means topsoil used for cleanfill cover that meets the requirements of National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health disposal has the same meaning as in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and means the final (or more than short-term) deposit of waste into or onto land set apart for that purpose or the incineration of waste (being the deliberate burning of waste to destroy it, but not to recover energy from it). handle in relation to waste includes any collection, sorting, consolidation, storage or processing of waste, but excludes transporting of waste handling requirements means, in relation to each waste operation licence, the requirements for handling waste imposed by the Council pursuant to clause 8 hydro- excavation material means the suspended solids and/or mixture of solids and water derived from hydro excavation works landfill site means land used for the disposal of waste licence means a licence issued to a licensee under this Bylaw or any former bylaws repealed by this Bylaw or any former Bylaw licence application fee means the fee set out in the Schedules of the former bylaws revoked by this Bylaw and, once those Schedules are revoked, means the fee set out in Council's list of fees and charges licensee means the person to whom the Council has issued a licence natural hardfill means uncontaminated soils, rock, gravels, sand, clay and other inorganic inert natural materials (natural hardfill that contains less than 1% by volume per load of vegetative matter or other hardfill is still classified as natural hardfill) on truck in relation to the volume measurement of cleanfill, means the volume of cleanfill as measured in the means of conveyance when the cleanfill arrives at the cleanfill site other hardfill means:

 Asphalt (cured)  Bricks  Ceramics  Chip seal (cured)  Reinforced concrete including exposed reinforcing rods of less than 1 metre in length  Concrete, un-reinforced (including dried concrete slurry)  Glass, excluding glass that contains any non-glass material such as laminating, wire reinforcing, rubber lining  Masonry blocks  Pavers (clay, concrete, ceramic)  Pipes (clay, concrete, ceramic)  Tiles (clay, concrete, ceramic)  Vegetative matter less than 1% by volume per load COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 295

person includes a corporation sole, and also a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate.

regional council means the Canterbury Regional Council, also known as Environment Canterbury, CRC and ECan

transfer station means land or buildings to which waste is delivered for sorting and/or compaction before being taken away for disposal

waste has the same meaning as in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008:

(a) means any thing disposed of or discarded; and (b) includes a type of waste that is defined by its composition or source (for example, organic waste, electronic waste, or construction and demolition waste); and (c) to avoid doubt, includes any component or element of diverted material, if the component or element is disposed of or discarded

waste operation means a transfer station and any other land or buildings at which more than 50 tonnes of waste per annum is delivered and/or stored and then sent for disposal within the Council's district, or sent for further processing and/or disposal outside the Council's district

5. CLEANFILL SITES AND WASTE OPERATIONS REQUIRE LICENSING

(1) No person may allow any land owned or controlled by that person to be used for the disposal of cleanfill or for a waste operation unless:

(a) the Council has granted a licence to a person in relation to the use of that land for a cleanfill site or waste operation; and

(b) the cleanfill site or waste operation is undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence.

(2) No licence is required for land used for the disposal of cleanfill where such disposal:

(a) consists solely of:

(i) natural hardfill and/or cover material; and/or

(ii) not more than 50 cubic metres, or such greater amount as the Council in its discretion may allow, of other hardfill measured over any continuous 12 month period; or

(b) is more than 50 cubic metres of other hardfill provided it is sourced directly from the same land where it is being disposed of and provided information is given to the Council about the type and quantities of the other hardfill.

6. LICENCE APPLICATIONS (1) An application for a cleanfill or waste operation licence must be made to the Council on the form provided by the Council and be accompanied by a licence application fee. COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 296

(2) In considering whether to grant or refuse an application for a licence the Council will take into consideration the following factors:

(a) Any relevant resource consents administered, or that will be required, by the Council and the Regional Council in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991;

(b) Previous use of the proposed land;

(c) Previous compliance history of the applicant;

(d) Any other factor which the Council considers at its discretion to be relevant.

(3) If a licence application is refused, the Council will provide the applicant with written reasons for the Council's decision.

7. LICENCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

(1) Every licence is subject to the following terms and conditions:

Conditions applicable to all licences

(a) Licences are not transferable to any other person or any other land.

(b) The licensee must pay an annual licence fee in advance on 1 July each year (which fee will be on a pro-rata basis where the licence is granted during the financial year).

(c) The licensee must keep and maintain records on the data specified in Schedule A for 5 years. The licensee must supply the records to the Council at such intervals and in such form as the Council may from time to time specify.

(d) The Council has the right to take all reasonable steps, including:

(i) inspecting the cleanfill site or waste operation with or without notice; and

(ii) inspecting all relevant invoices and other documentation held by the licensee, for the purposes of auditing the licensee’s performance and determining compliance with the terms and conditions of the licence; and

(e) Such other terms and conditions as the Council considers appropriate, at its discretion.

Cleanfill site licence conditions

(f) No material other than natural hardfill, other hardfill or cover material may be disposed of at a cleanfill site.

(g) The volume measurement of cleanfill is made on an on truck basis. Where loads comprise a mixture of natural hardfill and other hardfill it will be recorded as other hardfill irrespective of the volume percentage split between the groups. For those cleanfill sites using weight measurements, a weight to volume conversion figure of 1 cubic metre to COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 297

1.636 tonnes must be used to calculate the appropriate volumes for the purposes of data specified in Schedule A.

Waste operation licence conditions

(h) The licensee must comply with any relevant handling requirements determined by the Council under clause 8.

(i) The licensee must weigh all waste on a certified weighbridge for the purposes of the data specified in Schedule A

8. HANDLING REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE OPERATIONS

(1) In determining the handling requirements for waste operations the Council may consider:

(a) The targets for waste minimisation contained in the Council’s waste management and minimisation plan.

(b) The extent to which the removal of recyclable and reusable materials from the waste stream is:

(i) economic; and

(ii) reasonably possible in the proposed waste operation;

(c) The location of the proposed waste operation;

(d) The nature of the proposed waste operation;

(e) The quantity of waste to be handled by the proposed waste operation;

(f) The category or type of waste to be handled by the proposed waste operation;

(g) Industry best practice for waste handling operations in the nature of the proposed waste operation;

(h) Any practical considerations associated with the proposed waste operation;

(i) Any issues relating to the proposed waste operation raised in the application for the licence; and,

(j) Any other matter which the Council considers relevant.

(2) After having considered the matters listed in clause 8(1) and having discussed those matters with the applicant the Council may from time to time impose such handling requirements on the waste operation as the Council sees fit.

9. AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE A

The Council may from time to time by resolution amend Schedule A of the Bylaw. The amendment will take effect from a date determined by the Council, with one month notice, or COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 298

such longer period as the Chief Executive decides, being given to the public of the effective date of the amendment.

10. CHRISTCHURCH CITY GENERAL BYLAW

The provisions of the Christchurch City General Bylaw 2008 (as amended from time to time) are implied into and form part of this Bylaw.

11. OFFENCE AND PENALTY

Any breach of this Bylaw:

(a) is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $20,000.00 as provided for in section 242(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 66 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and/or

(b) entitles the Council to suspend any licence for such period as it considers appropriate or to cancel any licence having regard to the nature and circumstances of any breach.

12. REVOCATIONS AND SAVINGS

(1) This Bylaw revokes the Christchurch City Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2008 and the Christchurch City Licensed Waste Handling Facilities Bylaw 2007

(2) Despite the revocation in clause 12(1) the fees schedules of both bylaws are not revoked until 1 July 2016.

The initial resolution to make this Bylaw was passed by the Christchurch City Council at a meeting of the Council on the x day of x 2015 and was confirmed, following consideration of submissions by a resolution at a subsequent meeting of the Council on the x day of x 2015.

THE COMMON SEAL of the CHRISTCHURCH) CITY COUNCIL was affixed in the presence of )

Mayor/Councillor

Authorised Manager

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 17 299

SCHEDULE A - INFORMATION

A cleanfill site licensee must keep records of the following minimum data for each load received for disposal:

 Date of receipt.

 Carrier and truck I.D.

 Location of source of the cleanfill.

 Type of activity generating the cleanfill (e.g. road construction, trenching, site clearance, etc).

 The cleanfill group type i.e. natural hardfill, other hardfill or cover material.

 Volume of natural hardfill, other hardfill and/or cover material.

Once a year, at the time of paying the annual licence fee, the licensee must send the Council a map of the area at the cleanfill site that has been filled in the previous year, and the location and type of cleanfill disposed of in that area.

A waste operation licensee must keep records of the following data for each consignment of waste handled by the licensee:

• Date of dispatch.

• Category or type of waste.

• Origin of waste.

• Destination of waste.

• Weight of waste. 300 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 17 301

Review of the Christchurch City Council Waste Management Bylaw 2009 LGA Section 155 Report Introduction 1. The Christchurch City Council Waste Management Bylaw 2009 regulates the following aspects of the waste stream  Kerbside collection services for waste from individual properties; and  Council waste collection points for use by communities without a kerbside collection service  The types of waste that may be disposed of; and  The prevention of nuisance in relation to waste collection and litter and recycling bins provided by the Council in public places. 2. Generally its purpose is to prevent the contamination of recoverable resources and to maximise the recovery of recyclable resources. It ensures that waste is collected in a safe and efficient manner, and does not cause a nuisance. 3. The Waste Management Bylaw came into force in February 2009. Under section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), the Council is required to review its bylaws at five and then ten yearly intervals. The Christchurch City Council Waste Management Bylaw 2009 is due for its 10 yearly review by 2018. The Council is undertaking this review now as part of a series of rolling bylaw reviews, in this case, reviewing the four waste-related bylaws simultaneously. 4. When the Council reviews a bylaw, section 160 of the Act requires the Council to review the bylaw by making the determinations required by section 155. Under section 155, the three determinations are:  Whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem or issue; and  If the Council decides that a bylaw is (still) appropriate, whether the bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and  Whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

The following analysis has been undertaken for the purposes of reviewing the Waste Management Bylaw 2009. Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems?

5. In undertaking this review, the Council has considered four options for addressing any perceived problems. This requires the Council to consider whether or not a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems.

6. The options considered are to: retain the bylaw (status quo); amend the bylaw; replace the bylaw with a new bylaw; revoke the bylaw and not replace it. For the Waste Management Bylaw 2009, the preferred option is to retain the bylaw as it adequately addresses existing problems, i.e. it is fit-for-purpose. Minor operational matters can be addressed by adjusting appropriately the Terms and Conditions

7. The staff assessment is that a bylaw is still needed in order to prevent the contamination of recoverable resources and to maximise the recovery of resources. Bylaw controls are also needed for the purpose of ensuring that waste is collected in a safe and efficient manner, and does not cause a nuisance.

The current bylaw

8. In terms of this current review, staff have considered whether the 2009 bylaw is still fit-for purpose, for example, whether there are any new issues that need to be addressed by amendments to the 2009 bylaw or through a new bylaw.

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 17 302

9. The staff assessment is that the problems that were addressed by the 2009 bylaw have not re-emerged. The consultation with operational staff and Community Boards identified few problems with the 2009 bylaw, for example, compliance with the three-bin collection system is overall considered to be very good.

10. The only identified problems are considered to be minor and relate to the terms and conditions which sit outside the bylaw. The recommended changes to the terms and conditions are designed to bring them into line with current practise and operational policies and to take into account changes in roadside and commercial waste collection since the 2010/11 earthquakes

The proposed changes to the terms and conditions are:  Stating the volumes of each bin in the standard set of three wheelie bins.  Provision for some property occupiers (at Council's discretion) to have a rubbish-only service in place of three bin collection. This clause is to cater for customers who cannot manage the bins because of physical disability or other reason.  Providing greater clarity and detail as to the types of material Council will accept for recycling which are able to be mechanically recovered and financially viable.  Stating that cardboard may not be placed on the street by private commercial operators for collection  Making clear that the property owner will be charged for a replacement wheelie bin if they fail to notify the Council within twenty-four hours of the theft of a bin. (This is the current practise/policy)

11. The analysis suggests that the best approach is for the Council to retain the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 in its current form, making instead changes to its Terms and Conditions.

What is the most appropriate form of bylaw?

12. The most appropriate form of bylaw is one that:  Helps achieve the Council’s Community Outcomes, the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2013 and other strategic planning documents  Is not inconsistent with other Christchurch City Council bylaws;  Allows for exceptions and special circumstances;  Is within the legal power of the Council to make bylaws under s145 and s146 of the Local Government Act 2002 and Section 64 of the Health Act 1956.  Is not inconsistent with the NZBORA. Retention of the 2009 bylaw in its current form meets all these requirements. Are there any NZBORA implications? 13. In reviewing the current bylaw and proposing any replacement bylaw, the Council is required to consider whether or not the bylaw gives rise to any implications under the New NZBORA. Section 155(3) of the Act states that no bylaw may be made which is inconsistent with the NZBORA. 14. The retention of the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 does not give rise to any implications under the NZBORA Conclusion 15. Having reviewed the Waste Management Bylaw 2009, in terms of section 155 of the Act,  The retention of the Waste Management Bylaw 2009 is determined to be the most appropriate way of addressing waste management problems; and  The Waste Management Bylaw 2009 is considered to be the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and  The Waste Management Bylaw 2009 does not give rise to implications under the NZBORA and is not considered to be inconsistent with the NZBORA. 303 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

18. CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED – DEVELOPMENT CHRISTCHURCH LIMITED PROGRESS REPORT

Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Executive Y Rosie Jordan Member responsible: 941 8554

1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT

1.1 When the Council approved the Mayors report to the Council meeting on 30 April 2015 regarding the establishment of Development Christchurch Limited it was resolved that Christchurch City Holdings Limited should report back with detail of how this would be implemented. This report is attached (attachment 1).

2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council receive the report and that Christchurch City Holdings Limited be authorised to proceed as outlined in attachment 1.

304 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 18 305

Report for Council

To: Chief Executive Officer, Christchurch City Council

From: Bob Lineham, Chief Executive, CCHL

Date: 21 May 2015

Subject: Development Christchurch Limited - Progress report ______

Background

In April the Council passed the following resolution:

12. MAYOR'S REPORT TO COUNCIL - A VIABLE FUNDING MODEL FOR CITY AND SUBURBAN REGENERATION

12.1 request Christchurch City Holdings Limited to capitalise an existing shelf company by providing equity of $1.5m over each of the next two years as a means of funding the operational budget and working capital needs for a Council Controlled Trading Organisation to be known as Development Christchurch Limited and review at the next annual plan. 12.2 request that following approval by Christchurch City Holdings Limited Board that Christchurch City Holdings Limited will report back to the Council on the process it would propose for the establishment phase of the company. 12.3 Noting that reporting will take place monthly to the Strategy and Finance Committee with a full face to face to that committee every three months. Board appointments will be subject to approval by the Council. All projects and desired project outcomes will be subject to approval by the Council. The Statement of Intent is subject to approval by the Council.

Purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to report back to Council, as requested, on the process CCHL plans to adopt for the establishment phase of the company.

CCHL Response

CCHL has considered the request from Council and has agreed that it will capitalise one of its existing shelf companies to implement the project as requested by Council and outlined in the Mayor's report to the Council meeting on 30 April 2015.

Establishment of the Company

It is proposed that a CCHL shelf company, CCHL 6 Ltd, be activated and renamed as Development Christchurch Limited (DCL). While the establishment phase work will commence immediately the company will not be formally activated until 1 July 2015 to avoid the need for accounting and auditing of a new entity which will just have a few administrative costs in the few weeks remaining until the end of 30 June 2015. This will not inhibit the necessary preparatory work being done and any costs will be accumulated in CCHL and transferred to DCL in July.

During its establishment phase, which is hoped to be 6 to 8 weeks, the interim board of the company will be comprised of appointees from the CCHL board, namely, Bruce Irvine, Bob Lineham, Bill Dwyer and Raf Manji. This board will operate only through the establishment phase and until the permanent board is selected and approved by Council.

Development Christchurch Limited 1st progress report to Council

COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 18 306

Establishment Issues

It will be important to get a project manager on board to assist the Establishment Board as soon as possible and CCHL has engaged Decipher Group to help select a suitable person for this role. The Project Manager will be appointed on a short term contract to carry the establishment role through until the permanent board is in place and ready to appoint a CEO.

The key roles of the Project Manager will be to prepare a Business Plan and Statement of Intent. In the preparation of the business plan it is expected that a wide range of issues will be identified which need to be addressed in the short term to get the company established. There will also be a range of more routine and practical matters such as opening a bank account, arranging D&O insurance, registration for tax, obtaining tax advice and legal advice as well as other commercial matters which will be identified through the establishment phase. Initial discussions will be needed with Council staff in order to establish protocols and understand opportunities for inclusion in the business plan. Reference will be made to a range of background papers which Council has on record from advisors in the gestation period of the initiative in order to minimise duplication of effort.

Appointment of Permanent board

Urgency will be given to finding a fully commercial board for DCL as the success of the venture will depend on establishing viable development projects and good outcomes will be dependent on skills of the board and key staff.

Brannigans have been engaged to assist CCHL with director appointments and they will be requested as soon as possible to begin a search for suitable directors for the permanent board.

The Establishment Board will need to approve a specification of director characteristics to inform the director search process and this will be done on the basis that the board will not only need to have the needed skills of a development company but will also need an appropriate public profile so that the company has credibility with Government, Council and the community.

The search process will follow the established Council Appointments Policy process with the CCHL Governance Committee interviewing a short list and recommending appointments firstly to the CCHL board as the shareholder of DCL who will then make a recommendation to Council for final approval.

Activation of Projects

The establishment board will not be expected to address any development projects. One of the key strengths of the proposed commercial model IS a board experienced in this type of business to review projects and ensure their commercial viability. However, the establishment phase will be kept to a minimum and as soon as the permanent board is appointed it will be able to commence work.

Next report

CCHL will next report to the Council at the end of the Establishment phase with a draft Statement of Intent based on its business plan and a recommended board for approval.

Recommendation:

That the report be noted and CCHL authorised to proceed as outlined.

Bob Lineham CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Development Christchurch Limited 1st progress report to Council

307 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

19. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT FROM HOUSING TASKFORCE (TO BE SEPARATELY CIRCULATED)

20. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

21. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Attached.

308

THURSDAY 28 MAY 2015

COUNCIL

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely the items listed overleaf.

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

309 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED

22. REPORT OF THE POTENTIAL LAND ISSUES IN SANDILANDS 48(1)(a)(i) To receive, consider and discuss legal Not to be released until expiry of INFRASTRUCTURE, advice about the council's potential liability legal limitation period TRANSPORT AND To maintain legal professional privilege for contaminated land sites in Sandilands ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7 MAY 2015

23. REPORT OF THE HOUSING ASSET OPTIMISATION STRATEGY- STAGE 1 On completion of adopted COMMUNITIES, HOUSING Housing Asset Optimisation AND ECONOMIC Protection of Health and Safety of Individuals 7(2)(d) Would unduly alarm tenants Strategy and subsequent DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE consultation 7 MAY 2015 Protection of Commercial Position 7(2)(b)(ii) Commercially sensitive information included

269-277 OPAWA ROAD - OPTIONS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

Prejudice Commercial Position 7(2) (b)(iii) Commercial negotiations yet to be Outcome of report can be finalised. released after commercial discussions finalised with Contractor. 24. 269-277 OPAWA ROAD - Prejudice commercial position 7(2) (b)(iii) Commercial negotiations yet to be Outcome of report can be OPTIONS FOR SOCIAL finalised. released after commercial HOUSING discussions finalised with Contractor.

25. CHRISTCHURCH HOUSING Commercial Activities 7(2) (h) Commercial Activities The information can be released ACCORD Withholding is necessary to enable Council when the development at 36 36 WELLES STREET: Conduct of Negotiations to carry out commercial activities without Welles St is completed. This is DEVELOPMENT prejudice or disadvantage expected to be in early 2017. CONTRIBUTIONS REBATE EXTENSION 7 (2) (i) Withholding is necessary to enable Council to carry out negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage 26. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST Prejudice commercial position 7(2)(b)(ii) Because it would likely unreasonably On expiry of contracted works and FOR OFF STREET PARKING prejudice the commercial position of the services OPTIONS - LICHFIELD person who supplied or who is the subject STREET CAR PARK & of the information. WIDER CENTRAL CITY Commercial activities 7(2)(h) Because withholding is necessary to PARKING enable any Council holding the information to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage. 310 COUNCIL 28. 05. 2015

Chairperson’s Recommendation: That the foregoing motion be adopted.

Note

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

“(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

(a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and (b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”