Clause 20 COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
A meeting of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee was held in Committee Room 1 on 10. 02. 2015 at 8.04am
PRESENT: Councillor Andrew Turner (Chairperson) Councillors Glenn Livingstone (Deputy Chairperson), Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones and Paul Lonsdale
APOLOGIES: Apology received from Councillor Lonsdale for lateness, who arrived at 8.06am and was absent for clauses 4 and 14. Apology received from Deputy Mayor Buck for lateness who arrived at 8.10am and was absent for clauses 4, 14 and part of clause 5.1. Deputy Mayor Buck later left the meeting at 11.42am and returned at 12.43pm, and was absent for part of clause 2 and clauses 3, 15 and 16. Apologies for lateness and early departure were received from Councillor Gough who arrived at 9.35am and left at 12.56pm, and was absent for clauses 4, 14, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, part of 5.4 and part of clause 17. Councillor Jones arrived at 8.35am and left at 12.50pm and was absent for clauses 4 and 14, part of clause 5.1, and part of clause 17.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. CENTRAL CITY LANDMARK HERITAGE GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE 2013/2014 FUNDS.
Contact Contact Details Chief Planning Officer Chief Planning Officer Y EA Diane Campbell, 8281 responsible: Strategy and Planning Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Y PA Michelle Oosthuizen, 8812 Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Acting Y 8934 Heritage Team Leader
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 Council staff are seeking a recommendation for the allocation of a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 This report proposes a grant towards the repair of a significant heritage building – the former Community of the Sacred Name Convent at the corner of St Asaph and Barbadoes Streets. The building includes the Cyril Mountfort designed wooden chapel. The building is now in new ownership and is to be used as the Christchurch base of the Home and Family Trust. The chapel will remain in use and will not be re-modelled (refer to the Statement of Significance in Attachment 1).
COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
Photograph of the interior of the former convent chapel, December 2014
Architect’s Sketch of proposed exterior of Home & Family building from St Asaph Street.
COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
1 Cont’d
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of central city heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past.
3.2 The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process. The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key central city landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades.
3.3 In 2012/13 $2.7 million was allocated to the former Trinity Congregational Church and the Benjamin Mountfort designed two-storied wooden building within the Christchurch Club site. In 2013/2014 $800,000 was allocated to the West Avon Apartment building. In 2014 $1.755 million was allocated to two projects, Victoria Mansions and St Michael’s Stone Classroom block.
3.4 The recommendations of the report align with the relevant strategies and policies listed below:
. Christchurch Recovery Strategy . The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan . The Christchurch City Plan . Council’s Heritage Conservation Policy . Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy . New Zealand Urban Design Protocol.
3.5 The Landmark Grant scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Landmark Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.
3.6 In dealing with Landmark Grants, Council Officers have applied a wider meaning to the term ‘Reconstruction’ than that contained in the International Council on Monuments and Sites New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (ICOMOS NZ). If the Charter definition was employed strictly, it is unlikely that a willing grant recipient could have been indentified given the level of damage to many buildings. More weight is placed on the reconstruction of heritage items which contribute to landmark and streetscape values, city identity and sense of place.
3.7 The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
1 Cont’d
4. COMMENT
4.1 There are approximately 140 listed heritage buildings remaining in the Central City, at least 25 of which are still under potential threat of full or partial demolition. Council Officers have prioritised buildings using the criteria in the Landmark Grant guidelines and the ability of the owner to take up the grant and undertake the required works. A number of heritage buildings have not been considered further where they have other sources of finance or remain under the control of receivers. Council owned heritage assets are not eligible for Landmark Grant funding. The identification and selection process has resulted in the following buildings being identified as good candidates for repairs and worthy of funding:
. State Insurance, Worcester Boulevard . McLean’s Mansion, Manchester Street . Community of the Sacred Name, Ferry Road . The Midland Club, Oxford Terrace . Harley Chambers, Cambridge Terrace . Public Trust Building, Oxford Terrace . Sargood Son and Ewan building, Lichfield Street (with receivers) . The former Wellington Woollen Mills, Lichfield Street (with receivers)
4.2 Discussions were carried out with the building owners and, in the case of the Sargoods and Wellington Woollen Mills, with the receivers. The receivers were not able to confirm the future status of these buildings. For high priority buildings the owner’s intentions to retain, repair and reconstruct were determined, the scope of works proposed, and the costs and timetables for the works established.
4.3 It is proposed to partially fund the repair and upgrade of the former Community of the Sacred Name building at the corner of Barbadoes Street and St Asaph Street – listed Group 1 in the Christchurch City Plan and registered Category I with ‘Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’, registration 4387. This two storey building was built in phases beginning circa 1894 with the last phase being a single storey masonry extension on the south-western side.
4.4 The former Community of the Sacred Name Building has been identified as having strong architectural integrity and distinction particularly in the form of the Cyril Mountfort designed chapel. The chapel includes distinctive lancet shaped stained glass windows and an unusual fully timber lined interior. As it was a convent, the building was screened from public view for most of the last century with high, solid fencing around the entire site boundary. The building remained in the same use and has been largely unaltered for many years and is therefore an excellent record of architecture from the turn of the twentieth century.
4.5 The building suffered damage from the recent series of earthquakes with the collapse of chimneys and a portion of brick wall on the western side. However, the bulk of the building is timber framed with match board internal lining and this has performed well throughout the earthquake sequence. The current strength of the bulk of the building has been assessed as approx fifty per cent of New Build Standard (NBS) and the building is not classed as earthquake prone. The building needs repairs and remodelling to allow it to function as the new base for the Home and Family Trust. As part of the remodelling the organisation are aiming to include a public café accessed from St Asaph Street. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
1 Cont’d
4.6 The building has been transferred into the ownership of the Home and Family Trust on an ‘as is where is’ basis and hence there is no insurance payout to fund the earthquake repairs. The proposal is to conserve, repair and seismically strengthen the building for use as an office and counselling facility. The proposed repair and upgrade work has been estimated at $2,600,000 exclusive of GST (Rawlinson’s Quantity Surveyors in November 2014). A substantial amount of work is required to the sub structure of the building in order to upgrade and modernise the foundations. The superstructure requires less work but will be strengthened with a number of different structural methods. These actions should strengthen the building to 100 per cent of NBS. A further key component of the works is to install a new fire sprinkler system which will protect the timber buildings against the considerable risk of fire.
4.7 The building would be a landmark on St Asaph Street, one of the main routes between the city centre and the south eastern suburbs and beyond to the port of Lyttelton. The building is close to the Christchurch Polytechnic and is within walking distance to the southern end of High Street with its surviving group of heritage buildings. The proposed works will remove the high fencing and open up the southern façade to view. The public will be afforded access via a public café and associated landscaped garden area. The intention of the Trust is to retain as much of the form and materials of the interior and in particular to conserve the highly important chapel. The former owners of the site will retain ownership of the adjacent site and will have access to the chapel.
4.8 Full conservation covenants are required under the Landmark Grants Policy Operational Guidelines for properties receiving grants of more than $150,000. Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected.
4.9 The building at 181 Barbadoes Street is owned by ‘Home and Family Trust’. The legal description of the title is Part Section 1172 (awaiting confirmation of new title after completion of subdivision).
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The Landmark Grant is an annual fund provided for in the Three Year Plan. There is $1.2 million available in the fund for the remainder of the 2014/15 year. The proposed allocation of $950,000 would leave $250,000 available for another building repair project.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That the Council approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of up to $950,000 for the repair and upgrade of the former Community of the Sacred Name, subject to the completion of the agreed scope of works and the owners entering into a Full Conservation Covenant with the Council.
7. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the Council approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of up to $950,000 for the repair and upgrade of the former Community of the Sacred Name, subject to the completion of the agreed scope of works and the owners entering into a Full Conservation Covenant with the Council and the owners raising the remaining monies required.
COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
2. APPROVAL FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANT, 236 TUAM STREET, MCKENZIE & WILLIS FACADE AND NOTIFICATION OF A CHANGE IN THE APPLICANT.
Contact Contact Details General Manager Chief Planning Officer Y PA Diane Campbell, 03 941 8281 responsible: Strategy and Planning Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Y PA Michelle Oosthuizen, 03 941 8812 Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Urban Y 03 941 8934 Design Architecture
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 Council officers seek approval for a further one year extension of time to enable the completion of work associated with a previously approved Heritage Incentive Grant. The new date for required completion would be one year from the previous approved date of April 2015.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The effect of the 2010 and 2011 series of earthquakes on the McKenzie and Willis building at 236 Tuam Street (also known as 181 High Street) was substantial. The bulk of the building has now been demolished leaving only the majority of the main street façade in place. The previous owners were successful in applying for a Heritage Incentive Grant of $240,000 to stabilise the façade but were unable to complete the works in the normal eighteen month timeframe. An initial extension of one year to the time frame of the grant was approved by the Council in April 2014. A new consortium has now been formed to undertake the work which includes representatives from McKenzie & Willis but brings new developers in to add resources and skills to complete the complex task of saving the façade. The applicant intends to complete the works to retain the façade as part of a new development and hence is seeking a further extension of one year to April 2016 for the grant to remain available.
PHOTOGRAPH, AUGUST 2012 COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
2. Cont’d
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 On the 12th September 2012 the Council resolved to grant $240,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) scheme to support the seismic strengthening, immediate retention and future restoration of the McKenzie and Willis façade located on the corner of Tuam and High St
3.2 An extension of the time for the completion of this project of one year was given by the Council in April 2014. The total of the HIG was based on forty per cent of the promised $600,000 contribution from the McKenzie and Willis Board. The HIG specifically supports:
3.2.1 Stabilisation of the façade through completing it’s attachment to the steel frames along High Street and Tuam Street and by the removal of the remaining severely damaged rear portions of the building;
3.2.2 Strengthening the façade to 100% of New Building Code Standard (NBS) which will include a new concrete backing and new foundations where required;
3.2.3 Repairing, replacing where required, and cleaning of the retained stonework façade.
3.3 The Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Building Fund Trust has provided a grant of $1 million, of which approximately $800,000 has been expended to the point where the façade retention is approximately ninety per cent secure. A further grant of $500,000 was approved by the Trust in order to help to complete the works. Once work is completed, the ‘Section 38 Notice’ (a requirement to make the building safe) issued by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) will be uplifted.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Committee approval for the extension is required pursuant to ‘Clause 5’ of the HIG Policy-Operational Guidelines.
4.2 The completion of work to stabilise and retain the façade was delayed for several reasons, primarily the preparation of engineering methodology and the sourcing of additional funding to offset price escalation. In the intervening time a new group of developers have been in negotiations with McKenzie & Willis and have recently purchased the site. This new owner and applicant have signed up tenants and designed new buildings adjoining and behind the façade.
4.3 The request to extend the HIG for a further calendar year will enable the removal of the remaining damaged building behind the façade, completion of the stabilising and strengthening works and the building of the new complex between Tuam and St Asaph Streets.
4.4 The façade is wholly contained within the innovation precinct which itself falls within the designated South Frame of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. The South Frame designation provides for, among other things; offices and retail/food and beverage. It is planned therefore that a new building is constructed and attached to the back of the façade, and that the use is likely to be complimentary to the frame’s designated activities and the innovation precinct’s drivers (technology based industry and research).
4.5 This further HIG extension will help to ensure the future protection and the eventual reuse of this significant heritage building facade. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
2 Cont’d
4.6 The commercial building at 236 Tuam Street is listed in the Christchurch City Plan, Group 2. The building is registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT) Category II (registration number 1909). The new applicant and owner for the Heritage Incentive Grant is ‘181 High Limited’.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no additional financial implications associated with this request for an extension of time for the HIG.
6. STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
6.1 That the Council approve a second extension of time of one year for the completion of work associated with a previously approved Heritage Incentive Grant. The new date for required completion would be 24 April 2016.
3. CITY HOUSING - IMPLICATIONS OF INSTALLING HEAT PUMPS IN COUNCIL’S SOCIAL HOUSING PORTFOLIO
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer N Member responsible: Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Housing N Authors: Rob Hawthorne, Strategic Property Y DDI 941 6458 Analyst Y Yvonne Gilmore, Energy Analyst DDI 941 8138
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 At its meeting on 10 June 2014, the Housing Committee asked staff to report back on the costs of installing heat pumps in partnership with Community Energy Action (to reduce costs) in ‘open’ social housing units that are damp and would benefit from these measures.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Heat pumps are not an existing level of service provided for tenants by City Housing. Any new costs incurred by City Housing would have to be passed on to tenants as a rent increase of approximately $10 per week.
2.2 The viability of heat pumps in general is affected by the low income levels of most City Housing tenants and their ability to pay for the running of these units.
2.3 Even with a substantial government subsidy (via the Community Energy Action programme), tenants would have to pay more in increased rent than they would save in lower energy costs.
2.4 Without the subsidy, tenants would pay significantly more in increased rent than they would save in lower energy costs.
2.5 City Housing would need to remove heat pumps as a level of service, when each heat pump became uneconomic to repair adding additional costs to the Housing Fund.
2.6 The installation of heat pumps throughout the Social Housing portfolio is not recommended at this time given the financial instability of the Housing Fund. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
3 Cont’d
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The current Community Energy Action (CEA) programme focuses on vulnerable tenants and those with current health issues. However, this report focuses on the benefits of improving the warmth and cost effectiveness across the entire portfolio.
3.2 Under the current funding arrangement all costs incurred by City Housing are passed on to tenants in the form of rental charges. Any improvements are ultimately paid for by the tenants through increased rents.
3.3 The viability of heat pumps in general is affected by the relatively modest income earned by most City Housing tenants and their ability to pay for the running of these units.
3.4 The Housing Fund would need to recoup all costs from the increased level of service via a rent increase to all tenants.
3.5 For the purposes of this report, the benefits of installing heat pumps throughout the portfolio has been assessed in relation to how they:
3.5.1 Improve the thermal performance of units; and
3.5.2 Reduce tenant’s power consumption / costs.
4. EXTENDING THE CEA PROGRAMME TO INCLUDE HEAT PUMPS
4.1 Councillors requested information on utilising the CEA relationship to install subsidised heat pumps. While initially targeting this new level of service on those with the highest need, the likelihood is that over time it would expand to a portfolio wide standard.
4.2 For the purposes of this report all options considered are applied on a portfolio basis. With 113 lost red zone units and 127 closed units, the balance of units allowed for in this report is 2,366.
4.3 Heat pumps are not currently provided by City Housing. Thermostatically controlled two kilowatt electric heaters are supplied at a total cost of $600 per unit (approximating to a value of $1.5 million). These are replaced on a cycle of approximately 15 years or when they fail. No maintenance is required and it is generally uneconomic to repair heaters due to the relatively low replacement cost.
4.4 The cost of acquiring and installing heat pumps as a new level of service for City Housing amounts to $7.95 million. Different heat pumps are required relative to the home size.
4.5 Heat pumps have an estimated life of 10 to 15 years depending on use and maintenance. Reactive repairs, parts and an annual filter cleans are required to keep them operating properly and extend the life closer to 15 years. Many tenants cannot complete these tasks, especially the elderly or those with health issues.
4.6 In addition to the $7.95 million, an annual allowance of $350 per unit would be required to cover inspections, filter cleans, repairs and replacement parts, e.g. remotes. Over 15 years this amounts to approximately $12.65 million.
4.7 As the service is not funded by rates or other grants tenants would ultimately have to pay these costs. After allowing for the removal costs for the existing heating equipment this equates to an average rent increase required to cover the difference of approximately $10 a week. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
3 Cont’d
4.8 Reasonable energy usage for a one bedroom unit over one year based on current charges for a two kilowatt heater equates to a heating cost of around $4 per day ($28 a week or $121 per month). This assumes 10 hours heating a day over winter, average room settings at 190 to 210 and reasonable insulation within the home.
4.9 In comparison, an efficient heat pump can provide efficiency gains of up to 50 per cent or $14 a week in the above example. This equates to average net savings of up to $4 per week, allowing for an increased rent of $10 per week.
4.10 Households that spend more than 10 per cent of their income on heating are classed as having fuel poverty. From City Housing research with Canterbury University in 2007, and anecdotal evidence, many tenants cannot afford $28 per week on heating and instead operate heating only on colder days.
4.11 Over a year more realistic expenditure on heating is estimated at $2 a day ($14 a week or $60 per month). Applying the same approach as above the tenant would only save $7 a week on power but after the $10 a week rent increase would be worse off by $3 a week.
4.12 The following table compares these two scenarios.
4.13 The above analysis does not consider the subsidies (currently) available through CEA for acquiring and installing heat pumps. If this is applied the required rent increase drops to $8 a week leaving the tenant worse off by $1, as shown in the following table.
4.14 To maximise the benefits available from heat pumps requires a level of use higher than many City Housing tenants are likely to be able to afford.
4.15 The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires that in the event a heat pump fails during a tenancy, the landlord (Council) would be expected to replace it. This would be without the benefit of a government subsidy.
4.16 Current government subsidies may not be available in 15 years when the renewal of heat pumps is required. If the subsidy was not available most tenants would be worse off.
4.17 By installing heat pumps in a large number of units an ‘effective’ level of service will have been established that most tenants would come to expect over time. It is then very difficult to remove heat pumps as a level of service in 15 years' time.
4.18 On balance, the risks and costs of installing heat pumps are likely to outweigh the benefits to tenants. Housing is a long term investment and the risk of increased costs on the Housing Fund and ultimately the tenant becomes greater in the future.
4.19 Greater pay backs or cost efficiencies can be provided to tenants from initiatives that reduce heat loss from units. Even with relatively efficient heating (such as heat pumps) savings or benefits can be compromised by poor insulation. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
3 Cont’d
4.20 Passive material and design initiatives are not as reliant on tenant behaviour to achieve energy savings. They also tend to provide a much better pay back than capital and maintenance intensive solutions such as heat pumps.
5. POSITIONING FOR THE FUTURE
5.1 Installing more heating equipment can increase ambient temperatures but only as long as the tenant is prepared to pay to operate them. Temperatures may reach 18 degrees while the heater is on in small areas, but the heat will rapidly dissipate where the units have:
Old roof insulation No insulation of concrete slab No wall insulation More than 30 per cent windows to wall area Poor floor insulation No extractors in bathroom or kitchen areas Single glazing Poorly fitting windows and doors resulting in High levels of humidity high air exchanges Little or no solar gain Poorly fitted short curtains or no curtains at all Block walls No pelmets over windows
5.2 Significant gains can be obtained when designing new or replacement housing units. The following initiatives can also provide relatively cost effective gains in thermal performance and have been discussed in a separate report:
Ceiling insulation Full length thermally lined curtains for all main Floor insulation windows Draught stopping Bathroom and/or kitchen extractors Pelmets over main window
5.3 The following also represent opportunities to improve thermal performance:
Wall insulation Double glazing and thermally broken windows Block wall insulation Solar gain by trimming vegetation around the Exterior slab insulation units
5.4 Double glazing and wall insulation are key features of the ‘mid-life’ refurbishment planned for City Housing units when they reach approximately 45 years of age. These initiatives have been deferred due to the financial constraints being faced by Council’s Social Housing portfolio. In order to advance repairs and renewals, including mid-life spend issues, a prioritisation framework has been developed, allowing specific best performing complexes to be targeted / optimised for available funding streams. Furthermore, an Asset Optimisation Plan will also be developed to support the correct future spend on the Social Housing portfolio. 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 The analysis utilised in this report is influenced by the need to recover all expenditure directly from tenants. The Housing Fund does not have any surplus money available to fund such an initiative (either subsidised or not) therefore a rent increase across the entire portfolio would be required to pay for this new level of service.
6.2 The viability of heat pumps and other initiatives to improve the warmth of housing units is likely to improve where tenant’s net income is increased. Should rents increase to pay for the heat pumps it is possible that some tenants would be eligible for an increase in the Accommodation Supplement. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
3 Cont’d
6.3 Furthermore, if an alternative rental mechanism was initiated such as the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) it is likely that the Housing Fund would have sufficient revenue to fund the installation of heat pumps across the portfolio and the tenant would still only pay an affordable rent.
6.4 There are no surplus funds currently available in the Housing Fund to pay for a programme of this type.
6.5 Under the current funding arrangement and financial situation, installing heat pumps is not financially viable.
7. STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
7.1 Does not install heat pumps into social housing units at this point in time.
7.2 Continues to improve the insulation performance of its Social Housing units (where possible) as and when earthquake repairs are completed and through existing planned cyclical upgrades.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
4. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
No conflicts of interest were declared.
5. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
5.1 Child Friendly City
Eve Lafferty (Barnadoes), Penny Prescott (Coordinator Canterbury Youth Workers Collective) and Shane Murdoch (Cholmondeley Children’s Centre) presented to the Committee their proposal for Christchurch becoming a child friendly city.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to request staff to work with Child Friendly Christchurch to prepare a report to the Council on the very practical real ways in which the Council can achieve the objective of a child friendly city.
5.2 Builtwise
David Robb from Nature-wise Group, along with Bob Burnett (Bob Burnett Architecture) and Brian Anderson (Bryn Martin Ltd) addressed the Committee regarding Builtwise, a new building initiative for higher rated affordable homes for Canterbury.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to refer the deputation to staff and request a workshop with the Housing Taskforce to include all relevant areas of the Council and with a view to identifying opportunities to progress. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
5. Cont’d
5.3 Smoke Free
Heather Kimber and Kate Matthews (Smokefree Canterbury) spoke to the Committee about the Christchurch City Council’s smoke free policy
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to request that the 2009 Smoke Free Policy come back to Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting in April 2015 as a briefing, with options to extend the policy as appropriate.
5.4 Summerz End Youth Fest 2015
Nic Farra and Zhiyan Basharati addressed the Committee regarding Summerz End Youth Fest, an event currently planned for 28 March 2015.
The Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee thanked the presenters for their deputations.
6. MAJOR FACILITIES REBUILD MONTHLY UPDATE
Staff spoke to the Committee regarding the monthly update on the Council’s major facilities rebuild.
The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.
7. COMMUNITY FACILITIES REBUILD UNIT SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAMME STATUS UPDATE
Staff spoke to the Committee regarding the status update on the Community Facility Rebuild Unit Social Housing Programme.
The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.
8. ANCHOR PROJECTS MONTHLY UPDATE
Staff spoke to the Committee and provided an update on the Council’s anchor projects.
The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.
9. COMMUNITY FACILITIES REBUILD MONTHLY UPDATE
Staff spoke to the Committee regarding the monthly status 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.
10. HOUSING OPERATIONS MONTHLY REPORT – DECEMBER 2014
Staff spoke to the Committee regarding the monthly update on key aspects of the Council’s Housing Unit operations.
The Committee decided to receive the information in the report. COUNCIL 12. 03. 2015
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10. 2. 2015
11. SOCIAL HOUSING – FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE - DECEMBER 2014
Staff spoke to the Committee regarding the monthly update on Social Housing’s financial position.
The Committee decided to receive the information in the report.
12. HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS SIX MONTHLY REPORT - JANUARY 2015
Staff spoke to the Committee regarding the Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report for the period 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2014.
The Committee decided to receive the information in the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant six monthly summary report.
13. COMMITTEE RESOLUTION TABLE
The Committee noted the inclusion of the resolution table.
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
14. APOLOGIES
The Committee resolved to accept apologies for lateness which were received from Deputy Mayor Buck and Councillors Lonsdale and Gough, and apologies for early departure which were received and from Councillors Gough and Jones.
15. HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANT APPROVAL, 12 RESERVE TERRACE, LYTTELTON
15.1 The Committee resolved to approve:
15.1.1 A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $21,167 for conservation and maintenance work for the notable heritage building at 12 Reserve Terrace, Lyttelton, subject to compliance with the agreed scope of works and certification of the works upon completion.
6.1.2 That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a 10 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.
16. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 159 of the agenda be adopted.
The public were readmitted to the meeting at 1.06pm at which point the meeting concluded.
CONSIDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
MAYOR