Committee Agenda

COMMITTEE AGENDA

14 August 2015 9am Wynn Williams House, Level 5, 47 Hereford Street

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 1

Committee Members

UDS Independent Chair Bill Wasley

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

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

Selwyn District Council Mayor Kelvin Coe, Councillors Malcolm Lyall and Mark Alexander

Waimakariri District Council Mayor David Ayers, Councillors Jim Gerard and Neville Atkinson

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Sir Mark Solomon and Elizabeth Cunningham

New Zealand Transport Agency (observer) Jim Harland

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (observer) John Ombler

Canterbury District Health Board (observer) David Meates

UDS Implementation Manager Keith Tallentire ph 9418590

Committee Adviser Warren Brixton ph 9415216 2 3

Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) Terms of Reference (2015)

1. Purpose The UDSIC is a joint committee within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2002. In 2015 it absorbed additional functions from the former Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee established by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in 2012. Local authority members are Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council and Canterbury Regional Council. The joint committee has additional public body representation from tangata whenua and other agencies. It has been established to oversee implementation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS), provide advice to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and ensure integration between earthquake recovery activity and longer term urban development activity, including: † Providing clear and united leadership in delivering the UDS vision and principles; † Promoting integration with the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch, associated recovery plans and programmes including the implementation of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and Natural Environment Recovery Programme (NERP); and, † Supporting the delivery of aligned tangata whenua objectives as outlined in Ngāi Tahu 2025 and the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013. The Committee is a formal joint committee pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002, (Schedule 7, Section 30). The Local Authorities have resolved that the Committee is not discharged at the point of the next election period (in line with clause 30 (7) of schedule 7).

2. Membership The local authorities and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu shall each appoint up to three representatives, including their respective Mayors, Chair and Kaiwhakahaere. The Chief Executives of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), and the Regional Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) attend as observers and have speaking rights but in a non-voting capacity. There shall be an Independent Chair (non-elected member), appointed by the Committee, who has speaking rights and voting capacity. The standing voting membership is limited to 16 members (including the Independent Chair), but with the power to co-opt up to a maximum of two additional non-voting members where required to ensure effective implementation. The Committee shall also appoint a Deputy Chair, who shall be elected at the commencement of each triennium, and who shall be a member of the Committee. In accordance with Section 30A of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002, the quorum at a meeting of the Committee shall be eight voting members. Other representatives of voting and non-voting organisations are permitted to attend meetings of the Committee; however attendance at any public excluded session shall only be permitted with the prior approval of the Chair. Likewise, speaking rights of other representatives at Committee meetings (whether in public session or not) shall only be granted with the prior approval of the Chair. 4

3. Meeting Frequency

Monthly, or as necessary and determined by the Independent Chair. Notification of meetings and the publication of agendas and reports shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Part 7 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

4. Committee Delegations The UDS Implementation Committee is delegated the following functions in support of its overall purpose: General † Overseeing implementation of the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP, NERP and associated documents, such as the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement † Advising the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on the development and implementation of the Recovery Strategy and any associated matters, including programmes, plans, projects, systems, processes and resources led by CERA or any other central government agency for the purposes of the recovery of greater Christchurch (as defined in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011) † Ensuring the integration between the UDS and any of the foregoing matters † Ensuring organisational systems and resources support implementation † Monitoring and reporting progress against actions and milestones † Managing any risks identified in implementation † Identifying and resolving any implementation inconsistencies arising from partner consultation processes † Facilitating consultation and establishing forums as necessary to support implementation and review † Periodically reviewing and recommending any adjustments to the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP and NERP.

Specific † Selecting and appointing an Independent Chair and Deputy Chair † Taking responsibility for implementing any actions specifically allocated to the Committee † Implementing a Memorandum of Understanding, as adopted by the Committee for each triennial period, to provide and maintain partnership relationships and provide for the resolution of any conflict † Advocate for statements of intent of council owned companies to be aligned to implementation of the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP and NERP where appropriate. † Champion integration and implementation through partner strategies, programmes, plans and policy instruments (including the Regional Policy Statement, Regional and District Plans, Long Term Plans (LTPs), Annual Plans, transport programmes and triennial agreements) and through partnerships with other sectors such as health, education and business. † Establish protocols to ensure that implementation, where necessary, is consistent, collaborative and/or coordinated to achieve optimal outcomes. † Making submissions, as appropriate, on Government proposals and other initiatives relevant to the implementation of the UDS and recovery documents, including the LURP and NERP. GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Agenda Items

Page no 1. Apologies 9

2. Declaration of Interest 9 3. Deputations by Appointment 9

4. Confirmation of Minutes 9 5. 100 Resilience Cities - Preliminary Resilience Assessment and Focus 17 Areas

6. UDS Refresh Project Planning 27

7. Recovery Programmes Update 31

8. Update from Committee Secretariat 39 9. Progress on developments at Colombo St, Welles Street and Awatea 41

10. Housing New Zealand Corporation Redevelopment Programme 43 Overview

11. UDS Partnership Submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan 11

12. UDS Partnership Submission on the Productivity Commissions 'Using 54 Land For Housing' Inquiry Draft Report

13. 'Housing Matters' and 'Build Back Better' projects updates 65

14. Resolution to Exclude the Public 67 6 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 7 S t a n d i n g I t e m s 8 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 9

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. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

It is recommended that the Committee confirm the minutes (both open and public excluded) of its meeting on 10 July 2015. 10 11

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

Held at Wynn Williams House, Level 5, 47 Hereford Street, Christchurch on 10 July at 9.04am

PRESENT: Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Bill Wasley (Independent Chair) Christchurch City Council Mayor Lianne Dalziel, Councillor Paul Lonsdale Environment Canterbury Commissioners Dame Margaret Bazley, Rex Williams and Peter Skelton Selwyn District Council Mayor Kelvin Coe, Councillor Malcolm Lyall and Mark Alexander Waimakariri District Council Mayor David Ayers, Councillors Jim Gerard and Neville Atkinson Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Elizabeth Cunningham New Zealand Transport Agency (observer) Jim Harland Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority (observer) John Ombler Canterbury District Health Board (observer) David Meates

The meeting was adjourned from 9.05am until 9.17am.

1. APOLOGIES

An apology for absence was received and accepted from Sir Mark Solomon (Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu) and Councillor Phil Clearwater (Christchurch City Council), and apologies for early departure were received and accepted from John Ombler who left the meeting at 11.19am, and Mayor Lianne Dalziel who left the meeting at 11.02am and returned at 11.30am.

Moved: Jim Gerard Seconded: Peter Skelton

2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

No declarations were made.

* UDS partners in respect of this matter are the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, Environment Canterbury, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and New Zealand Transport Agency. 12

3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

One Voice Te Reo Kotahi (OVTRK)

Katherine Peet and Rex Gibson of One Voice Te Reo Kotahi spoke to the Committee about the contribution of non-government organisations to greater Christchurch.

The Chairperson acknowledged and thanked Mr Gibson and Ms Peet for the deputation. At the end of the meeting the Committee agreed that the initial feedback to OVTRK (as required by the UDSIC Public Deputations guidelines) be for the UDS Implementation Manager to continue discussions with OVTRK as to how best the group can contribute to the work of the Committee.

4. CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

The Committee received the minutes of the previous meeting of 12 June 2015.

Moved: Peter Skelton Seconded: Kelvin Coe

5. LYTTELTON PORT RECOVERY PLAN UPDATE

It was moved by Peter Skelton, seconded by Malcom Lyall that this item be considered in the public excluded section of the meeting, under section 7(2)d of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act; 'protection of health or safety of individuals' as the discussion may include reference to hazard analysis due to the outcome of the recently held hearings.

6. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS

The Committee agreed to receive and consider the following reports at the 10 July 2015 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee meeting.

· Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan Decision · Recovery Programmes Update (public excluded) · LURP Review and Update and Draft Review recommendations (public excluded)

Moved: Paul Lonsdale Seconded: Peter Skelton

7. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECOVERY PROGRAMME

The Committee considered a report updating them on the implementation of the Natural Environment Recovery Programme for the second quarter of 2015. This update will now be reported to the meetings of respective partner councils.

The Committee agreed to receive the report.

Moved: Neville Atkinson Seconded: Mark Alexander

8. PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION 'USING LAND FOR HOUSING' INQUIRY DRAFT REPORT

The Committee considered the information in the report, which included progress of the Productivity Commission Inquiry 'Using land for Housing'. The report also sought delegation for the Independent Chair to approve a submission on the Productivity Commission's draft report, to be prepared on behalf of the UDS partnership. The deadline for submissions is August 4 2015. Ratification of the submission would be sought at the meeting of the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee on 14 August 2015.

The Committee resolved to: 8.1 Agree to the preparation of an Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Partnership submission on the Productivity Commission's draft report for its 'Using land for housing' inquiry. 8.2 Agree that the issues raised in the UDS submission reflect the matters outlined in section 4 of this report, subject to the following additions and clarifications: · inclusion of a statement promoting greater supply chain efficiency and competitiveness to assist housing affordability · inclusion of a statement that whilst determining rates on the basis of land value might aid housing land supply, for a range of other reasons councils favour a calculation based on capital value · rejection of a single urban development agency for New Zealand and a preference for any similar initiatives at a more local level to be developed through a voluntary arrangement amongst respective regulatory authorities. 8.3 Delegate approval of the submission to the Independent Chair, subject to final ratification at the meeting of the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee on 14 August 2015.

Moved: Paul Lonsdale Seconded: Peter Skelton

9. RECOVERY PROGRAMMES UPDATE

The Committee considered a report providing them with an update on implementation in relation to the range of recovery programmes in support of the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha.

The Committee agreed to receive the information in the report and resolved to acknowledge the views of Christchurch City Council as outlined in its submission to CERA on the Residential Red Zone offer .

Moved: Elizabeth Cunningham Seconded: Malcolm Lyall

10. UPDATE FROM COMMITTEE SECRETARIAT

The Committee considered the report. Reconsideration of the UDSIC meeting in October would occur due to a clash with a LGNZ Zone 5/6 meeting.

The Committee agreed to receive the information in the report.

Moved: Paul Lonsdale Seconded: Peter Skelton

11. UDSIC MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

The Committee considered a report which included recommendations in respect of a proposed Memorandum of Agreement for the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC), as required by the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014. This is a process related matter to achieve compliance with legislation.

The Committee agreed to:

11.1 Endorse the Memorandum of Agreement including appendices 1-3, and agreed that the Independent Chair finalise and sign the document on behalf of the Committee in accordance with its delegated authority. 11.2 That a review of the Memorandum of Agreement be undertaken following the finalisation of any future “transition” arrangements. 11.3 Advise all UDS parties of the Memorandum of Agreement.

Moved: Jim Gerard Seconded: Mark Alexander

12. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL NORTHERN ARTERIAL EXTENSION CRANFORD STREET FOUR-LANING DECISION

The Committee discussed the implications of the impacts of Christchurch City Council’s decision to remove the Northern Arterial Extension and Cranford Street four-Laning from its Long Term Plan 2015 - 2025. A report to the 23rd July Christchurch City Council meeting is being prepared and would incorporate the advice provided by UDSIC.

The Committee agreed to:

12.1 Receive the report. 12.2 Reaffirm to all UDS partners the importance of the UDS partnership and the role the UDSIC will play in the future governance and regeneration of greater Christchurch.

Moved: Jim Gerard Seconded: Kelvin Coe

13. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

It was agreed on the motion of Malcom Lyall, seconded by Kelvin Coe, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 59 of the agenda be adopted.

The meeting closed at 12.34pm.

5. 100 RESILIENT CITIES - PRELIMINARY RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT AND FOCUS AREAS

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy, Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

Mike Gillooly, Chief Resilience Officer, Christchurch City Council, is presenting to the Committee to provide an update on the 100 Resilient Cities preliminary resilience assessment and focus areas.

Background

100 Resilient Cities is a global network which has the aim of helping cities around the world become more resilient to physical, social and economic challenges. Christchurch was selected to join the 100 Resilient Cities network in 2013.

Recommendation

That the committee receive the presentation.

18 19 Preliminary Resilience Assessment Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee Briefing 14 August 2015 20 Purpose

• The Preliminary Resilience Assessment marks the end of the first stage.

• Identifies Focus Areas as “paths of enquiry” for the second stage.

• The second stage will consist of targeted research and idea generation by community local, national, and international experts into a coherent and practical strategy. Focus Areas 21

1. Participative leadership and governance a city that participates in decisions that affect them.

2. Securing a prosperous future that is open, innovative and attracts people.

3. Understanding and responding to future challenges becoming better prepared for the uncertain.

4. Connected neighborhoods and communities a city that is healthy, affordable, and safe. 22 Eight Underlying Themes

 Housing Affordability  Understanding Risk and  Community Leadership Tools for Mitigation  Securing our Future in the  Innovation Eastern Parts of the City  Social Cohesion  Building Trust Between  Urban form. the Community and Decision Makers Next Steps 23  Form working groups for each of the Focus Areas.

 Research and understand the issues and questions that arise from the Focus Areas.

 Generate ideas by community, local, national, and international experts that can become the projects, programmes and initiatives of the Strategy.

 Briefing strategic partners. : 24 Key Dates • 3 – 28 August – Brief Strategic Partners

• 24 September – Report considered by Christchurch City Council

Draft recommendation: Adopt the PRA and approve the Focus Areas as key paths of enquiry for the second stage of the strategy. Resilient systems exhibit certain qualities UDS Guiding Principles and Strategic that enable them to withstand, respond, and Directions. 25 adapt …..Sustainable prosperity will be achieved more readily to shocks and stresses through….

Leadership Providing good governance Ability to learn Reflective Partnership Working in a collaborative and coordinated manner .... and act Resourceful Responsibility Communities as a great place to live Resilience Managing risk and uncertainty ...conceiving systems & Robust assets that can withstand Adaptability Taking into account the past and anticipating the shocks & stresses as well future Redundant as using alternative Innovation Finding creative, pragmatic, cultural and strategies to facilitate rapid resourceful approaches to solutions recovery Flexible Integration Integrating environmental, land-use, infrastructure, social, cultural, economic and ...planned to take account governance goals in all decision making of Inclusive city-wide needs and Restoration Ensuring natural systems are valued and promote coordinated Integrated protected through restoring and enhancing actions biodiversity and ecological integrity 26 The Role of UDSIC

• Resilience is not a sole Christchurch City Council initiative.

• Consider the UDS partnership as a collaborative model for deciding:

• What our resilience goals and priorities are, and……

• How they will be achieved. 27 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

6. UDS REFRESH PROJECT PLANNING

Author: Keith Tallentire, UDS Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To recommend arrangements to UDSIC for the undertaking of a UDS Refresh.

Report

1. The UDS Implementation Committee agreed at their meeting in July that a refresh of the UDS occur and that this be completed by April 2016 at the latest. Whilst this report considers the arrangements and approach to the undertaking of the refresh project, it is considered that further discussion occur around the timing of the work so the refresh is meaningful and that there is appropriate engagement as part of the process. Further advice on this matter will be presented at the meeting. 2. As previously discussed it is important that the UDS refresh commence straight away and that a project plan with the necessary role clarity, resourcing and partner input and commitment is confirmed and put into action in a timely manner.

Scope 3. The July report to UDSIC established some key elements of the UDS refresh as being: i. maintains a 2041 (now 25 year) horizon but with a 5-10 year focus ii. focuses on establishing a high-level framework iii. encompasses recovery, regeneration and long term strategic planning across the four well-beings iv. aims to largely 'stitch together' existing strategies, plans and programmes v. integrates the 100 Resilient Cities strategic thinking and focus areas vi. develops and renewed greater Christchurch vision 4. The refresh will assist strategic partners in demonstrating and communicating an integrated approach to their local leadership role during this next period of transition and recovery, regeneration and beyond. 5. The refresh itself would not aim to open debate on the need for additional greenfield land but it could signal as part of a new Action Plan a process and timeframe for when this would occur. 6. It is envisaged that there would be two distinct phases to the refresh being the vision, higher level strategic direction and intent, engagement with the wider community and stakeholders. The second phase would be the development of the detailed action plan. The timing of the two phases is still being worked through and will be outlined at the meeting.

Engagement 7. The UDSIC report also importantly recognised that whilst collaboration amongst strategic partners is critical the UDS refresh will need to: i. be produced with reference to a revitalised UDS stakeholder forum 28 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

ii. involve some, but not extensive, community consultation and engagement. 8. The UDS refresh will need a communication and engagement plan which maximises the knowledge gained through recent consultative processes such as council LTPs.

Delivery structures 9. Just relying on the existing arrangements of UDSIC, CEAG and UDRMG will not be enough to ensure sufficient collaboration in a timely manner. The timeframe for the review is relatively short and will be reasonably resource intensive. 10. The LURP process worked well through the establishment of : i. a project sponsor ii. a core project team iii. an independent project manager iv. a partner reference group (of senior strategic partner staff) 11. This approach is recommended for the UDS refresh and in addition, to maintain governance input, a UDSIC working party similar to that which was set up for the UDS Action Plan review in 2010. 12. These and other anticipated roles are outlined below:

Project Advisor Bill Wasley Input experience from similar spatial planning exercises e.g. SmartGrowth, FutureProof, Waikato Spatial Plan.

UDSIC Existing Sign-off of key output milestones and final document.

UDSIC working group new - up to one UDSIC rep from Provide greater input and direction to UDS each partner 'refresh' development by meeting more frequently than UDSIC. Ensure key output milestones are bought into by respective partner governance. To be chaired by Independent Chair.

CEAG Existing Maintain awareness, provide key direction and sign-off of key output milestones and meet resourcing needs.

Project Sponsor Jill Atkinson Broker discussions across partners at a tier 1/2 level and assist in resolving key matters at a governance level.

Project Leader Keith Tallentire Day-to-day project lead, ensuring delivery against timeframes, strategic content development and integrating governance and staff input in liaison with Project Sponsor/Project Advisor.

UDRMG/Partner Reference Existing but will require additional Wider UDRMG maintain awareness and Group meetings of a smaller cohort ensuring appropriate technical support. Additional meetings to coordinate respective partner organisation cooperate views.

Core Project Team Project Leader, project manager, Prepare key outputs under the guidance of the partner staff and external Project Leader for review by the Reference resources Group. Peer Reviewer tbc Someone removed from direct involvement but able to bring a national perspective and thinking. Peer review would occur at each of the agreed key output milestones. 29 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

13. As a way of working for efficiency and timely delivery, co-location of project team members is proposed.

Resourcing 14. As staff from strategic partner organisation are already stretched delivering existing work programmes, additional external support will need to the accommodated within the final project budget. A combination of UDS funds and partner resources will be required. 15. The contributions from partner staff are all considered to be 'in kind' contributions met by the respective partner organisation. A tight rein on the agreed project scope will also be needed so that additional costs do not occur.

Milestones 16. Whilst the UDS refresh timeframe is to be confirmed, it will need breaking down further into particular milestones. 17. Prior to an agreed consultation draft being developed and available a phased approach to the development of elements of the refresh is recommended. This would assist stakeholder feedback and build awareness and momentum for the project outside of the strategic partners. 18. The nature of the phased outputs requires further consideration (and would need to be iterative) but could provide monthly milestones relating to strategy, process and engagement elements.

Stakeholder Forum 19. Early establishment of a UDS stakeholder forum is recommended to maximise the potential for wider buy-in to both the process and the quality of the UDS refresh. 20. To establish such a Forum expeditiously it is recommended in the first instance that selected representatives be approached from the range of existing fora with the core numbers limited to make discussions manageable but with periodic wider or open meetings.

Recommendation

That the Committee: a) Note the proposed UDS refresh delivery structures outlined in the report b) Note that a suitable co-location space is to be utilised c) Note that CEAG has agreed that the identified UDS project budget be utilised for the UDS refresh and is considering how any additional budget needs would be borne amongst the partners. d) Confirm the establishment of a UDS Stakeholder forum, with Terms of Reference to be reported back to the September meeting of UDSIC. e) Note that the Project Advisor and Project Sponsor are working with the Project Leader to finalise a more detailed project plan and the nature of the phased approach for reporting back to UDSIC but in the interim work is commencing on the UDS refresh. f) Endorse the establishment of a UDSIC working group with a representative from each strategic partner who are members of the UDSIC, with such members being (______). 30 31 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

7. RECOVERY PROGRAMMES UPDATE

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy, Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To provide an update to the Committee on implementation in relation to the range of recovery programmes in support of the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch Mahere Haumanutaunga o Waitaha. Claire Edmondson, Acting Director, Ministerial and Executive Services, CERA will be presenting.

Recommendation

That the Committee receive the report.

Recovery Programme Update Report Report for August 2015 (primarily covering the period to 16 July 2015)

Portfolio Programme Lead Comments Agency Leadership Recovery CCC The Chief Executives’ Advisory Group (CEAG) met on 5 August and Governance 2015. The Group discussed: Integration and  An Accessible City stage 2/3 funding Coordination  Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT)  2015 Canterbury Well-being Index and CERA Well-being survey  100 Resilient Cities – Resilience assessment and focus areas  City Visioning presentation  UDS ‘refresh’ project planning  Land Use Recovery Plan Review – draft consultation brochure  Selwyn Proposed Housing Accord  Public Transport in Greater Christchurch  Future Use of the Residential Red Zone  Transition update  Recovery Programmes Update The Urban Development and Recovery Management Group (UDRMG) met on 21 July 2015. The Group discussed:  Canterbury Well-being Index 2015 – a summary of high level findings  Land Use Recovery Plan – next steps and draft consultation pamphlet  Draft Housing Accord – Selwyn District Council  UDS ‘refresh’ – next steps and project planning  UDS submission on draft Transition Recovery Plan  UDS submission on Productivity Commission inquiry draft report Maintaining CERA Transition: Recovery The draft Transition Recovery Plan was notified on 2 July 2015. Momentum Public consultation closed on 30 July after a four-week consultation Programme process. The Minister will now consider any public written comment and decide whether to make changes to the draft Transition Recovery Plan. It is expected the Minister will notify his decisions on a Final Transition Recovery Plan at the end of August. Legislation: CERA is continuing the review of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 and developing proposals for new legislation. Future Delivery Arrangements (FDA): On 13 July, a meeting was held between CERA and CCC officials to consider the potential scope of Regeneration Christchurch. The FDA project team has been reorganised to move into the next phase of the project. Whole-of-Recovery Monitoring and Reporting Framework: CERA recently facilitated two workshops on the monitoring and reporting framework – an internal workshop on 6 July and a workshop with the Strategic Partners on 21 July. The workshops focused on developing shared high-level outcomes and how these might translate into measures and indicators of progress in the post-April 2016 world. Discussions are underway with inheriting agencies on the work to be transitioned to those agencies. This engagement will work as part of and closely with the Transition team approach.

Recovery Lessons and Legacy: The Project Management Implementation Plan has been approved by CERA management. Preparedness Project: The final report to the Implementation Steering Group was submitted on 10 July. Advisory Board on Transition: The key focus of Advisory Board meetings throughout July has been considering and providing further advice on outstanding legislative issues. Planning of the forward work programme continues. Economic Labour MBIE This programme closed on 30 June 2015 from CERA’s programme Recovery Market of work and transitioned to MBIE. Programme Social Iwi Māori Ngäi Tahu The draft Iwi Mäori Recovery Plan is being repackaged by Te Recovery Recovery Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRoNT). The final document will focus on Programme what has been achieved and key future goals for recovery. It is anticipated the finalised document will be presented in August/September. Once the TRoNT report is released the disestablishment of the programme will begin. Community CERA Shared Programme of Action Monitoring and Reporting: Resilience CERA organised a sub-working group from the Psychosocial Programme Committee to plan the monitoring and reporting of the Shared Programme of Action on 15 June 2015. There was general agreement at the meeting to use an outcome and indicator measures approach. Discussions centred on how to best disaggregate (geographically and demographically) and prioritise different population groups. Further discussions included how emerging trends and issues were currently reported by the relevant service providers as well as the frequency of the reporting. A draft approach to the reporting framework was agreed at the 27 July meeting. The reporting framework will provide against:  Population level outcomes and service delivery data: comprised of a variety of indicators (which indicators are still to be agreed), data will also need to take account of the Recovery Results work that is currently in development.  Trends and issues reporting: It was suggested that trends and issues reporting would be a high level collation of themes produced from an analysis existing reports from sources across psychosocial services and supports and housing-related services and supports. Reports could include (for example): the RAS, ESC, All Right?, He Oranga Pounamu services as well as information from the parenting programme evaluation and data related to insurance and rebuild (where data is available). It was suggested that a high level analysis of the reports could be put together on a regular basis. This would enable members of the Psychosocial Committee that oversee a range of reporting to submit their data and for it to add to the overall picture of trends and issues. Undertaking this should also capture the sub-population level data. Counselling: MSD provided an update to the Greater Christchurch Psychosocial Committee on 17 July 2015.

Targeted Stakeholder Sessions: The Earthquake Disability Leaders’ Group was held on 14 July, with over 40 attendees from a variety of organisations. Discussion items included Residential Red Zone, Canterbury Wellbeing Index/CERA Wellbeing Survey and Community in Mind. Canterbury Recovery Funders Network: This event was hosted by Philanthropy New Zealand on 17 June, with CERA representatives attending. Discussions included innovations in the philanthropic sector in response to the earthquakes. Residential CERA Settlements: Red Zone As at 16 July 2015, owners of 7,445 properties in the residential red Programme zones (RRZ) have now settled with the Crown. 11 properties in the flat land residential red zone are in default of their sale and purchase agreements. There are two properties where the cancellations of sale and purchase have been approved by the Acting Chief Executive and are dependent on deposits being returned. Flat Land Clearance: 6,952 dwellings have been cleared by CERA and insurers from Crown-owned properties. Dwelling relocations – Flat lands: 31 May 2015 was the deadline for dwelling relocations to be completed. A total of 303 relocation agreements have been signed with CERA. As at 22 July 2015, 273 buildings have been removed. Of the 30 buildings awaiting removal, 28 have been scheduled for relocation. Port Hills Land Clearance: A total of 136 Crown owned properties in the Port Hills have been cleared. Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan: The Minister notified the Draft Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan (RRZORP) on 25 July. This Draft RRZORP takes into consideration the public feedback that was received. A Recovery Plan was announced on 30 July that will enable new Crown offers to be made for vacant, insured commercial and uninsured properties in the Residential Red Zone. The new offers, at 100 per cent of the 2007/08 rateable land value for all three property categories, are detailed below:  For vacant properties (sections with no buildings): a new Crown offer at 100 per cent of the 2007/08 rateable land value.  For insured commercial properties: a new Crown offer at 100 per cent of the 2007/08 rateable land value and 100 per cent of the 2007/08 rateable improvements value for the insured improvements (such as buildings). Property owners may choose not to accept any payment for the improvements and keep the benefits of their insurance claims.  For uninsured properties: a new Crown offer at 100 per cent of the 2007/08 rateable land value. No payment will be made for uninsured improvements (such as buildings). Property owners may choose to relocate, salvage or sell any uninsured improvements, or they could elect for the Crown to remove the improvements, with the Crown meeting the cost. As at 6 August, offers to eligible property owners are currently underway. Owners in the above categories who accepted an earlier Crown offer will also be eligible for a top-up to bring it in line with the new offer. 3

The original Crown offer to insured red zone property owners who did not accept the offer last time around has also been reopened. Property owners will have 10 December 2015 to decide whether to accept the offer. The final date for settlement is 26 February 2016. Future Use of the Residential Red Zone (FURZ): Following the Supreme Court Quake Outcasts judgment, CERA advised the Minister that one or more Recovery Plans would most likely be required to guide decisions on the future use of the Christchurch and Waimakariri red zones. The Minister indicated that he wished to proceed as soon as practicable with the Waimakariri Future Use Recovery Plan. CERA will be working closely with the Strategic Partners on design issues with the aim of giving the Minister advice on a direction of the Waimakariri Future Use Recovery Plan by mid-August. On a possible Christchurch Future Use Recovery Plan, the Minister has asked for advice on some issues before deciding on whether to direct the preparation of a Christchurch Future Use Recovery Plan. For now, the Minister would like officials to proceed with any necessary preliminary technical work to support a Christchurch Future Use Recovery Plan. Education Ministry of This programme transitioned from CERA’s programme of work to Renewal Education MoE on 30 June 2015. Recovery (MoE) The programme provides innovative learning environments to Programme enable a new model of education delivery, based on clusters of providers working together to deliver education within their local community and is already delivering measureable improvements in student performance. CDHB CDHB CERA is working on how regular health updates can be best Recovery incorporated into the UDSIC forward agenda for 2015. Cultural Heritage Ministry for This programme transitioned from CERA’s programme of work and Recovery Buildings and Culture and to MCH on 30 June 2015. Places Heritage Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery partners continue to work Programme (MCH) on the projects in the Programme.

Sport and Canterbury This programme transitioned from CERA’s programme of work and Recreation Sport to Canterbury Sport on 30 June 2015. Programme Arts and MCH This programme transitioned from CERA’s programme of work and Culture to MCH on 30 June 2015. Programme The Joint Agency Group (JAG) convened by MCH is working to align funding, where possible, around agreed priorities. Steady progress is being made with the master-planning process for the Performing Arts Precinct. The oral history project – Remembering Christchurch – has been completed, gathering memories of life in the city from the 1930s. MCH is investigating options for joint research with other interested partners on the contribution arts and culture is making to Christchurch’s broader recovery. Effective CERA Supporting the Recovery Workforce: Government A final report outlining the best strategies for achieving the positive Services integration of migrant rebuild workers and their families into greater Projects Christchurch using a social marketing project model was completed and forwarded to CERA by the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce. A user test site for the updated Planning and Community Toolset

(PaCT) has been sent to a number of agencies for feedback. As at 25 June 2015, PaCT has been updated. Pacific Plan Scoping Exercise: The scoping exercise is completed. Going forward, this work will be managed by the Ministry of Pacific Affairs. Built Land and CERA Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP): LURP Review: Environment Land Use Initial consultation period for the LURP Review ran from 30 April to Programme 29 May 2015. Community advised of review through a public notice, webpage, media articles and presentations to councils and professional bodies. 56 comments/submissions have been received. There will be further reports to UDSIC on 11 September. Land Use Recovery Plan: Officials met with the Minister on 17 July, to provide him with advice on the consequential amendments to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement that are required to support the changes to the natural hazards chapter following the approval of the Action 46 amendments. Christchurch Replacement District Plan: On 13 July, the all-of-government submission for 15 of the 16 proposals was signed by the relevant Ministers and lodged with the CCC. The draft decision on Designations and Heritage Orders Proposal was released on 3 July for consideration by Requiring Authorities if any minor and technical changes are needed before the hearings panel issues a final decision on the Proposal. Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan – Phase 2 (ECan led) ECan circulated a revised draft of the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan to the Strategic Partners on 10 July, following the decision of the hearings panel. Demolition CERA Section 45 ‘Do Not Enter’ Notices: and 39 remaining in the CBD. Operations Programme Section 38 ‘Dangerous Building – Demolish or Repair’ Notices: 15 of these notices remain with 5 belonging to a complex multi- story/commercial block and 1 for the Christchurch Cathedral. Notices are likely to remain in place for some time. Horizontal CERA Independent Assessor: Infrastructure (with NZTA The Independent Assessors’s final report was received on 6 May Programme and CCC) 2015 and reviewed by the Independent Chair. The Chair confirmed that it complied with the Independent Assessor’s Terms of Reference. The report established the total Horizontal Infrastructure Programme forecast estimate, which will form the basis of the subsequent allocation of costs between the CCC and CERA. Agreement on the final allocation of costs relies on reaching an understanding on implementation of the Funding of Renewals Policy. Funding of Renewals: CERA officials have notified the Minister of CCC’s position on the Funding of Renewals policy and response options feasible in this situation. The Funding of Renewals methodology and model have been reviewed internally and an external review has been completed. Operating Costs: The Temporary Repair Costs Implementation Plan has been developed. 5

Retaining Walls: CERA and CCC officials continue to work closely to determine the status of structural retaining walls on the Port Hills. 244 properties have been identified for onsite assessment. Housing CERA ‘In The Know’ Hub: Recovery MBIE Approximately 2,421 people have visited the Hub between 20 April Programme and 9 July (average of 49 visitors a day). This Hub will operate until 27 August 2015 but there is a desire from other agencies to extend the Hub until December 2015. The Hub Governance Group is working through the details regarding the potential future operation of the Hub. Residential Advisory Service (RAS): During June/July, an increase in activity occurred and 85 per cent of cases have now reached an agreement. Awatea Development: Civil works commenced on the first of three lots section 2. The first 15 building consents associated with section 2 were issued by CCC at the end of June. Colombo/Welles Development: The Development Agreements went unconditional and MBIE confirmed the conditions of the sale and purchase agreements with CCC. Make it Right: CERA has renewed its contract with Community Energy Action to retain its assessment capacity for the Make it Right emergency repair programme for 2015/16. This programme is able to be activated in response to an extreme weather event to support emergency services with urgent repairs for earthquake homes. Christchurch CCDU Central City Residential Redevelopment: Central Continuing progress with analysis of anticipated future residential Development development, investigation of intervention options and completion of Support the evaluation framework. Programme Central City Noise Provisions: Minister Brownlee approved the noise provisions paper. Christchurch CCDU Bus Interchange: Central Structure of Lichfield St building (SP1) completed as planned. Delivery Construction continues toward SP2 with practical completion Programme scheduled for 31 July. The official opening event for SP2 is in planning. Three retail leases have been signed. Metro Sports Facility: Procurement planning in support of the Design Build Maintain Model is underway. The Request for Proposal for enabling works was released on 12 June. On 4 August, the Minister publicly announced that Cabinet has agreed funding parameters that are greater than the $70.3 million confirmed in the 2013 Cost Sharing Agreement between the Crown and the CCC. This amount will be combined with the CCC’s already committed $147 million to deliver an aquatic and indoor sports facility. Officials will now begin the process of tendering for design and construction. Avon River Precinct: Public consultation on Victoria Square restoration is expected to be completed at the end of July. The Margaret Mahy Family Playground construction is continuing on schedule. East Frame Residential: On 2 July, the Minister publicly announced Fletcher Residential as

the preferred developer to work with the Government on the $800 million East and North Frame residential precinct, providing around 940 new townhouses and apartments. South Frame: The concept design has been approved. An Accessible City: A detailed design has been reviewed and feedback received. Updated drawings were ready in late July and documentation for the procurement of construction contractors drafted. Retail Precinct: A strategy report for retention and disposal of Crown land in the South West End has been finalised. Natural Natural ECan A second quarter update on the Natural Environment Recovery Environment Environment Programme was provided to CEAG on 1 July 2015. A subsequent Recovery update was provided to UDSIC on 10 July 2015. Programme

39 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

8. UPDATE FROM COMMITTEE SECRETARIAT

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To update the Committee on operational matters.

Greater Christchurch Bus Tour

A bus tour for UDSIC members was held on Tuesday 28th July 2015. The tour was themed to cover primarily housing related matters and developments. A future tour is suggested to cover business related issues (commercial, industrial and activity centres).

On this occasion the bus tour route took in parts Christchurch (north-west-south west), Kaiapoi, and Rolleston. As well as hearing from some council planning staff it gave an opportunity to directly from developers at some of the sites at which the tour stopped, in particular: § HNZC: 399 Manchester Street and the Shirley CHRM area § Silverstream, Kaiapoi § Beach Grove, Kaiapoi

Provisional agenda for next UDSIC meeting

As recommended at the July meeting of UDSIC a theme-based forward agenda for the remaining meetings in 2015 is being developed.

Provisional items for the next meeting of this Committee on Friday 11th September 2015 include: § THEME - Economic o incl. update on the labour market programme § Migrants, rebuild and recovery: follow up from June presentation § UDS Refresh update § Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan § Well-being Survey and Index § Recovery Programmes update § UDS secretariat update

Themes for subsequent meetings are proposed to be: § October - Environment, Health and Sport and recreation; and Youth § November - Central City § December - Annual Review and look forward 40 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

All scheduled future meeting dates are: § Friday 11th September § Friday 09th October § Friday 06th November § Friday 11th December

The October meeting date clashes with a LGNZ Zone 5/6 meeting involving council mayors and chair. Feedback on availability for a rescheduled UDSIC to Friday 16th October is that this date is also problematic for some and so the recommendation is to adhere to the existing scheduled date.

Recommendation

That the Committee receive the report. 41 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

9. PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENTS AT COLOMBO ST, WELLES STREET AND AWATEA

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy, Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To provide members with an progress update on the developments led by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment at Colombo St, Welles St and Awatea. Michael Pead, Director, Social Housing and Christchurch Housing Accord Fund, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be presenting.

Recommendation

That the Committee receive the presentation.

42 43 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

10. HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OVERVIEW

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy, Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To provide the Committee with an update on the redevelopment programme currently being undertaken by Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) in greater Christchurch. Tim Allen, Manager Canterbury Investment Plan Strategic Planning and Implementation, HNZC and Ray Tye, Stakeholder Relations Manager, HNZC will be presenting.

Recommendation

To receive the presentation.

44 45 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

11. UDS PARTNERSHIP SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT TRANSITION RECOVERY PLAN

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To provide members with the UDS Partnership submission on the draft Transition Recovery Plan. This was submitted to CERA on 30 July 2015.

Recommendation

That the Committee ratify the UDS Partnership submission on the draft Transition Recovery Plan.

Attachment

1. Submission by the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 46

Submission by the

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015)

July 2015 47

To:

Draft Transition Recovery Plan Freepost CERA Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Private Bag 4999 CHRISTCHURCH 8140

Name of Submitter: Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership c/o Bill Wasley: Independent Chair

Address for further contact: Keith Tallentire UDS Implementation Manager DDI (03) 941 8590 Mobile 027 205 3772 Email [email protected] Web www.greaterchristchurch.org.nz c/o Christchurch City Council Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch PO Box 73012, Christchurch, 8154

Submission: This is the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Partnership’s submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015). The content of the submission follows overleaf.

Submissions from individual UDS Partners are also being made and may cover more specific issues relating to their territorial areas or functions.

The UDS Partnership would welcome the opportunity for further discussion with the CERA and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery ahead of the adoption of a final Transition Recovery Plan.

Signed:

Bill Wasley Independent Chair Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee 48

Introduction

This submission is from the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership (“the UDS Partnership”). The Strategy is overseen by the Implementation Committee (“the UDSIC”), a joint committee comprising Environment Canterbury (ECan), Christchurch City Council (CCC), Selwyn District Council (SDC), Waimakariri District Council (WDC), and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRoNT), as well as the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) in an observer capacity.

The Strategy outlines a 35 year growth management and implementation plan for the Greater Christchurch sub-region1 and has been a key source document in the development of the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch, the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act (CER Act).

Submissions on this Draft Transition Recovery Plan are also being made by individual UDS Partners and reiterate some of the comments made herein as well as covering more specific issues relating to their territorial areas or functions. This submission is intended to provide a strategic response, principally in relation to the issues of future strategy and collaborative governance across Greater Christchurch.

Greater Christchurch and the UDS

Greater Christchurch is the largest urbanised area in the South Island. Historically, the Greater Christchurch sub-region has grown in a dispersed form leading to a number of negative community outcomes. A desire to more sustainably manage future growth across the sub-region resulted in moves by local government in the sub-region to initiate a growth management strategy.

The UDS was developed and adopted by the partner councils (Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council, Banks Peninsula District Council2, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council) and Transit New Zealand (now the New Zealand Transport Agency, NZTA) between 2004 and 2007. The goal was to prepare an agreed strategy for the Greater Christchurch sub-region to make provision for sustainable urban and rural development for the next 35 years. The adopted strategy was launched by the then Prime Minister in July 2007. The Strategy has now been the foundation for sub-regional planning over four electoral cycles.

Strategy focus

An important feature of the UDS is to provide a sustainable urban form and protect the peripheral rural communities that lie close to Christchurch City. The vision for Greater Christchurch by the year 2041 is a vibrant inner city and suburban centres surrounded by thriving rural communities and towns. Part of this vision is the implementation of an integrated planning process for growth management supported by the efficient and sustainable delivery of new infrastructure.

The UDS supports a fundamental shift in growth management from focusing largely on accommodating low-density suburban residential development in greenfields areas to supporting a compact and balanced

1 The Greater Christchurch sub-region covers the eastern parts of Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils and the metropolitan area of Christchurch City Council, including the Lyttelton Harbour Basin. This is a smaller geographical area than that defined as greater Christchurch within the CER Act which covers the full extent of the three territorial authorities and the adjoining coastal marine area. 2 In March 2006 the Banks Peninsula District Council merged with Christchurch City Council.

1 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 49

urban form that enhances both urban and rural living. It considers the complexity and inter-relationships of issues around land-use, transport, and infrastructure including community facilities, while incorporating social, health, cultural, economic and environmental values.

The UDS and Earthquake Recovery

The recovery of greater Christchurch from the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 has necessitated widespread review of the strategies, plans and programmes that existed pre-earthquakes. In the context of land-use planning the two principal documents prepared under the CER Act are the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP). The former has directly, or subsequently through statutory direction, made significant amendments to regional and territorial authority plans. This includes in particular: § inserting a new chapter within the Regional Policy Statement to provide greater planning certainty and enable the recovery and rebuilding of Greater Christchurch § confirming and expediting Christchurch City Council’s intention to undertake a full review of its City and District Plans into a single replacement plan which will comprehensively address resource management recovery needs in Christchurch.

It is noteworthy that when analysing these Recovery Plans the fundamental tenets of the UDS have remained unchallenged and that work undertaken pre-earthquake to implement such principles provided a strong starting point before being reviewed through a post-earthquake lens.

Whilst much of the attention in relation to the UDS, both pre- and post-earthquake has been around its land use planning objectives, the strategy and its collaborative governance arrangements take a much broader view across economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being with an overall principle of 'sustainable prosperity'.

This holistic nature of the UDS Partnership enabled CERA and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to quickly and confidently engage with strategic partners on recovery related matters through the establishment of an advisory committee which mirrored the UDS governance structures.

Other Government Initiatives

The Government has and continues to enact a wide programme of reform that impacts on the greater Christchurch sub-region, its local authorities and other agencies.

Whilst the Draft Transition Recovery Plan represents a critical opportunity to enhance local and central government working it needs to dovetail with a whole of government approach to aligning desired outcomes for the area and integrating policy, programmes and services to delivery against such objectives.

2 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 50

Note: This submission does not attempt to respond to all the questions posed within the Draft Transition Recovery Plan (DTRP). It provides feedback on the more strategic matters that address the principles, roles and desired outcomes that the UDS Partnership wishes to see emerge as the transition process takes place.

Comments on specific matters raised in the Draft Recovery Transition Plan

Legal framework

1. The UDS Partnership supports the need for new legislation to support ongoing recovery work that will continue after the CER Act expires in April 2016.

2. In relation to any new legislation (DRTP Chapter 3) the following comments are made: i. support for the proposed geographic scope to be limited to the area outlined in the DTRP (consistent with the area of focus for the UDS) ii. support for the new Act to exist for a period of five years, subject to a review after three years, so long as significant regard is given by the respective Minister to the views of strategic partners in exercising powers which impact local authority functions and statutory documents (or alternatively considered only 'at the request of' the strategic partners). iii. support for the development of new 'Regeneration Plans' and ongoing statutory force for existing Recovery Plans, recognising that the necessary 'lifetime' of any such plan will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis (with the above proviso regarding the views of strategic partners). iv. specifically in relation to the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP), it would be imperative that changes that have been made to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, regional plans and district plans under the LURP should endure at least for the period of the new Act and in particular should not be susceptible to private plan change applications. Some flexibility to allow a relevant territorial authority to reflect the intent of amendments made through the LURP when undertaking district plan reviews, rather than the specific wording inserted through the LURP, should be considered. v. support for some recognition of a 'refreshed' UDS and greater statutory force to be provided to its anchoring within any regulatory plans (to be further discussed amongst Chief Executives as outlined on p13 of the DTRP). A legislative provision to require a UDS strategy is not supported, with partners preferring the current voluntary collaboration model for establishing a greater Christchurch strategy and associated governance. vi. support for an updated definition of recovery to encompass longer-term regeneration, with sufficient description within the new Act to minimise the risk of legal challenge.

Transitioning of CERA's recovery responsibilities

3. The UDS Partnership broadly supports the intention that Government's role in key recovery work beyond the short-term transitions, wherever possible, from CERA to local government and to central government departments and agencies with aligned functions (DTRP Chapter 4).

3 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 51

4. This approach will help integrate and embed recovery activity into ongoing work of the respective government department or agency. The role of DPMC to ensure that recovery activity maintains a high priority across government, and within a coordinated framework, will be critical however.

5. This transitioning will also need to reflect the proposed shift to local leadership so that any inheriting department or agency: · delivers on Government's recovery priorities, and · works collaboratively with local institutions to integrate their work within a shared long-term strategy and planning framework for greater Christchurch.

Central City rebuild

6. The UDS Partnership supports the concept of establishing a new entity to address the recovery challenges for the central city (as outlined in the DTRP section 5.2) and the ongoing development of a 'one stop shop' for streamlining and coordinating the regulatory process within the central city.

7. Whilst the UDS Partnership does not wish to provide detailed comments on these matters (relying on the direct feedback being provided by Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury) it believes it is critical that the Crown and Christchurch City Council work to establish a single entity to deliver the best outcomes for investors, business, local institutions and the public.

8. While many of the challenges for central Christchurch are unique a number of issues impacting the city centre existed pre-earthquake and the UDS Partnership hopes that the final Transition Recovery Plan has regard to the extensive previous work (nationally and internationally) on regenerating central city areas.

Recovery leadership

9. The UDS Partnership supports and is pleased to see the proposal that "overall leadership and coordination of the recovery will be the responsibility of local institutions, primarily local authorities and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu" (DTRP Chapter 6). Chairs and Mayors who are members of the UDS Implementation Committee provide clear and effective leadership and this leadership is fundamental to successful strategic and recovery planning and implementation. This grouping of leaders with strong support from the committee and their respective organisations are a key leadership voice moving forward.

10. Over the last five years the UDS Partnership, through its governance and management structures (particularly the UDS Implementation Committee and Chief Executives Advisory Group) has embraced the need to focus on the immediate needs of recovery and work collaboratively with CERA.

11. The UDS Partnership agrees that now is the time for local institutions to take an overall leadership and coordination role but in so doing it is fundamental that central government continue to support such institutions (as suggested in DTRP Chapter 6) and integrate the work of government departments to maintain recovery momentum.

12. Whilst it is not explicitly stated in the DTRP, the UDS Partnership believes the UDS Implementation Committee (UDSIC) is well-positioned to take this overall leadership role at a Greater Christchurch

4 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 52

level whilst allowing for respective local institutions to make decisions they are rightly responsible for within an agreed framework.

13. The UDS Partnership supports the recommendations of the Advisory Board on Transition to reinvigorate the UDS, provide more visible leadership and engage with local leaders and central government in undertaking such a role.

14. The UDS Partnership also supports the statement (DTRP p13) that the current Recovery Strategy could become integrated within a 'refreshed' UDS to integrate recovery and development over the longer term.

15. The UDSIC has recently resolved to complete a refresh of the UDS by April 2016 so that the completion of such a process integrates with the commencement of the proposed new legislation outlined in the DTRP. It is anticipated that this refresh will ensure the integration of recovery, strategic planning and well-being objectives occurs so that a single strategic and holistic framework is in place for implementation amongst respective agencies. 16. The UDS 'refresh' will involve the re-establishment of a forum, with representation from a broad range of stakeholders, to advise and contribute to the process and content of this undertaking. 17. The UDSIC has tasked the Chief Executives' Advisory Group, which includes the Acting Chief Executive of CERA, with identifying sufficient resources necessary to undertake this task within the required timeframe.

New DPMC business unit

18. The UDS Partnership supports the establishment of a business unit within DPMC (DTRP Chapter 7) to coordinate central government's recovery contribution over this next phase and ensure recovery remains a whole of government priority. We consider this business unit should have local presence to ensure strategic partners are able to fully engage with the staff in the unit.

Recovery reporting

19. The UDS Partnership supports the need for setting clear goals and priorities for the next five to ten years, and beyond.

20. The UDS Partnership welcomes the proposed priority areas for Government (DTRP Chapter 8) as they provide local institutions with a clear understanding of the Crown's position and identify how central government agencies can be held accountable for ensuring delivery against them.

21. Successfully delivering against many, if not all, of these priority areas will however necessitate continued collaboration with local institutions and others.

22. In line with the stated desire that local institutions provide the overall recovery leadership and coordination such government priority areas will need to sit alongside or ideally become integrated with any other locally identified recovery priorities emerging from a refreshed UDS.

23. Furthermore, as well as DPMC narrowly reporting on performance against priority areas, the UDS Partnership would wish to see central government departments and agencies collaborate with local institutions in developing and contributing to an overall outcomes monitoring and reporting framework.

5 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 53

24. Information held by central and local government, as well as other agencies and organisations, each represents 'a piece of the puzzle' in understanding how successful greater Christchurch will be in achieving shared outcomes and realizing the vision for the sub-region.

25. The UDS Partnership would see this work as an integral part of a refreshed UDS and associated implementation.

In conclusion the UDS Partnership wishes to highlight:

§ support for the proposal that overall leadership and coordination of the recovery becomes the responsibility of local institutions, primarily local authorities and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, with the support of central government.

§ the UDS Implementation Committee is acknowledged as the principal mechanism for leadership and collaboration at a greater Christchurch level.

§ support for the integration of strategic recovery and regeneration planning within a 'refresh' of the UDS that delivers a single strategic and holistic framework for implementation amongst respective agencies.

§ support for the need for new legislation to support ongoing recovery and regeneration work that will continue after the CER Act expires in April 2016, but that the scope and powers of a new Act properly reflect the transitioning of decision-making to local institutions.

§ a desire to see central government departments and agencies collaborate with local institutions in developing and contributing to an outcomes monitoring and reporting framework. The evaluation of implementation against strategic outcomes needs to be informed by the broadest suite of data sources available.

The UDS Partnership would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further and looks forward to working collaboratively across a broad range of sectors during this next phase of recovery.

29 July 2015

END

6 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the Draft Transition Recovery Plan: Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration (July 2015) 54 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

12. UDS PARTNERSHIP SUBMISSION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSIONS 'USING LAND FOR HOUSING' INQUIRY DRAFT REPORT

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To provide members with the UDS Partnership submission on the Productivity Commission 'Using land for housing' inquiry draft report. As agreed by members at the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee meeting on 10 July 2015, this was approved by the Independent Chair prior to being submitted on 4 August 2015.

Recommendation

That the Committee ratify the UDS Partnership submission on the Productivity Commissions 'Using land for housing' inquiry draft report.

Attachment

1. Submission by the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership on the New Zealand Productivity Commission's inquiry 'Using land for housing' Draft Report (June 2015)

Submission by the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership on

The New Zealand Productivity Commission's inquiry: Using land for housing - Draft Report (June 2015)

August 2015 56

To:

Inquiry into using land for housing New Zealand Productivity Commission PO Box 8036 The Terrace WELLINGTON 6143

Name of Submitter: Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership c/o Bill Wasley: Independent Chair

Address for further contact:

Keith Tallentire UDS Implementation Manager DDI (03) 941 8590 Mobile 027 205 3772 Email [email protected] Web www.greaterchristchurch.org.nz c/o Christchurch City Council Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch PO Box 73012, Christchurch, 8154

Submission: This is the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Partnership’s submission on the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s Inquiry ‘Using land for housing’ Draft Report (June 2015). The content of the submission follows overleaf.

Submissions from individual UDS Partners are also being made and may cover more specific issues relating to their territorial areas or functions.

The UDS Partnership would welcome the opportunity for further discussion with the Commission ahead of the release of a draft report for submissions and then a final report to Government.

Signed:

Bill Wasley Independent Chair Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 57

Introduction This submission is on behalf of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership (“the UDS Partnership”). The Strategy is overseen by the Implementation Committee (“the UDSIC”), a joint committee comprising Environment Canterbury (ECan), Christchurch City Council (CCC), Selwyn District Council (SDC), Waimakariri District Council (WDC), and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (TRoNT), as well as the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) in an observer capacity. The Strategy outlines a 35 year growth management and implementation plan for the Greater Christchurch sub-region1 and has been a key source document in the development of both the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act (CER Act). The UDS Partnership and individual UDS Partners made previous submissions on the Issues Paper for this current inquiry as well as the previous Housing Affordability inquiry and there is significant overlap between the two inquiries and the comments made in across these submissions. Submissions on this Draft Report are also being made by individual UDS Partners and reiterate some of the comments made herein as well as covering more specific issues relating to their territorial areas or functions. This submission is intended to provide a strategic response, principally in relation to land for housing as it impacts, and is impacted by, growth management objectives. Greater Christchurch and the UDS

The UDS was developed and adopted by the partner councils (Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council, Banks Peninsula District Council1, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council) and Transit New Zealand (now the New Zealand Transport Agency, NZTA) between 2004 and 2007. The goal was to prepare an agreed strategy for the Greater Christchurch sub-region to make provision for sustainable urban and rural development for the next 35 years. The adopted strategy was launched by the then Prime Minister in July 2007. The Strategy has now been the foundation for sub-regional planning over four electoral cycles.

Strategy focus An important feature of the UDS is to provide a sustainable urban form and protect the peripheral rural communities that lie close to Christchurch City. The vision for Greater Christchurch by the year 2041 is a vibrant inner city and suburban centres surrounded by thriving rural communities and towns. Part of this vision is the implementation of an integrated planning process for growth management supported by the efficient and sustainable delivery of new infrastructure.

The UDS supports a fundamental shift in growth management from focusing largely on accommodating low-density suburban residential development in greenfields areas to supporting a compact and balanced urban form that enhances both urban and rural living. It considers the

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 58

complexity and inter-relationships of issues around land-use, transport, and infrastructure including community facilities, while incorporating social, health, cultural, economic and environmental values.

The UDS and Earthquake Recovery The recovery of greater Christchurch from the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 has necessitated widespread review of the strategies, plans and programmes that existed pre-earthquakes. In the context of land-use planning the two principal documents prepared under the CER Act are the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP). The former has directly, or subsequently through statutory direction, made significant amendments to regional and territorial authority plans. This includes in particular: § inserting a new chapter within the Regional Policy Statement to provide greater planning certainty and enable the recovery and rebuilding of Greater Christchurch § confirming and expediting Christchurch City Council’s intention to undertake a full review of its City and District Plans into a single replacement plan which will comprehensively address resource management recovery needs in Christchurch. It is noteworthy that when analysing these Recovery Plans the fundamental tenets of the UDS have remained unchallenged and that work undertaken pre-earthquake to implement such principles provided a strong starting point before being reviewed through a post-earthquake lens. Whilst much of the attention in relation to the UDS, both pre- and post-earthquake has been around its land use planning objectives, the strategy and its collaborative governance arrangements take a much broader view across economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being with an overall principle of 'sustainable prosperity'. This holistic nature of the UDS Partnership enabled CERA and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to quickly and confidently engage with strategic partners on recovery related matters through the establishment of an advisory committee which mirrored the UDS governance structures. Other Government Initiatives The Government has and continues to enact a wide programme of reform that impacts on the greater Christchurch sub-region, its local authorities and other agencies. This inquiry and its final recommendations therefore needs to be cognisant of this wider context, in particular:

· the amendment to the purpose of local government made through the Local Government Amendment Act · the requirement to prepare 30-year infrastructure strategies · the ongoing reform of the RMA 1991 · the development of Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas through the HASHA · the move to increase the share of social housing provided through 'third sector' agencies Local government is often but wrongly seen as being a constraint to facilitating housing supply and housing affordability whereas the challenges and solutions lie across a much wider range of players in what is a complex housing market with many different drivers.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 59

Note: This submission does not attempt to respond to all the questions posed within the draft report. It provides feedback on the more strategic matters that address the principles, roles and desired outcomes that are important on relation to the use of land for housing. Comments on Findings, Recommendations and Questions Chapter 3 - Integrated Planning

Recommendation 3.5 A new legislative avenue should be designed to focus on spatial plans on activities that: · Are of high importance to the functioning of cities and the provision of development capacity for housing (e.g. land supply, infrastructure provision, transport services) · Relate closely to the use of land or space and the management of negative externalities; and · Are most efficiently dealt with at a local level and through local authorities.

1. The UDS Partnership supports the recommendation for a new legislative avenue for spatial plans but would caution against limiting the scope of spatial plans in any way. Such plans are an important mechanism to provide the high level long term strategic direction across a broad range of issues, not just housing. They can exist at a sub-regional level and so promote collaboration and integration across territorial authority boundaries in a way that other processes do not.

2. Any future legislative avenue should support spatial plans that have been developed in collaboration with, and agreed upon by the relevant stakeholders, including community and business sectors.

3. The UDS Partnership agrees that the translation of spatial plans into RMA regulatory plans is currently not well supported by legislation. Given that there are extensive consultative processes undertaken through the development of spatial plans we support a more expedited avenue for anchoring such plans in other statutory documents to reduce the time and costs for all parties, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of overlapping processes.

4. Ahead of such anchoring spatial planning processes under the LGA need to carry more weight (currently only 'have regard') and provide greater direction to the next step in RMA processes regarding plan changes, ODPs, zoning, rules, and the degree of notification.

5. We would like to reiterate the need for spatial plans to take a holistic view and to 'consider the inter-relationships between issues around land-use, transport and infrastructure and also to incorporate social, health, cultural, economic and environmental values', as stated in the UDS Partnership submission on the Commission's issues paper.

Recommendation 3.6 The new planning avenue should be voluntary to allow local authorities to choose the statutory planning mechanisms that best suit their circumstances.

6. The UDS Partnership strongly supports a voluntary approach to both the development of spatial plans and any legislative avenue to expedite their translation into associated regulatory plans. The UDS has always been a 'coalition of the willing' and as such respects the statutory functions of its partners and the need for appropriate subsidiarity to decision-making.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 60

Recommendation 3.7 Future plans prepared under the new legislative avenue should be developed in partnership with the full set of government actors whose services matter for the functioning of cities. Given the fiscal implications of greater central government involvement in spatial planning, both Cabinet and the relevant local authority should approve such plans.

7. While there is a valuable place for greater involvement of relevant government departments during the development of spatial plans, the approval of spatial plans must rest with the local institutions that comprise its geographical scope.

8. The UDS Partnership would therefore only support a partnership approach to the development of spatial plans, with input from central government. If there is a desire by Government to ensure certain outcomes within spatial planning processes then that is the role of a National Policy Statement.

Questions

Question 3.1 Is there other evidence of the benefits or costs from New Zealand spatial planning processes that the commission should be aware of?

9. The experience of the UDS Partnership is that there are significant inter-agency benefits derived from spatial planning processes, including those cited by the Commission relating to cooperation and understanding, more efficient infrastructure planning and investment, and a greater preparedness to respond to change, not least from natural hazard events.

10. This greater multi-agency alignment also flows through to a more efficient translation of spatial plans into RMA documents, minimising the costs associated with hearings and potential associated litigation between partners. It also facilitates a greater likelihood for integrated service delivery, such as consenting 'one stop shops' based on the higher-level shared outcomes.

Chapter 6 - Planning and delivering infrastructure

Recommendation 6.1 When councils refer to the supply of land for housing, they should be clear about the readiness of land for building (e.g. un-zoned but planned-for future zoning; zoned; zoned and serviced; zoned, serviced and consented).

11. The UDS Partnership supports the recommendation around clarity of the readiness of land for housing. This is not to suggest however that councils should ensure all land identified is 'shovel ready'. Based on a robust understanding of anticipated future demand councils should ensure sufficient land is available in each stage along this development pipeline. Councils also need to balance the supply of land available through intensification as opposed to new greenfield development - the overall outcomes being a sustainable urban form, housing choice, housing affordability, efficient infrastructure provision and fully integrated and sustainable communities.

12. There are also likely to be opportunities for improved data capture through existing processes, for example information that is currently provided to Statistics NZ or the Ministry for the Environment's developing national monitoring system in relation to consenting. Having an agreed monitoring and reporting framework between central and local government avoids

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 61

duplication and reporting based on different assumptions or parameters which only serve to confuse the wider public.

Question 6.5 Has the SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum, or similar initiatives in other regions, been effective in managing tensions between developers and councils?

13. These initiatives create a venue for discussion of regional issues, and multiple bottom line approach. Forums of this kind, and similar fora exist in greater Christchurch, enable all parties to better understand their respective constraints and seek to identify shared approaches to resolve them.

Chapter 7 - Paying for infrastructure

Finding 7.1 Debt is an important source of finance for urban infrastructure in high-growth areas. It enables councils to deliver infrastructure when it is most need and for infrastructure costs to be spread over the life of the asset.

Finding 7.2 Recent assessments have not identified serious concerns regarding local authorities' use of debt.

14. While in principal debt financing of infrastructure by councils is supported it represents only one option across a range of funding mechanisms. Councils also need to consider the prudent provision for debt financing to address unforeseen circumstances, not least the immediate financial burden following a natural hazard event. The situation in greater Christchurch where some councils are already fully utilising prudent debt financing levels to support earthquake recovery and/or infrastructure provision for accelerated growth means that using this approach for any further transformative infrastructure investment is unlikely.

Chapter 9 - Shaping Local Behaviour

15. The Commission’s draft report does not have much of a focus on the role of the private sector in provision of land and housing, although there is acknowledgement of land banking occurring. The draft report notes that full range of housing typologies is desirable but there is a lack of discussion and recommendations to address the capacity, capability and willingness of the private sector to deliver this. Further work is required around this issue and that of land banking/multiple land ownership. This impacts the supply and release of land to the market and needs to be overcome, particularly in brownfield areas to ensure growth of townships and cities occurs in a planned and efficient manner.

16. Covenants can be an issue especially where going beyond District Plan requirements, for example, minimum house size/site coverage. It is currently common practice for developers in Rolleston and Lincoln to prescribe building only one-storey and requiring double garages within new subdivisions.

17. The UDS Partnership supports a review of the covenants on subdivisions to see what is unnecessarily restrictive and adds cost, and how any conversely beneficial elements to such covenants are appropriately timebound. More information is required around this issue and the partners support further investigation in that regard. The UDS Partnership supports some form

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 62

of statutory control of covenants to ensure housing affordability objectives are not overly constrained.

Question 9.5 What reason is there to think that the variance around assessed land values is different to assessed capital values?

Question 9.6 What are the costs and barriers for a council in transferring from a rating system based on capital value to one based on land value?

18. The draft report contains discussion on a change from capital rating to land value rating. While greater disincentives to landbanking could be derived rating on the basis of land value this needs to be weighed against other factors that influence the appropriate rating system adopted by councils. The UDS Partnership does not support a change in the rating system and cites the Local Government Rates Inquiry (Shand 2007) which considered this matter more holistically before recommending a preference for a rating system based on capital value.

19. Under a capital value rating system, those new properties pay a higher proportion of the total rates collected across the district than they would under land value. This eases the burden on the current ratepayers and directs the costs associated with growth more toward those properties that are causing the growth.

20. If the objective for this current Inquiry is how to minimise incentives to hold land then a more targeted approach to those areas would seem a more appropriate response. For instance, a targeted rate could encourage intensification of areas zoned for higher density living or development of vacant brownfield sites with funds supporting the work of councils or regeneration agencies to effect such change.

Chapter 10 - Planning and funding our future

Recommendation 10.2 There is a place for a UDA to lead and coordinate residential development at a scale in both greenfield and brownfield settings, working in partnership with private sector developers. Legislation would be required to establish and give powers (such as compulsory acquisition) to one or more UDC's in New Zealand.

21. The UDS Partnership does not support the recommendation for the establishment of a single Urban Development Authority for New Zealand. Nor does it support the transfer of any regulatory functions to a UDA/UDC.

22. The UDS Partnership would support the establishment of a UDA at a 'city scale' if a demonstrable need is identified and it assisted in the implementation of strategic objectives agreed through voluntary collaborations between local authorities.

Question 10.1 What are the important design features of an Urban Development Authority? What are the risks with this approach, and how can they be managed?

23. In Greater Christchurch any such Urban Development Authority would need to work with the UDS Partnership and be guided by the UDS and the statutory plans of its partners. Development opportunities facilitated by a UDA would therefore accord with an agreed spatial plan.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 63

24. The UDS Partnership envisage the role of an Urban Development Authority would be limited to a 'broker' or 'catalyst' type role between the relevant local authority and the private sector and it would need to have sufficient commercial acumen to translate strategic objectives into a viable commercial proposition, be it for a housing initiative or any other identified development.

25. The Productivity Commission will be aware that both CERA and Christchurch City Council are already actively looking to establish an entity or entities ('Regenerate Christchurch' and 'Development Christchurch Limited') that broadly fall within the concept of a UDA.

26. As previously cited in the UDS Partnership submission on the Issues Paper mechanisms which better enable the aggregation of land for development are needed.

27. The aspects of land acquisition and aggregation that could be encompassed within the catalyst role of a UDA include: a. proactively purchase and hold land in strategic areas where the market is unwilling b. handle land amalgamation administrative processes (combining titles, etc) c. facilitate initial masterplanning, prepare consenting applications or contract physical works to make the site ‘development ready’ d. promote and showcase successful redevelopment to change attitudes of landowners or developers e. ‘step in’ as a last resort to compulsory acquire strategic sites where other avenues had been exhausted.

General Comment

28. Whilst perhaps outside the scope of this inquiry housing affordability objectives could be further advanced through greater attention to the range of other factors that ultimately determine house price, particularly those relating to supply chain efficiency and competitiveness within the building industry. The work of the Productivity Partnership in this area is valuable but the current does not lend itself to realising such opportunities.

29. The UDS Partnership looks forward to contributing to the ongoing consideration of the matters raised in this Inquiry and the wider government and industry initiatives to address housing supply and housing affordability.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Partnership submission on the draft Report Using Land for Housing (August 2015) 64 65 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

13. 'HOUSING MATTERS' AND 'BUILD BACK BETTER' PROJECT UPDATES

Author: Keith Tallentire, Urban Development Strategy, Implementation Manager Contact: 03 941 8590

Purpose

To provide the Committee with an update on the 'Housing Matters' and "Build Back Better' projects. Tony Moore, Christchurch City Council, Principal Advisor Sustainability and Nick Collins, Beacon Pathway, CEO will be presenting.

Recommendation

That the committee receive the update.

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 66 P u b l i c E x c l u d e d S e c t i o n GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 67

14 AUGUST 2015

URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

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 item(s) 4 (cont'd) and 15.

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: GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 68

ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED

15. Recovery Programmes update To protect information which is subject to an obligation of 7 (2) (c)(i) Information contained in the report has After the agreed public release of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled not yet been publicly released by the the information by the Minister. to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake making available of the information— Recovery. (i) would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied

+. 69 GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

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.”