Thursday 27 June 2013 9.30Am Council Chamber, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street

Home , Bob Parker (mayor), Moncks Bay, New Regent Street, Papanui, Sign of the Kiwi, Sign of the Takahe

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2013

9.30AM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET

We’re on the Web! www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Agendas/

AGENDA - OPEN

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

Thursday 27 June 2013 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street

Council: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, Claudia Reid and Sue Wells.

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.

1. APOLOGIES 1

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 30 MAY 2013 AND 13 JUNE 2013 1

4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS 1

5. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE 21 COMMITTEE MEETING OF 4 JUNE 2013

6. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 5 JUNE 2013 131

7. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 18 JUNE 2013 185

8. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: 201 MEETING OF 6 JUNE 2013

9. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE: MEETING 277 OF 7 JUNE 2013

10. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMITTEE: 323 MEETING OF 29 MAY 2013

11. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE JOINT FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI AND SHIRLEY/PAPANUI 325 COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 28 MAY 2013

12. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD: 337 MEETING OF 18 JUNE 2013

13. REGISTER OF COUNCILLOR’S INTEREST 423

14. REPORT OF THE HEARINGS PANEL ON THE CEMETERIES MASTER PLAN AND BYLAW 429

15. CCDU TRANSACTIONS 433

16. NOTICES OF MOTION 439

17. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 439

1 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1. APOLOGIES

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

 Regan Nolan will address the Council regarding Clause 1 of item 7 - Report of the Planning Committee – Report on the Request for Information Recording Concerns about the Keeping of Animals.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 30 MAY 2013 AND 13 JUNE 2013

Attached.

4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

2 3 Clause 3

MINUTES

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 30 MAY 2013

PRESENT: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Glenn Livingstone, Yani Johanson, Claudia Reid and Sue Wells.

1. APOLOGIES

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Keown.

An apology for lateness was received from the Mayor.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the apologies be accepted.

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Jane Tyler-Gordon and Lynnette Hardie-Wills on behalf of the Ilam Upper Riccarton Residents Association, addressed the Council regarding the possible extension of the current liquor ban – item 6 (2) of the agenda.

Graham Palmer, Information Services Manager, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, addressed the Council regarding the New Temporary Occupation for I-Site Visitor Centre - item 11.

Mark Gerrard, Chair, Historic Places Trust addressed the Council regarding the report on Heritage Week – item 5 (2).

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETINGS OF 24 APRIL 2013 AND 16 MAY 2013 AND EXTRAORDINARY MEETINGS OF 23 APRIL 2013 AND 10 MAY 2013

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the open minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 23 April 2013 be confirmed.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Gough, that the open minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 April 2013 be confirmed.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the open minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 10 May 2013 be confirmed.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Broughton, that the open minutes of the Council meeting held on 6 May 2013, be confirmed.

4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Councillor Corbett presented a petition from the Addington Wellbeing group containing 149 signatures regarding traffic and parking issues in Addington.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the petition be referred to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee.

Councillor Johanson presented a petition from a group of residents in Heathcote regarding noise pollution in Heathcote.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the petition be referred to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee. 4 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 5. 2013

The Council dealt with the agenda in the following order:

6. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 8 MAY 2013

(1). PROPOSED POLICY CHANGE FOR FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells seconded by Councillor Beck, that the Council:

(a) Remove from its current policy any definition of the immediate pool area (i.e. Clause 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4) on the basis that High Court decisions and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Enterprise/Department of Building and Housing determinations provide clarity and guidance to Council staff and owners on the interpretation of what is an immediate pool area.

(b) Remove any reference to the Council’s commitment to inspect all pools as this is reflected in agreed LTP levels of service through the 2012/13 annual plan process and the 2013-16 Three Year Plan.

(c) Amend clause 6 to Clause 1 of the Policy to state that: Lockable spa pool covers fully complying with the provisions of New Zealand Standard 8500: 2006/Section 3.10 will be considered for exemption under section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 on application by the owner.

(d) Re-name this policy to Lockable Spa Pool Cover Policy.

(2). TEMPORARY ALCOHOL BAN IN RICCARTON ILAM 2013

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

(a) Having considered the matters in clause 5(2) of the Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009, the Council declares a Temporary Alcohol Ban Area in the area bounded by Peer Street, Waimairi Road, Maidstone Road, Avonhead Road and Yaldhurst Road (being the area shown on the attached map), applying 24 hours per day and seven days per week, commencing on 10 June 2013 for six months.

(b) Give Public Notice in The Press and the community newspaper circulated in the Riccarton Wigram Ward and that signs be provided in the public places covered by the alcohol ban.

(c) Request that staff report to Council in January 2014 on a further temporary alcohol ban in the area bounded by Peer Street, Waimairi Road, Maidstone Road, Avonhead Road and Yaldhurst Road (being the area shown on the attached map) commencing in February 2014.

(d) Request that staff report to the appropriate Committee in February 2014 with a Section 155 analysis of the Riccarton Ilam Permanent Ban.

(3). JOINT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CERA, THE COUNCIL AND TE RŪNANGA O NGĀI TAHU

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Beck, that the Council:

(a) Approve the Joint Management Agreement establishing the Christchurch Central Joint Design Approvals Board.

(b) Authorise the General Manager, Strategy and Planning Group, to sign the agreement on the Council's behalf. 5 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 5. 2013

6 Cont’d

(c) For the term of the agreement, delegate to the Board the Council's functions, powers and duties to make decisions on applications under Rules 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 (urban design matters and outline development plans in the new Central City Business Zone).

(d) Advise the Resource Management Officer Subcommittee that elected members will not be available for appointment to the Board for the balance of this term of Council.

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

(5). CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Beck that the staff prepare a status report to the council on consenting and inspection services.

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

11. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD – MEETING OF 22 MAY 2013

(1). NEW TEMPORARY OCCUPATION FOR I-SITE VISITOR CENTRE – BOTANIC GARDENS

Councillors Broughton and Reid took no part in this item.

The Mayor arrived at 10.30 am.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the Council:

Approve, pursuant to section 5(b)(iv) of the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order 2011:

(a) Extending this temporary occupation right over approximately 190 square metres of Part Reserve 25 SO 11870, containing a land area of 21.1374 hectares and classified as Local Purpose (Botanic Gardens) Reserve, to Christchurch and Canterbury Marketing Ltd for the purpose of a temporary i-SITE Visitors Centre until 18 April 2016; and

(b) An extension to the existing temporary building of approximately 27 square metres, as shown in Attachments 1 and Attachment 2 to this report in the agenda, for a period from 1 August 2013 to 18 April 2016, subject to the following conditions:

(i) That officers put in place an appropriate occupation agreement, a warrant, in which the rights of the Council and Christchurch and Canterbury Marketing Ltd are protected, and which includes clauses covering the points listed in paragraph 17 of this report.

(ii) In recognition of the service provided to visitors by the i-SITE Visitor Centre, which is of benefit to the tourism market in Christchurch and all of New Zealand, and which in turn is of benefit to the wider community, the Council resolves not to charge to Christchurch and Canterbury Marketing Ltd a rental for the temporary occupation of this site in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens.

The Council adjourned at 10.40 am and resumed at 10.55 am.

6 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 5. 2013

5. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE OF 7 MAY 2013

(1). FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN MONTHLY STATUS UPDATE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive the report.

(2). HERITAGE WEEK

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Broughton, that the Council:

(a) Support a Heritage weekend event in 2013 incorporating staff options 1 and 2 over a Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

(b) Ask staff to seek input from relevant community stakeholders over the final content and programme.

(3). FACILITIES REBUILD PROGRAMME SOCIAL HOUSING FIVE YEAR PROGRAMME UPDATE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Gough that the Council receive the report.

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

7. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE OF 9 MAY 2013

(1). CYCLE LANES ON MAIN ROADS

Councillor Reid moved:

That the Council support the use of cycle lanes as one of a number of options for providing a base level of safety on collector, arterial or equivalent main roads in Christchurch.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Wells and on being put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 1, by 10 votes to 2, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For (10): The Mayor and Councillors Beck, Buck, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Johanson, Livingstone, Reid and Wells.

Against (2): Councillors Broughton and Carter.

Abstain (1): Councillor Button.

(2). EASEMENT CONSENT – 142 CAMBRIDGE TERRACE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the Council: 7 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 5. 2013

7 Cont’d

(a) Approve an easement pursuant to Section 48 (1) (d) of the Reserves Act 1977 for the right to locate and maintain a stormwater drain on and over portion of Reserve land located at 142 Cambridge Terrace on the North Eastern Corner at the intersection of Cambridge Terrace and Worcester Streets:

(i) the restoration of the Reserve to the condition it was in prior to the commencement of the works and to the satisfaction of the Parks Operations Manager;

(ii) the consent of the Department of Conservation is sought.

(b) Delegate authority to the Corporate Support Unit Manager to finalise and conclude the granting of the easement.

(3). INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that the Council receive the Infrastructure Rebuild Monthly Report for April 2013.

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

8. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE MEETING OF 10 MAY 2013

(1). PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE NINE MONTHS TO 31 MARCH 2013

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Carter, that the Council receive the report.

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

9. 2013 LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEW ZEALAND CONFERENCE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Gough, seconded by Councillor Beck, that

(a) The Mayor and Councillor Wells, Broughton and Chen be authorised to attend the 2013 Local Government New Zealand Conference in Hamilton in July 2013.

(b) The Council appoint the Mayor as the presiding voting delegate and Councillor Wells as the alternate voting delegate, and Councillors Broughton and Chen attending the conference, as the Council’s viewing delegates at the Annual General Meeting.

10. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY ELECTIONS: ORDERING OF CANDIDATES’ NAMES ON VOTING DOCUMENTS AND EARLY PROCESSING

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

(a) The names of the Mayoral, Council and Community Board candidates at the 2013 Christchurch City elections be arranged in random order. 8 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 5. 2013

10 Cont’d

(b) If the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) is not enacted, the returned voting documents for the 2013 Christchurch City local elections be processed during the voting period, such early processing to be undertaken in accordance with section 79 of the Local Electoral Act 2001; the Local Electoral Regulations 2001 and the Society of Local Government Managers’ Code of Good Practice for the Management of Local Authority Elections and Polls.

12. SUBMISSION – GOVERNMENT FRESHWATER REFORM PROPOSALS

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council receive the Council submission on the Government’s freshwater proposals.

13. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 24 MAY 2014

(1). 279 OPAWA ROAD - SALE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Wells, that the Council adopt a resolution in the following form:

(a) That the land known as 279 Opawa Road, Certificate of Title reference Pt Lot 5 DP13838 as shown outlined in red on the plan in Attachment 1 be declared surplus to operational needs and approved for sale.

(b) That in the first instance any obligations to the former owners under the provisions of Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 are resolved.

(c) That should a sale under recommendation (b) above not occur that the property be offered for sale to Enable Networks for the purpose set out in this report.

(d) That should a sale to Enable Network under (c) above not be achieved then the property be placed on the open market for sale by way of tender and that in the event of a sale not being achieved through this process that the property be offered for sale by private treaty.

(e) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager be delegated authority to manage and conclude any and all of the negotiations and transactions arising from the sale of the property on terms and conditions satisfactory to them, irrespective of the process, so long as the sale price is no less than 90 per cent of an Independent Registered Valuers open market appraisal.

21. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SUBMISSION PANEL ON THE COUNCIL SUBMISSION ON THE HOUSING ACCORDS AND SPECIAL HOUSING AREA BILL

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Wells, seconded by Councillor Beck, that the Council adopt the draft submission as amended at the Council meeting.

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Corbett, that Councillor Wells present the Council’s submission at the Social Services Select Committee.

22. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button, that the report be received and considered at the meeting of the Council on 30 May 2013.

9 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 30. 5. 2013

23. APPROVAL FOR NEW LOCATION OF SPIRE SCULPTURE IN LATIMER SQUARE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council approve the revised location for the ‘spire’ sculpture in the southern square of Latimer Square (as shown in Figure 2) in the report in the agenda.

14. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

15. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button:

(a) That the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 261 - 267 of the agenda be adopted.

(b) That Taryn Gudzman from Anderson Lloyd be permitted to remain to provide advice if required.

CONCLUSION

It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Button, that the public be readmitted at 1.10 pm at which point the meeting concluded.

CONFIRMED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR

10 Clause 3 11

MINUTES

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.32AM ON THURSDAY 13 JUNE 2012

PRESENT: The Mayor, Bob Parker (Chairperson). Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, Yani Johanson, Claudia Reid and Sue Wells.

1. APOLOGIES

An apology for lateness and early departure was received from The Mayor, Bob Parker who was absent for clauses 1 – 17, 20, 21, part of clause 25 and took no part in voting, 34, and 26 to 33.

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Sue Wells who was absent for clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

An apology for early departure was received from Councillor Barry Corbett who left at 3.24pm and was absent for clauses 32 and 33.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Corbett, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the apologies be accepted.

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

 David Halstead from the Fendalton Waimairi Community Board addressed the Council regarding item 24 – Bishopdale Library and Community Centre building repair.  Chris Doudney, John Cameron-Lewis and Topsy Rule addressed the Council regarding item 21, Report by the Chairperson of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board – Coastal Pathway Consultation.  Mike Sleigh, Linda Rutland and Liz Studholme addressed the Council regarding item 21, Report by the Chairperson of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board – Coastal Pathway Consultation.

3. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

Nil.

4. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 16 APRIL 2013

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

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

5. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON/WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 21 MAY 2013

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

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

12 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013

6. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 8 MAY 2013

Chris Mene, Chairperson, tendered his apology for the meeting.

(1). CORRESPONDENCE

(1.1) SPENCERVILLE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Keown, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council write to the New Zealand Fire Service seeking their reassurance that the Brooklands Volunteer Fire Service will remain to protect both residents’ homes and the Christchurch City Council forestry and recreational assets in the Spencerville area.

Note: It was undertaken that staff would supply the Council with a copy of the correspondence received from the Spencerville Residents Association.

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

7. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 22 MAY 2013

Chris Mene, Chairperson, tendered his apology for the meeting.

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

8. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 7 MAY 2013

Phil Clearwater, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

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

9. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SPREYDON/HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 24 MAY 2013

Phil Clearwater, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

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

10. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 17 APRIL 2013

Pam Richardson, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

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

13 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013

11. REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AKAROA/WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 22 MAY 2013

Pam Richardson, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

(1). DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

(1.1) LITTLE RIVER INFORMATION CENTRE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Broughton, that the Council consider funding to assist the Little River Craft Station Incorporated in providing information services at Little River at the time of the Three Year Plan deliberations.

It was resolved that the report as a whole be adopted.

The Council adjourned from 10.45 am to 11.04 am.

12. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 29 APRIL 2013

Linda Stewart, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

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

13. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 6 MAY 2013

Linda Stewart, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

(1). AVONDALE PARK - MCCONNELL DOWELL TEMPORARY OFFICE

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the Council pursuant to clause 5(b)(iv) of the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order No 2 (2011):

(a) Formalise the use by McConnell Dowell Limited of part of the recreation reserve known as Avondale Park, as shown approximately on the application (refer Attachment 2) for the purpose of a ‘Pressure Sewer System Demonstration Office’.

(b) That the period for which the temporary occupation right is granted is to be from the date of the Council meeting until the expiry of the Order in Council on 18 April 2016 or until a date the need for the port-a-com demonstration office is no longer required, whichever is the sooner, this being set out in the warrant of occupation.

(c) That the applicant be required to take all reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the reserve and to ensure that the reserve is reinstated at the end of the use as closely as practicable to its prior condition as required by section 6(2) (a) and (b) of the Order.

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

14. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD/PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 20 MAY 2013

Linda Stewart, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Beck, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report be received. 14 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013 15. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 16 APRIL 2013

Val Carter, Chairperson, tendered her apology for the meeting.

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

16. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 7 MAY 2013

Val Carter, Chairperson, tendered her apology for the meeting.

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

17. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 21 MAY 2013

Val Carter, Chairperson, tendered her apology for the meeting.

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

18. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 4 JUNE 2013

Val Carter, Chairperson, tendered her apology for the meeting.

(1). IDRIS ROAD/GLANDOVEY ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

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

1. Revoke the following parking restrictions:

(a) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 124 metres be revoked.

(b) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 96 metres be revoked.

(c) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 173 metres be revoked.

(d) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 170 metres be revoked.

(e) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 36 metres be revoked.

(f) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 84 metres be revoked. 15 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013 18 Cont’d (g) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a southerly and then south-westerly direction for a distance of 127 metres be revoked.

(h) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 68 metres be revoked.

2. Approve the following parking restrictions:

(a) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 124 metres.

(b) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 95 metres.

(c) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 113 metres.

(d) That a bus stop be installed on the north side of Glandovey Road commencing at a point 113 metres east of its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

(e) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Glandovey Road commencing at a point 127 metres east of its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 46 metres.

(f) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Glandovey Road commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 73 metres.

(g) That a bus stop be installed on the south side of Glandovey Road commencing at a point 73 metres east of its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

(h) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Glandovey Road commencing at a point 87 metres east of its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 43 metres.

(i) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

(j) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 84 metres.

(k) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a southerly and then south-westerly direction for a distance of 127 metres.

(l) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Idris Road commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 67 metres. 16 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013 18 Cont’d

3. Approve the following special vehicle lanes, specifically a “cycle lane” which restricts the lane for use by bicycles at the following locations:

(a) On the north side of Glandovey Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 52 metres.

(b) On the south side of Glandovey Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 42 metres.

(c) On the north side of Glandovey Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 113 metres.

(d) On the north side of Glandovey Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at a point 127 metres east of its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 46 metres.

(e) On the south side of Glandovey Road, adjacent to the left side in the direction of travel of the straight through lane, commencing at its intersection with Idris Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 170 metres.

(f) On the west side of Idris Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

(g) On the east side of Idris Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 84 metres.

(h) On the west side of Idris Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a southerly and then south-westerly direction for a distance of 127 metres.

(i) On the east side of Idris Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Glandovey Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 23 metres.

4. Revoke the following Give Way control:

(a) Glandovey Road West approach to its intersection with Idris Road.

(b) Glandovey Road East approach to its intersection with Idris Road.

(d) Idris Road South approach to its intersection with Glandovey Road.

5. Approve that the intersection of Glandovey Road and Idris Road, be controlled by Traffic Signals.

19. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 8 MAY 2013

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

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

17 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013

20. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 22 MAY 2013

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

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

21. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 5 JUNE 2013

Islay Mc Leod, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.

(1). COASTAL PATHWAY CONSULTATION

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Carter, seconded by Councillor Reid, that the Council:

(a) Receive the report.

(b) Note the level of support for the Coastal Pathway draft Concept Plan, and resolve not to hold hearings on submissions.

(d) Have regard to the Coastal Pathway consultation feedback as part of the considerations of submissions on the Three Year Plan and consider the allocation of funding to this concept plan, broken into stages.

(e) Council staff will report back to the Council at the Three Year Plan deliberation meeting on the estimated cost of including; Stormwater swales, Landscaping, Access ramps/steps to the estuary that this work is done as: (i) part of the existing SCIRT causeway project, and (ii) at a later date, not in conjunction with the SCIRT project, and (iii) cost to complete this section (pathway surfacing) of the coastal pathway as part of the SCIRT causeway project.

22. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD: MEETING OF 18 APRIL 2013

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

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

23. RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC FORUM

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by The Mayor, that the Council note the information contained in attachment one in response to issues that were raised during the public forum of the 23 May 2013 Earthquake Forum.

18 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013

24. BISHOPDALE LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTRE BUILDING REPAIR

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

(a) Authorise Council staff to commence with the repairs to 100 per cent New Building Standard in advance of the insurance settlement and;

(b) Allocate $1,183,612 (ex GST) from the Building and Infrastructure Improvement Allowance to the project; and

(c) Authorise the Chief Executive to award a contract for the repair of the Bishopdale Community Centre and Library up to a value of $1,248,612 +/- 10 per cent.

(d) It is noted that this authorisation of this expenditure and proceeding with repairs does not constitute a settlement of the insurance claims on this asset which are being progressed by a separate process.

(e) That the Community Board consider putting the $300,000 already received from the Capital Endowment fund towards improvements, in addition to the repairs to 100% of code.

25. NOTICES OF MOTION

25.1 Councillor Helen Broughton withdrew her Notice of Motion.

25.2 Councillor Ngaire Button submitted the following Notice of Motion pursuant to Standing Order 3.10

Councillor Button moved, seconded by Councillor Gough:

Notice of Motion – Governance Arrangements

1. That a portion of the Community Recreation and Culture Committee Terms of Reference as adopted at the 28 June 2012 Council meeting be revoked. The portion to be revoked to be:

Community Facilities (that are part of the facility rebuild or an anchor project)

2. That a portion of the Corporate and Financial Committee Terms of Reference as adopted at the 28 June 2012 Council meeting be revoked. The portion to be revoked to be:

Insurance (Relating to the facility rebuild or an anchor project)

3. That a portion of the Planning Committee Terms of Reference as adopted at the 28 June 2012 Council meeting be revoked, The portion to be revoked to be:

Central City Development Unit (that are part of the anchor projects outlined in the Central City Recovery Plan)

4. That a new committee, chaired by the Mayor with membership comprising the Mayor and all councillors called the Christchurch Facilities Rebuild committee be established. 19 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013 25 Cont’d 5. The Christchurch Facilities Rebuild committee to be responsible for reviewing as appropriate and making recommendations to Council on the following areas:

Council Facilities Rebuild Anchor Projects outlined in the Central City Recovery Plan Insurance – relating to a facility rebuild or an anchor project.

6. That the Christchurch Facilities Rebuild committee meet on the Thursday of the Earthquake forum meetings. The committee meeting commencing at 1 pm.

When put to the meeting the Notice of Motion was declared lost on electronic vote No. 1 by 6 votes to 7, the voting being as follows:

For (6): Councillors Buck, Button, Corbett, Gough, Keown and Wells.

Against (7): Councillors Beck, Broughton, Carter, Chen, Johanson, Livingstone and Reid.

The Mayor was absent for voting on this item.

The Council adjourned from 1.27 pm to 2.02 pm.

34. NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED – NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND APPOINTMENT OF PROXY

Councillor Johanson moved, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the Council:

(a) Appoint the Chairperson of the Corporate and Finance Committee as its proxy for the Civic Assurance Annual General Meeting to be held on 21 June 2013.

(b) Direct the Chairperson of Corporate and Finance Committee to vote against the following item:

To set Directors Fees at $172,350 per annum effective from 1 July 2013.

Note: that the Council has no objection to an annual review of directors fees.

(c) Formally write to the Directors of Civic Assurance to express concern and dissatisfaction with the timeliness of responses in regards to Christchurch City Council's above ground claims and settlements.

(d) Request all future Civic Assurance correspondence in relation to Council's shareholding interest be addressed to the General Manager Corporate Services and each item be tabled as part of the Corporate and Finance Committee agenda.

The motion was then put to the meeting on a clause by clause basis.

Clause (a) when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 2 by 9 votes to 4, the voting being as follows:

For (9): Councillors Beck, Broughton, Carter, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Johanson, Livingstone, and Wells.

Against (4): Councillors Buck, Button, Keown and Reid.

Clause (b) when put to the meeting was declared carried unanimously on electronic vote No. 3 by 13 votes to nil.

Clause (c) when put to the meeting was declared carried on electronic vote No. 4 by 12 votes to 1, the voting being as follows: 20 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 13. 6. 2013 34 Cont’d

For (12): Councillors Beck, Buck, Button, Broughton, Carter, Chen, Corbett, Gough, Johanson, Livingstone, Reid and Wells.

Against (1): Councillor Keown.

Clause (d) when put to the meeting was declared carried unanimously on electronic vote No. 5 by 13 votes to nil.

26. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

At 3.20pm it was resolved on the motion of Councillor Reid, seconded by Councillor Broughton, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 173 – 177 of the agenda be adopted.

CONFIRMED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR

21 Clause 5 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4 JUNE 2013

A meeting of the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on Tuesday 4 June 2013 at 9am

PRESENT: Councillor Yani Johanson (Chairperson) Councillors Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Tim Carter, Barry Corbett, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough and Glenn Livingstone (Deputy Chairperson).

IN ATTENDANCE: Nil.

APOLOGIES: Councillor Broughton was absent for part of clauses 1 and 2, and all of clauses 3, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Councillor Beck was absent for part of clause 1, and all of clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN MONTHLY STATUS UPDATE

General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8534 Officer responsible: Facilities Rebuild Portfolio Manager Author: Darren Moses, Facilities Rebuild Portfolio Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To provide a monthly update to Council on the Facilities Rebuild Programme (FRP) and associated top 30 priority projects.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. This information report provides a monthly programme update on some key FRP activities for the month mid April to mid May 2013.

3. A full status update on those projects prioritised into the Top 30 can be found in Attachment 1 and a programme schedule including TOP 30 and Work Package 2 (WP2) can be found in Attachment 2.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

4. The quarterly ‘Facilities Forums’ will commence on 5 June 2013. There will be six in total; two in Banks Peninsula and one each for the North, South, East and West of Christchurch. The purpose of these forums is to be an informal question and answer opportunity for residents in the area.

5. The first of the monthly advertorials was published in the Star and the Akaroa Mail in May. This provided an overview of the programme as well as latest updates.

6. An online survey to find out what residents want to know about the Facilities Rebuild Programme has been sent out to community networks for further dissemination. This will help us ensure we are providing the relevant information to residents. 22 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

DETAILED ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS

7. The current status of Detailed Engineering Evaluations (DEE) assessments is shown below in Table 1. Table 1: DEE Assessment Status Measure April 2013 May 2013

Number of buildings to undergo DEE assessments 917 917

a) Will not get a DEE 30 103

b) Yet to start 0 0 c) In progress 509 405 d) Received as draft 290 76 e) Completed 118 333 Subtotal d and e 408 409

On hold, Demolished, will not progress DEE 30 32

Under Internal Review 60 79 <34% NBS (earthquake prone building) 90 90

>34% and <67% NBS (fit for occupancy) 69 74

>67% and <99% NBS (below code) 56 57 >99% (code or above) 103 106

a. Will not get a DEE: Building is already demolished or simple structure not requiring a DEE. b. Yet to Start : Preparation stage for commissioning and preparing documents and obtaining order of cost from Engineers. c. In Progress : With the Engineering Firm for assessment, on site undertaking investigation. d. Received Dee as Draft: CCC has received the likely highest level of the Dee from the Engineer for internal review and the report is finalised with Engineers and the Finalised report returned to the CCC for GM sign off. e. Completed : GM sign off and available for public via the Web.

CLOSURES AND OPENINGS

8. Grubb Cottage is expected to be open during late May, pending some remedial works to the chimney.

HERITAGE PROGRAMME

Work Package One

9. Repair works are continuing at Edmonds Clock Tower (end of May), Jubilee Clock (end of August), Avebury House (end of June) and Linwood Community Centre (end of June) with no changes to completion dates.

10. Improved temporary weather protection is being constructed over the Stone Chamber at Canterbury Provincial Chambers as the final part of stage three stabilisation works. The remaining stage four of stabilisation work, including Bellamy’s is in the final stages of design. A report to the Council is being prepared for July.

11. Works to affect the temporary opening of Akaroa Court House are now underway with seven piles needed to be repaired, to bring the New Building Standard (NBS) above 34 per cent. The target date for the repairs to be completed is late May 2013. Following this museum staff will begin their opening procedure.

12. Akaroa Museum: reconstruction of the wall between the foyer and Gallery One is about to get underway which will enable the opening of the foyer area to the public. The target date for repairs to be completed is late May 2013, with the shop and displays able to be open in early July 2013. Permanent repairs to the remaining building are still being developed. 23 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

13. Detailed design for the repair and strengthening of Sign of the Takahe has been received and a staff workshop is to be held to review the design before any final changes are made. The design is being costed, and following a statement of position from the insurers, staff will bring a report to the Council with recommendations.

14. Former Municipal Chambers, Our City Otautahi, has been stabilised. Remaining material on site is being secured and placed in storage. Staff will report to the Community Recreation and Culture Committee in July 2013 on the next phase of investigations.

15. Claims have been submitted to the Insurers for both Gaiety Hall and the Akaroa Service Centre. Once feedback has been received, staff can establish the cost to the Council for the repairs of these buildings. At that stage, a report will be prepared for the Community Recreation and Culture Committee and the Council.

Work Package Two

16. Repair designs are nearing completion for Mona Vale Gatehouse, Homestead and the Lodge. Options are being considered for the Lodge for strengthening to 67 and 100 per cent of NBS. There is land damage at the Gatehouse and the Lodge and claims are being sought through the Earthquake Commission (EQC).

17. Further intrusive investigations are underway at Rose Historic Chapel to better understand the building construction and assist in the completion of repair designs.

18. Costing of strengthening and repair designs are underway for Signal Mast Cave Rock and Victoria Park Information Centre.

19. A DEE is underway for Chokebore Lodge. Once this is completed options for repair will be developed.

Other

20. Once a fire system inspection report is received Grubb Cottage in Lyttleton will be officially re-opened. This is expected late May 2013.

21. A longer term security fence has been installed around the Edmonds Band Rotunda site to keep the dome safe and secure.

HOUSING PROGRAMME

22. A full and comprehensive report on Social Housing can be found in Attachment 3.

COMMERCIAL PROGRAMME

Work Package One (TOP 30)

23. A scope of works and cost estimate to repair damage to Fendalton Community Centre has been developed. The building requires repairs to electrical, water and drainage which are the main issues keeping it closed. The Council’s insurers dispute the claim and are completing their own damage assessment. If a prompt resolution can be reached, repairs will be targeted at the critical services to enable reoccupation of the building by the end of June 2013.

24. The foyer, toilets and boardroom at Riccarton Community Centre can now be reopened following a structural site review, safe access plan and a fire report. The Community Facilities team are working through an updated building warrant of fitness to open the additional areas in May 2013. 24 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

25. A concept strengthening report for Hei Hei Community Centre has been presented to the insurers regarding the Council’s current assessment of the situation. The works are related to earthquake damage sustained to the building and a response is now sought from insurers.

26. A workshop was held with the Council on 23 April 2013 on community ‘hubs’ – the bringing together of complimentary facilities such as libraries and community centres. Two separate reports have been written for the July 2013 Council meeting, recommending repair options for Bishopdale Community Centre and rebuild options for Sumner Community Centre/Library.

27. Repair and rebuild options for the Scarborough Jetboat building have been developed and priced. A significant portion of the total cost is related to strengthening the building which is currently closed at 10 per cent NBS. Following discussions with the club, staff will bring a report to the Council with recommendations.

28. A scope of damage has been completed and costed for Cunningham House (Christchurch Botanic Gardens). This has been agreed with insurers. However, the building requires substantial strengthening which will be presented in a report to the Council once the design work has been completed (estimated end June 2013). Staff are striving to have this facility reopened in time for the 150th anniversary celebrations. The remaining glass houses surrounding Cunningham House require strengthening, with the exception of the Fernery House which was reopened in April 2013.

29. Lyttelton Service Centre: the Loss Adjustment Team have been reviewing a Council repair and strengthening options report provided (with associated costs) in February 2013. Staff are awaiting a response.

30. South Library: a geotechnical report and level survey have identified differential settlement. A damage assessment including a re-levelling methodology will be complete in June 2013.

31. Voluntary Libraries: staff are working with the Redcliff’s Voluntary Library Committee to enable the Committee to position its temporary building on site. Staff are seeking confirmation from insurers that this will not negatively affect the Council's insurance claim on this asset. Repairs to Opawa Children’s library are due to begin the week commencing 27 May 2013. Heathcote Library make safe work will commence in June 2013. This will allow the voluntary library committee to retrieve their possessions from site.

32. Waltham Pool: damage assessment will be complete in June 2013. Staff are also investigating the options of rationalising the buildings required on site and or strengthening existing buildings and will present the best value repair option to the Council following agreement with insurers.

33. Norman Kirk Pool: repair costs identified for Norman Kirk Pool have exceeded the total sum insured. Staff have submitted a claim for indemnity amount ($267,321) and have provided the Loss Adjustment Team with a damage assessment report that outlines earthquake damage, details how this would be repaired in line with the policy, and provides costs for this work. Our insurers’ loss adjusters are “unable give a definitive timescale” of when they will have reviewed this report. Staff have presented the information to the Lyttelton Mount Herbert Community Board with the intention of initiating a working party. At the request of the Community Board, staff are now preparing information for a public meeting.

34. Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity hall: repair costs identified for Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall have exceeded the Indemnity value; staff will submit a claim for indemnity amount ($1,662,325) and have provided damage assessment report that outlines earthquake damage, details how this should be repaired in line with the policy and provides costs for this work. Our insurers’ loss adjusters are “unable give a definitive timescale” of when they will review this report. Staff have presented the information to the Lyttelton Mount Herbert Community Board with the intention of initiating a working party. At the request of the Community Board staff are now preparing information for a public meeting. 25 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

35. Botanic gardens paddling pool: staff are currently in discussions with insurers and will identify options for re-levelling this pool to ensure operating costs can be reduced to normal levels as soon as possible.

36. Scarborough Paddling pool: removal of the pool will be completed in winter 2013; insurance proceeds will not be sufficient to re-instate the pool.

Work Package Two

37. Many community centres on Banks Peninsula (typically older buildings) have failed DEE assessments through design rather than on earthquake damage. Repairs and strengthening work to Duvauchelle Community Hall are being quantified and priced. It is expected that repairs will take place in June 2013.

38. A similar process is being followed with Little Akaloa Community Hall and a report to the Committee will be prepared when damage, strengthening and maintenance items have been quantified.

39. Okains Bay Community Hall is closed and has failed a DEE assessment based on the lack of under-floor bracing. The maintenance of the building also needs to be addressed as it is considered that the existing condition of the hall is very poor, (substantial additional work will be required). A report will be brought to the Council when the costs to strengthen and repair are better understood.

40. St Albans crèche was re-opened in December 2012; however, discussions are ongoing with insurers over an appropriate methodology to re-level the floor.

41. Avonhead Park Pavilion in the Greenspace portfolio has been partially re-opened following the development of a safe access plan and isolation of the key ‘damage’ areas. This has allowed three changing rooms, kitchen and referee’s room to re-open for the forthcoming sports season. Two public toilets and one changing room remain closed but temporary toilets have been placed onsite until a permanent repair can be designed.

42. Earthquake repairs are about to commence on the following Greenspace buildings: Harewood nursery vehicle shed, Sign of the Kiwi toilets and South New Brighton beach changing sheds/toilets.

43. Other buildings currently in Work Package Two have damage assessments underway and are being reviewed by engineers from both the Council and the Loss Adjustment Team; these include North Beach Community crèche, Allandale community centre, Wainoni Community Centre and Heathcote Community Centre. More information will be provided when available.

44. A report to the Council recommending strengthening of Jellie Park’s main plant room was approved by the Council on 16 May 2013. Building consent application is in progress - works will proceed with urgency if approved by the Council.

45. Pioneer Leisure Centre: temporary works have been completed to allow the hall to be used.

46. Hurunui Pool and Recreation Centre: temporary works have allowed the pool entrance-way to operate. The pool building is open, however, the gymnasium and recreation centre portion of the building will require significant works as a result of earthquake damage.

47. Sockburn squash centres: damage assessment will be complete in early July 2013. A portion of the building which has been closed since the removal of the nearby outdoor pool and an outdoor deck has suffered significant damage. 26 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

48. Wigram Gym: minor damage has been identified; it is expected that repairs will be able to be instructed under staff delegation. A scope of works is currently being developed. The Council consents team have also confirmed that a planned upgrade/extension to the facility will not trigger a seismic upgrade to the existing building provided it does not use the existing building for support.

49. Denton Oval: strengthening design has been completed on amenities building (Hornby Rugby Club change rooms) and costed at $80,000 to 67 per cent NBS – this work can be completed under the existing maintenance budget and will allow part of the facility to be re-opened by September 2013. Repair of other damage can be completed while the facility is operational.

50. Governors Bay Pool: closed for the season - the damage assessment will be completed during winter 2013. Staff will submit a claim for indemnity ($72,375) based on an early estimate of cost to repair damage.

51. Halswell Aquatic Centre: damage assessments will be completed prior to the start of the capital project to build a new community facility on site.

52. Cuthberts Green: damage assessment due to begin in June 2013.

53. Parklands Library: this building has minor to moderate damage. A damage assessment will be commissioned in June 2013. The building has a NBS rating of 62 per cent.

54. New Brighton Library: this building has minor to moderate damage. A damage assessment will be commissioned in May 2013. The building has a NBS rating of 36 per cent.

55. Shirley Library: this asset has minor to moderate damage. The Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system was damaged and repairs were completed early in 2013. The building has a NBS rating of 68 per cent. A damage assessment will be commissioned by end of May 2013.

56. Spreydon Library: damage assessment will be commissioned in June 2013.

57. Milton Street Depot: this site is a grouping of 11 assets. Three of the DEE reports are still being completed due to the need for intrusive investigations. Damage varies from minor to extensive; damage assessments will be commissioned by end of May/start of June 2013.

58. Upper Riccarton Library: this asset has moderate damage including damage to the under-floor heating. A damage assessment will be commissioned by the end of May 2013.

59. R and R Sport/Penny Lane/Rohits/Mayur: negotiations are underway for Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) to purchase this building later this year. Damage assessments and insurance negotiations are progressing.

60. Dog Pound: this building has moderate damage. A damage assessment will be commissioned by end of May 2013.

61. Lyttelton Library: due to the lack of structural plans for the building extensive intrusive investigations are required to complete the DEE for this building. City Care and Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) Group are working jointly to complete this work. Once this is complete, the Council survey crew will complete a level survey to input into the insurance process. When the DEE is received, the scope of the damage assessment can be determined and commissioned.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

62. Housing units with damage at over $100,000 cap per event will qualify for a legitimate insurance claim with the Local Authority Protection Programme Disaster Fund (LAPP). 27 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

63. The building assessment work required to inform the Facilities Rebuild Plan is initially funded by the Council. However, where a building’s structure is damaged and a legitimate successful insurance claim is processed, the Council will recoup these costs from insurance as a legitimate policy entitlement.

64. Therefore insurers will only pay for costs associated with the strengthening to the legal requirement of 33 per cent or the pre-earthquake strength of the building (whichever is higher). Insurers may pay costs associated with strengthening to undamaged portions of buildings. Where buildings have no damage, the full cost to bring a building up to code will be a cost to the Council. This is the case with most of the buildings on Banks Peninsula. The Council’s Earthquake Prone Building Policy requires buildings to be strengthened to a target of 67 per cent NBS.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with LTCCP budgets?

65. No. The work was not contemplated within the 2009-19 LTCCP.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

66. Not applicable.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

67. As above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

68. Not applicable.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the LTCCP?

69. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

70. The work being undertaken by the FRP team involves alignment with existing Facilities Strategy documents to inform decision making.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

71. As above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

72. Not applicable. 28 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receive the information in this report.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee:

(b) Noted that the Committee ask the Corporate and Finance Committee to look at any legal issues relating to insurance payments for social housing in the red zone.

(c) Noted that the urgent Committee workshop requested at its last meeting was to include discussion on how the Facilities Rebuild Programme is reported, how it is progressing in regards to our baseline, the current earthquake prone buildings policy of closures of council- owned facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

(a) Request that council staff bring a list of potential Expression of Interest partners to the Committee with the staff recommendation on those thought suitable to progress with further. The Committee will recommend to the Council the “panel” of partners, and then staff will execute a high level Memorandum of Understanding with each of them. Each actual project will need a Committee and the Council’s sign-off to proceed, so approving the panel is not the same as approving the projects.

(b) Request a memo on the process for council staff agreeing the final statement of position recommendation.

(c) Request that staff provide a list of buildings that they identify that the Council could consider exempting from their current closure policy on the basis that they are not considered dangerous to occupy.

(d) Request urgent clarification regarding the legal ramifications and legal liability in regards to the decision to reverse the closure of the South New Brighton facility.

(e) Request a memo detailing if and how the costs for the Facilities Rebuild Plan will be included in the Three Year Plan before it is final approved by the Council.

29 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

2. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES SUPPORT FUND – CHANGE TO FUNDING CONDITIONS

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: Urban Design and Regeneration Unit Manager Author: Sarah Amazinnia, Strategic Arts Adviser

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a change of funding conditions for the following applications to the Creative Industries Support Fund which would enable them to pick up the grant next year:

 Arts Circus ($80,000)  Exchange Christchurch (XCHC) ($120,000)  BURO: MakerCrate Project ($15,000)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The Community Recreation and Culture Committee approved funding for Arts Circus and Exchange Christchurch in March 2013 and the Urban Design and Regeneration Unit Manager approved funding for BURO in April 2013, subject to certain conditions.

3. The conditions mean that before the grants could be paid the applicants had to provide certain information and documentation to the Council. Table 1 below summarises the applications and their associated conditions.

Table 1. Summary of Applications to the Creative Industries Support Fund Seeking Change of Conditions

Applicant Project Amount Amount Status Conditions Requested Funded Arts Circus Arts Circus at the $80,000 to $80,000 Funding (a) A lease agreement for the Trust Arts Centre. A fund project condition to Arts Centre site is signed multi-disciplinary management be satisfied and a copy of the performance hub before agreement is provided to for the arts in the 1 May 2013 the Urban Regeneration Central City Manager; and (b) Written confirmation is provided from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust or from another funding source, that capital funding for the Arts Circus will be forthcoming once Council funding is approved.

The Exchange $170,000 to $120,000 Funding (a) A signed copy of the Christchurch Christchurch subsidise rent Conditions Exchange Christchurch Exchange (XCHC) to be Trust Deed is provided to Trust satisfied the Urban Design and Collaborative before 1 Regeneration Manager; workshop, office May 2013 and and rehearsal space for Studio (b) A lease agreement is Christchurch, signed for the proposed Free Theatre Central City building and Christchurch and a copy of this agreement 30 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Applicant Project Amount Amount Status Conditions Requested Funded the Christchurch is provided to the Urban Centre for Design and Regeneration Architecture Manager; and

(c) Written confirmation is provided that the proposed building is certified suitable for public use (particularly with regard to the building code).

BURO: A fully fitted out $15,000 $15,000 Staff (a) Staff view and are MakerCrate makerspace in a towards awaiting satisfied with the 20 foot long operational document- documentation that sets container that and capital ation in out the governance provides hire support relation to structure of the access to conditions organisation and how the computer aided set governance and fabrication management will interact machines and to ensure successful design technology operation of the business for artists /designers (b) Documentation of the (furniture, textile, legal entity that the robotics and Council would be entering automation), into agreement with is jewellers and provided inventors. Open source education (c) A letter of intent from a and workshops land owner in the central also run in city. conjunction with the facility.

4. All three applicants are currently working towards meeting their respective conditions but have asked for more time, particularly due to the highly competitive central city commercial real estate market, and/or to be able to work through lease agreements with prospective landlords.

5. The Arts Circus Trust has asked for more time to satisfy its conditions in order for it to work through negotiations with the Arts Centre in regards to the potential location of the Arts Circus.

The required capital funding for the project from other sources is contingent on having a site for the Arts Circus.

6. Exchange Christchurch has asked for more time to work with commercial property agents and other potential partners, such as Life in Vacant Spaces, to find a suitable building in the central city and have it signed off for public use.

7. BURO has indicated that it requires more time to secure a letter of intent from a land-owner to site its project as well as set up its required governance arrangements. 31 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

2 Cont’d

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. In order to change the funding conditions a portion of the Creative Industries Fund ($215,000) would need to be requested as a carry forward into the 2013/2014 financial year. However the funding has effectively been committed from this year’s budget, so there would be no impact on fund availability next year, pending Three Year Plan decisions.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

9. The earthquake and its impacts were not anticipated in the 2009-2019 LTCCP. This fund has been established as part of the earthquake recovery response to support recovery of the creative industry sector.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

10. Once the applicants have met their respective conditions, the Council will enter into funding agreements with all applicants. The agreement will set out the terms and conditions under which the Council provides the funds. The applicant is obliged under these terms and conditions to provide an accountability report, no later than six months after receiving funding from the Creative Industries Support Fund. The funding agreement will also include any conditions approved as part of each application.

Alignment with LTCCP and activity management plans

11. See below.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

12. The Creative Industries Support Fund is related specifically to earthquake recovery. Earthquake recovery was not anticipated when the 2009-19 LTCCP was developed.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

13. The recommendations align with the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the Creative Industries Support Fund criteria as set out in the fund Terms of Reference. The recommendations align with Arts Policy and Strategy in which the Christchurch City Council is committed to achieving an enlivened and creative city.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

14. See above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

15. Not required. 32 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

2 Cont’d

STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council approve that the funding conditions are changed to the following:

(a) $80,000 to Arts Circus Trust to fund project management with the following conditions to the grant:

Before 1st of December 2013

(i) A lease agreement for the Arts Centre site is signed and a copy of the agreement is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager; and

(ii) Written confirmation is provided from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust or from another funding source, that capital funding for the Arts Circus will be forthcoming once Council funding is approved.

(b) $120,000 to Exchange Christchurch to subsidise rent with the following conditions to the grant:

Before the 1st of December 2013

(i) A signed copy of the Exchange Christchurch Trust Deed is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager; and

(ii) A lease agreement is signed for the proposed Central City building and a copy of this agreement is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager; and

(iii) Written confirmation is provided that the proposed building is certified suitable for public use (particularly with regard to the building code).

Before the 1st of December 2013

(i) Staff view and are satisfied with the documentation that sets out the governance structure of the organisation and how the governance and management will interact to ensure successful operation of the business; and

(ii) Documentation of the legal entity that Council would be entering into agreement with is provided; and

(iii) A letter of intent from a land owner in the Central City. 33 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

3. WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATIONS

General Manager responsible: Lydia Aydon, General Manager Public Affairs, DDI: 941-8982 Officer responsible: Lydia Aydon, General Manager Public Affairs Author: Lydia Aydon, General Manager Public Affairs

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To seek the Council’s approval for the recommendations of the Community Recreation and Culture working party to adopt the Communications Policy, agree changes to the Your Council Your Voice collateral and agree the approach for the Civics Education Resource.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. Following the Communications Audit, the Council resolved that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee set up a working party to review the current Communications Policy, the Your Council Your Voice resource and the Civics Education resource with a view to these documents helping to explain the council’s decision making process and the rationale behind decisions.

3. The working party met and reviewed the documents with the following outcomes: the Communication Policy was changed and following adoption by the Council will be published on the internet and promoted internally; the Your Council Your Voice documentation was given some minor amendments to update the information and has been published online while more major changes were deferred till after the Council elections in October; the Civics Education Resource will be included in the Our City education programme run by the City Environment Group.

BACKGROUND

4. The draft Communications Policy was developed in 2009 but was never formally adopted by the Council. The working party made a number of changes with the aim of making the document shorter, more concise, reflect the current environment and to focus on the objectives and principles. The amended document was then reviewed by the author of the Communications Audit, Felicity Price, to ensure it reflected the findings of her audit. The new version is attached (Attachment 1).

5. The Your Council Your Voice collateral was reviewed and updated by staff in April 2012. The working party suggested a number of changes to the document. Minor changes included updating contact details, listing committees, including a group photo of councillors and adding information about the translation service and deputations. The working party asked that these be changed on the PDF online by the end of March 2013 and this was done (Attachment 2). The working party requested that other more substantial changes to make the document more helpful should happen once the new Council is elected in October 2013.

6. The Civics Education Resource (Attachment 3) was a paper-based resource developed in 2001 for use in schools as an overview of how councils worked, to help encourage more young people to get involved in local government. The working party heard that since that time the school curriculum has changed and this kind of resource is no longer used in the same way. The City Environment Group already run an education programme for schools called Our City, which is face to face and more interactive, and has received good feedback from teachers. Staff are reviewing their programme following the earthquakes, and the working party asked them to include some information from the Civics Education resource in the revised programme.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7. Not applicable. 34 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

3 Cont’d

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

8. Not applicable.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

9. Not applicable.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

10. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

11. 4.0.1 - Percentage of residents that understand how Council makes decisions. 4.0.9 - Proportion of residents that are satisfied with the opportunities to access information about Council decisions. The report also aligns with the communication activity in the Public Affairs Activity Management Plans.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

12. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

13. Not applicable.

WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Adopt the Communications Policy and that this is published online and promoted to staff.

(b) Agree to defer major changes to the Your Council Your Voice collateral until after the elections in October 2013.

(c) Agree to include information from the Civics Education resource in the Our City education programme when it is reviewed.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopt the Working Party Recommendation with the addition of the wording “in the next six months” to (c). 35 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

4. SOCIAL HOUSING WORKS PACKAGE 2 INTENSIFICATION SCHEME PROPOSAL TO PROCEED

General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Community Support Author: Lee Sampson, Project Manager – Facilities Rebuild

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to proceed with the proposed design and build of 25 new Council Social Housing units as part of the Facilities Rebuild Social Housing Programme Work Package 2. These new one and two bedroom units will be built through infill development on vacant Council City Housing land located within existing complexes. Subject to approval to proceed, completion is scheduled for the second and third quarters of 2014.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. This programme is part of a greater strategy to repair or replace social housing stock which was either severely earthquake damaged following the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes or red zoned. The Facilities Rebuild team and City Housing are seeking to offset the 113 red zoned units through infill development and improved utilisation of existing Council sites.

3. A list of sites where the potential exists for infill development was drafted through collaboration of City Housing, Strategy and Planning, the Property Consultancy Team and Facilities Rebuild Programme Team. Several sites are currently undergoing feasibility studies and will be presented to the Council in due course. Works Package 2 indentifies the following sites as suitable to proceed at this time following Strategic Asset Management Filter (SAMF) approvals and recommendations:

(a) HP Smith Courts (54 Avalon Street) Richmond – four (one-bed) Elderly Persons Housing (EPH) units.

(b) Berwick Courts (29 Berwick Street) St Albans - three (one-bed) Elderly Persons Housing (EPH) units.

Refer to Attachment 1 for Site Location Plans.

4. In accordance with the Procurement Plan, the recommendation is now to proceed to tender for these schemes. Contractors with previous and relevant experience will be requested to tender for the design and build of these units. A number of specialist construction companies exist in the local market with the resource and capability to complete this project scope within the required time, cost and quality parameters. Work Package 1 intensification project learnings have been implemented, resulting in the adoption of an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to select tenderers for the Harman Courts development, both due to its inherent scale (18 units) and the requirement to explore additional supply chain options.

5. Design and build is considered to offer condensed project delivery duration in lieu of more traditional routes, coupled with a single line of accountability. Furthermore, in approaching the market, the Council is ensuring that the latest technological and innovative solutions are incorporated into the design, including off-site pre-fabrication methods. In meeting the requirements of the design brief, these units will be permanent solutions. 36 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

4 Cont’d

6. The tender submissions will be assessed to ensure the total cost of ownership is taken into consideration (i.e. initial capital and forecast lifecycle cost over 90 years). Price and non-price attributes with be measured in the tender evaluations; non-price elements may include: design merits and innovation, cost of consumption, accessibility (including conformity to Lifemark standards) and sustainable principles. The Council is therefore actively encouraging designs that deliver good sustainable outcomes for Social Housing.

7. The units are scheduled for delivery in the second and third quarters of 2014 taking into consideration build times of approximately 18 - 22 weeks (following the design and consenting periods).

SITE INVESTIGATIONS

8. Geotechnical Investigations have been carried out on the three sites by Consultant GHD. It is recommended that Berwick Courts and Harman Courts are both built on TC2/TC3 hybrid foundations, which have additional structural requirements and associated costs. HP Smith Courts is to have a standard TC2 foundation.

9. The Christchurch City Council Strategy and Planning Team have prepared urban design statements for each site. The findings of these reports have produced the combined site yield of 25 units.

10. None of these sites are located within flood management risk areas.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

11. The initial expenditure will be financed from the existing Housing Development Fund which has a current balance of $29,200,000 (including the remaining balance of $17,200,000 received from EQC).

12. The units will be regarded as ‘A’ Grade units - as of 1 July 2013 this would equate to approximately $140.60 for a one bedroom and $178.50 for a two-bedroom unit per week.

13. Proposed new infill developments are briefed to contain robust, sustainable materials that have a positive affect on the life cycle costs of the assets and these are hoped to support the delivery of social housing that is fit for purpose and affordable. Once further designs and tender prices are received, the unit’s performance will be assessed in more detail to confirm they align with the Council’s design criteria, the constraints of the current housing life cycle cost model and affordability for tenants.

14. Details of the expanded financial analysis are outlined in the Public Excluded part of the meeting as they are commercially sensitive.

15. Infill development and improved utilisation of existing City Housing land is considered the most cost effective way to achieve new City Housing units outside the partnering opportunities currently under evaluation.

16. It is expected the limited capacity in the local construction market will intrinsically lead to increases in costs over time as the demand outstrips the capacity within the market-place. With the current programme for Work Package 2, these projects are anticipated to avoid such clashes in resource with commencement prior to a number of large commercial schemes scheduled for mid-2014.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

17. Yes. This expenditure meets the Level of Service (“Maintain portfolio of rental units and owner/occupier units) in order to return to (“2649 rental units”). 37 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

4 Cont’d

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

18. Resource consent may be required to progress these developments and confirm the total permissible site densities. In particular, the HP Smith Courts and Berwick Courts developments will be discretionary activities under the plan; however Clause (a) of the City Plan removes the minimum specified site density for EPH (Elderly Persons Housing) units of less than 80 metres squared gross floor area.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

19. As the recommendations are a consequence of the earthquake events, this issue is not addressed within the LTCCP.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

20. This report aligns with current strategy in maintaining Social Housing stock levels.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

21. As above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

22. Consultation if necessary, will occur through the Resource Consent process.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

(a) Proceed to tender for the units at HP Smith Courts, Berwick Courts and Harman Courts.

(b) Authorise the General Manager of Community Services and one other General Manager to accept a tender following evaluation, subject to achieving the financial constraints (plus/minus 10 per cent) detailed in the expended Section 11 of the Public Excluded report.

(c) Note that these units on completion will be classified as ‘A’ grade one and two bedroom units charged at the appropriate rental for that level.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

(a) Proceed to an Expression of Interest and a consequent selected tender for the units at HP Smith courts, Berwick Courts and Harman Courts.

(b) Approve that the tender be reported back directly to the full Council for a decision.

(c) Note that these units on completion will be classified as ‘A’ grade one and two bedroom units charged at the appropriate rental for that level. 38 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

5. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Sally Mountfort from the Wayne Francis Trust regarding the work of the Trust and in particular housing issues for youth. She told the Committee that one of the Trust’s biggest challenges was securing suitable land for youth housing, preferably in the St Asaph Street/Moorhouse Avenue area, which is in close proximity to CPIT, Hagley High, Opawa Trades Training and the bus exchange.

6. ARTS UPDATE REPORT

The Committee resolved to receive this report.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee requested an update regarding the Fanfare Workshop.

PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS

7. APOLOGIES

An apology was received and accepted for lateness for Councillor Broughton and for early departure for Councillor Beck.

8. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – 30 NEW REGENT STREET, CHRISTCHURCH

The Committee considered a report seeking approval for a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for 30 New Regent Street, Christchurch.

It was resolved that the Committee approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $68,726 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 2 heritage building at 30 New Regent Street, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works. Payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a fifteen year Limited Conservation Covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee requested that further information be provided to the Committee on the building works description and the eligibility and consistency of these heritage grants.

A Heritage Update document was tabled by the Council’s Heritage Team Leader, Philip Barrett.

9. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public as set out on page 124 of the agenda be adopted.

The meeting concluded at 12.05pm.

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 39 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Glossary of terms: Assessment of position (AOP): Councils response to the Loss Adjuster Damage assessment (DA): Work to identify all of a building’s damage and its associated cost Level survey: A check to see if the building has settled off level as a result of a quake. Loss Adjusting Team (LAT): Work on behalf of the Insurers to adjust our claims. Offer of service (OOS): When Council requests a cost to undertake a piece of work. Statement of Position (SOP): The Loss Adjusters response to Council

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Sydenham Pre School (crèche)

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L5 – 8% NBS

Progress to date and current status:

 The insurers completed their DA the week commencing the 11th March 2013. No report has been issued to date despite several requests.  Council DA to date reflects $65,000 of EQ damage which the insurers have agreed in principal but subject to their own assessment findings.  A strengthening report, including site levels, has been received. Site level results confirmed within Department of Building and Housing (DBH) guidelines so re-levelling is not required.  Costs to strengthen to 34% and 67% of the New Building Standard (NBS) have been completed and are estimated to be the same at $83,500.

Next Steps:  Depending on the findings from the insurers DA, complete further assessments (through the new DA panel) to be able to agree a position with the Council’s insurer.  The asset owner will review further action following resolution of the insurance position. This could include repair of old facility, rebuild of new facility or utilisation of available re-locatable units (short to medium term option).  The ability to return to service is expected late 2013/early 2014.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 40 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Fendalton Community Centre

Building Status: CLOSED due to services issues – drainage/electrical damage.

DEE: L5 - 50% NBS

Progress to date and current status:  A site visit was conducted with the insurer on the 11th April 2013 and again with the insurers DA engineering team on the 30th April 2013. The insurer’s DA report is still to be issued.  Level surveys done in March confirmed areas outside of DBH guidelines which require re-levelling. The engineers have provided possible relevelling methodologies which should not impact the electrical, water and drainage repairs.  Work is targeted at the critical services repairs to enable reoccupation of the building ASAP. Re-levelling and other architectural works would be scheduled later in the year once agreed with the insurers and asset owner. Target repairs in June/July.  DA works completed by City Care on 11th March 2013, estimated at $221,380, (excludes any relevelling) are being revised due to comments by the insurer. These are 90% complete.

Next Steps:

 Seek issue of insurers DA and resolve insurance position in May/June  Review building opening steps in line with likely repairs in June/July

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 41 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Riccarton Community Centre (Also See – Riccarton Voluntary Library)

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 2% (Original Building) 5% (1960 Building) 100% (1968 Building)

Progress to date and current status:

 The foyer, toilets and boardroom including rear kitchen area can be opened following a structural site review and fire report issued 30th April 2013. The asset owner is now working through these requirements including updated Building Warrant of Fitness to open the additional areas in May.  A DA will now commence mid May following the issue of a safe access plan by the engineers on the 15th April 2013.  The insurer’s DA team completed their inspection in February but are yet to issue their report despite numerous requests.  Strengthening options to 34% & 67% received on 28th January 2013 and pricing completed on 8th February 2013 Costs ranged from $474,626-$614,096.  Awaiting statement of position from insurers.

Next Steps:

 Complete Council DA to issue Council AOP by the end of June  Continue to request the insurer’s DA report and amend Council AOP accordingly  Target works complete late 2013- early 2014

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 42 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

South Brighton Community Centre

Building Status: CLOSED & DEMOLISHED Transitional facility on site and to open in June DEE: N/A – Demolished

Progress to date and current status:  Relocation of the QEII Preschool was completed in March  Foundation contract price agreed with Laings for $98,555 and works due to start the week commencing 6th May. Works due for completion early June  Price received from City Care for fit out and external works for the new Community Centre. This price is currently being reviewed by Council staff and an external QS for competitiveness  Total loss agreed with Council’s insurers. Indemnity payment made of around $400,000  Temporary Accommodation and Building Consents approved in April

Next Steps:

 Complete foundation works by early June  Agree City Care fit out and external works fixed price by the end of May with a start on site in early June  Target code compliance and opening in late July/early August 2013

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 43 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Risingholme Community Centre Craft Rooms (non heritage)

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Received – 17.5% NBS

Progress to date:

The building has suffered minor EQ damage to perimeter footings, ceiling lining, window joinery and floor lining. It has been deemed EQ prone due to low NBS - 17.5%.

Current status:

A short form report summarising the damage and all associated costs to repair has been produced and presented to the LAT for approval along with support documentation. Next Steps:

The LAT are reviewing the support documentation submitted to support the claim. Council are awaiting the insurer’s response.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 44 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update Hei Hei Community centre

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: NBS 1% (Level 5 17/12/12)

Progress to date and current status:

 The concept strengthening report has been presented to the insurers as the Council’s AOP. It has been presented that the works are related to repairing EQ damage and therefore Council seek the full cost of this strengthening. We are awaiting a response.  The concept strengthening report has been presented to the asset owner for further review and comment. A response is expected the week commencing 13th May 2013.  Concept strengthening to 34% and 67% was completed by Beca on 15/04/13. Repair methodology would, by design, return the building to 100% NBS at the estimated cost of $475,000 - $550,000.  City Care DA completed 6th April 2011 value $6,571 which is supported by the insurers

Next Steps:

 Seek responses from the insurers and asset owner on the above to assist resolving the insurance position.  Subject to resolution of the insurance position and Council approvals by September, works could begin and be completed by early 2014

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 45 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update Akaroa Museum

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 12%-38%NBS

Progress to date:

The main building has six separate structures of different ages and construction strengths. Temporary propping possible but permanent repair / strengthening may be complicated.

The Project team are focused on 2013/14 summer opening.

Current status:

 A temporary (partial) opening of the foyer area, by deconstructing the wall between gallery 1 and the Foyer, is currently being investigated and designed. This would mean public would have access to view limited items, while a permanent repair strategy is developed.  The target date for these temporary works on the foyer area is mid-late May 2013. This will follow with the Museum staff preparing the building to have artefacts displayed with an opening in early July.  There are also temporary works being carried out on the Akaroa Court House, to repair aging piles. This work is expected to be completed by the end of May.  LE Cottage is now open for viewing externally, pending permanent works.

Next Steps:

 Develop permanent repair options for all the buildings

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 46 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

HUBS

Sumner Library & Community Centre

Building Status:

Sumner Library: DEMOLISHED Sumner Museum: DEMOLISHED Sumner Community Centre: DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A

Progress to date and current status:

 Hubs Council Workshop completed 23rd April 2013 (public excluded)  Draft Sumner Master Plan public consultation period has closed with Council report on the submissions presented 8th May 2013  Council report will be heard in June 2013 to request “approval to progress early conceptual design, estimating, scheduling and community consultation”.  Sumner Library demolition is complete

Next Steps:

 The insurance SOP is still to be finalised but has been agreed in principle. Council has confirmed its intent and awaits a response from the insurers on indemnity payment and final payment amounts.  Assign a PM for the site development in preparation for the approval from Council to progress with the development on the existing Wakefield Avenue site.  Council consider report to REBUILD on current site

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 47 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Bishopdale Library and Community Centre

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 4% NBS (Level 5 October 2012) Progress to date and current status:

 A Conceptual Access Plan (propping to make the building safe to access) has been completed and approved by officers. Detailed design due on the 8th May 2013 to be submitted for consent soon after. The initial estimate for concept design (propping) is $18,000 and this is likely to increase following detailed design.  Hubs Council Workshop completed 23rd April 2013 (public excluded)  Council report will be heard in June 2013 to request “approval to progress with “betterment scoping plans” in conjunction with Libraries and Community Facilities and also to progress with repair methodologies ahead of the insurer’s approval.  Insurers have completed their own DA in October 2012 and a meeting was held with the insurers and Council staff on 4th April 2013 but no reports from the insurer were tabled. These have been requested several times  Strengthening options to 34% & 67% NBS have been completed and priced. Costs range from $803,800-$1,161,500 (this excludes some cosmetic repairs and damage to building services).  Estimated cost to demolish and reinstate completed by WTP in July 2012 at $3,969,000. The total Sum Insured $3,079,101

Next Steps:  Submit Access Plan design for consent and undertake tender or direct source to complete the works following consent approval  Tender or direct source to be completed by early June with a view to starting works on site late June following consent approval.  Undertake the remainder of the Council DA process following completion of the safe access works  Transitional solutions still being explored with possible funding of around $300,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund solely for a transitional temporary facility, if required.  Council consider report to REPAIR.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 48 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Linwood Library

Building Status:

Linwood Library: CLOSED

DEE: 25% NBS

Progress to date and current status:

 A temporary Library and Service Centre was opened in April as a tenancy in the Eastgate Mall.  Council’s AOP has been submitted to the insurer with some queries answered in April 2013  Further DAs for this asset may not be required subject to the insurer’s response

Next Steps:

 Seek response from the insurers to the Council’s AOP  Subject to the above response complete necessary DA in June/July to be able to resolve the insurance position by August/September

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 49 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Linwood Service Centre and Library Support

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 18% NBS (Level 5 September 2012)

Progress to date and current status:

 Strengthening and cost estimates to 34% and 67% NBS completed April 2013. The asset has 3 main buildings noted as, A (Service Centre), B (Offices and Community Board Room) and C (Library Binary). Strengthening costs as follows;  A – 34% $27,800 & 67% $245,500  B – 34% $33,300 & 67% $534,400  C – 34% $103,100 & 67% $394,400  Totals All Buildings 34% $164,200 & 67% $1,174,300  The above has been presented to the asset owner for review and a decision is pending due the week commencing 13th May 2013  All above works require a consent and are unlikely to be covered by insurance  Hubs Council Workshop completed 23rd April 2013 (public excluded). It was acknowledged that Linwood as a hub and appropriate site options needed to be investigated further. This is a long term role which has yet to be assigned.

Next Steps:

 Complete necessary DA to resolve the insurance position, and gain approval to undertake repairs subject to decisions regarding strengthening  Subject to the above response complete necessary DA in June/July to be able to resolve the insurance position by August/September

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 50 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

LIBRARIES

South Library/Service Centre/Learning Centre (incl Distribution Centre)

Building Status: Re Opened

DEE: Temporary repairs complete, brought building to 34% NBS.

Progress to date and current status: South Library opened late December 2012 after repairs increased it to at least 34% of the New Building Standard.  Geotechnical final report received 26th February 2013. Foundation options for permanent solutions included in report. Settlement has affected foundation.  DA OOS agreed on 5th April 2013 for Stage 1 investigation only - enabling a firm fee offer to be agreed  Level Survey completed by CCC survey crew 12th April 2013

Investigations into the long term solution for this building are ongoing and will be for some time.  Stage 1 of DA complete  DA scope for Stage 2 agreed. Awaiting OOS for this work

Next Steps:

 Complete necessary DAs to resolve the insurance position  Prepare report to Council to seek approval of long term solution

Riccarton Voluntary Library (Within Riccarton Community Centre)

Building Status: Open

DEE: L5 – 100% (within the 1968 building)

Overview of Asset: The Riccarton Voluntary Library is a community service which is run by volunteers. This service is provided outside the Council’s Libraries and Information network.

Business Hours (17 hours/week): Monday-Friday 12 noon-3pm; Saturday 10am-12 noon

Progress to date: See Riccarton Community Centre overview for more information

Next Steps: See Riccarton Community Centre overview for more information. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 51 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Mairehau Voluntary Library

Building Status: OPEN

DEE: L5 - 85%

Overview of Asset: The Mairehau Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers that is provided outside the CCC Libraries and Information network. The building is 220m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user. Business Hours (11.5 hours/week): Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday, 2-4pm; Saturday, 10am-11.30am

Progress to date and current status: DA has been assigned to City Care and is due late May.

Next Steps:  Complete necessary DAs to resolve the insurance position, and gain approval to undertake repairs (anticipate repair costs will be within staff delegation)  Mairehau Voluntary Library repair works targeted for completion by late 2013

St Martins Voluntary Library

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: Part demolished, Extensive EQ Damage, L4 Qualitative 0-30% NBS Overview Asset: The St. Martins Voluntary Library is a community service provided outside of the CCC Libraries and Information network which is run by volunteers. The building is 265 m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user. The voluntary library service is currently located on the St Martin’s New World site. Business Hours (19.5 hours/week): Wednesday, Friday & Saturday, 10am-12 noon; Monday-Friday, 2-4.30pm; Friday, 7-8pm

Progress to date and current status:  Partially demolished, approximately 70% of building, due to CERA Section 38. Remaining building has suffered significant damage and differential settlements (up to 100 mm)  SCIRT is currently using the area where part of the building has been demolished for construction offices.  Progress has stalled due to a lack of response from the LAT. In SOP, dated 26th March 2013, a meeting to discuss outcomes was to be scheduled by the end of April. No update has been received. Total Sum Insured = $ 554,760 Replacement Cost Estimate = $967,000 Repair Remaining building and Reinstate demolished portion Cost = $936,000 Next Steps:  Council’s insurers advise they have been completing a DA since late March. This report has not been released to Council. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 52 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Opawa Voluntary Library

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Qualitative 0-30% NBS Overview of Asset: The Opawa Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. It is a service provided outside the Council’s Libraries and Information Network. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provided the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user of the 240 m2 building,

Business Hours (21.5 hours/week): Monday-Friday, 2-4pm; Monday, Wednesday & Friday 6.30-8pm; Saturday 10am-12noon, 2-4pm Progress to date and current status:  Structural assessment complete  The service is being temporarily provided at the Opawa Children’s Library.  DA being commissioned to determine repair methodologies and accompanying costs

Next Steps:  Complete necessary DAs to resolve the insurance position and prepare an options report for Council to repair, rebuild or demolish.

Opawa Children’s Voluntary Library

Building Status: Open

DEE: L5 34% NBS

Overview of Asset:

The Opawa Children’s Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. Council owns and maintains the 50 m2 building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library is the sole user.

Business Hours (21.5 hours/week): Monday-Friday, 2-4pm; Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6.30-8pm; Saturday 10-12noon, 2-4pm

Prior to earthquakes three voluntary libraries operated within 2 km of each other (Opawa and St. Martin). Currently Opawa Children’s Voluntary library is the only open facility. There is a need to assess future facilities.

Current status:  Agreed insurance position with LAT  Received two General Managers approval of repairs at cost of $4,621  Repair work scheduled to be completed by end of May Next Steps:  Complete repairs and hand building back to asset owner.  Supply invoices and other documentation to LAT to receive payment of claim. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 53 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Hoon Hay Voluntary Library

Building Status: OPEN

DEE: L5 Quantitative 42% NBS

Overview of Asset: The Hoon Hay Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. The building is 53 m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building for a nominal rent to the library. The voluntary library as the only user of the building.

Business Hours (4.5 hours/week): Wednesday and Friday, 3-4.30pm; Saturday, 10-11.30am

Progress to date and current status:

Minor earthquake damage and building is on TC3 land. DEE complete. Current library service to remain onsite.  Level survey has been requested to be completed by internal staff. Once level survey complete will determine if additional DA items need to be completed.

Next Steps:  Review level survey on receipt.  Complete necessary DAs to resolve the insurance position and gain approval to undertake repairs (anticipate repair costs will be within staff delegation).  Repair works targeted for completion by late 2013.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 54 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update Heathcote Voluntary Library

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: N/A - Extensive EQ damage.

Overview of Asset: The Heathcote Voluntary Library is a community service provided outside of the CCC Libraries and Information network which is run by volunteers. The building is 88 m2. Council owns and maintains the building and land that houses the voluntary library and provides the building nominal rent to the library. It is a single use facility with the Voluntary library as the sole user.

Historic Hours (11.5 hours/week): Monday, 10.30-12 noon & 6.45-8pm; Tuesday, 2-4pm; Wednesday, 6.45-8pm; Thursday, 2- 4pm; Friday, 6.45-8pm; Saturday, 9.45-12 noon

Progress to date and current status:  CERA issued a demolition notice section 38 for this facility. Total loss agreed with LAT.  Council requested staff request CERA to halt demolition on Heathcote Voluntary Library, and respond with “make safe” plan on 5th March 2013.  Staff presented cost of repair and rebuild options to Council 24th April 2013.  Estimated cost to repair $283,213  Insured value $148,910  Council agreed in principle to the joint facility of the Heathcote Voluntary Library and Heathcote Community Centre on 24th April 2013  Staff gained CERA approval of Make Safe plan on 29th April 2013. Approval was conditioned on paying invoice for dissolving demolition contract.  Payment of CERA invoice scheduled for week commencing 6th May 2013  Make Safe work tentatively scheduled for week commencing 13 May 2013  Progress now linked to Heathcote Community Centre insurance position.  Progress stalled due to unresponsiveness of LAT on Heathcote Community Centre. LAT DA onsite completed 24th March 2013.

Next Steps:

 Implement make safe work and get CERA to revoke Section 38 notice.  Receive agreement from insurer on relocation of facility to Heathcote Community Centre  Receive agreement on Heathcote Community Centre insurance position  Prepare options report for Council

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 55 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update Redcliffs Voluntary Library

Building Status: DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A - Demolished

Overview of asset: The Redcliffs Voluntary Library is a community service which is run by volunteers. The demolished building was 186 m2. It is temporarily located at the local tennis club. Council owns the land that the voluntary library building was located on and had provided the building for a nominal rent to the library.

Business Hours (22 hours/week): Monday-Friday 10am-4pm; Saturday, 10.30am-12.30pm

Progress to date and current status:  Facility demolished due to CERA section 38. Total loss agreed with LAT  Rebuild/strategic options assessment required.  N.B Voluntary library has taken 5 year lease on the existing site.  Council agreed in principle to re-establish Redcliff’s Public Library onsite on 24th April 2013.  Total sum insured: $440,432  Replacement cost: $1,200,000

Next Steps:

Redcliffs Voluntary Library Inc to move forward with temporary building onsite once ensure this does not impact insurance position for long term solution.

Woolston Voluntary Library

Building Status: DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A - Demolished

Progress to date and current status:

The Woolston Voluntary Library is a community service run by volunteers. The demolished building was approximately 160 m2. Council owns the land that the voluntary library building was located on and had provided the building for a nominal rent to the library. The service is provided outside the Council’s Libraries and Information Network.

Business Hours (12 hours/week): Mon, Wed & Frid 1-3pm; Tues, Thurs & Sat, 10.30am-12.30pm. NB Temporary location at Scout Den

 Demolished due to CERA Section 38 notice.  Total loss agreed with LAT

Rebuild costs/strategic options under review. These need to align with the Ferry Road Master Plan. Next Steps: Council report will be prepared for mid 2013, post Voluntary Library Strategy adoption. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 56 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

CORPORATE ACCOMMODATION

Lyttleton Service Centre

Building Status: CLOSED – service reinstated in temporary facility (located at Lyttelton Library).

DEE: 10% NBS

Progress to date and current status:

Building has suffered major damage. Received Strengthening Report with cost estimates, comments are being incorporated.

Repair and Strengthening cost estimate for 34%, 67%, 100% and replacement were updated to 2013 values. Reports and cost information sent to LAT end of February 2013 and original response date of 15th March 2013

Total Sum Insured = $694,875 Replacement Cost Estimate = $1,839,600 Repair Cost = $615,120 (34%) (does not included $70,000 of completed propping/repair works)

Progress has stalled. LAT is performing an independent repair estimate, which is yet to be received.

Next Steps: Following LAT agreement bring report to Council.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 57 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

RECREATION & SPORT

Waltham Pool

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Asset NBS Waltham Pool Main Complex 6% Waltham Pool Staff Room 3% Waltham Pool Plant Room 3% Waltham Pool 50% Waltham Pavillion 15% Waltham Toilets Waltham BBQ Shelter 41% Waltham Pool Water Slide 39% Progress to date and current status:

 DA has commenced, delivery date June 10th 2013  Alternative “rationalised” scheme due for completion end of May 2013, this will provide cost to reduce the overall size of the facility based on actual usage numbers.  Cost effective strengthening scheme ordered in parallel with DA

Total Sum Insured = $1,363,856* Replacement Cost Estimate = $5,776,000 Repair Cost = due June 10th 2013 Rationalised site concept and costing = due end of May 2013 Strengthening scheme cost = due June 10th 2013

*Insurance split between 8 separately insured assets Next Steps:

Interim meetings with engineers to progress the DA Receipt of architect’s rationalised option scheme for costing. Costing of the rationalised scheme.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 58 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Norman Kirk Memorial Pool – Lyttelton

Building status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Received Asset NBS Lyttelton swimming pool ‐ Lyttelton swimming pool Plant Room 39% Lyttelton Ladies Change Room 18% Lyttelton Mens change room 18% Lyttelton Nursery 35% Lyttelton Lean To Shelter 10%

Progress to date:

 DA complete

Current status: .  Working party meeting to be held 7th May 2013, options will be developed and fed back to council for decision.

Total Sum Insured = $954,424* Repair Cost = $2.0m Replacement cost = $2.4m Other options = TBC following working party

*Insurance split between six separately insured assets

Next Steps:

Awaiting LAT response – CCC have provided evidence that the building has suffered damage that would cost more than the insured amount to repair – LAT are currently “unable to give a definitive timescale” on their response.

Working party to be held with community board, 7th May 2013, recommendations will then be put to council for review.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 59 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall (interconnected facilities)

Building status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Received - Trinity Hall 11% NBS Lyttleton Recreation Centre 15% NBS Progress to date:

 DA complete, building is repairable within insured value

Current status:

 Working party meeting to be held 7th May 2013, options will be developed and fed back to council for decision.

Total Sum Insured = $3,734,294 Repair Cost = $2.315m Other options = TBC following working party

Next Steps:

Awaiting LAT response – CCC have provided evidence of the EQ damage the buildings have suffered – LAT are currently “unable give a definitive timescale” on their response.

Working party to be held with community board, 7th May 2013, recommendations will then be put to council for review.

Whale Paddling Pool New Brighton

Building status: RE-OPENED

DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools.

Current status: Repair work was completed on Whale Pool at the end of October 2012. A community event was held with great success on 17th November 2012 which marked the formal reopening of the pool. This facility has been enjoyed by many throughout the 12/13 summer season.

Next Steps: Currently in negotiation with insurer to claim back cost of repairing EQ damage.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 60 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Botanic Gardens Paddling Pool

Building status: RE-OPENED

DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools. Changing/Toilets - 34% Current status:

Repair work was completed at the end of October 2012. Both large and small pools opened as scheduled on the 17th November 2012. The large pool was open in summer 2011/2012, this season the whole facility is operational. There will be future work required to re-level the main pool. Insurance claim therefore not final.

Next steps:

 To investigate additional earthquake damage to the main pool now the summer season is over and report to Council before the next summer.  Arrange to meet the LAT on site when the pool is re-filled to establish change in level.  Investigate appropriate re-levelling methods

Scarborough Paddling Pool

Building status: TO BE DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools.

Progress to date:

Council are proceeding with Owner Initiated Demolition process as agreed at Council.

Next Steps:

 Facilities Rebuild Team and Recreation and Sport collating information on options to take to the local Community Board for discussion by mid June.  Awaiting response from LAT to finalise claim.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 61 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

GREENSPACE

Scarborough Jet Boat Building

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L5 Quantitative 10% NBS (final)

Progress to date:

Total sum insured is $106,206.

Currently only $11,736 worth of insurance funding has been approved by the insurers. Staff continue to negotiate this.

Council’s engineers have produced a building strengthening report to 34, 67 and 100% NBS. The estimated cost to strengthening to 34% NBS is $88,000, 67% NBS is $185,000 and to 100% NBS is $448,000

Staff have received an estimate to rebuild the existing building “like for like”. The estimated cost to complete this is $243,730. Staff have also received an estimate to rebuild a single storey garage with “like for like” materials. The estimated cost to complete this is $159,677.66.

Staff are currently in discussion with the club occupying the building regarding the feasibility of the rebuild or repair of the building, whether or not they can contribute funding towards the project, and whether or not they require the building to be fully reinstated.

Current status:

The Greenspace unit has gained official approval for the jet boat and its towing vehicle to be temporarily housed in the Sumner Police Station Garage. It will be situated there until the Jet Boat Building can be repaired. This adds seven minutes to the response time.

Next Steps:

A report on the options for repair and strengthening has being prepared and it is hoped that this can be tabled a Council meeting in June.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 62 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Scarborough Life Boat Building

Building Status: OPEN

DEE: L4 Qualitative 50% NBS (Final)

Progress to date:

The NBS value is over 34% NBS, therefore no strengthening will be performed on the building at this stage.

Current status:  A level survey has been requested and the drains and sewer pipes checked for breaks.  A DA report was received 10th April 2013 documenting earthquake related structural and cosmetic damage and a method and cost for repair. This report was sent to the LAT for approval 11th April 2013 Next Steps: Await approval from LAT in regards to the insurance claim, as a result of the engineer’s DA. Once approved the work will proceed with urgency.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 63 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update Sumner Surf Club Toilets

Building Status: CLOSED – TO BE DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A – N.B. Severely compromised (demolition approved) Progress to date:

The building is insured for a total sum of $574,763

Insurers have approved demolition of the building and also confirmed insurance available for the replacement of the building. The final replacement cost will be negotiated once the new building’s costings are received.

The demolition of the toilet block was approved by the CRAC Committee 5th February 2013 and Council on 28th February 2013

A detailed design and landscaping plan has been prepared by the Sumner Surf Life Saving Club (SSLSC) and has been presented in 3 pre application meetings to Council staff. Work is still being completed to refine these documents.

On completion of the architectural and landscape plans the SSLSC will lodge resource consent. This is expected to take place by the end of June 2013.

The land which the new building sits upon is owned by the Crown, therefore the SSLSC and Council need to apply for separate leases directly with the Crown. Council staff are in the early stages of apportionments of land negotiations with the SSLSC; once these are complete the Crown lease can be applied for.

The CCC Heritage team has removed the clock, bell and flag pole from the building and are safely storing them until the items can be to be reinstated into the new building.

Current status:

 Staff are planning to demolish the building in conjunction with the surf club building, at the end of the surf life saving season.

Next Steps:

 Finalise replacement cost with insurers.  Arrange demolition of the toilet block  Continue to liaise with The Sumner Surf Club and Sumner Master plan project team.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 64 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Lyttelton Visitors Centre and Toilet

Building Status: RE-OPENED (April 2013)

DEE: L5 DEE Finalised – 78% NBS

Current status:

 Building is now open and operating.  CERA issues with retaining wall around the back of the building are unresolved and access behind the building is restricted.

Next Steps:

 Retaining wall assessment to be undertaken along with remedial works.

Botanic Gardens Glasshouses

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: Cunningham - L5 Nov 12 NBS 23% - Closed Foweraker - L5 Sept 12 NBS 22% - Closed Fernery – L5 Sept 12 NBS 50% - OPEN Garrick and Gilpin - L5 Sept 12 NBS <33% - Closed Townend - L5 Sept 12 NBS <33% - Closed

Progress to date and current status:

 Cunningham House – DA scope completed by insurer has been agreed with Council and request has gone to Council PM to request insurer proceed with the works. . OOS received from Structural Concepts for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS and this was approved by Council officers on 7 May. Design work due to be complete by June 2013. Target EQ damage repair works complete by Xmas subject to scope of strengthening works required which is yet to be confirmed.

 Foweraker – No damage noted. On site assessment being undertaken 8th May 2013 with advice from Structural Concepts for strengthening to follow. Target date for any strengthening proposed repair works to be confirmed following completion of the onsite inspection.

 Fernery – Re-opened April 2013. OOS received from Opus for strengthening to 67% and this was approved by Council 7 May. Design work due to be complete by June 2013.

 Garrick and Gilpin – Structural Concept will review the DEE NBS % comments ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 65 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update from Opus and advise a more accurate NBS%. OOS received from Structural Concepts for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS and this was approved by Council 7th May 2013. Design work due to be complete by June 2013 subject to an assessment being undertaken directly by the insurer – similar to Cunningham House. Target date for repair works completion TBC following completion of the strengthening designs.

 Townend - Structural Concept will review the DEE NBS % comments from Opus and advise a more accurate NBS%. OOS received from Structural Concepts for strengthening to 34% and 67% NBS and this was approved by Council 7th May 2013. Design work due to be complete by June 2013. Target date for repair works completion TBC following completion of the strengthening designs.

Next Steps:

 Completion of the strengthening designs in June  Seek OOS for cost estimates of the proposed strengthening designs  A Council report will be prepared as soon as all key reports are complete and priced, including betterment and maintenance estimates. The target date is August.  Resolve insurance position for Garrick/Gilpin and Townend House. (Cunningham House agreed, Fernery and Foweraker deemed no EQ damage)

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 66 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

HERITAGE

Akaroa Gaiety Hall

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 24%NBS

Progress to date:  The building has suffered significant damage. The hall requires repair works that will require detailed design and consents. Further intrusive investigations have been undertaken.  The project team focussing on opening for 2013/14 summer. Consideration was given to partially opening the main hall, but the results showed no cost/time advantage in doing this.  Revised strengthening concepts and report have recently been issued by engineer. Strengthening estimates for 34%, 67% and 100% have been completed for this building.  Recent intrusive investigations and a subsequent report that have been completed for the building’s structure have identified a substantial amount of non structural repairs to substructure areas and framing structure of building are needed.  Engineer has advised that although these repairs are non structural remediation will still be required to meet overall strengthening to building structure. Current status:  These documents are currently being reviewed by the Insurers and we are expecting to receive a statement of position imminently. Next Steps: After the insurer’s response is received, staff will prepare a report to Council recommending repair options.

Akaroa Service Centre

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 26%NBS

Progress to date:

Project team focussing on opening for 2013-2014 summer. Repair options have been developed and are being considered as part of a feasibility study. Current status:  The feasibility study is currently being reviewed and the necessary documents have been prepared for the Insurer’s statement of position  These documents are currently being reviewed by the Insurers and we are expecting to receive a statement of position imminently. Next Steps: Following receipt of a statement of position from the insurers, detailed design of the repair option will commence, followed by a report to the CRAC Committee and Council recommending repair options. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 67 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Sign of the Kiwi

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 9.5%NBS

Progress to date: The building has suffered damage and will require significant works to reinstate. DEE assessment completed. Intrusive investigations to confirm suitability of repair solution have been completed.

Current status:  An estimate has been submitted to the CCC heritage team to advise the preferred option to be put forward for the CRaC and Council report.

Next Steps:  Maintenance, betterment and accessibility scopes and estimates still need to be finalised for this project.  The next stage being preparation of Detailed Design, to enable the Insurer to issue a SOP. Current estimate of damage far exceeds sum insured.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 68 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Canterbury Provincial Chambers

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: Stabilisation underway before DEE assessment can be commenced. Progress to date:  Building is severely damaged. Potential land issues. Rebuild of significant portions of the building necessary. Reinstatement cost could be well in excess of insured amount.  A revised stabilisation plan has been developed. This plan incorporates the remaining deconstruction and stabilisation works as a result of gaining access to damaged areas not previous available and further deterioration.

Current status:  Due to the extent of the revised stabilisation plan and engineering resources Insight Unlimited decided to stage the documentation allowing work on site to commence at an earlier date.  The sequence for the engineering documentation is the Stone Chamber, Timber Chamber followed by the SW corner of Bellamys.  This first and second stage stabilisation design has been approved through the Resource Consent process and Asset Owner. The protective roofs and walls to the Armagh St Safes and Durham St Safes are now included in the first stage application.  Stage two stabilisation design documentation covers the timber offices.  Stage three stabilisation designs will cover Belgian Beer Café & stage four will cover Bellamys.  Stage three stabilisation design and work are now complete.  Stage four detailed design is underway, and due for review 27th May 2013

The additional work has extended the project end date by seven months with a programmed completion date June 2013. Next Steps:  Complete stabilisation.  Future repair strategy requires detailed consideration and consultation with CCC, DOC and NZHPT.  Completion of the timber enclosure over the Stone Chamber  Completion of the timber offices – Chimney stabilisation and weather – tightness.  Pre-application meeting for stage four (date TBC) – this includes and covers Bellamys.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 69 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update Sign of the Takahe

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 30%NBS

Current status:  Intrusive investigations underway to confirm suitability of repair options.  Further stabilisation works and weather proofing underway.  Design documentation is complete pending Engineers response to HRWG comments  Simons completed budget due for review 11th June 2013

Next Steps: The project is currently in the detailed design stage for the repair and strengthening option. Once complete, staff will prepare a report to Council recommending repair options.  Finalise earthquake repair budget, strengthening and maintenance budget.  Request a Statement of Position from Insurer

Our City Otautahi

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: too dangerous for internal inspections

Progress to date:

Building is stabilised but severely damaged. Rebuild of significant portions of the building necessary. Reinstatement cost is well in excess of insured amount.

Current status:

Three options have been put to staff for review:  1 - A traditional engineering strengthening solution to 67% NBS (aprox $8,895,000)  2 - A base isolation solution (estimated at $10.5M)  3 – A traditional engineering strengthening solution to 33% NBS ($8,885,000)

The insured value ($5.8M) is not expected to cover any option, therefore it is expected that Council will meet the difference in the chosen repair strategy.

Next Steps:

Staff are currently preparing a report to go to Council in July 2013, outlining the repair options for this building and asking for a decision.  A decision to be made regarding engineers performing a DEE report

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 70 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

CRaC Committee 04 June Attachment ONE– Top 30 Project Update

Old Stone House

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: Quantative and Qualative) 10% NBS

Progress to date:

The following completed have been completed:

 Accessibility report  Electrical report  Fire report  Chimney securing and stabilisation methodology  North Store securing and stabilisation methodology  Methodology for mezzanine propping  Visual Geotech assessment of land damage  Propping (make safe) works for the mezzanine floor

Next Steps:  Review strengthening options by Opus and recommend to the Heritage Team  Prepare data for obtaining an SOP from the Insurers, with at least a progress payment to cover the Design of the repair option  Detailed design of the repair  Obtain an SOP for the Insurers for the (permanent) repairs  Report to CRAC and Council  Physical works

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Top 30 Facilities Status Update Chart

Community Facilities 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 6 September 2012 Sydenham Closed Creche Damage Assessment and options% complete 17 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council November 2013

6 December 2012 Fendalton Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 May 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 21 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council GM approval

27 November 2011 Riccarton Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 8 July 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 19 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

South Brighton Demolished Transitional facility onsite and expected to open in August 2013 Community Centre

17 February 2012 Risingholme Closed DEE Assessment % complete Craft Work- Damage Assessment and options% complete 6 June 2013

shop Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 May 2013 71 Approval report to CRaC/Council 2 July 2013 Hubs 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 1 October 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Bishopdale Closed Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 August 2012 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 18 October 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council December 2013

Sumner Demolished Future options for a community hub being explored. A report will go to the 4 June Council meeting. Community Insurance SOP being ﬁnalised. Centre

12 April 2012 Linwood Closed DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 24 July 2012 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

12 September 2012 Linwood Closed DEE Assessment % complete Service Damage Assessment and options% complete 27 May 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 8 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

1 October 2012 Linwood Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 May 2013 Support Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 8 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

27 September 2012 Linwood Open DEE Assessment % complete Resource Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 May 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 8 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

17 December 2012 Hei Hei Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 15 April 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 17 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council August 2013 72 Libraries 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 20 July 2012 South Library Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 22 February 2013 Opawa Childrens’ Open Volunteer Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 March 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 2 May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council GM approval

1 July 2011 St Martins Closed DEE Assessment % complete Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete 5 April 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council June 2013

Woolston Demolished Future options being explored as part of the Voluntary Library Review. Volunteer Library

Redcliﬀs Demolished Future options being explored. Volunteer Library

DEE Assessment % complete 12 December 2012 Mairehau Open Volunteer Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 21 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 14 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council GM approval 73 Libraries 25% 50% 75% 100%

DEE Assessment % complete 7 December 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Hoon Hay Open Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete 16 September 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 September 2013 GM approval

1 June 2012 Opawa Closed DEE Assessment % complete Adults Damage Assessment and options% complete August 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 7 November 2011 Heathcote Closed Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 October 2012 Approval report to CRaC/Council August 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 27 November 2011 Riccarton Open Volunteer Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 January 2013 Library Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete See Community Centre Approval report to CRaC/Council See Community Centre

Corporate Accommodation 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 2 November 2012 Lyttelton Closed Service Damage Assessment and options% complete 20 February 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013 74 Greenspace 25% 50% 75% 100%

DEE Assessment % complete 1 November 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Botanic Gardens Closed Cunningham Damage Assessment and options% complete 20 May 2013 House Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 5 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

Botanic Gardens Open Options for strengthening to 67% of New Building Standard are being developed. 31 May 2013 The Fernery

DEE Assessment % complete 1 September 2012 Botanic Gardens Closed Gillespie Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 Glasshouse Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 29 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 1 September 2012 Botanic Gardens Closed Foweraker Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 Glasshouse Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 29 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 14 January 2013 Scarborough Closed Jetboat Building Damage Assessment and options% complete 18 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 18 April 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council May 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 11 June 2012 Scarborough Open Lifeboat Building Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013

Sumner Surf Demolishing Future options for new facility being explored, decision to be made as part of approval of Sumner Village Centre Master Plan. Club Toilets Insurance SOP being ﬁnalised.

Lyttelton Open Information Centre 75 Sport and recreation 25% 50% 75% 100% Whale Pool Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 New Brighton

Scarborough To be Area to be grassed over while future options for the site to be considered. Insurance SOP being ﬁnalised. Paddling Pool demolished

DEE Assessment % complete No DEE required Botanic Gardens Open Paddling Pool Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 13 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 6 August 2013

DEE Assessment % complete October 2012 Norman Kirk Closed Memorial Pool Damage Assessment % complete 24 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete October 2012 Lyttelton Closed Recreation Centre Damage Assessment % complete 19 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete March 2012 Waltham Pool Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013 76 Heritage 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete October 2012 Gaiety Hall Closed

Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete November 2012 Akaroa Service Closed Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete September 2012 Sign of the Kiwi Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete August 2013 Canterbury Closed Provincial Damage Assessment and options% complete February 2014 Chambers Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council May 2014

DEE Assessment % complete October 2012 Sign of the Closed Takahe Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete N/A Our City Otautahi Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council June 2013

DEE Assessment % complete October 2012 Old Stone House Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

DEE Assessment % complete November 2012 Akaroa Museum Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013 77 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Work Package 2 Facilities Status Update Chart

Community Facilities 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete Level 5 - 3 Dec 2012 St Albans Open Creche Damage Assessment and options% complete 3 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 17 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

Level 5 - 10 Sept 2012 Duvauchelle Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Hall Damage Assessment and options% complete 17 May 2013 (Banks Peninsula) Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 April 2011 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A

10 October 201 Little Akaloa Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Hall Damage Assessment and options% complete 14 June 2012 (Banks Peninsula) Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 June 2012 Approval report to CRaC/Council 2 July 2012

Okains Bay Closed DEE Assessment % complete Level 5 - 10 Sept 2012 Community Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 17 May 2013 (Banks Peninsula) Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 April 2011 Approval report to CRaC/Council 2 July 2012

Level 5 - 7 Dec 2012 Woolston Open DEE Assessment % complete Creche Damage Assessment and options% complete 3 October 2011

Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 October 2011 78 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A Community Facilities 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete Level 4 - 7 Feb 2013 Allendale Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Community Damage Assessment and options% complete OOS request 26 Apr 2013 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

Level 2 - 24 Mar 2011 Heathcote Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 March 2012 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

Level 5 - 17 Dec 2012 Hei Hei Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 15 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 17 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

Wainoni Closed DEE Assessment % complete 18 July 2012 Community Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete OOS request 2 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

26 October 2012 Northbeach Closed DEE Assessment % complete Community Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 Creche Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 12 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013 79 Libraries 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 21 June 2012 Papanui Library Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council October 2013

DEE Assessment % complete 28 June 2013 Lyttelton Library Open Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 15 December 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council February 2014

19 December 2012 Parklands Library Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 15 December 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council February 2014

September 2012 New Brighton Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 15 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 15 October 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council December 2013

9 January 2013 Shirley Library Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 26 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 October 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council December 2013

30 January 2012 Spreydon Library Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 26 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 October 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council December 2013

12 April 2013 Upper Riccarton Open DEE Assessment % complete Library Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 November 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council December 2013 80 Sport and Recreation 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete Jellie Park Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 (Plant Room) Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council August 2013

Pioneer Leisure Open DEE Assessment % complete Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

Wharenui Pool and Partially DEE Assessment % complete Recreation Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

Sockburn Squash Partially DEE Assessment % complete Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council August 2013

Wigram Gym Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 31 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 28 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013

DEE Assessment % complete Denton Oval Closed Damage Assessment and options% complete 28 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 26 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council August 2013 81 Sport and Recreation 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete Governors Bay Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Pool Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

Halswell Aquatic Open DEE Assessment % complete Centre Damage Assessment and options% complete 31 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 28 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013

Cuthberts Green Open DEE Assessment % complete softball complex Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

South Brighton Open DEE Assessment % complete Camping Ground Damage Assessment and options% complete 19 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 16 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013 82 Greenspace 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 17 August 2012 Hagley Park South - Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Implement Shed Damage Assessment and options% complete N/A Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete N/A Approval report to CRaC/Council April 2013

9 April 2013 Hagley Park North - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Lake Albert Toilets Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 July 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A

23 May 2013 Hagley Park North - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Former RSA (now Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Petanque Club) Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council September 2013

19 July 2013 Linwood/Harewood Closed DEE Assessment % complete Nurseries Damage Assessment and options% complete To be demolished (21 buildings in total) Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A

15 February 2013 Spencer Park Open DEE Assessment % complete Beach Surf Club Damage Assessment and options% complete N/A - To be demolished Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete N/A - To be demolished Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A - To be demolished

21 November 2013 Avonhead Park Partially DEE Assessment % complete Pavillion Damage Assessment and options% complete 8 May 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 10 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013

24 January 2013 Waltham Park Closed DEE Assessment % complete Changing Rooms Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013 4 February 2013 Coronation Hill Open DEE Assessment % complete Reserve - Sign of Damage Assessment and options% complete 29 April 2013 the Kiwi toilets Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 May 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A 83 Greenspace 25% 50% 75% 100%

DEE Assessment % complete 13 March 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Hagley Park South - Open Toilets near hospital Damage Assessment and options% complete 13 March 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A

16 October 2012 Hagley Park North - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Bandsman Memorial Damage Assessment and options% complete 16 May 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 14 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013

14 December 2012 Bradford Park Open DEE Assessment % complete Pavillion Damage Assessment and options% complete 7 December 2012 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 January 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A

12 November 2012 Pioneer Women’s Closed DEE Assessment % complete Shelter Damage Assessment and options% complete 10 June 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council July 2013

Cressy Terrace Open No earthquake damage Tennis Club Building

26 March 2013 South New Brighton Open DEE Assessment % complete Beach - Changing Damage Assessment and options% complete 29 April 2013 sheds/toilets Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council N/A 84 Corporate Accommodation 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete R&R Sport/Penny Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Lane Damage Assessment and options% complete Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Approval report to CRaC/Council GM Approval

DEE Assessment % complete Rohitis/Mayur Closed Indian Restaurant Damage Assessment and options% complete Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete Approval report to CRaC/Council GM Approval

15 June 2012 Dog Pound Open DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 November 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 June 2014 Approval report to CRaC/Council 31 July 2014

Milton Street Depot Partially DEE Assessment % complete 30 June 2013 Damage Assessment and options% complete 30 November 2013 Open Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 30 June 2014 Approval report to CRaC/Council 31 July 2014 85 Heritage 25% 50% 75% 100% Addington DEE Assessment % complete 1 October 2012 Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Water Station Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 November 2013

15 June 2013 Chokebore Lodge Closed DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 September 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 October 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 November 2013

1 March 2012 Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete BathHouse Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 October 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 November 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 January 2014

Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete 1 July 2013 Gate House Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 October 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 November 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 December 2013

1 March 2012 Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Homestead Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 October 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 November 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 December 2013

1 March 2012 Mona Vale - Closed DEE Assessment % complete Lodge Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 October 2013 86 Heritage 25% 50% 75% 100% DEE Assessment % complete 1 August 2013 Old Stone Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 House (3) Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 November 2013

1 October 2013 Risingholme Hall Closed DEE Assessment % complete Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 September 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 November 2013

1 October 2012 Risingholme Closed DEE Assessment % complete Homestead Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 September 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 September 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 November 2013

Rose Historic Closed DEE Assessment % complete 1 July 2013 Chapel Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 October 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 December 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 December 2014

N/A Signal Mast Closed DEE Assessment % complete Cave Rock Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 April 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 June 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 August 2013

N/A Stoddarts Closed DEE Assessment % complete Cottage Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 August 2013 Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 August 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 November 2013

1 February 2012 Victoria Park Closed DEE Assessment % complete Information Damage Assessment and options% complete 1 October 2012 Centre Insurance negotiation and SOP % complete 1 July 2013 Approval report to CRaC/Council 1 October 2013 87 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 88

Attachment 3 - Social Housing Programme Status Update

Date: 13 May 2013

1. Social Housing Portfolio Operational Status The Social Housing Programme has a total portfolio of 2649 including 113 units closed in the Residential Red Zone (located in 5 housing complexes).

As at 13 May 2013, 2188 (83%) units are open.

Closed units total 348 subject to repair under the Facilities Rebuild Programme and consist of the following:

 285 units (275 April 2013) closed due to varying degrees of structural damage and design weakness, which includes 150 units closed due to failing a DEE assessment. o This includes 3 additional units at Avonheath Courts, Halswell Courts, HP Smith Courts and the remaining 7 units at Louisson Courts.  63 units closed due to health & safety.

Closed Units now Open  2 previously closed units have been repaired (including strengthening) and returned to service at Thurso Street.

Refer to Appendix 1 for closed unit details.

1.1. Housing Wait List Status As at 30 April 2013, there are 347 applicants on our waiting list consisting of 279 single applicants, 43 couples and 25 families. Seventeen of these applications have been assessed as having urgent, immediate need.

2. Social Housing Programme Repair/Reinstatement Status

2.1. Social Housing Monthly Progress Summary Subsequent to the last April 2013 report, the following activities have been undertaken:

 Detailed Engineering Evaluations (DEEs) finalised for another 6 complexes.  Joint EQC/City Care Inspections undertaken on Airedale Courts and Knightsbridge Lane units with agreement reached on damage work scopes.  Repairs 50% complete at Thurso Street & Collett Courts (10 units total under repair).  Tender closed on Maurice Carter Courts (Dundee Place) New Units Intensification Project and evaluation underway.  Social Housing Partnership EOI closed and evaluation completed.  Interim Housing Options Council report prepared recommending interim housing options should not be pursued.  Social Housing 5 Year Programme Council report prepared summarising key delivery strategy and indicating no funding to complete repairs beyond June 2015.

Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 89

2.2. Housing Repair Progress

2.2.1. Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Status The Social Housing Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) process consists of 668 assessments. Since commencing in June 2012, all of the remaining DEE’s are now underway with the process currently forecast to be complete by April 2014. This is made up of 200 DEE’s complete, 68 in progress and the remaining 400 DEE’s being scoped as shown in figure 1.

Council staff have been seeking to accelerate the remaining social housing DEE process on the remaining housing portfolio to mitigate the time and cost delivery risk due to availability of resources as the rebuild activity increases. The remaining complexes typically consist of both simpler and substantially similar housing designs in comparison to the initial 35% of the portfolio with their complicated and unique one-off designs. A panel member has submitted an Offer of Service to complete the remaining DEEs and this is currently being evaluated with a decision made within 2 weeks to proceed on this basis. This approach is expected to provide a value solution due to economies of scale and also reduce delivery risk by locking in the allocation of resources needed to complete the remaining DEEs.

Social Housing DEE Progress (13 May 2013)

DEEs Not Started DEEs 0% Complete 30%

DEEs Underway 70%

[Figure 1] : Social Housing Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Progress

2.2.2. Damage Assessment (DA) Status The damage assessment process is divided into two categories:

 Open/Closed Unit Low Value Repairs  Open/Closed Unit High Value Repairs

2.2.2.1. Open/Closed Unit Low Value Repairs Damage Assessment Low value open/closed unit damage assessments are being performed by City Care Ltd (CCL) (under the existing Facilities Maintenance Contract) on a complex by complex basis and working directly with EQC.

The current Work Package 1 (WP1) complexes (as defined in Appendix 2) currently undergoing damage assessment are listed as follows in priority order (highest to lowest):

 Airedale Courts (71 units closed out of 115 units total)

Page 2 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 90

 Knightsbridge Lane (17 open unit repairs – total complex)  Aorangi Courts (19 open unit repairs, 3 closed unit repairs out of 33 units total)  Berwick Courts (12 open unit repairs – total complex)  Haast Courts (29 open unit repairs out of 33 total units)  Harman Courts (60 open unit repairs – total complex)  Hornby Courts (22 open unit repairs – total complex)  Margaret Murray Courts (13 open unit repairs out of 18 units total)  Lyn Christie Place (3 closed unit repairs out of 28 units total)  Whakahoa Village (5 closed unit repairs & 15 open unit repairs – total complex)

The time taken to date to reach damage settlement with EQC is currently exceeding council staff anticipated timings which is due to both CCL and EQC finite resources and EQC processes. In order to mitigate this, CCL and EQC have recently entered into a successful process of initially jointly inspecting each unit and agreeing the scope at the beginning of the damage assessment avoiding the time lost for scope clarifications between parties. In addition, CCL have added additional resource to increase the processing rate of the damage assessments.

EQC settlement is only done for each social housing complex as a whole when the EQC Insurance Group has received all of the following information and applied apportionment between EQ events and verified client insurance information:

 Cosmetic/Structural damage elements (agreed and costed as above)  Services damage (this is being assessed separately by EQR (Fletchers) resources as per all residential claims with potentially long assessment times)  Emergency Works (claim response submitted by EQC but yet to be finalised by Council staff)  Excesses (claim deductibles assessed)

To date, this process is taking months and whilst Council staff consider it to be a valid process, the settlement timing has been compounded by assessing the most badly damaged complexes first.

Council staff are seeking to accelerate the process within the current delegations by commencing repairs prior to EQC settlement but immediately following joint damage assessment.

2.2.2.2. Open/Closed Unit High Value Repairs Damage Assessment In parallel with the low value damage assessments, an accelerated joint damage assessment process with EQC is being trialled on four initial housing complexes containing significant structural damage (i.e. high value $100k overcap units). Council staff are seeking to adopt this process to reach a damage assessment position with EQC on the most badly damaged complexes in the portfolio by the end of the calendar year.

Progress has been limited this month as the joint damage assessment process has been stalled for the last 5 weeks due to EQC requiring Council’s Insurer to submit them with the Social Housing Insurance Register to verify both level of insurance and payment of EQC levy (now actioned).

Page 3 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 91

The four trial housing complexes are as follows:

 Avonheath Courts (10 closed units out of 17 units total)  Brougham Village (83 closed units out of 89 units total)  Concord Place (8 closed units out of 52 units total)  Louisson Courts (6 closed units out of 13 units total)

In conjunction, the process is currently also being used to assess damage on:

 Airedale Courts (71 units closed out of 115 units total)  Whakahoa Village (5 units closed out of 20 units total)  Osborne Street (4 units closed out of 4 units total)

2.2.2.3. Units with No Damage Current EQC assessments of damage indicate that there are 167 units with no damage which are currently being verified by Council staff and scheduled to be complete by end of July 2013. Unfortunately of 84 units currently inspected, 52 have been identified with minor earthquake damage and recommended for EQC re- inspection.

2.2.2.4. Residential Red Zone Housing Damage Assessments Damage to the five Residential Red Zone complexes (113 units in total with a combined CV of $15.47M) is being assessed by the Insurer’s Loss Adjustor and expected to be submitted to Council this month. Initial indications are that the Insurer’s position is that the damage value will be based solely on the cost of damage to each complex.

In parallel, Council is still awaiting a formal response from CERA regarding a purchase offer which would be used to fund the future intensification projects.

2.2.3. Social Housing Repairs Status Subsequent to the last April 2013 report, the project team has commenced repairs on the following Work Package 1 complexes:

 Collett Courts (5 open unit repairs out of 6 units total) – 3 open unit repairs now complete.  Thurso Street (2 units closed out of 4 units total) – 2 closed unit repairs now complete.

Next month, physical repairs are forecast to commence at Knightsbridge Lane and Airedale Courts.

2.3. Housing New Build Projects Due to the scale and severity of the damage associated with the majority of closed units, an alternative strategy to aid in the restoration of service level is both the intensification of existing sites with the construction of additional units to replace red zone units and the redevelopment of sites through partnerships.

Council staff have identified significant portions of under utilised land in the existing complexes and confirm that there is no need to investigate purchase of land outside of that currently held within the social housing portfolio.

Page 4 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 92

2.3.1. Housing Intensification Projects Council authorised on 15 March 2013 the issue of two selective tenders to proceed for the intensification of the following sites using a new unit design and build process:

 Maurice Carter Courts (Dundee Place) – 12 Units (Tender closed 1 May 2013)  Knightsbridge Lane – 10 Units (Tender closes 15 May 2013)

In terms of progress, Council staff are midway through the Tender evaluation process on the Maurice Carter Courts project which is requiring extra time than that originally scheduled.

2.3.2. Housing Partnership Developments Partnership housing development options utilising council land have been actively investigated with identification of 11 potential partners through an Expression of Interest (EOI) process that closed on 17 April 2013. The next step will be for Council staff to enter into a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with each partner.

Page 5 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 93

Appendix 1: Social Housing Closed Units Summary

Total Closed Closed Closed Major Repair or Complex Name Ward Units H & S Risk Red Zone Land DEE Result Airedale Courts Hagley 115 0 0 71 Aorangi Courts Fendalton 26 0 0 3 Avonheath Courts Ferrymead 17 0 0 11 Biddick Courts Burwood 16 0 0 11 Boyd Cottages Banks P 4 4 0 0 Brougham Village Heathcote 89 1 0 82 Cecil Courts Heathcote 20 5 0 3 Charles Gallagher Pegasus 7 6 0 1 Charles Street Hagley 4 4 0 0 Concord Place Burwood 52 8 0 0 Cresselly Place Heathcote 30 7 0 19 Fred Price Place Burwood 38 0 0 4 Glue Place/Sparks Spreydon 34 2 0 0 Gowerton Place Hagley 30 3 0 3 Halswell Courts Wigram 15 0 0 1 HP Smith Courts Hagley 18 0 0 1 Louisson Courts Heathcote 13 0 0 13 Lyn Christie Place Pegasus 30 0 0 3 Mary McLean Place Heathcote 40 1 0 0 Osborne Street Hagley 4 2 0 2 Reg Stilwell Place Burwood 34 0 0 34 Santa Cruz Lane Pegasus 24 6 0 18 Sandilands Ferrymead 24 0 0 1 Tommy Taylor Courts Heathcote 25 12 0 0 Veronica Place Waimari 36 0 0 1 Whakahoa Village Hagley 20 2 0 3 FRP Closed Unit Repairs = 348 26 Complexes 63 0 285 Bangor Street Hagley 9 0 9 0 Bowie Place Hagley 32 0 32 0 Calbourne Courts Pegasus 26 0 23 0 Captain Thomas Courts Ferrymead 18 0 18 0 Shoreham Courts Pegasus 28 0 28 0 Red Zone Units Summary 5 Complexes 113 0 109 0 Total Closed Units = 458 63 110 285

Page 6 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 94

Appendix 2: Social Housing Work Package 1 (Jan 2013 – Dec 2013) Social Housing Work Package 1 (WP1) includes the following complexes:

Total New Build Open Unit Closed Repairs done Complex Name Ward Units Units Repairs Unit Repairs No Damage (Pre WP1) Airedale Courts Hagley 115 0 40 44 0 0 Aorangi Courts Fendalton 26 0 19 3 0 4 Berwick Courts Shirley 12 0 12 0 0 0 Collet Courts Banks P 6 0 5 0 0 1 Haast Courts Hagley 33 0 29 0 3 1 Harman Courts Spreydon 60 0 60 0 0 0 Hornby Courts Wigram 22 0 22 0 0 0 Knightsbridge Lane Pegasus 17 10 0 17 0 0 Lyn Christie Place Pegasus 30 0 0 3 0 0 Margaret Murray Courts Waimari 18 0 13 0 5 0 Maurice Carter Courts Spreydon 33 12 0 0 0 0 Thurso Street Burwood 4 0 2 2 0 0 Whakahoa Village Hagley 20 0 15 5 0 0 TARGETTED TOTALS 22 217 74 8 6

Page 7 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 95

Appendix 3: Social Housing – Asset Repair Programme

Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 96

Social Housing - Asset Repair Programme Date: 13 May 2013

COMMENT DEE'S SOCIAL HOUSING COMPLEX YEAR LAND DEE'S DEE'S DEE & OCCUPANCY RANGE DEE'S PER TOTAL UNITS PRIORITY CRITERIA WARD ACTUAL PROJECT STATUS COMPLEX CODE BUILT STATUS START DUE RULES COMMENT %NBS COMPLEX UNITS CLOSED FINISH

DEE underway or completed Airedale Courts BE 1951 EQ2 1966 N/A - TC3? Hagley Jun-12 Jul-12 Sep-12 L5 - Partial Failure 15% - 100% 15 115 71 Damage Assessment Underway Full Geotech & Draft Strengthening Reports received Dec 2012. (a) Urgent Brougham Street BE 1072 EQ2 1978 TC2 Heathcote Jun-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 L5 - Partial Failure 22% - 68% 10 89 83 Damage Assessment Underway Joint EQC Damage Assessment underway (Initial Trial) (b) Experience and local knowledge Reg Stillwell Place BE 1320 EQ2 1974 TC3 Burwood Jun-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 L5 - Failed 10% - 65% 8 34 34 Damage Assessment Underway of damage. Tommy Taylor Courts BE 1048 EQ2 2001 TC3 Heathcote Jun-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 L5 - Passed 34% - 60% 1 25 12 Damage Assessment Underway Whakahoa Village BE 2680 EQ2 2007 N/A - TC3? Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 L5 - Passed 45% - 100% 5 20 5 Damage Assessment Underway Geotech Investigation received February 2013 Haast Courts BE 0792 EQ2 1979 N/A - TC2? Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Dec-12 L5 - Passed 45% - 95% 11 33 Initiate Damage Assessment

INITIAL Hornby Courts BE 1580 EQ2 2001 N/A - TC1? Wigram Jun-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 L5 - Passed 34% - 70% 2 22 Initiate Damage Assessment Guthrey Courts BE 0812 EQ2 1977 N/A - TC2? Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 May-13 L5 - Passed 28% 8 32 Initiate Damage Assessment Open under CCC Occupancy Rules. Gloucester Courts BU 2373 EQ2 1999 TC2 Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 L5 - Passed 34% - 36% 3 20 Initiate Damage Assessment

1.1 Intensification Projects Maurice Carter Courts BE 1103 EQ2 1990 N/A -TC2? Spreydon Oct-12 Dec-12 Draft L5, Final due May-13 10 33 DEE & Bus Case Development Priority 1 Project due to infill on vacant land (8 x 1 Bed EPH Units) Andrews Crescent BE 1119 EQ2 1953 TC2 Spreydon Oct-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Feb-13 9 36 DEE & Bus Case Development Priority 1 (Phase A Project) due to infill on vacant land (16 x 2 Bed Units) Knightsbridge Lane BE 1265 EQ2 1977 TC2 Pegasus Oct-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 L5 - Passed 22% 4 17 0 Damage Assessment Underway Priority 1 Project due infill on vacant land (6 x 1 Bed Units); Business Case underway. Harman Courts BE 1110 EQ2 1978 N/A - TC2? Spreydon Oct-12 Dec-12 Feb-13 L5 - Passed 20% - 100% 15 60 Initiate Damage Assessment Priority 2 Project due difficult land purchase; Block I Earthquake Prone but Open. Elm Grove BE 0782 EQ2 1956 TC2 Hagley Oct-12 Dec-12 Dec-12 L5 - Passed 35% 2 7 Initiate Damage Assessment Priority 2 Project involving demolition of existing units & rebuild Berwick Courts BE 0630 EQ2 1978 TC3 Shirley Oct-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 L5 - Passed 94% 6 12 Initiate Damage Assessment Priority 2 Project due to TC3 land status constraints

1.2 High Risk (whole complex DEE) Aorangi Courts BE 0574 EQ2 1979 N/A - TC2? Fendalton Sep-12 Oct-12 Apr-13 L5 - Passed 37% - 82% 8 26 3 Initiate Damage Assessment (a) Two storey or more Avonheath Courts BE 1401 EQ2 1973 TC3 Ferrymead Sep-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 L5 - Passed 21% - 33% 3 17 11 Damage Assessment Underway Joint EQC Damage Assessment underway (Initial Trial) (b) Material type Cecil Courts BE 1047 EQ2 1976 TC3 Heathcote Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 L5 - Passed 38% - 43% 10 20 8 Initiate Damage Assessment (c) Date of construction Concord Place BE 0163 EQ2 1970 N/A - TC3? Burwood Sep-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 L5 - Passed 49% - 97% 14 52 8 Damage Assessment Underway Joint EQC Damage Assessment underway (Initial Trial) Thurso Street BE 1321 EQ2 1976 TC3 Burwood Sep-12 Oct-12 Draft L5, Final due Apr-13 1 4 DEE Underway Units 1 & 4 reopened on 13 May 2013 after repairs & strengthening. Aberfoyle Place BE 0118 EQ2 1992 TC3 Burwood Sep-12 Oct-12 Draft L4, Final due Mar-13 5 14 DEE Underway Consultant has not assessed Garages - Requested again on 15 Jan 2013 Biddick Courts BE 0707 EQ2 1988 TC3 Burwood Oct-12 Nov-12 Feb-13 L5 - Partial Failure 19%-100% 3 16 11 Initiate Damage Assessment Blocks A & B closed on 21 Feb 2013 due to brittle failure. Hadfield Courts BE 1126 EQ2 1978 N/A - TC3? Heathcote Oct-12 Nov-12 Feb-13 L5 - Passed 37% 4 21 Initiate Damage Assessment Manse Place BE 0414 EQ2 1970 & 1983 N/A - TC3? Papanui Oct-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 L4 - Passed 38%-100% 6 42 Initiate Damage Assessment Proctor Street BE 0589 EQ2 1991 TC2 Papanui Oct-12 Nov-12 Mar-13 L4 - Passed 84%-100% 2 5 Initiate Damage Assessment Norman Kirk Courts BE 1137 EQ2 1974 & 1976 N/A - TC2? Heathcote Oct-12 Dec-12 Draft L4, Final L5 due Mar-13 22 60 DEE Underway L5 assessment & missed Garages requested on 5 Feb 2013 Bryndwr Courts BE 0581 EQ2 1980 N/A - TC2? Fendalton Oct-12 Nov-12 Draft L4, Final due Mar-13 7 32 DEE Underway Greenhurst Courts BE 1563 EQ2 1978 TC1 Riccarton Nov-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 L5 - Passed 44% 3 22 Initiate Damage Assessment Innes Courts BE 0643 EQ2 1978 TC2 Shirley Nov-12 Dec-12 Draft L5, Final due May-13 6 30 DEE Underway Margaret Murray Courts BE 0208 EQ2 1990 TC1 Waimari Nov-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 L5 - Passed 52% 3 18 Initiate Damage Assessment Resolution Courts BE 0578 EQ2 1979 TC2 Fendalton Nov-12 Dec-12 Apr-13 L5 - Passed 34%-35% 2 19 Initiate Damage Assessment Allison Courts BE 1113 EQ2 1977 TC2 Spreydon Nov-12 Dec-12 Draft L4, Final due Apr-13 5 9 DEE Underway Regal Courts BE 1061 EQ2 1977 TC2 Heathcote Nov-12 Dec-12 May-13 L4 - Passed 41%-75% 4 20 DEE Underway Walsall Street BE 0488 EQ2 1970 TC2 Spreydon Dec-12 Jan-13 May-13 L4 - Passed 83%-100% 7 26 DEE Underway H P Smith Courts BE 0677 EQ2 1985 TC2 Hagley Dec-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 L4/L5 - Passed 35%-83% 4 18 1 Initiate Damage Assessment Pickering Courts BE 0611 EQ2 1978 TC2 Shirley Dec-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 L4/L5 - Passed 35%-50% 3 25 Initiate Damage Assessment Torrens Road BE 0480 EQ2 1980 TC2 Spreydon Dec-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 L5 - Passed 34%-38% 2 28 Initiate Damage Assessment

1.3 Single storey, block construction Collett Courts BE 3516 EQ2 1979 Banks P Dec-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 L5 - Passed 81% 2 6 Damage Assessment Underway Unit 3 Interior repaired & opened (Dec 12). DEE result revised due to additional info. (including block firewalls) Lyn Christie Place BE 0727 EQ2 1974 N/A - TC3? Pegasus Dec-12 Jan-13 Jan-13 L5 - Passed 52% 8 30 3 Damage Assessment Underway First Five Closed Unit Repairs Project, Units 2 & 4 opening delayed. Sandilands BE 0755 EQ2 1947 TC2 Ferrymead Feb-13 Mar-13 12 24 1 Not Started PRIORITY 1 - HIGHEST RISK Bridgewater Courts BE 1347 EQ2 1977 TC2 Pegasus Feb-13 Mar-13 6 23 Not Started Bruce Terrace Cottages BE 3652 EQ2 1959 Banks P Feb-13 Mar-13 1 3 Not Started Division Street BE 0547 EQ2 1970 N/A -TC2? Riccarton Feb-13 Mar-13 6 24 Not Started Dover Courts BE 0619 EQ2 1976 N/A - TC3? Shirley Feb-13 Mar-13 7 26 Not Started Jennifer/Manor/Torquay Place BE 0571 EQ2 1980 TC2 Fendalton Feb-13 Mar-13 8 14 Not Started Jura Courts BE 0840 EQ2 1975 N/A - TC2? Ferrymead Mar-13 Apr-13 7 28 Not Started Marwick Place BE 0442 EQ2 1968 N/A - TC2? Papanui Mar-13 Apr-13 6 26 Not Started Maurice Hayes Place BE 0855 EQ2 1975 N/A -TC3? Ferrymead Mar-13 Apr-13 4 19 Not Started Phillipstown Courts BE 0818 EQ2 1975 TC2 Ferrymead Mar-13 Apr-13 5 16 Not Started St Johns Courts BE 0853 EQ2 1977 TC2 Ferrymead Mar-13 Apr-13 4 13 Not Started Templeton Courts BE 1672 EQ2 1976 TC1 Wigram Mar-13 Apr-13 2 4 Not Started Thames Courts BE 2156 EQ2 1979 TC2 Shirley Apr-13 May-13 4 10 Not Started William Massey Courts BE 0925 EQ2 1975 TC2 Ferrymead Apr-13 May-13 3 14 Not Started

1.4 TC3 zoned land (CERA) Charles Gallagher Place BE 1274 EQ2 1974 TC3 Pegasus Apr-13 May-13 2 7 7 Not Started Charles Street BE 1039 EQ2 1987 TC3 Hagley Apr-13 May-13 In Progress, due May 2013 1 4 4 DEE Underway Gayhurst Road BE 0712 EQ2 1976 TC3 Burwood Apr-13 May-13 1 4 Not Started Louisson Courts BE 1026 EQ2 1979 TC3 Heathcote Apr-13 May-13 Jan-13 L5 - Failed 16% 3 13 13 Damage Asessment Underway Joint EQC Damage Assessment underway (Initial Trial) Osborne Street BE 1037 EQ2 1983 TC3 Hagley May-13 Jun-13 3 4 4 Not Started Poulton Courts BE 0670 EQ2 1976 TC3 Shirley May-13 Jun-13 3 12 Not Started

2.1 Complexes with closed units Boyd Cottages BE 3517 EQ2 1964 Banks P May-13 Jun-13 1 4 4 Not Started Yellow and red L2 placards Cresselly Place BE 0980 EQ2 1961 N/A - TC3? Heathcote May-13 Jun-13 8 30 26 Not Started Unoccupied due to structural weakness - Fred Price Courts BE 1323 EQ2 1976 N/A - TC3? Burwood May-13 Jun-13 Apr-13 L5 - Passed 49% 19 37 4 Initiate Damage Assessment (brick / block to be undertaken first) Glue Place / Sparks Road BE 1097 EQ2 1961 N/A - TC2? Spreydon May-13 Jun-13 9 35 2 Not Started Units could be repaired and reintroduced Gowerton Place BE 0678 EQ2 1960 N/A - TC3? Hagley Jun-13 Jul-13 8 30 6 Not Started

UNITS to housing stock. Mary McLean Place BE 0942 EQ2 1969 N/A - TC2? Heathcote Jun-13 Jul-13 10 40 1 Not Started Santa Cruz Lane BE 1344 EQ2 1977 N/A - TC3? Pegasus Jun-13 Jul-13 7 24 24 Not Started PRIORITY 2 - COMPLEXES

WITH CLOSED Aldwins Courts (Owner Occupiers) BE 0811 EQ2 1977 TC2 Spreydon Jun-13 Jul-13 8 Not Started ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 97

Social Housing - Asset Repair Programme Date: 13 May 2013

3.1 Low Risk / Low Value Repairs Veronica Place BE 0317 EQ2 1978 N/A - TC2? Waimari Aug-13 Sep-13 4 36 1 Not Started Est. 1800 units with low value repairs. Kaumatua Place BE 0417 EQ2 1977 TC2 Papanui Aug-13 Sep-13 2 10 Not Started Engineer to assess EQC scopes Mooray Ave BE 0310 EQ2 1975 TC1 Waimari Aug-13 Sep-13 2 6 Not Started Palliser Place BE 0327 EQ2 1964 N/A - TC2? Waimari Aug-13 Sep-13 5 24 Not Started Raleigh / Newmark Streets BE 0320 EQ2 1963 TC2 Waimari Aug-13 Sep-13 3 12 Not Started Reg Adams Courts BE 0583 EQ2 1980 TC2 Fendalton Aug-13 Sep-13 5 14 Not Started Briggs Row BE 3519 EQ2 1965 Banks P Aug-13 Sep-13 1 4 Not Started Treddinick Place BE 3520 EQ2 Banks P Aug-13 Sep-13 2 6 Not Started GF Allan Courts BE 1453 EQ2 1983 TC2 Ferrymead Sep-13 Oct-13 2 7 Not Started MacGibbon Place BE 1131 EQ2 1961 N/A - TC2? Spreydon Sep-13 Oct-13 9 36 Not Started Martindales Road BE 1731 EQ2 1974 TC2 Ferrymead Sep-13 Oct-13 7 15 Not Started Nayland Street BE 1454 EQ2 1985 TC2 Ferrymead Sep-13 Oct-13 1 5 Not Started Roimata Place BE 0917 EQ2 1973 N/A - TC3? Ferrymead Sep-13 Oct-13 6 24 Not Started Vincent Courts BE 1012 EQ2 1977 N/A - TC2? Heathcote Sep-13 Oct-13 5 18 Not Started Waltham Courts BE 1049 EQ2 1974 N/A - TC2? Hagley Sep-13 Oct-13 9 26 Not Started Willard Street BE 1112 EQ2 1939 N/A - TC3? Spreydon Sep-13 Oct-13 6 26 Not Started Alma Place BE 0715 EQ2 1963 N/A - TC2? Burwood Oct-13 Nov-13 7 24 Not Started Cleland Street BE 0378 EQ2 1976 TC2 Papanui Oct-13 Nov-13 1 7 Not Started Tyrone Street BE 0376 EQ2 1974 TC2 Papanui Oct-13 Nov-13 2 12 Not Started Arran Courts BE 0823 EQ2 1975 TC2 Ferrymead Oct-13 Nov-13 4 14 Not Started Jecks Place BE 0702 EQ2 1964 N/A - TC2? Hagley Oct-13 Nov-13 12 52 Not Started Mackenzie Courts BE 0921 EQ2 1976 TC2 Ferrymead Oct-13 Nov-13 13 24 Not Started Rue Viard Cottages BE 3632 EQ2 Banks P Oct-13 Nov-13 1 3 Not Started Fletcher Place BE 0230 EQ2 1963 N/A - TC1? Riccarton Oct-13 Dec-13 16 68 Not Started Halswell Courts BE 1630 EQ2 1975 N/A - TC3? Wigram Nov-13 Dec-13 5 15 1 Not Started Weaver Courts BE 1565 EQ2 1965 N/A - TC1? Riccarton Nov-13 Dec-13 11 35 Not Started Wycola Courts BE 1556 EQ2 1967 TC1 Wigram Nov-13 Dec-13 5 30 Not Started Angus Courts BE 1144 EQ2 1977 TC2 Heathcote Nov-13 Dec-13 6 22 Not Started Carey Street BE 1132 EQ2 1942 N/A - TC2? Heathcote Nov-13 Dec-13 8 32 Not Started Hennessey Place BE 1093 EQ2 1961 TC2 Spreydon Nov-13 Dec-13 4 16 Not Started Picton Avenue BE 0530 EQ2 1975 TC2 Riccarton Nov-13 Dec-13 3 12 Not Started Nelson Street BE 0530 EQ2 1975 TC2 Riccarton Nov-13 Dec-13 1 4 Not Started Coles Place BE 0616 EQ2 1953 N/A - TC3? Shirley Dec-13 Feb-14 4 20 Not Started Forfar Courts BE 0629 EQ2 1978 N/A - TC3? Shirley Dec-13 Feb-14 12 24 Not Started

PRIORITY 3 - LOW RISK / LOW VALUE REPAIRS Harold Denton Place BE 0618 EQ2 1972 TC2 Shirley Dec-13 Feb-14 5 20 Not Started Huggins Place BE 0638 EQ2 1958 N/A - TC3? Shirley Dec-13 Feb-14 8 30 Not Started Mabel Howard Place BE 0699 EQ2 1968 N/A - TC2? Hagley Dec-13 Feb-14 15 59 Not Started Cedar Park BE 2631 EQ2 2001 TC2 Shirley Dec-13 Feb-14 14 20 Not Started Barnett Avenue BE 1140 EQ2 1940 N/A - TC2? Heathcote Dec-13 Feb-14 6 26 Not Started Clent Lane BE 1091 EQ2 1977 N/A - TC2? Spreydon Dec-13 Feb-14 8 36 Not Started Feast Place / Poulson Street BE 1107 EQ2 1959 N/A - TC2? Spreydon Feb-14 Mar-14 8 29 Not Started Guise Lane Courts BE 1519 EQ2 1977 TC2 Spreydon Feb-14 Mar-14 7 21 Not Started Bartlett Street BE 0524 EQ2 1964 TC2 Riccarton Feb-14 Mar-14 3 9 Not Started Ka Wahine Trust Halfway House BE 2538 EQ2 1954 & 1989 Feb-14 Mar-14 3 Not Started Lancewood Courts BE 2506 EQ2 Feb-14 Mar-14 2 11 Not Started YWCA BE 2311 EQ2 Feb-14 Mar-14 Draft L4 received, L5 due May-13 2 DEE Underway DEE Initiated under original Commercial Programme Priority List Home & Family Building BE 2513 EQ2 1965 Feb-14 Mar-14 2 Not Started

Sub-Totals 668 2536 348 No DEE required-CERA Red Zoned Calbourne Courts BE 1293 EQ2 1977 Red Zone Pegasus Aug-12 Sep-12 Red Zoned Land 6 26 22 Damage Assessment Underway SKM engaged by Insurer to assess damage CL / SKM to assess Bangor Courts BE 1251 EQ2 1981 Red Zone Hagley Aug-12 Sep-12 Red Zoned Land 7 9 9 Damage Assessment Underway SKM engaged by Insurer to assess damage Captain Thomas Courts BE 1463 EQ2 1977 Red Zone Ferrymead Aug-12 Sep-12 Red Zoned Land 4 18 18 Damage Assessment Underway SKM engaged by Insurer to assess damage. Subdividing site would open 7 Units. Shoreham Courts BE 1349 EQ2 1977 Red Zone Pegasus Aug-12 Sep-12 Red Zoned Land 7 28 28 Damage Assessment Underway SKM engaged by Insurer to assess damage Bowie Place BE 0695 EQ2 1969 & 1975 Red Zone Hagley Aug-12 Sep-12 Red Zoned Land 8 32 32 Damage Assessment Underway SKM engaged by Insurer to assess damage Red Zone Totals 32 113 109 Social Housing Totals 700 2649 461 Social Housing Current Level of Service 2188 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 98 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Communication Policy

Introduction Christchurch City Council (Council, Community Boards and staff) recognises the importance of clear communication in our relationship with the people of Christchurch. This is even more important as we continue with the rebuild and recovery of the city after the earthquakes. We accept that as a public body, we have a duty to inform and are obliged to ensure the people of Christchurch understand why decisions have been made, how people may be affected by our actions and what their rights and responsibilities are. This policy is consistent with the Local Government Act 2002 [hyperlink] and the principles outlined in the Auditor-General's communication good practice guidelines. [hyperlink].

Communication objectives

 To communicate in a way that reflects the vision, strategic direction and priorities as established by the Council.  To inform the people of Christchurch about our activities, plans and strategies which affect them.  To improve public awareness and understanding of our processes and activities.  To encourage public confidence and involvement in local democratic processes through good communication and engagement.  To be proactive and timely in our communication with the wider public.  To encourage an effective and ongoing flow of information among Council staff and between staff and elected members.  To develop and support management processes that ensure effective internal communication.

These objectives will be given effect to in a Communication Strategy.

Communication principles

 Walking the Talk - we will ensure that the actions of the organisation reflect the messages conveyed.  Transparency - we will ensure that communications are open, balanced, honest, fairly expressed and provided in a way that is easily understood.  Consistency – we will ensure that consistent information is provided in a coordinated manner and is easily identifiable as being from Council/Community Boards.  Collective position – communications will represent the corporate or collective position.  Accessibility – we will identify key audiences to clearly convey information at a time and in a way that meets their needs.  Accuracy - we will ensure that all levels of information are as complete and accurate as possible and are always in a context that is readily understood.  Clarity of purpose - all communication will have a clear objective.  Two way dialogue – we will engage and build effective relationships ‘hear and share’ through our communication. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 99 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

 Cost-effectiveness - we will provide information in a cost-effective way.  Responsiveness - communications received by the Council will be responded to and acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner.  Innovation & Technology – we will use a range of innovative techniques and channels to communicate.

This policy does not preclude elected members from voicing their individual views on issues, and is addressed by the Code of Conduct and the Council Charter.

Confidentiality The Local Government Act 2002 sayts there are some circumstances where information may not be provided. Some reasons why information may be withheld are when it would:

 Endanger the safety of any person  Prejudice maintenance of the law  Compromise the privacy of any person  Reveal confidential or commercially sensitive information  Cause offence to tikanga Maori or would disclose the location of waahi tapu  Prejudice public health or safety  Compromise legal professional privilege  Disadvantage the local authority while carrying out negotiations or commercial activities  Allow information to be used for improper gain or advantage.

If these circumstances preclude us from providing the information, we will always inform the applicant of the reasons why the information is not being provided, and of any appeal rights they may have.

Other policies/standards There are relationships between this draft Communication Policy and other Council guidelines, standards and policies as well as Acts of Parliament including the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act (Cera).

These include [hyperlinked]:

 Charter between CEO and Mayor & Councillors  Codes of Conduct - Staff and Elected Members  Standing Orders  Local Government Act 2002  Council’s Three Year Plan and Long Term Plan  Customer Service Standards and Principles  Community Engagement Strategy  Local Governance Statement  Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act  Official Information Act  Privacy Act.  Residents Group Policy  Culturally and Linguistically Diverse best practice guidelines ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 100 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Christchurch City Council

Your Council YOURYour COUNCIL Voice Who are my Councillors? When does my Community Board meet? YOUR I VOICEwant to know more. How do I get involved?

Who are my Councillors? When does my Community Board meet? I want to knowUpdated more. How do April I get involved? 2013 Updated April 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 101 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 102 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Christchurch City Council’s Councillors, Community Board Members and Service Centres

This booklet aims to help Who in the Council do I contact to help with local you understand how you community or city wide issues? can participate in the There are a number of options available for raising community or council speciﬁc issues. democratic processes of Council staﬀ can provide information regarding your Councillors, Community Board your local council – the members, local residents' groups, community groups, community centres and the local community in general. Christchurch City Council. The Christchurch City Council customer call centre can be contacted 24 hours a day by phone on 941 8999, or you can go to your local service centre for assistance. You can also raise issues or concerns directly with one of your Community Board members or local Councillors. This brochure aims to help you identify and become familiar with our City’s Councillors, Community Board members and the location of the Council’s service centres.

Contact Information For contact information for individual elected members, or for further information on the Council or the eight Community Boards please see page 5 or 6, or you can visit the Council’s website at www.ccc.govt.nz/Council or phone our call centre on 941 8999.

Service Centres We have a number of service centres in various locations across the city including Fendalton, Papanui and Shirley and some temporary facilities. For information on all our service centres and to ﬁnd your nearest one, please see our website (www.ccc.govt.nz) or call us on 941 8999.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 103 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Who are my Councillors? When does my Community Board meet? I want to know more. How do I get involved?

What’s the difference between the Council and the Community Boards? Can I go to a Council Meeting or Community Board meeting? Council The public are welcome to attend Council and The Christchurch City Council is made up of the Mayor, Community Board meetings. 12 Councillors representing six wards in the City, and one Councillor representing the Banks Peninsula ward. The Council meets twice a month, at 9.30am on the second and fourth Thursday of the month. The Council The Council meets twice a month and considers issues that affect meets in the Council Chamber on the second floor of the the whole City. Civic Offices at 53 Hereford Street. A schedule of Council The Council has recently established a number of committees meetings is available on the Council website at: that focus on some areas of Council business. Many issues will be http://www.ccc.govt.nz/councilmeetingminutes considered by these Committees first before they are forwarded Community Boards meet either fortnightly or once a onto the Council for a final decision. For further information on month. A schedule of Community Board meetings is also these committees check out: available on the Council website at: www.ccc.govt.nz/councilmeetingminutes http://www.ccc.govt.nz/councilmeetingminutes from 53 Hereford Street (Civic), service centres or by Community Boards calling 941 8999. Christchurch has eight Community Boards. Each Board has Agendas for the Council and Community Boards are five elected members and two Councillors appointed by available two clear working days before a meeting and the Council (with the exception of the two Banks Peninsula may be found on the Council’s website at: Community Boards, which have only one Councillor appointed www.ccc.govt.nz/council/Agendas by the Council). or at the Civic Offices, service centres or public libraries. Community Boards represent, and act as advocates for, the In some circumstances, the public and press can be interests of their communities. They advise the Council on excluded from parts of public meetings. The reasons for local needs, community views, and Council proposals these exclusions are governed by legislation, including affecting their wards. the need to protect the privacy of a person or group. They are able to make decisions on some projects at a local level, and make recommendations to the Council. Some examples of matters that are considered by Community Boards include: » Proposed developments or activities on parks, reserves and waterways » Implementation and oversight of local capital work projects » Bus stops and shelters » Objections relating to vehicle crossings » Naming of roads, streets and parks » Allocating funding to projects that benefit their local community

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 104 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

. Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board . Shirley/Papanui Community Board . Burwood/Pegasus Community Board . . Riccarton/Wigram Community Board . . . Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board . Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board . Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board . . . . Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 105 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Absent: Councillor Claudia Reid.

Front Row (from left): Deputy Mayor Ngaire Button, Mayor Bob Parker, Councillor Tim Carter M.E.M., BE (Hons), Councillor Glenn Livingstone B.A., B.Th, Councillor Peter Beck, Councillor Sue Wells B.A Inset:Councillor Claudia Reid

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 106 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Back Row (from left): Councillor Sally Buck M.Ed (Dist), Dip.Tchg., Dip. TESOL, Councillor Barry Corbett, Councillor Jamie Gough, Councillor Jimmy Chen MComm B.Sc, Councillor Aaron Keown, Councillor Helen Broughton MA (Hons), Dip.Ed. (councilling), Dip. TESOL, Councillor Yani Johanson.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 107 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 How can I have my say at a meeting? request to speak has been granted. If you feel strongly about an issue and want to tell the Council or your Community Board about it, you can seek to present Want to make a deputation in sign language information at a Council, Committee or Community Board or Maori? meeting. We want it to be easy for you to make a deputation. If you would In the first instance; it is best to raise a local issue with your local like to make a deputation in sign language or Maori, we will cover Community Board - for example one that relates to your street, the costs of the translator. Please contact 941 8999 to arrange. community or neighbourhood. Community Boards can forward issues to the Council if necessary. A request to speak to your Community Board must be lodged Want information in another language? with the Community Board Adviser no later than 24 hours We have a translation service available to you. before the Board’s meeting. Requests have to be approved by the Please call 941 8999 to request. Community Board Chairperson. If you want to speak at a Council Committee meeting please contact the Committee Adviser on 941 8999. A request to speak How do I present a petition to the Council must relate to the terms of reference for the committee and be or a Community Board? lodged no later than 24 hours before the meeting. The terms of A petition of fewer than 50 words (not including signatories) reference and schedule of meetings can be found on the website. can be presented directly by petitioners or by a Councillor or Deputations to the Council will generally only be received if they Community Board member on their behalf. relate to an item on the Council meeting agenda. Whoever presents the petition will read it out along with People who wish to make a deputation to the Council should a statement from the petitioners and advise the number contact the Council Secretary no later than 24 hours before of signatures. the meeting. When you are given permission to speak about an issue, it is called a “deputation by appointment”. People are encouraged to How do I find a Council or Community keep the presentations as brief as possible, to allow plenty of time Board decision? for questions from Community Board members or Councillors. You can find decisions made by the Council or Community Boards Council staff will provide you with more information on meeting in reports on their meetings, which can be found at: protocol, speaking times and presentation equipment if your www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Agendas and within the agendas for the subsequent Council or Community Board meeting. Decisions are also available in the Council minutes for that meeting.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 108 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

Are there other ways that I can have input to the Council’s decision-making? Participating in the Council’s planning and consultation processes gives you an opportunity to have your say. The Council regularly seeks community input on a range of issues, such as draft policies, local capital works projects, and the Council’s 10 year community plan. There are several ways to make a submission. You can fill out a submission form and post it to the Council, or fill out a form on-line on the Council’s website, or email your submission to the appropriate email address as advertised. All information for making a submission is available on the Council’s Have Your Say website at: www.ccc.govt.nz/haveyoursay You can also obtain a hard copy of any of the relevant documents from any Christchurch City Council library or service centre, or by calling the customer call centre on 941 8999 to request that the information is sent to you. If public hearings are to be held on an issue, you can indicate in your submission that you want to discuss your submission at a public hearing. Council staff will then contact you to arrange a time for you to meet with the Council hearings panel. You can also comment on other city wide issues by clicking on the web link to “Council Projects in your Area” at: www.ccc.govt.nz/webapps/projectnotices Here you can search for current council projects and consultations/plans and read information on these or choose to “Have Your Say”. An online form is provided for submissions. A separate brochure is available on how you can participate in formal hearings held under the Resource Management Act. For a copy contact the customer call centre on 941 8999 or go to the Council’s website at: www.ccc.govt.nz/resourcemanagementpamphlets

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 109 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 . Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Left to right: Councillor Jamie Gough, Councillor Sally Buck, Val Carter (Chair), David Halstead, Faimeh Burke, Cheryl Colley and David Cartwright Council Service Centre - Fendalton Cnr Jeﬀreys & Clyde Roads. PO Box 73020 Hours: Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm

. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Left to right: Deputy Mayor Ngaire Button, Councillor Aaron Keown, Chris Mene (Chair), Anna Button, Kathy Condon and Pauline Cotter Council Service Centre - Papanui Cnr Langdons Rd & Restell St. PO Box 73024 Hours: Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm & Saturday 10am - 1pm

. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Left to right: Councillor Glenn Livingstone, Councillor Peter Beck, Linda Stewart (Chair), Tim Sintes, Tim Baker, David East and Julie Gorman Council Service Centre - Shirley 36 Marshland Road (The Palms). PO Box 73023 Hours: Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm & Saturday 10am - 1pm

. Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Left to right: Councillor Helen Broughton, Councillor Jimmy Chen, Mike Mora (Chair), Natalie Bryden, Sam Johnson, Peter Laloli and Judy Kirk Council Service Centre - Riccarton 199 Clarence Street. PO Box 73022 Hours: Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 110 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 . Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Left to right: Councillor Barry Corbett, Councillor Sue Wells, Phil Clearwater (Chair), Paul McMahon, Helene Mautner, Karolin Potter and Tim Scandrett Council Service Centre - Beckenham Bob Parker Ngaire Button 66 Colombo Street. PO Box 73025 Mayor Deputy Mayor Hours: Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board . Left to right: Councillor Tim Carter, Councillor Yani Johanson, Islay McLeod (Chair), David Cox, Nathan Ryan, Bob Todd, and Brenda Lowe-Johnson Council Service Centre 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch. PO Box 73010 Hours: Monday to Friday 8.30am - 5pm Council Service Centre - Linwood From 30 April the Linwood service centre will be operating from the new temporary Linwood library and service centre at Eastgate mall. . Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Left to right: Councillor Claudia Reid, Paula Smith (Chair), Jeremy Agar, Ann Jolliﬀe, Andrew Turner, and Adrian Te Patu Council Service Centre - Lyttelton Bundy Building, 15 London Street, Lyttelton. PO Box 73027 Hours: Monday to Friday 8.30am - 5pm

Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board . Left to right: Councillor Claudia Reid, Pam Richardson (Chair), Leigh Hickey, Stewart Miller, Bryan Morgan and Lyndon Graham Council Service Centre - Akaroa 28 Rue Jolie, Akaroa 7520 Hours: Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm Council Service Centre - Little River 4236 Christchurch, Akaroa Rd, RD 1, Little River 7591 Hours: Monday to Friday 8.30am - 12.30pm & 1.30pm - 4.30pm

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 111 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Christchurch City Council’s Councillors & Community Board Members Contact Details

Akaroa/Wairewa Burwood/Pegasus Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Community Board Community Board

Pam Richardson MNZM JP Linda Stewart Val Carter Pigeon Bay, CMB 27, RD 3, Akaroa 7583 423A Bower Avenue, Parklands, ChCh 8083 15B Royds Street, Fendalton, ChCh 8014 Phone: 304 6825 Fax: 304 6834 Phone: 383 9734 Business: 383 9734 Phone: 326 6279 Mobile: 027 491 7138 Mobile: 027 447 8551 Mobile: 027 405 3257 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Faimeh Burke Lyndon Graham Tim Baker 32B Winchester St Merivale, ChCh 8014 PO Box 55, Duvauchelle 19 Lenton Street, Aranui, ChCh 8061 Phone: 355 8104 Mobile: 021 453 466 Phone: 304 5819 Mobile: 021 446 329 Phone: 980 9853 Business: 385 4888 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Fax: 960 9852 Mobile: 027 727 6111 David Cartwright Leigh Hickey Email: [email protected] 19 Hartley Avenue, Strowan, ChCh 55 Selwyn Avenue, Akaroa 7520 David East Phone: 356 3434 Business: 365 0353 Phone: 304 7765 Mobile: 027 304 7078 16 Sea Eagles Pl, North Brighton, ChCh 8083 Mobile: 027 496 5977 Email: [email protected] Phone: 388 1104 Business: 388 9568 Email: [email protected] Stewart Miller QSM Fax: 388 1304 Mobile: 027 431 1711 Cheryl Colley JP 7 Heaphy Court, Rolleston 7614 Email: [email protected] 33 Millstream Drive, Northwood, ChCh 8051 Phone: 379 2972 Business: 379 2972 Julie Gorman Phone: 323 5666 Mobile: 027 600 2221 242 Spencerville Road, Ouruhia, ChCh 8083 Mobile: 021 707 144 Email: [email protected] Phone: 329 8083 Business Mobile: 027 449 5815 Email: [email protected] Bryan Morgan Mobile: 021 465 327 David Halstead Breitmeyers Road, RD 1, Little River 7591 Email: [email protected] 19 Joyce Crescent, Ilam, ChCh 8014 Phone: 325 1277 Fax: 325 1279 Tim Sintes Phone: 351 5379 Business: 351 5379 Mobile: 027 227 3600 18 Tern Street, Southshore, ChCh 8062 Mobile: 021 440 164 Email: [email protected] Phone: 388 4927 Business: 388 4927 Email: [email protected] Councillor Fax: 388 4927 Mobile: 027 257 0043 Councillors Email: [email protected] Claudia Reid Sally Buck 3/14 Andover Street, Merivale, ChCh 8014 Councillors 15 Melrose Street, ChCh 8013 Mobile: 027 457 0603 Peter Beck Phone: 379 2820 Mobile: 021 058 0392 Email: [email protected] 11 Draper Street, Richmond, ChCh 8013 Email: [email protected] Phone: 389 6017 Mobile: 021 654 445 Email: [email protected] Jamie Gough PO Box 73016 Glenn Livingstone Phone: 941 8999 Mobile: 027 231 4393 297 Lake Terrace Road, ChCh 8061 Email: [email protected] Phone: 352 2396 Mobile: 021 161 4819 Email: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 112 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Hagley/Ferrymead Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Community Board Community Board Islay McLeod Paula Smith Mike Mora 12 Chelsea Street, Linwood, ChCh 8062 1 Purau Avenue, RD 2, Diamond Harbour 8972 28 Moffett Street, Islington, ChCh 8042 Phone: 389 0954 Mobile: 027 442 4799 Phone: 329 4445 Business: 329 4445 Phone: 980 9438 Mobile: 027 430 3132 Email: [email protected] Mobile: 027 241 3772 Email: [email protected] David Cox MNZM Email: [email protected] Natalie Bryden 72A Moncks Spur Rd, Redcliffs, ChCh 8081 Jeremy Agar 29 Hei Hei Road, ChCh 8042 Phone: 384 3892 Mobile: 027 436 2403 23 Walkers Road, Lyttelton 8082 Phone: 3490551 Mobile: 027 331 0020 Email: [email protected] Phone: 328 9956 Email: [email protected] Brenda Lowe Johnson JP Email: [email protected] Sam Johnson 562 Cashel Street, Linwood, ChCh 8011 Ann Jolliffe 5 Orkney Street, Strowan, ChCh 8052 Phone: 389 5256 Mobile: 027 811 4138 12 Cunningham Terrace, Lyttelton 8082 Phone: 351 4694 Mobile: 027 441 3927 Email: brenda.lowe [email protected] Phone: 328 8917 Fax: 328 9007 Email: [email protected] Nathan Ryan Email: ann.jolliff[email protected] Dr Judy Kirk 4 Gow Place, Woolston, ChCh 8062 Adrian Te Patu 35 Tintern Avenue, Avonhead, ChCh 8042 Phone: 381 8228 Mobile: 021 709 573 23 Waipapa Avenue RD2, Diamond Harbour 8972 Phone: 343 9899 Business: 343 9899 Email: [email protected] Phone: 329 4620 Mobile: 021 982 982 Mobile: 027 255 2075 Bob Todd OBE JP Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 56 Hargood Street, Woolston, ChCh 8062 Andrew Turner Peter Laloli Phone: 389 6338 Fax: 381 5690 PO Box 209, Lyttelton 69 Middleton Rd, Upper Riccarton, ChCh 8041 Mobile: 027 243 9277 Phone: 328 8204 Mobile: 021 159 3100 Phone: 348 7313 Business: 344 1807 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Fax: 348 1146 Mobile: 027 222 8212 Councillors Councillor Email: [email protected] Tim Carter Claudia Reid Councillors PO Box 2726, ChCh 8140 3/14 Andover Street, Merivale, ChCh 8014 Helen Broughton Phone: 377 7368 Business: 353 0181 Mobile: 027 457 0603 25 Rata Street, Riccarton, ChCh 8041 Fax: 379 0971 Mobile: 021 836 156 Email: [email protected] Phone: 348 1458 Fax: 348 1529 Email: [email protected] Mobile: 027 640 4935 Yani Johanson Email: [email protected] PO Box 13874, Armagh Street, ChCh 8141 Jimmy Chen Phone: 377 0129 Mobile: 021 799 321 PO Box 6288, Upper Riccarton, ChCh 8442 Email: [email protected] Phone: 342 8589 Fax: 342 8589 Mobile: 021 134 1673 Email: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 113 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Shirley/Papanui Spreydon/Heathcote Mayor Community Board Community Board Bob Parker Chris Mene Phil Clearwater PO Box 73016, Christchurch 8154 PO Box 25 348, ChCh 8144 5 Sherwood Lane, Cashmere, ChCh 8022 Business: 941-8559 Mobile: 021 610 931 Phone: 337 4686 Business: 337 7936 x66201 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Fax: 337 7720 Anna Button Email: [email protected] Deputy Mayor 41 Grassmere Street, Papanui, ChCh 8052 Helene Mautner Phone: 352 3946 Mobile: 027 375 5182 15a Kidson Terrace, ChCh 8042 Ngaire Button Email: [email protected] Phone: 337 0390 Mobile: 021 027 73863 41 Grassmere Street, Papanui, ChCh 8052 Kathy Condon Email: [email protected] Business: 941 8564 5 Farnswood Place, Redwood, ChCh 8051 Paul McMahon Mobile: 027 491 6832 Phone: 354 1149 Mobile: 027 220 2282 42 Radley Street, Woolston, ChCh 8023 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Phone: 359 2669 Business: 386 2159 extn 729 Pauline Cotter Mobile: 021 184 1072 Civic Oﬃces 579 Madras Street, St Albans, ChCh 8014 Email: [email protected] 53 Hereford Street, Christchurch 8013 Phone: 379 7195 Business: 379 7195 Karolin Potter Fax: 379 7195 Mobile: 027 296 8811 PO Box 73010, Christchurch 8140 331 Lyttelton Street, Spreydon, ChCh 8024 Phone: 941 8999 Email: [email protected] Phone: 335 0616 Business: 353 0957(B) Councillors Mobile: 027 427 4671 Ngaire Button Email: [email protected] 41 Grassmere Street, Papanui, ChCh 8052 Tim Scandrett Business: 941 8564 Mobile: 027 491 6832 117 Dyers Pass Road, Cashmere, ChCh 8022 Email: [email protected] Phone: 332 3615 Business: 337 5139 Aaron Keown Fax: 337 5136 Mobile: 027 693 5155 PO Box 5025, ChCh 8542 Email: [email protected] Phone: 386 2314 Business: 386 2314 Councillors Fax: 386 2314 Mobile: 021 822 766 Barry Corbett Email: [email protected] 107 Hollis Avenue, Cashmere, ChCh 8022 Phone: 332 4997 Fax: 332 4103 Mobile: 027 229 4103 Email: [email protected] Sue Wells PO Box 73016, Christchurch 8154 Mobile: 027 229 0505 Email: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 114 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Council Committees and their Functions

The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee The Corporate and Financial Committee The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee shall be responsible for The Corporate and Financial Committee shall be responsible for reviewing reviewing as appropriate and making recommendations to Council on the as appropriate and making recommendations to Council on the following following areas: areas: • Community and Culture • Assets • Recreation and Sport • Treasury • Arts and Heritage • Funding • Library • Economic Development • International Relations • Insurance • Housing • Development Contributions • Community Facilities • Institutional Resilience • Engagement – Communications/Marketing • Christchurch City Holdings Ltd • Civil Defence and Emergency Management • Canterbury Development Corporation • Iwi/Ethnic Relationships • Canterbury and Christchurch Tourism • Events and Festivals The Corporate and Financial Committee members: The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee members: Councillors Helen Broughton (Chair), Tim Carter (Deputy Chair), Councillors Yani Johanson (Chair), Glenn Livingston (Deputy Chair), Ngaire Button, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson. Peter Beck, Helen Broughton, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Jamie Gough. The Planning Committee The Planning Committee shall be responsible for reviewing as appropriate and making recommendations to Council on the following areas: The Environment and Infrastructure Committee • Consents The Environment and Infrastructure Committee shall be responsible for • Central City Development Unit reviewing as appropriate and making recommendations to Council on the • Implementation of 100-day Plan following areas: • CERA Recovery Strategies • Rockfall • District Plan • Transport • Regulations • Public Transport • Spatial Planning • Water • Growth Pressure • Wastewater • Urban Development Strategy • Stormwater • ICMP • Waste Management • Open Space (Planning) • Roading • Integrated Catchment Management Plans (Planning) • Traffic Management • Council Hearings Panel • Open Space (Operations) • Bylaws • Integrated Catchment Management Plans (Operations) • Submissions Panel

The Environment and Infrastructure Committee members: The Planning Committee members: Councillors Claudia Reid (Chair), Aaron Keown (Deputy Chair), Sally Buck, Councillors Sue Wells (Chair), Peter Beck (Deputy Chair), Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Sue Wells. Jimmy Chen, Aaron Keown, Glenn Livingstone, Claudia Reid.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 115 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

For more information about Your Council, Your Community Boards and Service Centres please visit our website at www.ccc.govt.nz/Council or call us on 941-8999 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 116 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 >ÛiÊ9ÕÀÊ->Þ 0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX =IEV7SGMEP7XYHMIW6IWSYVGI ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 117 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 VÜi`}iiÌÃ 3RFILEPJSJXLI'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMPXLERO]SYXSXLIJSPPS[MRKJSVXLIMVWYTTSVXMRXLIHIZIPSTQIRX SJXLI¨,EZI=SYV7E]©6IWSYVGI

1MOI*S[PIV 8SJUFS

/IVV])ZIVMRKLEQ &EVDBUJPOBOE1SPNPUJPO$PPSEJOBUPS $$$

7XIZIR(YRR (SBQIJD"SUJTU $$$

8IVIRGI1SSH] &OWJSPONFOUBM)FBMUI1PMJDZ-FBEFS $$$

1E\6SFIVXWSR &MFDUPSBM0G¾DFS $$$

.SLR(V]HIR

6SKIV&EPH[MR $PPSEJOBUPSPG4FDPOEBSZ"EWJTFST4PDJBM4DJFODFT"EWJTFS $ISJTUDIVSDI$PMMFHFPG&EVDBUJPO

1YVVE]*EWXMIV 4FOJPS4PDJBM4DJFODF-FDUVSFS $ISJTUDIVSDI$PMMFHFPG&EVDBUJPO

/E](SFWSR,MPP 4PDJBM4DJFODFT%FQBSUNFOU 3JDDBSUPO)JHI4DIPPM

6MGLEVH,S[MXX 4PDJBM4DJFODFT%FQBSUNFOU )JMMNPSUPO)JHI4DIPPM

7MSFLER1YVTL] 4PDJBM4DJFODFT%FQBSUNFOU "SBOVJ)JHI4DIPPM

-RWMXI'SYRGMP-RJSVQEXMSR7IVZMGI

,EKPI]*IVV]QIEH'SQQYRMX]&SEVH

7MQSR:ERHIV7PYMNW "SUJTU

7LEMPIV,EVX .FUSPQPMJUBO$PNNVOJUZ"EWJTFS°:PVUI $$$

1EV]6MGLEVHWSR 'PSNFS3FTFBSDIBOE1PMJDZ.BOBHFS $$$

8LITVSNIGXXIEQ[SYPHEPWSPMOIXSXLEROXLIPEVKIRYQFIVSJSXLIV'''WXEJJERHI\XIVREPGSRXEGXWXSS QER]XSPMWXLIVI[LSTVSZMHIHJIIHFEGOERHWYTTSVXMRXLIHIZIPSTQIRXSJXLMWVIWSYVGI

4YFPMWLIHF]XLI'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP43&S\'LVMWXGLYVGL

-7&2

8I\XERH(IWMKR'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP XSXLIXIEGLIV ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 118 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013

8LMWVIWSYVGIMWMRXIRHIHXSLIPTWXYHIRXWFIGSQIQSVIE[EVISJERHMRZSPZIHMR PSGEPKSZIVRQIRX-XWQEMRSFNIGXMZIWEVI 8SGVIEXIEFIXXIVYRHIVWXERHMRKSJPSGEPKSZIVRQIRX

IV 8SIRGSYVEKIWXYHIRXWXSIRKEKI[MXLERHLEZIMRTYXMRXSPSGEPKSZIVRQIRX MWWYIWERHXLIHIZIPSTQIRXSJXLIMVGMX]EWEKSSHTPEGIXSPMZIERH[SVO L

'YVVMGYPYQPMROW

8LMWVIWSYVGILEWFIIRHIZIPSTIHXSWYTTSVXWXYHIRXW[SVOMRKXS[EVHW0IZIPSJ7SGMEP7XYHMIW MRXLI2I[>IEPERH'YVVMGYPYQ-XMWHIWMKRIHXSLIPTWXYHIRXWPIEVREFSYXERHTEVXMGMTEXI VIWTSRWMFP]MRWSGMIX] 'YVVMGYPYQPMROWEVIWLS[REXXLIWXEVXSJIEGLWIGXMSR

7SGMEP7XYHMIW4VSGIWWIW

IXIEG %WXLI][SVOXLVSYKLXLIVIWSYVGIWXYHIRXWHIZIPSTWOMPPWMR

L 7SGMEP(IGMWMSR1EOMRKQEOIHIGMWMSRWEFSYXTSWWMFPIWSGMEPEGXMSR -HIRXMJ]MRKEVERKISJTVSFPIQWEWWSGMEXIH[MXLERMWWYI +IRIVEXMRKEVERKISJTSWWMFPIWSPYXMSRW 4PERRMRKTSWWMFPIEGXMSRWMRVIPEXMSRXSMHIRXM´IHTVSFPIQWSVMWWYIWERHMHIRXMJ]MRK XLIPMOIP]GSRWIUYIRGIWSJXLIWIEGXMSRW 1EOMRKEGLSMGIEFSYXTVIJIVVIHEGXMSRERHNYWXMJ]MRKXLEXGLSMGI

XSX :EPYIW)\TPSVEXMSRI\TPSVIERHEREP]WIZEPYIW )\TPEMRMRKLS[ZEPYIWTSWMXMSRWHIZIPSTSZIVXMQI )WXEFPMWLMRKGVMXIVMEXSIZEPYEXIZEPYIWTSWMXMSRW (IQSRWXVEXILS[KVSYTWQE]WLEVIWSQIZEPYIWERHEKVIIXSHMJJIVEFSYXSXLIVW

7SGMEP7XYHMIW7XVERHW

7XYHIRXWEPWSHIZIPSTORS[PIHKIERHYRHIVWXERHMRKSJ

7SGMEP3VKERMWEXMSRLS[W]WXIQWSJKSZIVRQIRXEVISVKERMWIHERHEJJIGXTISTPI«WPMZIW -HIRXMJ]MRKXLIJIEXYVIWSJEPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXSVKERMWEXMSR )\TPEMRMRKLS[HIGMWMSRWEVIQEHIERHMQTPIQIRXIHMRPSGEPKSZIVRQIRX )\TPEMRMRKLS[PSGEPKSZIVRQIRXHIGMWMSRWEJJIGXTISTPI«WPMZIW

4PEGIERH)RZMVSRQIRX[L]TEVXMGYPEVTPEGIWERHIRZMVSRQIRXWEVIWMKRM´GERXJSVTISTPI (IWGVMFMRKJEGXSVWXLEXMRµYIRGIXLIZEPYIGSQQYRMXMIWEXXEGLXSTPEGIWERHIRZMVSRQIRXW +MZMRKI\EQTPIWSJTPEGIWERHIRZMVSRQIRXWXLEXEVIWMKRM´GERXXSTEVXMGYPEV GSQQYRMXMIWERHI\TPEMRMRKXLIMVWMKRM´GERGI )\TPEMRMRK[L]TEVXMGYPEVTPEGIWERHIRZMVSRQIRXWFIGSQIMQTSVXERXXSTEVXMGYPEV TISTPI

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 119 XSXLIXIEGLIV 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP ,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX XSXLIXIEGLIV ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 CLAUSE 3 TO ATTACHMENT COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 4. COMMITTEE AND CULTURE RECREATION COMMUNITY,

7IGXMSRWM\&IMRKEREGXMZIGMXM^IR 7XVERH 7SGMEP3VKERMWEXMSR 7IGXMSR´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«XZSXIMRPSGEP (IZIPSTERHWLEVIMHIEWXSKIX]SYRKZSXIVW IPIGXMSRWERH[L] MRXIVIWXIHERHTEVXMGMTEXMRK 7IGXMSRX[S4EVXMGMTEXI

7IGXMSRSRI0SGEP 'YVVMGYPYQ0MROW3ZIVZMI[ 4VSGIWWIW 7SGMEP(IGMWMSR1EOMRK 7XVERHW 7SGMEP3VKERMWEXMSR :EPYIW)\TPSVEXMSR 4PEGIERH)RZMVSRQIRX *MRHSYXEFSYXPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXMRXLIEVIE [LIVI]SYPMZIERH[LIVI]SYVWGLSSPMWPSGEXIH 1EOIWYFQMWWMSRWEWEGPEWWSREª7XVIIXW 6IRI[EP«TVSTSWEPJSVEWXVIIXGPSWIXS]SYV WGLSSP ÌiÌÃ XSXLIWXYHIRX ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 120 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 7 ÞÊÞÕÊÃ Õ`ÊÜÊ>LÕÌÊV>Ê}ÛiÀiÌ

8LMWVIWSYVGIMWEMQIHXSLIPT]SY 9RHIVWXERHEFSYXPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXGSRWYPXEXMSRERHHIGMWMSRQEOMRKTVSGIWWIW 9RHIVWXERHXLIWXVYGXYVIERHOI]JYRGXMSRWSJPSGEPKSZIVRQIRX &IGSQIERMRJSVQIHERHEGXMZIJYXYVIZSXIV

IRX &IMRZSPZIHMRPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXFIMRKEREGXMZIGMXM^IRERHLEZMRK]SYVWE]

H 'LIGOPMWX 8MGOSJJXLIWIEGXMZMXMIWEW]SYGSQTPIXIIEGLWIGXMSR 7IGXMSRSRI03'%0 *MRHSYXEFSYXPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXMRXLIEVIE[LIVI]SYPMZIERH[LIVI]SYVWGLSSPMW PSGEXIH 6IWIEVGLEª7XVIIXW6IRI[EP«TVSTSWEPXSGVIEXIEFIXXIVFEPERGIMRVSEHWTEGIYWI JSVEWXVIIXGPSWIXS]SYVWGLSSP 1EOIEWYFQMWWMSRXSXLI'SYRGMPJSVMQTVSZIQIRXWXSEPSGEPWXVIIX IWXY 7IGXMSRX[S4%68-'-4%8)

L )\EQMRI[LSHSIWERHHSIWR«XZSXIMRPSGEPIPIGXMSRWERH[L]

(IZIPSTMHIEWXSKIX]SYRKZSXIVWMRXIVIWXIHERHTEVXMGMTEXMRK

7IGXMSRXLVII)0)'8 *MRHSYXEFSYXPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXIPIGXMSRW XSX

4VMSVMXMWIXLI1E]SV«W[IIOERHTPEREQE]SVEPZMWMXXS]SYVPSGEPEVIE

;VMXI]SYVGERHMHEXITVS´PIJSVERIPIGXMSR

;SVOXLVSYKLXLIIPIGXMSRTVSGIWWEWEGPEWW

7IGXMSRJSYV()'-() 8EOISREVSPIEWERMRXIVIWXKVSYTERHVIWTSRHXSXLI:MGXSVME8S[IVMWWYI

,SPHE'SYRGMP1IIXMRKEFSYX[LIXLIVXLI8S[IVWLSYPHKSELIEH

(IWMKREWXMGOIVJSVSVEKEMRWXXLI8S[IVJIEXYVMRKEPSKSERHWPSKER

4PERJSV:MGXSVME7UYEVI«WHIZIPSTQIRXMR]IEVW«XMQI

7IGXMSR´ZI(6-:)8,69 0SSOEX[E]WXLEX]SYRKTISTPILEZIFIIRGSRWYPXIHMRXLITEWX

9WIXLIª(VMZI8LVY«[IFWMXIXSI\TVIWW]SYVSTMRMSRSREPSGEPMWWYI

(IWMKREPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXª5YMGO%RW[IVW«JIEXYVIEMQIHEX]SYRKTISTPIJSVXLI (VMZI8LVY[IFWMXI

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSRATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 121 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013PSGEP "ÛiÀÛiÜ *MRHSYXEFSYXPSGEPKSZIVRQIRXMRXLIEVIE[LIVI]SYPMZIERH[LIVI]SYV WGLSSPMWPSGEXIH 1EOIWYFQMWWMSRWEWEGPEWWSREª7XVIIXW6IRI[EP«TVSNIGX JSVEWXVIIXGPSWIXS]SYVWGLSSP

;LEXMWPSGEPKSZIVRQIRX#

0SGEPKSZIVRQIRXTVSZMHIWQER]WIVZMGIWERHJEGMPMXMIW[LMGLEJJIGX]SYVPMJI MR[E]W]SYWSQIXMQIWHSR«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«PP ´RHSYXQSVIEFSYXLS[XLI'SYRGMPERH'SQQYRMX]&SEVHWEVIIPIGXIH P

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSR ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 122 PSGEPCOMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 ;LEXHSIW]SYV'SQQYRMX]&SEVHHS#

=SYV'SQQYRMX]&SEVHMWVIWTSRWMFPIJSV'SYRGMPEGXMZMXMIWMR]SYVGSQQYRMX]8LI]EVIXLIKVSYT ]SY[SYPHGSRXEGXXSI\TVIWW]SYVZMI[WSRPSGEPMWWYIW8LI&SEVHLEWERSZIVZMI[SJVSEH [SVOW[EXIVWYTTP]WI[IVEKIWXSVQ[EXIVHVEMREKITEVOWVIGVIEXMSREPJEGMPMXMIWGSQQYRMX] EGXMZMXMIWERHXVEJ´GQEREKIQIRX[MXLMR]SYVGSQQYRMX]

=SYV'SQQYRMX]&SEVHLEWERSFPMKEXMSRXSGSRWYPXTISTPIMRXLIPSGEPGSQQYRMX]&SEVHWQYWX QEOIERERRYEPTPER[LMGLWIXWSYX[LEXXLI][MPPHSIEGL]IEVERHLS[QYGLGSRWYPXEXMSR [MXLXLIGSQQYRMX]LETTIRWEXXLIFIKMRRMRKSJIEGLERRYEPTPERTVSGIWW7SQIFSEVHWLSWX GSQQYRMX]JSVYQW[LMGLIREFPITISTPIJVSQEPPKVSYTW[MXLMRXLIGSQQYRMX]XSGSQIEPSRKERH I\TVIWWXLIMVZMI[W=SYV'SQQYRMX]&SEVHXLIRWYFQMXWMXWTPERXSXLI'MX]'SYRGMPJSVETTVSZEP ERHJYRHMRK

*MRHMRKSYXEFSYX]SYV'SQQYRMX]&SEVH

8LIVIEVIWM\'SQQYRMX]&SEVHWIEGLVITVIWIRXMRKEREVIESJ'LVMWXGLYVGL0SSOEXXLMWQETERH MHIRXMJ]XLI'SQQYRMX]&SEVH P *SVXLIWYFYVF[LIVI]SYPMZI *SVXLIPSGEXMSRSJ]SYVWGLSSP

8LMWQETMPPYWXVEXIWXLIWM\RI[[EVHWERHGSQQYRMXMIW[LMGLGEQIMRXSIJJIGXSR3GXSFIV -RIEGLGEWIXLI[EVHFSYRHEVMIWERHXLIGSQQYRMX]FSYRHEVMIWEVIMHIRXMGEP)EGL[EVH GSQQYRMX]IPIGXWX[S'SYRGMPPSVWERH´ZI'SQQYRMX]&SEVHQIQFIVWEXPEVKIEGVSWWXLI[LSPI

SGE SJXLI[EVHGSQQYRMX]'PMGOSRLXXT[[[GGGKSZXR^QETW[EVHQETWJSVEQSVIHIXEMPIHZMI[ P

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSRATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 123 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013PSGEP 7XVIIX6IRI[EP

;LIRXLI'SYRGMPVIRI[WE WXVIIXMXSJXIRVITPEGIWXLI OIVFWGLERRIPWERHJSSXTEXLW 8LMWTVSZMHIWERSTTSVXYRMX] JSVXLI'SYRGMPXSVIHIWMKRXLI WXVIIXERHMRGSVTSVEXIMRMXMEXMZIW XLEXQEOIWXVIIXWFIXXIVTPEGIW XSPMZI[SVOERHXVEZIP8LI 'SYRGMPMWMRXIVIWXIHMRHIWMKRMRK WXVIIXWXLEXTVSZMHIEFIXXIV FEPERGIMRXLIYWIWSJVSEH WTEGI8LMWMRGPYHIWKMZMRKQSVI GSRWMHIVEXMSRXSXLIPMJIWX]PI RIIHWSJXLITISTPIXLEXLEZI ERMRXIVIWXMRXLIWXVIIXIK

[EPOMRKNSKKMRKG]GPMRKTPE]MRK P XEPOMRKWMXXMRKKEVHIRMRKERH SGE HVMZMRK 8LITVMSVMX]MRWXVIIXHIWMKRMWSRPMZMRKERHGSQQYRMX]MRXIVEGXMSR[LIVIVIWMHIRXWFYWMRIWWIW TIHIWXVMERWERHG]GPMWXWGSI\MWXMRLEVQSR][MXLGEVW8LIWXVIIXWEVIHIWMKRIHWSHVMZIVWEVI E[EVIXLEXXLI]EVIMREVIEW[LIVITIHIWXVMERWERHSXLIVYWIVWEVIMQTSVXERX 8LIWIWXVIIXWX]TMGEPP]VIHYGIXLIWTIIHSJXVEJ´GGVIEXIEFIXXIVIRZMVSRQIRXERHUYEPMX]SJPMJI ERHMRGVIEWIGSQQYRMX]ERHWXVIIXEGXMZMXMIW %R]WXVIIXSXLIVXLEREQSXSV[E]SVI\TVIWW[E]GERFIVIHIWMKRIH[MXLXLIWITVMSVMXMIWMRQMRH P

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSR ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 124 PSGEPCOMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 'EWIWXYH] 'LSPQSRHIPI]%ZIRYI

'LSPQSRHIPI]%ZIRYI[EWHYI JSVOIVFMRKVIRI[EP8LMWKEZI XLI'SYRGMPERSTTSVXYRMX]XS VIWSPZIXVEJ´GERH TEVOMRKMWWYIWMRXLIEZIRYI 7EMRX1EVOW7GLSSPMWMR 'LSPQSRHIPI]%ZIRYI[LMGL QIERWMXGERFIEFYW]TPEGIEX XLIFIKMRRMRKERHIRHSJXLI WGLSSPHE] 7XVSRKGSQQYRMX]WYTTSVXQIERXXLEX VSEHLYQTWVSEHREVVS[MRKERKPI ERHVIGIWWIHTEVOMRKFE]W[IVI EFPIXSFIFYMPXXSEHHVIWWXLIWI MWWYIWGVIEXMRKEREVVS[WPS[IVERH QSVIEXXVEGXMZIIRZMVSRQIRX P 'LSPQSRHIPI]%ZIRYIGSQQYRMX] JIIHFEGOLEWFIIRZIV]TSWMXMZI WXEXMRKXLEXXLIVIGSRWXVYGXMSRLEW EGLMIZIHMXWSFNIGXMZIW 8LITVSNIGXLEWJYVXLIVIRLERGIHXLMWFIEYXMJYPXVIIPMRIHWXVIIX SGE

P 7XVIIXWEVSYRH]SYVWGLSSP

:MWMXLXXT[[[GGGKSZXR^[IFETTWTVSNIGXRSXMGIWXSMRZIWXMKEXI[LMGLWXVIIXWEVIHYIJSV 7XVIIX6IRI[EP8LIVIQE]FIWXVIIXWGPSWIXS]SYVWGLSSPXSFIVIRI[IHWSSR8LI'SYRGMP MWMRXIVIWXIHMR]SYVZMI[W =SYGSYPHEPWSPSSOEXEQETSJ]SYVWGLSSP EVIE*SGYWSRWXVIIXWGPSWIXS]SYVWGLSSP [LIVIWXYHIRXWG]GPISV[EPO8LIVIQE] EPVIEH]FIE7XVIIX6IRI[EPTVSNIGXRIEVF] [LMGL]SYGSYPHZMWMXXSLIPTTPER]SYVMHIEW (IGMHISREWXVIIX SVEWIGXMSRSJEWXVIIX XLEXGSYPHFIRI´XJVSQVIRI[EP=SYQMKLX MRGPYHIQSVIXLERSRIWXVIIX SVEWIGXMSRSJ EWXVIIX ERHLEZIXLIGPEWW[SVOMRKVSYTW

0MZMRK7XVIIXW

'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMPWXEJJGERKMZI]SY GSTMIWSJXLI0MZMRK7XVIIXWFVSGLYVI 7IEVGLXLIMRXIVRIXJSVMRJSVQEXMSREFSYXTVSNIGXWMRSXLIVTEVXWSJXLI[SVPHJSVMHIEWXLEX QMKLXWYMX]SYVWXVIIX7SQIMRXIVIWXMRK[IFTEKIWSRVIPEXIHWYFNIGXWEVI LXXT[[[XVERWEPXSVKGEQTEMKRWFVSSOP]RHFXGTMPSXLXQP LXXT[[[SHSXWXEXISVYWXIGLWIVZFMOI[EPOTPERXI\XXVEJGEPQLXQ

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSRATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 125 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013PSGEP ;LEXWSVXWSJJIEXYVIWGERFITYXMRXSE7XVIIX6IRI[EPTVSNIGX#

8LIJIEXYVIWXLEXGERFIYWIHHITIRHSRXLIX]TISJVSEHFIMRKVIRI[IH*SVI\EQTPIWTIIH FYQTW[SYPHRSXFIWYMXEFPIJSVEQEMRVSEH'SRWMHIVXLIMQTSVXERGISJXLIXVEJ´GGEVV]MRKSV ªQSZIQIRX«JYRGXMSRSJXLIVSEHMRK8V]XSFEPERGIXVEJ´GGEVV]MRKEKEMRWXSXLIVYWIW]SYQE] GSRWMHIVEVIMQTSVXERXJSVXLIVSEHWTEGI 6SEHW[LIVIXLIQSZIQIRXJYRGXMSRMWPIWWMQTSVXERXQE]FIWYMXEFPIJSV -RXIVGSRRIGXIH[EPO[E]W ;E]WSJWPS[MRKXVEJ´G¦WTIIHLYQTWGLMGERIWGEVVMEKI[E]SJJWIXWVEMWIH MRXIVWIGXMSRWTMRGLTSMRXWREVVS[IHGEVVMEKI[E]WMRXIVWIGXMSRXLVIWLSPHWSVOIVF I\XIRWMSRW*MRHSYX[LEXXLIWIXIVQWQIER=SY[MPPTVSFEFP]YWISRISVQSVISJ XLIQMRXLIHIWMKR]SYHIZIPST )EW]ERHWEJIEGGIWWJSVEPPEKIW ERHEFMPMXMIW 'SRZIRMIRXEVIEWJSVGEVWERHSXLIV ZILMGPIW 4PEGIWJSVVIGVIEXMSRERHWSGMEP

EGXMZMXMIW P SGE 'SRWYPXMRK¦MRZSPZMRKVIWMHIRXWMR ]SYV7XVIIX6IRI[EPTVSTSWEP

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

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSR ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 126 PSGEPCOMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 (IZIPSTMRKEWYFQMWWMSR

(IZIPSTEWYFQMWWMSRSYXPMRMRKLS[EWXVIIXRIEV]SYVWGLSSP IMXLIVEWXVIIXWGLIHYPIHJSV VIRI[EPSVEWXVIIX]SYLEZIWIPIGXIH GSYPHFIRI´XJVSQE7XVIIX6IRI[EPTVSNIGX/IITMRQMRH XLI'SYRGMP«WSFNIGXMZISJGVIEXMRKEFIXXIVFEPERGIMRXLIYWIWSJVSEHWTEGI=SYVWYFQMWWMSR [SYPHKS´VWXXSXLI8VERWTSVXERH'MX]7XVIIXW9RMX8LI][MPPFIKEXLIVMRKMRJSVQEXMSRJVSQQER] WSYVGIWFIJSVIQEOMRKEVIGSQQIRHEXMSRXSXLI'SQQYRMX]&SEVH

7OIXGLETPER FIJSVI 7OIXGLETPERJVSQEªFMVH«WI]I«TIVWTIGXMZIWLS[MRKXLII\MWXMRKPE]SYXSJXLIWXVIIX ERHEJXIV 0SSOEXXLMWWIGXMSRWLS[MRKWXVIIXHIZIPSTQIRXTPERW7OIXGLETPERWLS[MRKLS[XLIWXVIIX ]SYLEZIGLSWIR[SYPHFIHIZIPSTIH

8SWLS[XLIRI[JIEXYVIW]SYLEZIMRGPYHIHYWIW]QFSPWERHEOI]XSMHIRXMJ]ZEVMSYWTEVXWSJ P ]SYVTPERPMOITVSTSWIHOIVFMRKKVEWWIHEVIEWGEVTEVOMRK[EPO[E]WERHWSSR SGE P

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP 7IGXMSRATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 127 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013PSGEP 4PER[LEX]SY[ERXXSWE] ;VMXIEWLSVX[VMXXIRWYFQMWWMSRXSKS[MXL]SYVWOIXGLIW P SGE P

4VIWIRX]SYVWYFQMWWMSR 7IRH]SYV[VMXXIRWYFQMWWMSRXSXLI 8VERWTSVXERH'MX]7XVIIXW9RMX43&S\ 'LVMWXGLYVGL(ITIRHMRKSRXLIMVTVMSVMXMIW PMWXXLI][MPPPSSOEX]SYVWYFQMWWMSRFIJSVI TYXXMRKMXJSV[EVHJSVGSRWMHIVEXMSREXE 'SQQYRMX]&SEVHQIIXMRK'SRWMHIVMRKERH TVMSVMXMWMRKWYFQMWWMSRWXEOIWXMQIWSHS RSXI\TIGXERMQQIHMEXIVIWTSRWI

,EZI=SYV7E]0SGEP+SZIVRQIRX 'LVMWXGLYVGL'MX]'SYRGMP ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 128 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Attachment 1: Site Location Plan and Indicative Site Layout for HP Smith

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 129 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Attachment 1 Continued: Site Location Plan and Indicative Site Layout for Berwick Courts

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 130 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 4. 6. 2013 Attachment 1 Continued: Site Location Plan and Indicative Site Layout for Harman Courts

131 Clause 6 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 JUNE 2013

A meeting of the Planning Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 5 June 2013 at 9.15 am.

PRESENT: Councillor Sue Wells (Chairperson) Councillors Peter Beck, Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Glenn Livingstone, and Claudia Reid

IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Button for item 1

APOLOGIES: Councillor Aaron Keown for absence

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. NEW BRIGHTON – DRAFT MASTER PLAN AND WATERPARK INTEGRATION PROCESS

Please refer to clause 1 of item 7 for this report.

2. REPORT ON THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RECORDING CONCERNS ABOUT THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: Strategic Policy Unit Manager, Strategy and Planning Group, Authors: Siobhan Storey, Senior Policy Analyst,

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To provide a report on residents’ complaints with respect to the keeping of poultry in residential areas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. This report initially came from the 28 March 2013 agenda of the Planning Committee. At this meeting, the Committee recommended that the item lay on the table. The report is now presented again the consideration.

3. At its meeting of 4 April 2012 the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board received a deputation regarding the keeping of animals in residential areas with poultry being of particular concern. The Board report and staff memorandum were received by the Council at its 10 May 2012 meeting where it resolved to refer the memorandum back to the Board and subsequently to the Regulatory and Planning Committee.

4. At the Regulatory and Planning Committee meeting of 30 May 2012, staff provided the Committee with updated information on the possible development of a bylaw regarding the keeping of animals, including poultry, in residential areas. The Committee accepted staff advice not to proceed with the development of a bylaw. However, since the main concerns were related to poultry and Council did not have a complaints recording system for poultry, the Committee resolved: 132 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 2 Cont’d

“That the staff advice be received, and;

That staff ensure that the Council’s Frequently Asked Questions and requests for service enable the recording of concerns about the keeping of animals and report back to the Committee no later than February 2013.”

5. To follow up this resolution, staff created a new code on 31 May 2012 to capture requests for service from the public relating to poultry. Staff also updated the Frequently Asked Questions on the Council website about the keeping of animals (other than dogs or cats) to include information about poultry. In addition, if customers want further advice or information on the keeping of animals, Customer Services staff contact the Duty Environmental Health Officer (Environmental Compliance) on the duty number.

6. There were 20 complaints recorded about poultry between 31 May 2012 and 7 January 2013. Of these, 17 were noise related, mainly roosters crowing. Two complaints related to the possibility of rats and mice being attracted by the keeping of poultry. Two complaints were about the same property. All of the complaints were followed up by the Environmental Compliance Team and resolved by 7 January 2013.

7. Staff conclude that there are few concerns being brought to the Council’s attention about the keeping of poultry and that any concerns can be addressed through education and advice. The recording of poultry related complaints will continue on an ongoing basis.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Do the recommendations of this report align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

8. Not applicable.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

9. Not applicable.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

10. As above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

11. Not applicable.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

12. As above.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

13. Not applicable.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

14. Not applicable. 133 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 2 Cont’d

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

(a) Note the information contained in this report.

(b) Note that, on the basis of the Council’s monitoring of poultry related complaints, there is no evidence of a significant nuisance at this time.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted.

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

15. At the Regulatory and Planning Committee meeting of 30 May 2012, staff provided the Committee with updated information on the development of a bylaw regarding the keeping of animals, including poultry, in residential areas. This was in response to a resident having concerns about her neighbour’s poultry.

16. Staff had undertaken an investigation into the need for a bylaw. On the basis of information collected, staff determined there were few problems with the keeping of animals, including poultry, in residential areas and in all cases issues had been successfully resolved through advice provided by Enforcement Officers and subsequent discussion and negotiation between the parties involved.

17. The Committee accepted the staff advice not to proceed with the development of a bylaw regarding the keeping of animals, including poultry, in residential areas.

18. The Regulatory and Planning Committee resolved:

“That the staff advice be received, and;

“That staff ensure that the Council’s Frequently Asked Questions and requests for service enable the recording of concerns about the keeping of animals and report back to the Committee no later than February 2013.”

3. DISTRICT LICENSING COMMITTEES AND RELATED MATTERS UNDER THE SALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL ACT 2012

General Manager responsible: General Manager Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 Officer responsible: Legal Services Unit Manager, Legal Services Unit Author: Vivienne Wilson, Legal Services Unit

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is:

(a) to inform the Council about the requirements of the new Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (“the SSAA”) with respect to the appointment of District Licensing Committees, and their new functions and powers; and

(b) to recommend a process for selecting persons to be on a list who will be available for appointment to the District Licensing Committees; and

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The SSAA was passed on 18 December 2012. There are different rules about when various provisions of the SSAA come into force.

3. The Planning Committee has previously received reports on other aspects of the SSAA, in particular the provisions relating to Local Alcohol Policies. Some of the provisions relating to Local Alcohol Policies came into force on 18 December 2012. The provisions relating to District Licensing Committees come into force on 18 December 2013.

4. This report is concerned with the appointment of District Licensing Committees and other operational matters that will be necessary for the Council to determine before the provisions relating to District Licensing Committees come into force. The new District Licensing Committees will need to be ready to be operational by 16 January 2014.

5. The membership of each District Licensing Committee will consist of one elected member (not a community board member) (or a Commissioner) as Chairperson, and two other members drawn from a list. Only people with experience relevant to the alcohol licensing industry are able to be included on the list.

6. District Licensing Committees have various functions and powers but they will be responsible for determining applications for licences and managers certificates, renewal of licences and managers certificates and applications for temporary authorities. Where applications are unopposed, the applications may be determined by the Chairperson sitting alone.

7. Staff anticipate that the Council may need more than one Committee given the possible workload. However, the first task that needs to be completed is compilation of the list of prospective members for the Committee(s). Staff have recommended two reasonably practicable options for compiling the list.

8. Additional full time equivalent (FTE) workload for staff has already been provided for by Council in the 13/14 Annual Plan.

9. Finally, this report also covers some delegation issues which should be addressed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

10. It should be noted that in due course the fees for licensing applications and the like are going to be set by regulation. The SSAA provides that these regulations may do anything reasonably necessary to ensure that, so far as is practicable, the following are recovered out of the fees paid to territorial authorities under the SSAA:

 the total costs to territorial authorities of the performance by their District Licensing Committees of their functions  the total costs to territorial authorities of inspectors employed or contracted by them (or, where inspectors employed or contracted by them perform both the functions of an inspector and other functions, the appropriate proportion of the total costs of those inspectors)  the total costs to territorial authorities (in addition to those referred to in subparagraph (ii)) of their undertaking (directly or by agents or contractors) of enforcement activities under the SSAA.

11. Therefore, it is anticipated that the costs of the District Licensing Committees (which will include payment of fees and allowances for Committee members) will be met through licensing fees. The total costs of the Council’s liquor licensing inspectors as well as the total costs of the Council’s liquor enforcement role will also be met through licensing fees. 135 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

12. The Ministry of Justice have indicated that it will be consulting on draft fees regulations in April. Once a consultation document is released, the Council will have a better idea of the proposed fees structure.

13. In compiling a list of members who will be available for appointment to the District Licensing Committee, the Council will incur some costs in staff time in assisting with the selection process. The Council will also incur advertising costs in asking for expressions of interest from people to be included on the list.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

14. Going forwards, the draft budget for the 2013/2014 financial year allows for expenditure of $200,000 for the District Licensing Committees. For the 2014/2015 financial year, it is anticipated that expenditure for the Committee will be in the order of $400,000. It is acknowledged that it will take some time for the Committees to be fully funded by licence fees. However, it is anticipated that this should occur by 2016/2017. Therefore, $200,000 is budgeted in the Three Year Plan for the 2013/2014 year as this year will only be six months (i.e. with the SSAA coming into force at the end of this year). The amount of $400,000 is provided in the 2014/15 budget.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

15. A detailed explanation of the relevant provisions in the SSAA dealing with the appointment and functions of District Licensing Committees is set out in the background to this report.

16. One legal issue that needs to be addressed relates to what powers under the SSAA may be exercised before those provisions come into force. Section 11 of the Interpretation Act 1999 sets out what powers can be exercised between the passing and commencement of legislation.

17. The section provides that, amongst other things, the following statutory powers may be exercised before the statute comes into force or takes effect:

 appointing a person to an office or position  establishing a body of persons  doing any other act or thing for the purposes of a statute.

18. However, the power may only be exercised if it is necessary or desirable to bring, or in connection with bringing, a statute into operation.

19. It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that the Council can rely on section 11 of the Interpretation Act 1999 in order to establish and appoint District Licensing Committees before 18 December 2013. However, the Committees will not be able to carry out any functions until 18 December 2013 (and effectively 16 January 2014).

20. In terms of the delegation matters, section 198(1) of the SSAA provides that “while he or she has the territorial authority's general authority to do so, a chief executive may delegate to any person, either generally or particularly, any of the chief executive's functions, powers, and duties under this Act.” Section 198(2) states that the Chief Executive must not delegate a general power of delegation. This means that once delegated, the delegate is unable to further sub delegate. Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 states that “for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a[n]… officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers” except for certain specified responsibilities, duties and powers.

21. There is a tidy-up matter in relation to a delegation under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The Legal Services Unit considers that the Council can rely on the power in the Local Government Act 2002 to delegate the power to issue various certificates under Sale of Liquor Act 1989. 136 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

22. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

23. Not applicable.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

24. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

25. The Council does not have an alcohol strategy but it is currently working on a draft Local Alcohol Policy. The Local Alcohol Policy will deal with various licensing matters.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

26. See above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

27. Staff have discussed this report with the Liquor Licensing team and the Democracy Services Unit.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Note the contents of this report, and that the decision as to the number of District Licensing Committees, and the Chairperson(s) will be made after the triennial general elections in October 2013.

(b) Start the process of compiling a list of persons approved to be members of its District Licensing Committees in the following way:

(i) advertising for expressions of interest from those persons who would like to be included in the list and are suitably qualified;

(ii) authorising the Inspections and Enforcement Manager to manage the expressions of interest selection process;

(iii) a panel comprising a Councillor as the chair and two staff members (the Inspections and Enforcement Manager and the Democracy Service Manager) will then recommend persons to be included in the list from the expressions of interest;

(iii) the Inspections and Enforcement Manager reports back to the Council after the 2013 elections with this recommended list for the Council to determine the roles and membership of the District Licensing Committee(s).

(c) Appoint a Councillor to chair the Expression of Interest panel that selects and recommends persons to the complied list for the Council’s approval post 2013 election.

(d) Delegate up and until the close of 18 December 2013 to the Council’s Liquor Licensing Inspectors, the power of the Council, under sections 9(1)(e), 31(1)(e) and 55(1)(e) of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, to issue certificates. 137 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

(e) Delegate, on and from 18 December 2013, to the Council’s Liquor Licensing Inspectors the power of the Council, under section 100(f) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, to issue certificates.

(f) That the Chief Executive has, on and from 18 December 2013, the Council’s general authority to delegate to any person any of the Chief Executive’s functions, powers and duties under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted, with paragraphs (b) and (c) subject to a full Council workshop. This Workshop is to receive a briefing on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the implications of this Act for the Council.

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

28. One of the SSAA’s policy objectives is to improve the operation of the alcohol licensing system.

District Licensing Committees

Functions and Powers

29. To this end, the SSAA requires the establishment of District Licensing Committees. These Committees will perform the functions currently fulfilled by District Licensing Agencies, as well as a number of functions that are currently performed by the Liquor Licensing Authority. A Committee is a first instance hearing body and is tasked with the bulk of the workload of determining liquor licensing applications.

30. Under section 186 of the SSAA, each territorial authority must appoint one or more Licensing Committees as, in its opinion, are required to deal with licensing matters for its district.

31. The functions of the Committees are set out in section 187 of the SSAA and include:

(a) to consider and determine applications for licences and manager's certificates; and

(b) to consider and determine applications for renewal of licences and manager's certificates; and

(c) to consider and determine applications for temporary authority to carry on the sale and supply of alcohol in accordance with section 136; and

(d) to consider and determine applications for the variation, suspension, or cancellation of special licences; and

(e) to consider and determine applications for the variation of licences (other than special licences) unless the application is bought brought under section 280; and

(f) with the leave of the chairperson for the licensing authority, to refer applications to the licensing authority; and

(g) to conduct inquiries and to make reports as may be required of it by the licensing authority under section 175; and

(h) any other functions conferred on Licensing Committees by or under the SSAA or any other enactment. 138 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

32. At present if there is an objection on an application for an on-licence, off-licence, or club licence, then these are currently determined by the Liquor Licensing Authority. Non-opposed objections are determined by the District Licensing Agency. Non-opposed and opposed applications for special licences are dealt with by the District Licensing Agency. In terms of managers certificates, non-opposed applications are determined by the District Licensing Agency and opposed applications are determined by the Liquor Licensing Authority.

33. However, under the SSAA a Committee remains the first port of call to decide on any application, but with the leave of the chairperson of the Licensing Authority, it may refer an application to the Authority for decision.

34. Under the SSAA, Licensing Committees within the scope of their jurisdiction must be treated as a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908.

35. Section 189 of the SSAA deals with the membership of the Committee. Each Committee must consist of three members appointed by the territorial authority. The Council must appoint one member as the Chairperson and that person must be an elected member of the Council1 or a commissioner appointed to the Licensing Committee. There is also an ability to appoint an elected member to be the deputy chairperson of the Committee. The deputy chairperson may act in the place of the chairperson if the chairperson is unable to act because of illness or absence from New Zealand, or for other sufficient reason.

36. The other two members of the Committee must be appointed from the Council’s “list”. Under section 192 of the SSAA, the Council must establish, maintain and publish a list of persons approved to be members of the Council’s Licensing Committee. In order to be on the "list", persons must have experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters. However, constables, Licensing Inspectors, Medical Officers of Health, as well as Council employees are disqualified from being on the list as are persons who have, directly or by virtue of their relationship with another person, such an involvement or appearance of involvement with the alcohol industry that they could not perform their duties without actual bias or the appearance of bias. The Health Promotion Agency (formerly ALAC) have informed staff that they in conjunction with Local Government New Zealand are establishing a list of competencies for persons who should be included on a list. This will in turn help the Council with the appointments to the list.

37. With respect to whether Councillors must also have experience relevant to licensing matters, sections 189 and 192 of the SSAA are not particularly clear on this point. However, the Ministry of Justice recently advised that “The chairperson is a member of a DLC so must have the same qualifications as any other member and also be able to take on the extra duties of a chairperson.” It is the view of the Legal Services Unit that it would be prudent for the Council to appoint only those elected members that have experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters. The Council may be able to have some sort of training programme for Councillors to get them up to speed in order to able to sit on the Committee.

38. A person may be approved for inclusion in a list for a period of up to five years and may be approved for any one or more further periods of up to five years.

39. With respect to the appointment of commissioners, the chief executive of the Council may, on the recommendation of the Council, appoint a commissioner or commissioners to any of the Council’s Licensing Committees. The chief executive may only make such an appointment if the person concerned is of good standing in the community and has the necessary knowledge, skill, and experience relating to matters that are likely to come before the Committee. Again, the same disqualifications as outlined in paragraph 34 above apply. It would appear that we first have to identify the names of prospective commissioners. The Council then recommends that these persons are appointed as commissioners and the chief executive appoints them.

1 A community board member may not be appointed in the stead of the elected member of the Council. 139 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

40. A commissioner holds office for a term, stated when the commission is appointed, of up to five years and maybe reappointed for one or more further periods of up to five years.

Meetings of Licensing Committees etc

41. The SSAA provides that meetings of a Licensing Committee may be held at any time and place it or the chairperson decides. At a meeting where three members are present, the decision of a Licensing Committee on any matter is determined by a majority of the valid votes recorded on it.

42. The quorum for a meeting of the Committee is three members. However, where the Committee is to decide an application of the type listed below and no objection has been filed and no matters of opposition have been raised, the quorum necessary is one member who must be the chairperson. These applications are:

 an application for a licence  an application for a manager’s certificate  an application for renewal of a licence or manager’s certificate.

43. The SSAA expressly states that every Licensing Committee is a Committee of its territorial authority. The provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“the LGOIMA”), other than Part 7, apply to every Licensing Committee. Part 7 of the LGOIMA governs local authority meetings. This means that those provisions do not apply to meetings of the Licensing Committee. For example:

 Section 46 relating to public notification of meetings  Section 46A relating to availability of agendas and reports  Section 47 relating to meetings being open to the public.

44. However, the SSAA contains specific provisions which deal with the way in which the District Licensing Committees must conduct its meetings. For example, if the District Licensing Committee holds a public hearing to decide an application, the Committee must give at least 10 working days’ notice of the public hearing to the applicant, each objector, the police, the inspector, and the Medical Officer of Health. Once the District Licensing Committee holds a public hearing, it generally must be held in public (although there are some exceptions). For example, whenever the Committee holds a public hearing it may in its discretion hold any part of the sitting in private if, having regard to the interests of persons appearing and being heard and to the public interest, it thinks it proper to do so.

Role of Chairperson

45. The chairperson of a Licensing Committee will have an important role. As noted above, this chairperson must either be an elected member or a commissioner. The powers of the chairperson are:

 determining the time and place of meetings  determining unopposed applications as referred to above  chairing meetings.

Fees and Allowances for Committee Members

46. Section 195 of the SSAA provides for the payment of fees and allowances for Licensing Committee members. Members (including elected member appointees) will be entitled to receive remuneration for services as a member at a rate and of a kind determined by the Minister of Justice in accordance with the fees framework. The fees framework is the framework determined by the Government from time to time for the classification and remuneration of statutory and other bodies in which the Crown has an interest. Members will also be entitled to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable travelling and other expenses 140 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d incurred in carrying out their office as a member. This remuneration paid under the SSAA will be in addition to their councillor salary. This will be determined separately by the Minister of Justice. While staff understand the Remuneration Authority is not involved in the setting of these fees and staff expect that these fees might be treated in the same way as fees paid to councillors sitting on a RMA hearings panel.

47. It should be noted that in due course the fees for licensing applications and the like are going to be set by regulation. The SSAA provides that these regulations may do anything reasonably necessary to ensure that, so far as is practicable, the total costs to territorial authorities of the performance by their District Licensing Committees of their functions. Therefore, it is anticipated that the costs of the District Licensing Committees (which will include payment of fees and allowances for Committee members) will be met through licensing fees. Drafts of fees regulations have not yet been circulated for consultation.

Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority

48. For completeness, it is noted that the current Liquor Licensing Authority will be replaced by the new Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority. The Authority is intended to operate primarily in an appellate role (although some matters can be referred directly to it).

49. The Authority has the following functions:

 to consider and determine applications for licences, renewals, variations and manager's certificates (including renewals), when those matters are referred to it by a Licensing Committee;  to consider and determine appeals from decisions of a Licensing Committee;  to consider and determine appeals against elements of draft Local Alcohol Policies;  to consider and determine applications by inspectors and constables for the variation, suspension or cancellation of licences and manager's certificates; and  any other functions conferred on it.

50. Generally the Authority is intended to operate at a higher level than the current Liquor Licensing Authority. The new Authority is tasked with determining applications for variation, suspension and cancellation of licences and manager's certificates. As noted above, all other applications, opposed or otherwise, are to be considered and determined by the newly established District Licensing Committees.

51. The Authority will be comprised of up to three District Court Judges and any number of other members. It can refer matters to the District Licensing Committees for investigation and may issue practice directions for the purpose of ensuring that the application and administration of the Act is consistent.

Transitional Arrangements

52. There are currently a number of transitional provisions in place to provide for the change between the now repealed Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the new SSAA. If an uncontested application has not been determined by the Council’s District Licensing Agency before 18 December 2013, it will be considered by the Council’s new District Licensing Committee. The District Licensing Committee will need to deal with the application under the relevant Act (ie, either the old or new Act, depending on when the application was filed).

Secretary of the Licensing Committees

53. Section 196 of the SSAA provides that the Council’s chief executive is the secretary of its Licensing Committees. This maintains the status quo where the chief executive is the secretary of the District Licensing Agency. 141 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

54. The secretary’s function includes various record keeping roles and administrative tasks as set out in the SSAA. For example:

 issuing licences, authorities and certificates etc following the decision of the Licensing Committee or the Authority under section 64;  keeping records of applications and sending copies to the Authority under section 66;  providing copies of objections to applications to the applicant under section 102;  providing copies of applications to specified parties under section 103.

55. The SSAA also provides that while the chief executive has the Council's general authority to do so, the chief executive may delegate to any person, either generally or particularly, any of the chief executive's functions, powers, and duties under the SSAA. However, the chief executive must not delegate a general power of delegation.

Licensing Inspectors

56. The SSAA provides for the chief executive of the Council to appoint licensing inspectors. Licensing inspectors monitor licensees' compliance with the SSAA and have the other functions, powers, and duties conferred on them by or under the Act. For example, inspectors must inquire into, and file with the Licensing Committee a report on, every licensing application. The SSAA is clear that inspectors must act independently when exercising and performing their functions, duties, and powers and the Council must take steps to ensure that its inspector or inspectors are able to act independently.

57. The SSAA also provides that if more than one inspector is appointed by the Council then it must appoint one of the inspectors to be its chief licensing inspector. The function of a chief licensing inspector is to foster consistency in enforcement of this Act.

General Issues Relevant to Compiling the List of Prospective Members

58. In order for the Council to have its District Licensing Committee (or committees) up and running by 18 December 2013, the Council needs to decide how it wishes to compile a list of prospective members.

59. There is no guidance in the SSAA as to how a Council compiles such a list. Therefore it is open to this Council to determine its own process.

60. Staff consider that the Council's new District Licensing Committee will have a relatively high workload. In the year ending 30 June 2012, the Council received the following number of applications:

Category Number of Applications Received On-Licence – new/renew/variation 279 Off-Licence – new/renew/variation 114 Club Licence – new/renew/variation 67 General Managers Certificate – 1278 new/renew Club Manager – new/renew 60 Special Licence 1022 Temporary Authority 77

142 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

61. Staff anticipate that there are likely to be the same number of applications in the future and the workload may well be greater as applicants test the boundaries of the new provisions in the SSAA and the application of the Local Alcohol Policy. Therefore, staff are of the view that the list should comprise at least 20 persons.

62. In due course, the Council will also need to consider whether it wishes to have one or more Committees. If it wishes to have more than one Committee, it will need to determine whether to recommend the appointment of commissioners to assume the role of chairperson of any Licensing Committee. As noted above, on the recommendation of the Council, the Chief Executive appoints a commissioner or commissioners to any of the Council’s Licensing Committees. Again, given the anticipated workload, staff consider that the Council will probably require at least two District Licensing Committees. These can either be chaired by an elected member or a Commissioner. However, it is suggested that the decision as to the number of District Licensing Committees and the question as to who will chair these Committees is determined after the triennial general elections in October 2013.

Delegation Issues

63. In the course of determining what administrative machinery needs to be put in place before the SSAA licensing provisions come into force on 18 December 2013, staff have also considered what delegations would be desirable in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency.

64. The Chief Executive as the Secretary of the Council’s District Licensing Committee will have a large number of administrative tasks, for example, issuing licences (once granted by a Committee), keeping records of every application filed and every associated decision, keeping a register of special licenses, appointing liquor licensing inspectors and the like. As noted above, section 198 of the SSAA provides that in terms of the delegation matters, section 198(1) of the SSAA provides that “while he or she has the territorial authority's general authority to do so, a chief executive may delegate to any person, either generally or particularly, any of the chief executive's functions, powers, and duties under this Act.”

65. Given the probable workload, it is desirable that the Council provides general authority to the Chief Executive to delegate these administrative tasks in due course to the appropriate staff members. If this delegation is accepted it is proposed that it will take effect on and from 18 December 2013.

66. One other delegation matter that has been identified relates to the issuing of certificates under section 100(f) of the SSAA. Every application for a licence (whether it be on-licence, off-licence or club licence, but except for conveyances) must be accompanied by a certificate of the territorial authority that the proposed use of the premises meets requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 and of the building code. This is the same requirement that has applied under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. In practice, these certificates have been issued by the Council’s liquor licensing inspectors, after advice from the Council’s planners and building officers. However, it would be desirable to record this in the delegations register going forward under both the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the SSAA.

THE OBJECTIVES

67. To determine what process the Council would like to adopt in establishing a list of persons approved to be members of the Council’s Licensing Committee, noting that in order to be on the "list", persons must have experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters.

68. The process must be such that it disqualifies persons who have, directly or by virtue of their relationship with another person, such an involvement or appearance of involvement with the alcohol industry that they could not perform their duties without actual bias or the appearance of bias.

69. To provide for delegation issues to ensure a smooth transition under the provisions of the SSAA, and to contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council. 143 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

THE OPTIONS

Compilation of List

70. The Council will compile a list of persons approved to be members of the Council’s Licensing Committees. The list will be compiled by the Council first advertising for expressions of interest from those non elected member persons who would like to be included in the list. Any person providing so interested must show how they have experience relevant to alcohol licensing matters. They must also be able to show that they are not disqualified in terms of the SSAA by answering a number of specific questions. A panel comprising a Councillor as the chair and two staff members (the Inspections and Enforcement Manager and the Democracy Service Manager) will then select persons to be included in the list from the expressions of interest.

Delegations

71. Option 1 – do nothing.

72. Option 2 – provide for new delegations. The new delegations will take effect under both the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the SSAA in due course.

73. Option 2 is the preferred option. It enables the Council to tidy up the current delegations so that various responsibilities, duties, and functions can by carried out by, or subdelegated to the most appropriate officers.

4. CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

General Manager responsible: General Manager Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Building Operations Author: Ethan Stetson, Unit Manager Building Operations and John Higgins, Resource Consents Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To provide the Council with a monthly update on the consenting rebuild. This report covers the month of April 2013.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The Council has agreed that the Chief Executive would report regularly to the Council on progress with regard to the consenting rebuild work.

3. The report (Attachment 1) is the regular monthly report that is provided to both the Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA).

4. The Council considered the information in the report at its meeting of 2 February 2012. Staff is continually seeking to improve the information provided and welcome feedback and direction from the Council.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receive the Consenting Rebuild Monthly report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended to the Council:

(a) That the Consenting Rebuild Monthly report be received. 144 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

(b) That staff report to the Planning Committee on the possible revision of building consenting Key Performance Indicator’s to better reflect realistic performance indicators.

(c) That staff report to the Planning Committee on any pressing resource requirements to support the Building Consent Unit.

5. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY ON THE NZTA NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR CHRISTCHURCH SOUTHERN MOTORWAY STAGE 2

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: Scott Blair, Senior Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to:

(a) Remind the Council of its resolutions on 6/7 December 2012 to make a submission on the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) Notice of Requirement for the Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 (CMS 2) that NZTA lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The staff report leading to this resolution is in Attachment 1;

(b) Inform the Council of negotiations between the Council and NZTA staff in regard to resolution of issues raised in the Council submission on the Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 Notice of Requirement;

(d) Recommend to the Council that it change aspects of its resolution of 6/7 December 2012 so that staff can advise the EPA and present evidence at the hearing of the Notice of Requirement identifying that parts of the Council submission have been satisfied by the position reached in negotiations with NZTA; and

(e) Recommend to the Council that it form a panel comprising the Chairperson of the Planning Committee and the General Manager Strategy and Planning with delegation to consider, and if appropriate, for them to authorise the Council’s staff to agree to further refinements to the Council position, by producing evidence and legal submissions and/or attending the Board of Inquiry hearing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. On 7 November 2012 the NZTA lodged a Notice of Requirement for a Designation with the EPA, for the CSM 2 to be included in the Christchurch City District Plan. The CSM 2 is one of the Central Government’s Roads of National Significance (RONS). Approximately one third of the proposed route is within the Council’s territorial area with the remaining two thirds in the Selwyn District Council territorial area. The route of the motorway is shown in an attachment to Attachment 1.

3. Because this Notice of Requirement (NoR) was lodged with the EPA, the Council’s role changed from one of processing the Notice of Requirement and making recommendations to NZTA, to one of being a submitter on the NoR requesting the EPA to address the Council’s concerns. Staff advised the Council to make a submission on the NoR in a report considered by the Planning Committee in November 2012 and then the Council on 6/7 December 2012. A Board of Inquiry has been appointed to hear the submissions in July 2013 and make a decision on those submissions before the end of September 2013. 145 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

4. The Council’s 6/7 December 2012 resolution was:

It was resolved that the Council:

(a) Make a submission on the Notice of Requirement for the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 which supports the Notice of Requirement in principle; but that the Council seeks that:

(i) The ‘full access ramps’ connecting the CSM to Halswell Junction Road, in both directions, are included in the Notice of Requirement and constructed as part of the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2.

(iii) The proposed landscaping within the Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 corridor through the Plan Change 54 area be designed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Christchurch City Council and that this form part of the conditions on the designation.

(iv) The ability for the Christchurch City Council to review, and certify, the final Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 stormwater design at the Owaka facility to ensure that the Christchurch City Council’s stormwater system is protected or accommodated form part of the conditions on the designation.

(v) The proposed advice note on conditions that reads as per the text below, or has the same effects as, not being included in the final Notice of Requirement.

The documentation provided in support of the Notices of Requirement for the Designations contains all of the information that would be required to be provided within an outline plan under section 176A of the RMA, and no separate outline plans will be submitted.

(vi) That providing the Selwyn District Council does not oppose the Halswell Junction Road ramps in the Notice of Requirement and their construction, the Christchurch City Council agree to enter into a memorandum of understanding with its UDS partners Selwyn District Council, New Zealand Transport Agency, and Environment Canterbury to work collaboratively and investigate what works might be needed to manage the wider transportation network to alleviate potentially significant ‘place and space’ amenity effects on Prebbleton, if any are identified through investigation. Works on the wider transportation network might include:

 Work on an Ellesmere link; and/or  Works on Marshs and Springs Road (subject to Public Transport constraints); and/or  Ramp metering; and/or  Cross connections; and/or  Proceeding with the Wigram Magdala link.

And 146 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d (b) Delegate to the General Manager Strategy and Planning the authority to finalise, and submit the submission and the submission points referred to in (a) on the Notice of Requirement for the Christchurch Southern Motorway 2, and to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Selwyn District Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Environment Canterbury on behalf of the Christchurch City Council on the basis of resolution (a)(vi).

5. Following receipt of the Council submission in March 2013, NZTA staff considered the contents of the submission and then contacted Council staff in April 2013 to discuss potential resolution of issues raised in the submission. The Board of Inquiry appointed to hear the submissions have directed that the parties (NZTA, Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council) are to try to further define and resolve as many issues as possible before the hearing starts. Council staff are now satisfied that a number of the matters raised in the submission have been satisfactorily addressed as between the Council and NZTA as discussed below, such that the Council position can be modified prior to the preparation of necessary expert evidence and the commencement of the Board of Inquiry hearing. The requested resolutions in this report narrow the range of issues that Council staff will produce evidence on. They do not seek to widen the range of issues in any way.

6. NZTA staff reviewed the CSM 2 landscaping proposal as it traverses through the Plan Change 54 area as lodged with the notice of requirement and offered the alternative landscaping proposal shown in Attachment 2. Taking into account the operational requirements of NZTA, Council staff are satisfied that the landscaping offered is acceptable. NZTA staff have given an undertaking to incorporate the new landscape plan in the documents to be presented to the NoR hearing process. NZTA landscaping evidence received on 22 April 2013 refers to and recommends to new landscaping arrangement.

7. Council staff have been discussing with NZTA staff the resolution of the stormwater design at Owaka Basin. NZTA staff maintain that the design of the stormwater system cannot be finalised at this point of the design process, but recognise that the Council has issues that need to be addressed. They have suggested that the Council enter into a memorandum of understanding with NZTA that would ensure that the parties work together in good faith to ensure that the stormwater requirements of both parties be resolved in a manner that does not put the Council in any worse position re operational requirements or financial expenditure than it would if the Owaka basin were constructed in accordance with the Council’s current design. The draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is now agreed in principle with NZTA and both Council staff and legal Counsel consider that it contains sufficient protection of the Council’s interests such that it no longer needs to pursue the subject matter of its submission before the Board of Inquiry.

8. Discussions have been had about the drafting of the Advice Note with and an agreement on an alternative wording for the advice note satisfactory to the parties has been reached as follows:

The support documentation provided in support of the Notices of Requirement for the as confirmed in the designations contains all the information that would be required to be provided with an Outline Plan under Section 176A of the RMA, therefore no separate Outline Plans for construction of the works shown in the said support documentation will be submitted.

9. A legal question has arisen as to whether the Board of Inquiry has the jurisdiction to impose the advice note in the first place. Agreeing to the Advice Note should be subject to the Board of Inquiry hearing legal submissions on whether it has the jurisdiction to impose the note.

10. Hearings conducted under the Resource Management Act can be ‘fluid’ and it is not uncommon for positions of parties to change as evidence is presented and understanding of issues become clarified – even when the submitter was sure of their grounds when making the submission. It is also not uncommon for negotiations to continue during but outside of hearings. The Council has stated its position in the submission. Staff are continuing to discuss the submission with other parties. Because of the fluid nature of negotiations and hearings it may be necessary for staff to seek authorisation, in a very short period, from the Council to reach an agreement or refinement of position that is other than that as set out in the 147 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d submission. Council reporting processes and the Board of Inquiry timeframes are such that it will probably not be possible to report back to the Council within timeframes for responses required by the Board of Inquiry.

11. It is therefore recommended that the Council delegate to a ‘panel’ comprising the Chairperson of the Planning Committee and the General Manager Strategy and Planning the ability to agree to any new position (particularly relating to the matter of the ramps), upon hearing reasons for the change of position from Council staff.

12. The Council’s options are to:

(a) Do nothing: Not change the submission points or agree the delegations as recommended.

(b) Amend the position in the submission in accordance with the agreed matters as set out in this report and continue to pursue the outstanding matters before the Board of Inquiry.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

13. Pursuing the submission as lodged will impose a financial cost on the Council in terms of staff time to develop and present the submission, and if necessary specialist consultant or legal counsel fees to help draft and present evidence and legal argument in support of the submission.

14. Withdrawing or modifying parts of the submission will impose a lower financial cost on the Council. There will be some ongoing staff costs in terms of time associated with concluding negotiations prior to the hearing. Evidence, if any, for the hearing would be limited to what is necessary to protect the Council’s.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with LTCCP budgets?

15. The recommendations and costs incurred align with the District Planning budget and work programme as provided for under the 2009-2019 LTCCP budget.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

16. The Council has made a resolution to make a submission on the NoR on specific points. Council staff cannot set out a ‘Council’ position on the notice of requirement at the Board of Inquiry hearing on the NoR that is different from that of the original resolution without authority from the Council to do so.

17. Now that the submission has been made the Council can narrow or clarify the range of existing issues in the submission, or even withdraw the submission entirely, but it cannot now add issues that it has not previously addressed in the submission.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

18. This project falls within the District Planning Activity Management Plan.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

19. The CSM 2 project aligns with and has been signalled by:

 The Urban Development Strategy; and  The Christchurch Rolleston Environments Transportation Study; and  Draft Christchurch Transport Plan – Particularly Goal 3 Support Economic Vitality; and  Greater Christchurch Transport Statement; and  The South West Area Plan; and  Regional Land Transport Strategy; and  Draft Regional Public Transport Plan. 148 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

20. Statutory timeframes post public notification of the NoR and the scheduling of the hearing by the EPA has not enabled consultation with the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board by Strategy and Planning staff.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Revoke its resolutions of 6/7 December of 2012 (a)(iii) and (a)(iv) that authorised the General Manager Strategy and Planning to make a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority on the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 Notice of Requirement seeking:

 landscaping in the Plan Change 54 area, and  certification of the final design of the Owaka Basin facility.

And resolve that those resolutions be substituted with the following:

That the General Manager Strategy and Planning change the Council position to support the New Zealand Transportation Agency’s Notice of Requirement for Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 and in particular:

 the replacement landscaping plan for the Plan Change 54 area;  the amended advice note, provided the Board of Inquiry has the jurisdiction to impose an advice note to this effect in the first place; and  that Christchurch City Council maintain an interest in the design of the Owaka Basin and has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on the design of the facility with the New Zealand Transport Agency to ensure the Notice of Requirement process outcomes do not conflict with the Council’s required stormwater outcomes needed.

And that staff evidence to be given to the Board of Inquiry reflects this change of position.

(b) Reaffirm the Council’s 6/7 December 2012 resolutions:

(a) Make a submission on the Notice of Requirement for the Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 which supports the Notice of Requirement in principle; but that the Council seeks that:

(ii) In the alternative to ‘(i)’ if the full access ramps at Halswell Junction Road are either down graded to ‘freight only’ or removed completely then the diamond interchange on Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 and the intersection on Marshs Road and Shands Road be redesigned so that it can safely and efficiently operate with the increased vehicle movements that will result from the down grade or removal of the full access ramps. It is acknowledge that this may require redesign and re-public notification of the Notice of Requirement to extend the area of the proposed designation. 149 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d (vi) That providing the Selwyn District Council does not oppose the Halswell Junction Road ramps in the Notice of Requirement and their construction, the Christchurch City Council agree to enter into a memorandum of understanding with its UDS partners Selwyn District Council, New Zealand Transport Agency, and Environment Canterbury to work collaboratively and investigate what works might be needed to manage the wider transportation network to alleviate potentially significant ‘place and space’ amenity effects on Prebbleton, if any are identified through investigation. Works on the wider transportation network might include:

(c) Delegate to the General Manager Strategy and Planning the authority to sign the Owaka Basin Stormwater Design Memorandum of Understanding with the New Zealand Transport Agency on behalf of the Christchurch City Council.

(d) Delegate to the Chairperson of the Planning Committee and the General Manager Strategy and Planning the authority to agree to any further negotiated outcomes between Christchurch City Council, New Zealand Transport Agency, the Board of Inquiry, and other parties reached before or during the hearing of submissions on the Notice of Requirement.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

The Project

21. In early November 2012 the New Zealand Transport Agency lodged a NoR for a Designation for the Christchurch Southern Motorway 2 (CSM 2) to be included in the Christchurch City District Plan with the Environmental Protection Authority. The CSM 2 is one of the Government’s Roads of National Significance (RONS). Approximately one third of the proposed route is within the Council’s territorial area with the remaining two thirds in the Selwyn District Council’s territorial area.

22. The route of the motorway is shown in an attachment to Attachment 1. It is a continuation of the Christchurch Southern Motorway 1 (CSM 1) which is under construction and due for completion in December of 2012. CSM 1 currently connects to Halswell Junction Road, Springs Road and Wilmers Road at a major roundabout. The CSM 2 will bypass this roundabout and continue in a south western direction across what is currently greenfield land that has been (or is signalled to be) rezoned for industrial development where it traverses Marshs Road, which marks the boundary between the Council’s and Selwyn District Council’s territorial areas. Local roads Halswell Junction Road, Springs Road and Marshs Road will be elevated over the new motorway. The Hornby Industrial Rail Corridor (now mostly disused or used as part of the Little River Rail Trail) will be severed by the motorway. The motorway itself will be median separated four lanes with barriers. The cycle-path currently under construction on CSM 1 will be extended along the southern side of CSM 2 to connect to the Hornby Industrial Rail Corridor and then the Little River Rail Trail. Full access ramps, that connect Halswell Junction Road to the motorway in both directions were shown on pre application plans provided to the Council’s staff. Commencement of construction of CSM is expected in 2015. 150 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

23. The CSM 2 project is listed as a “Road of National Significance” in the Central Government’s roading policy and strategy. The project also aligns with and has been signalled by a number of the Council’s policies, or policies to which it is a partner including:

 The Urban Development Strategy; and  The Christchurch Rolleston Environments Transportation Study; and  Draft Christchurch Transport Plan; and  Greater Christchurch Transport Statement; and  The South West Area Plan; and  Regional Land Transport Strategy; and  Draft Regional Public Transport Plan.

The Council’s submission on the CSM2 Notice of Requirement and ongoing discussions:

24. On 6/7 December 2012 the Council resolved to make a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority on a number of aspects relating to the design of the motorway in the notice of requirement for the CSM2. That resolution is set out in paragraph 4 of this report. The following sets out some background to the issues, and the negotiation process that Council staff and NZTA staff have been engaged in to try to resolve as many submission points as possible prior to the formal hearing of submissions before the Board of Inquiry appointed by the EPA in July 2013.

25. As a general principle staff try to resolve issues with the Council’s Urban Development Strategy partners in a collaborative and mutually satisfactory fashion, and in this instance discussion between the partners has continued after the close of submissions with a view to resolving issues before they reach the formal hearing stage. Further the Board of Inquiry appointed to hear the submissions in July 2013 has directed that the parties (NZTA, Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council) are to confer to define and resolve as many issues as possible. The parties are bound by these directions and ongoing discussions have been in light of this.

6/7 December 2012 Resolution III: Landscaping within the motorway corridor where it traverses the Plan Change 54 area.

26. The Calder Stewart privately requested Plan Change 54 request to rezone the land from Rural to Business 5 (Industrial) has concluded and is now ‘operative’ in the City Plan. The proposed motorway will sever about one third of the site from the balance two thirds. The motorway is not shown on the outline development plan (ODP) for the site in the City Plan and there are no landscaping provisions associated with the ODP that would screen users of the motorway from the adverse visual effects of the industrial development. This site will be the first urban entrance point to the City from the South and therefore a reasonably high level of visual amenity is important. Staff of both the Council and NZTA have met on this matter and NZTA has subsequently provided a landscape plan for the area.

27. The application documents did not include the specific amended plans discussed in the above paragraph. The plans as lodged did, however show clumps of woodland planting within the corridor on the southern side of the motorway. Council staff’s subsequent analysis has found that this planting on the south side of the motorway will be sufficient. However the northern side did not show any landscaping at all. On receiving the Council submission NZTA staff contacted Council staff and explained that for operational reasons (shadowing and icing of the carriageway during winter months) they did not wish to install tall species along the northern edge within the corridor, but that continuous low level planting for the entire length of the PC 54 area of no greater than 2m-3m height was possible. The landscaping would be located between the northern motorway stormwater swale and the northern boundary of the designation. Revised plans have been provided and Council landscape staff have concluded that given: 151 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d  the operational safety requirements of the motorway;  the continuous length of planting;  the proposed density of one plant per 1 metre squared (which when mature will be reasonably dense);  the proposed species; and  the landscaping will be acceptable.

28. NZTA staff (with authority to do so) have given an undertaking to have the revised landscape plans substituted into the application documents. NZTA landscaping evidence for the Board of Inquiry hearing was received on 22 April 2013 that referred to and recommended the new landscaping arrangement.

6/7 December 2012 Resolution IV: Stormwater Facilities.

29. The design of the stormwater basins at Owaka for the CSM 2 could impact on the form and function of the Council’s stormwater system for the South West Integrated Catchment Management Plan. NZTA staff maintain that they are not far enough advanced in the works design process to commence a detailed design of the amended Owaka Basin to meet Council’s concerns prior to the Board of Inquiry hearing commencing in July.

30. NZTA staff and Council staff have met on several occasions to discuss the design of the basin. It has been concluded that a memorandum of understanding between NZTA and the Council can serve to protect the interests of both parties. The basic concept of the MoU is that the parties will work together in good faith and agree:

 a design solution that suits the stormwater needs of both parties; and  that the Council will be in no worse a position either in operational requirements or financially as a result of the final design.

31. With the MoU the Council can have a degree of comfort that the issues will be resolved to mutual satisfaction, with certain “bottom lines” for the Council being agreed as part of the MoU. It is recommended that the General Manager Strategy and Planning be delegated authority to sign the Owaka Basin MoU.

6/7 December 2012 Resolution V: Advice Note:

32. Staff have discussed a redrafting of the disputed Advice Note that will meet concerns about ensuring that it is the design of works, as confirmed in the final designation that will have outline plan approval waiver. That Advice Note as modified through discussions between the Council and NZTA staff would read as:

33. This wording has been included in the circulated planning evidence of the NZTA for the Board of Inquiry hearing. The NZTA has clearly indicated that they will be seeking the advice note amendment at the hearing. However a legal a question has arisen as to whether the Board of Inquiry has the jurisdiction to waive the outline plan approval when that discretion rests with the Council under s176A RMA.

34. Acceptance of the redrafted advice note should be subject to the Board of Inquiry hearing and considering legal submissions on whether it has the jurisdiction to impose the advice note.

6/7 December 2012 Resolution VI: A Memorandum of Understanding for the Ramps at Halswell Junction Road 152 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

35. In regard to the protection and construction of the ramps staff have now received the NZTA’s evidence. That evidence very closely aligns with the Council’s expert analysis and that the ramps continue to be promoted by NZTA as full access ramps.

36. The prerequisite set out in Resolution VI for entering a memorandum of understanding with NZTA and Selwyn District Council, that Selwyn District Council do not oppose the ramps has not, as yet been met. SDC made a submission seeking that the full access ramps be down graded to heavy goods vehicles (HGV) only or that in the alternative NZTA undertake works on the Selwyn District Council road network to alleviate their perceived problems with the effects on their local road network. Further NZTA have recently contacted Council staff to say that they are interested in pursuing the memorandum of understanding so as to fulfil the Board of Inquiry directions to resolve issues before the hearing commences. As it stands this can only happen if Selwyn District Council give notice to the Board that they are withdrawing those aspects of their submission that oppose the full access ramps or they produce evidence that they are no longer pursuing that the ramps be for HGV only.

Ongoing Council staff position in evidence for the Board of Inquiry Hearing

37. Full access for all vehicles at the Halswell Junction Road ramps and the legality and wording of the advice note are still significant issues that should be put before the Board of Inquiry for its determination. At this stage Council staff are preparing evidence to defend the Council’s position that the full access ramps should be constructed and be open to all vehicles to present to the Board of Inquiry and that if the advice note can be legally imposed then it be reworded.

Flexibility to respond to changing circumstances before and during the Board of Inquiry hearing

38. The Council’s submission supports the construction of the motorway as publicly notified, including details of the actual works to be undertaken, subject to resolution of the issues raised in the submission. This fundamental position has not changed (except as sought in this report). Other parties may make submissions and presentations to the Board that conflict with details of the proposal, as it was publicly notified. Staff, through the general tenor of the submission have ‘scope’ to rebut arguments that conflict with this fundamental position as they arise.

39. However hearings conducted under the Resource Management Act can be ‘fluid’ and it is not uncommon for positions of parties to change as evidence is presented and understanding of issues become clarified – even when the submitter was very sure of their grounds when making the submission. It is also not uncommon for negotiations to continue during but outside of hearings. Because of the fluid nature of negotiations and hearings it may be necessary to seek authorisation, in a very short period, from the Council to reach an agreement that is outside of the ‘scope’ of the submission (noting that fundamental support for the motorway will not change). Council reporting processes and the Board of Inquiry timeframes are such that it will probably not be possible to report back to the Council within timeframes for responses required by the Board of Inquiry to authorise a modified position.

40. It is therefore recommended that the Council delegate to a ‘panel’ comprising the Chairperson of the Planning Committee and the General Manager Strategy Planning authorisation to agree to any new position that is outside the scope of the submission should that become necessary over the course of the hearing.

Conclusions

41. Overall, taking into account the strategic significance of the Christchurch Southern Motorway, the open and collaborative discussions between NZTA staff and Council staff, and the assurances given by NZTA staff to date, the Council is in a position where it can safely change or withdraw the submission points the subject of this report whilst meeting the objectives originally sought in the submission. 153 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 3 Cont’d

42. Agreeing to delegate authority to a panel of the Chairperson of the Planning Committee and the General Manager Strategy and Planning to agree to any further negotiated outcomes between other parties reached before or during the hearing of submissions on the Notice of Requirement will give staff time efficiencies and flexibility to respond to what is likely to be a ‘fluid’ hearings process.

THE OPTIONS

Option A: Do nothing: Not change the submission points and agree the delegations as recommended

43. This option is not recommended. The matters of concern to Council set out in the submission and this report can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties without the need to put extensive specialist evidence before the Board of Inquiry. Continuing with evidence to resolve the original submission points in the way raised by the submissions will require expenditure on the part of the Council to develop extensive specialist evidence and legal submissions and present it at the Board of Inquiry hearing; and

Not delegating the authorities requested will perpetuate time and flexibility conflicts between the statutory processes for the Council resolving its position on the submission and the statutory processes that the EPA and Board of Enquiry are bound by.

Option B: Amend the position in the submission in accordance with the agreed matters and continue to pursue the outstanding matters before the Board of Inquiry

43. This option is about amending the position in the submission on agreed matters and continuing to pursue the outstanding matters before the Board of Inquiry This option is recommended for the reasons that Option 1 is not recommended. The CSM 2 is a strategically significant piece of infrastructure that will add to and enable regional economic growth.

THE PREFERRED OPTION

44. The preferred option is Option B.

PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

6. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

6.1 Regan Nolan addressed the Planning Committee regarding item 2, Report on the Request for Information recording Concerns about the Keeping of Animals.

6.2 David East and Tim Sintes addressed the Planning Committee regarding item 1, New Brighton – Draft Master Plan and Waterpark Integration Process.

PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS

7. APOLOGIES

It was resolved that an apology for absence from Councillor Keown be accepted.

The meeting concluded at 12.17 pm.

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 154

CONSENTING REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with relevant information on the performance of the earthquake related building and resource consents as considered in the report to the Council at its 2 February 2012 meeting. This report covers activity in the month of April 2013.

PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS The number of building related pre-application meetings decreased to 29 in April compared to 46 in March 2013.

BUILDING CONSENTS

There were 20 working days in April 2013 with 712 building applications received = 35.6 per day. In March there was also 20 working days with 690 building applications received = 34.5 per day.

The increased volume continues to place significant strain on our capacity. We have seen backlogs develop across all process steps – from pre-processing initial data entry through processing and into typing. The sheer volume exceeds capacity and applicants are expressing a significant level of concern at this. We acknowledge their frustration and we continue to focus on developing a range of solutions to manage the swell of demand. These include:

 Recruited 6 building consent officer cadets and have trained these individuals at most simple of consent types thus allowing higher qualified personnel to focus on more complex work

 We have engaged with an agency to recruit up to 15 more building officials (either building consent officers or building inspectors).

 We have expanded the contracts for processing services with other building consent authorities:

- Hastings District Council - existing - Professional Building Consultants (Auckland) – existing - Wellington City Council - existing - Compass (Auckland) - new - Porirua City Council - new - Thames Coromandel District Council – new.

 We hosted 17 personnel from the above building consent authorities for three days of training and familiarisation of our systems. Some had received training before and so this was a refresher for them, for others the training was entirely new.

 We are actively engaged in development of ‘streamline’ consent processes with a range of group housing companies. We believe this has potential to reduce the quantum of detailed questions to be resolved per consent.

 We continue to work with Project Management Offices aligned with insurance companies on how to make their works go faster.

 We will be implementing new technology over the next few weeks.

 We have deployed 15 additional administrative personnel to manage tasks.

 We are nearing completion of an extensive ‘Engineering Services Review’ which has scope to define new working protocols between the engineering community and the Council’s processing services.

 We are engaged in dialogue with CPIT investigating the training of their design school students to assist in processing simple residential consents. This would allow other personnel to move on to more complex works.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 155

BUILDING INSPECTIONS

2763 building inspections were completed in April 2013 with 100% of these inspections completed within three working days from being booked. Our inspection services will also soon be under intense pressure as construction works start up following issuance of building consents. Again we are actively recruiting and seeking to expand the number of inspectors we can deploy.

CODE COMPLIANCE

314 Code Compliance Certificates were issued in April 2013.

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (COA) and BUILDING EXEMPTIONS

3 certificates of acceptance were processed in April 2013. There remain 147 still outstanding including 79 current, 68 awaiting further information and 2 new applications received.

Processing of these applications is a long and detailed matter requiring many hours of customer contact often with engineers involved. For these reasons the time taken can be very lengthy.

There were 29 building exemption applications received in April and 34 remain current as at the end of the month.

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC USE (CPU)

22 certificates for public use were issued in April 2013.

CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS

During April, the advertising and communications focus has continued to raise awareness that the Council is here to give the Go Ahead, whilst also highlighting the record number of applications Council is receiving.

 Advertising in The Press (lifestyle properties feature, 19 April).

 Editorial story in The Press and on stuff.co.nz: ‘Council hires staff to handle deluge of consents’ (24 April).

 ‘Our Christchurch’ page in The Press: ‘Record applications for Christchurch residential consents’ (27 April).

 A billboard was installed and displayed on St Asaph Street for the duration of April.

Industry-specific initiatives were also implemented.

 The Go Ahead newsletter was sent on 16 April to 470 email subscribers and 264 postal subscribers. The email was opened by 47% of recipients - more than the industry average. The newsletter included stories on how slow responses to requests for more information hold up the process, existing use rights and information on the fire safety regulation changes.

 Resource and Building Consents staff manned the Council stand at the CERA Rebuild Expo on 27-28 April. Estimates on numbers of attendees were around 3,000 – 3,500. The consents staff reported being reasonably busy, having conversations with attendees throughout the duration of the Expo.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 156

RESOURCE CONSENTS The number of applications granted dropped in April from 167 to 148. This continues a trend of fluctuating numbers with an overall increase in consenting related activity. Going forward we expect to see this trend to continue (fluctuation in numbers but an overall increasing trend upwards in consenting activity).

In April, the team continued to produce excellent results. 99% of applications were processed within statutory timeframes with only one application going over time. In relation to Requests for Information (RFIs) over 89% of RFIs were issued in the first 10 working days. This too was a very good effort.

12 applications were issued in April for the Central City area; this is a decrease from 15 in March.

Temporary accommodation application numbers increased to 17 from 15 in April.

While we continue to strive for 100% of applications processed within statutory timeframes, overall the results continue to be very good. The challenge for us is to improve and maintain these good results in an environment where workloads continue to increase. We continue to proactively explore and implement process improvements so that we continue to be well positioned going forward.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 157

NUMERICS

BUILDING CONSENTS

All Consents

Month Building Building Building Applications Consents Consent Received Granted Value Significant increase in value of works Granted consented - a 35% increase in consent output February 564 457 $85,296,719 March 690 452 $103,467,550 April 712 608 $125,097,630

Building Consents – Requests for Information (RFI)

Month Build No RFI RFI 5 days RFI after RFI after Granted Required or less 5 days 20 days or more February 457 65 14% 297 65% 95 21% 8 2% March 452 66 15% 288 63% 98 22% 6 1 % April 608 61 10% 456 75% 91 15% 10 2%

Non-Earthquake Related Building Consents

Building Consents Granted in Granted in Month Type Granted ≤20 days >20 days February All 278 252 91% 26 9% Residential 230 209 91% 21 9% Commercial 48 43 90% 5 10% 79% granted within 20 working March All 250 226 90% 24 10% days but this is not sustainable Residential 176 161 91% 15 9% with current demand Commercial 74 65 88% 9 12% April All 385 317 82% 68 18% Residential 313 262 84% 51 16% Commercial 72 55 76% 17 24%

Earthquake Related Building Consents

Building Consents Granted in Granted in Month Type Granted ≤20 days >20 days February All 179 155 87% 24 13% Residential 153 130 85% 23 15% Commercial 26 25 96% 1 4% March All 202 184 91% 18 9% Residential 158 142 90% 16 10% Commercial 44 42 95% 2 5% April All 223 163 73% 60 27% Residential 186 133 72% 53 28% Commercial 37 30 81% 7 19%

Building Consents Received per TC Zone

% of % of % of New New New Month Type TC1 Builds TC2 Builds TC3 Builds February Residential 73 56% 233 36% 60 45% Commercial 1 0% 10 0% 2 0% March Residential 74 39% 239 23% 92 24% Commercial 5 0% 12 0% 8 0% April Residential 105 30% 282 18% 82 28% Commercial 7 0% 19 0% 7 0%

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 158

Building Consents Granted per TC Land Zone

% of % of % of Month Type TC1 New TC2 New TC3 New Builds Builds Builds vs vs vs repairs repairs repairs February Residential 51 53% 159 31% 54 33% Commercial 1 0% 12 0% 3 0%

March Residential 30 43% 164 26% 42 36% Commercial 2 0% 11 0% 2 0% April Residential 61 34% 229 25% 64 33% Commercial 1 0% 13 0% 3 0%

Building Consents Pre-application/Concept Stage Meetings

Total Consents Meetings Month Received Booked February 564 30 The activity of pre- application meetings has March 690 46 reduced April 712 29

All Building Inspections

Inspections EQ Inspections Booked and Booked and Month Achieved Achieved Target % Achievement February 2414 34 3 w/days All inspections 100% achieved within 3 days March 2734 103 3 w/days All inspections 100% achieved within 3 days April 2763 408 3 w/days All inspections 100% achieved within 3 days

Code Compliance Certificates Issued

EQ CCC EQ CCC Applications CCC All Types Applications Processed within CCC Month Target Granted Granted 20 working days % Achievement for all February 20 /wd 267 50 43 86% 73%

March 20 /wd 290 53 47 89% 78%

April 20 / wd 314 55 51 93% 95%

There are limitations in the processing system for Code Compliance Certificates. Tracking of time is not enabled and will not be until we have the new software installed. The 20 day target is checked on a random sample basis (40).

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 159

Building Consents: Results by values and total elapsed time

Total Value Performance Standard excluding Performance standard Number of of Description Suspension time including suspension time Consents Consents Time not to exceed 5 Time not to exceed 15 working

Consents where working days days proposed building Average is 13 working Feb Average is 24 working days 226 $6,885,440 work is less than days $150,000 (GST Average is 16 working Mar Average is 34 working days 205 $7,664,884 inclusive) days Average is 16 working Apr Average is 24 working days 327 $8,779,342 days Consents where Time not to exceed 10 Time not to exceed 20 working

proposed building working days days work value is Average is 16 working Feb Average is 34 working days 138 $39,599,829 $150,000 or days greater, but less Average is 17 working Mar Average is 41 working days 112 $31,646,065 than $500,00 days (GST inclusive) Average is 20 working Apr Average is 38 working days 146 $41,169,151 days Time not to exceed 15 Time not to exceed 25 working Consents where working days days proposed building Average is 14 working work value is Feb Average is 47 working days 18 $11,581,000 $500,000 or days greater, but less Average is 18 working Mar Average is 47 working days 33 $22,880,550 than $1,000,000 days (GST inclusive) Average is 19 working Apr Average is 44 working days 22 $15,327,143 days Time not to exceed 20 Time not to exceed 35 working Consents where working days days proposed building Average is 16 working work value is Feb Average is 39 working days 14 $27,468,000 greater than days Average is 18 working $1,000,000 (GST Mar Average is 40 working days 15 $34,027,700 inclusive) days Average is 20 working Apr Average is 47 working days 18 $59,822,000 days

Our total elapsed time results have increased as more jobs are being handled in a ‘just in time’ (20 days) fashion. It is just a reflection of the extreme demand.

As the pressure has built we are also seeing more operator errors and impacts of desktop practices. The work to improve these practices continues but it is not a quick fix. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 160

RESOURCE CONSENTS

RMA RMA applications applications granted (includes temporary Month received accommodation applications) February 191 135 March 229 186 April 206 164

Resource consent pre-application/concept stage meetings

Total applications Meetings Month received booked February 191 61 March 229 85 April 206 70

Resource consents (all consents)

RFI Processed RFI 10 working RFI within Applications No RFI 0-9 working days and Over 20 20 working Month issued required days after working days days February 128 89 36 2 0 127 (99%) March 167 119 34 14 0 164 (98%) April 148 94 37 17 0 147 (99%)

Applications RFI RFI Type of with no RFI 0-9 working ≥10 working Month Consent required % days days Total February Land use 69% 29% 2% 100% consents Subdivision 71% 29% 0% 100% consents March Land use 68% 23% 9% 100% consents Subdivision 100% 0% 0% 100% consents April Land use 62% 25% 13% 100% consents Subdivision 80% 20% 0% 100% consents

Total elapsed days (working days) – April 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-100 100+

Land use 5 37 36 24 16 11 4 Subdivision 3 4 4 2 0 1 1 Total (128) 8 41 40 26 16 12 5 Percentage 5% 28% 27% 18% 11% 8% 3%

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 161

RESOURCE CONSENTS CONTINUED

Temporary accommodation approvals  There were 17 temporary accommodation approvals in April. Below is a list of the approvals.

Displaced businesses Business Name Old Address New Zoning New Address Activity Type Bower Tavern 487 New Brighton Business 487 New Hospitality Road Brighton Rd Gloucester Street Spa 746 Gloucester Living 1 746 Gloucester Health Spas Street Street Giera Property Management 306 Main North Living 1 306 Main North Investment and Road Road office Bluelight Canterbury Youth 11 Brixton Road Living 1 185 Kirk Road Youth Programe Development Programme Mint Health and Fitness 31 Birmingham Business 5 31 Birmingham Health & Fitness Drive Drive Kate Sheppard House and 83 Clyde Road Cultural 4 83 Clyde Road Function Venue Garden Canmen 357 Gloucester Living 3 1/369A Mens Centre Street Hereford Street Christchurch City Council 74 Beatty Street Open Space 2 193 Travis Creche Road (QEII) Christchurch City Council 692 Colombo Central City 692 Colombo Car Park Street St Staples Rodway 312 Riccarton Living 1 116 Riccarton Accountancy Christchurch Limited Road Road Practice Christchurch School of 35 Cambridge Living 4C 2 Riccarton Office/classrooms Medicine Terrace Avenue East Central Convenience 18B Birmingham Business 5 218 Cashel Retail Mart Limited Drive Street Christchurch City Council 293 St Asaph Central City Manchester Car park Street Street Car Park Benjarong Thai 45 Horseshoe Business 3 111 Riccarton Restaurant Lake Road Road

Depots Activity types Business name Address Zoning Storage facility Burwood Football Club 149 Burwood Road Park Storage facility Macdow 76 Banks Avenue Special Purpose Storage facility Macdow 119/121 New Brighton Road Living 1

RMA discount requirements for applications exceeding statutory timeframes

 1 application exceeded the statutory timeframe in April. A discount of $345.00 is to be applied to this application.

Central City resource consents approved  12 out of 148 applications approved in April were within the Central City area.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 162 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 163 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 164 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 165 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 166 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 167 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 168 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 169 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 170 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 171 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 172 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 173 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 174 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 175 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 176 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 177 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 178 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 179 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 180 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 181 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 182 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 183 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 5. 6. 2013 184 185 Clause 7 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

PLANNING COMMITTEE 18 JUNE 2013

A meeting of the Planning Committee was held in the Function Room on 18 June 2013 at 9.15 am.

PRESENT: Councillor Sue Wells (Chairperson) Councillors Peter Beck, Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Aaron Keown Glenn Livingstone, and Claudia Reid

IN ATTENDANCE: The Mayor Bob Parker, Councillors Helen Broughton, Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, and Jamie Gough for item 3. Councillors Barry Corbett and Yani Johanson for items 1 and 3.

APOLOGIES: Nil.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. NEW BRIGHTON – DRAFT MASTER PLAN AND WATERPARK INTEGRATION PROCESS

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning Group, DDI 941-8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: Carolyn Bonis, Senior Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. This report responds to the Council resolution from its Three Year Plan meeting on 26 February 2013:

(a) Request a report to the Planning Committee on the Draft New Brighton masterplan, to address the process and steps required to integrate the masterplan and waterpark concepts at New Brighton

(b) Request staff to consult with key stakeholders in the New Brighton community as part of the report to Council, and recommend a process to Council on their ongoing engagement through the process.

2. This report provides contextual information for the Waterpark concept, including its relationship to the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan (the Draft Master Plan). The report outlines a process for integrating the Waterpark with the Draft Master Plan in a way that achieves optimal outcomes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3. The Draft Master Plan proposes to divide a very long block of shops in New Brighton centre - bordered by Brighton Mall, Marine Parade and Hawke Street – into two sections through constructing a new road. The eastern portion would comprise a new indoor Entertainment Hub, ‘sleeved’ by shops and restaurants to provide an active edge to neighbouring streets. This concept would require private investment, as well as land amalgamation to support the relocation of the Countdown supermarket to the west (but remaining within the centre). Possible activities within the Entertainment Hub are deliberately left wide-ranging and might comprise, for example, a cinema, climbing wall or similar. Not specified, but equally possible, are an aquarium or small salt water pools complex. 186 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

4. When the Draft Master Plan was endorsed for consultation, an alternative proposal was made public for the eastern end of this block: a Waterpark with pools and slides, extending over Marine Parade and the foreshore. The intent of the Draft Master Plan was to refocus the centre as a functioning, viable neighbourhood centre, while the Waterpark proposal suggests a bolder revitalisation outcome. Attachment 1 shows the spatial area of interest for both the Waterpark concept and the Entertainment Hub as proposed in the Draft Master Plan.

5. There is strong community support for both the Entertainment Hub and the Waterpark concepts, although the majority would prefer an aquatic facility as part of the solution for revitalisation. Attachment 2 summarises the public response to the Entertainment Hub concept. This demonstrates that although there is strong support for the Entertainment Hub, with 75 per cent of respondents in favour of the idea, many consider an aquatic facility to offer better value to the community and provide a significant ‘wow’ factor and a catalyst for revitalisation of the struggling commercial centre. While the majority favoured facilities of a similar scale to the former QEII complex, there were mixed views as to the most appropriate size, scale and location of an aquatic facility.

6. The Council’s Recreation and Sports Unit is leading a separate but related piece of work, a site options analysis to determine a location for the Council’s Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility (ER&S Facility), for which $30.5 million has been allocated. An additional $6.5 million is available for water attractions at this facility via funding from the Earthquake Appeal Trust. The ER&S Facility, wherever it is located, will also require further site specific analysis. This would include: transport and urban design implications, land purchase / amalgamation, geotechnical assessment and consenting requirements.

7. In addition, Council funding of $145 million is committed for a new Metropolitan Sports Facility in the city centre, which will include a lazy river, rapid river, water slides, spa pools, a wave or other themed pool and children’s pool with aqua play. This may have an impact on the future business case for any large Waterpark, though that is beyond the scope of this report.

8 The following paragraphs assume that either: the Council ER&S Facility will be located and developed in New Brighton; or that the Waterpark will proceed in New Brighton as a separate but complementary initiative. It does not address other revitalisation options or broader matters of Waterpark feasibility. This report sets out a process for decision-making so that a Waterpark, if established in New Brighton, achieves the best possible outcomes for the centre.

Multi criteria analysis 9. The Waterpark concept as shown in Attachment 1 is located on the same site as the Entertainment Hub. However, there may be other potential sites in and around New Brighton for a Waterpark facility.

10. In order to consider these sites and their potential to support the New Brighton centre, a multi- criteria analysis approach is recommended. This would complement the broader analysis to be undertaken by the Council’s Recreation and Sports Unit with respect to the ER&S Facility. The steps and key information relevant to the analysis are set out in Attachment 3, and comprise:

 Identification of site options in or near New Brighton centre;  High level assessment (natural hazard risk);  Neighbourhood level assessment (urban form);  Revitalisation assessment;  Site specific assessment; and  Master plan integration assessment.

11. The steps shown in Attachment 3 are indicative. They would need to be further developed and criteria would need to be weighted. At this stage, a financial cost evaluation is not factored in, and neither are the commercial elements of land availability etc. 187 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

Assessment Method and Consultation 12. The proposed approach to assessing alternative sites within New Brighton is to undertake an ‘Inquiry by Design’ workshop with key stakeholders. This would involve Council staff preparing and presenting key technical information (for example relating to transport requirements and options, urban design principals etc.), with the discussion and site assessment being undertaken by the wider group of stakeholders.

13. The benefit of this approach is that it follows an inclusive model and can be progressed without further delay. It also supports a consistent approach to considering such proposals, through incorporating the criteria used for the wider ER&S Facility assessment (being undertaken by the Recreation and Sports Unit). The output of the Inquiry by Design workshop would be the identification of a preferred site for a Waterpark within New Brighton. This would provide the Council with the option to either incorporate it into the wider consultation on locations for an ER&S Facility, or to consider it as a potential independent initiative.

14. A further matter for consideration is that a revised master plan which is significantly different from the original draft may need a further round of community consultation before its adoption.

Overall process 15. The process identified above, and its integration with other work, is shown in Attachment 4. This shows that the results of the Inquiry by Design process (paragraphs 12 and 13) will complement the work undertaken by both the Recreation and Sports Unit and the broader submissions analysis on the Draft Master Plan. These three pieces of work, once completed, will be reported to Council with recommendations on:

(a) sites for consultation for the ER&S Facility; and

(b) changes to the Draft Master Plan.

16. This process addresses how to integrate the Waterpark with the Draft Master Plan, but seeks to do so in a way that the scale, location, timing etc do not impinge on the commercial revitalisation but rather complement and potentially enhance any initiatives in the balance of the Draft Master Plan.

17. This overall process will be influenced by the scale of the Waterpark, relative to the New Brighton commercial centre and vice versa, and the need to recognise that the timing of revitalisation initiatives and the development of the Waterpark may be quite different. Similarly, the Draft Master Plan needs to be cognisant of the opportunity provided by the Waterpark but not be entirely dependant on its scale, timing, or content. These two initiatives need to be capable of being both independently and collectively successful. This matter is incorporated within one of the assessment criteria (refer to 4th bullet point in Paragraph 10).

18. At some point it will be appropriate to undertake a formal commercial business case for the Waterpark, although this will be influenced by the organisation/s that will ultimately promote or fund its development.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

19. The work identified above can be funded through existing budgets.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

20. There is budget allocated to complete the Draft Master Plan and the site assessment for the Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre. The additional work noted will come from these budgets. 188 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

21. The proposed site for the Waterpark is currently in private ownership and supports the Countdown Supermarket. The Draft Master Plan recommends that the supermarket relocate to the west, which would require amalgamation of several sites. The revision of the Draft Master Plan may identify further property and landowner implications which would need to be addressed by the council or any third party as part of an implementation plan. The site evaluation work recommended in Attachment 3 will identify those risks and opportunities as part of its evaluation process.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

22. Yes, as above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

23. Provision has been made for both the Suburban Centres Programme and the Facilities Rebuild Plan through the Annual Plan process.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

24. The Annual Plan 2012/13 includes levels of service for the recovery of Suburban Centres. New Brighton is not specifically mentioned, although Council added this master plan to the Suburban Centres Programme in April 2012 and budget was allocated for the current financial year. There are also levels of service regarding the delivery of community-based recreation and sport programmes/events and ensuring multi-purpose recreation and sport centres, swimming pools, stadia and other recreation and sporting facilities are provided.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

25. The master plans being developed through the Suburban Centres programme are consistent with the Urban Development Strategy objectives and its implementation tool - Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement. The Master Plans recognise the current hierarchy of commercial centres, and are consistent with the vision of enabling the central city to be the pre-eminent business, social and cultural heart of the City. The master plans are also consistent with District Plan objectives for improving the amenity, design and layout of suburban centres and enabling suburban centres to meet people’s needs for goods and services.

26. The Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch was approved by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on 31 May 2012. The Recovery Strategy’s goals and priorities include reference to suburban centres. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act requires that certain plans and documents should not be inconsistent with a Recovery Strategy. Whilst the Act does not specifically refer to suburban centre master plans, the Draft Master Plan is consistent with the Recovery Strategy.

27. The Central City Plan and Central Christchurch Recovery Plan indicate a Metropolitan Sports Facility (including a Metropolitan Aquatic Facility component) is to be located in the central city. Final decisions on the location and network of Council-funded aquatic facilities across the city will need to be cognisant of the wider network of facilities.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

28. There has been extensive information gathering in the preparation of the draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan. Key stakeholders, elected members and New Brighton residents have also been involved in the preparation of the Draft Master Plan and have provided feedback through the public consultation exercise. A summary of the feedback relevant to the Waterpark is provided in Attachment 2. 189 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

29. In preparing this report, officers have also held brief discussions with Environment Canterbury, New Zealand Transport Agency, the Manager of the New Brighton Business Association and their consultants, and the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Authority’s Relationship Manager for Social and Cultural Recovery for the New Brighton area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended to the Council:

(a) That it receive the information in this report;

(b) That it approve the commencement of work outlined in Attachments 3 and 4 to identify and evaluate site options for a Waterpark in New Brighton;

(c) That the evaluation be undertaken in a manner that allows the Waterpark to be incorporated into the Eastern Recreation & Sport Facility project, either as a potential location for the proposed Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility, or as a complementary site;

(d) That an Inquiry by design process be used to include key stakeholders and staff in developing a preferred location and integration model for the Waterpark and the Draft Master Plan;

(e) That staff report back to the September Council meeting on recommendations from the Inquiry by Design process and

(f) That the outcomes of the September Council meeting inform the Draft Master Plan work and the final site selection process for the Eastern Recreation & Sports Facility.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the item lay on the table until a Planning Committee meeting on 13 June 2013, at which point the Committee will receive additional information.

Please refer over to the supplementary information from the 18 June Planning Committee meeting, in which amended staff recommendations were provided.

BACKGROUND

Suburban Centre Master Plans - process

30. At its meeting on 23 June 2011 the City Council approved a programme of work including Master Plans and Case Management for identified suburban centres. At a further meeting in April 2012, the Council added New Brighton to the Master Plans work programme.

31. The master planning exercise addresses the earthquake damage within New Brighton Centre, acknowledging the additional red zoning of some of the centre’s local residential catchment and the struggles of the centre to remain viable in recent years. Preparation of the draft Master Plan has involved considerable involvement and participation from key stakeholders and the wider New Brighton community. The draft Master Plan sets out a vision for the rebuild and recovery of the centre, including a spatial plan, actions, and an implementation plan.

32. The Draft Master Plan was prepared following an initial round of workshops with key stakeholders and public drop-in sessions. At the same meeting that the Master Plan was presented for endorsement by the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board, a separate community driven proposal was tabled for a Waterpark. The Waterpark concept received initial community support and when full Council approved the Draft Master Plan for consultation, staff were requested to investigate the integration of the Waterpark concept with the Draft New Brighton Master Plan further. 190 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

Consultation on the Draft Master Plan

33. Consultation on the Draft Master Plan ran from 17 December 2012 until 18 February 2013. Two public drop-in sessions were held in New Brighton where people had the opportunity to discuss the plan’s contents with Council staff. The two Community Board champions for the Waterpark concept were also in attendance at the drop-in sessions to discuss that proposal with the public.

34. A total of 317 submissions were received to the Draft Master Plan. A summary of the submissions has been prepared, highlighting responses to each of the actions in the plan as well as providing some feedback from submitters on the Waterpark concept. The submissions analysis indicates that 88% of submitters support the general direction of the master plan.

35. A petition containing 20,000 signatures in support of the Waterpark concept was presented to the Mayor and Council in February 2013.

191 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

Supplementary Information for Planning Committee meeting, 18 June 2013

Prepared by: Michael Theelen (General Manager Strategy and Planning) Carolyn Bonis (Senior Planner)

Date: 10 June 2013

Purpose of Supplementary Information 1. The 5 June 2013 meeting of the Planning Committee considered an officers report which recommended a process for integrating the proposed Waterpark concept with the Draft New Brighton Master Plan.

2. At the meeting, the Committee requested that a broader level evaluation be undertaken as a first step, to determine the economic feasibility of the Waterpark concept and the extent of its potential to revitalise New Brighton’s commercial centre.

3. This paper provides supplementary information to address this request. It includes:

 an amended attachment providing details of the current Waterpark concept (refer Supplementary Information Attachment 1);  an alternative process diagram (refer Supplementary Information Attachment 2); and  amended recommendations.

Additional consideration & assessment 4. Attachment 3 of the 5 June 2013 officers report set out a series of steps for evaluating the location options for the Waterpark concept within New Brighton. The evaluation was proposed to be achieved through an Inquiry by Design (IbD) workshop with key stakeholders in New Brighton.

5. The Committee was generally in favour of the recommended IbD process. However, it was considered by the Committee that there may be alternative options in relation to the size, function, range of activities (including other recreation and sports activities) and configuration of the Waterpark concept. It was generally agreed that an earlier piece of work is needed, prior to undertaking the evaluation set out in Attachment 3.

6. This earlier step, coined ‘Step Zero’, would involve an evaluation of the economic feasibility of a Waterpark, of varying scales, and the extent to which it could provide the revitalisation anticipated for the New Brighton centre. A range of options would be determined for consideration, for example:

 A Waterpark in New Brighton that incorporates a Council Eastern Recreation & Sports Facility (ER&S Facility) - noting that an ER&S facility would include other non-aquatic facilities such as fitness centre, basketball courts, etcetera;  A New Brighton Waterpark, additional to a Council ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East of the city;  A Council ER&S Facility only (ie no New Brighton Waterpark), located either (a) in New Brighton; or (b) elsewhere in the East of the City;  A blend of locations and scale of Facilities – for example, (a) a boutique salt water pool in New Brighton to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere; (b) All entertainment elements in New Brighton and a reduced scale ER&S Facility elsewhere.

7. The output of ‘Step Zero’ would provide an understanding of:  The economic feasibility of the Waterpark concept as currently proposed (refer Supplementary Information Attachment 1 for revised information from the champions of the concept);  The potential for an aquatic facility of varying scales to provide a catalyst for revitalisation of the New Brighton commercial centre; and  The relationship between the Waterpark concept and the balance of the City’s aquatic facility network (including the ER&S Facility). 192 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

8. The Committee considered that ‘Step Zero’ would be reported back to Council in September, thereby enabling consideration and decisions regarding:  Whether to continue to investigate the Waterpark concept and its potential inclusion within, and/or complementary to, the network of Council recreation and sport facilities across the City; and, if yes:  The appropriate scale and nature of a Waterpark, to be further considered through an IbD process as outlined in Attachment 3; and  Confirmation of an appropriate process to integrate with decision-making on the Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility.

9. Expertise on aquatic facilities and centre revitalisation would be required to complete this work, which is currently unfunded. Preliminary cost estimates are under $60,000 in total; this is currently unbudgeted.

Proposed new process diagram 10. Attachment 4 of the officers report for the 5 June meeting shows a process for integrating an IbD process with other Council workstreams. As a result of the discussion at Planning Committee, an alternative diagram has been prepared (refer Supplementary Information Attachment 2). This diagram incorporates ‘Step Zero’, an additional and earlier piece of work to address the questions of economic feasibility and revitalisation potential as noted above.

11. The new diagram (Supplementary Report Attachment 2) shows that the additional economic assessment work would be reported to Council in September, prior to any further IbD work on the Waterpark concept. Assuming this additional work also informs the appropriate size and scale of any pool to be considered for New Brighton, there is no need to further amend text in Attachment 3.

Recommendations 12. The recommendations of the 5 June 2013 officers report will require amending, including the timeframes. Proposed Recommendations (b) – (e) below replace Recommendations (c) – (f) in the 5 June officers report (these are shown in strikethrough text for information at the end) and are reflected in the Supplementary Information Attachment 2 diagram.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended to the Council: (a) That it receive the information in this report; (b) That it approve the commencement of work outlined in Supplementary Information Attachment 2 (as detailed in Attachments 3 and 4 from the 5 June officers report) s 3 and 4 to assess the economic feasibility and revitalisation potential of a number of Waterpark / Eastern Recreation & Sports development scenarios, including the scenarios listed below: identify and evaluate site options for a Waterpark in New Brighton  A Waterpark in New Brighton that incorporates a Council Eastern Recreation & Sports Facility (ER&S Facility) - noting that an ER&S facility would include other non-aquatic facilities such as fitness centre, basketball courts, etcetera;  A New Brighton Waterpark, additional to a Council ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East of the city;  A Council ER&S Facility only (ie no New Brighton Waterpark), located either: (i) in New Brighton; or (ii) elsewhere in the East of the City;  A blend of locations and scale of Facilities – for example, (i) a boutique salt water pool in New Brighton to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere; and (ii) All entertainment elements in New Brighton and a reduced scale ER&S Facility elsewhere. 193 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

(c) That the results of the work undertaken in (b) be reported to the September Council meeting with a recommended development option canvassing the Waterpark and Eastern Recreation & Sport Facilities, to be subject to detailed site evaluation. (Note: the evaluations undertaken in respect of recommendations (b) and (c) do not imply any financial commitment by the Christchurch City Council to the Waterpark, at this stage.) (d) That staff report back to the Council (and Burwood Pegasus Community Board) at a December 2013 meeting on: (i) the recommended amendments to the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan, incorporating any relevant aquatic/entertainment factors agreed to in (c) above; and (ii) the preferred locations and scope of an Eastern Recreation and Sport facility, as agreed to in (c) above. (e) That in evaluating specific sites in New Brighton (conducted as necessary following recommendation (c)), Council adopt an Inquiry by Design process, and include key stakeholders and affected landowners.

(c) that the evaluation be undertaken in a manner that allows the Waterpark to be incorporated into the Eastern Recreation & Sport Facility project, either as a potential location for the proposed Eastern Recreation and Sport Facility, or as a complementary site; (d) that an Inquiry by design process be used to include key stakeholders and staff in developing a preferred location and integration model for the Waterpark and the Draft New Brighton Master Plan; (e) that staff report back to the September Council meeting on recommendations from the Inquiry by Design process ; and (f) that the outcomes of the September Council meeting inform the Draft Master Plan work and the final site selection process for the Eastern Recreation & Sports Facility.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Receive the information in this report;

(b) Approve the commencement of work outlined in Supplementary Information Attachment 2 (as detailed in Attachments 3 and 4 from the 5 June officers report) to assess the economic feasibility and revitalisation potential of a number of Waterpark/Eastern Recreation and Sports development scenarios, including but not limited to the scenarios listed below:

 a waterpark in New Brighton that incorporates a Council Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility – noting that an Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility would include other non-aquatic facilities such as a fitness centre, basketball courts, etcetera;

 a New Brighton waterpark, additional to a Council Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility located elsewhere in the east of the city;

 a Council Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility (i.e. no New Brighton waterpark), located either:

(i) in New Brighton; or

(ii) elsewhere in the East of the city;

194 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d  a blend of services, locations and scale of facilities – for example:

(i) a boutique salt water pool in New Brighton to complement an Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility elsewhere; and

(ii) all entertainment elements in New Brighton and a reduced scale Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility elsewhere.

(Note: the evaluations undertaken do not imply any financial commitment by the Christchurch City Council to the Waterpark, at this stage).

(c) Request that the results of the work undertaken in (b) be reported to the September Planning Committee and Council meeting.

Note that a workshop will be held with the Burwood - Pegasus Community Board ahead of the Planning Committee meeting.

(d) Request that staff report back to the Council (and Burwood – Pegasus Community Board) at a December 2013 meeting on:

i) the recommended amendments to the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan, incorporating any relevant aquatic/entertainment factors agreed to in (c) above; and

ii) the preferred locations and scope of an Eastern Recreation and Sports facility, as agreed to in (c) above.

(e) In evaluating specific sites in New Brighton (conducted as necessary following recommendation (c)), adopt an Inquiry by Design process, and include key stakeholders and affected landowners.

(f) Ensure the outcomes of the September Council meeting inform the Draft Master Plan work and the final site selection process for the Eastern Recreation and Sports facility.

PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Nil.

3. BUILDING CONSENT UPDATE

Staff provided a verbal update on building consenting, specifically the Corrective Actions (CARs) required by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) to be completed by 28 June 2013 in order for the Council to remain an accredited Building Consent Authority. An action plan for the implementation of steps to satisfy the CARs was presented.

PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS

4. APOLOGIES

Nil.

195 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

The meeting concluded at 12.07 pm.

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 196 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

SPATIAL AREA OF INTEREST ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Master Plan and Waterpark

Entertainment Hub Draft New Brighton Master Plan—the master plan covers the Business 1 and 2 zones. A new road is proposed to extend Oram Ave north, between Brighton Mall and Hawke Street. An Entertainment Hub is shown within the block north east of the new road, ‘sleeved’ by retail / bars / restaurants. This is envisaged in the Draft Master Plan as a private facility, providing indoor leisure activity options. The Draft Master Plan enables a range of leisure activities to establish at the Entertainment Hub, depending upon market interest.

Waterpark concept— image from website. This was the initial concept to ascertain what might fit on this area of land. The concept is being further developed. The initial concept incorporates slides, a wave pool, lazy river, 25m lap pool and other play pools. The proposal acknowledges the new road proposed in the Draft Master Plan. Parking is shown alongside the new road. Pools and slides extend across Marine Parade and foreshore area. ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013 197

SUBMISSIONS TO DRAFT MASTER PLAN Relevant to Entertainment Hub & Waterpark

Response to ‘Entertainment Hub’ 89% of respondents to the Draft Master Plan agreed or strongly agreed with the concept of developing precincts (including an entertainment precinct).

75% of respondents agreed with the proposed action to develop an indoor Entertainment Hub.

Preference: swimming facility While there was mixed support for a range of uses (including ice‐skating, cinema, bowling, laser tag, playground, climbing wall etc), most respondents qualified the Entertainment Hub’s appeal by the desire to have a swimming facility.

A swimming facility was widely perceived to be the best entertainment facility: (a) To provide for facilities lost by the demise of QEII; (b) To cater for the needs of a wide range of residents (including children and the elderly); and (c) As an appropriate use in the seaside suburb of water enthusiasts.

Revitalisation Concerns about an Entertainment Hub without swimming facilities were raised, in particular its inability to provide something with a ‘wow factor’ and scale required to attract visitors and investors and provide the necessary catalyst for regeneration.

Size/scale There was much variation about the preferred form of such a facility, ranging from the Waterpark concept to salt water pools, to swimming facilities more akin to that provided by the Graham Condon, Pioneer or Jellie Park aquatic facilities. However, the majority advocated facilities of a similar scale to that of the former QEII or the proposed Metropolitan anchor project in the Central City. Some commented that the facilities at Graham Condon and Jellie Park pools were not sufficient to meet the area’s need (particularly young children) and that a 50m pool was needed.

Location A number of respondents commented that they did not want the money from QEII to be spent on the proposed swimming complex but that the money should be spent on a replacement facility to meet the needs of the East, rather than New Brighton specifically. ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013 198

STEPS TO EVALUATE WATERPARK SITE OPTIONS

AND INTEGRATE WITH DRAFT MASTER PLAN

Step One – Identify site options: This involves identifying all key sites that could accommodate a facility of the size shown on the Waterpark concept plans. These may include Central New Brighton School and Rawhiti Domain, as well as the site shown on current plans, but would exclude land more than a kilometre from New Brighton centre.

Step Two – High level assessment: This would give greater support to sites that are at low risk of natural hazards (e.g. are geologically stable and at minimal risk of inundation) or have other “fatal flaws”.

Step Three - Neighbourhood level assessment: This would give greater support to sites that support good urban form – for example, they:  Enable co-location with other major destinations, such as commercial core, other public recreation facilities, other Council facilities, schools etc.  Maximise existing infrastructure while enabling multi-modal access and reflecting the road hierarchy;  Are complementary to patterns of residential growth.

Step Four - Revitalisation assessment: The intention of the Waterpark is to provide a ‘wow’ factor to revitalise New Brighton, so greater support would be given to sites that achieve this aim – for example, they:  Support, without overwhelming, the commercial core;  Enable strong connectivity to the commercial core;  Enable strong connectivity to other key attractions in or near the commercial core (library, pier, foreshore);  Complement existing land use activities while providing for long term flexibility for these to adapt and change

Step Five - Site specific assessment: This would give greater support to sites that link well with their immediate land use context – for example, they:  Require minimal displacement of existing core users;  Achieve the urban design objectives for the site, commensurate with its existing and surrounding land use zoning. For any Business 1 or 2 land, it should readily achieve the principals of Plan Change 56.  Have sufficient space to provide for car parking;  Ability to service with relevant infrastructure;  Ability to mitigate any significant adverse effect (including nuisance effects such as noise, light, etc.)

Step Six: master plan integration assessment. This is of most relevance to sites in or adjacent to the commercial centre, as the Council has limited the scope of Suburban Centre master plans to Business 1 and 2 zones. This assessment would give greater support to sites that reflect key features of the draft master plan that have been well- supported through public consultation, for example:  The four ‘big picture’ themes of: . consolidation of the centre; . enhancing the flow of pedestrian and cycle routes; . development of precincts; and . reinforcing the river to sea link through the centre and connections to recreation spaces  The proposed new north-south road between Brighton Mall and Hawke Street and the intention to use this space for spill-out cafes and shopping in a sheltered environment;  Bus interchange on Beresford Street;  Upgrade of Marine Parade to reinforce connections between the mall and foreshore (noting concern from many submitters that Marine Parade not be closed). ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 199 PLANNING COMMITTEE 18. 6. 2013

PROCESS FOR INTEGRATING THE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION WATERPARK CONCEPT WITH OTHER PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2

FOCUS OF THIS REPORT Eastern Recreation Waterpark Concept Draft Master Plan and Sports Facility Submissions Analysis Identify several options for Options Analysis and evaluation (other than Entertainment Site Identification (e.g. Waterpark only, Waterpark Hub / Waterpark) plus ER&SF, only ER&S Facilility Recreation and Sports elsewhere, mix - with smaller Master Plan Project Unit specialty pool in NB) Team

Assessments: Economic and physical feasibility, Revitalisation potential, Community outcomes

Preferred option New Brighton Business & Council decision on: Land Owners Whether to proceed with the Association Waterpark concept through Draft Plan Council processes and, if so, the size and nature of aquatic facility in New Brighton to be further investigated. (September)

If decision to proceed: investigate how to Integrate with Draft Master Plan

Identification of site and principles for water facility in New Brighton Inquiry by Design Workshop (October) - refer Attachment 3

Stakeholder group

Approach to amend Final preferred sites Master Plan

Report to December Council meeting on: Report to December Community Board and Recommended sites for consultation for February Council meeting on: Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility Recommended changes to the Draft Master Plan to incorporate: ♦ Waterpark or similar, if agreed for further investigation in September ♦ Other recommendations following analysis of submissions. 200 201 Clause 8 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTUCTURE COMMITTEE 6 JUNE 2013

A meeting of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee was held in the No.1 Committee Room on 6 June 2013 at 9am

PRESENT: Councillor Claudia Reid (Chairperson) Councillors Sally Buck, Jimmy Chen, Barry Corbett, Aaron Keown, and Sue Wells.

APOLOGIES: Nil.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD MONTHLY REPORT

General Manager responsible: General Manager Capital Programme Officer responsible: Infrastructure Rebuild Client Manager Author: Will Doughty

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To provide the Council with a monthly update on the infrastructure rebuild.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. At its April 2011 meeting, Council gave approval for an Alliance to be formed to deliver the reinstatement of the City’s damaged infrastructure. It was also agreed that the Chief Executive would report regularly to the Council on progress with regard to the reinstatement work.

3. The report (Attachment 1) is the 17th of what will be a regular monthly report that is provided to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee, Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA).

STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council receives the Infrastructure Rebuild Monthly Report for May 2013.

202 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

2. COUNCIL BUILDING / INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ALLOWANCE REQUEST FOR INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME

General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Asset and Network Planning Author: Mike Bourke, Senior Technician

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To seek the Council’s approval to fund the betterment portion of a further three projects that the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) are undertaking to design and build. The requests are based on costs estimated at the time of concept design and these projects have now moved into the detailed design stage.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The SCIRT mandate for the rebuild is to return the assets to their pre-earthquake condition, however there are a few situations where it is sensible and practical to carry out additional work over and above the earthquake repair. These situations arise where:

(i) The asset only has a short remaining life,

(ii) To avoid digging up the new road again in the short term,

(iii) To repair non-earthquake damage as part of the rebuild to extend the asset life, or

(iv) To provide future flexibility to the rebuild or flexibility and resilience to future operation.

3. Reports on all of the betterment projects described in this report have been presented to the Scope and Standards Committee, and approval given for funding to be sought from the Council. The items presented below are in the order and content of the papers presented to the Scope and Standards Committee. This is the third report seeking funding for betterment associated with SCIRT rebuild work. All eleven previous betterment project requests to the Scope and Standards Committee have been approved for funding by Council.

4. Alternative funding from renewal and capital has been arranged for seven further betterment projects. (Upgrade of Transport Assets associated with the Wairakei Sewer Diversion; Interim Treatment of Significant Red Rock Walls for graffiti protection in Lyttelton; Pump Station Corroded Wet Well Wall Repairs and Replacement Generator Set; Parklands West Corroded Trunk Sewer Lining; South Brighton Bridge Galvanic Protection of Piers, Lyttelton Hawkhurst Road Bridle Path retaining Wall - all from renewals, and Diversion of Pressure Main 15 to Pressure Main 1C to facilitate the new pressure main 11 at the treatment plant from new asset funds). One further project – Charleston Area Stormwater Additional works has been returned to SCIRT as it is deemed that this part of the project is within the SCIRT rebuild scope.

BACKGROUND

5. This report includes three projects where betterment has been identified and the additional cost of the betterment needs to be funded separately from the rebuild costs.

(a) Pump Station 15 Flow Meters and Wetwell Venting (refer Attachment 1).

(b) Carlton Footbridge (refer Attachment 2).

Pump Station 15 Flow Meters and Wetwell Venting

6. As a key terminal pumping station on the wastewater network it is important to have accurate flow measurement of output from the station. All new stations built now have flow metering incorporated. Metering of flows allows better control of the network, particularly at peak flow 203 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

2 Cont’d times and provides data for planning future expansions. The major repair of this station (total repair cost $14.7m) provides the opportunity to install necessary additional elements that would not otherwise be done unless the whole station was to be rebuilt (the total estimated cost to rebuild this station if rebuild was contemplated is $18.5m). The installation of flow meters is estimated at concept design stage at $119,625.

7. Additional funding is also sought to allow redirection of the wetwell venting system to the site biofilter. At present the wetwell is vented through a carbon filter to the atmosphere only when the wet well is to be entered. Continuous venting to the biofilter will reduce the potential for build up of hydrogen sulphide in both the pipe system and the wet well, improving safety, concrete surface life and will eliminate the need for future maintenance on the existing carbon filter. This redirection is estimated to cost $41,470. Total additional cost for flow meters and wetwell ventilation is $161,095.

Carlton Footbridge

8. The Carlton Mill footbridge forms an important pedestrian and cycle link across the Avon River on the north side of Little Hagley Park. The footbridge services nearby schools, commuters and Hagley Park users. Damage caused to the footbridge by the Canterbury earthquakes includes a large horizontal shear crack through the southern abutment. A complete rebuild of the bridge has been approved. It is planned that the new bridge will be constructed utilising a precast concrete deck, concrete piles and reinforced concrete abutments. As bridges are among the few above ground structures SCIRT is delivering, it is recognised that the reconstruction of the Carlton Mill footbridge provides an opportunity to add architectural treatment to the handrails and balustrade for visual interest and better integration of the bridge into the surrounding context. In doing so, the architectural treatment can create a land mark/ focal point that is unique to Carlton Mill while responding and contributing to the amenity and character of the area. An additional $65,000 is sought to provide the architectural treatment with permanent anti graffiti coating.

Main Road 3 Lane Stormwater

9. The 225 mm diameter stormwater pipe through Scott Park is to be replaced due to earthquake damage. The current pipe size does not meet the level of service for a 1 in 5 year storm. To meet the current level of service the 113m of 225 mm diameter pipe needs to be replaced with a 300 mm diameter pipe. The additional cost of this pipe size increase is estimated at concept design stage at $17,100. The three laning construction cost project is estimated at $4m.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

10. Funding of these betterment initiatives will draw down the Council Building / Infrastructure Improvement Allowance which currently stands at $51,494,306.

Summary of betterment funds sought Project Betterment Cost Pump Station 15 Flow Meters and Wetwell Venting 161,095 Carlton Footbridge 65,000 Main Road 3 Lane Stormwater 17,100

$243,195 TOTAL

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

11. This work represents a marginal increase in scope (betterment) over work being conducted as part of the infrastructure rebuild being undertaken by SCIRT. SCIRT will perform these betterment elements as part of the infrastructure packages of work. Work to be funded from the Council Building/Infrastructure Improvement Allowance. 204 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

2 Cont’d

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

12. The projects are all on Council land and there are no legal implications of these works.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

13. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

14. These works are associated with Waterways and Land Drainage Activity (6.5) the Wastewater Collection Activity (11.0) and the Christchurch Strategy Transport Plan.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

15. Works additional to work programmed by SCIRT as part of the infrastructure rebuild. Budget provision made for the base scope of work in FY 12/13 Annual Plan (Infrastructure Rebuild Budget).

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

16. Aligns with the Surface Water Strategy; Wastewater Strategy and the Christchurch Strategy Transport Plan

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

17. As above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

18. Not applicable.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

(a) Approve the allocation of the betterment funds from the Council Infrastructure / Building Improvement Allowance as in the report above for:

(i) Pump Station 15 Additional Flow Meters and Wetwell Venting to improve safety and eliminate future maintenance ($161,095)

(ii) Carlton Footbridge Architectural Treatment ($65,000)

(iii) Main Road three Lane Stormwater for pipe size increase ($17,100)

(b) Authorise the City Environment General Manager to instruct the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team to complete betterment elements as part of the infrastructure rebuild works being progressed in each of the respective areas.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted with additional words added to clause (a)(ii):

(ii) Carlton Footbridge Architectural Treatment ($65,000) subject to the Fendalton Waimairi Community Board endorsement. 205 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

3. 242 CRANFORD STREET – PURCHASE OF LAND FOR ROAD

General Manager responsible: General Manager, City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Transport and Greenspace Author: Lewis Burn and Tom Lennon , Property Consultants

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval for the purchase of a commercial property at 242 Cranford Street, St Albans from the strategic land purchase fund.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The subject property which is situated at the intersection of Cranford Street and Innes Road comprises 624 square metres and is contained in Computer Freehold Register 21A/1055. (Refer Attachment 1). The property is developed as a block of commercial suburban shops with five current tenancies in place. Details of these tenancies are given in the report in the public excluded section of the agenda.

3. The property is subject to a Right of Way easement which provides shared access with the adjoining property at 248 Cranford Street (Lot 53 DP 12527) over a formed driveway along the eastern boundary.

4. As part of the planned Cranford Street Upgrade (CSU), improvements at the intersection with Innes Road will require property severances on the north-east corner of that intersection. The proposed road widening at this intersection is required in association with the possible extension of the Northern Arterial (NAE) to Cranford Street to link with the City. The Northern Arterial is being planned by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) as part of the Roads of National Significance infrastructure programme.

5. Following the earthquakes of 2011, discussions commenced with the affected property owners on the north-east side of the Cranford Street/Innes Road intersection on purchase of their properties to accommodate the planned road widening. Negotiations have culminated at this stage with the agreement of the owner of 242 Cranford Street.

6. Further property severances will be required in association with the NAE and CSU including from the property adjacent at 248 Cranford Street (refer Attachment 2) and ongoing negotiations will continue with the affected properties with further report/s to Council when agreements are reached.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7. See public excluded report.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

8. Yes, see section in public excluded report.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

9. A Sale and Purchase Agreement has been entered into with the vendor pursuant to Section 17 of the Public Works 1981 subject to the approval of the Council within three months of the date of the agreement, i.e. by 10 July 2013. The agreement is also conditional on the Council as purchaser arranging such insurance as it requires on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Council. Note: as an option, the current insurer has agreed to assign the policy over to Council should the Council proceed with purchase

10. A waiver of Section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (offer back provisions) has also been entered into with the vendor. 206 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

3 Cont’d 11. The sale comes with the existing five retail tenancies, refer paragraph five of the report in the public excluded section of the agenda for details

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

12. Yes, as above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

13. Yes, the project aligns with the Road Network Activity Management Plan (10.0).

Road Network Community Outcome:  Christchurch’s infrastructure supports sustainable economic growth.  Providing roads and traffic management services enables efficient links to local, regional, national and international markets and destinations.  Providing roads and traffic management services enables private cars, commercial vehicles and public transport to move safely and easily around the city – providing access to homes, shops, businesses and recreational destinations.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

14. Yes, the Cranford Street Upgrade is planned for in the Three Year Plan.

Road Network Activity Management Plan, Performance Standards for LTP.

The project will support Levels of Service 10.0.1.1 Peak Congestion and 10.0.1.2 Interpeak Congestion.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

15. The Greater Christchurch Transport Strategic Statement (2012) lists its short term priority actions as:

(a) port access (b) public transport operation and growth (c) western corridor, airport access and overall freight growth and opportunities (d) northern and south-west access, future growth and changing land use (e) central City linkages to other key places

The NAE and CSU projects deliver actions 4 and 5.

The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (2012) has four goals:

(a) to improve access and choice; (b) to create safe, healthy and liveable communities; (c) to support economic vitality; and (d) to create opportunities for environmental enhancements.

The NAE and CSU projects support goals 1 and 3.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

16. Yes as above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

17. Public consultation is planned for May 2013 which will feed into the Scheme Assessment Report and the Notice of Requirement for both projects. Consultation will include information on the preferred route with an opportunity for the public to provide their opinion on the projects. 207 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

3 Cont’d

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council:

(a) Purchase pursuant to Section 17 of the Public Works Act 1981 for road purposes, the property at 242 Cranford Street comprising 624 square metres being Lot 54 Deposited Plan 12527 contained in Computer Freehold Register 21A/ 1055 on the terms outlined in the Public Excluded report on the agenda.

(b) Grant delegated authority to the Corporate Support Unit Manager to conclude the purchase as set out in the Public Excluded section of this agenda.

(c) Grant delegated authority to the Corporate Support Unit Manager to enter into and conclude such leasing arrangements as may be required to maximise rental revenue from the property while it is retained pending final design of the intersection layout to determine the new boundaries between the road and the balance property.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That this report lie on the table in order for the Committee to obtain additional advice from staff.

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

18. The key transport issue identified in northern Christchurch is residential and commercial growth and the resulting traffic congestion along Main North Road (SH1/SH74) and, to a degree Marshland Road. Adjacent new land-use developments will increase traffic volumes significantly along the Marshland Road corridor, and to a lesser extent along Main North Road (which is already heavily congested).

19. A number of studies have examined urban growth requirements and access to northern Christchurch including Northern Roading Options Scoping Study (NROSS) in 2002, followed by the Urban Development Strategy in 2007 and other subsequent transport studies have generally built on the original NROSS study which tested a diverse range of road network options. NROSS specifically identified the Northern Arterial road as a key piece of infrastructure required in the north with Christchurch City Council’s Northern Arterial Extension linking QEII Drive to Cranford Street and the upgrade of Cranford Street to complete the route.

20. The Northern Arterial is being planned by NZTA as part of the Roads of National Significance infrastructure programme. Christchurch City Council have begun investigation of the Northern Arterial Extension and the Cranford Street Upgrade as part of the Long Term Council Community Plan 2009-19 and the Three Year Plan 2013-2016. The Christchurch City Council investigation has progressed to a scoping report (determined with pre-earthquake land-use) which is now being updated to reflect the land-use changes in the north. The preferred route identified by the subsequent land-use and traffic modelling is the Northern Arterial Extension (NAE) through Cranford Basin and the Cranford Street Upgrade (CSU) requiring the 4 laning of Cranford Street to the Innes Road intersection.

IMPROVEMENTS

21. The building occupies a large proportion of the site and is built to the footpath boundaries. Construction is of concrete foundations, timber/concrete flooring, plastered exterior over likely block exterior walls, timber framing and trough profile metal roofing.

EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE REPORT

22. A report by Opus in March 2011 on behalf of the vendor concluded that the structure of the shops had undergone minor damage but had not affected the overall integrity and no restriction on use was necessary. No structural repair was deemed necessary by Opus.

208 COUNCIL 27. 06. 2013 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Ian Fox, Deidre Francis and David Painter provided the Committee with a deputation, on behalf of the Regional Infrastructure Working Group and Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee regarding opportunities for betterment through the rebuild process. A letter to the Committee was also tabled from the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee supporting the Committee’s investigation into opportunities to improve stormwater infrastructure as part of the earthquake recovery repairs.

The Committee decided to request staff to report back on betterment opportunities considered for stormwater infrastructure and include a response to suggestion of interagency technical forum for stormwater and the use of the zone committees in development of stormwater management plans.

5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

At the 16 May 2013 Council meeting, a petition was received requesting “the Christchurch City Council and SCIRT keep Christchurch City Council Wastewater Infrastructure on Council land not our private properties”.

The Committee received the petition.

The Committee adjourned from 10.45am to 11am.

6. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

At 11.02am the Committee resolved that the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 79 of the agenda be adopted and that Duncan Laing from Simpson Grierson be permitted to remain to provide advice.

At 12.10pm the public were readmitted and the meeting concluded.

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 209

INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRESS REPORT MAY 2013

1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 210

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. ACTIVITIES FOR THE MONTH 5

3. FINANCIALS 6 3.1. 2012/13 Annual Plan – Actual year to date cost against budget 3.2. Overall Infrastructure Rebuild Estimate – Actual life to date costs against estimate

4. COMMUNICATIONS 10 4.1 Strategic Communications 4.2 Operational Communications 4.3 Talking points for the month ahead

5. ENVIRONMENT 13 5.1 Key Outcomes 5.2 Upcoming Priorities 5.3 Environmental Statistics

6. PROGRAMME 6.1 SCIRT Work Activity 6.1.1 Achievement Report…………………………………………………………..14 6.1.2 Number of ongoing SCIRT projects……………………………………15 6.1.3 Ongoing Projects by Ward………………………………………………….16 6.1.3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………16 6.1.3.2 Burwood / Pegasus………………………………………………..17 6.1.3.3 Fendalton / Waimari………………………………………………23 6.1.3.4 Central City…………………………………………………………….25 6.1.3.5 Hagley / Ferrymead (*excludes central city)……….27 6.1.3.6 Lyttelton / Mt Herbert ……………………………………………33

2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 211

6.1.3.7 Riccarton / Wigram……………………………………………….35 6.1.3.8 Shirley / Papanui…………………………………………………..36 6.1.3.9 Spreydon / Heathcote…………………………………………..38 6.1.4 Projects Complete by Ward……………………………………………….40

6.2 NON-SCIRT Work Activity 6.2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………..50 6.2.2 Greenspace………………………………………………………………………….51 6.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant & Organics Processing Plant.54 6.2.4 Burwood Landfill………………………………………………………………….56 6.2.5 Wells…………………………………………………………………………………...57

3 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 212

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to provide Council, CERA and NZTA an update on the horizontal infrastructure rebuild. For this month, and going forward, progress on all horizontal infrastructure rebuild work is reported. This includes the work activity being delivered by SCIRT (section 4.1) and work being delivered under business as usual (BAU) mechanisms (section 4.2).

4 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 213

2. ACTIVITIES FOR THE MONTH

Despite autumn rain arriving in April, work has progressed in all phases of the SCIRT programme. In April, SCIRT delivered $46 million of work, of which over $29m was delivered in the field. This represents the largest monthly construction delivery to date. At the end of April SCIRT had achieved a total of $373m against a revised target of $490m. It is, however, looking like the year end total spend will be less than the revised target, but still ahead of the target of $440m set at the start of the year.

Despite the continued good feedback in the communications space for the overall programme this remains, quite rightly, a high priority for the team now and going forward. Several key issues over the month including low pressure sewer systems and impacts of the road works on small business in the central city have highlighted the continuing challenges of delivering the rebuild programme.

One notable achievement to highlight for the month is the NZ Planning Institute Best Practice Award for Integrated Planning to the environmental team from SCIRT, Council and ECAN. This national award recognises the collaborative approach instigated to provide a global consenting framework across Horizontal Infrastructure Rebuild work scope. A great achievement for all involved.

A focus for May and June is to finalise the SCIRT budget for next year across the programme. This needs to be aligned with the draft Three Year Plan and ongoing funding discussions between the Crown and CCC. Work is also continuing around the programme performance reporting, with some new measures being introduced in Q1 of financial year 2013/14.

5 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 214

3. FINANCIALS

Below is a summary of the financials for the horizontal infrastructure rebuild.

This report includes a breakdown for the current financial year to date as per Council Annual plan and the agreed SCIRT performance target in section 3.1 and actual life to date costs against the overall infrastructure rebuild estimate (plus additional projects) in section 3.2. For the purpose of this report all indirect costs have been allocated based on the updated overhead allocation methodology.

3.1 Infrastructure rebuild activities actual year to date costs

3.1.1 Actual year to date costs - Council infrastructure rebuild activities

Table 1.1 below summarises the year to date costs of Council infrastructure rebuild activities. These activities are delivered by SCIRT as well as through business as usual mechanisms.

Council 2012/13 infrastructure rebuild budget is $553m, consist of base annual plan ($521.9m), carry forwards from 2011/12 ($21.6m) and approved plan changes ($9.5m) made during the year. The activities are forecast to be $44.8m under budget by year end, including $25.1m to be carried forward to next financial year.

6 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 215

Table 1.1 Council infrastructure rebuild activities, actual year to date costs reported against Council budget

FINANCE AS AT 30 APRIL 2013

Council Infrastructure Rebuild Programme

Year End 2012/13 CCC Year End Forecast Activity Budget * Actual Cost YTD Forecast Variance SCIRT

Road Network$ 147,667,000 $ 73,564,237 $ 100,326,167 $ 47,340,833

Wastewater Collection$ 235,174,000 $ 264,790,025 $ 323,176,437 ($ 88,002,437 )

Water Supply$ 55,473,000 $ 11,748,040 $ 19,279,191 $ 36,193,809

Waterways & Land Drainage$ 22,978,107 $ 17,940,097 $ 24,161,902 ($ 1,183,795 )

COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME BY SCIRT $ 461,292,107 $ 368,042,399 $ 466,943,697 ($ 5,651,590 )

Non SCIRT

Road Network$ 1,456,542 $ 1,212,399 $ 1,744,138 ($ 287,596 )

Wastewater Collection$ - $ 1,885,234 $ 1,885,234 ($ 1,885,234 )

Parks & Open Spaces$ 9,754,101 $ 4,315,249 $ 7,740,806 $ 2,013,295

Refuse Minimisation & Disposal$ 11,111,615 $ 3,225,682 $ 4,984,227 $ 6,127,388

Wastewater Treatment & Disposal$ 29,398,854 $ 15,848,956 $ 19,002,664 $ 10,396,190

Water Supply$ 34,425,173 $ 2,504,797 $ 3,328,559 $ 31,096,614

Waterways & Land Drainage$ 5,579,000 $ 2,368,640 $ 2,556,640 $ 3,022,360

COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME BY OTHERS $ 91,725,285 $ 31,360,957 $ 41,242,268 $ 50,483,017

TOTAL COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME$ 553,017,392 $ 399,403,356 $ 508,185,965 $ 44,831,427

* CCC Budget Reconciliation 2012/13 CCC Annual Plan$ 521,900,000 Carry Forwards ex 2011/12 $ 21,586,522 2012/13 Approved Plan Changes ($ 2,822,000 ) Budget transferred from improvements allowance $ 12,352,870 2012/13 CCC Budget $ 553,017,392

7 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 216

3.1.2 Actual year to date costs - Infrastructure rebuild activities being undertaken by SCIRT

Table 1.2 below presents actual year to date costs for Council and NZTA rebuild activities being undertaken by SCIRT. These costs are reported against SCIRT performance target.

Current SCIRT performance target is $490m, including Council rebuild activities ($481.9m) and NZTA State Highway rebuild activities ($8.1m). The SCIRT performance target for Council rebuild activities varies from Council annual plan as the target is based on subsequent cash flow forecast.

Table 1.2 Rebuild activities performed by SCIRT, year to date costs reported against SCIRT performance target

FINANCE AS AT 30 APRIL 2013

Infrastructure Rebuild Programme by SCIRT 2012/13 SCIRT Year End Performance Year End Forecast Activity Target Actual Cost YTD Forecast Variance

Road Network$ 52,993,876 $ 73,564,237 $ 100,326,167 ($ 47,332,291 )

Wastewater Collection$ 333,067,993 $ 264,790,025 $ 323,176,437 $ 9,891,556

Water Supply$ 32,344,152 $ 11,748,040 $ 19,279,191 $ 13,064,960

Waterways & Land Drainage$ 63,668,825 $ 17,940,097 $ 24,161,902 $ 39,506,924

NZTA Highways$ 7,975,407 $ 4,868,033 $ 7,906,556 $ 68,851

TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE REBUILD PROGRAMME BY SCIRT$ 490,050,253 $ 372,910,432 $ 474,850,253 $ 15,200,000

3.2 Overall Infrastructure Rebuild estimate - actual life to date costs

Current estimate for the overall rebuild of the City’s horizontal infrastructure is $2.015 billion (excluding contingency and escalation), plus $16.4m project budget not included in the horizontal infrastructure cost estimate. In addition to the above there is an estimate of $25m for NZTA State Highways rebuild. For the purpose of this monthly progress report the current overall estimate reported against is therefore $2.057 billion.

8 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 217

3.2.1 SCIRT actual life to date against estimate

Table 2.1 includes the overall life to date costs against the current estimate for the SCIRT performed rebuild of the City’s infrastructure. SCIRT is performing $1.7b of Council infrastructure rebuild, plus $25m NZTA Highways rebuild.

Table 2.1 SCIRT Actual life to date costs against estimate

SCIRT

Actual C ost Actual Cost Actual C ost Total Actual Forecast Total Programme Activity Description Estimate 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Cost LTD Spend Variance

Road Network Roading$ 814,857,143 $ 6,684,772 $ 46,758,817 $ 73,564,237 $ 127,007,826 $ 814,857,143 $ -

Wastewater Collection Wastewater$ 714,095,238 $ 14,028,332 $ 151,734,886 $ 264,790,025 $ 430,553,243 $ 714,095,238 $ -

Water Supply Water Supply$ 128,142,857 $ 922,776 $ 30,727,289 $ 11,748,040 $ 43,398,105 $ 128,142,857 $ -

Waterways & Land Drainage Stormwater$ 69,000,000 $ 2,541,392 $ 15,076,603 $ 17,940,097 $ 35,558,093 $ 69,000,000 $ -

NZTA Highways$ 25,000,000 $ 311,712 $ 1,982,200 $ 4,868,033 $ 7,161,945 $ 25,000,000 $ -

TOTAL$ 1,751,095,238 $ 24,488,984 $ 246,279,796 $ 372,910,432 $ 643,679,211 $ 1,751,095,238 $ -

3.2.2 Non-SCIRT actual life to date against estimate

Table 2.2 includes the overall life to date costs against the current estimate for infrastructure rebuild activities being delivered by Council business as usual mechanisms. This table also includes $16.4m budget from Earthquake Building/Infrastructure Shortfall Allowance for the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Table 2.2 Non-SCIRT Actual life to date costs against estimate

Non SCIRT

Actual C ost Actual Cost Actual C ost Total Actual Forecast Total Programme Activity Description Estimate 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Cost LTD Spend Variance

Road Network Roading$ 77,761,905 $ 848,201 $ 692,114 $ 1,212,399 $ 2,752,714 $ 77,761,905 $ -

Wastewater Collection Wastewater$ - $ 1,634,066 $ 13,757,590 $ 1,885,234 $ 17,276,891 $ - $ -

Parks & Open Spaces Greenspace$ 56,952,381 $ 611,310 $ 1,835,060 $ 4,315,249 $ 6,761,619 $ 56,952,381 $ -

Refuse Minimisation & Disposal Solid Waste$ 8,761,905 $ 2,076,017 $ 3,091,587 $ 3,225,682 $ 8,393,286 $ 8,761,905 $ -

Wastewater Treatment & Disposal WW Treatment Plant$ 96,356,381 $ 4,488,038 $ 13,249,043 $ 15,848,956 $ 33,586,037 $ 96,356,381 $ -

Water Supply Water Supply$ 24,095,238 $ 4,266,124 $ 830,545 $ 2,504,797 $ 7,601,466 $ 24,095,238 $ -

Waterways & Land Drainage Stormwater$ 41,619,048 $ 13,960,259 $ 2,368,640 $ 16,328,899 $ 41,619,048 $ -

TOTAL$ 305,546,857 $ 13,923,757 $ 47,416,198 $ 31,360,957 $ 92,700,912 $ 305,546,857 $ -

9 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 218

4. COMMUNICATIONS

4.1 Strategic Communications Key issues being addressed through strategic communications include: traffic congestion, pressure wastewater systems and ongoing progress messaging.

SCIRT continues to provide information on projects which will impact traffic movements across the city, with significant recent projects including the six-month closure of the causeway to Sumner and works around the Central City on Bealey Avenue, Montreal Street and Moorhouse Avenue.

Now that rebuild work is ramping up and projects are having a greater impact of traffic management, the need for a higher-level approach to communicating messages about congestion has been identified. A communications strategy to address these issues is being prepared, and will be rolled out through the Christchurch Transport Operations Centre (a joint initiative between Christchurch City Council and NZ Transport Agency). The strategy will aim to provide residents with clear information about how to get around town, address safety issues and drive use of the www.transportforchristchurch.govt.nz website for journey planning.

New pressure wastewater systems are being introduced in areas of the city that we badly affected by liquefaction or lateral spread to make the system stronger. They require public infrastructure to be placed on private property in the form of an underground tank. The majority of residents are signing up to these new systems, however some objections have been received and a group of Parklands residents have formed and action group. SCIRT is spending significant time with property owners to explain the new system, seek consent and decide where the tanks will be located. Additional communication work is underway to ensure the

10 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 219 technical information being provided is easy for residents to understand and clearly addresses the key, emotive issues they are facing.

The Communications Working Group continues to roll-out the progress information campaign across the city, providing residents and visitors with up-to-date information on how the rebuild is progressing. The second phase of this work will include information to audiences outside the city, to push the message that work is pressing on and progress on Christchurch’s rebuild is happening.

4.2 Operational Communications SCIRT continues to have a significant presence in the community, with a total 1382 work notices now issued on various projects. During April, SCIRT distributed two e-newsletters, 91 tweets, attended 75 meetings, visited six schools and ran 14 advertisements. SCIRT also took part in the CERA Rebuild and Recovery Expo.

A focus for SCIRT over the past month has been community interaction around the installation of pressure wastewater systems. At the end of April, in 164 Parklands residents (out of 850) had signed-up for the systems. Community information has just got underway in Woolston, with 239 of 880 residents signed-up by early May and seven objections lodged.

SCIRT continues to focus on traffic management matters and is working with client organisations. Project Chocolate Fish is going well, with all delivery teams using this for high-impact projects with positive feedback.

4.3 Talking points for the month ahead Specific talking points this month:  We’re making good progress on the rebuild: around 129 projects valued at $467 million are under construction right

11 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 220

now and we’ve already finished 257 projects valued at around $122 million.  Our roads are getting busier as the rebuild ramps up and we all need to play our part to keep things moving – plan your journey online at www.transportforchristchurch.govt.nz and allow extra time to get around the city.  Many of our old wastewater networks failed in the earthquakes and residents were left without flushing toilets for months – the rebuild is introducing new technologies, such as pressure and vacuum sewers, to ensure the system is strong enough to withstand any future earthquakes.

4.4 Resident satisfaction survey The Communications Working Group last month reported preliminary findings from SCIRT’s residents’ survey and the Client Governance Group requested background information about the survey.

The telephone survey is carried out six-monthly from a representative sample across the city and undertaken by an independent market research company. It the most recent was of 381 people. Specific questions about traffic and the wastewater network were added to the most recent survey. Some interesting findings are:  88% of respondents are satisfied with progress  93% of respondents have confidence that SCIRT is doing the most critical work first  77% are very tolerant and see roadworks as part of progress  89% are prepared to tolerate the short term pain for the long term gain.  82% are confident the city’s rebuild wastewater network will be stronger if it needs to cope with future earthquakes.

12 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 221

5. ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Key Outcomes

 SCIRT, along with ECan, CCC and Beca have won the New Zealand Planning Institute Best Practice Award for Integrated Planning. This national award recognises SCIRT’s collaborative approach to a global consenting framework. • ECan completed five compliance monitoring visits to consented SCIRT sites this month and has reported full compliance on the projects visited.

5.2 Upcoming Priorities

 Review the tree management plan in conjunction with Council to ensure value outcomes. • SCIRT is contributing to a PhD research study into concepts of infrastructure sustainability, embracing risk, uncertainty and resilience at Cambridge University in the UK. The research will focus on post disaster reconstruction and SCIRT will be a case study.

5.3 Environmental Statistics

Description April 2013 LTD

Environmental Hazards 141 1,542

Environmental Opportunities 592 2,552

Environmental Team Initiatives 6 110

Community Organised Events 2 35

Number of Environmental Incidents 35 509

Infringement Notices - -

Abatement Notices - - Data from SCIRT Operational report – May 2013

13 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 222

6. PROGRAMME 6.1 SCIRT Work Activity

6.1.1 Achievement Report

The progress report for this month includes an achievement report which outlines progress made by the construction projects against key metrics for each asset type.

Network Identified % Of % Of Completed Asset Type Unit Completed Total Damaged Total Damaged in April WASTEWATER Reticulation KM 1,613 659 41% 161 24 17.17 Pump Station No 164 69 83% 40 29 - WATER SUPPLY Reticulation KM 2,843 69 2% 23 33 0.4 Pump Station No 107 103 96% 8 8 - Reservoirs No 113 113 100% 3 3 - STORM WATER Reticulation KM 329 26 8% 10 40 1.3 Pump Station No 38 15 39% 2 13 - ROADING Roading m² 11,671,807 1,320,375 11% 211,83 16 28.85 Storm water KM 621 135 22% 20 15 - Bridges No 224 244 100% 10 4 - Retaining Walls No 490 141 29% - 0 - All data for the SCIRT Work Activity Section was sent from SCIRT – Received May 2013

14 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 223

6.1.2 Number of Ongoing SCIRT Projects

The following table is a summary of the programme pipeline as at April 30th 2013. It shows how many projects and the total value at each stage of the project lifecycle.

March April Project March April Estimated Estimated Lifecycle Stage Estimate Estimate Construction Construction Cost Cost Investigation (Asset 12 13 $243m $233.9m Assessment) Concept Design 113 125 $578m $770.4m Detailed Design 67 76 $379m $421.9m Construction 160 162 $589m $622m Handover 250 257 $115m $122m Grand Total 602 633 $1,902m $1,936.3m Data sent from SCIRT – Received May 2013

In the table above, the previous monthly report totals have also been included to show the change in activity.

15 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 224

6.1.3 Ongoing Projects by Ward

6.1.3.1 Introduction

The progress report this month includes a summary of all SCIRT projects that are currently either in detailed design or construction separated on a Ward basis. A separate table has been included specifically for projects either in detailed design or construction within the central city (within the four avenues). This has been created to assist in the coordination with the Central City Recovery Plan and vertical infrastructure rebuild going forward.

For projects in construction – estimated construction cost (Target Outturn Cost) has been included together with actual Life to Date Costs as at the end of April 2013.

16 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 225

6.1.3.2 Burwood / Pegasus

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Ground improvements, removal of landward bridge spans, demolish and rebuild abutments, 10620 Pages Rd Bridge repair piers, approaches and underpasses Full One Pass rebuild within the Burwood Catchment Area - SW, RD, WS Elements, with construction projects estimated in the region of $30,000,000 resulting from this catchment 10796 NZTA Anzac Bridge Repairs study.

Overall Catchment scope to link multiple projects and release projects on hold for a full one Catchment Study - Burwood pass rebuild of the above area. Includes RD, SW & WS elements. - Linked to Project #10861. 10866 Catchment Rebuild NE8 Construction projects to the value of $15M expected to result. (WS,SW,RD)

Construction of a vacuum pump station to service the Aranui catchment including an above ground, architecturally designed pump station building, biological filter bed, shared generator Aranui Catchment NE4 Vacuum 10959 building with PS36 and an access road. This pump station is located at the same site as PS36 Pump Station, Pages Road (WW) and has some shared facilities.

Aranui Catchment NE4 Vacuum Construction of vacuum sewerage pipes, pits, and laterals (in road reserve only) and 10964 Arm 5 and 6: Portchester Street connecting up to the new vacuum pump station in Bexley Reserve. Subcatchment (WW) Keyes Road Catchment - New Brighton and Frosts Road - Roading 11020 Repair of the Wastewater network within the North New Brighton area. Stormwater and Water Supply (WS,SW,RD) Repair of Earthwork damage to Stormwater, Roading and Water Supply for the Areas including Frosts Road, Travis Drive, Bower Avenue, Palmers Road and Baker Street. Stormwater issues 11032 Parklands East (RD, SW, WS) may be affected by the adjacent New Brighton Road Project.

Repairs to roading, stormwater and water supply assets. 11033 Parklands West (RD, SW, WS)

Repairs to roading, stormwater and water supply assets 11034 Parklands South (RD, WS, SW)

North New Brighton and North Repairs to roading, stormwater and water supply assets 11035 Shore (RD, WS,SW) 17 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 226

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description PS 56 - Burwood North Wastewater Repairs to roading, stormwater and water supply assets 11040 (WW) Wastewater Repair/Renewal within the Burwood North area 11041 Burwood East Wastewater (WW)

Burwood West Wastewater & Trunk Replacement of the Wastewater System in the Burwood East Area 11042 Sewers (WW)

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Keyes Road Stage two of new 450m long modular block 10314 Catchment (WW, retaining wall. 26/03/2012 03/07/2013 $10,290,000 $9,800,344 WS) PS37 North Repair and/or reinstatement of wastewater system. 10318 30/04/2012 03/07/2013 $6,963,000 $6,631,691 Catchment (WW) Wastewater repairs and renewal for northern half of PS 108 Catchment PS37 catchment. Includes one new pump station 10363 (old PS39 14/11/2011 14/05/2013 $5,307,000 $5,245,662 and approximately 100 pressure sewer pumps. Catchment)

A large waste water catchment of approx 12 streets PS 128 (formerly 10415 which all drain to Pump Station 54 in Avondale. 01/10/2012 03/02/2014 $8,240,000 $2,794,771 PS 63) (PS)

New replacement PS63 at Beach Road. This project is linked to 10926 for the approximately 4Km long 10416 PS37 (PS) 15/07/2013 08/10/2013 $926,000 $720,577 700mm pressure main.

Estuary Rd Repairs to existing PS37, including new pump Carriageway, PS37 intakes and repairs to yards. 10429 to Bridge Street 01/10/2012 11/06/2013 $1,882,000 $1,792,808

Catchment (WS,SW,RD) 18 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 227

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Repairs to roads, stormwater and water in Estuary 10430 PS28 - Catchment Road between Bridge Street and Beatty Street. 06/08/2012 16/12/2013 $15,135,000 $6,597,551

PS 28 catchment services residential and industrial land loosely bounded by Pages Rd, Cuffs Rd, Wainoni Rd and Shortland St in the suburb of Wainoni. Other pockets of land are also serviced including 650 m of Wainoni Rd north of Shortland St and 240 m of Breezes Rd, an area west of Wainoni Avondale Road Rd including a portion of Avonside Dr, Newport St, 10553 24/09/2012 29/10/2013 $2,768,000 $1,725,726 Bridge Works (RD) Tenby Pl and Emlyn Pl, 350 m of Wainoni Rd south of Cuffs Rd and an area south of Pages Rd including Price Pl, 180 m of Kearneys Rd and Mecca Pl. The seismic events caused liquefaction and land settlement throughout the catchment. The pump station is still operational and in a serviceable state.

Retrofit repair to bridge involving new abutments, Gayhurst Road piles, wingwalls and associated road approaches and 10557 16/07/2012 13/09/2013 $2,869,000 $1,766,612 Roading (RD) services.

Design for road reconstruction to repair moderate to severe earthquake damage to carriageway, kerb and channel, and footpaths from Dallington Bridge PS25 - Catchment northwards to Mundys Road. This project will 10585 Vacuum Solution 19/04/2013 24/03/2014 $6,708,000 $1,824,670 become part of PS108 Catchment Phase 1 Roading, (WW) Storm Water and Water Supply. This work follows wastewater repairs/replacement.

Wastewater design for Pumping station 25 Catchment. This area includes sections of Banks Ave PS36 Renewal and Achillies Street that will be diverted into PS 10694 22/06/2012 01/07/2013 $12,763,000 $6,202,050 (WW) 108. This area also includes the Strathmore Gardens area. The majority of the catchment requires replacement of WW lines. 19 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 228

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date New PS36 to replace existing PS36. New station capacity approximately 900 L/S. This project covers all design for the project and construction for above 10705 Owles Tce (WW) 06/11/2012 22/11/2013 $7,360,000 $2,441,528 ground activities. A related project covers 2M of below ground construction works required.

Bridge St bridge Project released from hold March 2012. 10724 21/08/2012 17/07/2014 $10,021,000 $4,406,175 and approaches Replace damaged bridge abutments and approaches PS 108 New Pump 10765 with new structure including roadworks and services 15/10/2012 14/05/2013 $1,161,000 $1,106,011 Station reinstatement. PS 108 Catchment Stormwater, Water Minor new pump station. 10786 Supply and 03/10/2012 05/06/2013 $1,916,000 $1,326,283 Roading Renewals (SW,WS,RD) Design for repair (some full reconstruction) of minor to severe earthquake damage to carriageways, kerbs and channels, and footpaths with associated storm water and water supply works in 11 streets PS 108 Phase 2 10800 situated immediately to the east and west of 14/08/2012 14/05/2013 $4,542,000 $4,522,854 Waste Water Gayhurst Rd from McBratneys Rd northwards to Mundys Rd. This work will follow construction of wastewater repairs/replacement.

PS108 Phase 2 Detailed Design of remediation works for Roading and Storm 10801 wastewater catchment 108. 15/02/2013 06/06/2013 $2,736,000 $1,053,701 Water Renewals (RD,SW,WS) Design for repair (some full reconstruction) of minor PS54 Stage 1 - to severe earthquake damage to carriageways, Northern Roading kerbs and channels, and footpaths with associated 10802 10/09/2012 03/10/2013 $3,926,000 $3,496,435 Renewals Incl storm water and water supply works in 10 streets Breezes Road situated immediately to the east and west of Gayhurst Rd - generally south of Strathfield Ave in 20 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 229

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date the west and McBratneys Rd in the east. This work will follow construction of wastewater repairs/replacement.

Road design for 8 roads in Avondale. New pipe systems are needed in multiple roads requiring Keyes Road asset managers understanding and buy-in. Includes 10819 Catchment 04/06/2013 12/03/2014 $2,558,000 $702,131 stormwater full dynamic modelling with probable (RD,SW) need to restore capacity by optioneering new components (new basin and/or pump upgrading). New Brighton, Road design for Pembroke St and Horton Place in South New Avondale. A new pipe system is needed on Horton Brighton & 10861 St requiring asset managers understanding and 01/05/2013 28/01/2015 $15,247,000 $967,801 Southshore NE1, buy-in. NE2 & NE3 Area Rebuild (WW) Minor Works - Overall Catchment scope to link multiple projects Demolition of and release projects on hold for a full one pass Porrit Park and rebuild of the above area. Includes WW elements. 10896 27/08/2012 14/06/2013 $242,000 $230,666 Snells Footbridges, Projects for construction to the value of $15M are PS26 and PS27 expected from this concept study. Pump Stations Demolition and make safe work for Porrit Park Minor Works - Footbridge, Snells Footbridge, PS26 and PS27. Medway 10898 Rebuild of the bridges to be undertaken in separate 11/02/2013 15/05/2013 $117,000 $111,606 Footbridge standard projects. Removal

North Parade & Removal and make safe of the footbridge. Store off Banks Ave site until a decision is made regarding the structure 10921 Wastewater 02/04/2013 19/07/2013 $759,000 $174,678

Pressure System (WW) Separation of catchment works included in 10812, 10926 PM 63 (WW) 10585 and 10800 for a defined project area for the 07/01/2013 09/10/2013 $7,301,000 $4,420,607 construction of a new pressure system. 21 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 230

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date The 700mm pressure main 63 will run for 4km generally following the route of Anzac Drive from PM136 New Parklands to Bexley. It will connect to pump station 10932 Pressure Main for 10/06/2013 17/02/2014 $4,829,000 $1,547,656 63 which is being designed and constructed under PS36 (WW) the project number 10415

Construction of an additional Pressure Main from Pump Station 36 to provide resilience in the system. PS25 Replacement 10946 The existing asset will remain as PM 36 and the new 06/05/2013 15/04/2014 $4,278,000 $482,132 VS5001 (WW, PS) pressure main will be known as PM 136.

NZTA - Travis Road & Anzac Repairs to the State Highway 10956 25/03/2013 20/06/2013 $1,067,000 $456,233 Drive Repairs - Stage 1 (RD) Construction of a pressure sewerage system Aranui Catchment including individual pump station units in private NE4 Pressure property, laterals, boundary kits and pressure 10965 Sewerage System mains. The pressure main from the catchment then 02/04/2013 07/02/2014 $6,606,000 $179,527 - East Avondale runs along Anzac Drive and discharges to a new (WW) inlet manhole (by others) near the junction of Anzac Drive and Bexley Road.

22 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 231

6.1.3.3 Fendalton / Waimairi

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Bridge Repair - Carlton Mill WW design to complete the Central City 4 Ave work north and east of the Avon River 10968 Footbridge - F110 (RD) Bridge inspection and deign of repairs for damage sustained during earthquakes. Limited Bridge Repair - Helmores Lane - 10970 geotechnical investigation, analysis and reporting. R124 (RD)

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Date Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost The area has been broken into wastewater sub- catchments in order to determine the best catchment wide solution. 10575 therefore includes Browns Rd north of Mansfield Ave, McDougal Ave east of Murray Pl, Murray Pl, Innes Rd between Papanui Rd and Browns Rd, Heaton St east of Glandovey/ 10425 Circuit St, Papanui Rd between Innes Rd and Mays 10/12/2012 11/07/2013 $2,856,000 $2,085,101 Bryndwr Cluster Rd, approximately 230 m of the eastern end of Knowles St, Weston Rd and Chapter St, Approximately 280 m of the western end of Normans Rd and 150 m of the eastern end of Mays Rd.

Replacement of the deep 225 mm sewer main and the construction of new 150 mm sewer rider mains 10485 Merivale WW over the deep main. The wastewater works are from 14/05/2012 17/07/2013 $16,764,000 $15,966,158 Aorangi Street to Idris Road.

Papanui Rd - Linked to #10485 for the RD SW and WS elements 10575 Knowles to May of the One Pass Projects 17/05/2012 14/05/2013 $4,895,000 $4,867,680 (WW)

23 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 232

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Date Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Minor footpath, and pavement repairs Wairakei Road 10595 02/08/2012 14/06/2013 $1,741,000 $1,658,007 (WW)

New Pumping station for the Merivale Catchment Merivale Project. Linked to Project #10485 10839 Catchment RD SW 18/02/2013 22/08/2013 $883,000 $351,183

60m replacement retaining wall and road Minor Works - reinstatement, in Mt Pleasant 10852 24/05/2012 14/05/2013 $226,000 $192,941 Casebrook Block

Merivale Pumping 3.6km, 1.2m dia WW pressure main 10884 02/04/2013 22/07/2013 $895,000 $207,159 Station (PS)

24 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 233

6.1.3.4 Central City

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Replacement of Wastewater system within the Burwood West Area 10466 R109 Fitz Twin Bridges

10469 R702 Moorhouse Ave Overbridge Ground improvements and major structural repair/bridge replacement of twin bridges Central City South of the Avon - 10952 Major structural repair works Central Core Wastewater (WW) Repair of the wastewater network within the Central City - Stage 3 of the Implementation Plan Central City South of the Avon - 10954 Eastern Area Wastewater (WW)

Bridge Repair - Armagh Street - Preliminary Investigation and design work within the Central City 10966 R122 (RD) Bridge inspection and design of repairs for damage sustained during the earthquakes. Limited Catchment Study - Central City 11029 geotechnical investigation, analyses and reporting. northeast of Avon River (WW)

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Repair of a failed stormwater Brick Barrel pipe on Moorhouse Brick 10401 Moorehouse Ave under the Colombo St over bridge 25/03/2013 25/06/2013 $486,000 $157,319 Barrel 01 (SW)

F106 Antigua 10464 Major structural repair works 13/05/2013 26/11/2013 $650,000 $311,283 Street Footbridge All works related to both temporary bracing to arch F105 Bridge of 10465 to support the structure and all permanent repair 27/06/2013 10/11/2014 $629,000 $207,950 Remembrance works. In CBD, Heritage structure. Repair/replacement of wastewater system in the R114 Colombo St north west of the CBD. Excludes WW Brick barrel 10467 (North) Bridge 04/06/2013 23/09/2013 $2,581,000 $316,580 which is considered under Project 10845. (RD)

25 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 234

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Full assessment, relining and repair works for the Brick Barrel Trunk network within the CBD Catchment. Includes all WW and SW Brick Barrels. A 10482 Triumphal Arch separate Project has been created for the Kilmore St 01/05/2013 10/10/2014 $3,319,000 $710,752 Brick Barrel and concept / detailed design should be undertaken in conjunction with this work.

Minor repairs to bridges requiring little design input. Central City Pump Project to be led by SCIRT Project Manager and 10844 Station PS2 01/02/2013 24/04/2014 $7,230,000 $2,453,666 Delivery teams Catchment (WW)

Accelerated repair of the 150 dia WW pipe work to Central City - Brick provide service to businesses on New Regent Street, Barrel Assessment, 10845 an area under development supported by the CCC 21/05/2012 14/06/2013 $18,687,000 $16,672,485 Relining and as a 'Restart' Area. Repairs

Repairs to SW brick barrel along Kilmore Street, Minor Works- from Durham Street to Colombo Street in the north Bridge Minor west of the CBD. During Concept, this was part of 10893 Works Project 23/07/2012 17/05/2013 $222,000 $146,852 the Kilmore Street Catchment Area Project (Project Package 01 #10844). Bridging

Design for repair to severe earthquake damage to wastewater and minor damage to carriageways, Wairakei Diversion kerbs and channels, and footpaths (severity yet to - Local Reticulation be confirmed) storm water and water supply. This 10934 26/08/2013 06/06/2014 $4,884,000 $212,149 & Roading repairs cluster incorporates the 9 streets immediately (WW,SW,WS,RD) adjacent to and including Glandovey Road between the Wairarapa Stream and Strowan Road

Central City Approximately 9km of WW gravity system, one new Kilmore Street 10986 pump station. 15/01/2013 10/09/2014 $12,492,000 $2,240,832 Catchment Area

(WW)

26 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 235

6.1.3.5 Hagley / Ferrymead (*excludes central city)

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Retrofit repair to bridge involving new abutments, piles, wingwalls and associated road 10347 Gayhurst Rd Bridge (BR) approaches and services.

Retaining Wall Area 2 - Clifton Design and delivery of the repairs required to retaining walls. 10563 Retaining Walls Retaining Wall Area 2 - Galilee Collapsed retaining wall design and repair. 10564 Lane (RW) Retaining wall design and construction. Includes walls with RAMM id's of: 1207, 1208, 1212, 10611 Monks Spur 1 Pump Station (PS) 1213, 1217, 1214, 1216, 1218, 1219.

Repair of Clifton 1 Reservoir and renewal/relocation of the watermain and pump station. Clifton No.1 Pump Station and Existing route within areas of large land movement and rockfall inundation areas. Pump 10631 Clifton No 1 to Clifton No.2 station is undamaged but at high risk if cliff face collapse therefore a resilience issue. PS Watermain (WS) location may need funding decision from CCC.

Swanns Road Bridge - Crossing the 10774 Avon River between Richmond and Repairs to building at existing pump station. Avonside (RD) Catchment study for a full one pass rebuild of remaining services within the catchment area. PS57 McCormacks Bay Rd Pump 10795 Refer to Project 10449 for WW assets in this area. Station Repairs (PS)

Mt Pleasant Reservoir suffered minor damage during the Christchurch Earthquakes, Initial assessments recommend that the connections between walls and floors/roofs should be 10823 St Johns (SW,WS,RD) investigated as strengthening will probably be required (dowels/ring beams/etc.)

Mt Pleasant No 3 Resevoir Repairs Repair of 13 bridges within the southern area of the city. 10827 (WS) Stabilisation of rock face and re instatement of the access road damaged in Feb 2011 Bridge Repair Package 04 - 10902 earthquake Southern Area

Full catchment rebuild - WW Elements 10907 Site 226 Soleares Ave

27 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 236

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Bromley & Woolston PS15 North Full catchment rebuild - SW,WS and RD elements 10916 Area 1 (WW) Renewal / repair of infrastructure to the flat area at the base of the Porthills between Ferrymead bridge to Sumner township (Exclusive of the Sumner area) - RD,WS,SW Elements 10917 PS15 Central (SW,WS,RD)

RD - $7.8M WS - $1.1M SW - $3.8M Renewal / repair of infrastructure to the flat area at the base of the Porthills between Menlo Terrace - Waste Water 10942 Ferrymead bridge to Sumner township (Exclusive of the Sumner area) - WW Element Sewer Renewal (WW)

CCC Capital project for the 3 laning of Main Road. To be completed in conjunction with the Main Road Repairs and Three 10979 SCIRT earthquake repair job of10634, and the culvert replacement CCC project 10908. Laning (RD)

One pass approach renewing wastewater, roading and stormwater assets within stage three of Avonside Linwood Stage 3 the Avonside Linwood Catchment. Standard project resulting from Catchment Studies 10875 10997 (WW,WS,SW,RD) and 10876.

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Main Road Repair of retaining wall in Maffeys Rd, along with Causeway Stage 2 11027 associated buried services 29/04/2013 14/10/2013 $1,203,000 $60,944 - Seawall Renewal (RW) Site 229 Mt New gravity sewer diversion to replace broken Pleasant Rd 10303 sewer down Scarborough Cliffs. 09/07/2013 24/10/2013 $458,000 $109,470 Retaining Wall

(RW) PM11 Randolph (WW) Approximately 5km of WW, gravity system; 10306 requiring 2 new pump stations 05/03/2012 28/06/2013 $18,434,000 $17,556,602

28 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 237

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date 173 Maffeys Road 10307 Retaining Wall 08/10/2012 19/11/2013 $1,724,000 $1,641,791 (RW) Approx 2.9km WW enhanced gravity system, 1 new Heberden Ave pump station; 0.3km SW; 8600m2 carriageway 10317 Permanent 01/07/2013 07/08/2013 $507,000 $482,601 reconstruction, and 1830m2 localised repairs Solution (WW)

Full reconstruction of intersection (80m), and Stadium Package localised repairs on remaining streets; 86m of SW 10405 01 (WS SW WS 27/05/2013 18/06/2014 $4,279,000 $539,401 replacement RD)

5km WW gravity system and 1 new pump station Woolston South 1 - with associated rising main, and individual pressure 10450 Pressure Sewerage pumps for industrial properties; roading repair 13/05/2013 11/12/2013 $2,189,000 $156,215 System Area works with design for 1 road; approximately 350m new WS, and currently unknown extent of SW Lower Richmond- 10459 Stanmore to 20/03/2012 30/07/2013 $11,992,000 $11,895,880 Fitzgerald (WW) Design for Wastewater, Stormwater, Water & Rockface Roading along Gloucester Street between Woodham stabilisation above Road and Avonside Drive. Close to complete 10462 14/03/2013 05/12/2013 $956,000 $326,629 Mt Pleasant 1 replacement of all WW and Roading assets. Reservoir (RW) Stormwater is reasonably intact.

Minor new pump station. 10472 Charleston 07/05/2012 30/05/2013 $4,190,000 $3,990,229

Pump Station 5 catchment originally serviced an area either side of the Avon River at the northern Lower Richmond end of Linwood Avenue and south eastern edge of 10483 (Southern Section) lower Richmond. Pump Station 5 was badly affected 10/06/2013 05/09/2013 $316,000 $153,370 WS,SW,RD in the series of earthquakes. A proposal to split the PS5 catchment either side of the river to enable removal of pump station from close proximity of the 29 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 238

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date river has received informal agreement among CCC Asset and technical representatives. This project relates to the reinstatement of sewer services to the portion of the original PS5 catchment to the west of the Avon River.

Design for repair to severe earthquake damage to wastewaster within Pump Station 8 catchment green zone. The green zone is located to the north- 10498 Woolston South 1 west of the Avon River and generally bounded by 11/02/2013 23/05/2014 $9,734,000 $1,747,782 Flesher Ave to the east and south, Chrystal St to the west and Medway St to the north.

Assessment and repairs/relay of wastewater services in the catchment of the old pump station 10541 PS 11 - Randolf 11/06/2012 10/06/2013 $926,000 $881,515 27 on Avonside Drive.

Repairs to main road causeway including PS5 - Catchment replacement of estuary seawall and minor cross 10579 15/10/2012 07/06/2013 $2,325,000 $1,302,317 (West of river) culverts and carriageway repairs.

Repair and retrofit of reservoir. 10582 PS8 - Catchment 04/02/2013 28/08/2013 $2,974,000 $725,828

PS27 Catchment Propping system between piers, subject to ground 10584 15/01/2013 26/07/2013 $1,922,000 $1,436,389 Area (WW) investigation results Main Road (Mt Pleasant - Tank 1 and 2 and access reinstatement. 10634 Beachville) 30/07/2013 03/12/2013 $1,207,000 $241,878 Sumner Causeway (RD) NZTA Port Hills Overpass Bridges Retaining walls and rockfall protection works at 10798 reservoir site. 08/07/2013 12/09/2014 $1,512,000 $116,532 (RD)

30 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 239

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date NZTA Horotane Linked to Project 10472 WW for the RD SW and WS 10799 Overpass Bridges elements. 22/11/2012 27/11/2013 $1,614,000 $554,061 (RD) Linked to #10459 for the RD SW and WS elements McCormacks Bay of the project 10820 Reservoir Stages 01/06/2012 26/06/2013 $1,343,000 $1,278,849

3,4 and 5

Renewal of 2 collapsed retaining walls on Cannon Charleston Hill Road 10841 Catchment Area 26/10/2012 25/07/2013 $1,399,000 $800,655

(RD,SW,WS)

Rock protection work to facilitate the repairs to the Lower Richmond reservoir tanks 10843 Catchment RD SW 25/01/2013 26/09/2013 $1,495,000 $545,983

Full area rebuild of the northern area of the PS18 Cannon Hill Cres catchment - WW element. Expected projects in the 10850 Retaining Walls 15/04/2013 16/07/2013 $664,000 $222,668 region of $10M should result. (RW)

Pump station construction in conjunction with the PS5 Catchment 10854 Richmond project. 10/06/2013 29/11/2013 $1,781,000 $682,163 (WS,SW,RD)

Pumps Station Construction PS8 Catchment 10855 21/11/2012 21/03/2014 $2,326,000 $646,323 (WS,SW,RD)

All remaining design works for the design and delivery of the 3.6km, 1.2m waste water pressure PS18 Rebuild SE11 main. This is a CCC business as usual project and is 10860 12/02/2013 25/09/2014 $12,758,000 $1,476,893 North (WW) the fifth phase. Phases one to four are included under project number 10306.

Lower Richmond Investigation of this badly damaged asset for repair 10862 Pump Stations - or potential relining. Due to the condition, this work 01/11/2012 21/05/2013 $1,325,000 $1,265,659 Avalon and needs to be fast tracked through the SCIRT process,

31 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 240

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Haywood requested by the CCC.

Charleston Waste Repair of the retaining wall 10863 Water Pump 04/03/2013 26/06/2013 $516,000 $186,309

Station Repairs to the State Highway between Metro Place PM11 Randolph and Bridge Street (through the treatment ponds 10895 25/02/2013 18/02/2014 $906,000 $445,787 Phase 5 (WW) area).

Emergency Repair for the 1525mm Dia Trunk CCC - The Sewer. Currently reported by Operational Team as Causeway, Main high risk of imminent failure. Depressions forming 10908 Road Sumner, 29/04/2013 15/10/2013 $1,378,000 $189,893 at road level around manhole. Falls within existing Culvert Project Area # 10995 Replacement (SW)

Fast Track - Te Repair wastewater along a section of Halswell Rd, Awakura Terrace O''Halloran Dr within private properties behind Muir 10911 30/04/2013 27/05/2013 $187,000 $177,808 Stormwater Ave. Repairs (SW) New water source and pumping station to cater for Retaining Wall - 1 projected growth in the western area of 10927 to 3 Maffeys Road 13/05/2013 16/09/2013 $401,000 $151,209 Christchurch. (RW)

Retaining Wall - Minor road repairs within the Port Hills Site 182 & 183 - 10931 06/05/2013 08/07/2013 $195,000 $185,650 Glenstrae Road (RW) PS 124 Construction of PS105, a CCC Capital Works Project. Replacement Pump 10943 Linked to Project #10793 for critical path 16/05/2013 06/08/2013 $751,000 $190,058 Station for PS5 construction scheduling. (PS)

32 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 241

6.1.3.6 Lyttelton / Mt Herbert

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Retaining Wall Area 5 - Dyers Pass Design and delivery of the repairs required to retaining walls, roading, wastewater, stormwater 10704 Lower to Governors Bay Rd (RW, and water supply (one-pass). RD, WW, SW, WS) Design and construction of multiple soil retaining walls from Lyttelton town centre west Retaining Wall Area 1 - Lyttelton 10981 towards Diamond Harbour Blvd. 1A Brittan Terrace (RW)

Retaining Wall Area 1 - Lyttelton Design of multiple soil retaining walls along Cunning Terrace. 10982 1B Hawkhurst Road (RW) Retaining Wall Area 1 - Lyttelton Stabilise face or provide new retaining wall at Simeon Key, Lyttelton 10983 2A Cunningham Terrance (RW) Repair to Pages Rd Bridge, including road network connecting to roundabout on North end of Retaining Wall Area 1 - Simeon 11005 bridge. Quay (RW)

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Project to design three replacement retaining walls RW Package 05 - on Canterbury Street and one wall on Ripon Street, 10394 Canterbury Stone Lyttelton. The walls are up to 4.5m high and are of 21/05/2012 14/05/2013 $2,230,000 $2,123,432 Walls (RW) high heritage value.

Design three replacement retaining walls on London Street, St Davids Street and Ticehurst Road, Lyttelton. The walls are up to 4m high and are of RW Package 07 - 10399 high heritage value. Two of these walls (London 17/08/2012 29/08/2013 $806,000 $768,021 Lyttlelton Stone Street and St Davids Street) are located within the white zone.

10400 RW Package 08 - Design five replacement retaining walls on London 11/06/2012 09/10/2013 $955,000 $909,315 33 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 242

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Lyttelton on-stone Street, Canterbury Street, Hawkhurst Road and (RW) Ticehurst Road. Sections of these walls are of high heritage value. The walls on London Street and Canterbury Street are located within the ?white zone. 035 Cunningham Stage one of new 450m long modular block 10427 Tce Retaining Wall retaining wall. 07/05/2012 14/06/2013 $2,330,000 $2,219,123 (RW) Site 079 Repair of retaining wall in Cunningham Tce, along 10475 Coleridge/Dublin with associated buried services 28/05/2013 19/03/2014 $1,607,000 $128,323 St Ret. Walls 200m replacement retaining wall and road RW Package 06 - 10511 reinstatement in Lyttelton 21/01/2013 15/06/2013 $249,000 $236,691 Selwyn and Ross

NZTA Norwich & Five retaining walls on Selwyn Street and Ross Gladstone Quay Terrace, Lyttelton. The walls range in height from 10818 State Highway 1.5m to 3m, and are of high heritage value. 11/02/2013 22/05/2013 $1,096,000 $783,270 Repair (RD, WW, SW, WS) Sumner Rd Repairs to state highway adjacent to the Port of Retaining Wall L - Lyttelton. 10905 Stage 2 Wall and 07/01/2013 12/09/2013 $2,054,000 $1,067,304

Stage 1 and 2 Roads (RW, RD)

34 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 243

6.1.3.7 Riccarton / Wigram

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Upgrade of pump station 60 and pressure main 60 to ensure increased flows can be managed 10831 CCC - PS60 (PS) in the short term.

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date The local wastewater reticulation on Innes Rd and Halswell WW Knowles St between Philpotts Rd and Bretts Rd 10409 02/07/2012 19/06/2013 $2,591,000 $2,467,629 Package 03 suffered earthquake induced damage during the recent seismic events. CCC - Wilmers Wastewater repair along a single street east of Road Water Papanui. This project area is lightly to be revised. 10768 30/04/2012 21/06/2013 $4,778,000 $4,550,281 Pumping Station (WS, PS) Wastewater network remediation in the Pump Station 7 catchment which is situated in Shirley, CCC - PS105 Pump 10920 centred upon Stapleton’s Road and Shirley Road 29/10/2012 28/01/2014 $5,821,000 $3,236,635 Station (WW, PS) which bisect the catchment. (Area 2 of 4, eastern quarter of catchment)

35 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 244

6.1.3.8 Shirley / Papanui

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Minor repair works to slightly damaged Pump Stations that require no major works during the Minor Works - Pump Station rebuild programme. Demolition of 3 PS buildings to make safe in Red Zones. Project led by 10858 Demolition and Repairs (WW) the delivery team with a SCIRT Design input and coordination.

Shirley NW2 Wastewater Gravity Full catchment rebuild (WW elements) 10914 Network (WW)

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Wastewater network remediation in the Pump Purchas & Madras Station 7 catchment which is situated in Shirley, 10457 (Bealey - centred upon Stapleton’s Road and Shirley Road 08/11/2011 14/05/2013 $5,845,000 $5,566,377 Edgeware) which bisect the catchment. (Area 3 of 4, north western quarter of catchment) Wastewater network remediation in the Pump Station 7 catchment which is situated in Shirley, Innes & Knowles - 10534 centred upon Stapleton’s Road and Shirley Road 10/08/2012 20/12/2013 $9,590,000 $7,288,930 subcatchment which bisect the catchment. (Area 4 of 4, central/western quarter of catchment) New pump station for the waste water reticulation system in the region of Innes Rd and Knowles St. Rutland Rd - 10535 This project covers the pump station only, with the 10/04/2012 17/05/2013 $1,693,000 $1,612,216 subcatchment waste water system being undertaken under the SCIRT project number 10534. PS7 Catchment Pavement repairs 10812 Phase 2 Waste 21/05/2012 31/05/2013 $5,880,000 $5,631,510 Water Renewal PS7 Catchment New wastewater Pump Station in the PS7 catchment 10814 23/07/2012 01/07/2013 $6,260,000 $5,368,859 Phase 3 Waste which is situated in Shirley, centred upon Stapletons 36 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 245

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Water Renewal Road and Shirley Road which bisect the catchment (area 3 of 4, north western quarter of catchment).

The existing 375mm wastewater line along Colombo Street is damaged, and requires replacement. It is PS7 Catchment proposed that the 375mm wastewater line will be 10816 Phase 4 Waste replaced with a 600mm main to also provide the 02/04/2013 17/01/2014 $3,188,000 $563,656 Water Renewals ability to divert flow from the Northern Relief for maintenance, reconstruction and maintenance of service during interruption of service Innes & Knowles Road and Storm water repair following WW project 10886 Pump Station 118 10536 21/01/2013 31/05/2013 $959,000 $913,502 and 119 (PS) New pump station (PS121) and rising main to Minor Works - service the newly formed PS121 catchment formerly 10899 Lower Styx Road & 08/10/2012 15/06/2013 $222,000 $211,095 part of PS7 catchment. Linked to project 10816. Turners Road

Repair of road and all buried services along Milton PS7 Phase 3 Pump and Frankleigh Streets, including the section of 10930 Station Shirley 31/07/2012 07/06/2013 $1,293,000 $1,231,638 Lyttelton either side of the intersection Road (PS)

Colombo Street Repair of road and all buried services along Antigua Wastewater St (between Moorehouse & Brougham) and 10935 22/04/2013 14/03/2014 $2,495,000 $73,438 Upgrade and Burke St (between Selwyn & Montreal) Repair (WW) Repair of road and all buried services along Bewdley Edgeware Road 10944 St, Eversham Cres & Dellow Pl. 23/10/2012 29/05/2013 $2,476,000 $674,426 (WS, SW, RD)

PS121 and Rising Repair and reconstruction of all assets within a small Main - Guild Street 10974 catchment block. 21/01/2013 17/05/2013 $655,000 $624,265 (PS7 Phase 4 Catchment PS)

37 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 246

6.1.3.9 Spreydon / Heathcote

DETAILED DESIGN Reference Project Project Description Work to reinstate the waterproofness of the roof structures (to prevent ingress of rainwater), 10888 Hillmorton & Hoonhay S-7 (WW) and seal gaps between walls and roof structures.

Full one pass rebuild of this catchment area - Waste Water Element Catchment Study - S6 Spreydon & 10948 Somerfield (WW)

Catchment Study - S6 Spreydon & 10949 Somerfield (RD,SW,WS) Catchment Study - S5 10958 Beckenham/Waltham/Opawa (RD,SW,WS,RW)

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date Milton St and Frankleigh St Repair of road and all buried services within the St 10310 Wastewater Martins loop, north of Centraurus Rd. 07/02/2013 14/11/2013 $4,353,000 $1,844,572 Reconstruction (WW) Repair of road and all buried services along a Antigua St / Burke section of Hoon Hay Rd (between Halswell & 10311 St Arterial Roads Sparks), including Penny ln, Weir Pl, McBeath Ave, 18/04/2012 17/07/2013 $4,307,000 $4,102,294 (WW,WS,SW,RD) Muirson Ave & Greenpark St.

Somerfield Delivery of the pressure main element of this CCC 10398 Package 01 BAU project. 19/11/2012 21/08/2013 $4,135,000 $1,694,385 (WW,SW,RD,WS)

38 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 247

CONSTRUCTION Estimated Estimated Estimated Life To Reference Project Project Description Start Finish Cost Date St Martins Package Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting 10407 02 (jacking) of the abutments 20/08/2012 10/10/2013 $10,517,000 $10,015,982 (WW,WS,SW,RD) Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting Hoon Hay Package 10520 (jacking) of the abutments 16/07/2012 28/08/2013 $6,831,000 $5,951,393 01

CCC - Pressure Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting 10793 Main 105 BAU (jacking) of the abutments 00/01/1900 06/06/2013 $13,269,000 $12,592,393 Project (WW) NZTA Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting 10797 Heathcote/Opawa (jacking) of the abutments 26/11/2012 08/10/2013 $2,292,000 $997,362 Bridge Repairs Opawa, Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting Hillsborough 10871 (jacking) of the abutments 25/03/2013 15/04/2014 $7,880,000 $1,147,873 Catchment SE11 (South) (WW) Opawa, Hillsborough Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting 10872 Catchment SE11 (jacking) of the abutments 27/05/2013 17/04/2014 $831,000 $253,950 (South) (RD,WS,SW) Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting Antigua Burke 10892 (jacking) of the abutments 25/03/2013 20/06/2013 $264,000 $251,627 Stormwater (SW)

Rossmore Terrace Ground improvements, and underpinning and lifting 10922 Retaining Walls (jacking) of the abutments 14/06/2013 28/08/2013 $303,000 $244,592 (RW)

39 248 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 249

6.1.4 Projects Complete by Ward

The following section outlines the projects within each ward that have been completed since SCIRT was established on 1st September 2011. It includes both a summary of numbers of projects as well as a list of specific projects. It is anticipated that the completed projects for the last quarter will be reported on a monthly basis.

March April March April Projects Ward Number of Number of Projects Life To Life To Date Cost Projects Projects Date Cost Burwood-Pegasus 98 100 $46,139,279 $47,817,305 Fendalton-Waimari 5 5 $593,167 $595,707 Central City 9 11 $7,053,795 $8,455,845 Hagley-Ferrymead 73 81 $27,119,216 $33,327,893 Lyttelton-Mt Herbert 4 5 $605,867 $2,952,050 Riccarton-Wigram 8 9 $5,270,753 $5,573,491 Shirley-Papanui 25 25 $14,606,430 $14,675,636 Spreydon-Heathcote 22 24 $11,762,399 $19,884,110 Total 244 260 $113,150,907 $133,282,037 Data sent from SCIRT – Received May 2013 In the table above, the previous monthly report totals have also been included to show the change in activity.

40 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 250

6.1.4.1 List of Projects Complete by Ward

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost Burwood-Pegasus 10312 Rowes/Tomrich Street Watermain $264,371 10315 Ferner Street - Emergency Works $226,236 10321 PM 51 Emergency Repair $1,510 Cresswell Avenue - Watermains 10325 $148,731 (WS) 10327 Pembroke Street $146,897 10328 De Ville Place (WS) $107,810 10331 PM 39 - Gayhurst Road $1,600,571 10332 PM54 - Niven-Avonside $375,476 10335 PS54 - Catchment $6,756,004 Kingsford & Liggins Streets 10336 $204,574 (Projects 10336 & 10885) Wainoni Road (WW EW - Ottawa to 10338 $908,330 Avonside) 10339 Woodham Road (Temp Repairs) $4,236,168 Ottawa Road Sewer Emergency 10340 $517,444 Repair 10343 PM16 - Oakmont Green $4,287 10346 Fleete Street - Emergency Repair $9,791 10349 PS39 - Birchfield Avenue WW EW $235,120 10351 Ardrossan Street - Temp. Solution $347,571 10355 Landy Street $19,322 10359 PS54 - Niven Street (WW) $62,282 10364 Shortland Street $345,061 10366 McBratneys Road - WM $17,612 10376 PM 28 $1,499,953 Pacific_Tedder Watermain 10384 $529,142 Replacement Estuary Rd Carriageway, PS37 to 10421 $2,637,464 Bridge Street Catchment (WW) 10440 PS 25C $703,935 10443 PM 38 Beach Rd $571,784 10484 Pump Station 25 connection repair $8,977 Cnr Pages & Cuff - Emergency 10532 $2,809,680 Repair 10547 New Brighton Road $46,450 10576 PM 106 - Woolley $4,364 10577 PS 106 - Woolley $751,137 10604 PM 45 (WW) $324,352 10605 Sylvia Street watermain (WS) $134,753 10606 Chadlington Street Water Mains $38,448 10607 PM 37 (WW) $1,910,857 10608 PM 35 $1,087,993 10614 Aldershot Street watermain (WS) $255,415

41 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 251

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost 10615 Willryan Avenue Watermain $241,522 Flemington and Ascot Ave 10616 $529,188 Watermains 10617 PM 46 $55,868 10621 Chartwell Street Water Mains $385,049 10638 630 Pages Road 450mm (WW) $25,397 10639 23 Leaver Tce WW $62,983 10641 Kirner St WW $21,497 10645 Inwoods Close 450mm WW $128,404 Travis Rd watermains and 10647 $217,197 submains Corhampton Street watermains 10649 $261,372 and submains Water Main on Bridge Street 10650 $162,633 Bridge (WS) 10651 Keyes Road Watermain (WS) $197,580 Saltaire (Bower to Marriots Rd) 10664 $69,544 (WS) 10665 Sinclair (Keyes to Rawson) - WS $251,723 10669 Palmers Road PS Stabilisation $16,065 10670 Major flooding Pratt St. $295,425 10671 Owles Tce Temp. (WW) $114,950 10676 Marine Parade Watermain $153,534 Bower Avenue Watermain and 10681 $476,689 Submains (WS) 10682 Briarmont Street watermain (WS) $88,373 Cowes St Watermain and 10683 $107,955 Submains (WS) Gresham Terrace Watermain and 10684 $161,638 Submains (WS) Inverell Pl Watermain and 10685 $63,648 Submains (WS) Orrick St Watermain and Submains 10686 $84,547 (WS) 10688 Blake St Watermain (WS) $344,751 10689 Pegasus Ave Watermain $169,225 10690 Bassett St Watermain (WS) $225,196 10691 Falcon St Watermain $180,732 10692 Beach Rd Watermain $138,848 10695 Allstone Watermain $90,800 10696 Marriotts Road Watermain $36,064 Hulverstone Drive Emergency 10700 $22,188 Repair Rawhiti Water Well Stormwater 10702 $147,524 Outfall 10706 Bowhill Watermain (WS) $150,141 10708 Rookwood Ave Watermain (WS) $174,096

42 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 252

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost 10711 Waitaki St Temp. Sewer $3,360 Kate Sheppard Emergency Repair 10714 $187,764 (Barkers Lane Temp Works) (WW) 10723 Merrington Cres Watermain $184,198 10728 Rowan Ave Emergency Work WW $458,135 10744 PS 36 Gravity Main (Pages Rd) $226,756 10749 Beach Rd Gravity Sewer (WW) $67,291 Desal plant long term storage 10752 $79,908 (WS) 10756 PM39 Temp Overland Pipe (PM) $7,828 10760 Pages Road $69,558 10769 Keyes Pumping Station (WS) $3,467,166 Woodham Road Water Supply 10789 $84,995 Pumping Line Renewal Pratt Street (Keyes Road) Water 10794 $222,893 Main from Pumping Station PS54 Stage 1 Southern Roading 10803 $1,172,958 Renewals (South of Breezes Road) Pages & Cuffs Emergency Repair 10806 $484,878 Roading (RD) Fast Track - PS36 Sewerage 10833 Overflow Repairs Pages/Waitaki $26,201 (WW) 10834 Minor Works - Stage 1 Schools $7,871 10838 Minor Works - Banks Avenue $132,029 Water Main Replacement Projects 10846 Vivan St, Admirals Way, Pine Ave $925,355 (WS) CCC - Private Laterals Keyes Road 10859 $55,311 (WW) Catchment Study - Burwood 10865 Rebuild NE8 (WW) - 11040, $312,366 11041, 11042, 11043 Catchment Study - New Brighton, South New Brighton & Southshore 10869 NE1, NE2, & NE3 (WS,SW,RD) $632,846 (Split to projects 11109, 11110, 11111) Catchment Study - PS36 10873 Catchment, Area NE4 split into $382,785 10959-65 (WW) Catchment Study - PS36 10874 $1,198,016 Catchment, Area NE4 (RD,SW,WS) 10882 Emergency Work - Beatty Street $218,226 Catchment Study - Parklands & 10903 North New Brighton split into $417,981 10975-78 NE12, NE13 (WW) Catchment Study - Parklands & 10904 $923,899 North New Brighton (RD,WS,SW)

43 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 253

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost spilt to 11032, 11033, 11034, 11035 Emergency Works - Merrington 10928 $117,623 Crescent (WW) Water Supply - Lamorna Road 10973 $46,893 Renewal (WS) Fendalton- 10354 Papanui Road - Emergency Work $54,652 Waimari 10480 R126 Monavale Footbridge $37,775 10590 Thornycroft Street - Pri4 (WS) $127,548 Minor Works - Bridge Minor Works 10857 $169,963 Project Package 02 Fendalton Bridge Repair Package - 10894 $205,770 Minor Repairs (RD) Central City 10445 Fitzgerald Ave Wall and Roading $5,214,819 Fitzgerald Ave Temp Sewer 10447 $22,117 Replacement (WW) 10506 Hagley Syphon $647,951 10726 Stormwater Pump Station 203 $44,715 PM 3 Temporary Repair (Complex 10764 $55,524 Emergency) 10790 Liverpool Street Water Main (CBD) $115,675 Fitzgerald Ave Retaining Wall 10867 $728,978 Footpath Kilmore St Brick Barrel Repair - 10880 $190,110 Emergency Work (WW) Fast Track - Central City - New 10936 Regent Street Wastewater Repair $920,860 (WW,WS,SW,RD) Minor Works - 789 Colombo Street 10941 $41,528 (WS) Central City - Kilmore Street 10985 Catchment Area SW Brick Barrel $473,567 (SW) CCC - Tanner Street Replacement Hagley-Ferrymead 10301 $15,792 Well (WS) St Martins Package 01 (WW) 10319 Wilsons Rd South, St Martins Rd $1,389,218 and Gamblins Rd 10326 Retreat Road $686,204 PM 57 - Replacement (Stage 2 10333 $2,075,207 March) 10337 Avonside - WW Trunk Sewer $205,110 10341 River Road - Siphon (WW) $676,309 Avonside Drive/Retreat - Gravity 10350 $93,588 Sewer Repair Avonside Drive/Morris Bowie - 10352 $86,006 Gravity Sewer Temp. Solution 10353 294 Avonside Drive - Temp. $241,562

44 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 254

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost Solution 10356 Woodham Rd (PS5 east of river) $3,214,669 PS57 - McCormacks Bay Rd Sewer 10358 $175,999 Overflow Renewal 10361 PS54 Catchment Temp. Solutions $924,921 10362 PS5 - Glade $545 10372 Dacre Street $128,612 St Andrews Hill Rd Sewer (Major 10386 $70,183 Hornbrook) 10391 Stevens St Watermain $165,913 10402 Moorhouse SW BB 02 $73,019 10403 Barbour St Water (WS) $147,111 10406 226 Main Road SW $4,627 10411 Clifton Reservoir 3 $405,877 10417 Upper Balmoral Reservoir $481,323 Lyttelton Dyers Road Pump Station 10418 $7,029 (WS, PS) 10422 PM 31 Renewal Works (WW) $1,605,479 10428 RW Mt Pleasant Rd Wall 156 (RW) $240,107 10431 PS15 Alport $1,383,442 10434 PS 12 Smith $547,533 10441 Ferry Road 873 $366,749 PS15 Gould Cres Overflow 10442 $214,274 Structure 10448 PM 12 $710 10451 Manning-Ferry $17,158 10452 WW No Service Grafton $134,202 10454 225 Linwood Ave $74,062 10458 31 Stanmore Road $49,606 10463 Hamner Street - waste water relay $72,948 10471 33 River Terrace $38,939 Wickham St Watermain 10473 $307,303 Replacement F805 McCormacks Bay 1 10478 $10,689 Footbridge F806 McCormacks Bay 2 10479 $8,722 Footbridge 10481 R223 Heathcote Barrage $9,929 10496 PS13 Tilford $10,687 10497 PS 10 Linwood WW $14,699 10499 Saxon Street Waste Water $15,687 10537 Patten Street $638,489 10539 Brittan Street $578,080 10548 Gloucester Street $1,352,677 10578 PS 107 $937,999 10586 PM 107 $273,496 10609 PM 47 $24,815

45 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 255

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost 10612 McCormacks Bay Reservoir No 2-2 $1,039,138 10613 Mt Pleasant Reservoir 2/2 $107,113 Beachville Road Pressure + Gravity 10618 $478,131 Main McCormacks Bay Rd WR mains and 10629 $2,191,720 submains (WS) 10644 55 Clark St WW $1,561 Head Street - Esplanade to 10666 $79,566 Nayland (WS) 10677 Beachville Watermain (WS) $250,873 10679 Moncks Spur No. 3 $281,531 10680 Clifton No. 4 Reservoir $377,679 10687 Wakefield Ave Watermain (WS) $156,967 10716 PM 34 Sumner - Replacement $1,666,473 WW, Gravity Bridal Path and 10729 $304,664 Cannon Heberden Ave Temporary Solution 10739 $109,222 (WW) 10746 Ruru Ave Repair PM 11 $42,191 10747 Bromley Waste Water Treatment $25,345 10753 WW No Service Glendevere (WW) $2,081 Moncks Bay Walkway - Temp 10763 $45,416 Repairs Linwood Ave / Humphrys Dr 10770 Retaining Wall Emergency $514,208 Permanent Repairs (RW) Monks Bay Main Road Emergency 10772 $15,503 Repair (WW) 10779 CCC - Linwood Avenue Water Main $456,743 15 Dunoon Place Emergency 10782 $179,641 Stabilisation / Sewer Repair Truro Street Emergency Waste 10792 Water Sewer Renewal (Van Asch $221,329 School) McCormacks Bay Reservoir Stage 10822 $1,246,675 2 Walls Minor Works - Bridge Minor Works 10830 $82,736 Project Package 01 Roading Minor Works - Avonside Girls High 10835 $80,299 School 10836 PS27 Catchment Area (RD) $69,510 McCormacks Bay Reservoirs - Rock 10853 $1,191,082 Face Protection Work 10864 Woodham Road (SW,RD,WS) $527,390 Catchment Study - Avonside & 10875 Linwood Area CE-5,6,7,9,10,11,12 $73,385 (WW) Catchment Study - Avonside & 10876 $237,672 Linwood Area CE5,6,7,9,10,11,12

46 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 256

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost (RD, SW & WS) Catchment Study - Ferrymead to 10924 Sumner SE4 & SE6 (RD,WS,SW) $214,528 (Split to 11101, 11108, 10979) Catchment Study - Ferrymead to 10925 Sumner SE4 & SE6 (WW) (Split to $455,160 11107, 11108, 10979) Emergency Repair - Southern 11022 Relief Sewer - Worcester Street $405,057 (WW) Lyttelton-Mt 10424 Sumner Rd Retaining Wall L (RW) $2,345,979 Herbert Priority Roads - Governors Bay 10636 $475,842 Road Rebuild (RD) Sutton Quay Retaining wall 441 10672 $41,391 (RW) Minor Works - Cunningham 10878 Terrace & Sumner Rd Temp Access $37,427 Works (RD) Retaining Walls - Delivery Plan 10940 $51,412 Area 4 Halswell Minor Roading Works - All Riccarton-Wigram 10309 $338,682 Areas 10380 Halswell WW Package 02 $2,104,246 10383 PS73 Kennedys Bush $160,810 10387 Townshend Crescent Wastewater $48,809 10389 Sparks Rd Watermain $177,705 10392 Halswell WW Package 1 (WW) $2,117,141 10408 Glovers Street water (WS) $147,991 Minor Works - Port Hills Package 10909 $304,266 01 10912 Sparks Road Pavement Repairs $173,841 Shirley-Papanui 10308 Riselaw Street (WS) $92,150 10313 PM 6 - Harrison St $221,306 10322 Ranfurly Street (WS) $118,878 10323 Chrystal Street (WS) $83,953 10329 Hope Street $146,273 10330 Orontes Street - WS $90,091 10334 PM 7 - Stapletons Road $244,594 Edgeware Road - Emergency 10344 $2,940,382 Works 10345 Nancy Ave / Weston Road $16,297 Shirley Road - Wastewater 10348 $8,629 (Emergency Repair) 10369 Orion Street $41,907 Temporary Gravity Sewer Lower 10435 $1,091,940 Styx Road 10437 PM 40 Marshlands $585,684

47 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 257

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost 10439 Heyders 29-65 (WW) $320,151 Brooklands Roading - Temporary 10446 $364,289 Repairs 10453 PS78 Heyders (PS) $50,363 10460 449 Durham Street North $313,618 10536 Edgeware Rd - WW $1,861,035 10555 Madras Street / Forfar Wastewater $604,788 Catchment Study - PS7 (10810, 10581 10811, 10812, 10813, 10814, $141,301 10815, 10816, 10817) Madras Street Road, Storm Water 10805 $427,650 & Water Supply Repairs PS7 Catchment Phase 1 Waste 10810 $4,297,268 Water Renewal Minor Works - Shirley Boys High 10837 $115,425 School Minor Works - Marshland Road & 10851 $376,431 Belfast Road Spreydon- 10320 Murray Aynsley Reservoir 2 (WS) $155,007 Heathcote Fisher Ave & Eastern Tce Syphon 10379 $1,588,482 (WW) 10381 Rydal St (WW) $937,749 10385 Bewdley Evesham and Dellow $2,853,986 10390 Centaurus Rd Watermain $145,968 10393 Smartlea WW Emergency Repair $109,989 10396 75 Wilsons Emergency Repair $825 10397 Glenelg Spur 01 $166,121 10404 Hollis Ave Water (WS) $180,761 10410 Hollis Ave WW $1,004,540 10432 PS19 Beckford $3,201 10433 PS20 Locarno $49,164 10476 F207 Aynsley Tce Footbridge $23,100 10477 F212 Sloan Tce Footbridge $15,899 10545 PS19 - Syphon $357 10597 Huntsbury Reservoir (WS) $4,684,686 Colombo St (South) Bridge - 10717 Concept only, no construction work $80,730 undertaken (RD) CCC - Sydenham Stn Replace 10745 $236,486 Wells (WS) PS19 Fifield - 171 Fifield - 10755 $114,715 Sheetpiling protection of riverbank Holliss Ave / Glamis Place - All 10785 $346,937 Services (WW,WS,SW,RD) Rydal Street Water Supply, Storm 10787 Water and Roading Renewals $429,271 (SW,WS, RD)

48 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 258

Project Life to Ward Reference Project Date Cost Huntsbury Reservoir Tank No 2 & 10821 $5,110,991 demolition CCC - Victoria Reservoir 10829 $1,548,465 Replacement (WS) Retaining Wall - Site 349 Major 10913 $96,682 Aitken Road (RW,WW,SW,WS,RD) Data sent from SCIRT – Received May 2013

49 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 259

6.2 NON-SCIRT Work Activity

6.2.1 Introduction

The following section of the report included a progress report against infrastructure and other associated rebuild projects that are not being delivered by SCIRT. It includes a report on progress on Greenspace projects, Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant and Organics Processing Plant, Burwood Landfill and Water Supply Wells.

50 260 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 261

6.2.2 Greenspace

Number Work of Estimated Estimated Estimated Ward Package Project Description projects Phase Construction Constructi Cost Number in Start on Finish package Banks PARKS Marine Structures Peninsula WP0000551 Marine Structures Assessments 10 COMPLETE 01/08/2011 30/11/2011 $50,000 Assessments Wards Burwood PARKS CEAF 1.2 B/P Bexley, Avondale and Burwood WP0000257 5 COMPLETE 01/09/2011 31/10/2011 $100,400 Pegasus CAPEX Parks hard surfacing renewals PARKS CEAF 1.2 B/P WP0000258 Hard surface repairs 10 COMPLETE 01/10/2011 29/02/2012 $141,500 OPEX PARKS CEAF 2.6 TRAVIS WP0000284 Hard surface renewals 5 COMPLETE 01/12/2011 29/02/2012 $340,500 CAPEX PARKS CEAF 2.7 AVON WP0000285 Hard surface renewals 2 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 30/06/2013 $63,850 PARK CAPEX PARKS Playground Replacement of contaminated City wide WP0000177 28 COMPLETE 01/08/2011 30/11/2011 $365,755 Softfall - CAPEX softfall to playgrounds PARKS Sports Fields WP0000205 Repairs to sports turf 19 COMPLETE 01/05/2011 31/07/2011 $244,000 Repair - Moderate PARKS Playground Repairs to playground WP0000206 7 COMPLETE 01/08/2011 20/12/2011 $53,200 Softfall - OPEX undersurfacing PARKS Sports Fields WP0000207 Repairs to sports turf 23 COMPLETE 01/05/2011 31/07/2011 $122,550 Repair - Minor PARKS CEAF 2.2 Hard surface and minor WP0000269 9 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 31/05/2012 $86,500 S/P,F/W,R/W,L/M OPEX structural repairs PARKS Hard Surface WP0000312 Hard surface repairs 44 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 30/04/2013 $247,400 Nthn & Sthn - OPEX PARKS Hard Surfaces WP0000313 Hard surface renewals 14 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 30/04/2013 $224,000 Nthn & Sthn CAPEX PARKS Hard Surfaces WP0000318 Hard surface renewals 17 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 30/04/2013 $451,781 Eastern CAPEX PARKS Hard Surface WP0000321 Hard surface repairs 69 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 30/04/2013 $452,410 Eastern - OPEX PARKS City Wide Turf Repairs to non sports turf WP0000323 102 COMPLETE 01/11/2011 31/05/2012 $324,400 Repairs - OPEX surfaces WP0000571 PARKS 2012 Sports Repairs to sports turf 2011/12 43 COMPLETE 01/09/2011 31/03/2012 $677,814 51 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 262

Number Work of Estimated Estimated Estimated Ward Package Project Description projects Phase Construction Constructi Cost Number in Start on Finish package Fields Repairs PARKS Mature Tree Tree renewals at Hagley Park WP0000768 2 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 30/06/2013 $100,000 Replacements and Sth Brighton Domain Repairs to small ponds and WP0000782 Ponds 2 COMPLETE $11,000 outflows in parks Repairs and make safe work to WP0000784 Cemeteries - Operational headstones in Operational 18 COMPLETE 01/12/2011 30/06/2013 $250,000 cemeteries Hagley PARKS Victoria Lake WP0000252 Relining Victoria lake 1 COMPLETE 01/07/2011 29/02/2012 $500,000 Ferrymead CAPEX PARKS CEAF 1.3 Hagley Hard surface and playground WP0000253 4 COMPLETE 01/09/2011 29/02/2012 $183,000 Pk/Bot.Gdns CAPEX undersurfacing renewals PARKS CEAF 1.4 Hagley WP0000254 Irrigation and Turf renewals 2 COMPLETE 01/07/2011 31/07/2011 $30,000 Pk North CAPEX PARKS CEAF 1.6 H/F WP0000263 Hard surface renewals 5 COMPLETE 01/10/2011 29/02/2012 $230,500 CAPEX PARKS CEAF 1.6 H/F Hard surface, track and minor WP0000264 18 COMPLETE 01/10/2011 29/02/2012 $107,000 OPEX structure repairs PARKS CEAF 1.8 BOT. Playground undersurfacing WP0000265 1 COMPLETE 01/10/2011 29/02/2012 $50,000 GARDENS CAPEX repairs PARKS CEAF 2.9 Hard surface, track and minor WP0000287 VICTORIA SQUARE 5 COMPLETE 01/12/2012 30/06/2013 $217,000 structure renewals CAPEX PARKS CEAF 2.10 WP0000288 CENTRAL CITY PARKS Hard surface renewals 2 COMPLETE XXXX XXXX $13,000 CAPEX PARKS WP0000767 Sumner/Scarborough Hard surface renewals 8 COMPLETE 01/12/2011 30/04/2013 $167,650 Restoration Shirley PARKS CEAF 1.5 Car Park, Driveway, Turf, WP0000255 6 COMPLETE 01/08/2011 30/09/2011 $96,000 Papanui Groynes CAPEX Track and Jetty renewals PARKS CEAF 2.1 English WP0000268 Car Park renewal 1 COMPLETE 01/08/2011 30/10/2011 $247,500 Park CAPEX PARKS CEAF 2.3 S/P WP0000277 Hard surface and track repairs 5 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 31/05/2012 $20,500 OPEX 52 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 263

Number Work of Estimated Estimated Estimated Ward Package Project Description projects Phase Construction Constructi Cost Number in Start on Finish package PARKS CEAF 2.3 S/P WP0000278 Hard surface renewals 3 COMPLETE 01/03/2012 31/05/2012 $100,000 CAPEX Repairs to bankworks at Roto WP0000778 Roto Kohatu 1 COMPLETE 01/02/2011 30/04/2011 $200,000 Kohatu Reserve Spreydon PARKS CEAF 2.4 S/H Hard surface and minor WP0000279 11 COMPLETE 01/11/2011 31/03/2012 $152,115 Heathcote OPEX structural repairs

N/A Green Asset package Cracks and slumping in turf 15 COMPLETE $20,250

ACC: Auckland City Council grant CEAF: Canterbury Earthquake Appeal fund

NOTE: Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Fund projects are billed directly to Dept. Internal Affairs. CCC labour costs to design, project manage and supervise these projects are charged to 721/120 codes depending on the asset type

303 Investigation $11,351,403 Status Summary 72 Build $2,373,400 517 Complete $6,641,575 147 On Hold $4,631,700 $24,998,078 Data from Asset and Network Planning Unit, Christchurch City Council

53 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 264

6.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Plant and Organics Processing Plant

Estimated Estimated Estimated Project Description Phase Construction Construction Cost Start End Clarifiers C4 - New structural bottom Complete Nov 11 3 Feb 12 - CIPP repair to influent pipe - Modify Arms to suit new structure. C3 - New structural bottom Complete 24 Jan 12 30 June 12 - CIPP repairs to influent pipe. - Modify Arms to suit new structure C1 - New structural bottom Complete July 12 28 Feb 13 - CIPP repair to influent pipe - Modify Arms to suit new Structure $9,432,768 Civil & Structural  Paving Complete Oct 11 Sept 12  C2 water Complete Oct 11 Feb 12  Crack repairs to structures. Complete April 11 Nov 12  Reclad Digester 2 Complete Sept 11 Dec 11  PST & Grit Tank Repairs Complete Aug 12 Feb 13  SCT Tank Repairs Construction Jan 13 July 13 $4,914,760

CWTP Contaminated  Repair after hours access road & improve for Complete Oct 12 Jan 13 Sand Disposal Point increased traffic movements.  Repair and strengthen dump point into Lagoon Complete Oct 12 Jan 13 2. $1,500,000 Oxidation Ponds  Transfer structures 1-4 Complete Oct 11 Feb 12  Transfer Structure 4-5. Complete Dec 11 Mar 12  Pond banks strengthen and reinstate to design Complete Jan 12 Feb 13 levels. Complete July 12 Dec 12  Estuary outfall structure Construction Oct 12 May 13  Dyers Road transfer structure $16,250,000

Galleries  South Gallery – drainage and structural Design TBA TBA Proposed repair strategy unsuccessful, redesign underway  North Gallery – drainage & joints Complete June 12 Jan 13  Diagonal Gallery – drainage & joints Complete Jan 13 Mar 13  Pump Stn A – drainage & joints Design May 13 Aug 13  Sludge Rm A – drainage & joints Design May 13 Aug 13 $1,353,550

54 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 265

Estimated Estimated Estimated Project Description Phase Construction Construction Cost Start End CWTP Trickling Filters  External Repairs to Trickling Filter 1 Design/ July 13 Dec 13 Stage 1 Procurement  External Repairs to Trickling Filter 2 Design/ July 13 Dec 13 Procurement $6,850,000

Stage 2  Investigate and repair any damage to Trickling Loss Adjusters 2020 Filter internal structure

Mechanical & General  Digesters 2 Complete Oct 11 April 13 Repairs  Digesters 1 Construction Nov 12 July 13  Digester 4 Investigation May 13 Sept 13  Digester 3 Investigation Aug 13 Jan 13  Digesters 5 Investigation Jan 14 July 14  Digester 6 Investigation July 14 Dec 14  Buffer Tank Complete Nov 11 Jan 12  Primary Sedimentation Tanks Complete June 11 July 12  Bio- Solids Holding Tank Loss Adjusters TBA TBA $6,600,000 Organics Processing  Demolish & Reconstruct Tunnels Construction Mar 12 Oct 13 Plant  Repair & Strengthen Process Hall  Repair Hard Standing $9,518,133 Facilities  Laboratory Design TBA TBA  Control Room Design TBA TBA  Workshops Investigation TBA TBA  Offices/ Cafeteria/ Mtg Room Design TBA TBA $6,000,000 Outlet Structure  Replace Broken Outlet Pipes Construction Mar 13 Sept 13  New Outlet Structure  Decommission Broken Pipes $2,300,000 TOTAL $64,719,211 Data from Project Management Unit, Christchurch City Council

In the table above, the bolded text identifies a change in activity since the previous monthly report.

55 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 266

6.2.4 Burwood Landfill Material Material Estimated Estimated Estimated Project Description Received Processed Phase Construction Construction Cost (tonnes) (tonnes) Start End Burwood Landfill  Prepare areas for disposal 394,700 394,700 Complete Feb 11 Jan 12 Self Funded Liquefaction and Operation Feb 11 Dec 17  Operate and maintain disposal site Infrastructure Rebuild Operation Jan 12 Dec 17 Waste Disposal  Restoration and landscaping Completed Jan 12 Aug 12  Resource consent application  Consultation documents to affected Complete Apr 12 Jul 12 parties

 Consultation Feedback documents Complete Jun 12 Jul 12 to affected parties  Consents granted Complete Jul 12 Sep 12 Burwood Landfill  Design of new cell for residual waste 0 0 Complete Oct 11 Jun 12 To be funded Residual Demolition  Cell construction Construction Mar 12 Mar 13 by Waste Disposal  Operate and maintain disposal site Operating Mar 13 Dec 17 Transwaste  Restoration and landscaping Design Jul 17 Dec 17 Canterbury  Resource consent application Complete Oct 11 Aug 12  Consultation documents to affected Complete Apr 12 Jul 12 parties  Consultation Feedback documents to Complete Jul 12 August 12 affected parties  Consents granted Complete Jul 12 Sep 12 Burwood Resource  Construct areas for storage of 395,000 0 Complete Feb 11 Jun 11 To be funded Recovery Park material and associated roading by Demolition Sorting Complete Mar 11 Jun 12 Transwaste  Design of sorting plant and Processing Facility Commenced Jul 12 Mar 13 Canterbury  Construction of sorting plant Operating Mar 13 Dec 17  Sorting operation  Rehabilitation and landscaping Design Jul 17 Dec 17 Completed Oct 11 Aug 12  Resource consent application  Consultation documents to affected Completed Apr 12 Jul 12 parties  Consultation Feedback documents Completed Jun 12 Jul 12 to affected parties Completed Jul 12 Sep 12  Consents granted TOTAL 789,700 394,700 Data from City Water and Waste Unit, Christchurch City Council

56 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 267

6.2.5 Wells

The damage to wells has been reported separately from the remainder of the non-SCIRT infrastructure rebuild because much of the wells repair work is reactionary due to the ongoing aftershocks.

Forward programming is limited by the reactionary work and the operational requirements of the water supply network, meaning that each package of work is programmed “on the fly” on a prioritised basis before it is issued.

The programme of work must be kept flexible in order to keep as many damaged wells operational as possible while at the same time moving forward with the repair and replacement programme. Only a limited number of wells can be taken out of service at one time to avoid affecting the demand on water supply network, and to minimise water restrictions.

March April March April March April At Ground At Ground Below Ground Below Ground Totals Totals Level Level Level Level Total number of active wells 154 154

Wells yet to be repaired+* 33 31 23 22 56 53

Cost Estimate all repairs+ $4,692,000 $4,692,000 $19,414,000 $19,434,000 $24,106,000 $24,126,000

Wells repaired to date+* 72 74 112 113 184 187

Cost to date+ $3,331,264 $3,433,386 $7,870,871 $7,924,500 $11,202,135 $11,357,886 Data from Capital Delivery Team, Christchurch City Council + includes replacement wells * some wells are damaged both at and below ground level

57 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013268

Attachment 1 PS 15 Location – Alport Place off Ferry Road ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 2 269 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

IMPRESSION OF THE VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM CARTLON MILL ROAD

Status: For discussion Designed: D.Compton-Moen, K.Sanderson, S.Christie, C.Greenshields CARLTON MILL FOOTBRIDGE CONCEPT DESIGN - OPTION 2 Date: 26th March 2013 Scale : nts ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 2 270 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013

EAST ELEVATION VIEWED FROM THE RIVER BANK

ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 2 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 271

Attachment 3 Scott Park area and Stormwater Pipe

1.1 Scope The scope of this paper is to seek approval to upsize the DN 225 stormwater pipe serving Main Road (refer Figure 2) and the surrounding catchment to a DN 300, pipe to meet current Council levels of service.

1.2 Land Condition

1.2.1 Liquefaction Resistance Index Number LRI = Not Listed, area within Scott Park suffered moderate liquefaction

1.2.2 Landzoning Scott Park and Main Road are Council owned assets and are not listed within CERA landzoning. The adjacent residential land to Scott Park is zoned TC2.

1.2.3 Adjacent Landzones / Red Zone Implications The adjacent landzone is TC2.

1.3 Priority of the work The Detailed Design of Main Road 3 Laning will be completed in May 2013. Construction of Main Road 3 Laning is expected to start early in 2014.

Revision 1 Confidential to SCIRT 2

272 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE - 6. 6. 2013273 274 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 - ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. 6. 2013 275

McFADDENS ROAD LAND REQUIREMENT Scale: 1:500 McFADDENS OPTION 1

INNES ROAD LAND REQUIREMENT Scale: 1:500 INNES ROAD OPTION 1

1:500 0 5 10 2015 25 30 35 40 45 50 m @ A1 ISSUE AMENDMENTS SIGNED DATE

DATUM C.D.D. NAME SIGNED DATE CONSULTANT PROJECT TITLE DRAWING TITLE CONTRACT NUMBER ORIGINAL SCALES APPROVED SHEET BENCH MK. Bench Mark DESIGNED P Kickhefer 12/10 FOR TENDER 0630-122-0025 SIZE 1:500 RL Bench Mark RL DES. REVIEW J Denney 12/10 DATE SIGNED CHRISTCHURCH NORTHERN ARTERIAL CAD DRAWING FILE REF. SURVEY Survey DRAWN P Kickhefer 12/10 6/1366/212/1604 A1 SURVEY LB Level Book DRW. CHECK J Denney 12/10 EXTENSION FOR CONSTRUCTION CPG PROJECT FILE NUMBER SHEET Blank Name Blank Details - DATE SIGNED DRAIN. REF. Drainage Ref CONSULTANT PROJECT REF. CONSULTANT FILE REF. OF 30 CAPITAL PROGRAMME GROUP 6-DHLIG.35 CRANFORD ST UPGRADE --- 23 SAP WBS SAP WBS PRINTED ON 27-Sep-10BY Pierre Kickhefer 276 277

COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 Clause 9

CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7 JUNE 2013

A meeting of the Corporate and Financial Committee was held in Committee Room 1 on Friday 7 June 2013 at 9am.

PRESENT: Councillor Helen Broughton (Chairperson) Councillors Ngaire Button, Tim Carter, Jimmy Chen, Jamie Gough and Yani Johanson and Mayor Bob Parker (from 11.15am until 1.10pm.

APOLOGIES: Councillor Broughton for lateness and Councillor Gough for early leaving

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. CANTERBURY AGRICULTURAL AND PASTORAL ASSOCIATION – RENTAL REVIEW

General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Transport and Greenspace Author: Luke Rees-Thomas, Leasing Consultant

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. This report seeks a Council decision on the rent received from the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association (Association).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The 20 year lease between the Council and the Association has been in place since 2001. The Association leases 4.42 hectares of land within this arrangement for the purposes of housing staff and machinery along with the running of weekly livestock sale events. A separate licence is in place to cover the surrounding paddocks, which are able to be utilised by the licensee for the annual Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Show, (“Canterbury A and P Show” - refer Attachments 1 and 2).

3. The current lease agreement provides for a rent review on 1 July 2012 using the method calculated below:

‘5 per cent x the market value of the leased land (at time of review) plus GST’

4. For purposes of the 2012 review, a rental valuation report was commissioned by the Council via Knight Frank Limited. The valuer has determined a level based on the lease calculation method being $22,100 plus GST.

5. The Association has advised the proposed annual rent is not at an operable level given their annual takings and financial position.

6. A review of rental calculation options has been undertaken by the Council, as Landlord. The Association has submitted audited financial accounts covering the past five years to support the review completed by the Council’s in house financial team.

7. Four options for rent compromise have been identified in this report.

278 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 2 -

1 Cont’d

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. The lease was set up at a $1 rental for the first five years with rent reviews to be carried out three-yearly commencing 1 July 2006. Rent reviews were not undertaken in 2006 and 2009.

9. Three of the four options proposed allow for a greater return to be received, benefiting the Lessor (the Council).

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

10. Not applicable.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

11. Options (c) and (d) would require a Deed of Variation to be prepared by the Council’s Legal Services Unit.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

12. Yes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve:

(a) That the rent review due 1 July 2012 is determined at $22,100 per annum in accordance with the lease.

(b) That the new contract rent is not charged for the first year of that review period (1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013) i.e. the rental for that first year is nil i.e. a 100 per cent discount on the contract rent of $22,100 plus GST per annum.

(c) That rent relief is granted to the value of 50 per cent of assessed rental for the remaining term of the current rent review period (1 July 2013 – 30 June 2015) i.e. $11,050 plus GST per annum.

(d) That the Corporate Support Unit Manager and Unit Manager Corporate Finance are delegated the authority to:

(i) Review the rent upon future lease rent review in accordance with the lease terms and conditions.

(ii) Consider the Association’s ongoing affordability and determine rent relief extended beyond 30 June 2015.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

It was requested that the lease and the valuation report be circulated to Councillors before the 27 June Council meeting when this report will be considered (these are in Attachments 3 and 4).

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council adopt Option C - Annual Peppercorn (Nominal) Rental with Nil Rental Reviews (as set out in the paragraph 23 of this report).

279 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 3 -

1 Cont’d

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

18. In accordance with the provisions of the lease, a rental valuation was obtained and on the basis of that the Association was advised that the new annual rent effective 1 July 2012 would be $22,100 per annum plus GST.

19. The Association expressed their concerns regarding the affordability of the new rental and requested a review of the method used to determine the rental. For purposes of aiding their request to retain the current rental charge ($1), the Association has provided audited financial records for the past five years – summarised as follows:

Statement of Financial Performance – Surplus for year:

Year ended 31 December 2007 $103,354 Year ended 31 December 2008 $84,005 Year ended 31 December 2009 $35,013 Year ended 31 December 2010 $91,703 Year ended 31 December 2011 $(10,922)

20. The Council’s Finance Manager (City Environment) has reviewed the annual accounts and summarised the Association’s financial position as follows:

(a) The Lessee is heavily dependant on show revenues.

(b) The Lessee does not have significant cash reserves.

(d) The Lessee would not be in a position to cover the rental (market proposed) via show and other sources of revenue in the present trading climate.

21. The Council’s Transport and Greenspace Unit currently pays the Association around $25,000 per year out of operational budget to maintain the surrounding licensed area paddocks. The licensee is entitled to utilise this area only for the period surrounding the annual A and P Show, typically the four week period leading up to the annual show in November. The cost to maintain the grounds from December to October would otherwise be coordinated through the Council’s maintenance provider, City Care. This is not a requirement of the lease agreement in question.

THE OBJECTIVES

22. The objective in seeking a recommendation to the Council is to determine appropriate rent for the Association, taking into account the tenants financial viability acknowledging the economic, social and recreational benefits to the wider community the annual ‘Canterbury A and P Show’ delivers.

THE OPTIONS

23. Four options have been determined regarding the calculation of lease rental:

(a) ‘Market Rental’ – Status Quo

For the 2012 review, Knight Frank Limited has provided a market rate for the leased area to be $22,100 plus GST per annum.

This method provides a strictly commercial approach to setting rent and does not account for any other factors other than market values. 280 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 4 -

1 Cont’d

(b) ‘Market rent with relief provided’ (Option recommended by staff)

Market rent as established in (a) with rent relief provided by way of a fixed discount on market rent. For example:

A market rate as set by Valuer with a fixed relief percentage provided by the Landlord for the course of the current lease term:

Market rent of $22,100 plus GST with 50 per cent reduction = $11,050 plus GST per annum. This method provides a commercial approach to setting rent while acknowledging the present difficult trading environment and strained financial position of the club.

The current rental charge and consistent with the commencement of the lease, a minimal nominal fee is charged to the Lessee per annum and any future rental reviews are forgone. For example:

A fixed annual fee of $1 per annum.

This method greatly accounts for the Lessee’s contribution to the area and community benefit received.

(d) ‘Percentage of Surplus’

On an annual basis; the Lessee would submit their audited statement of financial position, from which a percentage of surplus shall be calculated and determined as rent owed for the preceding 12 months. For example:

Based on the submitted accounts, the average surplus over the five year period equates to $60,630.60. As such a likely percentage charged being five per cent plus GST would equate to annual rental owed of $3,031.53 plus GST.

This method links rent into the Association’s financial performance. Rent is based on the association’s ability to pay as opposed to commercial market led land lease. It would require a variation in the terms of the lease. This methodology acknowledges the non- commercial nature of the Association’s activity and contribution to the City and Province’s social and economic wellbeing.

Note: For all options provided above, property outgoing costs are to remain as per the current lease agreement as detailed in Clause 14.

THE PREFERRED OPTION

24. Taking into account the Association’s financial position and contribution toward security of the surrounding licensed area, the preferred option is (b) - ‘Market rent with relief provided’.

25. Consultation with the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association indicates that its preference is option (c) - ‘Annual Peppercorn (Nominal) Rental, Nil Rental Reviews’.

281 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 5 -

2. COUNCIL LENDING TO CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED

General Manager responsible: General Manager Corporate Services, DDI 941-8528 Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager Author: Funds and Financial Policy Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. This report proposes that the Council provide debt funding to Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) from time to time during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial year, to enable CCHL to benefit from the improved market access and lower cost of funding available through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). A period of two years is proposed to enable Council to review this practice during the Long Term Plan 2015-25.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. Larger borrowers typically obtain term debt funding directly from capital market investors (such as insurance companies and superannuation schemes), as such funding tends to be more cost- effective than traditional bank loan facilities. Borrowers’ market access refers to the amount they can borrow and the period they can borrow it for, as well as the interest rate they need to pay. Market access depends on the borrower’s quality (that is its credit rating) and also its liquidity (whether enough is borrowed to enable investors to readily trade the debt with other capital markets participants).

3. The Local Government Funding Authority (LGFA) is owned by various local authorities around the country. It exists to improve local authorities’ access to capital markets funding, by providing investors with highly-rated and liquid bonds to invest in. For example, at the recent LGFA tender, councils were able to access eight-year funding at the equivalent of just 0.35 per cent over the 90-day bank bill rate; the cost of three-year funding is estimated to be around 0.25 per cent over the 90-day bank bill rate (see below for comparison to CCHL).

4. Funding from the LGFA is only directly available to local authorities, not their subsidiary companies, so it cannot be directly accessed by CCHL. Current sources of funding for CCHL are not as cost-effective as LGFA-sourced funding, because of its relative lack of liquidity (investors cannot readily on-sell the paper to another investor), and also because of a perceived Christchurch premium (investors’ perception that investment in Christchurch-based entities is more risky, irrespective of the entity’s credit rating). For the sake of comparison, (with paragraph three, above) the CCHL is currently being offered three-year funding at 0.80 per cent over the 90-day bank bill rate.

5. The Council’s liability management policy allows the Council to borrow for the purpose of providing funding to its subsidiaries (such as CCHL), provided that:

 the interest rate charged by the Council to CCHL includes a margin to cover its risk and administrative costs  the Council passes a resolution approving such funding.

6. CCHL management has requested that Council consider providing funding for up to $100 million of its current short-term borrowing, plus additional borrowing as required to fund its on-going investment in Enable Services Limited. These investments have previously been approved by Council and are included in CCHL’s Statement of Intent 2015-16.

7. It is proposed that the Council should provide such funding, provided that:

 amounts will only be advanced upon receipt of a formal request from the CCHL Board  each loan will be subject to a formal Terms Sheet, which will include standard commercial terms and conditions (including an additional administrative Margin for Council)  total CCHL borrowing remains within the levels set out in its current Statement of Intent. 282 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 6 -

2 Cont’d

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. Direct cost savings to CCHL are estimated to be around 0.50 per cent on the amount borrowed (initially $500,000 per year). Indirectly, CCHL’s liquidity risk will be reduced, as it will be more readily able to secure funding for longer periods.

9. If accepted, this proposal would have no impact on the Council’s ability to borrow to fund its earthquake recovery programme, as net debt (that is, Council’s external debt less its loans to subsidiaries) will remain unchanged.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to provide debt funding to Christchurch City Holdings Limited from time to time during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial year for the purpose of achieving greater market access and/or a lower average cost of funding for Christchurch City Holdings Limited, provided that:

(a) Each such loan is formally requested by the Christchurch City Holdings Limited Board.

(b) Such lending would not result in Christchurch City Holdings Limited incurring greater indebtedness than is signalled in its current Statement of Intent.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to provide debt funding to Christchurch City Holdings Limited from time to time during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years for the purpose of achieving greater market access and/or a lower average cost of funding for Christchurch City Holdings Limited, provided that:

(a) Each such loan is formally requested by the Christchurch City Holdings Limited Board to the Council, with the Council’s response to be jointly delegated to the General Manager Corporate Services and the Corporate Finance Manager.

(b) Such lending would not result in Christchurch City Holdings Limited incurring greater indebtedness than is signalled in its current Statement of Intent.

(d) Such lending will be reported quarterly as part of the corporate finance report to the Corporate and Financial Committee.

Councillor Carter did not participate in the discussion or voting on this item.

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

3.1 In representation of the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral (A and P) Association, Ben Tothill and Geoff Bone presented regarding item 1 on the agenda. The Association advocated for the continuation of a peppercorn/ nominal rental on the lease, noting the social and economic contribution of the A and P show to Christchurch city and the background to the land coming under the Council’s ownership.

Councillor Broughton arrived at the meeting part-way through this deputation at 9.10am.

283 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 7 -

4. EARTHQUAKE CLAIMS UPDATE AS AT 30 APRIL 2013

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee receive the report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted.

5. CORPORATE FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED 30 APRIL 2013

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee receive the report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted.

6. INSURANCE BRIEFING

The Chairperson of the Board of Directors for Civic Assurance, Mr Anthony Marryatt, briefed the Committee on the insurance negotiations between Civic Assurance and its reinsurers. Mr Marryatt also responded to questions regarding how he managed his dual roles as Chairperson of Civic Assurance and the Chief Executive of the Council.

Mr Marryatt read out a written statement, which was also tabled at the meeting (Attachment 1.)

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

It was noted that

 the decision from the Committee’s 10 May meeting was to invite the Chairperson of Civic Assurance to the next meeting to discuss the Council’s insurance claim and the timeliness of repayments

 Mr Marryatt could not discuss any information about the negotiations between Civic Assurance and its reinsurers in the open section of the meeting, because legal advice was that to so would potentially jeopardise the Council’s insurance claims process.

The Committee invited Mr Marryatt to the next Committee meeting to advise on receipt of payment for the Council’s underground insurance claim with the Local Authority Protection Programme Disaster Fund (LAPP).

Councillor Gough left the meeting part-way through this discussion at 12.15pm.

PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS

7. APOLOGIES

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Broughton, who arrived at 9.10am, and for early leaving from Councillor Gough, who left the meeting at 12.15pm.

It was resolved that the apologies be accepted. 284 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 - 8 -

8. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

At 11.15am, the Mayor joined the Committee as an ex-officio member.

Councillor Carter moved, seconded by Councillor Johanson, that the Committee:

Resolve that parts the Insurance Briefing (item 13 in the agenda), which do not involve discussion of Civic Assurance’s negotiations with their reinsurers, be discussed in the open section of the meeting.

Councillor Button moved by way of amendment that:

The Committee ask the CEO Performance Review and Remuneration Subcommittee to talk about Mr Marryatt’s dual roles as a Director for Civic Assurance and as the Cheif Executive of the Council.

The amendment was seconded by Mayor Parker and on being put to the meeting was declared lost on division No. 1 by 2 votes to 5, the voting being as follows:

For (2): Councillor Button and Mayor Parker.

Against (5): Councillors Broughton, Carter, Chen, Gough and Johanson.

The original motion was then put to the meeting and declared carried on division No. 2 by 6 votes to 1, the voting being as follows:

For (6): Councillors Broughton, Carter, Chen, Gough and Johanson and Mayor Parker.

Against (1): Councillor Button

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 12.15pm.

On the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Chen, it was resolved to exclude the public for items 9, 10 and 11 as set out on pages 30 and 31 of the agenda.

Councillor Broughton moved that the resolution to exclude the public be adopted for item 12.

The Mayor seconded the motion and on being put to the meeting it was declared carried on division No. 3 by 4 votes to 2, the voting being as follows:

For (4): Councillors Button, Broughton and Chen and Mayor Parker.

Against (2): Councillors Carter and Johanson.

At 12.50pm Mayor Parker left the meeting and at 12.55pm the public left the meeting.

The meeting concluded at 1.40pm.

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR Sec 1 SO 300665 C UR CFR 9505 LETT S N Lot 1 ROAD DP 302504

(S CFR 9505 H75 ) ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 I4.42ha

Lot 1 CFR 45B/852 DP 78991

A Areas and Dimensions Subject to Survey ISSUE AMENDMENT SIGNED DATE

SURVEYED DRAWING NUMBER ORIGINAL SCALES RPS443-20 SHEET DRAWN JA SIZE CANTERBURY A&P FILE REFERENCE 1:2000 DATE 04/2012 WBS 542/00139 A4

© COPYRIGHT PROJECT NUMBER SHEET CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL ASSN LEASE AREA 285 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY © COPYRIGHT RPS 443 1 OF 1 CAPITAL PROGRAMME GROUP TERRALINK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Sec 1 SO 300665 CFR 9505 N CU RLET T S R Lot 1 OAD

DP 78991 (S H75 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 CFR 45B/852 ) HAY Sec 2 T ON A SO 300665 CFR 9505 R 31.51ha OAD

Lot 1 DP 302504 CFR 9505 B 41.29ha OAD R C J M Lot 7 A 10.86ha R DP 73928 IG 16.63ha Lot 2 W CFR CB42C/1208 DP 73928 CFR CB42C/1203

A Areas and Dimensions Subject to Survey ISSUE AMENDMENT SIGNED DATE

SURVEYED DRAWING NUMBER ORIGINAL SCALES RPS443-23 SHEET DRAWN JA SIZE CANTERBURY A&P FILE REFERENCE 1:7500 DATE 04/2012 WBS 542/00139 A4

© COPYRIGHT PROJECT NUMBER SHEET CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL ASSN LICENCE AREA 286 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY © COPYRIGHT RPS 443 1 OF 1 CAPITAL PROGRAMME GROUP TERRALINK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 287 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 288 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 289 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 290 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 291 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 292 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 293 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 294 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 295 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 296 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 297 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 298 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 299 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 300 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 301 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 302 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 303 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 304 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 305 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 306 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 307 308 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 309 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 310

Rental Valuation Report Canterbury Agricultural & Pastoral Association Site, Curletts Road, Christchurch. BE 2412 LA6187

Date 27th June, 2012

Under instruction from Mr Tony Hallams

Prepared for Christchurch City Council

PO Box 13341, Christchurch, 8141

T +64 (3) 377 1460

F +64 (3) 366 2972 www.knightfrank.co.nz

Simes Ltd, Licensed Agent (REAA 2008), MREINZ trading as Knight Frank

Christchurch

This business is independently owned and operated by Simes Limited

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 311

Reference: CS12/55102

PO Box 13341, Christchurch, 8141

T +64 (3) 377 1460

F +64 (3) 366 2972 www.knightfrank.co.nz

Simes Ltd, Licensed Agent (REAA 2008), MREINZ trading as Knight Frank

Christchurch

This business is independently owned and operated by Simes Limited

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 312

Executive Summary

61 Wigram Road, Christchurch Client: Christchurch City Council Purpose of Valuation: To prepare an independent assessment of the current market rental of the Canterbury A & P Association site, as at 1st July 2012. Property Description: The property comprises an area of approximately 4.42 hectares, zoned O3C, with no improvements included. Tenancy Details: The lease is for a term of 20 years less 1 day, commencing 1st July, 2001. Rental reviews are at three year intervals. The rental is based on a formula, being 5% of the current market value of the land. Date of Inspection: 27th June, 2012 Date of Valuation: 1st July, 2012 Annual Rental Market Value: Land Value $442,000 x 5% = $22,100 (Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars) per annum Plus GST and outgoings Key Points . The property is unusual givens its size and location, and zoning as the Agri Business Centre. Critical Conditions . The valuation is conditional on the important notices, disclaimers and qualifications contained in the body of this report Valuer’s Details: W Blake ANZIV/SPINZ Registered Valuer

This Executive Summary forms a part of and should not be used or read independently from the complete report. Particular attention is drawn to the Qualifications and Disclaimers included in this report.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch Date 27th June, 2012 1

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 313

Contents

Contents 2

1. Introduction 4 1.1 Instructions 4 1.2 Market Rental Value Definition 4 1.3 Goods and Services Tax (GST) 4 1.4 Pecuniary Interest Declaration 4 1.5 Professional Indemnity Insurance 4 1.6 Compliance Statement 5 1.7 Qualifications 5 2. Land Particulars 6 2.1 Resource Management Considerations 6 3. Location 7 3.1 Location 7 4. Improvements 8 4.1 General Description 8 5. Occupancy Details 9 5.1 Tenancy Details 9 6. Market Rental Assessment 10 6.1 Rental Assessment Methodology 10 7. Valuation Certification 11

8. Contact Details 12

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch Date 27th June, 2012 2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 314

1. Introduction

1.1 Instructions

Instructing Party: Mr Tony Hallams of Christchurch City Council Purpose of Valuation: To prepare an independent assessment of the current market value of the land for the purposes of calculating the market rental as at 1st July, 2012. Date of Inspection: 27th June, 2012

We accept no liability to third parties nor do we contemplate that this report would be relied upon by third parties. We invite other parties who may come into possession of this report to seek our written consent to them relying on this report. We reserve our right to withhold consent or to review the contents of this report in the event that our consent is sought.

1.2 Market Rental Value Definition

This valuation has been completed in accordance with the Property Institute of New Zealand Professional Practice Standards (5th Edition). Under the International Valuation Standards Committee and PINZ Practice Standards, market value is defined as:

”The estimated amount for which a property or space within a property, should lease on the date of valuation between a willing lessor and willing lessee on appropriate terms in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.”

1.3 Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Unless otherwise stated, all valuation figures herein are stated on a net of GST basis.

1.4 Pecuniary Interest Declaration

The Valuer has no pecuniary interest in the said property, past, present or prospective, and the opinion expressed is free of any bias in this regard. Further, the Valuer’s fee is not contingent upon any aspect of this report.

1.5 Professional Indemnity Insurance

As at the date of this assessment, there is in force and effect, professional indemnity insurance for our valuations.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 4

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 315

1 Introduction continued

1.6 Compliance Statement

We confirm that the valuation contained herein has been prepared in accordance with relevant International Valuation Standards and that:

. The statements of fact presented in the report are correct to the best of the Valuer’s knowledge; . The analyses and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and conditions; . The Valuer’s fee is not contingent upon any aspect of this report; . The valuation was performed in accordance with the NZIV and PINZ Code of Ethics and performance standards; . The Valuer has satisfied professional education requirements; . The Valuer has made a personal inspection of the property; and . No one, except those specified, has provided professional assistance in preparing this report.

1.7 Qualifications

1. This report has been prepared for the private and confidential use of Christchurch City Council for the specific purpose detailed above. It should not be reproduced in whole or part, or relied upon by any other party for any use whatsoever without the expressed written authority of Knight Frank Valuations. We accept no liability to third parties nor do we contemplate that this report would be relied upon by third parties.

2. This valuation is current as at the date of valuation only. The value assessed herein may change significantly and unexpectedly over a relatively short period (including as a result of general market movements or factors specific to the particular property). We do not accept liability for losses arising from such subsequent changes in value. .

3. Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, and Evacuation of Buildings Regulations 1992, Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act 1975. Unless otherwise stated in our report, our valuation is on the basis that the property complies with this legislation or it has no significant impact on the value of the property.

4. Where it is stated in the valuation report that information has been supplied to us by another party, this information is believed to be reliable but we can accept no responsibility if this should prove to be contrary. The information provided by the sources detailed in this report is assumed to be complete and correct. We accept no responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

5. This valuation has been completed in accordance with the New Zealand and Australia Valuation and Property Standards 2009 and the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) International Valuation Standard 1.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 5

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 316

2. Land Particulars

2.1 Resource Management Considerations

Municipality and Planning Scheme Christchurch City Council District Plan Zoning Open 3C (Agri Business Centre)

This is a specialist zone which covers an area of land between Hillmorton and Wigram, comprising in total 120 hectares which is intended to enable the development of facilities suiting the primary industries of Canterbury emphasising public displays, livestock sales, entertainment and business activities related to those functions.

The zone enables the Canterbury sale yards and A & P Showgrounds to relocate the functions from within the city centre where they have historically been located.

The zone provisions include an Outline Development Plan which aims to mitigate adverse effects created by activities by defining their location within the site. Most rural activities such as those normally found in the nearby Rural 2 zone, and not identified as being restricted.

A major function of the land within the zone is its role as a retention basin to assist in reducing peak flow discharges from a large part of the upper Heathcote River catchment into that river downstream of the site.

Accordingly, the zone has been designed specifically for the A & P Association use. It is not the type of property that is ever likely to trade in the open market, which means there is no directly comparable evidence to which we can refer to assist in the determination of land value.

Our valuation has proceeded on the basis that the subject property conforms to all requirements of the District Plan in addition to the Resource Management Act 1991 and subsequent amendments.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 6

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 317

3. Location

3.1 Location

The property is on the western side of Curletts Road, extending through to Wigram Road.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 7

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 318

4. Improvements

4.1 Property General Description

The premises are defined in the lease as 45.2272 hectares more or less being Lot 2 Deposited Plan 78991, Certificate of Title CB45B/853.

That title has been superseded, by Identifier 9505. This contains an area of 46.0311 hectares. This has been further reduced to provide a leased area of 4.42 ha . Apparently the balance area is held under separate licence.

We have used this later identification and area as the basis for assessment of land value.

The land is generally level in contour, and now developed with infrastructure and various buildings in association with the Canterbury A & P Association activities.

Clause 4.4 within the lease refers to the assessment of the current market value of the land without regard to the value of any buildings or improvements on the land except for buildings erected upon and improvements made to the land, after the commencement date by the lessor, at the lessor’s expense, at the sole request of the lessee.

We understand there are no such improvements and accordingly our valuation is of the land only.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 8

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 319

5. Occupancy Details

5.1 Tenancy Details

We have been provided with copy of the Deed of Lease, dated 30th March, 2001 between Christchurch City Council and Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association.

The lease is for a term of twenty years less one day, commencing 1st July, 2010.

Rent reviews are three yearly, based on a return of 5% on the current market value of the land.

The initial rental for the first five year period was $1 plus GST. We understand this has remained unchanged.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 9

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 320

6. Market Rental Assessment

6.1 Rental Assessment Methodology

The rent review provisions provide for the rent to be based on 5% of the land value.

Accordingly it is necessary to determine the underlying land value.

As referred to, the property is unusual given its zoning, and there is no directly comparable evidence to which we can refer.

The closest market comparisons for which evidence is available would be rural and residential lifestyle type block values, on the periphery of the city.

Whilst the land can be used for semi commercial purposes and sustain quite substantial buildings, given the restrictive use, and the likely profitability of such structures within the zone, we do not believe a close and direct comparison can be made with the business zones. To illustrate value levels for larger blocks of business zone land we refer to a property of which we have some knowledge of near Waterloo Rd with Business zoning, expected to transact at about $100 per square metre, or $1m per hectare.

We have analysed recent sales of properties purchased for agricultural purposes, and also lifestyle blocks which typically include the value of the right to construct a residence.

As a result of that analysis, we have concluded that the value of the fringe residential/rural land is broadly within the range of $40-$50,000 per hectare.

Having regard to the locational aspects of the property, and the fact that the zoning does confer the ability to carry on some more intensive uses than might typically be found in the rural zone, we have concluded that the value is between these parameters. We adopt a value of $100,000 per hectare.

On this basis we calculate the value of the land:

4.42 hectares @ $100,000 per hectare = $442,000

The lease provides that the rental shall be 5% of the land value.

The rental is therefore calculated:

$442,000 x 5% = $22,100 per annum.

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 10

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 321

7. Valuation Certification

Acting under instructions from Mr Tony Hallams of Christchurch City Council, Knight Frank Valuations has undertaken a rental valuation of the Canterbury A & P Association site at 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch. We confirm that we have inspected the property as described herein and have prepared this report.

We certify that, in our opinion, the Market Rental Value of the demised premises based on the available evidence and subject to the qualifications and assumptions contained within the body of this report, as at 1st July, 2012, exclusive of GST and outgoings, is:

VALUATION

$22,100 per annum

Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Dollars

Plus GST, if any

This certificate of valuation forms part of, and should not be used or read independently from, the complete report.

Knight Frank Valuation & Consultancy

W Blake ANZIV/SPINZ Registered Valuer Valuation & Consultancy

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 11

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 1 CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE 7. 6. 2013 322

8. Contact Details

W BLAKE, ANZIV/SPINZ T 64 3 377 1460 M 027 229 7427 [email protected]

Knight Frank PO Box 13 341 Christchurch, New Zealand T +64 (3) 377 1460 F +64 (3) 366 2972 www.knightfrank.co.nz

Simes Ltd, Licensed Agent (REAA 2008), MREINZ

Address 61 Wigram Road, Christchurch th Date .27 June, 2012 12

323

Clause 10 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

Held in Committee Room 1, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street on Wednesday 29 May 2013 at 1pm.

PRESENT: Councillor Tim Carter (Chairperson) Councillors Helen Broughton, Sally Buck, Ngaire Button, Jimmy Chen and Jamie Gough and Messrs John Hooper and Michael Rondel

APOLOGIES: Councillor Ngaire Button

The Committee reports that:

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

Nil.

2. AUDIT NEW ZEALAND MANAGEMENT REPORT

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Subcommittee receive the Audit New Zealand Management Report for the year ended 30 June 2012.

SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Subcommittee requested that staff:

 and Audit New Zealand consider how the timeliness of the next management report to the Subcommittee could be improved  consider if there are elements of the future management reports that should be included in the Public Excluded part of the agenda.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

That the staff recommendation be adopted.

PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

3. APOLOGIES

It was resolved that an apology for absence from Councillor Ngaire Button be accepted.

5. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 34 and 35 of the agenda be adopted and that the Internal Auditors, Murray Harrington and Sonja Healey (of PwC) be allowed to remain. 324 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

CONFIRMED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

MAYOR 325 Clause 11 27. 6. 2013

JOINT FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI AND SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD 28 MAY 2013

Report of a meeting of the joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards held on Tuesday 28 May 2013 at 5pm in the Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre, corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads.

PRESENT:

FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI Val Carter (Chairperson), Sally Buck, Faimeh Burke, David Cartwright and COMMUNITY BOARD Jamie Gough

SHIRLEY/PAPANUI Kathy Condon (Deputy Chairperson) and Pauline Cotter. COMMUNITY BOARD

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Anna Button, Ngaire Button, Aaron Keown, Chris Mene and David Halstead.

The Board reports that:

PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. SAWYERS ARMS/GARDINERS ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

General Manager responsible: General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Transport and Greenspace Unit Manager Author: Christine Toner – Consultation Leader

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to ask the Shirley/Papanui Community Board and the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board to recommend that the Council revoke the Stop control detailed in this report and approve that the intersection of Gardiners Road and Sawyers Arms Road be controlled by traffic signals (lights) and to authorise that the project proceed to final design, tender and construction (Attachment 1).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. Safety concerns at this intersection (18 accidents including one fatality had occurred at or near the intersection over a five year (2005-2009 inclusive) year period, with vehicles failing to stop, particularly on the North West approach) led to this project being designed in two stages.

3. The aim of the proposed scheme, across the two stages (with the first stage involving the addition of thresholds, and a relocation in the speed limit change on Gardiners Road northwest) is to contribute towards a significant reduction in accident numbers and severity at the Gardiners Road/Sawyers Arms Road intersection.

4. Stage one (changes to speed limits and the placement of threshold features on the two rural approaches to the intersection) was constructed in early 2012.

5. For the second stage, staff analysed a variety of options and concluded that signalisation was the preferred safety improvement for this intersection. 326 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

6. Key features of this proposal are:

 Signalisation of the intersection, with separate Ahead & Left, and Right Turn lanes on each approach.

 Provision of pedestrian phases across two of the four intersection arms

 The provision of cycle lanes on each approach to the intersection, and advanced cycle stop boxes at the intersection.

 Restrictions in on-street parking on the intersection approaches in order to ensure sufficient capacity along a key arterial route.

 Lighting upgrades at the intersection.

 Two bus stops for bus route 107 Styx Mill – Northland on Gardiners Road northwest of the intersection with Sawyers Arms Road.

 Provision of warning signs on each of the rural intersection approaches (Gardiners Road North East and Sawyers Arms Road North West).

7. Consultation was carried out in March 2013, comprising a leaflet drop and mailing to property owners and occupiers in Sawyers Arms Road and Gardiners Road between Claridges Road, Johns Road, Highsted Road and Harewood Road and including the immediately neighbouring streets within this area. Individuals and organisations on the Master Transport Stakeholders list, local residents associations and businesses were also mailed or emailed the consultation leaflet.

8. There were 125 responses in total with 101 indicating support for the project and 12 specifying non –support. 67 general comments were totally in favour of the introduction of signals at this intersection. A summary is attached to this report and a short summary provided under the Consultation Fulfilment section. A number of the responses referred to previous consultation and changes made in stage one, and lamented that the signals should have been put in earlier than now. 14 comments referred to the removal of parking where two lanes are necessary for the signals, citing difficulties entering and exiting properties and lack of parking for visitors. Several responses favoured the ‘no stopping’ restrictions and some expressed concerns about congestion caused by kindergarten users parking. There were concerns about access to the kindergarten, especially for vehicles turning right (from the west) into the kindergarten entrance and exiting and turning right out of the private lane north of Sawyers Arms onto Gardiners Road. Issues also included speed of through traffic on both Sawyers Arms Road and Gardiners Road; right turning at the intersection; requests for all right turns to be banned; requests for right turn arrows to be included in the signalisation; suggestions that a roundabout would be better than signals; suggestions that heavy trucks should not be allowed on Sawyers Arms Road; concern about the safety of cyclists advance stop boxes; and requests for signalised pedestrian crossings on all four arms, linked to new footpaths on the northern side of Sawyers Arms Road.

9. As a result of the consultation feedback, the right turn lane for northwest bound traffic on Sawyers Arms Road was shortened from 24 metres to 18 metres to enable right turning traffic into the early childhood centre to use the chevron markings on the right turn lane as a refuge area where they can wait safely to turn.

10. Temporary changes had already been made to two bus stops near this intersection, moving them to the north arm of Gardiners Road when the Route 107 – Styx Mill changed. The resolutions in this report include the formalising of this change.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

11. The estimated cost of this proposal is approximately $528,622. 327 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

12. The Safety Improvement works for the Sawyers Arms/Gardiners Road intersection is programmed in the 2009 – 19 LTCCP (page 249), and the 2013 Three Year Plan (page 307). Based on current estimates, staff believe that there is sufficient funding in the budget to implement the proposed plan.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

13. Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic Parking Bylaw 2008 provides the Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

14. The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions.

15. Community Board resolutions are required to revoke the existing traffic restrictions in the street and approve the new traffic and parking restrictions associated with this proposal, which will require amendment or addition to the Christchurch City Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012. These are detailed in the Staff Recommendations section of this report.

16. The installation of any parking restriction signs and/or markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule Traffic Control Devices 2004.

17. There are no land ownership issues associated with this project. The project is within existing road boundaries.

18. All necessary Resource Consents and Building Consents will be obtained before any construction is undertaken.

19. All work will be carried out by a Council approved contractor with the appropriate health and safety work site management controls in place.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

20. As above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

21. Aligns with the Streets and Transport activities by contributing to the Council’s Community Outcomes - Safety and Community.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

22. As above.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

23. The recommendations align with Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-2042.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

24. As above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

25. A summary of the issues raised and the staff responses is provided in Attachment 2. 328 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

26. 125 submissions were received, of which 101 specified support of the proposal. Twelve specified that they do not support the proposal. Formal submissions were received from Canterbury West Coast District of the New Zealand Automobile Association, the Medical Officer of Health, and Environment Canterbury. Details of the submissions and comments received are summarised in the table in Attachment 2.

27. There were 67 general comments made totally in favour of the introduction of signals at this intersection. A number of these referred to previous consultation and changes made in stage 1, and lamented that the signals should have been put in earlier than now.

28. There were 14 comments about the removal of parking where two lanes are necessary for the signals. Concerns related to the difficulty of backing out of driveways into a traffic lane, loss of street parking for visitors and tradespeople, and devaluation of properties because of these changes. There were requests for time limits on the ‘no parking’ restrictions, and indented parking bays. There was a request for angle parking on the grass berm between 107 and 115 Sawyers Arms Road. Several responses favoured the ‘no stopping’ restrictions and some expressed concerns about congestion caused by kindergarten users parking.

29. There were concerns about access to the kindergarten and especially for vehicles turning right (from the west) into the kindergarten entrance, having to cross the waiting traffic queue. Changes to the design will be made in the detailed design stage to facilitate this movement. There were also concerns about vehicles exiting and turning right out of the private lane north of Sawyers Arms onto Gardiners Road.

30. There were comments about the speed of traffic on both Sawyers Arms Road and Gardiners Road, and suggestions that further speed restrictions be introduced.

31. There were several comments about right turning at the intersection, with requests for all right turns to be banned, and for right turn arrows to be included in the signalisation. Several respondents said that they thought a roundabout would be better than signals. Three thought that heavy trucks should not be allowed on Sawyers Arms Road and one asked for ‘no air brakes’ signs to be erected.

32. Three were concerned about the safety of the advance stop boxes for cyclists, and four respondents requested pedestrian signals on all four arms of the intersection and pedestrian refuges or centre islands on Sawyers Arms and Gardiners Roads especially near the school on Cotswold Road. There were also comments about the need for footpaths on the northern side of Sawyers Arms Road to the north west of the intersection.

33. One person asked for the signal cycle time to be shorter than at other nearby intersections.

34. Several submitters made comments about the intersections of Sawyers Arms Road with Harewood Road and Highsted Road. These intersections are not within the scope of this project but the comments have been passed to Traffic Operations.

35. Others expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed new signals on the intersections of Sawyers Arms Road with Cotswold Ave, Crofton Road and Northcote Road.

36. Other concerns were expressed about storm water drains needing to be covered, tree topping, turning into other side streets in the vicinity, uneven road surface through the intersection, and location of bus stops. The scope of this proposal only covered the intersection of Gardiners/Sawyers Arms Roads. These other concerns have been forwarded to the relevant sections of the Christchurch City Council for their action.

37. Consultation will be carried out before this report is tabled, with the immediate neighbours of the two bus stops (outside 102 and 119 Gardiners Road) which were relocated to these positions from south of the intersection when the bus routes were changed during 2012. The stops have been operating as temporary bus stops and need to be formalised. Feedback from the neighbours will be provided. The resolutions in this report include the bus stops. 329 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

38. The changes required to the preferred option as a result of feedback are summarised below:

 The right turn lane for northwest bound traffic on Sawyers Arms Road was shortened from 24m to 18m. This will enable right turning traffic into the early childhood centre to use the chevron markings on the right turn lane as a refuge area where motorists can wait safely to turn into the early childhood centre.

 The shortened right turn lane will have only a minor impact on the operation of the intersection. There will be ongoing monitoring and review of the intersection and consideration should be given to banning the right turn movement into the early childhood centre in the future if this leads to any operational problems.

 Two bus stops for bus route 107 Styx Mill – Northland were recently added on the Gardiners Road northwest approach to the intersection. These have been added to the drawing.

 The two existing bus stops on Gardiners Road outside No 101 Gardiners Road have been removed.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

(a) Recommend that the Council revoke the following parking restrictions:

(i) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the northeast side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres be revoked.

(ii) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the southwest side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 128 metres be revoked.

(iii) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the northeast side of Sawyers Arms Road Street commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 110 metres be revoked.

(iv) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the southwest side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 123 metres be revoked.

(v) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 93 metres be revoked.

(vi) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 88 metres be revoked.

(vii) That any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 58 metres be revoked.

(viii) That any existing parking restrictions on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a south- westerly direction for a distance of 69 metres be revoked.

(b) Recommend that the Council approve the following parking restrictions:

(i) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Sawyers Arms Road Street commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres. 330 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

(ii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 126 metres.

(iii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Sawyers Arms Road Street commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 110 metres.

(iv) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 123 metres.

(v) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

(vi) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing at a point 67 metres northeast of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of eight metres

(vii) That a bus stop be installed on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing at a point 75 metres northeast of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

(viii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing at a point 89 metres northeast of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of four metres.

(ix) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 55 metres.

(x) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing at a point 62 metres northeast of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of four metres.

(xi) That a bus stop be installed on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing at a point 66 metres northeast of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

(xii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing at a point 80 metres northeast of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.

(xiii) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northwest side of Gardiners Road commencing southwest of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 69 metres.

(xiv) That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of Gardiners Road commencing southwest of its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 58 metres. 331 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

(c) Recommend that the Council approve the following special vehicle lanes, specifically a “cycle lane” which restricts the lane for use by bicycles at the following locations:

(i) On the north-east side of Sawyers Arms Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres.

(ii) On the north-east side of Sawyers Arms Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 110 metres.

(iii) On the south-west side of Sawyers Arms Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 126 metres.

(iv) On the south-west side of Sawyers Arms Road, adjacent to the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Gardiners Road and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 123 metres.

(d) Recommend that the Council revoke the following Stop control:

(i) Gardiners Road south-west approach to its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road.

(ii) Gardiners Road north-east approach to its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road.

(e) Recommend that the Council resolve that the intersection of Gardiners Road and Sawyers Arms Road, be controlled by Traffic Signals.

BOARD CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION

After a detailed discussion regarding the points raised in the deputation, the proposed design, the viability and placement of indented parking and safety concerns the Board decided to recommend:

(a) That the Council adopts the staff recommendation – Option 3; and

(b) That indented parking be installed, where practicable, to address the significant loss of on-street parking under the current plan.

BACKGROUND

THE OPTIONS

Three options were considered for this intersection.

39. Option One - Do Nothing

A Do Nothing option at the intersection would result in maintenance of the existing layout at the intersection (albeit with carriageway re-grading to mitigate damage resulting from the earthquakes). This arrangement would not solve the existing problems at the intersection and the congestion, safety issues and concerns for pedestrian and cycle safety would remain. The Do Nothing option is therefore not the favoured option in this instance. 332 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

1 Cont’d

40. Option Two - a roundabout with a reduced internal island and two lanes of traffic on the roundabout

This arrangement would operate successfully in this location and would have sufficient spare capacity to accommodate a future increase in traffic flows though the intersection. However, given the road space available at this intersection, and the need to ensure that any roundabout would be constructed with lanes large enough to accommodate turning movements for larger vehicles, it is unlikely that such an intersection could be constructed safely within the existing road reserve. Thus the option would be likely to require additional land, which would significantly increase the costs for the scheme. It could also cause additional safety problems at the intersection. It would not enhance safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and could continue to promote high vehicle speeds in the area. In addition, roundabout intersections tend to work best when flows at the intersection are well balanced. At this intersection, flows along Sawyers Arms Road are significantly higher than those along Gardiners Road. Finally, provision of a two lane roundabout in this location would not be consistent with future changes along the Sawyers Arms Road corridor, where signalisation is likely to be proposed at the Sawyers Arms Road/Johns Road and the Sawyers Arms Road/Highsted at some point in the future. Thus Option Two is not selected as the favoured option.

41. Option Three - operating the intersection as a signalised intersection, using only the existing land available at the intersection.

This option would have two lanes on each approach, with a straight through and a right turn lane, and pedestrian facilities on three of the four arms. Modelling has shown that this option will operate with significant degrees of spare capacity in both of the 2026 peak periods, and will also be able to accommodate a significant degree of traffic growth beyond the levels shown in the 2026 assessments. It will enhance safety for all road users, including vulnerable users such as cyclists and pedestrians, the volumes of which are likely to increase as the area becomes increasingly urbanised. This option is considered suitable in this location even though it is currently close to a rural/ urban fringe environment, where sometimes signals are not preferred from a road safety point of view. This is because ongoing development will eventually result in the area around the intersection having a more urbanised ‘feel’ within which a signalised intersection would be more appropriate. Additionally, the changes proposed as part of the Western RoNS corridor to the north west, and at the Sawyers Arms Road/Highsted Road intersection to the south east, (where a proposal to signalise both intersections is likely in future) mean that the signalisation of Gardiners Road and Sawyers Arms Road makes more sense from a corridor management perspective. This is the preferred option.

THE PREFERRED OPTION

42. Option Three is the preferred option recommended and detailed in this report.

PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

2.1 STEWART SHADBOLT

Mr Stewart Shadbolt, a resident of Sawyers Arms Road was in attendance and spoke to the Board regarding the proposed traffic improvements at the Sawyers Arms/Gardiners Road intersection.

Mr Shadbolt spoke to his presentation and raised his concerns including; the length of the proposed no stopping restrictions which impacted on the on-street parking in the area, the lack of delivery vehicle/service provider parking, cycling lanes being included in the design and noise and vibrations caused by large vehicles crossing the intersection. Mr Shadbolt also requested that consideration be given to indented parking to alleviate the effects of the no stopping restrictions. 333 27. 6. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013

2 Cont’d

Staff advised that the design of the hatching and no stopping lines was pre determined by legislation and that to install indented parking bays close to the intersection would compromise safety and line of sight for those exiting their properties from their driveways and also for pedestrians crossing the road. Regarding cycle lanes, staff advised that it was Council policy to install cycle lanes on all arterial roads when major roading works were undertaken to provide for future, as well as, current needs.

Refer clause 1 for the decision on this matter.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Shadbolt for his presentation.

The meeting concluded at 5.50pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

VAL CARTER CHAIRPERSON FENDALTON/WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD

CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

KATHY CONDON DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD

334 335 25. 7. 2013 Joint Fendalton/Waimairi and Shirley/Papanui Community Boards 28. 5. 2013 - 10 -

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1 Attachment 1

336 337 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013 Clause 12

REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD

19 JUNE 2013

PART A – MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. FERRY ROAD MASTER PLAN - PHASE ONE CONSULTATION

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI 941 8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: Alison McLaughlin, Assistant Policy Planner

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to:

(a) Update the Council on the community’s response to the draft Ferry Road Master Plan - Phase One from Fitzgerald Avenue to the Ferrymead Bridge (the Draft Plan).

(b) Update the Council on recommendations relevant to the Draft Plan coming out of the Ferry Road Corridor Study regarding the road corridor design options.

(c) Present the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board’s recommendation whether or not submissions on the Draft Plan should be heard.

(d) Provide an initial staff response to the submissions and proposed direction for finalising the Draft Plan, in the event the Council decides not to hear the submissions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. In June 2011 the Council approved the development of a master plan for the Ferry Road corridor to create a vision, framework and action plan to facilitate the rebuild and recovery of centres along the corridor in the wake of the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. The project was divided into two phases and a draft Master Plan for the first phase (Fitzgerald Avenue to Ferrymead Bridge) was subsequently developed in consultation with key stakeholders, property owners and the community. Preliminary work has also commenced on the second phase (Ferrymead Bridge to Sumner) and it is anticipated that a draft version of Phase Two will be presented to the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board and the Council in September 2013.

3. In November 2012 the Council approved the draft Ferry Road Master Plan – Phase One for public consultation. This consultation was undertaken in January and February 2013. Feedback from this consultation was compiled and analysed by AERU, an independent research organisation. The results are summarised in Attachment 1 along with detailed Council officer responses.

4. Sixty seven submissions were received on the Draft Plan. Of these 52 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with the overall direction of the plan, 47 per cent were neutral and 2 per cent disagreed.

5. The actions from the Draft Plan that received the greatest support were:

(a) SA1, CA1 and WA1 - strategic movement corridor and streetscape improvements for the City end, Woolston and along the corridor; and

(b) FA2 - links to the open space network in Ferrymead. 338 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

6. The actions that received the most neutral responses were:

(a) SA5, WA5 and FA4 - the Business Advisor actions

(b) SA3, WA4 and FA5 - policy changes and reviews; and

7. Very few negative responses were received but 3 to 5 per cent of respondents disagreed with the actions relating to Design Guidelines in the centres (CA3, WA3, FA3).

8. Two street design options for Woolston were illustrated in the Draft Plan consulted on (Option 1 - keep on street parking, or Option 2 - provide a separated cycle lane). There was significant support in the submissions (73 per cent) for the second option – separated cycle lanes and removing all on-street parking from Ferry Road through the Woolston Village centre.

9. A Corridor Study has also been undertaken for Ferry Road. The purpose of this study was to help determine transport priorities for the corridor. Recommendations from the Corridor Study can be found in Attachment 2 including recommendations on the location of the Major Cycleway, a recommended road design cross-section for the corridor and analysis around potential loss of on-street parking and how this could be mitigated.

10. After evaluating a number of potential options for the Major Cycleway, staff recommended a Linwood Avenue/Linwood Drain route for the Major Cycleway. However, it is likely that a significant number of cyclists will continue to use Ferry Road because it is perceived to be the most direct route, may be more convenient to destinations on the south side of the central city, and contains a number of destinations including Woolston Village centre and key educational and recreational facilities.

11. The Corridor Study recommends a road design with 1.8 metre cycle lanes in accordance with the City Plan, Infrastructure Design Standards (IDS) and recently adopted Cycle Design Guidelines. This would mean the loss of on-street parking on one side of the street in Woolston (up to 29 spaces between St Johns Street and Heathcote Street). There is additional capacity on side streets to accommodate most of this loss, and future actions in the Master Plan could involve identifying and acquiring alternative parking convenient to the centre.

12. A number of revisions are recommended to the Draft Plan before it is finalised. These are based on the consultation response, the Corridor Study findings, and progress on a number of associated projects. The most significant changes and recommendations are summarised below in paragraphs 48 and 49.

13. Submitters were asked whether or not they would like to speak at a public hearing on the Draft Plan. Twenty three submitters (34 per cent) indicated that they would like to be heard. A detailed summary of the issues of concern to these submitters and officer responses to those issues is provided in section 8 of Attachment 1. It should be noted that hearings would require an additional 4 to 5 weeks which would mean a delay to the adoption of the Master Plan until early 2014.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

14. Budgets for the 2013/2014 financial year include funding for case management and implementation of the plan but not for its finalisation. This is estimated to require an additional two to three months but can largely be funded from the existing budget for the Suburban Centres Programme. Any hearings or additional consultation would be likely to fall in the 2013/2014 financial year with funding coming from the currently allocated budget for the Strategy and Planning Group. Some of the staff time allocated to implementing the Draft Plan will need to be redirected to finalising the document.

15. One capital improvement project has been included in the Draft Three Year Plan which was released for public consultation in March/April 2013. The project involves streetscape and movement corridor improvements in Woolston (Action WA1) totalling $1.5 million for 2013/14 and $1.568 million for 2014/15. 339 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

16. The majority of funding for other actions in the plan is to be considered through the Long Term Plan processes after 2015/2016.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

17. Yes. There is budget allocated in the Suburban Centres Programme for the Ferry Road Master Plan as indicated above.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

18. There are no immediate legal considerations, other than having undertaken consultation in accordance with s82 Principles of consultation of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). In summary, these require that, in relation to any decision or other matter:

(a) affected persons should have reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format appropriate to their preferences and needs

(b) affected persons should be encouraged to present their views

(c) affected persons should be given clear information concerning the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decisions to be made following consideration of the views presented

(d) affected persons who wish to have their views considered should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to do so in a manner and format appropriate to their preferences and needs

(e) the views presented should be received with an open mind and given due consideration

(f) affected persons who present their views should be provided with information concerning the decision/s and reasons for the decision/s.

19. Staff have met with officials from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and will continue to do so to ensure the work undertaken on the Draft Plan is consistent with the Recovery Strategy and Recovery Plans.

20. There is no requirement under s19 Development of Recovery Plans of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 for recovery plans for areas outside the central city to be subject to public hearings.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

21. Yes, see above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

22. Yes, the Annual Plan 2012/13 includes a level of service: the recovery of Suburban Centres is supported by urban design and planning initiatives. Completion of the Plan is provided for within Activity Management Plan 1.0 City and Community Long-Term Policy and Planning updated as at 1 July 2012.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

23. Yes, as above. 340 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

24. Proposed revisions to the Plan are consistent with relevant strategies including the City Plan, the Outline Development Plan for Ferrymead, the Urban Development Strategy and the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch. The master plans recognise the current hierarchy of commercial centres, and are consistent with the vision of enabling the central city to be the pre-eminent business, social and cultural heart of the City. The master plans are also consistent with District Plan objectives for improving the amenity, design and layout of suburban centres and enabling suburban centres to meet people’s needs for goods and services.

25. Recommendations from the Corridor Study align with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (CTSP) and Cycle Design Guidelines.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

26. Yes, as above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

27. Extensive information was gathered from local communities, stakeholders and the elected members during the preparation of the draft Master Plan.

28. Since the Council approved the draft Master Plan for consultation in November 2012, staff have undertaken further consultation with the community as well as key stakeholders including Environment Canterbury, NZTA, Spokes Canterbury and Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga.

29. A summary of the 68 submissions received between January and February 2013 is included in Attachment 1. The submission form asked submitters to indicate:

(a) their level of satisfaction with the overall direction, vision and goals of the Draft Plan as well as with individual actions

(b) which projects they considered to be the most important

(d) which of the two street design options for Woolston they preferred (keep on street parking or provide a separated cycle lane) and their general opinion on providing additional cycling priority measures

(e) whether they had any additional comments or suggestions

(f) if hearings are held, whether or not they would like to speak.

30. Three community drop-in sessions were held in February in Phillipstown and Woolston. Eighty two people attended these sessions and discussed their ideas and concerns with staff.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

(a) Receive the information in this report.

(b) Endorse officer recommendations for revisions to the Draft Plan. 341 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

(i) The report be received;

(ii) Hearings not be held; and

(iii) The Draft Plan be amended in accordance with officer recommendations and comments in paragraphs 48 and 49 of this report; and the recommendations in Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions on the Draft Ferry Road Master Plan – Phase One.

(iv) The preferred option from the Ferry Road Corridor Study in relation to the Woolston Centre is confirmed via further work and reported to the Council in the final Master Plan document.

BOARD CONSIDERATION

The Board received a deputation and supporting information on this matter from Mel Slemint and Max Cappocaccia of 8010 Urbanists. The deputation provided comment and suggested considerations relating to the movement and design content aspects of the Ferry Road Master Plan Phase One (refer Attachment 3).

Board members considered the staff report, attachments and received advice from staff and an additional staff recommendation that the preferred option from the Ferry Road Corridor Study in relation to the Woolston Centre is confirmed via further work and reported to the Council in the final Master Plan document. Board members were advised it is intended that additional urban design workshops will be held with submitters, key stakeholders and Board members in July. Discussion included transportation matters, the impact of Ministry of Education decisions for schools in the area and the possibility of strategic land purchases.

BOARD DECISION

The Board resolved on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Brenda Lowe-Johnson, to:

(a) Receive the information in this report.

(b) Endorse officer recommendations for revisions to the Draft Plan.

(Note: Tim Carter abstained from voting on resolution (b)).

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The Board decided to recommend to the Council on the motion of Islay McLeod, seconded by Bob Todd, that:

(a) The report be received.

(b) Hearings not be held.

(c) The Draft Plan be amended in accordance with officer recommendations and comments in paragraphs 48 and 49 of this report; and the recommendations in Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions on the Draft Ferry Road Master Plan – Phase One.

(d) The preferred option from the Ferry Road Corridor Study in relation to the Woolston Centre is confirmed via further work and reported to the Council in the final Master Plan document.

(e) The Council request Council staff to investigate with urgency potential strategic land purchases along the Ferry Road/Main Road Master Plan area and if identified report back to the Council on this.

(Note: Tim Carter abstained from voting on recommendation (c)).

342 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

BACKGROUND

Preparation of the Draft Master Plan

31. In June 2011 the Council approved the development of a master plan for the Ferry Road/Main Road corridor to provide a vision, framework and action implementation plan to support the recovery and rebuild of the suburban centres. The Ferry Road Master Plan was subsequently divided into two separate but related phases of work:

(a) Phase One – Fitzgerald Avenue to Ferrymead Bridge.

(b) Phase Two – Ferrymead Bridge to Marriner Street, Sumner.

32. Focus groups and public workshops were held in September and October 2011 to determine the needs and priorities of key stakeholders, property owners and the community. The resulting concepts and suggestions were incorporated into a draft Master Plan for Phase One (the Draft Plan) which was approved for consultation in November 2012.

33. It is anticipated that a draft version of Phase Two will be presented to the Council and approval sought to consult in September 2013.

Submissions on the Draft Master Plan

34. The Draft Plan received a total of 68 submissions. All comments have been assessed by an independent research organisation and the feedback has been summarised with Council officer comments and recommendations in Attachment 1.

35. The majority (52 per cent) of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with the overall direction of the plan, 47 per cent were neutral and 2 per cent disagreed. The submitters who disagreed with the plan overall were: Foodstuffs (concerned about urban design guidelines), the B2 landowner in Ferrymead (concerned that the plan might impose more stringent controls than the existing Outline Development Plan and Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (willing to support the plan if manawhenua values are better incorporated).

36. The actions from the Draft Plan that received the greatest support were:

(a) SA1, CA1 and WA1 - strategic movement corridor and streetscape improvements for the City end, Woolston and along the corridor; and

(b) FA2 - links to the open space network in Ferrymead.

37. The actions which received the most neutral responses were:

(a) SA5, WA5 and FA4 - the Business Advisor actions

(b) SA3, WA4 and FA5 - policy changes and reviews; and

38. Very few negative responses were received but 3 to 5 per cent of respondents disagreed with the Design Guidelines in the centres (CA3, WA3, FA3).

39. Two street design options for Woolston were illustrated in the Draft Plan consulted on (Option 1- keep on street parking, or Option 2- provide a separated cycle lane). There was significant support in the submissions (73 per cent) for the second option – separated cycle lanes and removing all on-street parking from Ferry Road through the Woolston Village centre.

Recommendations from the Corridor Study

40. A Corridor Study was also undertaken for Ferry Road. The purpose of the study was to help determine transport priorities for the corridor. Recommendations from the Corridor Study are included in Attachment 2. 343 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

41. After evaluating a number of potential options for the Major Cycleway, staff recommended a Linwood Avenue/Linwood Drain route for the Major Cycleway. This recommendation was accepted by a workshop of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board and the Environment and Infrastructure Committee.

42. Based on the adopted Cycle Design Guidelines, local cycleways through urban commercial centres should provide separated cycle lanes or, where there is limited street space, 1.8 – 2 metres wide cycle lanes. The Guidelines also recommend separated cycle paths or cycle lanes on arterial roads.

43. Because of the limited opportunities to widen the road in Woolston and the desirability of offering a consistent level of provision along the corridor, the Study recommends a road design that provides for 1.8 metres cycle lanes (wider than the current 1.5 metres) along the length of Ferry Road.

44. The road design recommended by the Corridor Study allows an additional 1.5 metres to respond flexibly to site-specific conditions. However, it is anticipated that this design will result in the loss of parking on one side of the road through the Woolston Centre. It is recommended that parking be retained on the north side of the road as this would be more convenient for evening commuters and would allow streetscape enhancements on the sunny side of the road.

45. A parking study determined that the recommended road design cross-section would result in the loss of 29 parking spaces on the south side of Woolston between St Johns Street and Heathcote Street. There is spare capacity on the side streets to absorb most of the additional demand, but the Master Plan could also include an action investigating alternative sites for providing parking convenient to the village centre.

Revisions for the Draft Plan

46. A number of revisions are recommended for the final version of the Master Plan. These are based on the comments received during the consultation process and further investigations undertaken through the Corridor Study. There were a large number of neutral responses (47 per cent) and several comments on the submission form and enquiries to Council officers have suggested that the community is having difficulty visualising what the effect of the Draft Plan will be on their centres or properties.

47. The majority of the recommended changes focus on further clarifying how the vision will be delivered and what Ferry Road could look like as a result of the actions. Several key recommended changes, however, would provide additional detail and guidance.

48. The key recommended changes are:

(a) Incorporate the findings of the Corridor Study, including the recommended road design option. Update actions and text to reflect that this work has been completed.

(b) Rather than develop Design Guidelines as a separate project, develop and incorporate design principles into the Draft Plan itself through the vision, local centre concepts and enhanced images.

(i) how the centres have been defined, particularly on the City end and in Ferrymead

(ii) when and where B4 land has been included; and

(iii) the extent to which lateral connections and the river, estuary and Ferrymead Bridge can be addressed in the actions.

(d) Removing or revising actions where these overlap with other Council projects. Consolidate these actions under the case management umbrella where appropriate (eg for actions related to the heritage trails along the Heathcote River, which is funded as a separate project in the Three Year Plan, focus could be shifted to improving connections from the corridor itself and case management liaising with that project). 344 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

(e) Amend and expand text to better integrate recognition of the past and continuing relationship of manawhenua to the area across the Draft Plan.

(f) Revise several of the issues including:

(i) Strengthening the integration between the Draft Plan and the appendices (eg including demographic analysis such as deprivation and car ownership levels in some of the issues).

(ii) Ensuring that issues are not defined in a way that anticipates a solution.

(iii) Strengthening the language around natural hazards, particularly coastal inundation.

(iv) Reinforcing the links between issues and actions.

49. Several additional changes are recommended to facilitate the delivery of projects including:

(a) Consolidate the actions where appropriate to strengthen the project-oriented focus and avoid duplication. For example: combining several actions into a single new action identifying matters to be considered as part of the District Plan review.

(b) Reorganise actions to clarify which ones apply:

(i) to the corridor excluding the centres

(ii) to all of the centres

(iii) only to the City end, Woolston or Ferrymead centres.

Hearings

50. Under normal circumstances, the Council would consider hearing submissions on a plan of this nature in order to maintain community confidence in the plan. In considering whether or not to recommend hearings, staff have taken into account:

(a) The extent and nature of consultation already undertaken.

(b) The number of submitters who wished to be heard, their key concerns and the extent to which those concerns could be addressed through other processes.

(c) The extent and nature of revisions recommended and the degree to which they materially alter the version of the Plan which the community commented on.

(d) Opportunities for future consultation at the project implementation phase.

(e) Efficient use of resources and the risks associated with delays to implementation.

51. As detailed in paragraphs 24 to 27, there has been considerable opportunity for verbal and written community input into both the development of the draft Master Plan and subsequent consultation on it.

52. Twenty three submitters (34 per cent) indicated that if hearings were held, they would like to speak. A detailed summary of the issues of concern to these submitters is provided in section 8 of Attachment 1. These issues included both support and opposition to improved cycle facilities and removing on-street parking, support and opposition to design guidelines, support for including more actions around the B4 land in Ferrymead and on the City end of the Draft Plan, opposition to the four-laning designation on the City end and concern at the impact of school mergers on child pedestrian safety. 345 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

1 Cont’d

53. The majority of these issues can be resolved through the proposed revisions to the Draft Plan as noted in the officer comments and recommendations in Attachment 1 (e.g. revisiting centre definition and inclusion of B4 land in Ferrymead, Corridor Study recommendations). Some issues have been identified as out of scope (e.g. cleaning up the river) or more appropriately addressed at the detailed design phase (e.g. public toilet location and design; streetscape designs that address the needs of the disabled community). Submitters wishing to be heard who expressed concern at maps showing green links through their properties have been contacted and the Draft Plan can be amended to clarify that any links shown through private land are indicative only.

54. A number of submitters who wished to be heard either supported the development of design guidelines, wanted to see them given more teeth or brought into effect earlier or were concerned that these guidelines might constrain future development options. Officers are recommending that, rather than develop design guidelines as a separate future action, the Draft Plan incorporate clearer guidance by providing additional images and design principles. As part of the process of developing these principles, staff propose to hold further workshops inviting key stakeholders and submitters on the Draft Plan. This is seen to be a more efficient and effective use of Council resources than a hearings process on proposed design principles that were not fully developed in the Draft Plan.

55. Each of the actions, including the modified actions recommended in the ‘staff comment’ section of Attachment 1, will allow for further consultation at the implementation stage. Workshops on the proposed additional design principles will ensure community and stakeholder input into this aspect of the Draft Plan.

56. The Council agreed on 24 April 2013 to move forward the District Plan Review, which will require considerable resources. In light of this, it is unlikely, if hearings were held on the Draft Master Plan, that it could be finalised before spring 2014. Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) repairs are already underway along Ferry Road and a number of redevelopment projects are in the works. Delay in adopting the Master Plan carries a significant risk that substantial amounts of redevelopment could occur before the Master Plan goes into effect.

57. There is no requirement under s19 Development of Recovery Plans of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 for recovery plans in areas outside the central city to be subject to public hearings. The four master plans previously adopted by the Council did not involve hearings.

58. While it is important for the community to feel their concerns have reached decision makers, in this case, given the level of consultation which has occurred to date, it is considered that the issues facing the area are well understood and that concerns can be resolved outside of the hearings process. Weighing current resource availability, the opportunity for further consultation as each of the actions is implemented, the proposed workshops on design principles, and the importance to the community of implementing the Master Plan in time to inform pending development, it is not considered necessary to hold hearings at this stage.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 346

Ferry Road Master Plan Phase One – Fitzgerald Avenue to Ferrymead Bridge 28 January - 28 February 2013 Summary of Submissions

PREPARED BY AERU – Lincoln University PREPARED FOR Christchurch City Council

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 347

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 348

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 4 The total number of submissions ...... 4 Methodology...... 4 How to read this document...... 4

2 Executive Summary ...... 5

3 Overall agreement with the plan...... 6

4 Action discussions...... 7 4.1 Strategic Movement Corridor: Connecting city to sea (SA)...... 7 4.2 Local Commercial Centres near the Central City (CA) ...... 15 4.3 Woolston Commercial Centre (WA) ...... 21 4.4 Ferrymead Commercial Centre (FA) ...... 30 4.5 Prioritisation...... 38

5 Best aspects of the Draft Plan ...... 40

6 Aspects of the Draft Plan that need improvement ...... 41 Movement...... 41 Natural Environment ...... 44 Community Wellbeing, Culture and Heritage...... 45 Built Environment ...... 46 Economy and Business...... 48

7 Woolston street design preferences...... 50 Option 1: Keep on-street parking ...... 50 Option 2: Separated cycle lane...... 51

8 Additional cycling priority measures along Ferry Road ...... 53

9 Respondents who wished to be heard...... 55

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 349

1 Introduction

This report presents and summarises the public comments made on the Draft Ferry Road Master Plan which was made available for public consultation from 28 January through 28 February 2013. Information was collected through submissions gathered online, by mail, email, in person and through drop-in sessions. The total number of submissions In total, 68 submissions were made on the Plan. Forty eight (72%) were provided on the submission form for the Plan or through the Have Your Say form and 19 (28%) as free form submissions. Free form submissions were often in the form of a letter-style submission provided via an electronic (Word) document or by the respondent providing a submission formatted similarly to the official submission form. Methodology Respondents were asked if they strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed or disagreed (indifferent), disagreed or strongly disagreed with each of the actions outlined in the Draft Plan. The responses that strongly agreed and agreed (agreed) and those that strongly disagreed or diasagreed (disagreed) were combined in some charts. Each comment was then categorised into one or a number of themes and topics. The themes were based on the Plan’s structure, while the topics evolved from the comments made. The analysis team sorted, categorised, analysed and summarised the information in writing this report. Each comment has been read multiple times by analysts. This report presents points repeated by multiple respondents and one-off ideas. The information presented cannot be considered total support or opposition for an action, as it is not possible to weigh the strength of opinions for particular points within the whole community. The report does contain descriptions of the amount of support for a particular point within the comments made. How to read this document The structure of this report follows the sections contained in the Plan. Most sections begin with the presentation of the number of people who stated they agreed or disagreed with particular actions. These charts should be interpreted with caution. The sample that made them up was not randomly selected and so cannot be considered to represent the opinions of the total population. There was also a relatively small number of respondents. They should not be considered as indicative of general public opinion.

Staff Comments and Recommendations Comments and recommendations from Council staff have been included after the analysis of each action in blue text boxes. The summary and analysis outside of these boxes was compiled by AERU, an independent research organisation associated with Lincoln University.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 350

2 Executive Summary

Overall there was support for the draft plan from respondents. People liked the plan’s emphasis on creating a safe, attractive place for everybody, and its emphasis on people and their needs, and the consultative way the plan had been developed. There was strong support for enhancement of cycling and pedestrian route opportunities both along the strategic corridor and within the strategic open space network. Separate cycle lanes were the preferred option for the street design preference question, with 73% of respondents supporting separated cycle lanes. Additional cycling support measures were strongly supported in submissions. Respondents welcomed an increased emphasis on the local history and ecology of the individual centres, and improvements in the appearance of these centres via integrated design guidelines. This is reflected through the strong support for Actions SA1, CA1, WA1 and FA1 (strategic movement corridor upgrades and streetscape improvements in each of the three centres); SA2, WA2 and FA2 (open space network plans for the corridor, Woolston and Ferrymead); and WA3 (Design Guidelines for Woolston). Safety and accessibility were two themes that emerged as being very important to respondents. A number of respondents commented that the plan did not sufficiently take into consideration the accessibility needs of the elderly, children and the disabled. Other respondents thought the plan included insufficient detail on Ferrymead redevelopment, and insufficient consideration given to waterway and ecosystem improvements. A substantial submission from Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) on behalf of Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki) Rūnanga voiced concern that the Plan currently provides for limited recognition of the matters of relevance and importance to tangata whenua and suggests a number of significant changes that they consider are essential. MKT acknowledged limited resources in their submissions and offer technical support in the revision of several sections of the plan. There was also some doubt expressed regarding the implementation of the Plan, some respondents thought the Plan needed to be part of a District Plan or somehow given more weight to make it more likely to happen.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 351

3 Overall agreement with the plan

Overall there was mixed agreement for the overall vision and goals of the Draft Plan. While only 2% of respondents disagreed with the Plan, 47% neither agreed nor disagreed. 52% of respondents agreed with the Plan; with an equal proportion strongly agreeing or agreeing. In total, 47 people answered this question. The relatively low number of respondents and the non- random nature of the sample means that this result is indicative and is not a robust statistical representation of the whole community’s opinion. The specific aspects of the Plan agreed and disagreed with are discussed through the remainder of this report.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 352

4 Action discussions 4.1 Strategic Movement Corridor: Connecting city to sea (SA)

SA1 ~ Investigate and make detailed recommendations for strategic movement corridor improvements SA2 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for an integrated, strategic open space network plan around the Ferry Road corridor

SA3 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes as part of the City Plan review SA4 ~ Use the Case Management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes SA5 ~ Develop a Business Advisor role for Ferry Road / Main Road to work with business and property owners SA6 ~ Carry out a strategic review of public toilet provisions along Ferry Road

Overall section summary The action most strongly agreed with was SA2; there was little disagreement across all actions. There was strong overall support for this section of the Plan. Many comments of support were made on actions SA1 (enhanced cycle and pedestrian safety) and SA2 (provision of recreational and commuter routes as part of an integrated open space network). The open space network was also identified as being important because of the ways it can benefit and enhance the community. There was strong agreement with SA3 (policy changes) although very few comments were made. There was also strong support for SA6, public toilet provision along the corridor, although opinions as to where this should be located varied. There was support for SA4 (a case manager) as well as for the establishment of a business advisor in SA5 but some respondents were unsure what could be achieved by both of these actions.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 353

SA1: Investigate and make detailed recommendations for the strategic movement corridor This section was strongly supported, particularly SA1(b), (d) and (f) in relation to cyclist and pedestrian safety. SA1 Strongly agree: Enhancing pedestrian facilities and strengthening cycle routes will lead to improve road safety. Priorities in my opinion (cycling / walking / buses) and making the areas pleasant & healthy socially. Overall I see making cycling a viable method of safe transport along this corridor as the biggest priority as part of designing and constructing a city for the 21st century. Many of the other social health benefits flow from making travel without cars a priority. In respect to pedestrian crossings, it was suggested that one of the two zebra crossings near Woolston School could be moved and that school crossings need to be made safer. Foodstuffs requested the relocation of the proposed /existing pedestrian and crossing improvements from mid block Ferry Road to the St Johns St intersection which provides a more practical conjoint between commercial and residential areas and the church, which will provide a double benefit for vehicle and pedestrian safety. A few respondents also expressed concern about the dangerous median strip crossing that is likely to result from the widening of Ferry Road. A number of respondents agreed with widening Ferry Road to four lanes, although one respondent did not, noting that green spaces would be lost, the area where people live will be degraded and the area would become a lot more dangerous to cross. A few respondents made comments about the importance of the corridor in terms of linkages to other areas, such as Sumner and the City although concern was also expressed that Ferry Road needs to keep its connection to the local community and not just become an arterial route. SA1 - Get this right, developing an attractive, safe journey for all road users whether it is a commuter by car or a visitor wishing to make his own way by foot or bike out to Sumner In their submission Environment Canterbury highlighted the importance of the proposed detailed corridor study. They also stated that care should be taken not to lose sight of the major transport role played by Ferry Road and that the development of commercial centres should not diminish this role or preclude options for future bus prioritisation measures. New Zealand Transport also supported this action. Buses were identified as a priority by one other respondent and another said: Improvements are needed for traffic flows for both private vehicles and an efficient, reliable, convenient public transport system. Some respondents expressed opposition to the corridor being used regularly by over-dimension vehicles although New Zealand Heavy Haulage Association Inc stressed the need for a route, noting that the Plan must address freight requirements as well as the needs of other traffic. Some specific suggestions in relation to the road network were suggested: • coordinated light phases; • lights on the Dyers Pass roundabout; • a right turn signal leading into Rutherford Street (this respondent was concerned at there being no specific plan for the Ferry Road and Rutherford Street intersection); • closing Barbour Street and others in Charleston off from Ferry Road.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 354

Staff Comments (SA1) The support received for this action is noted. A key component of Action SA1 is the completion of the Corridor Study. The purpose of the study was to examine the existing and future needs of Ferry Road from a transport perspective in order to determine where level of service deficiencies and modal conflict issues currently occur or will do so in the future. The Corridor Study has also be used to inform a decision on the route for the City to Sumner Major Cycleway. The Corridor Study is now completed. A number of options for the Major Cycleway were examined, including using Ferry Road exclusively; Ferry Road with a diversion along the river adjacent to Woolston; Linwood Avenue; or Linwood “drain”. After site visits and analysis, staff recommended a combination of Linwood Avenue and Linwood “drain” for the Major Cycleway, a choice supported by both the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board and the Environment and Infrastructure Committee. The decision to provide the Major Cycleway along Linwood Avenue/Drain, resulted in a reduced need for segregation of cyclists along Ferry Road. Nevertheless, Ferry Road will still be used for local, and some commuter, cycle trips and classified as a local cycleway. According to cycle modelling undertaken, significant numbers of cyclists would continue to use Ferry Road Therefore, in order to not only ensure that the residual cyclists on Ferry Road could use the route safely, but to accord with the City Plan, the Infrastructure Design Standards and the Cycle Design Guidelines, the recommended road design for Ferry Road would include 1.8m on-road cycle lanes. To achieve this in some locations, on-street parking spaces will need to be removed, although in areas where parking demand is high, alternative parking options could be provided. Based on the Corridor Study findings, Council Officers can now undertake further work to refine the streetscape design concept for the corridor and Woolston and Ferrymead centres. Detailed design plans prepared as each action is implemented will contain more specific information about the design of the street and traffic flows (i.e. exact road widths and the location of kerb changes, landscape plots/tree pits, street furniture, detailed cycle lane design, on-street parking and bus stop locations and priority measures, CPTED and accessible design issues). They will also look at key intersections, including Ferry Road/Rutherford Street, St Johns Street, the Dyers Pass roundabout and key school crossing points. Further consultation will be undertaken as part of the detailed design stage. As part of the preparation of the Corridor Study, discussions were held with Urban Development Strategy Partners, including the NZTA, along with key stakeholders such as the New Zealand Heavy Haulage Association in relation to the ongoing role of Ferry Road as an over-dimension route. As a result of these discussions, it is proposed to retain Ferry Road as an over-dimension route. The potential closure of streets in Charleston was not considered as part of the Draft Plan or Corridor Study given the four-laning designation for this stretch of Ferry Road. The suggestions made in submissions on road closures and traffic improvements have been incorporated into the Corridor Study report which will be used to inform future design of the road at the implementation stage. This will include analysis of neighbourhood circulation patterns, key junctions, urban design matters and the pros and cons of providing a median strip. Staff Recommendations • Revise relevant actions and imagery in light of the Corridor Study findings, with changes to be submitted to the Council when approval is sought for the final Master Plan. • Continue to show Ferry Road as an over-dimension route.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 355

SA2: Investigate and make recommendations for an integrated, strategic open space network plan around the Ferry Road corridor

There was strong support for improvements to and development of the strategic open space network, particularly for Actions SA2a (repairing recreational and cycle routes along the Opawaho/Heathcote River), SA2b (improving pedestrian and cycle links between Ferry Road and surrounding destinations), and SA2g (providing well-designed places for people to meet and socialise). Open space networks were identified as being important for community access, creating a sense of place, connecting and enhancing communities, demonstrating good urban design, and presenting an opportunity to be radical and innovative in respect to enhancing commercial centres. Links to the Opawaho/Heathcote River and corresponding open spaces will provide a much needed point of difference to this part of east Christchurch. Increased public use of these green spaces will help to bring more consumers into the Woolston village and other precincts such as the Tannery Boutique Emporium and Ferrymead Historic Park. There was some concern that the Plan does not give sufficient priority to pedestrians and cyclists as well as a comment that improvements to traffic flows will be required if Ferry Road is be used for recreational purposes. It was also commented that care needs to be taken to screen traffic noise and urban vistas from within natural environments, and similarly, to keep bird roosting islands located away from human activity. It was noted that the use of pedestrian footbridges, in general, could impact negatively on wildlife.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 356

Staff Comments (SA2) The anticipated development of the Major Cycleway along Linwood Avenue/Drain (with connections through Charlesworth Reserve to Ferry Road) will make a significant contribution to cycle facilities in the south east of the City. Lateral connections linking the route with other recreational and open space facilities (and local centres) will form part of the route development. This will likely include links with the Heathcote River/Heritage Trail, which the Council has identified separately as a key project. A specific budget has been set aside for this project in the third year of the current Three Year Plan. Both the Major Cycleway and the Heritage Trail therefore fall outside the scope of the Draft Plan. Instead the focus of the Draft Plan is on supporting those connections from Ferry Road. Greater emphasis should be placed on connecting to these projects through a series of key pedestrian and cycle green links. Feedback from submitters and investigations carried out during the course of the Draft Plan development will help to provide greater direction on these key routes. A key goal in proposing improvements within the local centres is to give greater recognition to pedestrians. This point is encompassed by a series of actions in the Draft Plan including streetscape improvements, green links and urban design principles. These improvements seek to enhance pedestrian experience and sense of place. The comments on traffic noise, urban vistas from natural environments and keeping bird roosting islands away from human activity are considered to be beyond the scope of the Draft Plan. Staff Recommendations • Revise to remove actions SA2a, WA2a, and FA2a (improving paths along the river), which are considered to be beyond the scope of the Draft Plan, changes to be submitted to the Council when approval is sought for the final Master Plan. • Revise actions and imagery to identify priority pedestrian routes linking Ferry Road with key local facilities and places, changes to be submitted to the Council when approval is sought for the final Master Plan.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 357

SA3: Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes relevant to the whole road corridor One respondent suggested making shopping areas smoke free. The CDHB notes that it is supportive of the Council review of its Smoke Free Public Places Policy in order to extend this to retail shopping areas and offers support should it be needed.

Staff Comments (SA3) The Council’s Smokefree Public Places Policy currently does not apply to commercial or residential areas. If this was to change in the future, the Council could work with property owners to promote key public spaces as Smokefree areas. Staff Recommendations • Revise the relevant action to denote that through the Case Management function, context- specific policy advice will be provided at the appropriate review stages for the Smokefree Public Places Policy.

SA4: Use the Case Management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes There was support from respondents for the Plan’s focus on improving design outcomes, although some uncertainty was expressed in relation to: how effective design guidelines would be; whether they would stand the test of time and the difficulty of achieving unified rather than ad hoc development. There was also some concern expressed about the ability of community groups to deliver such outcomes. Obviously any improvements desirable. It all sounds good but the devil is in the detail! If property owners can be encouraged to go that extra step towards improvements we shall, hopefully, get a more interesting and better quality rebuild. Concern was expressed by Foodstuffs that: If any urban design guidelines are drafted for the Woolston Village, then to ensure that these guidelines: Are practical and reflective of a working supermarket business. Include carparking. Do not require impractical and unviable retail sleeving around the supermarket. Do not require impractical and unworkable active edges to the supermarket, but instead act to ensure the supermarket site is well landscaped, functional, practical, customer and community friendly and of a high amenity standard. Recognise that a new community supermarket will bring back a 'sense of place' to Woolston. Include constructive not obstructive amenity guidance based on how New Zealand supermarkets work and operate in New Zealand village situations. Planning support, opportunities to share and compliment ideas and looking into best practice and international examples from overseas were desired as were greater safety deterrent features such as cameras. Good quality design was sought specifically in prominent vacant sites in Woolston Village, and in areas along the river that have tilt slab buildings and excessive signage.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 358

Staff Comments (SA4) The support for the Plan’s focus on improving design outcomes is acknowledged. While there was a relatively high percent of neutral responses for this action, a number of comments made suggestions that would fall under the case manager’s responsibilities suggesting that the scope and potential for this role could be clarified in future drafts. Likewise, the three actions relating to case management (SA4, CA2, and WA6) could be combined into a single case management function for Ferry Road as the briefs for these roles overlap and design issues in Ferrymead were frequently sited as a concern. In terms of the ability to achieve this action, Case Managers will work collaboratively with landowners, providing a single point of contact person for support and advice in relation to redevelopment proposals. This will include Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) advice, accessible design and monitoring of international best practice. For example, discussions are ongoing between the Council and Foodstuffs in relation to their Woolston site. However, exactly what case managers can achieve for the community depends on the City Plan provisions and standards that apply to each site. The recently notified proposed Plan Change 56 will provide additional objectives and policies to reinforce a high standard of building design and appearance in the Business 1 and 2 zones. The Urban Design Panel also reviews significant developments in the Business 1 and 2 zones. The upcoming City Plan review will provide another opportunity to explore ways of improving design outcomes. In response to a number of submissions requesting clarification around the vision and design concept/character for the local centres, more detailed information and imagery is recommended for incorporation into the Draft Plan. This would include expanding the historical analysis and natural environment sections to include more detailed support for Māori and industrial heritage design and landscaping elements recommended in the Draft Plan. This additional material would mean that it is no longer necessary for the Council to prepare separate Design Guidelines for the local centres. The Master Plan when adopted by Council should provide staff and the community with a clear vision for the corridor and local centres and provide a useful tool in decision making. Staff Recommendations • Combine the case management actions (SA4, CA2, WA6) and include consideration of Ferrymead • Expand section 4 of the Draft Plan to include additional explanations of Māori cultural values, local ecology and industrial heritage design to support more detailed recommendations for the corridor and centres. • Revise the indicative imagery for the local centres to demonstrate the vision for Ferry Road (including the built form and character) in more detail, with changes to be submitted to the Council when approval is sought for the final Master Plan. • Remove the actions recommending preparation of Design Guidance for the local centres.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 359

SA5: Develop a Business Advisor role for Ferry Road / Main Road to work with business and property owners Although respondents thought this could be useful there was doubt regarding how this would work in reality. One respondent thought it would be a waste of money. Staff Comments (SA5) It was the intention of the Draft Plan that Recover Canterbury would assist with this role. However this organisation no longer exists and a Business Advisor role is beyond the scope of the Council’s core functions. Accordingly, the action can be revised to acknowledge that the Council will instead make staff available through the case management function to support business and property owners within each of the local centres establishing a forum or other organisation. This forum could seek business advice on the issues set out in the Draft Plan, but this would not be a role undertaken by the Council. Staff Recommendations • Revise actions SA5, WA5 and FA4 to remove references to Recover Canterbury and clarify that the Council can provide staff time (i.e. a case manager) to support the establishment of business forums and, if desired, an independent Business Advisor engaged by those forums

SA6: Carry out a strategic review of public toilet provisions along Ferry Road Respondents felt that greater provision of public toilets (and seating) over the entire length of Ferry Road was essential to attract more people to the area although opinion was divided as to their location. Some respondents felt toilets should be near the proposed green space areas but not close to any residential areas; others felt the toilets should be close to the river, and others thought close to the shops. The brightly coloured toilets near Moorhouse Avenue was cited by one respondent as a good example. One respondent suggested larger shops should be paid to maintain the toilets.

Staff Comments (SA6) The submissions highlight the importance of public toilets and a number of questions are raised in relation to where they should be located along Ferry Road. As noted in the Draft Plan further work is required in order to determine the overall provision for and location of toilets along the corridor in the future. Staff Recommendations • Retain as an action the need to review the overall provision and location of public toilets along Ferry Road.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 360

4.2 Local Commercial Centres near the Central City (CA)

CA1 ~ Investigate and make detailed recommendations for movement corridor improvements for Ferry Road on both the local road section and the arterial road section CA2 ~ Use ongoing case management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes on vacant sites (refer to sub points) CA3 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for a set of Design Guidelines for the local commercial centres CA4 ~ Collaborate with the Friends of Edmonds Factory Gardens to investigate and make recommendations for updating Management Plan for the Edmonds Factory Garden

Overall section summary The action most strongly agreed with was CA1; there was little disagreement across all actions. There was strong support for improvements to cycling safety in this section of the report. A number of respondents however commented that the draft Plan did not sufficiently address the needs of local people, especially the accessibility needs of vulnerable citizens (the elderly, the disabled) and school children (particularly those who will need to cross Ferry Road to Woolston School if Phillipstown School closes).

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 361

CA1: Investigate and make detailed recommendations for movement corridor improvements for Ferry Road both the local road section and the arterial road section There was broad support for the actions listed in this section, especially for actions CA1(a) and (e) aimed at making cycling and walking safer and easier. Respondents generally supported separation between cyclists and traffic and some sought separation of cyclists from pedestrians also. Agree but please make cycle-ways segregated from cars - like Amsterdam - it looks like bikes can still cross over into the traffic and vica versa There was support for action CA1(b), improved pedestrian links, particularly more tree planting which would make the area more attractive by providing shade, shelter and helping with smog reduction. Improving pedestrian infrastructure was cited by the CDHB to encourage more people into the area. Other specific comments included: Strongly agree: We support the provision of targeted public transport priority measures along the corridor, the provision of quality footpaths, lighting, landscape design and street furniture as well as the improvement of cycling infrastructure and facilities. (b) quality of footpaths, street furniture etc needs to be accessible and improvements on previous design to meet best practice (Ped Planning and Design Guide, RTS 14, NZ Standard 4121) - includes consideration of heights, colours, location etc (c) plantings need to be of appropriate type so not hazardous i.e. spikey leaves at pram height, grasses that catch in mobility aids or feet. Must be planted not to grow over the capt at any height. Better planning for those who are disabled, elderly or are vulnerable pedestrians in other ways was desired. This included taking into account kerbs, pavement signs and other similar obstacles. Action CA1(f), landscape design themes, was supported with one respondent identifying the plantings in the median between Ferry Road and Madras street with natives under tall trees as a great example. Several respondents made specific recommendations for improvements to traffic flow and safety: Certainly traffic movement needs to be looked at, especially with regards to the four laning of Ferry Rd. Currently it is used by those in the east as an arterial route into town. Traffic should be more strongly encouraged to use Linwood Ave and Brougham St. Both have a far greater capacity than Ferry Rd. If the great majority of traffic could be pushed onto these routes, it would leave Ferry Rd a far better route for public transport and cyclists, as well as a more pleasant environment for the local people and businesses. With less through traffic, it should be unnecessary to widen it to four lanes. I hope the fact that no right hand turn into Bordesley Street and Mathesons Road will be removed. The whole junction at Ferry/Moorehouse/Wilsons Road is messy, confusing and unsafe, particularly for cyclists. Block Barbour Street off at Ferry Road, as per previous comments. It will also improve safety for all road users at intersections. Agree that investigating changes to the traffic light phases at intersections to better control traffic at peak times is a good idea. As peak times are :- West flow 7.30 - 9am approx and East flow mainly 4.30pm to 5.45pm could I suggest a blinking sign similar to that on the Moorehouse overbridge at Colombo Street, reminding drivers that traffic is cuing (sic) and to slow down. Most of the incidents happen when a driver is not paying attention to the slowing and stopping traffic, and runs into the rear of the vehicle in front. Some motorists do not seem

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 362

to understand that the painted central median is to allow for emergency vehicles to pass quickly or as a haven for pedestrians crossing the road. Often drivers hoon down the median for one or two blocks. Perhaps a driver education campaign to bring this to attention would help. The idea for four laning the road does not sit well with us as it would make it near impossible for a pedestrian to cross the road, would further inhibit exiting properties along the route and entering properties would take forever. It would bring noisy, smelly traffic right up to peoples homes and take away large amounts of front section - the most valuable part of a property. One respondent commented on the effects of the proposed amalgamation of schools in the area: If Phillipston School is amalgamated with Woolston School, very young children may be walking along Ferry Road which is proposed to be widened along the City Section. There are serious safety issues which need to be addressed for pedestrians in this part of the plan. Parents may choose to take their children to school by car instead, which pose another set of safety and parking problems.

Staff Comments (CA1) The broad support for the overall improvements to the City End of Ferry Road is acknowledged. The submissions highlight the challenges that exist along this stretch of road in seeking to improve the visual appearance, safety and functionality of the route given the uncertainty around the four-laning designation in place since the 1960s. When the four-laning project is implemented, detailed studies will be undertaken of traffic flows that can address submitter comments about volumes and safety. The Corridor Study projects a greater volume of traffic along the western end of Ferry Road in the future. These volumes are expected to increase over time and will require careful consideration when the four-laning project is undertaken in order to ensure good outcomes for all users. An appendix on urban design considerations will be added to the full Corridor Study to provide guidance at the implementation stage for developing greater visual recognition of the commercial areas, supporting local communities and improving connectivity between neighbourhoods on either side of Ferry Road. Given that the four-laning project is now programmed in the LTP 2015+ (rather than the 2013-2022 timescale) and a number of submissions focused on wanting more specific actions around the City End part of the corridor it is recommended Council staff review what actions may be achievable over the short term to improve amenity, user safety and connectivity without foreclosing options or preempting design decisions for the four-laning work. The outcome of the proposed school amalgamation is to be finalised following the preparation of this report. The possible merger of Phillipstown and Woolston schools could have a direct impact on the level of cycle provision appropriate for the corridor and the need for pedestrian crossing improvements. It will be necessary to review relevant actions in light of any decisions announced by the Ministry of Education prior to finalisation of the Master Plan. Staff Recommendations • Explore temporary or transitional streetscape improvements along the City end of Ferry Road that will not pre-empt design decisions from the future four-laning. • Monitor the outcomes of the school amalgamation process and make any necessary adjustments to the Draft Plan (with changes to be submitted to the Council when approval is sought for the final Master Plan).

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 363

CA2: Use ongoing case management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes on vacant sites There were few comments in this section. One respondent noted that they did not find this section important.

Staff Comments (CA2) See discussion in SA4. Staff Recommendations • Combine action CA2 with SA4 into a single case management action

CA3: Investigate and make recommendations for a set of Design Guidelines for the local commercial centres There were few comments in this section. One submitter suggested that: I support the design guidelines as long as these do not become very prescriptive. Another was concerned that design guidelines should address accessibility aspects in addition to CPTED. Respondents suggested that: shops be encouraged to locate in clusters, rather than being situated on their own; building height be restricted to less than 11 metres to allow sunlight to penetrate through to footpaths and road; that tilt slab and glass buildings be restricted; and that design requirements be enforced, for example: Enforce new developments to follow heritage design and enforce themed palettes and plantings / Enforce unified signage on buildings in themed palettes. Plus - disallow pavement signage or will end up with the same visually polluted down market shopping area that is there now There was also support for strengthening local communities: Particularly agree with… developing a better, longer, local shopping experience as it builds community, local business viability, and helps decrease transport.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 364

Staff Comments (CA3) The support for design guidance and for improving the pedestrian commercial environment is noted as are concerns that this guidance not become overly proscriptive. Given the importance of promoting good design outcomes a key role of the Case Manager is to work with local landowners to achieve better integrated and more efficient site layouts within the context of the overall vision for the City end and the Ferry Road corridor as a whole. Providing advice on accessible design can be incorporated into this function. The City Plan outlines the height limit requirements for development and it is anticipated that these limits will be examined as part of the City Plan review. However, it is not considered necessary to recommend a new action to investigate the reduction in height limits at this time. In terms of design requirements, in response to a number of submissions requesting more information around the vision and design concept/character for the local centres, further information and imagery is proposed to be inserted into the Draft Plan. The imagery will reflect the anticipated scale of development and further demonstrate the application of the palette of materials outlined in Figure 31. It will be clarified that purpose of the imagery contained in the Draft Plan is to communicate a vision and it (along with the associated actions) is not intended to provide detailed design requirements. This additional information will mean that it is no longer considered necessary for the Council to prepare separate Design Guidelines for the local centres. In terms of the location of (commercial) buildings in clusters rather than on their own, this is a key issue along the City End. This has occurred due to the use of both Business and Residential Zoned sites for commercial activity. In the context of this (and other submitter concerns) there is a need to consider as part of the District Plan review the zoning issues at the City End and whether it is effective in creating compact centres. See also the staff comments and recommendations for additional design related guidance at SA4. Staff Recommendations • Revise imagery to more clearly depict the anticipated design outcomes for the City End. • Reinforce within the issues section that the centres at the City End are not clearly defined. • Include a review of the zoning at the City end of Ferry Road as part of the combined action listing considerations for the City Plan review. • Delete action CA3 and provide additional design advice in the Draft Plan itself

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 365

CA4: Collaborate with the Friends of Edmonds Factory Gardens to investigate and make recommendations for updating the Management Plan for the Edmonds Factory Garden Respondents generally felt that the Edmonds Gardens are a valuable, but underutilised heritage feature of the area/city. Two respondents expressed concern that the proposed widening of Ferry Road would have negative consequences for the gardens. Two respondents commented that that the garden’s management was not a CCC concern.

Staff Comments (CA4) Links to some key public open spaces are not clearly legible from Ferry Road, including the Edmonds Factory Garden. Making the inside of the garden visible from Ferry Road may help increase visitor numbers, making it more usable and safer. Options for opening up the site to the street will be explored when the four-laning designation is implemented however, this will need to be balanced against the impacts of greater traffic along the frontage, tree protections and other landscape impacts, cultural values and pedestrian and cycle accessibility. In terms of wider management of the Garden, this falls beyond the scope of the Draft Plan but collaboration on this plan could be included under the case management function. Staff Recommendations • Merge action CA4 with the case management function • Retain an action to improve linkages into the Edmonds Factory Garden from Ferry Road

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 366

4.3 Woolston Commercial Centre (WA)

WA4 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes relating to Woolston as part of the City Plan review

WA5 ~ Work with Recover Canterbury and the Business Advisor to support business owners in Woolston WA6 ~ Engage with commercial property owners through the case management process to support good quality design and planning outcomes WA7 ~ Investigate and make recommendations on the feasibility and potential benefits from establishing a community hub

Overall section summary The action most strongly agreed with was WA1; there was little disagreement across all actions. WA1 and WA2 were the most heavily commented on. There was strong support for improving the movement corridor to ensure the safety of cyclists and pedestrians and removing on-street parking was generally supported for this same reason. There was also a lot of support for recreational routes along the Heathcote River although a number of these comments came with suggestions and cautions for where and how this is done. There were a number of comments on WA3 although some of these implied that the success of any guidelines rested on vision, funding, ‘teeth’ and coordination. A community hub under WA7 was supported for a variety of reasons and there were a few suggestions as to the location and purpose of the hub. Very few comments were made for WA4, 5 and 6.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 367

WA1: Undertake streetscape improvements in Woolston’s commercial centre, including movement corridor improvements There was support for the initiatives suggested under this topic particularly for movement corridor improvements for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. Streetscapes were recognised as lacking and the suggestions in the plan were welcomed. WA1(a) increased separation between cyclists and vehicles was supported. It was commented a number of times that safer cycle ways would encourage more users. One respondent supported physical separation of vehicles and cycles but did not support shared bike and pedestrian pathways due to the nature of faster moving cyclists. Ferry Road needs to be made safer for cyclists, particularly Woolston Village if cycleways are going to be created along the Opawaho/Heathcote river. This part of Ferry road could be used by a lot more cyclists. WA1(b), changes to on-street parking to prioritise cyclists, was commented on a number of times. There was support for changes being made to parking and a few respondents agreed on-street spaces should remain for mobility and quick stop parking (such as outside dairies) in particular. Dedicated parking that does not impact on the road, pedestrian and cyclists while still being easily accessible was desired. ….The plan acknowledges the danger posed by on-street parking (5.2.5) and we recommend the removal of on-street parking and placing parking facilities at the back of rebuilds. Overall, fewer on-street parks improve visibility for pedestrians. When on-street parking is removed for large segment (even just one side of the road) more room is available for a safe cycle lane where people can comfortably ride on the road, away from pedestrians and without danger of being “doored”. We do, however, support increasing the number of mobility parks. WA1(c), encouraging informal pedestrian crossings, was supported by a few respondents. One respondent recommended raised crossing points with trees. Another recognised the difficulty of navigating Woolston village and how pedestrians cross the road at all locations and agreed this area needed work but did not want vehicle traffic to be made too difficult. Another respondent sought for Woolston Village to become a pedestrian priority area with cyclists giving way to those on foot. Recommend pedestrian raised crossing points at several locations interspersed with trees offering shade. Agree with median strips to narrow road width - add crossing points and trees. No onstreet parking other than [the] odd disabled / loading bay. Priority to cyclists and pedestrians In terms of streetscape, comments tended to bundle WA1(d), (e) and (f) together. There was general recognition that the streetscape needed improvements and the actions suggested were welcomed. Specific comments are as follows: The current seating in Woolston centre is very old and weather worn such as the seat outside the fish and chip shop and the one near the information board. Enforce new developments to follow heritage design and enforce themed palettes and plantings Use of materials and plants to evoke natural and cultural heritage needs to done sensitively and well for it to work. There are examples of street developments where it hasn't worked well. It is a good idea to help create identity, however. Few comments were made on WA1(g) – public transport priority measures. The CDHB recommended that the provision of targeted public transport priority measures for Sumner bound buses in the evening peak period are extended to the morning peak period also. Foodstuffs

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 368

expressed a desire to avoid priority bus measures through Woolston village as they would create a less pedestrian friendly, poor amenity and high traffic speed area. Another respondent stated: Also should consider state of the art bus stops - high kerbing, real time, colour contrast, to attract users. Similarly, few comments were made on WA1(h) – measures to encourage drivers to reduce speed and exercise caution. Median strips to narrow the road to reduce the speed of traffic was supported by a few respondents and two specific comments suggesting reductions of speed down to 30km/h and 40/km. The CDHB recommended: Along with introducing measures such as planting beds and median strips to make the carriageway feel narrower, consideration be given to lower traffic speeds in commercial areas. One respondent pointed out that the drawings and proposed layout for this section did not take into account a proposed Pak’n Save at the existing Supervalue store and the potential traffic flow and usage implications this will have.

Staff Comments (WA1) The support for the overall improvements to the look and feel of Woolston along with improvements to the movement corridor in this location is acknowledged. Based on the findings of the Corridor Study and the recommended development of the Major Cycleway along Linwood Avenue/Drain, Council Officers can now undertake further work to refine the streetscape design concept for Woolston included in the Draft Plan. The road design recommended by the Corridor Study is a hybrid of the two options contained in the Draft Plan (widened on-street cycle lanes on both sides of the street and parking on one side). An additional 1.5m is available to respond to site specific conditions in Woolston. These recommendations will require the relevant actions and imagery contained in the Draft Plan to be updated and included in the final Plan. The detailed design plan, which is to be prepared following the adoption of the Master Plan will contain more specific information about the design of this section of the street (exact road widths and the location of kerb changes, landscape plots/tree pits, street furniture, on-street parking and bus stop locations). Stakeholders and the community will be asked for their input as part of the detailed design stage. As noted above, the preferred cross section will include car parking on one side of the street only. This is proposed on the north side of the street to provide for parking for those stopping off in the centre on their journey home from the city. This will result in the loss of 29 on-street car parking spaces on the south side of Woolston between St John Street and Heathcote Street. There is some spare capacity on side streets and future drafts of the Master Plan could include an action identifying options for additional parking provision. Council staff are in discussions with Foodstuffs regarding the Woolston supermarket site. The traffic impacts of any redevelopment proposals will be addressed through the resource consent process. Staff Recommendations • Update the Draft Plan to reflect the road design recommended by the Corridor Study • Modify action WA1b to recognise the findings of the Corridor Study and the need to identify and possible acquire alternative parking locations

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 369

WA2: Make recommendations for Woolston as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the full Draft Master Plan The majority of comments under this topic related to recreational routes along the Heathcote River – WA2(a) and (b). These were strongly supported although a number of suggestions were made. These were: ensuring shelter areas are available; to separate cycle and pedestrian pathways; for there to be wheelchair friendly surfaces; to include dog waste bins; to use pathways or boardwalks not concrete; to streamline any sharp angles and to not put walkways through both sides of the river. Two respondents suggested other areas to open up: We would like to see the Woolston loop track (between King Edward Tce/Bamford Street and Long Street) given the same attention as the Towpath. Currently the Woolston Loop Track is not well maintained. This is a Woolston treasure and, sadly, a well kept secret. The Woolston Loop Track continues to have unresolved earthquake problems. This limits the range of people able to safely use the track. It would be optimum to open up the length of Cumnor Tce to walkers and people on bikes, to open up the permanently locked gate over the creek at Long Street, and a create a path along the south bank of the river to Tunnel Road. This would give recreational walkers and cyclists the option to explore the estuary on the Heathcote Valley side. The integrated network should include south-north connections to the proposed Avon River corridor cycle and pedestrian pathways via routes to, around, through and / or on the foreshore of the Bromley treatment ponds - including connections via Bridge St to Southshore. Support for plantings and cleaning up the river/water improvement initiatives were given and the local ecology was stated to be thriving with black back sea gull chicks being successfully raised. We strongly support plantings and water improvement initiatives. We congratulate the council on the superb planting around the Towpath to date. One respondent noted that WA2(e) was important as the playground is small and not well used.

Staff Comments (WA2) The majority of the submissions relate to the development of recreational routes along the Heathcote River and a number of suggestions around this. The Heathcote River Heritage Trail is identified as a key project to be undertaken by the Council and a specific budget is set aside in the Three Year Plan to undertake the necessary improvements. Therefore, improvements to the Heritage Trail are considered to fall outside the scope of the Draft Plan. Instead the focus of the Draft Plan is on supporting and facilitating connections from Ferry Road to important local spaces and places including the Heathcote River, the Coastal Pathway and the Major Cycleway along Linwood Avenue/Drain. Staff Recommendations • Retain actions (such as WA2b) that reinforce key connections from Ferry Road to adjacent commuter and recreational facilities • Move WA2a under the case management function to clarify that improvements to recreational routes along the river are being addressed by another project • Move WA2c (water quality and biodiversity initiatives) under the City Plan review and case management actions

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 370

WA3: Develop Design Guidelines for Woolston commercial centre A number of general comments were made noting the benefits if design improvements were made although it was commented that a coordinated approach, consideration of sense of place, and a source of funding was required for this vision to be successful. Agree more people will use the space if improvements are made. WA3(a) on developing Woolston’s identity as a blend of heritage and riverside character was supported but it was noted by one respondent that any guidelines would need ‘teeth’ and by another that commercial operators will need to have vision. It was also suggested the industrial and cultural heritage of the area should be included as so much of that heritage has been lost in the city centre. There were a few comments in relation to promoting this identity through materials, façade design and landscape design of sites with one respondent seeking enforced unified signage and disallowing pavement signage and another noting themed facades with frontages and display windows can create atmosphere but that vision was again required. Another respondent said: What point is a glossy facade, if behind it, lies ruin There were two comments of support for WA3(c), increasing building set backs to provide more opportunities for socialisation. One respondent supported building set backs to enable better social experience and another noted that if planning is made for enabling social interactions then this will occur but to make sure this occurs with the community behind it. Another respondent stated that seating would be better away from the road and in sheltered areas. One comment was made supporting off-street parking solutions but cautioning that shared facilities for pedestrians and cyclists may make pedestrians vulnerable, particularly those who are vision impaired. This respondent suggested: Add (h) in first point accessible design can be applied by business owners. Care must be taken not to create dangerous environments i.e. use of bollards that are tripping hazards. Need to have a solid feature detectable by cane users to within 150mm of the ground. Blended kerbs/roads are a danger and need to have a feature to ensure vision impaired pedestrians do not accidently enter the roadway. Another respondent said: This is wonderful. Living Streets Canterbury encourage planners to take up the Development Design Guidelines for Woolston commercial centre, especially in regards to showing how attractive off-street parking solutions can support pedestrian activity, as a model for other suburban centres around Christchurch. One respondent requested seating and/or planting boxes outside the Woolston Plunket Rooms at 640 Ferry Road.

Foodstuffs – the owners of the site for Woolston supermarket – submitted that the Plan should accommodate the practical constraints of a working supermarket within its design guidelines. In particular they submit the plan should provide for the retention of on-street parking and provide for vehicle and pedestrian safety via a variety of suggestions to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the new supermarket.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 371

Staff Comments (WA3) It is acknowledged that further information around the vision and design concept/character for Woolston would provide greater certainty for both landowners and developers. This would include further interpretation of the nature and scale of development anticipated and what is intended by the palette of materials currently shown in the Draft Plan in developing the identity of Woolston. Although the Master Plan once adopted will have limited regulatory weight, it will be a valuable tool in working with current and future landowners, in complementing future Design Guidance developed for commercial areas and aiding Urban Design Panel members where relevant. Therefore, on balance with the additional information and clarification around the vision it is no longer considered necessary for the Council to prepare separate Design Guidelines for Woolston. Design improvements within the public realm will also help to develop Woolston’s identity and connections with its wider location and further work is proposed to the streetscape imagery to be included in the final Master Plan. This will include the provision of landscaping and seating and a focus on pedestrian amenity. A 4.5m building setback provision exists along both sides of Ferry Road at Woolston. As noted in submissions, this allows extra room for spill out activities like outdoor seating and additional landscaping. The proposed road design also includes an additional 1.5m that could be used at some sites for enhanced street scene improvements. Signage is currently managed through the City Plan. The development of signage design within the public realm will be considered as part of the streetscape improvements project (see WA1). Staff Recommendations

• Revise imagery to more clearly depict the anticipated design outcomes for Woolston. • Delete action WA3 requiring the preparation of Design Guidelines for Woolston as a separate project.

WA4: Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes relating to Woolston as part of the City Plan review Few comments were made on this topic. These were mainly in relation to WA4(a) about increasing the number of potential customers living within a five minute walk of the shops: Can't see how you can encourage more people to live in Woolston Residants (sic) will always be the life blood of these suburbs. No point living close to the shops if the shops are pubs, liquor stores, take care it is not a social engineering experiment. There was one comment on WA4(b), increasing the number of mixed use buildings within Woolston: We support the development of mixed use and mixed density to provide for the needs of an aging population. Buildings need to be designed which will encourage people to age in place and remain active and mobile within their community.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 372

Staff Comments (WA4) Support for density increases and adaptable, mixed-use building design is acknowledged. These types of developments are enabled by the current City Plan but have not, in the past, been taken up by developers. Several new developments are proposing higher density, mixed-use designs and could provide a model for other developments in the area. These concepts are proposed to be retained in the Draft Plan as part of the goals and vision for Woolston as a compact, walkable community. Staff Recommendations • Reinforce discussion of mixed-density and mixed-use development as part of the goals and vision for Woolston, including revised images that demonstrate the possibilities • Include consideration in the District Plan review action of provisions enabling higher density and mixed use developments within and adjoining Woolston

WA5: Work with Recover Canterbury and the Business Advisor to support business owners in Woolston There were few comments in this topic: WA5 - this will be essential for Woolston to enhance its unique identity and to work towards become a desirable 'boutique' destination for visitors. At the moment the village has a jumbled, ad-hoc identity, with a minority of businesses providing a quality visitor experience (Smokehouse, Twisted Hop). Business support for Woolston business owners can happen via a number of different of agencies at different times. As stated in our written document we have already worked alongside Recover Canterbury in revitilising (sic) a not dissimit (sic) area with great success. Initiatives do not need to be expensive.

Staff Comments (WA5) See staff comments under Action SA5. Staff Recommendations • {Revise actions SA5, WA5 and FA4 to remove references to Recover Canterbury and clarify that the Council can provide staff time (i.e. a case manager) to support the establishment of business forums and, if desired, an independent Business Advisor engaged by those forums}

WA6: Engage with commercial property owners through the case management process to support good quality design and planning outcomes

Few comments were made in this topic: The empty sites are becoming an eyesore and a rubbish look about them especially the Salvation Army Building

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 373

The commercial places need to be amalgamated without lots of stand alone premises that have no connections with each other. Woolston is thriving. It has great scale, and an availability of cheap premises. Build on this!!!

Staff Comments (WA6) The Case Manager seeks to work collaboratively with landowners and this may cover opportunities to amalgamate sites and explore possible uses (both temporary and permanent) for those sites that remain undeveloped. The role of the Case Manager is important within the community in supporting recovery efforts and resilience along with assisting with the overall vision for the Ferry Road corridor as set out in the Draft Plan. In response to a number of submissions requesting clarification around the vision and design concept/character for the local centres, further imagery is proposed to be inserted into the Draft Plan around the built form and character of the centre. This will provide greater certainty as to what the intent of the Draft Plan goals are for Woolston. This further guidance would not drill down into site-specific requirements and accordingly it is appropriate for the case manager to continue to hold individual discussions with Foodstuffs (and other landowners as requested) in terms of their site redevelopment proposals. Given it is the intention for staff to provide greater clarification and information on the built form and character it is no longer considered necessary for the Council to prepare separate Design Guidelines for Woolston. Staff Recommendations • {Combine action WA6 with the other case management actions (SA4, CA2)} • {Revise imagery to more clearly depict the anticipated design outcomes for Woolston} • {Delete action WA3 requiring the preparation of Design Guidelines for Woolston as a separate project}

WA7: Investigate and make recommendations on the feasibility and potential benefits from establishing a community hub

The building of a community hub was supported for a number of reasons: community facilities help build communities, they encourage a sense of identity, are good for socialising and good as a base in emergencies. It was suggested that the Hub includes a community notice board, cycle stands and to be family friendly. Shifting the Woolston Community Centre to a community hub in Woolston Village was suggested as was building around the Plunket/medical rooms/MP offices. Woolston needs a community hub or 'heart' to encourage a sense of identity as a distinct village or place that people belong to. A community hub will help to provide multiple reasons for lots of different people to visit Woolston. Thriving businesses will not be sufficient to create a place where people, particularly on low incomes enjoy visiting - mainly because they won't be able to afford to participate in the local economy. Most small towns in New Zealand have a community hall or centre which are heavily used for multiple purposes. Plus there are many community-based services in the Woolston area that would benefit from being centralised, or at least have a central point from which clients can be referred on to those services. Consider

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 374

shifting the Woolston Community Centre to a community hub in Woolston Village. At the moment, the Community Centre is located in a small building in Woolston Park. It has very low profile, limited facilities and is next to useless for larger community gatherings. Levels of engagement are subsequently very low. This building may be better used by the sports clubs that use the park a lot. The Canterbury District Health Board supported a community hub but noted that there is more than one medical centre in the area and requested consideration is given to the following: • Access: General practice may need to open for longer hours to meet demand and match service accessibility to patient and community need. This relies on appropriate zoning and permitting of extended hours of operation. Parking, transport links and road access need to support ease of access. • Physical requirements: Ground floor access and single-level service provision is preferred, with back office and support functions, staff facilities and amenities on upper floors. • Multi-use facilities: Zoning, land use and building codes need to reflect a mix of services in one location around all general practice locations.

Staff Comments (WA7) The support and suggestions for this action are acknowledged. Investigations are ongoing with the Council’s facilities rebuild team exploring options for establishing a community hub in Woolston that consolidates services. Depending on the outcome of these investigations, action WA7 may be retained or may be combined with the case management function (providing advice based on community feedback including submissions on the Draft Plan for a separate project establishing a community centre). Staff Recommendations • Review the recommendations of the facilities rebuild team into the redevelopment of a community hub in Woolston and update the Draft Plan as appropriate

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 375

4.4 Ferrymead Commercial Centre (FA)

FA1 ~ Undertake streetscape improvements in road reserve adjacent to Business 2 Zoned land

FA2 ~ Make recommendations for Ferrymead as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the full Draft Master Plan FA3 ~ Develop Design Guidelines for Ferrymead commercial centre FA4 ~ Work with Recover Canterbury and the Business Advisor to support business owners in Woolston FA5 ~ Review current City Plan provisions for sea level rise; make recommendations on changes to take into account areas affected by natural hazards

Overall section summary The action most strongly agreed with was FA1; there was little disagreement across all actions. FA1 streetscape improvements were strongly supported particularly separated cycleways from vehicles and pedestrians. Increased measures to assist safe pedestrian crossing were also supported. There was strong support for the suggestions in FA2 for an open space network. Recreation around natural assets such as the river and estuary were commended and cycleways and pathways were supported. Some concern was expressed by landowners with green links being shown on the map going through their properties as well as concerns in relation to ensuring human activity does not impact the environment. FA3 design guidelines were supported and many suggestions regarding the type and kind of design desired were made. Few comments were made on FA4 – supporting business owners and FA5 – natural hazards.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 376

FA1: Undertake streetscape improvements in road reserve adjacent to Business 2 Zoned land Respondents agreed that cycling improvements are badly needed and supported separated cycle lanes not only from cars but also from pedestrians. cycleways seperate from vehicle traffic - pedestrians to be safe. [The Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind] recommend to keep seperate cyclist and pedestrian facilities. Not to have shared surfaces. Keep clear sightlines if shared commuter routes and manage points of conflict i.e. intersections. Respondents commented that accessibility is important but is insufficiently addressed in the Plan – provision for wheelchair access, for example, is missing. There was support for measures that increased the safety and pleasant walking experience of pedestrians although one respondent commented that few people actually walk; they are more inclined to drive. Two specific suggestions for pedestrian crossings were made: There are not enough pedestrian crossings between AMI stadium and Ferrymead bridge. There needs to be one somewhere near the Mitre 10 since there are shops on both sides of the road. FA1 b & e - There are not enough safe places to cross the road near Waterman Place. There needs to be seating somewhere near the Paper Plus shop to encourage customers to park once say in the shopping area by Speights Ale House and then walk to subway or vice versa There was support for a public transport ‘Superstop’ to enhance public transport options, although consideration of well-designed accessible facilities was desired. There was also support for increased access to the estuary and making more of a feature of this aspects of the area’s character, for example, by using design features and connecting pathways and cycleways. One submission related to B2 land at Ferrymead and opposed the draft master plan’s provisions for Ferrymead. The submitter is concerned that the Plan should not affect the Outline Development Plan for B2-zoned land, and that it not be any more restrictive, and not impose any more restrictions on future development than the ODP currently does. The submitter is especially concerned about the proposed areas of green space on his land and notes there is no requirement for green space on the land in the current ODP. He is also concerned that such green space provision should not become a requirement for future development of the land or restrict the ability to provide sufficient parking and that the plan appears to duplicate the design guidelines in Plan Change 56. There were also three submissions regarding proposals within the plan that affect 1013 Ferry Rd, the property to the immediate east of the B2 land in Ferrymead. The proposal in the Plan that a green link enhancement run through a section at 1013 Ferry Road is opposed by one respondent based on: • concerns for cyclist and pedestrian safety as they exit onto Ferry Road; • concern that the exit would limit use of the land at 1013 Ferry Rd due to safety concerns for recreational users; • concern that future development options for the section would be compromised; • lack of sufficient open space; and • a Development Contribution was made at the time the section was developed and this is seen as an additional contribution. The second submitter on 1013 Ferry Road was also concerned that the proposed green link will prevent a building project planned for the land from going ahead and the third submission expressed

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 377

concern in relation to where some of the owners are meant to relocate as the total usable land is reduced due to the walkway going through some of the land.

Staff Comments (FA1) The support for cycling and pedestrian improvements is acknowledged. The recommendation to develop Linwood Avenue/Drain as a Major Cycleway will have significant benefits for local cyclists. Based on the findings of the Corridor Study, Council Officers can now undertake further work to refine the streetscape design concept for Ferrymead. The initial goal of the street cross section to promote pedestrian and cycle safety will be further enhanced by updating the relevant actions and imagery contained in the Draft Plan to reflect the recommended road design. In the context of additional progress on related projects (i.e. the Coastal Pathway, Ferrymead Bridge redevelopment and the recommendation that the Major Cycleway go along Linwood Avenue/Drain), it is now possible to update the location of key crossing points, pedestrian and cycle connections throughout the centre and associated public spaces. The green lines shown in Figure 44 of the Draft Plan are consistent with the ODP for the B2 land in Ferrymead. Council staff have contacted the submitters on 1013 Ferry Road and clarified that the green link shown on that site is aspirational, and that the case manager would seek to work with landowners to achieve an outcome in the spirit of the Draft Plan vision. It is acknowledged that additional information and imagery around the vision and design concept/character for the whole of the Ferrymead local centre would provide greater clarity around the public realm design outcomes anticipated, building further on the estuary and river character. The detailed design plan, prepared at the implementation phase, will contain more specific information about the design of the street (safety and accessible design issues, exact road widths and the location of kerb changes, landscape plots/tree pits, street furniture, on-street parking and the bus ‘superstop’ locations). Stakeholders and the community will be consulted again as part of the detailed design stage. Staff Recommendations • Revise FA1 and associated imagery to reflect the recommendations of the Corridor Study • Emphasise that the green links shown in Figure 44 are indicative only • Update green links and associated text and imagery to reflect progress on associated projects (i.e. the Coastal Pathway, Ferrymead Bridge, the Major Cycleway) • Explain in more detail what is meant by a “green link” and provide more examples that could be used as a starting point for discussions with developers

FA2: Make recommendations for Ferrymead as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the Draft Master Plan There was strong support from respondents for the Plan’s open space network enhancements, especially enhancements that make the natural area more attractive and accessible to pedestrians and cyclists (pathways/cycleways, seating, cycle parks). I'm very enthusiastic about the links to conservation land and walking areas. I’m keen for these areas to be used more to increase their profile, and increase a sense of public ownership.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 378

Cyclists pass through this area, most without stopping and we need to ensure their safety and give nice areas for them to park bikes etc. The river path will be a fantastic asset for recreational walking and cycling and it is essential that it is sealed so that families can use it with scooting kids etc. It will be really handy to have a bridge connecting the Ferrymead and Heathcote sides of the river in the recreational space. Respondents made a number of specific suggestions regarding how paths could link to other areas as well as incorporate other activities: • a bridge that connect the Ferrymead and Heathcote sides of the river; • a footbridge linking both sides of the river on the city side of the business area at Ferrymead; • a path linking Heathcote and the Ferrymead Heritage Park; • linking Ferrymead Park with the Ferrymead shopping area; • create routes along the Heathcote River and to Sumner; • somewhere to buy ice cream in Ferrymead; • turn the south side of the bridge into a place for boating, walking, horse riding. A few concerns were also expressed in relation to green areas and human activity around the area. One respondent expressed concern around privacy and security issues if public walkways (or toilets) were located in close proximity to housing. Concern was also expressed at ensuring there are spaces for seagull roosting areas and that any estuary connections do not impact on wildlife. Flat roofs with grass or stones to enhance wildlife opportunities were suggested. Seagulls need gravel/stoney flat areas to roost. Space now available where petrol station and apartments were, where will they go when these spaces are re-built on. Connecting with estuary needs not to impact on wildlife Suggest wind surfers / yachts & water users go to east side (old bowling green) to connect and increase area of Charlesworth Reserve to include gravel roosting areas. Habitat creation is not "nice native plantings" it is an area where wildlife can live & reproduce & roost etc. The supermarket plantings look fabulous but no birds live there. A number of wildlife enhancements were also suggested along with cleaning up the Heathcote River.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 379

Staff Comments (FA2) The majority of the submissions relate to a range of natural environment comments around the development and/or enhancements of the wider open space network and linkages to the wider catchment. The focus of the Draft Plan is on recovery of the centres and, to that end, supporting and facilitating connections from the centres to the wider commuter and recreational catchment. Improvements to those networks themselves are considered out of scope. Greater emphasis could be placed on these connections in the Draft Plan through an expanded explanation and identification of key pedestrian and cycle routes. As a result of the progress over recent months on projects such as the Coastal Pathway, Ferrymead Bridge and the Major Cycleway, these priority routes can be updated in the final Master Plan. It is acknowledged that further information and imagery around the vision and design concept/character for Ferrymead would provide greater clarity around the design outcomes anticipated. Accordingly, it is recommended that further interpretation of the nature and scale of development and what is intended by the palette of materials currently shown in the Draft Plan (in conjunction with public realm improvements) would be more advantageous than the preparation of separation Design Guidelines. This interpretation would include evolution of the landscape concept, drawing from both the estuarine and river environments and building on potential pedestrian and cycle linkages between the B2 and B4 areas. Staff Recommendations • Revise action FA2a to clarify that the focus is on the enhancement of key linkages and connection in and around Ferrymead rather than improving pedestrian and cycle routes along the Heritage Trail (which is a separate project) • Revise action FA2b, including consideration of water quality and biodiversity initiatives with the District Plan review and case management actions • Revise the imagery to provide greater clarity around the vision and concept for Ferrymead B4 land including enhanced connections with the estuary and river, providing better connections across Ferry Road and the Ferrymead Bridge and a clearer indication of how the street might look with a more developed landscape theme

FA3: Develop Design Guidelines for Ferrymead commercial centre

Respondents strongly supported the Plan’s emphasis on design guidelines and comments were regularly made that the Ferrymead commercial centre is unattractive. A number of respondents expressed a desire for the centre to be more attractive for people to visit and linger. Ferrymead area has always looked uncoordinated and thus not that inviting. Submitters were substantially in agreement that the centre’s natural estuarine character be emphasised and that the centre be linked to the surrounding natural areas. Ferrymead is a unique and special esturay edge and should have special planning rules to maintain it and build only in keeping with the special nature. This means low rise, architecturally congruant designs sympathetic with the natural surrounds. Not tilt slabs and ugly high rise as has previously been allowed to proliferate.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 380

Ferrymead commercial area is ugly and needs a total overhaul if the residents are going to be proud of the area. It does not compliment the Charlesworth Wetlands area, has little shelter from the seawinds. The Linwood Rd extension has magnificent views of the windsurfers, boarders etc but the commercial area needs to blend in! Currently it is a hotch potch of square boxes. Some existing buildings already have glass frontages. Developers should be encouraged to continue the contemporary facades using a variety of heights and natural environment features. The back drop of hills could be used to enhance individual features in the building designs. Covered ways, trees and dedicated walking areas, children's play space in close proximity would compliment the shopping experience. I currently feel discouraged from walking beyond the targeted shop because of the lack of pedestrian facilities.

Many specific suggestions around design work were also made: • ensure design work is resilient; • place outdoor seating in the middle of Ferrymead area so that buildings protect people from any winds and roads; • the Pohutakawas on the sea front could be continued in the rest of the area and become a feature; • big trees along road frontages to further enhance the natural attributes; • keep building heights at 11m • place seating and toilets and public transport together; • pocket greens may keep people in the area for longer; One respondent stated that the current suggested design for the Estuary edge near Ferrymead Bridge looks terrible and against all the principles stated here. Heritage design and enforced themed palette and plantings were supported by one respondent and another respondent commented that a library similar to Beckenham is needed for the larger area (from Woolston/Heathcote through to Sumner) and that a convenient site would be in Ferrymead especially because of the easy access to the bus.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 381

Staff Comments (FA3) The support for the development of Design Guidelines is noted. See additional comments and recommendations on other Design Guidelines actions (SA4, WA3). Design improvements within the public realm will help to develop Ferrymead’s identity and connections with its wider location. Further work is proposed to the streetscape imagery to be included in the final Master Plan. This will include indicative landscaping and seating and a focus on pedestrian amenity and green links. It is recommended that the B4 zoned land be included within this work. The detailed design at the implementation stage of the streetscape improvement action (FA1) can develop the specific details of the landscape palette. This can also include a review of public toilet location and provision, the location of street furniture and whether or not Pohutakawa trees may be appropriate for the estuary frontage. Further consultation will be undertaken at this stage. Staff Recommendations • Revise the imagery to provide greater clarity around the vision and concept for Ferrymead (including the B4 zoned land), with changes to be included in the final Master Plan. • Delete action FA3, preparing Design Guidelines for Ferrymead as an additional project.

FA4: Work with Recover Canterbury and the Business Advisor to support business and property owners There were few comments in this section. It was seen by respondents to be a useful idea. Staff Comments (FA4) See comments and recommendations for the other Business Advisor actions (SA5, WA5) Staff Recommendations • {Revise actions SA5, WA5 and FA4 to remove references to Recover Canterbury and clarify that the Council can provide staff time (i.e. a case manager) to support the establishment of business forums and, if desired, an independent Business Advisor engaged by those forums}

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 382

FA5: Review current City Plan provisions for sea level rise; make recommendations on changes to take into account areas affected by natural hazards There were few comments in this section. In general, respondents supported this section. Some noted that this is good planning practice.

Staff Comments (FA5) The support for this action is noted. Additional technical information is now available on natural hazards. It is recommended that the background section on natural hazards within the Draft Plan be updated to reflect this information, particularly on coastal inundation and future earthquake risk. Staff Recommendations • Update issues related to sea level rise to reflect on wider issues of coastal inundation (tsunami risk and storm surge) and include an issue related to future earthquake risk

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 383

4.5 Prioritisation Respondents were asked to select the six actions that they considered the most important in achieving the Draft Master Plan. Below is the count of the selected actions. SA1, CA1,WA1 and FA2 were the most selected actions.

SA1 ~ Investigate and make detailed recommendations for strategic movement corridor SA2 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for an integrated, strategic open space network plan around the Ferry Road corridor SA3 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes relevant to the whole road corridor

SA4 ~ Use the Case Management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes

SA5 ~ Develop a Business Advisor role for Ferry Road / Main Road to work with business and property owners SA6 ~ Carry out a strategic review of public toilet provisions along Ferry Road CA1 ~ Investigate and make detailed recommendations for movement corridor improvements for Ferry Road both the local road section and the arterial road section CA2 ~ Use ongoing case management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes on vacant sites (refer to sub points)

CA3 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for a set of Design Guidelines for the local commercial centres

CA4 ~ Collaborate with the Friends of Edmonds Factory Gardens to investigate and make recommendations for updating Management Plan for the Edmonds Factory Garden

WA1 ~ Undertake streetscape improvements in Woolston’s commercial centre, including movement corridor improvements WA2 ~ Make recommendations for Woolston as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the full Draft Master Plan WA3 ~ Develop Design Guidelines for Woolston commercial centre WA4 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes relating to Woolston as part of the City Plan review WA5 ~ Work with Recover Canterbury and the Business Advisor to support business owners in Woolston WA6 ~ Engage with commercial property owners through the case management process to support good quality design and planning outcomes WA7 ~ Investigate and make recommendations on the feasibility and potential benefits from establishing a community hub FA1 ~ Undertake streetscape improvements in road reserve adjacent to Business 2 Zoned land FA2 ~ Make recommendations for Ferrymead as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the full Draft Master Plan FA3 ~ Develop Design Guidelines for Ferrymead commercial centre FA4 ~ Work with Recover Canterbury and the Business Advisor to support business owners in Woolston FA5 ~ Review current City Plan provisions for sea level rise; make recommendations on changes to take into account areas affected by natural hazards

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 384

Overall summary of comments Respondents really liked the focus on pedestrian and cycle safety and access as well as the actions relating to recreational routes as part of the open space network. There was support for actions that assisted in the strengthening of local communities such as those mentioned above, as well as a community hub but also design guidelines that increase the attractiveness of places while keeping the character and enhancing the identity or uniqueness of a place.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 385

5 Best aspects of the Draft Plan

Many respondents cited the Plan’s focus on people, particularly through improvements for cycling and pedestrian safety and access as being the Plan’s best feature. The way that it has put people first. Improved cycle safety and access is important, as is encouragements in design to keep people in the shopping areas, rather than just driving past to somewhere else. Keeping the natural/heritage walking along the length of the Heathcote River will improve access and use of the path. I love the concept of developing more paths, walkways along the river. The artists' impression of developing the Connal Reserve and providing indoor/outdoor facities between Woolston and the River has great potential. There was considerable support for the development for the integrated strategic open space network and green spaces more generally. This was often commented on, along with agreement with the emphasis on improving the visual aspects of the area through design guidelines, and increased emphasis on keeping with the natural heritage, creating attractive places and increasing community identity. The best aspects of the Draft Master Plan are those that offer the most promise for meaningful, long term recreational, aesthetic, social, and economic change that could provide real, long term benefits for the surrounding communities, rather than just the commuters who use Ferry Road. These include 1) An integrated, strategic open space network for the entire length of Ferry Road 2) Supporting business and property owners 3) A community hub for Woolston 4) Good design guidelines. We strongly support the integrated, strategic open space network for a number of reasons, including exponentially improved recreational opportunities through this part of the city which in turn can be linked up with the Coastal Pathway and other recreational facilities on the Port Hills and even on the Canterbury plains (e.g. cycle routes from the Little River Rail Trail, Lake Ellesmere or Waimakariri river). The improvement in the quality and look of the commercial centres, the opening up of green spaces for better access, improvements to cycle safety. The idea of 'fit for purpose' transport / movement infrastructure. The establishment of 'destinations' along the corridor, and the sense of community established at these points.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 386

6 Aspects of the Draft Plan that need improvement

Overall section summary The majority of comments were in relation to movement. While this was strongly supported overall, there were a number of suggestions on how to further improve safety and thinking around access for pedestrians and cyclists such as priority, design for vulnerable pedestrians and methods of separation. There were also a number of comments made on the proposed street widening. More attention to the natural environment, particularly the ecosystem and waterways was desired as well as further consideration on a variety of sustainability initiatives. Community, culture and heritage comments were varied. There was a strong desire expressed by Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki Rūnanga) for better inclusion of tangata whenua values and history in this section particularly, but also across the board. There were a number of comments and suggestions relating to streetscape and urban design in terms of the built environment. Comments on business and economy were few, and based around Phillipstown and Ferry Road commercial centres.

Movement There was strong support for this section of the Plan although many respondents thought the Plan did not go far enough for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport or sought for this to be more of a priority. pedestrians and cyclists and buses need priority Prioritising vulnerable pedestrians - accessible design and best practice guidelines and standards should be included. There is no reference to providing adequate space for mobility scooters There is no reference to motorcycle/moped/scooter parking or safety There is an option for people to vote on whether they would like to keep parking on street or improve safety - this should be left to roading design professionals, in my opinion. There is no mention of the cost to the rate payer of offering subsidised on-street parking. Clear separation of cycle lanes from the road and pavement. A landscaped green strip on either side of the road, specifically designed for pedestrians and cyclists. Then, parking for cars next to the road or off road altogether. Finally, a lane into and out of the city for cars. This route should be a beautiful green, treed scenic experience. It has amazing destinations at each end (Sumner and the estuary at one end, the new city center at the other). It could be so special for locals and visitors. At present it is anything but. Living Streets Canterbury would like to see people not cars at the centre of planning strategic movement corridors. One respondent suggested marking ‘quiet’ routes for cyclists: Richardson Terrace – Mackenzie Ave – through Charleston on Charles Street, Wilsons North Road up to Ferry Road/Moorehouse Ave or in Woolston: Catherine Street, Heathcote Street or river route. Reductions of traffic speeds to 40 km/h and 30/kmh through the key centres such as Woolston and Ferrymead were suggested to improve amenity and safety. Similarly, locating trees along walkways

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 387

to create an avenue effect to slow vehicle traffic as well as create a sense of place and make it a nicer area to walk was suggested. There is no mention of reducing traffic speeds in the key centres, Woolson or Ferrymead. Adopting 40km/h speed limits in these areas, although not consistent with arterial function of the road, will increase amenity and safety. Another respondent stated: Clear restrictions on trucks and freight along this road ... maybe have temporary permits for vehicles using this road (e.g. for purposes of construction); emergency vehicles and service vehicles (rubbish collection, street cleaning etc) would be exempt (actually, if vehicle traffic is reduced, need for road maintenance and cleaning will also drop. The Canterbury District Health Board also supported safer inclusive streetscapes: The Council’s goals are supported, particularly regarding: Safe, inclusive streetscape environments and access for all. Better access to community services including healthcare and education for the local community. That Ferry Road becomes a safe and pleasant road corridor, connecting the city with the sea and linking a number of attractive commercial centres promoting walking, cycling and public transport. There were a number of comments made on the four laning designation at the city end of Ferry Road. Submitters felt it would make the area unliveable, more dangerous for pedestrians to cross, would remove sections of gardens, front yards and trees and would result in the loss of street parking: Four-laning of Ferry Rd from Ensors/Aldwins Rds towards the city in my opinion is wrong. It will make this part of the city, in which many people reside, very unliveable. … I also do not see the positive effect the road widening would have on the traffic flow. This part of Ferry Rd is actually not the 'bottleneck' that has traffic jams, they are rather found from Ensors/Aldwins Rd towards Woolston in the mornings. From Ensors/Aldwins Rd on traffic flows freely towards the city. … And I believe that it would be much more dangerous for pedestrians if the four-laning went ahead, as it would make crossing Ferry Rd so much more dangerous. The volume of traffic and exactly what the bottlenecks are need to be looked at far more closely. Just because someone had an idea 40 years ago that part of Ferry Rd needed four lanes, does not mean it still has any validity today or for the future. Upgrade the Ferry Rd / Rutherford St intersection and Garlands Rd to Brougham St to make it more appealing and quicker to use than Ferry Rd for through traffic… I am the Owner of the properties at 351 & 355 Ferry Road adjacent to the Edmonds Gardens. The proposed widening of the street at the front of my two properties will adversely effect the ability for vehicles to safely access Ferry Road. The city plan requires vehicles to on site manourver (sic) onto major arterial roads. The dwelling at 351 Ferry Rd is setback 7.4m and the dwelling at 355 Ferry Rd is set back 9.3m. Vehicles presently use these front yards to on site manourver (sic) and I would still want this to happen in the interests of safety. On behalf of the Charleston Neighbourhood Association I would like to mention the loss of on street parking that would occur with road widening and thus the lost custom for shops. Also workers in the area would then park in side streets causing congestion in residential areas. We the people who live in the area would find it difficult to enter the traffic flow and also be inhibited crossing the road. A number of respondents also commented that the Plan does not sufficiently consider public transport improvements.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 388

Encouraging public transport and cycling will bring more people back to the foot paths, which in turn stimulate economic activity while building community and social connectiveness (Living Streets). The New Zealand Transport Authority noted the following: Movement Issues (p21). 2.1. On the whole, we consider that the relevant issues have been identified. However, many of the issues are framed such that they point to solutions. For example, issue M1 identifies narrow cycle lanes as the issue. Perhaps the real issue would be more accurately described as ‘sub-optimal cycling safety and comfort levels’. If the issue were framed as suggested it would allow consideration of the various solutions available to address it (i.e. not only cycle lanes). The New Zealand Fire Service also drew attention to a number of things which can impact their access and which are important to keep in mind, in particular: reduced road and kerb widths, traffic calming/reduction of speeds, trees and bollards.

Staff Comments (Movement Issues) Support for improved cycle facilities is noted. The recommended road design provides for widened 1.8m cycle lanes on both sides of the road. Detailed design features like accessible design, emergency vehicle access, motor vehicle parking and traffic speeds can be addressed at the implementation phase. If the Major Cycleway is implemented on Linwood Avenue/Drain, a number of options will be available for different types of cyclists. It is envisioned that Ferry Road will provide primarily for confident commuter cyclists and people making local trips, the Major Cycleway will encourage new commuter cyclists and the Heathcote River route will provide a “quiet” route for recreational cyclists and commuters who are willing to sacrifice speed for additional amenity. Submitter comments on the four-laning will be included in an appendix to the Corridor Study which will be used to inform design and decision making when that project is implemented. Environment Canterbury has been involved in discussions around the development of public transport provision in the Draft Plan and key features such as bus priority measures outside Woolston and the Ferrymead “superstop” have been included. Better integration of bus stops and pedestrian crossings in the centres can be considered at the detailed design stage as the streetscape improvement and movement corridor improvement actions are implemented. Several of the issues anticipate solutions and can be reframed to provide for a wider range of options for addressing them. Staff Recommendations • Adopt the road design recommended by the Corridor Study • Retain actions supporting public transport • Revise issue M1 to provide for a broader range of solutions and review and revise other issues which anticipate solutions

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 389

Natural Environment There was some concern expressed that the Plan does not adequately address environmental issues in particular, interactions with ecosystems, wildlife and waterways: Wildlife enhancement missing ! lots of pathways and noticeboards don't help birds to survive. Need to keep people out of selected areas to allow safe nesting & quiet times, tall trees over water required for shags & herons - lots of habitat loss from Brighton. Heathcote River needs to stay human free on Heathcote side. See my comment about roof designs FA3 - done overseas time to step up here. Auckland doing well with wildlife areas this is a prime site to enhance for Christchurch but not humans. …. also please clean up the Heathcote/tributaries. Enhance indigenous ecosystems and wildlife by encouraging native planting. The plan seems vague about the details on how the green spaces will interact with the light industrial area… If the business is industrial, how will the ecosystem on its doorstep benefit as the requirements of the industrial sector may be at odds with the plans and reports produced by Environment Canterbury. Not happy with coastal pathway over causeway or CCC plan to dump rocks into estuary. Need to retain vital feeding ground for god wits along estuary side of causeway. Cockle bed that survived earthquake. Keep all rubble out of estuary !!!. Rare birds are increasing, the estuary and rivers are on track to become cleaner utilise the power of this plan to continue the great work the council have done towards sustainability in the area i.e. encourage impervious surfaces to reduce run-off rates and improve ground moisture, e.g. provisions for stormwater to be directed to planted swales/rain gardens for purification before discharging into the river. Better use of the river, e.g. a swimming / paddling area In a submission on behalf of Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki Rūnanga) it was suggested the plan recognise the importance of water to tangata whenua and required restoration of waterways in the area. There were also a few comments made on sustainability:

With the extent of new building, rebuilding and reworking of hard infrastructure there is an enormous opportunity to require more sustainable waste water treatment options on a global and an individual property basis - especially bearing in mind the proximity of the river. This is not adequately addressed in the Actions. A group of over 20 architects, planners, landscape architects and environmental engineers most of whom live and/or work in the area from Ferrymead-Sumner also provided a section on sustainability:

SUSTAINABILITY: Ferrymead sits in an area of outstanding natural beauty, surrounded by estuary, Heathcote River, and Charlesworth wetland Reserve. Acknowledge, treasure and sustain this uniqueness in every aspect of this masterplan by introducing best sustainability practice. …Include overviews of infrastructure, enabling collaborative strategies between landowners to combat sea level rise, management of land, streams and coastal environments. Incorporate into design guidelines passive solar design, non toxic materials, solar power, natural lighting, passive ventilation, roof water use, grey-water recycling, high insulation levels, energy efficient equipment - should at the very least include the CCC/GBC Base Tool? adopted for the CBD.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 390

Provide opportunity for community gardens with composting facilities to deal with waste from food premises. Encourage commercial buildings to meet NZGBC Green Star ratings. Tie other council projects around health of river/estuary into this masterplan. It was also stated: ….Three large trees at the Edmonds gardens are set back 6.2m from the present street fence. It would be an absolute travesty if these were removed just to increase traffic flow for a few hours. These large trees are what gives this portion of Ferry Road its character.

Staff Comments (Natural Environment Issues) See comments on open space network actions (SA2, CA4, WA2, FA2) for recommendations on improvements to the river, estuary and adjacent open spaces. Comments on the Coastal Pathway, four-laning designation and Heritage Trail have been provided to the appropriate project teams. Staff Recommendations • Revise the case management action to include provision of advice on sustainable building techniques, alternative energy and storm and wastewater management that reflects cultural values

Community Wellbeing, Culture and Heritage There were two comments relating to community facilities: SUPERMARKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More emphasis on providing community facilities such as hall etc One respondent thought there was insufficient detail regarding the section of Ferry Road which passes through Phillipstown. Several respondents expressed concern that Philipstown School children will in the future have to cross the road to attend Woolston Road once the two schools merge. More generally, Living Streets Canterbury suggested that: Community wellbeing, culture and heritage in the area need to be addressed in the rebuild. One way to address these issues -and one that is a good match with Woolston’s heritage and streetscape elements- is to establish a Farmers Market. Not only do they enliven communities and bring local residents together, they also draw visitors into an area. More detailed design guidelines to develop a specific character in Woolston was also suggested. The Cancer Society noted the harm that alcohol can cause to public health and social cohesion and suggested including a Local Alcohol plan and that commercial developments should encourage low- risk drinking behaviour and limit the number of licensed premises. In a submission on behalf of Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki Rūnanga) it was recommended: • that tangata whenua history documented in the Plan be confirmed in consultation with tangata whenua. • those contemporary associations between tangata whenua and the area covered by the Plan be recognised. • that the Plan needs equal and balanced recognition of Maori and Pakeha associations in the

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 391

area. • The addition of a separate section entitled “Recognising Tangata Whenua” . Consideration, investigation and planning around an aging population was also identified as missing from the draft document. In relation to heritage, the following comment was made: One aspect of the heritage of the Ōpawaho/Heathcote River that is not acknowledged and that is very significant is the Woolston Cut: The reasons it was built, the issues that resulted and the necessary measures required to mitigate them. This was a significant lesson that Christchurch learned about hard engineering of rivers that has very significant implications for any such proposals for the lower Ōtākaro/Avon River catchment

Staff Comments (Community Wellbeing, Culture and Heritage Issues) Council officers recognise the importance of convenient, accessible supermarkets for the community. Resource consent for the rebuild of the Countdown supermarket in Ferrymead is currently in the pre-application phase. Council staff are working with Foodstuffs to ensure that the redevelopment of the Woolston supermarket achieves a good outcome for the centre. See the discussion for action WA7 with regards to a community hub in Woolston. See the discussion for action CA1 with regards to the potential merger of the Phillipstown and Woolston schools. Support in the form of staff time and advice could be provided for a farmer’s market through the case management function. Design guidelines for Woolston are addressed in the discussion for action WA3. Council is currently consulting on a draft Local Alcohol Policy as part of a separate project. Council officers are working with MKT on revised text for section 4 that better incorporates Māori history, contemporary associations with the area and the integration of cultural values into actions related to streetscape design and landscaping. Staff Recommendations • Collaborate with MKT on a new ‘Recognising Tangata Whenua’ section and expanded natural environment, history and context sections which further incorporate Māori cultural values and associations with the area

Built Environment One respondent stated more attention to crime was needed: There seems to be a lack of attention to minimizing petty crime e.g. Graffiti, vandalism, undesirables loitering. I would like to see better street lighting, re-designed bus stops without glass in them that can be smashed, more anti graffiti patrols and street cleaning, the foot path along ferry rd is often covered with broken glass. I would also like to see less focus on street parking, turn some of the newly vacant sites into parking. There were a number of comments in relation to street scape and design: Very concerned that this plan will promote unviable, unworkable, uneconomic active edge / site constraint.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 392

The work proposal regarding building standards. With the improvement in street design & aspect you will find architects will design a better building that fits with the streetscape. Enforcing developments to unify colour schemes. Enforcing unified signage & disallowing pavement signage. The draft plan makes no provision for B4 zoning in Ferrymead; yet, this is our greatest area of concern. Ferrymead needs a coherent plan of development which also reflects the estuarine character of this peninsula between the Heathcote and the Estuary. The areas of most concern are: the Tidal View, Humphries Road, Ferry Road triangle and the kilometre stretch on the river side of Ferry Road from Waterman Place to the Bridge. We submit that: 1. The opportunity for planning these areas is now and needs to be included in the Plan. 2. the B4 zoning needs to reconsidered so that more coherent planning can take place. 3. in view of the Water's Edge Tower disaster and the on-going risks of sea level rise, flooding and liquefaction, FA5 recommendations be made forthright and enforceable. 4. the Tidal View triangle be purchased by CCC as an extension to Scott Park and a link to the Wetlands of Humphries Drive to reflect the estuarine character of the area. 5. links to the river on that side of Road be made similar to the Plan for Woolston. Does little to enforce visual enhancement. Where on your plan does it survey the visual pollution we have now. 100% of the neighbourhood hate looking at Mitre 10's orange building Don't like signage next to library in Woolston… like character facades (Riccarton to modern) brick, wood. Dont like Ferrymead - too modern, no iron, older style shops…. loss of character since Earthquakes… keep working class character, wood, timber, connection to water The Canterbury Branch of the New Zealand Institute of Architects stated that: While the Masterplan is a good start, improving the streetscape alone will not address all the issues. The buildings along the edges of Ferry Road, how they relate and interact with the public realm and the activities within the buildings will be the major contributor to the quality of the urban space along Ferry Road. As most of land is privately owned, any compliance with Masterplan goals relies purely on developer goodwill. Similarly, a group of more than 20 architects, planners, landscape architects and environmental engineers who live or work locally noted in their longer submission that improving the streetscape is not enough. Both the Institute and the group made a number of recommendations: • design guidelines; • an Urban Design Panel for Ferry Road; • changes in the City Plan rules; • a requirement for a landscape architecture plan to accompany each building proposal; • for the Plan to be given immediate effect rather than await incorporation in a district plan process; • design requirements (including landscape plans) be more prescriptive and less reliant on developer goodwill. The Cancer Society encouraged a “sunsmart environment” by increasing the availability of shade in areas where people gather. In a submission on behalf of Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga and Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki Rūnanga) it was recommended:

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 393

• Kaupapa Maori should be incorporated into the design and function of public spaces. • The Plan should recognise the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013.

Staff Comments (Built Environment Issues) Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) issues can be addressed in the detailed design at the implementation stage. Awareness of these issues and techniques can also be promoted through the case management function. Discussion of design guidelines and recommendations can be found with action SA4, CA3, WA3 and FA3. Expanding the case management function to cover the B4 land in Ferrymead (see recommendations with action SA4) would provide an additional level of design guidance beyond what is in the current Draft Plan. Proposed plan change 56 would provide additional design requirements that would apply to the B2 land in Ferrymead. It is also recommended that as part of the District Plan review action, that the B4 zoning in Ferrymead be assessed to ensure that it is the most appropriate zoning for this area and that it is effective at achieving a defined centre with an appropriate level of amenity for its context. See the discussion for action FA5 with regards to strengthening language around the issue of natural hazards in Ferrymead. This area is currently part of a Flood Management Area and action FA5a includes consideration of future natural hazard risk for the area as part of the next District Plan review. Recommendations on land purchase to provide additional open space have been forwarded for consideration by the Coastal Pathway and open space project teams. See the discussion on the Community Wellbeing, Culture and Heritage section above for recommendations relating to the MKT submission. Staff Recommendations • Include assessment of the B4 zoning in Ferrymead as part of the action on District Plan review

Economy and Business Some respondents commented on there being no enhancement of the Philipstown community and commercial area. While the designs drawn up for Woolston Community centre and Ferrymead Centre look fantastic it is as if you are only promoting 2/3rds of Ferry Road, with nothing designed for starting point of Ferry Road in Phillipstown. Similarly, several respondents commented that there is insufficient detail in the Plan regarding the Ferrymead commercial area. One respondent commented: The draft plan makes no provision for B4 zoning in Ferrymead; yet, this is our greatest area of concern. Ferrymead needs a coherent plan of development which also reflects the estuarine character of this peninsula between the Heathcote and the Estuary. The areas of most concern are the Tidal View, Humphries Road, Ferry Road triangle and the kilometre stretch on the river side of Ferry Road from Waterman Place to the Bridge. Ferrymead commercial area on one side of the road only. The full potential of Ferrymead has not been explored. More emphasis on it's esturine character, it's history and gateway to one of the best water sports areas in Christchurch. Now the estuary is becoming healthier and

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 394

cleaner, Ferrymead could be developed into a tourist destination. Estuaries economic value to Christchurch should be explored. Two other comments relating to financing and business/community relations were made: Suggestions on how to finance these good plans - the impact on our rates, central government contribution or private business $$ input. Maybe putting references to town/cities which have such improvements or revitization projects. It would be great if businesses/developers were 'encouraged' to talk to communities about what they need/want and what would keep them shopping etc in an area.

Staff Comments (Economy and Business Issues) See recommendations under CA1 which address additional actions that could be undertaken in Phillipstown without interfering with the road widening project. See discussion and recommendations under Built Environment (above) for recommendations relating to design in Ferrymead. See action SA5 for discussions and recommendations on establishing business forums which would provide an opportunity to the community to give feedback to businesses and developers.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 395

7 Woolston street design preferences

Overall section summary Generally respondents supported separation between cyclists, pedestrians and cars (moving and parked), with Option 2 receiving the most support. Cyclist and pedestrian safety and comments on the dangerous road conditions were most commonly cited as the reason behind preference for Option 2. Many respondents noted that if the road was safer, more cyclists would be encouraged. The amenity and user-friendly enhancement potentials of Option 2 were also appealing. A number of respondents supported Option 2 provided that parking was accessible, amalgamated and there was provision for disabled parking. Option 1 had more of a range of reasons given for its preference but most commonly it was stated that on-street parking is convenient and if it did not exist, people would not stop and retailers may suffer.

Option 1: Keep on-street parking There were a range of reasons given for preferring this option but it was predominantly suggested that on-street parking is convenient and if it did not exist people would not stop which would be detrimental to retailers. It was noted by one person that this is a question of attitude- that New Zealander’s love cars and until that changes, we need on-street parking. People like to be able to park where they wish to shop, i.e. pop into dairy for bread and milk, if you relocate parking they will just move past to other shops. There were a few comments in relation to safety, one noting this seemed to be the safer option and another stating that option two could create more conflict as cyclists are not in the drivers’ line of vision and that this option would be okay provided there was sufficient space between cyclists and car doors. The following suggestion was also made: Why have cyclists and vehicles using the same road, find an alternative through route for cyclists on a less used roads.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 396

The Royal Foundation of the Blind made the following comment: noted the implications for pedestrians: There are design aspects in both that have merit and also present challenges to pedestrians. If you take the cars off the street to park they need to have one point on each side to enter and exit or you create a lot of interruption to pedestrians continually giving way at driveways as cars park over the footpath and cut in quickly to get gaps in traffic. If you create a shared surface between the cycleway and footpath, those who are unable to visually identify the different zones will veer across. There needs to be a detectable change in zones. A detectable kerb is preferred. Tactile ground surface indicators need to be installed to locate and detect crossings but should not be used to warn pedestrians of the cycle path. Median islands work well if signalised or on quieter streets. This is an arterial route so there must be signalised crossings spaced to allow access to facilities on both sides of the street (including bus routes). It would be good to consult more with agencies such as CCS Disability Action, Aged Concern, RNZFB on the design aspects (including location of accessible carparking). Option 2: Separated cycle lane The majority of those supporting option two, did so for cyclist safety reasons with a number of respondents commenting that the area of road through Woolston was busy and narrow thus dangerous. Many comments were made that if the road was safer, more cyclists would be encouraged and that this is a good thing. I Prefer Option 2 (separated cycle lane) because it provides the most safety for cyclists, will remove the fear factor for existing cyclists and remove the worry many potential cyclists have about sharing the road with other types of transport. Cycle safety needs to improve if we are to encourage more people to cycle to work etc. There were many comments relating to the improved amenity and user-friendly values of this option and the potential it has for enhancing the area. The following comment captures this. It also gives a proviso, which was common across comments too. It is important in this very busy, and quite narrow, area to keep cyclists safe from opening car doors etc. It will also make it a cycle destination. Without looking at lots of parked cars, the area will be ripe for outdoor cafe style seating and will seem much more people friendly. As Gehl Architects have shown, taking car parking off the street actually draws more people to an area, contrary to local business concerns. One concern we have is the off street parking. It needs to be collective, rather than just a few behind each shop. This way it will encourage people to visit lots of shops and will mean fewer cars crossing the cyclelane to get in and out of these parks. More attractive; encouraging to cyclists, as long as sufficient car parks with easy access. A number of other comments supported Option 2 but expressed concern about parking, as above, desiring accessible and amalgamated parks and keeping some disabled or elderly on-street parks. Another respondent commented that Option 2 was supported so long as it was affordable. Spokes Canterbury made the following comment: The two cycleway options for the Woolston centre are a bit divisive; either you get on-street parking and normal cycle lanes, or you get no parking and a separated cycleway. CCC took a more balanced approach on Ilam Road, removing parking on just one side of the road would unlocked sufficient width to provide good separated cycleways, whilst still retaining some car access (and for bus-stops too). A few respondents raised questions about pedestrians in terms of how road crossings will work and whether pedestrians have priority, needing clear signage and ensuring segregation of cycle lanes

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 397

from pedestrians. Where and how busses pull over was queried and ensuring the design considered those who are visually and mobility impaired, and including bike parking was also desired.

Staff Comments (Woolston street design preferences) The strong support for enhanced cycle facilities even where this means the complete removal of on- street parking in Woolston is noted. The Corridor Study recommends a hybrid approach, as suggested in the Spokes Canterbury submission. Cycle lanes would be widened to 1.8m to comply with the newly adopted Cycle Design Guidelines. This would result in the loss of on-street parking on one side of the road in Woolston. This is considered to be a balanced approach which improves conditions for cyclists and pedestrians while still allowing some on-street parking to support convenience based retail, disabled access and emergency vehicles. The 1.5m discretionary width could be used to provide additional buffers for cyclists, a wider median in places to support informal pedestrian crossings or wider footpaths to provide for seating or additional landscaping responding to the site-specific conditions at the detailed design phase. Staff Recommendations • Adopt the road design recommended in the Corridor Study and the Spokes Canterbury submission and update the text and images in the Draft Plan to reflect this decision

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 398

8 Additional cycling priority measures along Ferry Road

Overall section summary There was strong support for additional cycling priority measures along Ferry Road primarily to increase safety due to the popularity and importance of the route, the currently dangerous roads and because of the many benefits associated with cycling. A number of suggestions as to what these additional measures might look like, or what they might address were made. Two respondents commented that Ferry Road cycling provisions are sufficient and a handful of provisos were also given.

Many comments excitedly and strongly supported additional cycling priority measures for Ferry Road primarily alluding to the popularity of the route and its linkages to the city, Port Hills and Sumner. Respondents also commonly commented that currently, the route is dangerous. YES, YES, YES. Great idea. Hopefully a cycle super highway linking Sumner to city centre and other key cycle routes I absolutely agree that this is a necessity as ferry Road is a key cycle route for recreational & commuting cyclists. Particular improvement is required from Woolston through to the city to make this a safe environment for all. I think it is crucial. The number of cyclists - both commuters & recreational using this corridor is huge. They face risks to life on a daily basis. Separation of lanes, enforcement of rules regarding lanes is important. Great ideas presented. Many respondents made reference to the benefits associated with cycling. These were wide-ranging and are best captured by the following comment which also illustrates another common opinion – that additional measures would increase safety and potentially encourage more cyclists. I think it is sorely needed, and will be more so in the future, especially as fuel costs rise. There are a number of reasons: energy efficiency; health benefits of cycling; social benefits of taking part in local areas due to being able to park a bike more readily; motor vehicle traffic reduction; economic benefits of cycling to individuals. For me personally, I would love to bike to town and to local areas, but I'm too afraid of being knocked over be a vehicle. I would bike along Ferry Rd or any other off road tracks if they were available. Excellent - It may encourage me to cycle again - too dangerous at present. A number of respondents made suggestions for what these additional cycling measures might be or what they might address. Generally there was a desire to link in with other key cycle routes such as Sumner, City, Port Hills and tracks around the river or potential Heathcote River and Linwood Ave Greenways. One respondent suggested diverting heavy traffic along Linwood Ave and Brougham Road while another suggested cyclists are redirected around the Estuary up Linwood Ave. A cycle way along the rail way corridor was also suggested. Improved road surface and distinctive cycle ways were desired for Ferry Road and for any tracks around the river, well-paved and all-weather routes were sought. Particular improvement from Woolston through to the City was identified and toilets at the Ferrymead Bridge were suggested. Ferry Road is a key cycling route to the city because it is direct but the whole cycling experience was and is terrible. Improving the road surface and providing more space by parking areas are

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 399

essential. Advanced stop boxes at intersections would also be beneficial as would separating posts and rumble strips (like Strickland St) so that left turning vehicles cannot cut across cycle lanes and must turn more slowly. A number of respondents supported additional measures but gave provisos - so long as on-street parking was not reduced, it is connected with city cycle ways, there is no detriment to those living along the route and provided isolating a cycle lane does not impair the ability of others to cross the road safely. Fine, as long as it's not to the detriment of those living along its route i.e. Taking land for it and removing to much or all onstreet parking. And can we make the road cyclists actually use it? Two respondents were happy with the status quo, one noting that there is already a designated cycle lane along Ferry Road, and another stating that Ferry Road has good sized cycling lanes. Both comments, however, raised safety issues. One commented that using different colours for the cycle land and road surface may be a good measure to improve safety and the other as follows: As there is already a designated cycle lane along Ferry Road, cyclists are catered for its more a safety education problem. Making a cycle way separate from vehicle carrigeways would indeed be ideal, but can the city afford the money to obtain the land needed. A cycle way along less busy streets could be an option.

Staff Comments (Additional cycling priority measures) See the discussion on the recommendations of the Corridor Study in the staff comments on section 7 (Woolston street design preferences) and action SA1

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 400

9 Respondents who wish to be heard Of the 68 submitters, 23 (34%) stated that they wished to be heard if hearings were held. The actions disliked by those submitters are below:

Actions that were disliked at all by those who wished to be heard SA6 ~ Carry out a strategic review of public toilet provisions along Ferry Road ~ 5%

CA2 ~ Use ongoing case management process to encourage good quality design and planning outcomes on vacant sites (refer to sub points) ~ 6% CA3 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for a set of Design Guidelines for the local commercial centres ~ 5% CA4 ~ Collaborate with the Friends of Edmonds Factory Gardens to investigate and make recommendations for updating Management Plan for the Edmonds Factory Garden ~ 6%

WA2 ~ Make recommendations for Woolston as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the full Draft Master Plan ~4%

WA3 ~ Develop Design Guidelines for Woolston commercial centre ~ 9% WA4 ~ Investigate and make recommendations for policy changes relating to Woolston as part of the City Plan review ~ 11% WA6 ~ Engage with commercial property owners through the case management process to support good quality design and planning outcomes ~ 6%

FA2 ~ Make recommendations for Ferrymead as part of the integrated, strategic, open space network plan described in Section 6.1 of the full Draft Master Plan ~ 4% FA3 ~ Develop Design Guidelines for Ferrymead commercial centre ~4%

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 401

These are the issues of primary concern brought up in the comments by submitters who indicated that they wish to be heard: Scope # Name Issue FR24 Phillipstown Need for better recognition of the Phillipstown community and its Community Centre commercial area; nothing in the draft plan enhances the Phillipstown area FR25 Patrick David Sloan Requests that the B2 land in Ferrymead be excluded from the Draft Plan FR35A 8010 Architects Scope in Ferrymead should be expanded beyond the B2 land to include area north of the Heathcote River and the ex- Mobil/apartments site; identify wider communities and facilities more clearly FR61 Graeme and Wendy B4 land is Ferrymead is not considered, but this is the greatest Nottage concern for the area

Staff Comments (Scope) See staff recommendations for CA1 (including an action on streetscape improvements on the City End that would explore temporary or transitional projects) See staff recommendations for Built Environment including consideration of the B4 zoning in Ferrymead as part of the District Plan review; the integration of additional design guidance into the Draft Plan; and action FA2 on links through Ferrymead. The purpose of the Draft Plan is to look at improvements for B1 and B2 land in the centres, including Ferrymead. Nothing in the Draft Plan is inconsistent with or more onerous than the ODP for the B2 land in Ferrymead. Therefore, it is not considered appropriate to exclude consideration of this land from the Draft Plan.

Manawhenua # Name Issue FR25 Mahaanui Amend the Draft Plan to better recognise the identity and relationships Kurataiao Ltd of manawhenua in the area both past and present; confirm accuracy of (MKT) historic information with Ngāi Tahu historians; incorporate Ngāi Tahu associations with the area through design, planting, artwork and signage; identify the importance of the river and estuary as life-giving waters and the need to appropriately manage uses; acknowledge history of industrial pollution of the river and estuary and their loss as mahinga kai; public funds used to create economic gains for private businesses should ensure outcomes are culturally sensitive and support community wellbeing; more analysis needed of how the area can provide a sense of place for Māori and Polynesian communities; recognising the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 402

Staff Comments (Manawhenua) Staff are meeting with representatives from MKT to collaborate on new text which better recognises the historic and contemporary associations of tangata whenua with the area. See the discussion for Community Wellbeing, Culture and Heritage for more detail.

Implementation # Name Issue FR30 NZTA Add NZTA as a Delivery Partner in the implementation plan for SA1, CA1 and WA1 FR35A 8010 Architects Work with CERA to give the plan and any design guidelines more immediate effect or enact it as an immediate Recovery Plan through an Order in Council process.

Staff Comments (Implementation) NZTA will be recognized as a delivery partner in future implementation sections. Incorporating more design principles into the Draft Plan itself, combined with proposed Plan Change 56 and the moving forward of the District Plan review will help to give more immediate effect to the Draft Plan’s vision than the development of Design Guidelines as a separate later project which the current Draft Plan proposes.

SA3/FA5 Natural hazards # Name Issue FR13 [redacted by Add wetlands areas to reduce impacts of rising sea levels (e.g request] Heathcote Valley, Charlesworth Reserve, Linwood Paddocks) FR35A 8010 Architects Enable collaborative strategies between landowners to combat sea level rise FR39 Mt Pleasant Ferrymead is built on a wetlands; new buildings need to respect the Memorial natural environment and have a style that is sensitive to it Community Centre and Residents’ Association FR61 Graeme and In light of the Water’s Edge Tower disaster and ongoing risks of sea Wendy Nottage level rise, flooding and liquefaction, recommendations on natural hazards need to be forthright and enforceable

Staff Comments (Natural Hazards) See discussion and recommendations for action FA5 and the Built Environment section.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 403

SA5/WA5/FA4 Business and economy # Name Issue FR12 Steven and Ferrymead makes more sense as a destination than Woolston; a Adrienne McEwan relocated Mitre 10 Mega would not be in keeping with the boutique shops FR39 Mt Pleasant Business forums should involve the community which can provide Memorial feedback on designing commercial centres where people want to Community Centre spend time and money and Residents’ Association

Staff Comments (Business and economy) See discussion in the Economy and Business section and the recommendations for action SA5. It is envisaged that one of the functions of the business forums would be to invite members of the community to give feedback on design.

SA6 Public toilets # Name Issue FR13 [redacted by Need visible public toilets in Ferrymead; toilets should be in the request] shopping centres, not along the river bank; combine with super bus stop and green seating FR17 Braille Signs Ltd Public toilet facilities need to be upgraded FR20 Simon DeVerteuil Pay shops to provide toilets rather than have maintenance liability FR37 Spokes Canterbury Also include public showers and lockers to support cycling FR39 Mt Pleasant Reinstating public toilet facilities vital Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association

Staff Comments (Public toilets) See discussion for action SA6. Many of these actions and suggestions can be addressed at the implementation phase for streetscape improvements, community facilities, the bus superstop, etc.

CA2/WA6 Case management # Name Issue FR20 Simon DeVerteuil Not sure this would be effective. Should monitor best practice from overseas. FR47 Royal New Zealand Should promote accessible design, not just CPTED Foundation for the

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 404

Blind

Staff Comments (Case management) See discussion for action SA4. Provision of advice on overseas best practice and accessible design are recommended for inclusion in the revised case management action.

CA3/WA3/FA3 Design guidelines # Name Issue FR2 Foodstuffs SI Ltd Any design guidelines should enable car parking and should not require retail sleeving, active edges or include obstructive amenity guidance FR12 Steven and Adrienne Unfeasible unless property owners and developers share this vision McEwan FR13 [redacted by request] Restrict tilt slab and glass; no car parks in front of commercial buildings; building owners should provide pocket green spaces as they keep people in the area longer; flat green roofs would provide wildlife habitats FR17 Braille Signs Ltd Cohesive, themed linkages in each centre should be a priority; avoid too many kerbs, pavement signs, planters, bike stands, etc. which create obstacles for disabled users; Draft Plan needs more consideration of disabled access issues generally FR20 Simon DeVerteuil Higher priority should be given to SA2g – Providing well-designed places for people to meet and socialise. Strongly agree with moving parking to reduce access points and give higher priority to pedestrians in Woolston and Ferrymead. FR22 Charleston Support design guidelines. Better to have a coordinated approach. Neighbourhood Ferrymead has always looked uncoordinated and uninviting; needs Association seating sheltered from the wind FR25 Patrick David Sloan Does not want to see any greater development restrictions on the B2 land in Ferrymead than what is imposed by the current Outline Development Plan (ODP); concerned that Draft Plan may duplicate guidelines in Plan Change 56 FR35A 8010 Architects Current B4 rules have few design constraints and rely on developer goodwill; request a landscape architecture scheme as part of every building proposal along the road corridor; provide design guidelines; introduce an Urban Design Panel, especially for Ferrymead; run a series of urban design workshops for building owners, developers and designers; minimise asphalted parking requirements; offer incentives for building owners to work together, esp around car parking; reduce the 10m Woolston setback; activate back alleys and streets; reduce car focus of centres; encorporate sustainable technologies into design guidelines; encourage commercial buildings to meet NZGBC Green Star rating

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 405

FR39 Mt Pleasant New buildings in Ferrymead should incorporate green building Memorial technologies; proposed design for ex-Mobil site and apartment Community Centre block too focused on providing parking and Residents’ Association FR40 Cancer Society of Ensure built and natural shade is provided to reduce exposure to New Zealand UV radiation FR47 Royal New Zealand Whole pedestrian environment needs to be improved for the Foundation for the visually impaired, not just crossings; need to design to meet best Blind practice (NZ Standard 4121 Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide); include accessibility requirements in design guidelines, not just CPTED FR48 Roimata Community Consider gateway function of Ferrymead Incorporated Society

Staff Comments (Design guidelines) See discussion and recommendations for actions SA4, CA3, WA3 and FA3. Design guidance in the Draft Plan is intended to provide a starting point for discussions with developers and Council project teams not to “require” particular features or layouts or to ban tilt slab or glass developments. Some of these issues can be addressed through the District Plan review which can examine the extent to which current provisions are creating appropriate outcomes for the area. Others (such as sustainable building technologies) can be promoted by the case manager. The design guidance does not impose any more restrictive conditions on the B2 land in Ferrymead than the ODP. Detailed design features, such as accessible design considerations, can be incorporated at the implementation phase. Within the public realm, as part of action FA1, improved shelter, seating and landscaping can be provided.

CA4/WA2/FA2 Open space # Name Issue FR13 [redacted by No pedestrian footbridge- will impact negatively on wildlife; locate request] bird roosting islands away from cyclists, people, dogs, etc.; don’t put walkways on both sides of the river; seagulls need gravel/stoney flat areas to roost (incorporate into Charlesworth Reserve?) FR15 Claude Michael Need to rezone some commercial areas from B4 to recreational (e.g. Sisson old Sand Bar Hotel, land by Tidal View, Humphries Drive); Ferrymead commercial area should be on one side of the road only; connect to Estuary and play up recreational value FR18 Janis Richards Clean the river up FR25 Mahaanui Kurataiao Require development practices that protect and restore water quality including onsite treatment of stormwater and prevention of

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 406

Ltd (MKT) contaminants into waterways; use locally sourced indigenous plantings FR35A 8010 Architects Integrate with Coastal Pathway; protect habitats for wildlife; impervious surfaces; on-site stormwater treatment; native planting FR37 Spokes Canterbury Recreational access should not overburden natural environments FR39 Mt Pleasant Edmonds Factory Garden is an underused asset; show links to Memorial Phillipstown and the Coastal Pathway Community Centre and Residents’ Association FR48 Roimata Community Edmonds Factory Garden is an underused asset; should be included Incorporated Society in the heritage routes FR61 Graeme and Wendy The Tidal View triangle should be purchased by CCC as an extension Nottage to Scott Park and a link to the wetlands at Humphries Drive be developed to reflect the estuarine character of the area. Links to the river on that side of Ferry Road should be made similar to the plan for Woolston.

Staff Comments (Open space) See discussion for actions SA2, WA2 and FA2. Improvements to recreational paths outside of the immediate area of Ferry Road are considered to be out of scope. Improving river quality can be achieved through the District Plan review and through promotion by the case manager of sustainable building and landscaping techniques within the corridor. Zoning in Ferrymead is also recommended for review. Improving links and visibility from Ferry Road to nearby open spaces, including Edmonds Factory Garden, has been retained as an action.

FA2 Green links on private property # Name Issue FR4 R A Scott (Building 1013 Ferry Road – size and location of the green link shown on fig 44 Contractors) Ltd through their property would not allow all of the current owners to rebuild on the site FR21 Body Corporate [same as FR4] 1013 Ferry Road FR25 Patrick David Sloan Concerned that fig 44 shows green links through the B2 land in Ferrymead; recognises that these are “potential opportunities and ideas” only but does not what to see this misconstrued later as a development requirement FR35A 8010 Architects Provide wider pedestrian and cycle links to and between shopping facilities, schools and other community facilities FR39 Mt Pleasant Need for better internal links between B2 and B4 land in Ferrymead; Memorial

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 407

Community Centre currently people drive from shop to shop and Residents’ Association

Staff Comments (Green links on private property) Staff have contacted submitters from 1013 Ferry Road to clarify that the links in figure 44 are indicative. Future drafts of the Plan will clarify this. See also the discussion and recommendations for action FA1 with respect to clarifying and updating the green links in light of other projects such as the Coastal Pathway and Major Cycleway.

WA4 District Plan review and other policy changes # Name Issue FR12 Steven and No point encouraging people to live near shops if the shops are Adrienne McEwan pubs, liquor stores, etc. FR13 [redacted by Increase buildings in areas near shops. request] FR15 Claude Michael Retail centres easily accessible with plenty of parking need to Sisson be concentrated in Woolston and Ferrymead. Rezoning of parts of Ferrymead will be necessary. Current mix on both sides of the road in Ferrymead creates conflicts between pedestrians and motorists. Businesses with high foot traffic should be zoned B2; B4 areas should be rezoned recreational or for low foot traffic businesses. Ribbon commercial centres require traffic lights. FR25 Patrick David Does not want the Draft Plan or any future plan changes or Sloan plan reviews to alter the Outline Development Plan (ODP) for the B2 land in Ferrymead FR34 M G and A M Request a variation to the road widening designation at 242 Wheeler Ferry Road FR35A 8010 Architects Change the City Plan rules to provide for appropriate street setbacks and scale; offer developer incentives to encourage compliance with design guidelines; change rules to encourage mixed use and scale FR40 Cancer Society of Support extending current smoke free policy to outdoor dining New Zealand areas, bus exchanges and transport hubs FR61 Graeme and B4 zoning in Ferrymead needs to be reconsidered (possibly Wendy Nottage B2?)

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 408

Staff Comments (District Plan review and other policy changes) See discussion for action WA4 on encouraging intensification around Woolston. This is largely provided for in the current Plan but has not been taken up by developers. It would be worth exploring in the District Plan review if there are any remaining impediments to this kind of development and where they are or whether developer incentives would be appropriate in this situation. Reviewing zoning in Ferrymead is recommended as part of the District Plan review (see recommendations under Built Environment). Variations to designations are outside the scope of the Draft Plan, but the case manager can maintain contact with this submitter to advise the best way forward for resolving this specific issues. Recommendations on the smoke free public places policy is recommended to be moved under the case management function as providing advice to the policy review when it takes place.

WA7 Community hub # Name Issue FR13 [redacted by Build around the existing Plunkett rooms/medical offices request] FR25 Mahaanui Kurataiao Provide public community meeting places within each town centre Ltd (MKT) that provide tangata whenua and Māori with a sense of place FR48 Roimata Community Consider shifting Woolston Community Centre to a hub in Woolston Incorporated Society Village; current facilities in Woolston Park are inadequate and out of the way

Staff Comments (Community hub) See discussion and recommendations under action WA7.

SA1/CA1/WA1/FA1 Movement corridor and streetscape improvements Cycling # Name Issue FR12 Steven and Adrienne Support a separated cycleway; improve road design plus education McEwan for motorists and cyclists FR13 [redacted by Support a separated cycleway; Schools and workers need safe cycle request] routes; design for mobility scooters as well as cycles; dangers of parked cars “dooring” cyclists; too scared to cycle on Ferry Road at present FR15 Claude Michael Support a separated cycleway; Ferry Road used by cyclists from Port Sisson Hills and Sumner- should be a top priority for cycle ways in Christchurch

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 409

FR17 Braille Signs Ltd Support improved cycle facilities as long as they do not impede pedestrian movement and disabled access FR20 Simon DeVerteuil Supports improved pedestrian and cycle facilities. Ferry Road too car orientated. Concern that proposals do not go far enough. Would like a cycle super highway linking Sumner to the city centre. FR22 Charleston There is already a cycle lane on Ferry Road. An education campaign Neighbourhood would be better. If the city can’t afford to provide a separated cycle Association land on Ferry Road, a cycleway along less busy streets could be an option. FR24 Phillipstown Supports separated cycle lane; will encourage more people to take Community Centre up cycling; cycle lanes on both sides for the whole length of Ferry Road is a top priority FR30 NZTA Some current issues are framed in a way that anticipates the solutions (e.g. would prefer “sub-optimal cycling safety and comfort levels” to “cycle lanes too narrow”) FR34 M G and A M Cycle priority measures should not come at the expense of other Wheeler road users FR35B 8010 Architects Support separated cycle lanes wherever possible; Ferry Road should be a cycling priority route with heavy traffic diverted along Linwood Avenue and Brougham Street; include linkes to the Heathcote River Greenway and a Linwood Avenue Greenway; all three routes should run between the CBD and the Coastal Pathway FR37 Spokes Canterbury Support separated cycle lanes; reduce speed limits; remove parking on one side of the road to unlock width to improve cycleways; greater consideration needs of Active Transport research; re- establish the Cycle Advisory Committee FR39 Mt Pleasant Planning for safe cycle and pedestrian access must be an integral Memorial part of the recommendations; need cycle parking in centres; danger Community Centre to cyclists from car door opening- better to have parking away from and Residents’ the main movement corridor Association FR40 Cancer Society of Support actions which promote physical activity New Zealand FR47 Royal New Zealand Keep cycle and pedestrian facilities separate; need a detectable Foundation for the change in zones, preferably a detectable kerb Blind FR48 Roimata Community Ferry Road needs to be safer for cyclists, especially around Incorporated Society Woolston; improved cycleways on the Opawaho/Heathcote river could increase cyclists on Ferry Road as recreational users come on and off the other tracks; consider marking a quiet route for those who wish to going through Woolston Village; separate cyclists from pedestrians FR49 Murray Brown Find another route for cyclists on a less used road

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 410

Staff Comments (Cycling) See discussion and recommendations under actions SA1, CA1, WA1, FA1 and sections 7 (Woolston street design preference) and 8 (additional cycling priority measures).

On-street parking # Name Issue FR2 Foodstuffs SI Ltd Don’t want on-street parking reduced FR18 Janis Richards Prefer to park close to the shops- especially during lunch hour FR20 Simon DeVerteuil Support removing on-street parking except for disabled parking and service access FR22 Charleston If parking is relocated, people will drive past to other shops; workers Neighbourhood parking on side streets will congest them for residents Association

Staff Comments (On-street parking) There was strong support (73%) in the submission responses for the removal of all on-street parking through Woolston. The road design recommended by the Corridor Study would require the loss of some on-street parking through Woolston Village. It is recommended that parking be retained on the north side of the street as this would be more convenient for evening commuters leaving the city. Between St Johns Street and Heathcote Street, 29 parking spaces would be lost on the south side of the road, however the Corridor Study has identified that there is spare capacity for overspill parking on St Johns, Portman and Heathcote Streets and an action identifying and, if necessary, acquiring sites for additional parking can be added.

Public transport # Name Issue FR2 Foodstuffs SI Ltd Oppose bus priority measures through Woolston Village FR15 Claude Michael Reintroduce the tram from Sumner to Ferrymead Sisson FR37 Spokes Canterbury Public transport should be well integrated with cycling and pedestrian movements; footpath build outs should not force cyclists into traffic; bus stops should not conflict with cycle lanes FR39 Mt Pleasant Need for better integration of public transport and pedestrian Memorial facilities; support for superstop in Ferrymead; important to design Community Centre centres accessible for the elderly and those without cars and Residents’ Association

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 411

Staff Comments (Public transport) Better integration of public transport with pedestrian crossings can be addressed at the detailed design stage as the streetscape improvement actions are implemented. Environment Canterbury has identified the need to preserve options for bus priority measures in their submission particularly for evening peak periods through Woolston and it is recommended that these requests be accommodated. A tram from Sumner to Ferrymead is outside the scope of Phase One of the Draft Plan.

Pedestrian crossings # Name Issue FR2 Foodstuffs SI Ltd Move existing mid-block crossing in Woolston to the Ferry Road/St Johns Street intersection FR20 Simon DeVerteuil Supports raised pedestrian crossing points and medians in Woolston FR22 Charleston School mergers would mean more kids on the road to get to Neighbourhood Woolston School; need to improve pedestrian and cycle safety Association FR39 Mt Pleasant [same as FR22] Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association FR48 Roimata Community [same as FR22] Incorporated Society FR50 Phillipstown School [same as FR22] Board of Trustees FR25 Mahaanui Kurataiao Prioritise pedestrians (particularly children, mothers and babies, the Ltd (MKT) elderly and the disabled)

Staff Comments (Pedestrian crossings) Concern over the impact of potential school mergers is noted. Council officers will continue to monitor this situation and, if necessary, will revise the Draft Plan actions to include additional pedestrian safety features around Woolston School. Staff recommend retaining the mid-block crossing in Woolston as this allow pedestrians to cross through the middle of the centre (nearer to where the community facilities may be rebuilt) and supports the goal of providing for more ad hoc pedestrian movements through the village centre. A median is included in the recommended road cross section to provide additional protection for pedestrians. The specific design can be addressed at the implementation phase.

Traffic # Name Issue FR18 Janis Richards Requests Barbour Street access to Ferry Road be closed off; issue with trucks rat running through quiet Living Streets; add speed

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 412

humps if road cannot be closed; supports traffic lights at Wilsons FR22 Charleston Investigate improvements to traffic signal timing during peak hours; Neighbourhood problem with people driving on the painted medians; opposed to Association four-laning FR23 Friends of Edmonds Investigate improvements to traffic signal timing; opposed to four- Factory Garden Inc. laning as would result in loss of front of Garden FR35A 8010 Architects Reconsider the status of Ferry Road as a Heavy Transport Route; slow vehicle speeds to 30 kph through centres FR37 Spokes Canterbury Freight movements should be encouraged to use off peak times FR39 Mt Pleasant Slower speed limit through Woolston Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association FR49 Murray Brown Opposed to four-laning because of impacts on Edmonds Factory Garden

Staff Comments (Traffic) Road closures, traffic signal timing, median design and speed limits can be addressed at the implementation phase. The four-laning designation falls outside the scope of the Draft Plan. Staff recommend the retention of Ferry Road as an over-dimension route. Through the case management process, staff can work with private land owners to encourage tree planting. It is also possible to use moveable planters to introduce more green into the corridor, addressing concerns about improving the environment for pedestrians while not compromising the function of the over- dimension route.

Landscaping and signage # Name Issue FR13 [redacted by Habitat creation is not “nice native plantings” but an area where request] wildlife can actually live; the supermarket plantings look good but no birds live there FR17 Braille Signs Ltd Provides suggestions on signage for disabled users FR20 Simon DeVerteuil More trees needed for shade, air quality, improved pedestrian amenity FR24 Phillipstown More trees needed on city end when four-laning goes through Community Centre FR35A 8010 Architects Establish signage controls FR39 Mt Pleasant Support for native planting Memorial

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 413

Community Centre and Residents’ Association FR40 Cancer Society of Ensure plantings provide shade to reduce exposure of pedestrians to New Zealand ultra-violet radiation

Staff Comments (Landscaping and signage) See comments and recommendations for action CA1. Moveable planters could be introduced on the City end to improve the environment without preempting decisions for the four-laning project or interfering with underground services in the area. Signage issues can be addressed at the implementation phase. Staff propose to work with MKT to expand the analysis in the natural environment section (in section 4) to provide more support and guidance around appropriate native planting along the corridor. This could include more analysis around appropriate habitat creation.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 414

ATTACHMENT 2: SUMMARY OF FERRY ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY FINDINGS

A Corridor Study for Ferry Road between Humphreys Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue. has been undertaken examining ways in which issues related to transport mode conflict along Ferry Road can be managed and mitigated.

MODAL CONFLICTS The Corridor Study, undertaken in April/May 2013, determined that conditions varied along the corridor, but in all areas conflicts occurred to a greater or lesser degree between traffic, parking, cycling, and pedestrian movements. Localised problems for public transport also occur.

Significant level of service issues occur for traffic on the approaches to the Aldwins/Ensors intersection in both peak and off peak conditions, leading to significant delays, an adverse impact on the arterial function of the route and a worsening in road safety conditions.

Level of service issues through Woolston (where ‘side friction” from parking and side roads, and the signalised pedestrian crossing leads to the slowing of traffic and congestion) occur throughout the day, but most significantly in the morning and evening peak periods.

To a lesser degree, peak hour level of service issues occur on the approaches to the Tunnel Road/Dyers Road roundabout, and on the approach to the Humphreys Drive intersection.

Public transport services encounter Level of Service issues in the same locations as traffic, most notably at the Aldwins/Ensors intersection and through the centre of Woolston, particularly in the PM peak period, impacting on bus journey reliability and potentially impacting on bus service patronage.

Level of service issues for cyclists occur along the route, but are particularly noticeable through Woolston, where substandard-width cycle lanes are provided, and vehicles accessing parking lanes and side roads can have a significant impact on perceptions of cycle safety. These issues do not necessarily result in a poor safety record for cyclists along the route, although this may be as a result of the under reporting of cycle crashes, or the fact that some cyclists are deterred from using the route.

Pedestrian level of service is compromised where traffic flows dominate the environment, particularly through Woolston where pedestrian demand for crossing movements is higher, but traffic and parking constrains the ability to cross Ferry Road. Although specific pedestrian facilities are provided through Woolston, only a narrow central median caters for ad-hoc pedestrian crossing movements, which can often be beneficial in facilitating multi-site visits to a centre, and which provide significant economic benefits.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 415

Elsewhere along the route, pedestrian crossing movements are provided for with some facilities at intersections, and a small number of mid-block crossing facilities. Otherwise pedestrians are expected to make use of the central median to cross Ferry Road. The poor provision for pedestrians along the route is reflected in a relatively poor pedestrian accident rate in mid-block locations.

On this basis it is clear that the traffic conditions on Ferry Road not only lead to congestion but can, in certain locations, lead to modal conflict where arterial traffic movements along the corridor and on-street parking in key centres can lead to problems for other modes of transport, impacting on the functionality of the route as a multi-modal corridor.

THE MAJOR CYCLEWAY The Corridor Study examined potential approaches to tackle the modal conflicts along the corridor. Included in this was the consideration of the most appropriate route for the Major Cycleway connecting Sumner to the central city.

A number of potential options for the Major Cycleways were examined, including using Ferry Road exclusively, using Ferry Road with a diversion along the river adjacent to Woolston, using Linwood Avenue or Linwood “drain”, or using a combination of Linwood Avenue and Linwood “drain”. These are shown on Figure 1.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 416

Figure 1 Route options considered for Major Cycleway

After site visits, analysis and internal discussions, staff recommended the use of a combination of Linwood Avenue and Linwood “drain” as the Major Cycleway, a choice which was supported by both the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board and the Environment and Infrastructure Committee at a 29 April 2013 workshop.

CYCLE PROVISION ON FERRY ROAD The decision to provide the Major Cycleway along Linwood Avenue/Drain, will results in a reduced need for segregation of cyclists along Ferry Road. Nevertheless, Ferry Road will still be used for local, and some commuter, cycle trips and classified as a local cycleway. According to cycle modelling undertaken, significant numbers of cyclists would continue to use Ferry Road

Therefore, in order to not only ensure that the residual cyclists on Ferry Road could use the route safely, but also to accord with safety requirements in the City Plan, Infrastructure Design Standards (IDS) and the Cycle Design Guidelines the preferred cross section along Ferry Road would incorporate 1.8m wide on-road cycle lanes (as demonstrated below in Figure 2). In some locations this will necessitate the removal of on-street parking spaces, although in areas where parking demand was high, alternative parking options could be provided.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 417

RECOMMENDED ROAD DESIGN The cross section in Figure 2 (below) is preferred as it allows for the greater protection of cyclists through the provision of wider on-road cycle lanes. It addresses the concerns raised in consultation on the Ferry Road Master Plan about the level of service for cyclists along the route, while also providing opportunities for streetscape enhancements along sections of the corridor as well as a median which assists ad-hoc pedestrian crossing movements.

Although such a cross section will necessitate the removal of some on-street parking, further investigations will determine possible sites for alternative provision in areas where demand warrants (most notably in Woolston). Residual parking will be provided in locations which assist access to retail and commercial areas along the route.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 418

Figure 2: Recommended Road Design for Ferry Road Corridor

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 419

PARKING PROVISION

Parking surveys have recently been completed, which indicate that on a weekday parking demand was high through the centre of Woolston throughout the day, but particularly from late afternoon until the evening.

Parking demand was also high in Ferrymead throughout the day, as the parking spaces provided appeared to be used by people working in the adjacent commercial units. On the weekend, parking demand is high through Woolston, with on-street spaces heavily occupied between late morning and early evening, elsewhere parking demand is heavy adjacent to Woolston Park when sports events occur.

On this basis it is anticipated that alternative provision for the loss of on-street parking will be need to be provided through Woolston. Removing parking on the south side of the road between St Johns Street and Heathcote Street would result in the loss of 29 spaces.

In terms of overspill parking, there is often spare capacity on St Johns, Portman and Heathcote streets which should be sufficient to accommodate most of the 29 spaces, but the distance between these roads and destinations in the shopping centre may still deter some drive-by trade.

At Woolston Park it may be possible either to provide parking along the south side of Ferry Road, or alternatively maintain parking on the north side, and indent some spaces on the south side.

The impact of the cross section on Ferrymead will be negligible, as parking is currently only provided on one side of the road in this area.

ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 420

8010 URBANISTS Submission to HFCB re Draft Ferry Rd Masterplan 19 June 2013, Melanda Slemint & Max Cappocaccia

1. Movement – applaud Linwood Ave cycleway and links between Ferry Rd and Heathcote Heritage Trail ideas. Agree Ferry Rd still needs cycleways, but in light of merging of Phillipstown school w woolston, and million+ visitors to coastal pathway at other end, plan doesn’t go far enough.

Please consider the following -

o investigate a 2-way cycleway on one side of rd, with carparking on other side. Safer for both cyclists, and for people alighting from cars. o reconsider retention of Ferry Rd as over-dimension route, because this limits ability to have vertical elements and therefore crossing types. o Include measures to encourage communter traffic and HT to Brougham/Linwood so that existing road would be safer and more pedestrian friendly (encourages communities and shoppers to stay longer)

2. Design Content – if design guidelines are to be removed as a recommendation, don’t understand how vision is to be worked up or conveyed -‘revising imagery’ not enough. Plan must be ambitious to effect positive change beyond council streetscape alone.

Key is to encourage buildings which create positive urban space.

Please consider - ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 12 HAGLEY FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD 19. 6. 2013 421

o Funding shared design workshop/s for building and business owners and community, run by external experts. There is a lot of goodwill to help Chch right now and we could suggest some amazingly talented people with very impressive track records.

We’ve already met key woolston landowners, and they have expressed a keen appetite for this – eg to learn where and how they can create an identity for woolston, maintain and express their history, maximize the potential of the river, talk about appropriate scale and materials, and think about spaces or infrastructure they can share rather than duplicate. o Offer developers incentives for good urban design (eg creating mixed use buildings) o Require landscape scheme as part of every development o require that projects have professionally qualified designers, and a landscape proposal as part of every development, and encourage use of the UDP even for complying proposals o consider purchase of ex Mobil Site for public use. Land has been deemed ‘unbuildable’ due to cost of foundations/mitigation, and could offer Ferrymead a public space with possible uses including youth focused bike/skate park, public carparking for coastal pathway, or an extension of the popular Scott Park.

422 423 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

13. REGISTER OF COUNCILLORS’ INTERESTS

General Manager responsible: General Manager Regulation and Democracy Services, DDI 941-8462 Officer responsible: Peter Mitchell Author: Peters Mitchell

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to recommend the adoption by the Council of a Register of Councillors’ Interests, to be signed by the Mayor and all Councillors of their pecuniary interests based on the model currently used by Members of Parliament.

BACKGROUND

2. Since 1994 the City Council has had a voluntary register for Councillors of their pecuniary interests. This voluntary register was initially based on a register adopted by the New Zealand Cabinet. The purpose of this report is to recommend a replacement of that voluntary register system and to now base the register on the system currently used by Members of Parliament.

3. This matter was informally discussed by Councillors in mid 2012 and there was a consensus at that discussion that this issue should be addressed and staff were asked to report back on the topic. There was subsequently a workshop with Councillors on 28 May 2013 and the consensus at that workshop is that a report be placed on the Council agenda at the Council’s 27 June meeting recommending the adoption of a Register based on the MPs model. If the Council adopts the recommendations in this report then this will enable information to be included in candidate briefings to be held in July this year, and also information to be included in the candidates information booklets which will be issued in August so as to inform candidates that if they are elected as a Councillor then there is a clear expectation that they will complete the register in terms of the model set out in this report.

PURPOSE OF THE REGISTER

4. The purpose of a Register of Councillors’ Interests is to support the principle contained in the Local Government Act 2002 that the Council should “ …conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner.” It supports these governance principles in the same Act:

 a local authority should ensure that the role of democratic governance of the community, and the expected conduct of elected members, is clear and understood by elected members and the community; and  a local authority should ensure that the governance structures and processes are effective, open, and transparent.

5. Further the Charter for Christchurch City Council, signed by all Councillors on 17 May 2012, refers to these principles of public life in the council’s current Code of Conduct:

 Accountability: Councillors should be accountable to the public for their actions and the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, and should cooperate fully and honestly with the scrutiny appropriate to their particular office.

 Openness: Councillors should be as open as possible about their actions and those of the Council, and should be prepared to justify their actions.

6. As can be seen from these statutory and Charter references a purpose of a Register is to strengthen public trust and confidence in the Council’s processes by improving transparency, openness and accountability. It provides protection against arguments that a possible conflict might arise between a member’s public duty and private interests. If certain things are made known and registered, the question of any conflict of interest can be minimised. 424 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

13 Cont’d

7. The Register is designed to protect the Councillors in the event of scrutiny, rather that being a recital of wealth and indebtedness. It is also a declaration of the kinds of interests and is not intended to be a means by which individual value or specific location of interests can be assessed.

8. So the Register is designed to meet 2 criteria:

(a) to provide transparency in the governance of the Council, to increased public confidence, and to enhance the democratic process; and (b) to protect elected members in the event of scrutiny and public criticism.

CONTENT OF THE RETURNS OF INTEREST

9. The interests that must be disclosed by Councillors for inclusion in the Register consist of information that falls into two categories:

(a) Assets and liabilities which exist as at 31 January each year, and (b) Activities which have occurred over the 12 month period preceding 31 January.

10. In disclosing information in no case is the actual value of any asset, payment, interest, gift, contribution or debt required to be disclosed by Councillors. Councillors simply need to register its existence.

11. Based on the MPs model those interests and activities it is recommended that Councillors be required to register are:

(a) Names of companies of which Councillors are directors or controls more than 10% of the voting rights relating to the control of the company and a description of the main business activities of each of those companies. While the MPs register refers to a 5% of the voting rights it is considered this should be 10% for the Councillors’ Register as this aligns with the 10% figure referred to in the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968.

(b) Names of companies or business entities in which the Councillor has a pecuniary interest, and a description of the main business activities of each of those companies. “Pecuniary interest” is “a matter or activity of financial benefit to the Councillor.” Includes ownership of shares, bonds and debentures. There is no need to include pecuniary interests in a company or business entity held by a partner or close family member.

(c) If a Councillor is employed, the name of any employer, and a description of the main business activity of that employer.

(d) The name of each trust in which the Councillor is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that he or she is a beneficiary or trustee.

(e) If the Councillor is a member of the governing body of an organisation or a trustee of a trust that receives, or has applied to receive, Council or Community Board funding.

(f) The location of each property in which the Councillor has a legal interest as owner or leasehold or stratum estate, or in which any such interest is held by a trust which the councillor knows, or ought reasonably to know, he or she is a beneficiary. For the Councillors’ Register it is recommended that in describing the location of the property the Councillor does not need to specify the address of the property but must specify a general location at a suburb level.

(g) The name of each debtor who owes more than $50,000 to the Councillor, and a description, but not amount, of each of the debts owed to the Councillor.

(h) The name of each creditor to whom the Councillor owes more than $50,000 and a description, but not amount, of each of the debts owed by the Councillor. 425 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

13 Cont’d (i) Name of countries travelled to where costs met by third party (other than Council approved travel), purpose of travel and name of persons who contributed to travel costs and to accommodation costs.

(j) Description of gifts received by Councillor with an estimated market value of more than $500 and the name of the donor of the gift – gifts include hospitality or donations in cash or kind. Excludes gifts from family members. Corporate hospitality is a gift if its market value is over $500. Does not include donations for election purposes because there are separately declared.

(k) Description of all debts of more than $500 that were owing by the Councillor that were discharged or paid (in whole or in part) by some other person, and the name of that person.

(l) Description of each payment received, and not previously declared, by the Councillor for activities in which the Councillor was involved, including the source of each payment. Can include directors fees, speaking engagement fees and book royalties.

12. The Members of Parliament Register has a requirement to list the name of each registered superannuation scheme in which the MP has a pecuniary interest. Staff understand this requirement is included as MPs have the ability to make decision which can affect payments to the Government Superannuation (Parliamentary Scheme). As the Council does not make superannuation payments for Councillors staff consider there is not a reason to require Councillors to list their superannuation schemes on the Councillors Register.

APPOINTMENT OF REGISTRAR

13. It is considered appropriate that along with the introduction of this new Register that the Council appoint a Registrar of Pecuniary Interests who would be a third party independent of the Council. It is recommended that the Council appoint, for a term of 5 years commencing 1 July 2013, Mr Mel Smith as its first Registrar of Pecuniary Interests. Mr Smith is a former senior civil servant being amongst other roles a former Secretary for Justice and former Ombudsman.

14. It is envisaged that the role of the Registrar would be:

(a) To assist Councillors to complete their returns. (b) To receive the returns and arrange the production of the Register to go on the Councils website and to prepare a report for the Councils agenda. (c) To provide advice and guidance to Councillors. (d) To receive and deal with requests for an enquiry for an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct.

15. Although it is proposed to appoint an independent registrar, as Parliament does with its MPs register, it is still the responsibility of each Councillor to identify and declare interests required to be completed in the register.

16. The Registrar will retain the information provided by Councillors for 3 terms of Council.

17. The Registrar will be provided administrative support by the Democracy Services Unit.

TIMING AND MAKING OF RETURNS

18. The period covered by the Register is generally the 12 month preceding 31 January in each year. It is proposed that the first Register be completed by Councillors by 28 February 2014 for the year ending 31 January 2014. All returns are made on forms to be prescribed by the Registrar.

19. Once the forms are returned to the Registrar, by 28 February each year, then the Registrar will, by 30 April each year, provide a written report to the Council in an open meeting of the Council of the returns received by the Registrar and, as at the day after that Council meeting, publish on the Council’s website the Register. 426 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

13 Cont’d

20. If a Councillor comes into office during the Council term then an initial return must be made by that Councillor 90 days after the day in which they take the declaration of office.

CHANGES TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT

21. It is recommended that the Council amend its Code of Conduct to provide that a Councillor is required to complete the Register.

22. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to adopt a Code of Conduct which is required to set out the understanding and expectations adopted by the Council about the manner in which Councillors may conduct themselves.

23. The Local Government Act provides that a Councillor must comply with the Code of Conduct although it notes that a breach of the Code of Conduct of itself does not itself constitute a criminal offence. Staff consider that it is appropriate for the Council, if it adopts the Register of Interest system, that it also amend its Code so that the Council clearly sets out its understanding and expectations that Councillors are to complete the returns for the Register.

24. The Local Government Act requires that an amendment to the Code requires a not less than 75 per cent majority of the Councillors present.

26. It is recommended that the Code of Conduct be amended as set out in Appendix A of this report. These proposed changes to the Code are modelled on similar provisions in Parliament’s Standing Orders.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS’ INTERESTS) ACT 1968

27. Even with the establishment of the Register of Interest, the obligations in this Act will still apply so that Councillors will still be required to consider when attending a meeting whether or not they have a pecuniary interest in a matter before that meeting and whether or not they should declare an interest in respect of that matter. The inclusion of a matter in the register does not relieve the Councillors of the obligation to comply with the 1968 Act.

COUNCIL’S EXECUTIVE TEAM

28. The Council’s Executive Team has decided that its members will complete an Executive Team Register modelled on the Councillors Register and using the same timeframes, with inclusion in the report to the council and publication on the Council’s website. As set out in paragraph 6 above this will:

“ ….strengthen public trust and confidence in the Council’s processes by improving transparency, openness and accountability. It provides protection against arguments that a possible conflict might arise between an [executive team] member’s public duty and private interests. If certain things are made known and registered, the question of any conflict of interest can be minimised.”

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council:

(a) Adopt a Register of Pecuniary Interests based on the interests and activities contained in the items in paragraph 11 of this report.

(b) Appoint Mr Mel Smith as its Registrar of Pecuniary Interests for a five year term commencing on 1 July 2013.

(c) Adopt the changes to its Code of Conduct as set out in Appendix A to this report. (Note: this recommendation requires 75 per cent majority).

427 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

Appendix A

Amendments to Christchurch City Council Code of Conduct adopted 28 June 2012.

PECUNIARY AND OTHER SPECIFIED INTERESTS

1. By inserting a new paragraph 53A to the Code as follows:

53A Pecuniary and other specified interests a. Councillors must make returns of pecuniary and other specified interests in accordance with the resolutions of the Council dated 27 June 2013. b. Returns of Councillors’ pecuniary and other specified interests are to be maintained in a Register maintained by the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests.

2. By inserting a new Part 4 to the Code as follows:

BREACHES REGARDING THE COUNCILLOR REGISTER OF INTERESTS

55 Registrar’s Inquiry

1. A Councillor who has reasonable grounds to believe that another Councillor has not complied with his or her obligations to make a return may request that the Registrar conduct an inquiry into the matter. 2. The request must be in writing, signed, and set out:

a) the specific matter that the Councillor believes to be a failure to comply, and b) the reasonable grounds for that belief.

3. A Councillor who makes a request for an inquiry under this clause must, as soon as reasonably practicable, forward a copy of the request to the Councillor who is the subject of the request.

4. On receiving a request, the Registrar conducts a preliminary review of the request to determine if, in the Registrar’s opinion, an inquiry is warranted. In making a determination under this subclause, the Registrar takes account of the degree of importance of the matter under inquiry, and whether the matter:

a) may involve a breach of the obligations to make a return. b) is technical or trivial.

5. On determining whether an inquiry is warranted, the Registrar must inform the Councillor who made the request of this determination, and must also inform the Councillor who was the subject of the request.

6. If the Registrar determines that an inquiry is warranted, the Registrar conducts an inquiry.

7. In conducting the inquiry, the Registrar: a) must invite the Councillor who is the subject of the inquiry to provide a response to the matter under inquiry within 10 working days (provided that the Registrar and the member may agree on a different period of time for the Councillor’s response). b) may seek further information from the Councillor who made the request for an inquiry, from the member who is the subject of the inquiry, and from any other person that the Registrar considers may have relevant information. c) may seek assistance or advice from the Auditor-General or from any other person, as the Registrar sees fit. 428 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

d) may disclose any return or returns and information relevant to the inquiry to a person providing assistance or advice under paragraph (c). e)

8. The Registrar may: a) if the Registrar considers that the matter under inquiry does not involve a breach of the obligations to make a return, or is so minor as not to warrant the further attention of the Council, determine that no further action is required. b) if the Registrar considers that the matter under inquiry involves an inadvertent or minor breach of the obligations to make a return, advise the Councillor who is the subject of the inquiry to submit an amendment to the Councillor’s return or returns to remedy the breach. c) determine that the matter under inquiry involves a question of privilege, and report this to the House at the first opportunity. d) report to the Council on any other matter that may warrant the further attention of the Council.

56 Information on Registrar’s inquiry

1. A request under clause 55 and all information relating to the Registrar’s consideration of that request are confidential until the Registrar determines whether to conduct an inquiry in respect of the request. 2. After determining whether an inquiry is warranted under clause 55, and after informing members under clause 55(5), the Registrar may, at the Registrar’s discretion, disclose any or all of the following information:

a) the name of the Councillor who made the request. b) the date on which the request was received. c) the name of the Councillor who was the subject of the request. d) the particular requirement or requirements to which the request relates.

3. The proceedings of the conduct of an inquiry are strictly confidential, subject to clause 55(7) and (8).

4. All returns and information disclosed to a person by the Registrar under clause 55(7)(d) are confidential and must be returned to the Registrar or destroyed when that person’s involvement in the inquiry is concluded.

5. If the Registrar completes an inquiry under clause 55 without making a report to the Council, the Registrar must communicate the result of the inquiry to the Councillor who requested the inquiry and the Councillor who was the subject of the inquiry. 429 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

14. REPORT OF THE HEARINGS PANEL ON THE CEMETERIES MASTER PLAN AND BYLAW

General Manager responsible: Jane Parfitt, General Manager City Environment Group, DDI 941-8608 Officer responsible: Terry Howes, Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager, DDI 941-8987 Author: Hearings Panel on the Cemeteries Master Plan and Bylaw

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Council for the revised Cemeteries Master plan, Bylaw and Handbook to be adopted as operative.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The draft Cemeteries Master Plan, Bylaw and Handbook documents were prepared in 2012 for public consultation. The Council approved the public release of the draft documents at their meeting on 6 December 2012. The draft documents were available for public consultation from 14 December 2012 to 19 February 2013. A total of 100 submissions were received.

3. A hearing was held on 27 March 2013 where 29 submitters made verbal submissions. The Hearings Panel reconvened on 4 April, 9 April and 29 May 2013 to deliberate on the staff report and decide on the extent to which submitters’ objections and comments should be accepted or declined.

4. Modifications to the draft Master Plan following submissions and panel deliberations included a decision to actively canvass interested local community groups to investigate ways of collaborating on future cemetery management.

5. The panel acknowledged the role of each particular Community Board as an integral partner in the implementation of the master plan where appropriate. Any significant departures from the development plans outlined in the master plan at the time of implementation would be the subject of a report proposal to the relevant Community Board.

6. A protocol is to be developed to assist in dealing with the issue of cultural requirements as part of an investigation involving the Interfaith Council and other experts.

7. Several action points and some discussion was entered into the document associated with managing earthquake damaged cemeteries. These can be found in section 1.1 (Summary of actions and policies that apply to all cemeteries), 1.2 (Summary of actions and policies that apply to individual cemeteries, and the action points of affected cemeteries in section 10.

8. Several proposed capital works have been given a higher priority (VH) indicating they should be prioritised in the Three Year Plan (TYP) budget.

9. A notable request not undertaken was the inability to provide for natural burials at Diamond Harbour Cemetery due to existing site conditions. A new draft action point stating staff will investigate alternative potential locations near Diamond Harbour has been included.

10. It was agreed by the panel that staff investigate a way for the administration of Okains Bay Cemetery to continue to be undertaken by the local community but as a legitimate activity. The draft Master Plan and Handbook have been amended to reflect this decision and its possible outcome.

11. The panel wished it noted that (in line with the Burial and Cremations Act 1964) Master Plan policy 1 and the Handbook’s General Information section, when an exclusive right of burial has been pre-purchased and no burial has occurred within a period of 60 years, and the family no longer require it, the burial right will revert back to the Council for possible resale.

12. The panel agreed with submitters about the positive social and environmental contribution cemeteries make to the garden city image which is consistent with the general objective of multiple use of appropriate cemeteries outlined in the master plan. 430 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

14 Cont’d

13. Apart from dates, the only change proposed for the Draft Bylaw is the definition of ‘Monument’ to enable consistency with the Handbook. The Handbook has however had a number of alterations and additions made including; Green Burials, size of plots, depth of interments, monumental work, installation and maintenance of monuments, specifications of monuments for individual cemeteries, and maintenance of plots and graves.

14. Clarification for the issue of photography within cemeteries has been made in the Handbook to make it clear a restriction does not apply to private photography.

15. There have been a significant number of factual, grammatical and readability corrections made to both the Master Plan and the Handbook documents.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

16. The Master Plan contains a number of prioritised potential projects that will be put forward for consideration in subsequent Long Term Plan’s (LTP). The draft TYP budget for Cemeteries can largely accommodate projects indicated as having the highest priority (VH) for implementation. The Master Plan clearly states that the projects are subject to approval through the LTP process. It is estimated the additional cost of $9,500 - $10,000 would be required for every hectare that is added to the maintenance contract. These costs per hectare will vary depending on the type of development.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2009-19 LTCCP budgets?

17. Long Term Plan budgets are not affected by the proposed new bylaw. Any changes to the current cemeteries fees will be addressed, if required, through the Annual Plan fees and charges process.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

18. Legal issues pertaining to the proposed Cemeteries Bylaw review, Master Plan and Special Consultative Procedure are outlined in detail in the report to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee of 28 November 2012. Committee recommendations relating to legal issues and consultation were adopted by Council at the 6 December 2012 meeting.

Have you considered the legal implications of the issue under consideration?

19. Yes, as above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

20. Alignment with LTP Community Outcomes through:

(a) a Safe City - by ensuring that our parks, open spaces and waterways are healthy and safe places, and by controlling and minimising flood and fire hazards;

(b) a City of Inclusive and Diverse Communities – by providing spaces for communities to gather and interact, and by providing community burial grounds;

(c) a City of People who Value and Protect the Environment - by enabling people to contribute to projects that improve our environment;

(d) a Well Governed City - by involving people in decision–making about parks, open spaces and waterways;

(e) a Healthy City - by providing areas for people to engage in healthy activities. By managing surface water.

21. The draft TYP includes budget line items to provide for operational, capital works and new cemetery land as proposed in the Master Plan as top priorities. 431 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

14 Cont’d

22. Alignment with Activity Management Plans:

(a) activity 6.4 Cemeteries: maintain cemetery grounds; provide burial administration for cemeteries;

(b) activity 2.2 Build Stronger Communities: operate cemeteries in a safe manner to support Safe City Accreditation;

(c) activity 4.1 Public Participation in Democratic Processes: provide opportunities for public participation in decision-making processes; manage consultation processes.

Do the recommendations of this report support a level of service or project in the 2009-19 LTCCP?

23. Yes, as above.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

24. Council strategies relevant to the master plan include Biodiversity Strategy 2008, Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002, Safer Christchurch Strategy 2005, Safer Canterbury Creating Safer Communities Design Guide 2005, Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2008, Parks & Reserves Bylaw 2008, Public Open Space Strategy 2010-2040.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

25. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

26. The Cemeteries Bylaw review and the Cemeteries Master Plan are being undertaken as a Special Consultative Process as outlined in detail in the report to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee of 28 November 2012.

HEARINGS PANEL RECOMMENDATION

With the powers of Council delegated to the Cemeteries Master Plan and Bylaw Hearings Panel to hear submissions in relation to the preparation, review and change of Christchurch City Council Cemeteries Bylaw, Handbook and Master Plan pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Burial and Cremation Act 1964, it is recommended that:

(a) The Council approve the Cemeteries Master Plan, Bylaw and Handbook documents with the changes shown as tracked changes in the draft documents and incorporated in the final versions, as the operative documents;

(b) The Council resolve to adopt the Christchurch City Council Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 which shall come into force on 1 July 2013;

(c) The Council give public notice as soon as practicable, that the Christchurch City Council Cemeteries Bylaw 2013 has been adopted by Council, that it comes into effect on 1 July 2013 and copies of the bylaw will be made available.

432 433 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

15. CCDU TRANSACTIONS

General Manager responsible: General Manager Corporate Services, DDI 941-8528 Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Corporate Support Author: Angus Smith, Property Consultant

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to:

(a) Provide an update on the Council’s and Tuam Limited’s properties that are incorporated in the Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) acquisition process.

(b) Seek a resolution from the Council for:

(i) The sale of a number of the Council’s and Tuam Limited’s properties to the Crown.

(ii) Staff delegations to manage and resolve the transaction and insurance issues associated with those properties to be sold.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. On July 2012 the CCDU released the Central City Recovery Plan (CCRP), which in conjunction with the CER Act 2012 provides the CCDU with property acquisition powers to give effect to that plan. The powers and processes associated with this are more fully set out in the background section of this report.

3. The Council and Tuam Limited own a number of properties that fall within the areas identified in the CCDU Blue Print for anchor projects and the frame. The CCDU has determined that it is necessary for the Crown to purchase these sites to give effect to that plan and have initiated a process to achieve that. While the Crown has the power to compulsorily acquire the sites, (and has initiated the required process so that they are in a position to exercise that power if required), they have engaged in a process to achieve a sale and purchase on a negotiated basis.

4. Negotiations have been concluded for four of the Council’s and Tuam Limited’s affected properties. This report recommends that the Council accept the offer on their properties. The directors of Tuam Limited have recommended that the Council, as shareholder accept the offer on its properties as listed below.

5. The remaining affected properties will be reported once agreement is reached on valuation and insurance issues.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6. The proceeds from the sale of these properties to the Crown have been included in the Financial Strategy and will fund the capital programme as detailed in the Three Year Plan. Total proceeds as a result of these property sales are $7.370 million and would be applied, consistent with the Council’s financial strategy as follows:

 Reserve Land ($845,000). The proceeds from the sale of reserve land will be paid into the cash reserve for urban parks and then applied by Council to the creation of new parks and reserves.  Council surplus / commercial land and buildings ($1.580 million). The proceeds from the sale of surplus Council land will be used to reduce Council borrowings.  Tuam Ltd Property ($4.945 million). The proceeds from the sale of Tuam Ltd land will be used to repay Tuam Ltd’s debt to Council.

7. The book value and proposed sales prices for the properties are detailed in the table below. Recent market valuations supporting the sales prices will be circulated separately. Some land valuations have declined since the last Council valuation of its property portfolio,which occurred in 2008. 434 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

15 Cont’d

Land Book Value Sale price Peter Scoular Park 198 Tuam Street 931,122 845,000 Vacant Land 125 Manchester Street 883,614 Vacant Land 113 Manchester Street 498,782 805,000 Vacant Land 195 Barbodoes Street 204,000 Vacant Land 190 Lichfield Street 540,000 775,000 196, 204, 206 Tuam Tuam Street Street & 221, 225 St Carpark / Buildings Asaph Street 4,183,824 4,945,000 7,241,342 7,370,000

INSURANCE

8. The price negotiated for the Tuam Street Car Park and buildings does not include the company’s insurance entitlements. Tuam Limited is still entitled to the indemnity value of the repairs up to a maximum of the indemnity value of $576,593 for the three buildings.

9. The Council resolved to settle the insurance issues and demolish the damaged Manchester St properties on 26 July 2012, for an agreed sum of $3,234,315. If the Council resolves to accept the Crown offer as outlined above, the proceeds from that site will total $4.039 million compared with a purchase price of $2.550 million on 29 July 2008.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

10. All sale and purchase agreements with the Crown will be reviewed by a Council appointed solicitor to ensure that the Council’s position is protected as much as possible.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

11. No. The purpose of this report is in response to the series of earthquakes that struck Christchurch. This issue is not addressed in the LTCCP.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

12. The recommendations align with Council’s strategy insofar as they support the CERA / CCDU initiatives in respect of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and rebuild of the city. The recommendations are also consistent with the financial strategy adopted by the Council in the Draft Three Year Plan.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

13. The decision to be made by the Council flows directly from the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the CER Act prohibits Council from acting inconsistently with the CCRP. The CCRP identified the projects proposed for the areas of land referred to in this report. The CCRP has been available for public comment since August 2012.

14. In addition if the parties don't reach agreement then the Crown can use its powers to compulsorily acquire the land under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011.

15. Further consultation is therefore not an issue that the Council needs to consider before making its decision. 435 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

15 Cont’d

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council:

(a) Agree that the properties listed below are sold to the Crown at the values indicated.

Land Sale price Peter Scoular Park 198 Tuam Street 845,000 Vacant Land 125 Manchester Street Vacant Land 113 Manchester Street 805,000 Vacant Land 195 Barbodoes Street Vacant Land 190 Lichfield Street 775,000

(b) Agree that the Corporate Support Unit Manager is delegated authority to negotiate, manage and conclude the sale transactions for the properties set out in (a) above on terms and conditions, other than value, that are satisfactory in her sole discretion.

(d) Agree that the proceeds from the sale of the vacant land as outlined above be used to repay Council borrowing.

(e) Approve of Tuam Limited selling the properties listed below to the Crown at the values listed, on terms and conditions that are satisfactory in the sole discretion of the directors of that company or their appointee.

Land Sale price 196, 204, 206 Tuam Tuam Street Street & 221, 225 St Carpark / Buildings Asaph Street 4,945,000

(f) Approves Tuam Limited resolving and settling its insurance claims arising from the 22 February 2011 and subsequent earthquakes in respect of the buildings associated with the Tuam St carpark site on terms and conditions that are satisfactory to the directors of that company in their sole discretion.

(g) Authorise the General Manager Corporate Services to approve the sale by Tuam Limited of the above properties pursuant to section 129 of the Companies Act 1993 and/or to sign any shareholders' resolution on behalf of the Council approving such sale.

BACKGROUND (THE ISSUES)

16. On July 2012 the CCDU released the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP). This provided a spatial framework and form for the rebuild of the central city, including a number of anchor projects. A copy of the plan is attached at Appendix 1. The CCRP is a statutory document under CER Act 2012.

17. On release the plan directed changes to the Christchurch City Council’s District Plan. Those changes included designating a number of sites for various anchor projects and the frames as a mechanism to give effect to the plan. A copy is attached at Appendix 2. A designation is a planning mechanism that provides for ‘public works’. It overrides the City Plan rules and effectively places the land on hold. No person may, without the prior written consent of the Minister, do anything in relation to the land that would prevent or hinder the public work to which 436 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

15 Cont’d the designation relates. There is no general appeal right, except quantum of compensation to the High Court.

18. The Crown indicated from the outset that it intended to acquire the designated properties for the purpose of the recovery of greater Christchurch as soon as practically possible. A CCDU transaction team was set up comprising; Crown Settlement Agents – The Property Group; Transaction Manager – Mainland Capital; Crown Valuers – Telfer Young and Colliers International and Crown Conveyancer – Buddle Findlay to manage this.

19. A process to acquire the properties by agreement was initiated. This commenced with a questionnaire seeking details on the process to inform the Crown’s valuers, with the intent that those valuations would form the basis of the Crown’s offer to purchase and commence a negotiation process.

20. In parallel to the agreement by negotiation process, the Crown have rolled out a compulsory acquisition process. The first step in this involved issuing notices of intention to take land under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 with the intention that these would be withdrawn if the owner and Crown subsequently reach agreement. Should agreement not be reached the Crown has the ability to take the property by Proclamation. This has its own process in terms of serving notices and publication following which the Crown can take title to the property without resolving compensation. Through this process the land would vest in the Crown who would succeed to all rights, entitlements and benefits that the owner has or may have against the insurer of the land and buildings.

21. In the event of compulsory acquisition, without compensation agreed, the onus is then on the owner to seek compensation and has a two year period to lodge a claim under the CER Act. That Act sets out that compensation will be the current market value as at the date of compulsory acquisition.

22. The Council and Tuam Limited-affected properties are:

Name Address Designation Council Owned New Bus Exchange Facility Site 121 - 141 Tuam Street, 645 - 647 Justice / Emergency & Temp Interchange Colombo Street & 52 Lichfield Precinct Street Rohits 56 - 58 Lichfield St Justice / Emergency Precinct Retail Bldg - Cloudbase 645 Colombo St Justice / Emergency Precinct R & R Sport 1/645 Colombo St Justice / Emergency Precinct Canterbury Public Library 89 - 91 Gloucester Street & 194 Convention Centre Oxford Terrace Precinct Peter Scoular Park and adjoining 198 & 200 Tuam Street The Frame reserve area to the rear. Elsie Locke Park (Centennial 270 Oxford Terrace The Frame Pool) Manchester St Parking Building 218R Manchester Street The Frame Vacant Land 117 - 125 Manchester Street The Frame Vacant Land 195 Barbadoes Street, 190 Lichfield Stadium Street, 176 Lichfield Street & part Cashel / Lichfield Street EPIC Site 239 - 241 St Asaph Street & 78 - Innovation Precinct 106 Manchester Street 437 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

15 Cont’d

Tuam Limited owned ELC - Tuam St Creche 161 Tuam Street Central City Bus Interchange Civic Offices Tuam (including 163 - 175 Tuam Street Central City Bus Interchange Annex) Tuam St Car Park, Checkers, 196, 204, 206 Tuam Street & The Frame Cinnamon Café and the heritage 221,225 St Asaph Street classified Parking Operations building

23. In addition to the above properties there are a small number of roads, lanes and reserves affected by the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan which will be addressed as part of the funding agreement with the Crown.

24. Council staff and the CCDU Transaction Team have been engaged in a process to establish a value for the properties that can be supported by both parties for the basis of a sale and purchase by negotiation. This process commenced with a response to the CCDU questionnaire and exchange of information to inform the valuation process. Knight Frank were engaged to provide an assessment of value for the properties on behalf of the Council to support the sale value and subsequent acceptance of the CCDU offer or negotiation. Following this process the properties below are now at a point where a decision to sell to the Crown can be supported and made. A copy of the valuations will be separately circulated to Councillors, these will provide property descriptions and plans.

Name Address Transaction Value Peter Scoular Park and the 198 & 200 Tuam Street $845,000 associated reserve land behind Vacant Land 117 - 125 Manchester Street $805,000 Vacant Land 195 Barbadoes Street, 190 Lichfield $775,000 Street, 176 Lichfield Street & part Cashel / Lichfield Street Tuam St Car Park Checkers, 196, 204, 206 Tuam Street & $4,945,000 Cinnamon Café and the heritage 221,225 St Asaph Street classified Parking Operations building

25. The balance of the Council’s and Tuam Limited’s affected properties will be reported for a sale decision at a future date once insurance, valuation and funding issues have been resolved.

OPTIONS

26. The options the Council has are to:

a) Sell by agreement at the value negotiated. b) Not sell and leave the interest in the properties to be compulsorily acquired.

Advantages Disadvantages a) Sell by agreement Creates Certainty Supports rebuild initiatives Cost effective Enables proceeds to be directed to repayment of debt immediately b) Not Sell Uncertain outcome 438 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

15 Cont’d Uncertain timeframe to achieve resolution Additional cost to council to secure compensation Loss of control

27. This report recommends option a) to sell by agreement at the value negotiated. Option b) contains a higher degree of uncertainty and risk. In addition, not to sell at this stage in the process would not be an act of good faith or be supportive of the combined CCC, CERA / CCDU rebuild efforts.

439 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

16. NOTICES OF MOTION

16.1 Councillor Helen Broughton has submitted the following Notice of Motion pursuant to Standing Order 3.10:

That an urgent report is requested on the leases and subleases covering motorsport at Ruapuna including expiry dates; with discussion on possible approaches that could be adopted to mitigate noise emanating from Ruapuna.

17. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Attached.

440 441

THURSDAY 27 JUNE 2013

COUNCIL

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely item(s) 18 - 24.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH REASON FOR PASSING THIS GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION NO. MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED RESOLUTION IN RELATION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF TO EACH MATTER THIS RESOLUTION

18. CONFIRMATION OF PUBLIC ) GOOD REASON TO SECTION 48(1)(a) EXCLUDED MINUTES - COUNCIL ) WITHHOLD EXISTS) MEETINGS OF 30 MAY 2013 AND 13 ) UNDER SECTION 7 JUNE 2013 ) 19. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE ) COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 4 JUNE 2013 ) 20. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE ) ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 6 JUNE 2013 ) 21. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE ) CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 7 JUNE 2013 ) 22. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE ) AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: MEETING OF 29 MAY 2013 ) 23. SOCIAL HOUSING PARTNERING EOI ) ) 24. SOCIAL HOUSING INFILL ) INTENSIFICATION – DUNDEE PLACE: CONTRACT 12/13-14

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:

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED

18. To maintain 7(2)(g) To keep the legal advice in the report Once the matters CONFIRMATION OF legal confidential. referred to in the report PUBLIC EXCLUDED professional have been completed MINUTES - privilege. and all parties with an COUNCIL interest in those MEETINGS OF 30 matters have agreed to MAY 2013 the release including the waiving of legal professional privilege

442 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED To enable the 7(2)(i) To keep negotiations with other Council to agencies confidential until resolved. carry on negotiations without prejudice. Official 7(2)(b)(ii Would be likely to unreasonably Never Information Act ) prejudice the commercial position of the (1982) supplier

) 7(2)(h) Enable the Council to carry out ) commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage

) 7(2)(i) Enable the Council to carry on ) negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage

) 7(2)(j) Prevent disclosure for improper gain or ) advantage Protect the 7(2)(b)(ii Matariki Forests have requested the Following the public information ) transaction as strictly confidential announcement by likely to Matariki Forests prejudice the commercial position Official 9(2)(b)(ii Commercially sensitive information Never Information Act ) during RFP process (1982) Commercial 7(2)(h) - Commercially sensitive Never Activities Maintain 7(2)(g) To keep legal advice in the report The report can be Professional confidential released following an Legal Privilege announcement from the Minister as to whether a s27 amendment will be made. Enable 7(2)(h) To seek a co-operative resolution with negotiations MCER and Ecan without prejudicial with other publicity agencies without prejudice or disadvantage To protect 7(2)(b)(ii Commercial Sensitivity. Negotiations The information will information ) have not been concluded. only become a public where the record if the Council making approve the sale and if available of the the property is sold. information- (ii) would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. To enable the 48(1)(d) To enable the Council to consider its The report can be Council to 48(2)(a)( decision in private without influence released following the deliberate in i) from the media or any party to the period in which parties private on a proceedings. to the proceedings will recommendatio receive notification of n where a right the Council’s decision of appeal to a in the ordinary course Court against of the post. the Council’s decision exists. Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Information in this paper discloses the Never commercial ) commercial practices of CCOs position Prejudice 9(2)(b)(ii Commercially sensitive information Never commercial ) during the RFP process position 443 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED Commercial 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is Never activities necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. Privacy of 7(2)(a) Private individuals are named in the Never natural persons report. Conduct of 7(2)(i) negotiations To enable the 48(1)(d) To enable the Council to consider its The report can be Council to decision in private without influence released following the deliberate in 48(2)(a)( from the media or any party to the period in which parties private on a i) proceedings. To enable the Council to to the proceedings will recommendatio notify its decision to the parties to the receive notification of n where a right plan change before the matter is the Council’s decision of appeal to a reported in the media. in the ordinary course Court against of the post. the Council’s decision exists. Official 7(2)(b)(ii Would be likely to unreasonably Never Information Act ) prejudice the commercial position of the (1982) supplier

) 7(2)(h) Enable the Council to carry out ) commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage

) 7(2)(i) Enable the Council to carry on ) negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage

) 7(2)(j) Prevent disclosure for improper gain or ) advantage Protect the 7(2)(b)(ii Matariki Forests have requested the Following the public information ) transaction as strictly confidential announcement by likely to Matariki Forests prejudice the commercial position Official 9(2)(b)(ii Commercially sensitive information Never Information Act ) during RFP process (1982) Commercial 7(2)(h) - Commercially sensitive Never Activities Maintain 7(2)(g) To keep legal advice in the report The report can be Professional confidential released following an Legal Privilege announcement from the Minister as to whether a s27 amendment will be made. Enable 7(2)(h) To seek a co-operative resolution with negotiations MCER and Ecan without prejudicial with other publicity agencies without prejudice or disadvantage To protect 7(2)(b)(ii Commercial Sensitivity. Negotiations The information will information ) have not been concluded. only become a public where the record if the Council making approve the sale and if available of the the property is sold. information- (ii) would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Information in this paper discloses the Never commercial ) commercial practices of CCOs position 444 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED Prejudice 9(2)(b)(ii Commercially sensitive information Never commercial ) during the RFP process position Commercial 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is Never activities necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. Privacy of 7(2)(a) Private individuals are named in the Never natural persons report. Conduct of 7(2)(i) negotiations

Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Contains information and financial data On receipt of commercial ) supplied by third parties that is confirmation from third position sensitive and of a confidential nature at parties to release this time. information. Privacy of 7(2)(a) Withholding the information is Never. natural persons necessary to enable the Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. Commercial 7(2)(h) Private individuals are named in the Never. activities report Conduct of 7(2)(i) Information provided by Crown Once the matter is negotiations agencies in the course of negotiations completed and all with the Council is to remain parties approve the Protection of 7(2)(c)(i) confidential until such time as the release. source of matter is completed. information

Protect 7(2)(b)(ii Council’s position in relation to the After the judgment of information ), (g) share of the insurance proceeds paid to the Court has been where the and (i) Victoria Hotels may be prejudiced if given or the matter has making information is made public. otherwise been settled, available of the provided that it is information determined that any would be likely part sought to be unreasonably released is not subject to prejudice the to legal privilege. commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. Enable the Council to carry on without prejudice or disadvantage commercial negotiations Maintain legal professional privilege To enable the 48(1)(d) To enable the Council to consider its The report can be Council to and decision in private without influence released following the deliberate in 48(2)((a) from the media or any party to the period in which parties private on a (i) proceedings. To enable the Council to to the proceedings will recommendatio notify its decision to the parties to the receive notification of n where a right plan change before the matter is the Council’s decision of appeal to a reported in the media. in the ordinary course Court against of the post. the Council’s decision exists.

18. Privacy of 7(2)(a) Withholding the information is Never. CONFIRMATION OF natural necessary to enable the Board to PUBLIC EXCLUDED persons. consider nominations for the MINUTES - Community Service Awards, with the COUNCIL unsuccessful nominations to remain MEETINGS OF 13 confidential. JUNE 2013 445 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED Enable any 7(2)(i) Property is subject to confidential When settlement of the local authority negotiation. sale is concluded. holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Protection of 7(2)(a) Until the nominations are approved by After those nominated privacy of the Board it is reasonable for the names have been informed of natural of the proposed nominees to be kept the Board’s decisions. persons. confidential and also for privacy reasons should the Board decide not to support a nomination.

Enable any 7(2)(i) The report contains sensitive Following the local authority information which, if released, can completion of a final holding the affect the course of negotiations and Sale and Purchase information to should remain confidential. Agreement and carry on, settlement of the site. without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negations).

Protection of 7(2)(a) To enable the Board to consider the When the Board has privacy of nominations received for Community considered natural Service Awards. nominations and the persons. nominators have been informed of the decisions.

Enable any 7(2)(i) Property is subject to When settlement and local authority confidential negotiation. signing of the Licence holding the to Occupy are information to concluded. carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). Enable any 7(2)(i) Property is subject to confidential When settlement and local authority negotiation signing of the Licence holding the to Occupy are information to concluded. carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

19. Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Contains information On completion of REPORT OF THE commercial ) on works to go to procurement process MEETING OF THE position tender COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 4 JUNE 2013 446 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED Protection of 7(2)(a) To allow discussion When approved by the privacy of about volunteers who Council natural persons have agreed to be put forward as Trustees

20. Protection of 7(2)(a) Parties to transaction and their After transaction has REPORT OF THE privacy of particulars to remain confidential at this been settled MEETING OF THE natural persons stage ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 6 JUNE 2013 Conduct of 7(2)(i) Negotiated purchase price and tenancy After transaction has negotiations rent details confidential been settled Confidential 7(2)(i) Negotiations to purchase land. When so determined by Negotiations Valuation advice. Council. Maintain Legal 7(2)(g) Legal advice on litigation risk When so determined by Professional Council Privilege Confidential 7(2)(i) Valuation advice on cost to Council on When so determined by negotiations settlement Council On the basis 7(2)(b)(ii Commercially sensitive information Never that the ) received contract is not yet signed, publically disclosing the information could unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

21. Commercial 7(2)(h) Enables future interest costs to be 1 December 2013 REPORT OF THE activities hedged without risk of prior adverse MEETING OF THE movements. CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 7 JUNE 2013 Protection of 7(2)(a) Report names private individuals. Never privacy of natural person Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Content is commercially sensitive. Never commercial ) position Maintain legal 7(2)(g) Report contains legal advice. Never professional privilege Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Information in the paper discloses the Never commercial ) commercial practices of Council position Controlled Organisations. Commercial 7(2)(h) Not applicable activities Conduct of 7(2)(i) Negotiations are ongoing. Not applicable negotiations Conduct of 7(2)(i) Negotiations are ongoing. Not applicable negotiations

22. Prevent 7(2)(j) Prevent the disclosure or use of Once the report has REPORT OF THE improper information for improper gain or been signed off or MEETING OF THE advantage advantage updated as advised by AUDIT AND RISK the Subcommittee MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: MEETING OF 29 MAY 2013 447 COUNCIL 27. 6. 2013

ITEM NO. REASON SECTIO PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN UNDER ACT N BE RELEASED Prejudice 7(2)(b)(ii Would be likely to unreasonably Never commercial ) prejudice the commercial position of the position supplier Commercial 7(2)(h) Enable Council to carry out commercial Activities activities without prejudice or disadvantage Conduct of 7(2)(i) Enable Council to carry on negotiations negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage

Prevent 7(2)(j) Prevent disclosure for improper gain or improper advantage advantage Maintain legal 7(2)(g) The report provides legal advice on Following the privilege potential legal risks arising as a result conclusion of legal of the collapse of the CTV building. proceedings (if any) relating to the collapse of the CTV building. Maintain legal 7(2)(g) The report provides legal advice relating Cannot be released privilege to the risk of earthquake related claims while there remains a by building owners/insurers against the potential for claims to Council as the building consent be made against the authority. Council in relation to its role as building consent authority for earthquake damaged / demolished buildings. Maintain legal 7(2)(g) Legal advice to be provided in privilege confidence to the Subcommittee

23. Would 7(2) (b) Contains information which is of a On completion of the SOCIAL HOUSING prejudice (ii) commercially sensitive nature at this EOI process. PARTNERING EOI procurement. time.

24. Prejudice 7(2) Commercial negotiations yet to be Outcome of report can SOCIAL HOUSING commercial (b)(iii) finalised. be released after INFILL position commercial INTENSIFICATION – discussions finalised DUNDEE PLACE: with Contractor. CONTRACT 12/13- 14

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.”