COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE AGENDA

TUESDAY 5 MARCH 2013

AT 9AM

IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET

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

General Manager General Manager – General Manager Strategy and Planning Public Affairs Community Services Committee Adviser Mike Theelen Lydia Aydon Michael Aitken Lucy Halsall Tel: 941-8281 Tel: 941- 8982 Tel: 941-8607 Tel: 941-6227

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION PART C - DELEGATED DECISIONS

INDEX

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.

PART C 1. APOLOGIES 1

PART A 2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1

PART A 3. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN – MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT INCLUDING TOP 30 3 PROJECTS STATUS UPDATE

PART A 4. CENTRAL CITY HERITAGE LANDMARK GRANTS POLICY AND OPERATIONAL 47 GUIDELINES

PART A 5. CENTRAL CITY HERITAGE LANDMARK GRANTS – RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 61 2012/2013

PART C 6. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL, ST LUKES, 1280 CHORLTON ROAD, LITTLE 81 AKALOA

PART A 7. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL, ST PAUL’S, 1 HAREWOOD ROAD, PAPANUI, 87 CHRISTCHURCH

PART A 8. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES SUPPORT FUND - FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 95

PART A 9. FANFARE – A GATEWAY SCULPTURE FOR CHRISTCHURCH 165

PART A 10. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY 175

CONTINUED OVER …

ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.

PART C 11. REPORT FROM CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE 193 COMMITTEE – ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKING PARTY

PART A 12. SCARBOROUGH PADDLING POOL 195 1 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

1. APOLOGIES

Nil.

2. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT

2 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

3. FACILITIES REBUILD PLAN MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT INCLUDING TOP 30 PROJECTS STATUS UPDATE

General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941 8607 Officer responsible: Facilities Rebuild Portfolio Manager Author: Darren Moses, Facilities Rebuild Portfolio Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

3. The Council position is that all buildings in the programme will be repaired or reinstated wherever possible. The Council’s reporting needs to be considered in the context of finalising our insurance position and associated insurance negotiation implications.

4. It is worth noting that in addition to the Top 30 projects, work is still actively progressing on the rest of the prioritised programme (as approved by the Council in December 2012) via various activities including finalising Detailed Engineering Evaluations (DEE) assessments, building closure (where deemed necessary), insurance liaison to maximise our insurance entitlement position and in some cases detailed design to allow for simple rapid repairs to allow non damaged buildings to reopen. In order to meet a self imposed five year work programme, additional projects will continue to be added to this process from the prioritised programme.

5. A full update on those projects prioritised into the Top 30, can be found in Attachment 1.

DETAILED ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS (DEE)

6. The DEE assessment component of the commercial (non housing) programme continues to make good progress and is currently tracking some months ahead of the schedule that the Council approved in March 2012. The DEE programme is currently indicating completion by April. The Social Housing DEE programme is also underway and is running concurrently with the Commercial and Heritage Programme.

7. The time taken to complete DEE assessments varies from weeks through to many months, depending on building complexity, availability of plans and other historical structural design documentation. The current status of DEE assessments is shown below in Table 1. 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

3 Cont’d

Table 1: DEE Assessment Status Measure Dec 2012 This Month

Number of buildings to undergo DEE assessments 932 917 a) Will not get a DEE 27 27 b) Yet to start 173 0 c) In progress 432 569 d) Received as draft 257 285 e) Completed 61 63 Subtotal d and e (received DEE’s) 318 348

On hold, Demolished, will not progress DEE 60 27

<34% NBS (earthquake prone building) 82 87 >34% and <67% NBS (fit for occupancy) 49 67

46 >67% and <99% NBS (below code) 42 >99% (code or above) 85 98

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.

8. Attachment 2 provides further information on building specific DEE assessments and New Building Standard (NBS) results.

9. Once a DEE assessment has been completed and the per cent NBS and occupancy decision made, damage assessments begin and repair options are investigated by engineers and Council staff. This establishes the extent of damage, the work required to restore the building to its previous pre earthquake state and an estimate of cost to do so. This information can then be assessed against our insurance entitlement to make informed decisions as to the best strategic approach, i.e. repair or rebuild. A significant programme of damage assessments across all Council facilities is about to get and a tender package to source vendors is due to close mid March. Diagram 1 below, summarises the steps in the process.

Diagram 1

5 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

3 Cont’d

CLOSURES

10. Since the previous Council report, and in line with the Council delegation, the following buildings have had to close due to DEE reports being received which indicate per cent NBS less than 34 per cent.

 Harewood Community Centre, Knightsbridge Lane in Aranui (all 17 units in the complex), Avonheath Courts in Redcliffs (seven units in the 13 unit complex) and the Louisson Courts Complex in Opawa (seven units in the 13 unit complex).

11. Staff are still investigating repair options for closed buildings and a timeframe for re- opening is currently being determined.

RE-OPENINGS

12. The following buildings have been worked through the FRP process and have reopened:

 St Albans Crèche, Bradford Park Pavilion, Rolleston YHA, Poseidon Café, Coronation library Akaroa, three newly repaired social housing units at Tommy Taylor Courts in Waltham.

HERITAGE PROGRAMME

13. The Heritage Reinstatement Programme has projects in all phases of work from stabilisation to handover. The majority of projects are in the DEE and design phases. There are a total of 14 structures within the Heritage Reinstatement Programme that are affected by the Council's Top 30 Priority List. They are either part of a property or affected by the needs of a property; for example Akaroa Museum includes Langois-Eteveneaux Cottage, Customs House and Court House.

14. Edmonds Clock Tower repairs and reinstatement commenced in late January 2013 and is expected to be complete by early/mid March.

15. Jubilee Clock Tower has physical work programmed to commence mid February, with an expected schedule of repairs to take up to the end of August 2013.

16. Rolleston House YHA has been reopened in time for the busy summer tourist season. The Poseidon (Beach) Café in Sumner opened in December 2012.

17. The repairs to Linwood Community Centre are expected to be complete in early April 2013, with the building opening following shortly after.

18. The Akaroa Museum buildings have investigations underway to potentially 'partially open' some buildings. The Museum itself has a relatively undamaged foyer and may be opened to allow viewings to take place there. The Akaroa Courthouse and Customs House both have investigations underway into opening both these buildings on a temporary basis, while repair/remediation works are underway. Langois Eteveneaux Cottage will have temporary viewing to the rear windows opening in February 2013.

HOUSING PROGRAMME

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

COMMERCIAL PROGRAMME

20. DEE assessments on the commercial (non-housing) programme are progressing efficiently and are ahead of schedule. Officers have now received final documents on three quarters of the programme and expect the remaining drafts to be reviewed over the coming months.

6 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

3 Cont’d

21. The community facilities programme contains approximately 80 Council assets which are broken down into priority work packages. Work is ongoing on the facilities in work package one (top 30) with an emphasis on completing damage assessments, strengthening reports and submitting insurance claims. Damage assessments for Bishopdale Community Centre and Fendalton Community Centre are expected in early March and it is hoped that Fendalton can be re-opened in due course, pending an acceptable insurance claim.

22. The Facilities Rebuild Team in conjunction with asset owners are also working to develop work packages two and three. Tasks include document collation, obtaining existing scopes of work and requesting statements of position from the Council’s insurers.

23. The Council previously approved the demolition of South New Brighton Community Centre. This demolition has been completed. Staff are investigating a transitional facility.

24. Many community centres on Banks Peninsula have failed DEE assessments through design (typically older buildings) rather than on earthquake damage. Staff have been working with the Building Consents Team to determine requirements for fixing these buildings. A workshop to discuss this in more detail has been arranged with the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee (the Committee) in early March.

25. The supporting strategies for community facilities are taken into account when assessing buildings. The vision is being reviewed and updated to reflect the loss of buildings post earthquakes and changes to demographics. Co-locating buildings and services to create hubs is one option being looked at. Work is currently being undertaken to finalise a draft investigation into Hub options at Linwood and Sumner. A workshop to explore these options will be sought with the Committee in the very near future.

26. The demolition of the Sumner Library demolition has been completed since the last report to the Committee.

27. Discussions with insurers are progressing. Insurers have agreed the cost to repair damage would be over the sum insured on the following facilities; Heathcote Voluntary Library, Sumner Library, Woolston Library, Redcliffs Library. FRP team will report re-instatement options to Council when reinstatement options have been investigated in line with asset strategies and once costs estimates have been developed.

28. Investigation into the re-levelling and permanent repair of South Library is underway. The current consent allows the repaired building to operate until December 2015 in its current condition.

29. The Council has received a "CERA section 38 demolition notice" for Heathcote Volunteer Library. Staff are investigating costs for reinstatement of the service.

30. Repairs to Jellie Park Plantroom are being investigated. A report to Council is expected as soon as work has been agreed with our insurers.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

31. Earthquake Commission (EQC). Housing units with major damage over the $100,000 cap will qualify for a legitimate insurance claim with Civic Assurance.

32 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.

33. 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 the higher).

7 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

3 Cont’d

34. In addition insurers will not 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.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with LTCCP budgets?

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

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

36. Not applicable.

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

37. As above.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

38. Not applicable.

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

39. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

40. Not applicable.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

41. As above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

42. Not applicable

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council receive this report.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 8

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Sydenham Pre School (crèche)

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L5 – 8% NBS

Update:

A Damage Assessment / Scope of Work has been requested. A strengthening report, including site levels was received on the 28.1.13 and is currently being priced (by WTP). The site level results confirmed levels are within DBH guidelines and no further action is necessary to re-level.

Next Steps:

Resolve the DA process to be able to agree a position with the LAT/insurer. Dependant on the above, options to be developed to include repair, rebuild or relocate a transitional facility.

The ability to return to service is expected late 2013.

Fendalton Community Centre

Building Status: CLOSED (but will be opened now due to revised NBS%)

DEE: L5 6/12/12 50%

Update:

Damage Assessment Scope of Work has been requested from Citycare. All scope has been agreed with the asset owner. No betterment work has been requested at this stage. Fire, accessibility and strengthening reports will not be required. Building opening steps have been agreed including updated BWOF

Next Steps:

1) Review the Citycare response to the DA Scope of Work and agree costs and timeframes for submission to the insurer. 2) Agree position and scope of works with the insurer/LAT and once approved undertake the repair works ASAP 3) Target to complete the repairs in the first quarter of 2013.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 9

CRAC 05 March Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Riccarton Community Centre (Also See item 10 - Volunteer Library)

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 2% Orig Bld 5% (1960) 100% (1968)

Update:

Damage Assessment Scope of Work was requested from OPUS but not approved to proceed due to the high cost Further assessments are on hold until the DA process is finalised A strengthening report was received on the 28.1.13 from OPUS and is currently being priced. Note: Fire and accessibility reports have been removed from the OOS

Next Steps:

1) Site levels being undertaken directly by Council survey team. 2) Resolve the DA process to be able to agree a position with the LAT/insurer. 3) The asset owner has multiple options for this site subject to the finalization of the insurance position. 4) Target works complete late 2013

South Brighton Community Centre

Building Status: CLOSED & DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A – Part Demolished Extensive EQ damage

Update:

Three tenders were received and the demolition tender price through Shilton & Brown of $33,400 was approved by Council on 6 Dec 2013. Total loss agreed with LAT (2 demo quotes requested and now on file) Note:TC3 land.

Next Steps:

The asset owner is investigating transitional facility options.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 10

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Risingholme Community Centre Craft Rooms (non heritage)

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Received – 17.5% NBS

Update:

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%. The critical structural weakness is due to geotechnical issues – lateral spreading and liquefaction on the site.

Next Steps:

Investigation into repairing the foundations at the existing site or moving the building to a nearby alternative site. Agreement needs to be reached with the insurer with regard to cost.

Akaroa Museum

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 12%-38%NBS

Update:

The main building has 6 separate structures of different ages and constructions are of different strengths. Temporary propping possible but permanent repair / strengthening may be complicated.

3 on site and 1 off site heritage properties are being considered by the feasibility study.

Project team focused on 2013/14 summer opening. A temporary (partial) opening of the Foyer area is currently being investigated. This would mean public would have access to view limited items, while a permanent repair strategy is developed.

Next Steps:

Complete feasibility study on repair options.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 11

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

HUBS

Sumner Library, Museum and Community Hub

Building Status:

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

DEE: Sumner Library: Lvl 5 25 May 2012 Sumner Museum: Lvl 5 Sumner Community Centre: Lvl 5

Update:

 Long Term Options Report status as follows:  99% of all relevant available information deemed to be collated with all major council management units consulted  Steering Committee presentation completed on the 13/12/12  Draft Sumner Master Plan public consultation period has closed  Sumner Library demolition is now complete with the bare land fenced off ready for the “transitional” Project to start.

Next Steps:

 The insurance Statement of Position (SOP) is still to be finalised  Future agreements/plans on the use of this site will be made outside of this role with the Facilities Rebuild Team e.g. transitional and final use options.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 12

CRAC 05 March Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Bishopdale Library and Community Centre

Building Status: CLOSED 4% NBS

DEE: Lvl 5 October 2012

Update:

 Long Term Options Report status as follows:  99% of all relevant available information deemed to be collated with all major council management units consulted  Steering Committee presentation completed on the 13/12/12  Strengthening options have been completed and priced  Finalisation of EQ damage components being undertaken

Next Steps:

 Damage Assessment proposal being submitted as an interim measure until the DA process is finalized.  The insurance Statement of Position (SOP) is still to be finalised  Complete draft “Long Term Plan” report for review by key stakeholders mid to late February with a finalized report completed late March 2013  Future agreements/plans on the use of this site will be made outside of this role with the Facilities Rebuild Team e.g. transitional and final use options.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 13

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Linwood Library, Service Centre, and Community Hub

Building Status:

Linwood Civic and Library Support: CLOSED 18%NBS Linwood Service Centre: OPEN >33% NBS Linwood Library Support: OPEN 39% NBS Linwood Library: CLOSED 25% NBS Linwood Toy Library: Open 100% NBS

DEE: Linwood Civic and Library Support: Lvl 5 – Sept 12 Linwood Service Centre: Lvl 5 – July 12 Linwood Library Support: Lvl 5 - October 12 Linwood Library: Lvl 5 – August 11 Linwood Toy Library: Lvl 4 – June 12

Update:

 Long Term Options Report status as follows:  99% of all relevant available information deemed to be collated with all major council management units consulted  Steering Committee presentation completed on the 13/12/12  DA Scope of Works being completed by Citycare in the interim to resolve EQ related damage on “open” facilities - Linwood Service Centre & Linwood Library Support

Next Steps:

 Complete DA’s in February and lodge with insurers March to enable confirmation of insurance Statement of Positions (SOP)  Once insured position confirmed then undertake repair works subject to required level of Council approvals

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 14

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

LIBRARIES

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

Building Status: Open

DEE: Temporary Repairs complete, bring building to 34% NBS.

Update: South Library opened late December 2012 after repairs resulted in increasing NBS to at least 34%. Investigations into the Long term solution for this building are ongoing.

Draft geotechnical report received, awaiting updated report incorporating comments. Foundation recommendations for permanent solutions included in report. Lateral spread and settlement have affected foundation.

Next Steps:

Complete Damage Assessment report to allow for cost and methods for repair/reinstatement. Discuss and agree recommendation to council with Libraries team.

Receive agreement with LAT on insurance position.

Riccarton Voluntary Library (Within Riccarton Community Centre)

Building Status: Open

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

Update:

Included within the community facility. See Riccarton Community Centre overview for more information.

Next Steps: See Riccarton Community Centre overview for more information.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 15

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Mairehau Voluntary Library

Building Status: OPEN

DEE: L4 - 80%

Update:

Minor EQ Damage, though level survey suggests re-levelling of floor will be required.

Long term strategy will be part of Voluntary Library Review as part of update to the 2025 Libraries Plan which is due for release in March.

Next Steps:

Need re-levelling plan and costing. Commission levelling plan and costing. On receipt determine other items required for damage assessment.

Pursue sign off with the LAT.

St Martins Voluntary Library

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: Part demolished, Extensive EQ Damage, L4 0-30% NBS

Update:

Partially demolished, approximately 70% of building, due to CERA Section 38. Remaining building has suffered significant damaged and differential settlements (up to 100 mm).

Voluntary library staff has requested retrieval of items. Awaiting engineer approval on safety of building (site visit 26/2/2013).

SCIRT are currently using demolished footprint. Next Steps:

Damage Assessment required to confirm insurance position.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 16

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Opawa Voluntary Library

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Qualitative 0-30 NBS

Update:

Strengthening options completed (to be issued by Heritage Project Panager - HPM), HPM believes this facility is economic to repair but the extensive scope requires agreement with the LAT.

High level costs have been completed for strengthening of this building. There is negligible cost difference from 33% to 100% NBS.

Next Steps:

Commission Damage Assessment. On receipt of Damage Assessment report review and advise accordingly.

The current understanding is the facility is likely to be economic to repair (although extensive works are required) with further confirmation and agreement with LAT.

Opawa Childrens Library

Building Status: Open

DEE: L5 Requested (due 14/02/2013, delayed 2 weeks due to need for intrusive investigation).

Update:

Further EQ damage assessment/survey required to determine scope of works on receipt of DEE. L5 DEE expected completion 14/02/2013.

Prior to earthquakes 3 voluntary libraries operated within 2 km of each other (Opawa and St. Martin). Currently Children’s is only open facility. Need to assess future facilities (Opawa and St. Martin badly damaged). Long term strategy will be part of Voluntary Library Review as part of update to the 2025 Libraries Plan which is due to be put before Council by June 2013.

Next Steps:

Review DEE on receipt. Commission Damage Assessment, which will determine scope of EQ repair work. Pursue agreement with LAT. Programme EQ repair works for 2013.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 17

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Hoon Hay Voluntary Library

Building Status: OPEN

DEE: L5 Quantitative 42% NBS

Update:

Minor EQ Damage, though on TC3 land. DEE complete. Currently library service to remain onsite.

Level survey has been requested. Once level survey complete will determine if additional damage assessment items need to be completed.

Next Steps:

Review level survey on receipt. Commission Damage Assessment, which will determine scope and cost of EQ repair work.

Receive agreement with LAT on insurance position. Programme works for completion in 2013. Outline potential future of library to include in Council report based on damage assessment.

Heathcote Voluntary Library Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: N/A - Extensive EQ damage.

Update:

CERA have recently issued a demolition notice section 38 for this facility. Total loss agreed with LAT. Staff are investigating costs of re-instatement on site and re instatement as part of the Community Centre, report to council will follow agreement with LAT on Heathcote Community Centre and council decision in the update to the 2025 Libraries plan. Staff have responded to CERA demolition notice (section 38).

Next Steps:

Awaiting quotes from CERA to proceed with demolition. Rebuild option cost estimates to be finalised. Council report will be prepared once update to libraries 2025 plan has been before council.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 18

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Redcliffs Voluntary Library

Building Status: DEMOLISHED

DEE: N/A - Demolished

Update:

Facility demolished. The Voluntary Library service is currently operating out of the local tennis club. Total loss agreed with LAT. Rebuild/strategic options assessment required. N.B Library has taken 5 year lease on the existing library site.

Next Steps:

Council report will be prepared once update to libraries 2025 plan has been before council.

Woolston Voluntary Library

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: N/A - Demolished

Update:

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

Mobile library is stopping at site once a week. Voluntary library service currently operating at Scout Den.

Rebuild costs/strategic options under review. Possible rationalisation into new Woolston/Ferry Rd redevelopment plan.

Next Steps:

Council report will be prepared once update to libraries 2025 plan has been before council.

N.B Woolston Community Centre is in close proximity to this site but library service does not align well with strategy for Community Centre. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 19

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

CORPORATE ACCOMODATION

Lyttleton Service Centre

Building Status: Closed – service reinstated in temporary facility

DEE: 10%

Update:

Received draft strengthening report including high level costing. Awaiting revision incorporating requested changes.

Next Steps: Review strengthening report on receipt and proceed with LAT agreement.

RECREATION & SPORT

Waltham Pool

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 – all buildings EQ prone <34% NBS

Update:

Geotechnical investigation and reporting is complete, favourable ground conditions would support the activities at Waltham continuing in the future without piling required. If larger buildings were proposed on the site in future, piles may be required down to between 8-10m. Pipework survey has been completed with damage found, full replacement of the pipework may be possible without needing to demolish large sections of the pool tank. A Detailed level survey is required before a repair option can be recommended to ensure the pools solar weirs can still operate.

Next Steps:

Damage assessment and detailed level survey to be completed.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 20

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Norman Kirk Memorial Pool – Lyttelton

Building status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Received

Update:

Level survey completed showing significant bulging of the retaining walls along the site. Geotechnical investigation is now clearly warranted under the insurance policy.

Next Steps:

Damage assessment process has commenced, 6-8 week programme to completion. Process will inform the insurance claim entitlement, and cost to repair the site.

Lyttelton Recreation Centre and Trinity Hall (interconnected facilities)

Building status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Received

Update:

Level survey completed, showing that building has moved south, and there is up to 5.2mm/m of lean on the highest, southern most part of the building..

Next Steps:

Damage assessment process has commenced, 6-8 week programme to completion. Process will inform the insurance claim entitlement, and cost to repair the site.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 21

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Whale Paddling Pool New Brighton

Building status: RE-OPENED

DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools.

Update:

Repair work was completed on Whale Pool at the end of October 2012. A community event was held with great success on Saturday 17th November 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.

Botanic Gardens Paddling Pool

Building status: RE-OPENED

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

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 the re-levelling of the main pool after the current summer season and report to council before the next summer opening season.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 22

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Scarborough Paddling Pool

Building status: CLOSED

DEE: N/A for Paddling Pools.

Update:

Investigations and high level costs to repair have been collated and staff recommendation has been submitted via report to CRAC Committee and Council.

Next Steps:

Awaiting Council decision.

GREENSPACE

Sumner Jet Boat Building

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: L4 Quantitative 24% NBS (indicative)

Update:

Current estimates indicate the cost of replacement would exceed the insured sum. Further EQ damage assessment underway with SKM to determine full scope of work and economics of any repair option. Works instructed: (1) Intrusive surveys (2) Strengthening options to achieve 33% NBS, 67% NBS and 100% NBS (3) A high level estimate for the strengthening options cost. (4) An outline fire report

Next Steps:

Awaiting results of Structural engineer (SKM’s) intrusive surveys (underway) and strengthening options report (2-3 weeks away). This will directly determine the economics of the repair option or whether demolish and rebuild should be the preferential option for CCC. Works can then progress early in 2013. The preference from the club is to retain if feasible.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 23

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Scarborough Life Boat Building

Building Status: OPEN

DEE: L4 Qualitative 50% NBS (Final)

Update:

City Care have scoped cosmetic damage. GHD are also preparing an offer of service to check the drains and sewer. A level survey has also been requested internally. Next Steps:

Awaiting OOS for the scoping of cosmetic damage and checking of sewer and drains and level survey results. Once we have all three reports the insurance claim can be settled and repairs can begin.

Sumner Surf Club Toilets

Building Status: CLOSED (to be demolished)

DEE: N/A – N.B. Severely compromised

Update:

Insurers have approved demolition of the building. Approved by CRAC committee 7th February 2013.

The CCC Heritage team have 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.

Next Steps:

Finalise replacement cost with insurers. Continue to liaise with The Sumner Surf Club on the new design and getting the new design through building consent.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 24

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Lyttelton Visitors Centre and Toilet

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: Awaiting L5 DEE

Update:

Toilet block now completed, reopening process initiated.

General works in the visitors centre are completed with the exception of the floor works – floor bearers found not to be connected to the foundations. Additional works will be required to connect them up, OPUS now working on a design to do this; the Visitors Centre will remain closed until completion of the additional works, which will require a building consent.

Next Steps:

OPUS working on programme of works to deliver a design for the floor connection works, then works will commence, inclusive of building consent, construction, and reopening process. Lyttelton Visitors Centre staff have been advised of the situation, and will be updated on the new programme as soon as dates become available.

Botanic Gardens Glasshouses

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 4 glass house all <34%NBS

Update:

Engineering assessments complete and repair options under consideration.

Next Steps:

Complete repair options and review. A Council Report will be prepared as soon as these have been reviewed, as CCC funding will be required.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 25

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update HERITAGE

Akaroa Gaiety Hall

Building Status: closed

DEE: 24%NBS

Update:

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.

Next Steps:

Review of the feasibility study is in progress.

Akaroa Service Centre

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 26%NBS

Update:

The service centre requires works that will prevent opening for 2012-2013 summer. Project team focussing on opening for 2013-2014 summer.

Repair options have been developed and are being considered as part of a feasibility study.

Next Steps:

The feasibility study is currently being reviewed and the necessary documents prepared for the Insurer ‘Statement of Position’.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 26

Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Sign of the Kiwi

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 9.5%NBS

Update:

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.

Next Steps:

Review of repair strategy is underway, with the next stage being preparation of Detailed Design, to enable the Insurer to issues an ‘Statement of Position’.

Canterbury Provincial Chambers

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: too damaged for DEE assessment

Update:

Stabilisation works expected to be complete in first quarter 2013.

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.

Next Steps:

Complete stabilisation.

Future repair strategy requires detailed consideration and consultation with CCC, DOC and NZHPT.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 27

CRAC 05 March Attachment One – Top 30 Project Update

Sign of the Takahe

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: 30%NBS

Update:

Intrusive investigations underway to confirm suitability of repair options. Further stabilisation work sand weather proofing underway.

Next Steps:

Complete repair options.

Our City Otautahi

Building Status: CLOSED

DEE: too dangerous for internal inspections

Update:

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

Next Steps:

Future repair strategy requires detailed consideration and consultation key stakeholders.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 28

DEE Results above 67%

% NBS Asset Group Asset Type Occupancy Status 133 Civic Offices on Hereford Civic Offices on Hereford Open 110 Woodham Park Aviary ‐ Woodham Park Open 100 Addington Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Addington Park Open 100 Akaroa Heritage Park Toilet Open 100 Akaroa Recreation Ground Community Building Open 100 Akaroa Recreation Ground Toilet Open 100 Avice Hill Arts & Crafts Centre Hal Avice Hill Arts & Crafts Centre Hal Open 100 Avice Hill Reserve Shed Open 100 Avon Riverbank True Right Pump Shed opposite 524 Avonside Drive Closed 100 Belfast Cemetery Belfast Cemetery ‐ Toilets Open 100 Beverley Park Toilets ‐ Beverley Park Open 100 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Information Kiosk Closed 100 Botanic Gardens Petrol store Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Vehicle Shed Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Meeting Room Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Old Woolshed Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Bulldozer Shed Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Rangers House (74 Waitikir Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Shed Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Chemical shed located in Bottle Lake com Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Flammable shed located in Bottle Lake co Open 100 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Toilets Open 100 Bradford Park Toilets ‐ Bradford Park Open 100 Britomart Reserve Toilets Britomart Reserve Open 100 Bromley Cemetery Bromley Cemetery ‐ Toilets Open 100 Brooklands Domain Toilets ‐ Brooklands Domain Open 100 Canterbury Park Toilet ‐ Canterbury PK (Templetons Road) Open 100 Cass Bay Playground Cass Bay Toilets Closed 100 Cholmondeley Reserve Toilet Open 100 Cholmondeley Reserve Toilet Open 100 Coastal Cliff Reserve Coastal Cliff Reserve Toilets Open 100 Coronation Hill Reserve Pantry Storage Shed ‐ Sign of The Kiw Closed 100 Corsair Bay Reserve Corsair Bay Changing Sheds and Toilets Open 100 Crosbie Park Toilets ‐ Crosbie Park Open 100 Cuthberts Green Softball Complex Cuthberts Green ‐ Light Pylons Open 100 Cypress Garden Reserve Toilet Open 100 Duvauchelle Reserve and Campground Office Open 100 Duvauchelle Reserve and Campground Shed Open 100 Edmonds Factory Garden Marquee ‐ Edmonds Gardens Open 100 Elmwood Park Toilets ‐ Elmwood Park Open 100 Englefield Reserve Toilet ‐ Englefield Reserve Open 100 English Park English Park ‐ Lighting Towers Open 100 Fencing Centre Fencing Centre Open 100 Fendalton Library Fendalton Library ‐ Cycle Shed Open 100 Ferrier Park Toilet ‐ Ferrier Park Open 100 Groynes Groynes ‐ Toilets No 1 Ground West Open 100 Groynes Groynes ‐ Kiosk Open 100 Groynes Groynes ‐ Workshop & Garage Open 100 Groynes Groynes ‐ Storage Shed Open 100 Groynes Groynes ‐ Toilets Lake area Open 100 Groynes Groynes Kimihia Toilet block Open 100 Hagley Park North North Hagley ‐ Toilets (Near Tennis Ctr) Open 100 Hagley Park South South Hagley ‐ Garage & Soil Shed Open 100 Hagley Park South Groundsman's House Open 100 Harewood Park Harewood Nursery ‐ Pumphouse (X2) Open 100 Holmcroft Reserve Shed Open 100 Hoon Hay Community Creche Hoon Hay Community Creche Open 100 Horseshoe Lake Reserve Toilet ‐ Horseshoe Lake Reserve Closed 100 Kaituna Hall Kaituna Hall Open 100 Kidsfirst Aranui Creche (Ex Rainbow) Kidsfirst Aranui Creche (Ex Rainbow) Open 100 Kyle Park Toilets ‐ Kyle Park Open 100 Leslie Park Toilets ‐ Leslie Park Open 100 Linwood Community Creche Shed ‐ Linwood Creche Open 100 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Shade House (large Closed 100 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Cold Frames (X 3) Open 100 Linwood Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Linwood Park Open 100 Linwood Resource Centre Linwood Toy Library ‐ 322 Linwood Ave Open 100 Macfarlane Park Toilet ‐ Macfarlane Park (Jebson St) Open 100 Mona Vale Fendalton Rd Gatehouse garage Open 100 Moncks Spur Reserve Pump Station Closed 100 Murchison Park Toilet Open 100 New Brighton Creche New Brighton Creche Open 100 New Brighton Creche Play Staff Room ‐ New Brighton Creche Open 100 New Brighton Creche Storage Shed ‐ New Brighton Creche Open 100 New Bus Exchange Facility Site Retail Building (Katmandu/Rexel) Open 100 Nicholson Park Toilets ‐ Nicholson Park Open 100 Old School Reserve Toilets ‐ Old School Reserve Open 100 Ouruhia Reserve Toilets ‐ Ouruhia Domain Open 100 Paddling Pool Grounds ‐ Sockburn Rec Sockburn Recreation Ctr ‐ Bbq Shelte Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 29

100 Papanui Domain Toilets ‐ Papanui Domain Open 100 Phillipstown Community Centre Community Centre ‐ Phillipstown 100 Phillipstown Community Centre Community Centre ‐ Phillipstown 100 Pigeon Bay Boat Park Toilet ‐ Pigeon Bay Boat Park Open 100 Police Kisok ‐ Cathedral Sq Police Kiosk ‐ Cathedral Sq Closed 100 Rawhiti Golf Course Toilets ‐ Rawhiti Golf Course (No 6 Fair Open 100 Ray Blank Park Pavilion/Toilet Open 100 Redwood Park Toilets ‐ Redwood Park (Sturrocks Rd) Open 100 Ruru Lawn Cemetery Ruru Lawn Cemetery ‐ Toilets (Brick) Open 100 Ruru Lawn Cemetery Ruru Lawn Cemetery ‐ Portacom Office Open 100 Sandy Beach Road Reserve Toilets Sandy Bay Rd Governors Bay Closed 100 Scott Park Ferrymead Storage Shed north corner of bowls lawn Open 100 Seafield Park Aviary Complex Open 100 Seafield Park Stores Shed: Animal Park SW end (photo a Open 100 Seafield Park Rabbit House: Animal Park S end (photo a Open 100 Seafield Park Hexagonal standalone aviary (small): Ani Open 100 Seafield Park Animal Park in yard behind main stores s Open 100 Seafield Park Barntype shed: Animal Park NW end adjace Open 100 Seafield Park Multi‐aviary building: Animal Park centr Open 100 Selwyn Reserve Toilets ‐ Selwyn St Open 100 Sheldon Park Toilets ‐ Sheldon Park Open 100 Sir John McKenzie Memorial Library (Toy Sir John McKenzie Memorial Library (Toy Open 100 South Brighton Camping Ground South Brighton Motor Camp ‐Paddling Poo Open 100 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Garages Open 100 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Dwelling 105 Heyders Road Open 100 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Toilets Open 100 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Shop/Dwelling Open 100 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Implement Shed (4 bay) Open 100 Spencer Park Main reserve workshops compound middle b Open 100 Spencer Park Beach Spencer Park Beach loop road adjacent to Closed 100 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Storage Shed/Workshop Open 100 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Homestead Open 100 St James Park Toilets ‐ St James Park Open 100 St Leonards Park Toilets ‐ St Leonards Sq Open 100 Stoddart Point Reserve Garage Open 100 Sydenham Community Centre Community Centre ‐ Sydenham Open 100 Sydenham Park Toilets ‐ Sydenham Park Open 100 Templeton Pool Templeton Pool ‐ Toddlers Pool Plant Rm Open 100 Thomson Park Toilets ‐ Thompson Park (Bowhill Rd) Open 100 Toilets Akaroa Place de la Poste Toilets Akaroa Place de la Poste 100 Travis Wetland Information Kiosk ‐ 280 Beach Rd Open 100 Travis Wetland Bird Hide ‐ 280 Beach Rd Open 100 Tulett Park Toilet ‐ Tulett Park Open 100 Tulett Park Shed Open 100 Upper Riccarton Domain Toilets ‐ Riccarton Domain Open 100 Upper Riccarton Domain Toilets ‐ Riccarton Domain Open 100 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Garage Open 100 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Toilets (disabled) Open 100 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Shed 10 x 9 Open 100 Victoria Park Old Ranger office‐Victoria Parkcompound Open 100 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Rangers Office Open 100 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Rangers House Open 100 Walter Park Pavilion/Toilet ‐ Walter Park Open 100 Waltham Park Toilets ‐ Waltham Park Open 100 Warren Park Community Building Open 100 Washington Way Reserve Toilet Open 100 Windsports Park Toilets ‐ Windsurf Reserve Open 100 Woodham Park Toilets ‐ Woodham Park Open 100 Woolston Community Centre Community Centre ‐ Woolston Open 100 Woolston Creche (Glenroy St) Woolston Creche Open 98 Broadhaven Reserve Toilets ‐ Broadhaven Park Open 98 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Portacom Office Open 98 Taylors Mistake Beach Changing Shed / Toilets ‐ Taylors Mistak Open 98 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Shearing Shed Open 96 Garden of Tane Toilet Open 96 Paddling Pool ‐ Avebury Park Plant Shed ‐ Avebury Park Open 94 Templeton Domain Toilets ‐ Templeton Domain Open 93 Styx Mill Conservation Reserve Toilets ‐ Styx Mill Basin Reserve Open 92 Groynes Groynes ‐ Toilets ‐ Yacht Club Open 92 Groynes Groynes ‐ Toilets No 3 Ground Open 92 Groynes Groynes ‐ Toilets Block No 2 Ground Open 92 Groynes Toilets Ground 1 East Open 90 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Chemical Store Open 90 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Toilets (Stone) Open 89 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Shearing Shed Open 87 Beachcomber/Poseidon Beachcomber/Poseidon ‐ Sumner Part Open 87 Owen Mitchell Park Toilets ‐ Owen Mitchell Reserve Open 86 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Pumphouse Nursery Area Open 86 Coronation Hill Reserve Dwelling (Lockwood) ‐ Sign Of The Kiw Open 86 Cracroft Reserve Toilets ‐ Cracroft Hill Reserve Open 86 Halswell Quarry Park Halswell Quarry ‐ Toilets Open 86 Styx Mill Conservation Reserve Rangers House ‐ Styx Mill Basin Reserve Open 85 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Office & Mess Room Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 30

85 Donnell Sports Park Toilet Open 85 Groynes Groynes ‐ Main Shop and Mobile Shop Open 85 Halswell Domain Toilets ‐ Halswell Domain Open 85 Halswell Quarry Park Halswell Quarry Farm Park ‐ Toilets Open 85 Heathcote Domain Toilets ‐ Heathcote Domain (Playground) Open 85 Mairehau Public Library Library ‐ Mairehau Open 85 Mona Vale Mona Vale ‐ Implement Shed / Staff Rooms Closed 85 Scott Park Ferrymead Shed Open 85 Styx Mill Conservation Reserve Equipment Shed ‐ Styx Mill Basin Reserve Open 85 Templeton Pool Templeton Pool ‐ Covered BBQ Area Open 84 Hagley Park North North Hagley ‐ Pump House Open 84 Pioneer Early Learning Centre Pioneer Early Learning Centre Open 83 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Cycle Shelter Open 83 Botanic Gardens Peacock Fountain pumphouse Open 83 Thorrington Reserve Pump Shed Closed 82 Bridge Reserve Shed Closed 82 Spit Reserve Toilet ‐ Spit Reserve Open 82 Travis Wetland Plant Nursery at 280 Beach Rd b/w the Ed Open 82 Travis Wetland Cottage located at 280 Beach Road Open 81 Duvauchelle Reserve and Campground Garage Open 80 Ruru Lawn Cemetery Ruru Lawn Cemetery ‐ Toolshed (Board & Batten Open 79 Hagley Park South South Hagley ‐ Toilets (Near Netball Cou Open 79 Hornby Library excl C/Care Hornby Library Open 79 Styx River Reserve Living Laboratory Aviary ‐ 51 Lower Styx Road Open 79 Wainui Community Hall Wainui Community Hall Toilets Open 78 Belfast Cemetery Belfast Cemetery ‐ Garage Open 78 Birdlings Flat Reserve Toilet Open 78 Rapaki Wharf Toilet Rapaki Wharf Open 77 Gravel Pit ‐ surplus land Soil Store ‐ 711 Johns Rd Open 77 Little River Service Centre / Store Service Centre / Store Little River Open 76 Hansen Park Toilets Open 76 Spreydon Domain Pavilion/Toilet ‐ Spreydon Domain Closed 76 Wainoni Community Facilities Wainoni Park Youth Activity Centre Open 75 Coronation Hill Reserve Gararge ‐ Sign of The Kiwi Open 75 Roading House ‐ 347 Ferry Road Roading House ‐ 347 Ferry Road Open 74 Coronation Hill Reserve Toilets ‐ Sign of the Kiwi Closed 73 Allandale Domain Toilet Closed 73 Denton Oval Lighting Towers (4 No) ‐ Denton Park Open 73 Dog Pound Portacom ‐ 10 Metro Place Open 73 English Park English Park Stadium Open 73 Pioneer Leisure Centre Pioneer Stadium ‐ Sports Hall Squash Open 73 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Office Block Open 73 Sumner/Redcliffs Creche ‐ Barnett Park Sumner/Redcliffs Creche ‐ Barnett Park Open 72 Bottle Lake Forest Bottle Lake ‐ Information Centre Open 72 Scarborough Hill Reserve Scarborough Farm Park ‐ Woolshed Open 71 Avonhead Cemetery Toilets (mens) ‐ Avonhead Cemetery Open 71 Avonhead Cemetery Toilets (womens) ‐ Avonhead Cemetery Open 71 Paddling Pool ‐ Edgar MacIntosh Park Plant Shed ‐ Edgar McIntosh Park Open 70 Avice Hill Reserve Shed Open 70 Belfast Pool Belfast Pool ‐ Main Building Complex Open 70 Duvauchelle Reserve and Campground Toilet Block No 2 Open 70 Duvauchelle Reserve and Campground Toilet Block No 1 Open 70 Groynes Groynes ‐ Dwelling No 1 Open 70 Redwood Library Library/Creche ‐ Redwood (Main North Rd) Open 70 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Lodge Open 70 Stoddart Point Reserve Toilet ‐ Stoddart Point Reserve Open 69 Mona Vale SUMMERHOUSE ‐ rose gdn Closed 69 New Brighton Beach Developed Pier Toilets ‐ New Brighton Closed 69 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Dangerous Good Store Open 69 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Shed for Fire Appliance Open 68 Avonhead Cemetery Avonhead Park Cemetery ‐ Sexton's Bldgs Open 68 New Brighton Beach Developed Changing Shed / Toilets ‐ Brighton Centr Open 68 Shirley Library Shirley Library Open 68 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Pavillion Open 68 Spencer Park Spencer Park ‐ Picnic Shelters Open 68 Spencer Park Fuel shed located in Spencer Park by the Open 68 Stoddart Point Reserve Playcentre / Scout Den Open 67 Bishopdale Park Toilets ‐ Bishopdale Park Open 67 Little River Community Facilities Little River Works Yard Workshop Open 67 Packe Reserve Shed Open 67 Richmond Community Centre Richmond Neighbourhood Cottage Open 67 Te Whare O Nga Whitu ‐ Multicultural Hal Hornby Multicultural Centre ‐ Hall Open 67 Victoria Park Fuels shed. Located at Victoria Park Com Open 67 Warren Park Changing Room ‐ Warren Park Open 67 Warren Park Toilets ‐ Warren Park Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 31

DEE Results between 34% and 67% NBS

% NBS Asset Group Asset Type Occupancy Status 66 Spencer Park Beach Surf Club Open 65 Christchurch Convention Centre Offices ‐ 82 Peterborough Street Open 65 Christchurch Convention Centre Offices ‐ 84 Peterborough Street Open 65 Halswell Aquatic Centre Halswell Pool ‐ Main Building Complex Open 65 Little River Fire Station Comm Centre Little River Fire Station Comm Centre Open 64 Abberley Park Toilets ‐ Abberley Park Open 64 Jellie Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Jellie Park Open 64 North New Brighton Community Centre Community Centre ‐ North New Brighton Part Open 64 Rawhiti Domain Toilets ‐ Rawhiti Domain (East) Open 63 Camp Bay Foreshore Toilet Open 63 CWTP Operations Buildings Treatment Works Open 63 Holliss Reserve Toilet ‐ Hollis Reserve actually located Open 63 Seafarers Union Housing Canterbury Street Closed 63 Sumner Road Gardens Lyttelton Visitor Information Centre Closed 62 Burwood Playcentre Burwood Playcentre Open 62 Community Board Room ‐ Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Room ‐ Burwood/Pegasus Open 62 Sheldon Park Changing Shed / Toilets ‐ Sheldon Park Open 62 Te Whare O Nga Whitu ‐ Multicultural Ha Hornby Multicultural Centre ‐ Admin Open 61 Bromley Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Bromley Park Open 61 Centennial Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Centennial Park Open 61 Edgar MacIntosh Park Toilets ‐ Edgar McIntosh Park Open 61 Edmonds Factory Garden Toilets ‐ Edmonds Gardens Open 61 Edmonds Factory Garden Toilets ‐ Edmonds Gardens Open 61 Groynes Groynes ‐ Girl Guide Building Open 61 Hillsborough Park Pavilion ‐ Hillsborough Domain Open 61 Hillsborough Park Toilets ‐ Hillsborough Domain Open 61 North Beach Toilets attached to Surf Club Open 61 Scott Park Ferrymead Double Garage Open 61 Styx River Reserve No. 2 Shed Open 60 Halswell Aquatic Centre Halswell Pool ‐ Bbq Shelter Open 59 Denton Park Toilets ‐ Denton Park Open 59 Halswell Aquatic Centre Halswell Pool ‐ Waterslide Open 59 Rawhiti Domain Toilets ‐ Rawhiti Golf Course (No 6 Fair Closed 59 Scarborough Beach Lifeboat Shed ‐ Scarborough Open 59 Westlake Reserve Toilet ‐ Westlake Park Open 58 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Shrubbery Frame Open 58 Old School Reserve Shed Open 58 Parklands Community Centre Parklands Community Centre Open 58 Yaldhurst Domain Pavilion (Tennis) ‐ Yaldhurst Domain Open 57 Templeton Community Centre Community Centre ‐ Templeton Open 56 Hagley Park North Rugby Memorial Closed 56 Linwood Park Pavilion ‐ Linwood Park Open 56 Pages Road Sewage Treatment Pages Road Depot ‐ Office & Cafeteria Open 55 Dog Pound Dog Shelter Open 55 Groynes Groynes ‐ Office Open 55 Groynes Groynes ‐ Boat Shed Open 55 Halswell Library Halswell Library Open 55 Rawhiti Domain Garage ‐ Rawhiti Golf Course Closed 55 Rawhiti Golf Course Impl.Shed L/Room ‐ Rawhiti Domain Open 55 Redwood Park Toilets ‐ Redwood Park (Main Nth Rd) Closed 55 St Albans Creche St Albans Creche Closed 54 Elmwood Park Tool Shed ‐ Elmwood Park Open 53 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Potting Facility & Gla Open 53 Hagley Park South South Hagley ‐ Pavilion/Toilets (Blenhe Open 53 Scarborough Fare Tearooms Scarborough Tearooms ‐ Sumner Open 52 Duvauchelle Reserve and Campground Community Building Open 52 Elizabeth Park Main pump shed. next to 3 reservoir tank Open 51 Bexley Park Bexley Reserve ‐ Toilet ‐ BMX Track Closed 51 Hoon Hay Park Shed ‐ Hoon Hay Domain Open 51 Mona Vale Mona Vale ‐ Lodge Open 51 Spreydon Library Spreydon Library Open 50 Beckenham Park Toilets ‐ Beckenham Park Open 50 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Fernery Closed 50 Bromley Community Centre Community Centre ‐ Bromley Open 50 Fendalton Community Centre Fendalton Community Centre Closed 50 Groynes Groynes ‐ Dwelling No 2 Open 50 Paddling Pool ‐ Spencer Park Paddling Pool Tank ‐ Spencer Park Open 50 Pages Road Sewage Treatment Operations Buildings Treatment Works Open 50 Styx River Reserve Living Laboratory Barn ‐ Iron Clad ‐ 51 Lower Styx Road Open 50 Waltham Pool Waltham Pool Tank Closed 50 Woolston Park Toilets ‐ Woolston Park Open 49 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Holiday Cabins Open 49 Upper Riccarton Library Upper Riccarton Library Part Open 47 Somerfield Playcentre Somerfield Playcentre Open 47 Styx River Esplanade Reserve Haybarn ‐ 75 Lower Styx Rd Open 46 Bexley Park Underground Bunker BMX Area Closed 46 Le Bons Bay Community Hall Le Bons Bay Community Hall Open 46 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Glasshouses (X 5) Open 46 Nunweek Park Toilets ‐ Nunweek Park Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 32

46 Sockburn Creche Sockburn Creche Open 45 Akaroa Sports Complex Akaroa Recreation Ground Pavillion Open 45 Avebury House Avebury House Closed 45 Avice Hill Reserve Shed Open 45 Ferrymead Park Pavilion/Toilet ‐ Ferrymead Park Open 44 Parklands Library ‐ Queenspark Parklands Library Open 44 Richmond Park Pavilion/Toilet ‐ Richmond Park (1/3 own Open 44 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Tourist Flats Open 43 Burwood Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Burwood Park North Open 43 Robbies on Riccarton Robbies on Riccarton Open 43 Spreydon Domain Coronation Hall ‐ Spreydon Domain Open 43 Styx River Esplanade Reserve Garage ‐ 75 Lower Styx Rd Open 43 Styx River Reserve Living Laboratory Single Garage ‐ 51 Lower Styx Road Closed 43 Wigram Gym Wigram Gynasium ‐ Wigram Aerodrome Open 42 Fendalton Library Fendalton Library ‐ Caged Fuel Tank Open 42 Ferrymead Reserve New Toilets Open 42 Hagley Park South South Hagley ‐ Pavilion/Shelter (Polo Open 42 Harvard Lounge ‐ Wigram Aerodrome Harvard Lounge ‐ Wigram Aerodrome Open 42 Hoon Hay Childrens Library Library ‐ Hoon Hay Open 42 Lyttelton Recreation Ground Recreation Ground Pavilion Closed 42 Milton Street Depot Milton St Depot‐Vehicle Garage Open 42 Paddling Pool ‐ Woodham Park Plant Shed ‐ Woodham Park Open 42 Queenspark Reserve Pavilion/Toilet Open 42 Rawhiti Domain Community Building ‐ Ex Bowls Club Open 42 Rimu Park Toilet Open 42 Sockburn Service Centre/Depot Sockburn Depot ‐ Amenities Open 42 Somerfield Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Somerfield Park Open 42 South New Brighton Park Toilets ‐ South Open 42 Travis Wetland Barn & Dairy Unit ‐ 280 Beach Rd Open 41 Landsdowne Community Centre Community Centre / Toilets ‐ Landsdowne Open 41 Memorial Park Cemetery Shed Memorial Park Cemetery ‐ 31 Ruru Rd Open 41 South Brighton Camping Ground South Brighton Motor Camp ‐ Workshop Open 41 Waltham Pool Waltham Lido Pool ‐ BBQ Shelter Closed 40 CBS Arena CBS Arena Open 40 Curators House Botanic Gardens Botanic Curators House ‐ 7 Rolleston Ave Open 40 Heritage Park Little River Shed/Garage Open 40 Linwood Community Creche Linwood Community Creche Open 40 Milton Street Depot Milton St Depot ‐ Truck Shelter Open 40 North Beach Community Creche North Beach Community Creche Closed 40 Papanui Library Papanui Library Open 40 Ruru Lawn Cemetery Ruru Lawn Cemetery ‐ Toilets Open 40 Scarborough Park Toilet/Changing Rooms ‐ Scarborough Park Closed 40 Styx River Reserve No. 2 Shed Closed 39 Cuthberts Green Softball Complex Cuthberts Green ‐ Softball Complex Open 39 Duvauchelle Works Yard Duvauchelle Works Yard Shelter Open 39 Linwood Service Centre / Lib Library Support Services ‐ Smith Street Open 39 Norman Kirk Memorial Pool Lyttelton Main Plant Room ‐ Norman Kirk Memorial Closed 39 Rawhiti Domain Toilets ‐ by tennis courts Open 39 South Brighton Camping Ground South Brighton Motor Camp ‐ Camp Bldg 1 Open 39 Waimairi Community Centre Waimairi Community Centre Open 39 Waltham Pool Waltham Lido Pool ‐ Water slide Closed 38 Barbadoes Cemetery Dwelling ‐ 357 Cambridge Tce (Cemetery) Open 38 Burwood Park Pavilion / Toilets ‐ Burwood Park South Open 38 Lyttelton Library Lyttelton Library Open 38 Waterworks MPS ‐ Workshop Waterworks MPS ‐ Workshop Closed 37 Birdsey Reserve Lock up shed ‐ concrete block ‐ iron roo Closed 37 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Rangers Office Open 37 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Art Gallery Toilets Open 37 Bradford Park Pavilion ‐ Bradford Park Open 37 Dwelling 42 Exeter Street Dwelling 42 Exeter Street Closed 37 Ouruhia Hall Ouruhia Hall (255 Guthries Rd)

37 Pages Road Sewage Treatment Pages Road Depot ‐ Vehicle Garage office Supershed Open 37 Styx River Reserve No. 2 Barn Open 37 Styx River Reserve No. 2 Barn Open 36 Ascot Community Centre Ascot Community Centre Open 36 Cressy Terrace Tennis Courts Community Building Open 36 Milton Street Depot Milton St Depot‐Tradesmen Workshop Open 36 Milton Street Depot Milton St Depot‐Plant Maint Workshops Open 36 Milton Street Depot Milton St Depot ‐ Tyre Bay Open 36 New Brighton Library/Pier Terminus New Brighton Library/Pier Terminus Open 36 Pages Road Sewage Treatment Pages Road Depot ‐Main Store City Care Open 36 Rawhiti Golf Course Pumphouse ‐ Rawhiti Golf Course (West) Open 36 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Amenity Block/Laundry Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 33

36 Spencer Park Camping Ground Spencer Park ‐ Amenity Building Open 36 Takamatua School Takamatua School Open 35 Abberley Park Hall Abberley Park Hall (55 Abberley Cres) Open 35 Jellie Park Recreation and Sports Centre Jellie Park ‐ Water Slide Closed 35 Milton Street Depot Milton St Depot‐Works Op Admin Building Open 35 Norman Kirk Memorial Pool Lyttelton Nursery & Bldg ‐ Norman Kirk Mem Poo Closed 35 Rawhiti Domain Community Building ‐ Ex Bowls Club Open 35 Westburn Reserve Toilet at Traffic Training Facility Open 35 Wharenui Pool Wharenui Pool Building (ex Pool) Open 34 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Playground Amenities Open

34 Governors Bay Pool Governors Bay ‐ Pool Plant Room/womenns changing Closed 34 Governors Bay Pool Governors Bay ‐ Men's changing shed Closed 34 Halswell Aquatic Centre Halswell Pool ‐ Main Plant Room Open 34 Jellie Park Recreation and Sports Centre Jellie Park ‐ Main Plant Room Open 34 Jellie Park Recreation and Sports Centre Jellie Park ‐ Administration Pool Gym Open 34 Rolleston Ave Youth Hostel Rolleston Ave Youth Hostel‐5Worcester St Closed 34 Waltham Community Cottage Waltham Community Cottage Open ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 34

High Risk ‐ DEE Results below 34% NBS / Earthquake Prone Buildings

% NBS Asset Group Asset Type Occupancy Status 33 Little Akaloa Community Hall Little Akaloa Club Rooms Closed 32 Central Library Central Library Closed 31 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Townsend House Closed 31 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Garrick / Gilpin House Closed 31 Duvauchelle Works Yard Duvauchelle Works Yard Store Closed 30 Okains Bay Hall Okains Bay Hall Closed 30 Opawa Public Library Library ‐ Opawa Closed 29 Lyttelton Recreation Centre Lyttelton Recreation Centre Closed 29 Pigeon Bay Hall Pigeon Bay Hall Closed 28 Pioneer Womens Memorial Shelter ‐ Pioneer Women Reserve Closed 27 Christchurch Hospital Car Park Christchurch Hospital Car Park Closed 27 Coronation Library Akaroa Library ‐ Coronation Akaroa Closed 26 Akaroa Service Centre Akaroa Service Centre / Info Centre Closed 25 Duvauchelle Community Hall Duvauchelle Community Hall Closed 25 Oxford Street Reserve Clocktower Closed 25 Sockburn Service Centre/Depot Sockburn Depot ‐ Store Ntheast End Closed 25 Victoria Park Victoria Park ‐ Information Kiosk Closed 25 Victoria Triangles Clock Tower ‐ Victoria St Closed 24 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Office/Store/Implement Closed 24 Gaiety Hall Gaiety Hall Closed 24 Styx River Reserve Living Laboratory Double Garage & Carport ‐ 51 Lower Styx Closed 23 Harewood Park Harewood Nursery ‐ Garage Closed 23 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Shade House & Cold Fra Closed 22 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Foweraker House Closed 22 Lyttelton Service Centre Lyttelton Service Centre Closed 20 Centennial Hall Community Centre ‐ Spreydon Closed 20 Lichfield Parking Building Parking Building ‐ Lichfield (part of) Closed 20 Porritt Park Porritt Park ‐ Garage Closed 20 Rose Historic Chapel Rose Historic Chapel Closed 20 Rugby League Park Grandstand No 1 Rugby League Grounds Demolished 20 Sockburn Service Centre/Depot Service Centre ‐ Sockburn Closed 20 Tuam Ltd Service Delivery Bldgs Covered Council Car Pool Parking‐Tuam St Closed 20 Westminster Park Community Building Closed 19 Little Akaloa Community Hall Little Akaloa Community Hall Closed 18 Awa‐iti Domain Little River Coronation Library Closed 18 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Office/Library/Mesh Closed 18 Groynes TOILET CLOSED; behind toilet block 186/0 Closed 18 Linwood Service Centre / Lib Service Centre‐Linwood & Library Suppor Closed 18 Norman Kirk Memorial Pool Lyttelton Ladies Change Rm ‐ Norman Kirk Mem Pool Closed 18 Norman Kirk Memorial Pool Lyttelton Mens Change Rm ‐ Norman Kirk Mem Pool Closed 18 Tram Barn ‐ Tramway Lane Tram Barn Closed 17.5 Risingholme Community Centre Risingholme Community Centre ‐ Homestead Closed 17 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Cunningham House Closed 17 Hagley Park North Hagley Park North ‐ Band Rotunda Closed 16 Denton Oval Grandstand & Amenities ‐ Denton Oval Closed 15 Duvauchelle Works Yard Duvauchelle Works Yard Fire Shed Closed 15 Halswell Quarry Park Singlemens Quarters ‐ Halswell Quarry Park Closed 15 Pigeon Bay Campground Toilet Closed 15 Sign of the Takahe Sign Of The Takahe ‐ 200 Hackthorne Rd Closed 14 Hagley Park South Implement shed Closed 14 Sockburn Testing Station Sockburn Testing Station Closed 13 Bishopdale Creche Bishopdale Creche Closed 13 Clare Park Pavilion/Toilet Closed 13 Halswell Aquatic Centre Halswell Pool ‐ Swimming Club Closed 13 Halswell Aquatic Centre Halswell Pool ‐ Swimming Club Closed 13 Risingholme Community Centre Risingholme Community Centre ‐ Hall Closed 13 Risingholme Community Centre Risingholme Comm Centre‐Craft Workshops Closed 12 Akaroa Museum Facilities Akaroa Museum Closed 12 Manchester St Parking Building Parking Building ‐ Manchester St Closed 12 New Bus Exchange Facility Site Retail Building (Cloudbase) Closed 11 Hagley Park North North Hagley ‐ RSA Bowling Club Closed 11 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Lunchroom Closed 11 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Garage (Storage Shed Closed 11 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Soil Shelter Closed 11 Rawhiti Golf Course Former Radio Bldg ‐ Rawhiti Golf Course Closed 11 Sumner Library Sumner Library Closed 11 Wharenui Recreation Centre Wharenui Recreation Centre Closed 10 Bus Exchange The Bus Exchange / Carpark (Xchange) Closed 10 Cathedral Square Toilets Cathedral Square Toilets Closed 10 New Bus Exchange Facility Site Commercial Building (Restraurants / Bar) Closed 10 Norman Kirk Memorial Pool Lyttelton Lean‐To Shelter ‐ Norman Kirk Mem Poo Closed 10 Old Port Levy School Old Port Levy School Closed 10 Old Stone House (Cracroft) Community Centre ‐ Cracroft Closed 10 Penny Cycles ‐ 113‐125 Manchester Street Penny Cycles ‐ 113‐125 Manchester Street Closed ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 35

10 Riccarton Bush Riccarton House Closed 10 Scarborough Beach Jet Boat Shed ‐ Scarborough Closed 10 South Brighton Camping Ground South Brighton Motor Camp ‐ Camp Bldg 2 Closed 10 Westminster Park Community Building Closed 9.5 Sign Of The Kiwi Tearooms ‐ Sign Of The Kiwi Closed 9 Hei Hei Community Facilities Community Centre ‐ Hei Hei Closed 9 Porritt Park Porritt Park ‐ Complex/Caretakers Closed 9 Wainoni Community Facilities Community Centre ‐Wainoni (Hampshire St) Closed 8 Allandale Community Centre Allandale Community Centre Closed 8 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Garage Closed 8St Martins / Opawa Toy Library St Martins / Opawa Toy Library Closed 8 Sydenham Creche Sydenham Creche Closed 8 Wainui Community Hall Wainui Community Hall Closed 7 Styx River Esplanade Reserve Dairy Unit ‐ 75 Lower Styx Rd Closed 6 Waltham Pool Waltham Pool ‐ Main Building Complex Closed 6 Yaldhurst Hall Yaldhurst Hall Closed 5 Cashmere Valley Reserve Toilets ‐ Cashmere Rd / Valley Rd Reserv Closed 5 Mona Vale Mona Vale ‐ Homestead Closed 5 Poplars Reserve Edmonds Phone Booth Closed 5 Waltham Pool Waltham Lido Pool ‐ Plant Room Closed 4 Bishopdale Community Centre Bishopdale Community Centre / Library Closed 4 Botanic Gardens Botanic Gardens ‐ Tea Kiosk Closed 4 Linwood Nursery Linwood Nursery ‐ Potting Shed Closed 3 Heathcote Domain Former Tennis Club Shed Closed 3 Waltham Pool Waltham Pool ‐ Staff Room Closed 2 Riccarton Community Centre Riccarton Community Centre / Library Part Open 1 Hei Hei Community Facilities Community Centre ‐ Hei Hei Closed 1 Mona Vale Mona Vale ‐ Fernery Closed ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 36

Attachment 3 - Social Housing Programme Status Update

Date: 14 February 2012

1. Social Housing Portfolio Status The Social Housing Programme’s total portfolio of 2649 units was impacted with the announcement of the Residential Red Zone which designated 113 units (located in 5 housing complexes) to be closed.

As at 14 February, 2209 units are open.

Closed units total 327 subject to repair under the Facilities Rebuild Programme and consist of the following:

 258 units closed due to varying degrees of structural damage and design weakness, which includes 126 units closed due to failing a DEE assessment; and  69 units closed due to health & safety.

Subsequent to the last November 2012 report, 6 closed units have been reopened, an additional 3 units vacated and closed due to major damage.

The 327 closed units do not include an additional 42 units being closed due to failing their DEE assessment with details as follows:

 Avonheath Courts - remaining 7 units closed (to be vacated by 2 May 2013 under 90 day notice)  Biddick Courts - 11 units closed out of 16 total (to be vacated by 21 February 2013 under 7 day notice) due to brittle failure mechanism  Knightsbridge Lane - 17 units (full complex) closed (vacated by 2 May 2013 under 90 day notice)  Louisson Courts - remaining 7 units closed (vacated by 2 May 2013 under 90 day notice)

Refer to Appendix 1 for details of the individual closed units.

1.1. Housing Wait List Status As at 31 January 2013, there are 340 applicants on our waiting list consisting of 284 single applicants, 37 couples and 19 families. Twelve of these applications have been assessed as having urgent, immediate need.

2. Social Housing Programme Repair/Reinstatement Strategy The strategy adopted to restore the housing service levels consists of undertaking both closed unit repairs and new build intensification projects.

The housing repair strategy is to focus primarily on repairing and reinstating individual closed units to maximise housing stock and to minimise the numbers on the wait list, particularly those with urgent, immediate needs.

Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 37

2.1. Housing Repair Process The purpose of the social housing repair/reinstatement process (as shown in figure 1) is to assess each housing block of units within the complex as a whole and reach an agreed position with all parties (i.e. CCC/EQC/Insurer) before initiating repairs following Council approval.

[Figure 1] : Housing Repair Process

The first process stage is the Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) process which provides engineering information into the damage assessment process and subsequent funding options process resulting in a statement of position. However, the primary driver behind the DEE process is the health and safety of the housing tenants with the approved prioritised approach to assess the most damaged occupied complexes first prior to those with lower levels of damage (refer Appendix 2 for Social Housing – Asset Repair Programme Summary). Whilst this approach has resulted in the damage assessment of complexes containing a high proportion of closed units, the severity of damage identified has been significant.

This has required substantial additional geotechnical and structural investigations with associated programme timing implications to determine the economic viability of repair or replacement at a housing complex level.

2.1.1. Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Status The Social Housing Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) process consists of 662 assessments. Since commencing in June 2012, 243 DEE’s are being processed. This is made up of 111 DEE’s completed and 132 DEE’s underway as shown in figure 2. The DEE process is currently forecast to be complete by April 2014.

The DEE assessment process has been refined but the rate is limited by the availability of the specialised engineering resource in the marketplace.

Council staff are seeking to accelerate the remaining social housing DEE and damage assessments by combining the two processes on the remaining 65% of the housing portfolio. The remaining complexes typically consist of both simpler and

Page 2 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 38

substantially similar housing designs in comparison to the initial 35% of the portfolio with their complicated and unique one-off designs. This will be achieved by selecting either a single supplier or two suppliers from the existing panel to provide a value solution due to economies of scale.

Social Housing DEE Progress (14 Feb 2013)

DEEs Underway 20%

DEEs DEEs Not Complete Started 17% 63%

[Figure 2] : Social Housing Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) Progress

In addition, Council staff have sought to quantify an emerging risk associated with the DEE process which is the future closure of complexes failing the DEE assessment based on the original building design and not due to earthquake damage. Council staff are now proactively seeking strengthening mitigations (where deemed cost effective) on a complex by complex basis in advance of the DEE process to avoid complex closures where possible.

2.1.2. Damage Assessment (DA) Status The repair strategy to repair closed units first is driving the application of the damage assessment process. The DEE service provider for each individual complex is being used to assist with the costing of structural damage repairs in conjunction with cosmetic damage and common services assessments performed by CityCare (under the existing Facilities Maintenance Contract).

In parallel, an accelerated joint damage assessment process with EQC is being trialled on four initial housing complexes containing significant structural damage (i.e. $100k overcap units) with EQC settlement anticipated to be concluded in March 2013.

The four 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)

Settlement with the Insurer will then occur followed by a Council decision on the economic viability of repair versus replacement. By this stage, DEEs on the lesser damaged complexes will start being finalised with associated damage assessments followed by initiation of repairs.

Page 3 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 39

2.1.3. Social Housing Repairs Status The repair strategy is primarily focussed on repairing and reinstating individual closed units to maximise housing stock. An initial portfolio review identified only six units with minimal structural damage and these “best of the worst” closed units were repaired and reopened prior to the end of January 2013.

The remaining closed units contain varying levels of structural damage and the project team has now commenced the repair process on the following complexes (forming part of Work Package 1):

 Airedale Courts (71 units closed out of 115 units total)  Knightsbridge Lane (17 units to be closed out of 17 units total)  Lyn Christie Place (2 units closed out of 30 units total)  Thurso Street (2 units closed out of 4 units total)  Whakahoa Village (5 units closed out of 20 units total)

Refer to figure 3 which summarises the Social Housing Asset Renewal and Repair Programme status as at 14 February 2013.

The initial unit repairs lessons learnt is that it is not practical or efficient to target individual closed unit repairs but instead to adopt a repair strategy for the whole complex (i.e. fix and forget). On this basis, the currently open unit repairs associated with the above complexes will follow immediately after closed unit repairs are complete.

The Project team has committed to completing the repairs of 70 closed units by 21 December 2013.

2.1.3.1. Low Value Repairs Programme Current EQC assessments of damage indicate that there are 167 units with no damage which are currently being verified by Council staff. In addition, 109 units have been repaired and redecorated immediately after they have been vacated due to natural tenancy turnover. Currently, there are a total of 1933 open units yet to undergo earthquake repairs and it is estimated that 1778 of these units will require low value cosmetic repairs (i.e. those with minimal structural damage).

Council staff are seeking to implement a secondary work stream consisting of a low value repairs programme on the remaining open units to minimise and/or avoid Council exposure to the escalating labour and material costs subsequent to the EQC damage assessments. This programme of work will commence initially on the complexes that have passed their DEEs assessments (i.e. %NBS ≥ 34%) and will not dilute the primary focus on repairing and reopening closed units.

Page 4 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 40

Social Housing Asset Renewal & Repair Programme Status (as at 14 February 2013)

[Figure 3] : Social Housing Asset Renewal & Repair Programme Status (14 February 2013)

Page 5 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 41

2.2. Housing Intensification 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 the intensification of existing sites with the construction of additional units.

Six existing housing complexes have been identified as potential intensification sites and DEEs have been initiated on these complexes to provide early identification of potential ground condition issues. Preliminary concept designs have also been prepared for all six sites.

A subsequent prioritisation assessment of the six sites has identified three “infill” type projects, which are as follows:

 Maurice Carter Courts (Dundee Place) – 12 Units  Knightsbridge Lane – 10 Units  Andrews Crescent (number of new units under assessment)

A Council report has been prepared for the Maurice Carter Courts & Knightsbridge Lane Intensification Projects for CRAC Committee Review and Council Approval at the 28 March 2013 meeting. Subject to Council approval, it is anticipated that these two projects will be completed by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Council have a total of 113 units on residential Red Zoned land with a combined CV of $15.47M and are awaiting a formal response from CERA regarding a purchase offer which will be used to fund the future intensification projects.

In addition, partnership options are also being actively investigated. Discussions are underway with Housing New Zealand to finalise a MOU to investigate housing development options utilising council land.

Page 6 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 42

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 27 0 0 3 Avonheath Courts Ferrymead 17 0 0 10 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 3 Glue Place/Sparks Spreydon 34 2 0 0 Gowerton Place Hagley 30 3 0 3 Louisson Courts Heathcote 13 4 0 2 Lyn Christie Place Pegasus 30 0 0 2 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 Thurso Place Burwood 4 2 0 0 Tommy Taylor Courts Heathcote 25 12 0 0 Whakahoa Village Hagley 20 2 0 3 Veronica Place Waimari 36 0 0 1 FRP Closed Unit Repairs = 327 25 Complexes 69 0 258 Bangor Street Hagley 9 0 9 0 Bowie Place Hagley 32 0 32 0 Calbourne Courts Pegasus 26 0 22 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 = 436 69 109 258

Page 7 of 8 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 43

Appendix 2: Social Housing – Asset Repair Programme

Page 8 of 8 44 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 45

Social Housing - Asset Repair Programme Date: 14 February 2013

DEE'S SOCIAL HOUSING COMPLEX YEAR LAND DEE'S DEE'S RANGE DEE'S PER TOTAL UNITS PRIORITY CRITERIA WARD ACTUAL DEE COMMENT PROJECT STATUS COMMENT COMPLEX CODE BUILT STATUS START DUE %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 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 Failure + EQC process 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 Failed 10% - 65% 8 34 34 Initiate Damage Assessment of damage. Tommy Taylor Courts BE 1048 EQ2 2001 TC3 Heathcote Jun-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Passed 34% - 60% 1 25 12 Initiate Damage Assessment Whakahoa Village BE 2680 EQ2 2007 N/A - TC3? Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Passed 45% - 100% 5 20 5 Damage Assessment Underway Geotech Investigation initiated-due 20/02/13 Haast Courts BE 0792 EQ2 1979 N/A - TC2? Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Dec-12 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 Passed 34% - 70% 2 22 Initiate Damage Assessment Guthrey Courts BE 0812 EQ2 1977 N/A - TC2? Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Draft L5, Final due Feb-13 8 32 DEE Underway DEE overdue due to Intrusive Investigation works Gloucester Courts BU 2373 EQ2 1999 TC2 Hagley Jun-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 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 In Progress, due Feb-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 N/A - 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 Failed 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 Draft L5, Final due Jan-13 15 60 DEE Underway Priority 2 Project due difficult land purchase (11 Units); Block I DEE = 20%NBS Elm Grove BE 0782 EQ2 1956 TC2 Hagley Oct-12 Dec-12 Dec-12 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 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 Draft L4, Final L5 due Jan-13 8 26 3 DEE Underway L5 DEEs due 23 Jan 2012 (a) Two storey or more Avonheath Courts BE 1401 EQ2 1973 TC3 Ferrymead Sep-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Failed 21% - 33% 3 17 10 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 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 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 Jan-13 1 4 2 DEE Underway Aberfoyle Place BE 0118 EQ2 1992 TC3 Burwood Sep-12 Oct-12 Draft L4, Final due Jan-13 68%-76% 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 Draft L5, Final due Feb-13 3 16 DEE Underway Hadfield Courts BE 1126 EQ2 1978 N/A - TC3? Heathcote Oct-12 Nov-12 Feb-13 Passed 37% 4 21 Initiate Damage Assessment Manse Place BE 0414 EQ2 1970 & 1983 N/A - TC3? Papanui Oct-12 Nov-12 Draft L4, Final due Feb-13 38%-100% 6 42 DEE Underway Proctor Street BE 0589 EQ2 1991 TC2 Papanui Oct-12 Nov-12 Draft L4, Final due Jan-13 84%-100% 2 5 DEE Underway Norman Kirk Courts BE 1137 EQ2 1974 & 1976 N/A - TC2? Heathcote Oct-12 Dec-12 Draft L4, Final L5 due Mar-13 37%-56% 17 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 In Progress, due Feb-13 7 32 DEE Underway Greenhurst Courts BE 1563 EQ2 1978 TC1 Riccarton Nov-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Feb-13 3 22 DEE Initiated Innes Courts BE 0643 EQ2 1978 TC2 Shirley Nov-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Feb-13 6 30 DEE Initiated Margaret Murray Courts BE 0208 EQ2 1990 TC1 Waimari Nov-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Feb-13 3 18 DEE Initiated Resolution Courts BE 0578 EQ2 1979 TC2 Fendalton Nov-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Feb-13 2 19 DEE Initiated Allison Courts BE 1113 EQ2 1977 TC2 Spreydon Nov-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Jan-13 5 9 DEE Underway Regal Courts BE 1061 EQ2 1977 TC2 Heathcote Nov-12 Dec-12 In Progress, due Jan-13 4 20 DEE Underway Walsall Street BE 0488 EQ2 1970 TC2 Spreydon Dec-12 Jan-13 In Progress, due Jan-13 7 26 DEE Underway H P Smith Courts BE 0677 EQ2 1985 TC2 Hagley Dec-12 Jan-13 In Progress, due Jan-13 4 18 DEE Underway Pickering Courts BE 0611 EQ2 1978 TC2 Shirley Dec-12 Jan-13 In Progress, due Jan-13 3 25 DEE Underway Torrens Road BE 0480 EQ2 1980 TC2 Spreydon Dec-12 Jan-13 In Progress, due Jan-13 2 28 DEE Underway

1.3 Single storey, block construction Collett Courts BE 3516 EQ2 1979 Banks P Dec-12 Jan-13 Dec-12 Passed 47% 2 6 Damage Assessment Underway Unit 3 Interior repaired & opened (Dec 12) (including block firewalls) Lyn Christie Place BE 0727 EQ2 1974 N/A - TC3? Pegasus Dec-12 Jan-13 Jan-13 Passed 52% 8 30 2 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 1 4 4 Not Started 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 Failed 16% 3 13 6 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 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 19 37 3 Not Started (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 TC2 Jun-13 Jul-13 7 Not Started ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 3 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 46

Social Housing - Asset Repair Programme Date: 14 February 2013

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

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 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 Not Started YWCA BE 2311 EQ2 Feb-14 Mar-14 Draft L4 received, L5 due Jan-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 662 2536 327 No DEE required-CERA Red Zoned Calbourne Courts BE 1293 EQ2 1977 Red Zone Pegasus Aug-12 Sep-12 Red Zoned Land 6 26 26 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 32 113 113 Social Housing Totals 694 2649 440 Social Housing Current Level of Service 2209 47 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

4. CENTRAL CITY HERITAGE LANDMARK GRANTS POLICY, AND OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Neil Carrie, Principal Advisor Heritage and Urban Design

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to consider the Policy, and Operational Guidelines for the use of the Central City Heritage Landmark Grants Fund.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Policy

2. ‘That the Council acknowledges the need to retain and recover those Central City heritage buildings which the community recognises as key built landmarks which contribute to the continuing sense of identity for the Central City.

3. That the Council provides a Central City Heritage Landmarks Fund to assist with the retention, repair, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of central city heritage landmark buildings which are able to be recovered for continuing use.’

4. The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of central city heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage cannot be rectified, and places a substantial responsibility on the wider community, visitors and the Council as well as the regional and national community for the continuing retention, repair and strengthening of those remaining buildings which are recognised by the people of Christchurch as having a significant connection to their past.

Rationale

5. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over five years (amended to 10 years via the Annual Plan process). The plan provided for a targeted approach prioritising additional funding toward earthquake strengthening and repair work. The plan also provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key central city landmark heritage buildings. It is anticipated that the funding of the current buildings recommended in this report launches the central city heritage landmarks fund. Other buildings shall be identified and funded over the next 10 years. ‘Heritage buildings’ in this context includes listed heritage buildings, and heritage building facades. The Council’s 2012/2013 Annual Plan provides for funding of $2.7 million for this financial year. The Draft Council Plan was superseded by the Central Government’s Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the Recovery Strategy. While no specific financial provision was included in the Government Central Recovery Plan and Recovery Strategy for heritage protection, the $2.7 million remains in the Annual Plan for allocation. Nonetheless, the allocation of the $2.7 million is consistent with and gives effect to both the Recovery Strategy and Recovery Plan supporting heritage statements.

48 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

4 Cont’d

Central City Heritage Landmark Policy and Operational Guidelines

6. Policy was needed to guide the scope of grant consideration and principal criteria to assess any application. Officers turned to the long standing Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) policy and operational guidelines as the basis to develop overarching relevant Central City Heritage Landmark Grant (CCHLG) Policy and Operational Guidelines (Attachment 1). It was recognised that while the HIG Policy and Operational Guidelines provided a good basis from which to identify potential buildings this was insufficient. The HIG fund is fundamentally an incentive scheme, incentivising via smaller dollar values over potentially many buildings. In contrast the CCHLG while generally providing an incentive, is designed to provide significant dollars to fund one or two buildings and in doing so retrieve the building from certain demolition or expedite timely repair. Officer experiences working with heritage buildings owners resulting from the earthquake sequences coupled with need to allocate quickly before buildings were demolished, developed the principal criteria. These criteria will be used for the initial identification and selection process of buildings that may be suitable for CCLHG funding:

Further Considerations

7. In addition to the application of the policy, operational guidelines, and principal criteria, further consideration will be given to: owners intentions; legal issues; insurance; timing and costs. Opportunities will be identified where funding would be most effective for the 2012/13 financial year and where the owner uptake would more likely lead to long term successful retention of significant heritage buildings. A number of heritage buildings will not been considered further where they have other sources of finance. These include Council owned assets such as ‘Our City’, and where there are direct Council grants to heritage buildings such as the Arts Centre buildings.

8. For the purpose of this report and when identifying potential grant recipients and funding opportunities, officers have applied a wider meaning to the term ‘Reconstruction’ than that contained in the ICOMOS (NZ) Charter to which the Council is a signatory. This was done for pragmatic reasons. If the Charter definition was employed as intended, it is unlikely that a willing grant recipient could have been indentified given the level of damage to many buildings. While the majority of the heritage landmark items considered for funding are proposed in the broader sense of ‘Reconstruction’, major weight was placed on the reconstruction of heritage items which contributed to landmark and streetscape values, city identity and sense of place.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9. The funding provision of $2.7 million for the repair and strengthening of Central City Heritage Buildings was included in the Annual Budget for 2012/13.

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

10. Yes.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

11. A recipient of a grant of $150,000 or more is subject to the requirement to enter into a full covenant under the CCHLF Policy.

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

12. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected.

49 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

4 Cont’d

ALIGNMENT WITH LTP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

13. The CCHL Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.

14. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).

15. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.

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

16. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

17. Alignment of the requirement for CCHL Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the CCHL Policy which in turn is relevant to:

Christchurch Recovery Strategy 18. This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document prepared by the Central City Development Unit (CCDU) which has been given Ministerial approval. The Strategy guides and coordinates the programme of work, including Recovery Plans, under the CER Act.

19. Section 15 deals in particular with historic heritage:

“The Heritage Buildings and Cultural Places Programme is ensuring heritage buildings and places remain an important part of greater Christchurch’s identity. It considers a broad range of heritage such as buildings, archaeological sites, heritage spaces and landscapes and places of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu, including wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga areas”.

20. Retention and conservation of restorable heritage buildings, places, archaeological sites and places of cultural significance, and restoration of access to heritage collections, will help recreate that distinctive sense of place and identity that has defined the region and contributed to its economic development.

The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan 21. The Plan is a critical statutory document. From the time of notification (31 July 2012) of this Recovery Plan, those exercising functions or powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 must not make decisions that are inconsistent with the Recovery Plan. If there is an inconsistency, the Recovery Plan prevails. The Recovery Plan the importance of heritage under ‘Complementary Elements’ and incorporates the reuse of existing buildings and elements as a design principle. 50 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

4 Cont’d

Christchurch City Plan 22. Heritage redevelopment projects are consistent with the Heritage provisions of the City Plan: Volume 2, Section 4, City Identity, Objective 4.3 Heritage Protection provides for objectives and policies in relation to Heritage protection. It recognises that Christchurch is a cultural and tourist centre, a role mainly dependent on its architectural, historic and scenic attractions. Much of its distinctive character is derived from buildings, natural features, other places and objects which have over time, become an accepted part of the cityscape and valued features of the City’s identity. Protection of heritage places includes cultural, architectural, areas of character, intrinsic or amenity value, visual appeal or of special significance to the Tangata Whenua, for spiritual, cultural or historical reasons. This protection may extend to include land around that place or feature to ensure its protection and reasonable enjoyment. A heritage item may include land, sites, areas, buildings, monuments, objects, archaeological sites, sacred sites, landscape or ecological features in public or private ownership.

Heritage Conservation Policy 23. The CCHL Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, the Heritage Conservation Policy aligns with the Community Outcome “An attractive and well-designed City” through the indicator “Number of heritage buildings, sites and objects”. The Central City Heritage Landmark Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 2010 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 24. Heritage development projects provide opportunities for increased commercial and residential activity in the City while at the same time enhancing the heritage townscape. The UDS considers heritage as an integral part of Christchurch and an aspect of growth management provided for is through the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage.

New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 25. Heritage projects improve the quality and design of the urban environment by protecting the heritage of the city, which is stated in the Protocol as being an attribute of successful towns and cities. The Limited Covenants will contribute towards the implementation of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol of March 2005 of which the Council is a signatory body.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

26. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

27. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Grants or Covenants.

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

28. Yes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council:

(a) Approve the Central City Heritage Landmark Policy and Operational Guidelines; and

(b) Investigate the opportunities to achieve the Policy outcomes through the use of the Central City Heritage Landmark Fund for 2012/13.

51 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

4 Cont’d

BACKGROUND

Introduction

29. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for ‘A Distinctive City’. Under ‘Familiar Landmarks’, increased heritage funding of $27.7 million over five years was proposed for central city heritage protection. Subsequently funding was extended over a 10 year period as a result of the Annual Plan process to reduce the created ‘financial bump’ in Council rates. A ‘Heritage Framework’ provided for a targeted approach to the prioritisation of the additional funding toward earthquake strengthening and repair work. The identification of the most important remaining heritage buildings or heritage facades for retention, repair and improvement provides the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key central city landmark heritage buildings, within the financial assets available. It is anticipated that the funding of the current buildings recommended in this report launches the central city heritage landmarks fund. Other buildings shall be identified and funded over the next 10 years. ‘Heritage buildings’ in this context includes listed heritage buildings, and heritage building facades. In addition, a policy was needed to guide the scope of grant consideration and principal criteria to assess any application.

30. The Council’s 2012/2013 Annual Plan provides for funding of $2.7 million for this financial year. The Draft Council Plan was superseded by the Central Government’s Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the Recovery Strategy. While no specific financial provision was included in the Government Recovery Strategy and Christchurch Central Recovery Plan for heritage protection, the $2.7 million still remains in the Annual Plan for allocation. Nonetheless, the allocation of the $2.7 million is consistent with and gives effect to both the Recovery Strategy and Recovery Plan following statements.

Recovery Strategy 31.  4.4 restoring historic buildings, where feasible, for the benefit of the community (Section 4: Vision and Goals for the Recovery)  The Heritage Buildings and Cultural Places Programme is ensuring heritage buildings and places remain an important part of greater Christchurch’s identity. It considers a broad range of heritage such as buildings… (Section 15: Cultural Recovery).

Christchurch Central Recovery Plan 32.  Strengthened heritage buildings that can be used for contemporary purposes (Aspirations, page 23);  Re-use existing buildings and building elements to provide continuity and reference points to the city’s past (Design Principles, page 32). ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 52

CENTRAL CITY HERITAGE LANDMARK GRANTS POLICY – OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES

Introduction These Central City Heritage Landmark Guidelines are to be used in the interpretation and application of the Heritage Grants Policy within the Central City only, as defined by the Christchurch Central City Plan - December 2011. For Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) applications the standard HIG Operational Guidelines and Policy are still applicable.

1 Scope of Grant Consideration The scope of works addressed for the consideration of a grant shall include, but not be restricted to, the following as they relate to the appropriate practice of conservation, reconstruction and maintenance of heritage fabric and the form of the heritage item and the protection of its heritage values:

 Structural and seismic engineering works; including earthquake repair work and code compliance upgrades  Maintenance;  Fire protection;  External security;  Exterior painting and weatherproofing;  Essential services including but not limited to electrical, drainage, and plumbing works where there has been or where there is a likely risk of damage to heritage fabric through failure of these services due to age or accelerated deterioration;  Adaptive reuse;  Temporary stabilisation of parts of buildings; where it relates to a longer term programme for retention.  Professional fees for NZIA (NZ Institute of Architects) registered architects, chartered professional structural engineers and NZIQS (NZ Institute of Quantity Surveyors) registered quantity surveyors;  Refunds of non-notified Resource Consent fees relating to the works.

2 Criteria for Assessing Central City Heritage Landmark Grant Applications The following criteria will be used to assess Grant applications and determine the amount of the Grant:

 Heritage buildings which are listed in the Christchurch City Plan and are located predominately in the Core and Frame as identified in the ‘Christchurch Central Recovery Plan’.  Heritage buildings that remain and form central city landmarks . The retention of these key landmark buildings is essential to provide some sense of continuity and connection with pre-earthquake central Christchurch.  Heritage buildings which are in key locations in the central city and reinforce important city streets and spaces.  Heritage buildings which reinforce the heritage and wider recovery outcomes to be achieved through the ‘Christchurch Central Recovery Plan’ and Recovery Strategy.  Heritage buildings which remain in identifiable groups or precincts of heritage and character buildings.  Heritage buildings which have retained the integrity of their heritage fabric, such that their

1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 53

heritage values remain evident.  Heritage buildings where additional funding can provide a positive and essential incentive for retention, repair, reconstruction and adaptive re-use.  Heritage buildings where the proposed grant expenditure will achieve the maximum impact and benefit to the Central City.  The relative heritage value of the building, place or object; in the post earthquake environment of Christchurch  The contribution the proposed work will make to the retention of the building, place or object;  The contribution that the proposed work will make to the wider heritage values of the of the central city;  The degree to which the proposed works are consistent with the conservation principles and practice of the ICOMOS (NZ) Charter and other relevant international ICOMOS Charters;  The urgency of the work required relating to the risk of damage if the work is not done in a timely manner;  The availability of grant funds;  The amount of any previous Grants for the property; noting that in general only one Grant will be made for work on a property unless the circumstances demand otherwise in terms of paragraph 3 of the Terms and Conditions Associated with Grants;  The location of the building relative to other clusters of heritage buildings, character buildings, urban blocks, central city facilities and precincts.

3 Determining the Central City Heritage Landmark Grant Amount Each Grant shall equate to a percentage of the value of the conservation, reconstruction, code compliance, repair and maintenance work required as detailed in the Grant Application. It is not the intention to fully subsidise all of the works, but to provide a significant financial incentive for applicants to undertake the project.

When determining the amount of a proposed grant consideration will be given to the criteria in Paragraph 2 above which includes the heritage significance of the place.

The increased significance of heritage buildings, places and objects in the city following the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 is recognized. A grant approval of 0-50% of the total value of the agreed scope of works for heritage buildings in City Plan Groups 1 - 4 will be considered. This recognises the significant loss of heritage following the earthquakes, and the increased heritage value and significance to the people of Christchurch of the listed items which remain.

Grants in excess of 50% can apply to key properties including for example those that are in the centre of blocks of heritage buildings where the loss of a single building will undermine the cohesion and stability of an entire heritage group or terrace, where the location is one in which few significant heritage buildings remain or where there is an important link between the heritage building and other heritage places or objects.

4 Approval of Grants • The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee (CRAC or equivalent) of the Council can recommend individual Central City Heritage Landmark Grants for approval by full Council, to owners of heritage buildings, or objects listed in the City Plan and located within the Central City. • Where the proposed scope of works includes a requirement for Resource Consent and/or consent under a Conservation Covenant then grant payment will not be given until such consents have been applied for and granted.

2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 54

5 Payment of Grants Grants subject to a requirement for a conservation covenant will not be paid until the covenant has been registered against the property Certificate of Title or the Personal Property Securities Register (as appropriate). The inclusion in the Personal Properties Securities Register is necessary where the grant applies to a heritage building, but the land is Council ownership.

(i) Full payment • Grants are not paid until the work to which the Grant relates is completed and certified by a Council approved inspection; and a covenant (where required) is registered against the property Certificate of Title or on the Personal Properties Security Register (as appropriate); • However, where the Grant is made to a Trust or other not for profit organisation, full payment may be made prior to completion of the work where the work could not be done without the payment and where the covenant specifies the time period for completion of the work; • Grant money is available for a period of 18 months from the date of written approval of the Grant. This period will only be extended with the written consent of the CRAC or equivalent.

(ii) Interim payment • Where the Grant is to be paid over a period of several years (and where the covenant specifies the time period for completion of the work and where the agreed work meets partial completion milestones and has been certified), payment may be made on a pro- rata basis according to the extent of the agreed scope of heritage conservation and maintenance works having been completed and certified.

3 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 55 Terms and Conditions associated with Central City Heritage Landmark Grants

1 Eligibility for Grants

Any person (or similar overall statement of eligibility) who is the owner of a listed or scheduled heritage building, place or object within the Central City area Council may apply for a Central City Heritage Landmark Grant.

Owners of heritage buildings, places or objects who apply for Central City Landmark Heritage Grants from the Christchurch Community Trust, the Lotteries Commission, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust or other heritage funding sources are not precluded from applying for Council Heritage Incentive Grant Funding.

In addition to the requirement for Grants to be applied only to listed or scheduled heritage items, the following exclusions will also apply: - • Buildings owned by the Crown with their own capital programme are not eligible for Central City Heritage Landmark Grants, except where there are special circumstances including urgency and risk mitigation. • Grant assistance is not applicable to Council owned buildings, places or objects, as these specific buildings have their own maintenance programmes. • Grant assistance is not applicable to the contents of buildings, or chattels which do not form part of the fabric of the building or place, unless these items were an integral design element of the original place. • Grant assistance is not applicable to the interior fabric of buildings unless the works relate to conservation of specific heritage features. • Grant assistance is not applicable to ‘moveable’ heritage items which are designed to be either towed or are self propelled. • Grant assistance is not applicable to those sections or areas of a heritage item which do not contribute to the heritage value of the place. • Grant assistance is not applicable to landscape elements, features or additional buildings within a heritage setting identified in the City Plan. • Grant assistance is not applicable to relocation of heritage items to other sites either within the Banks Peninsula or Christchurch territorial areas, or relocation to sites outside these areas. Consideration will be given to Grant assistance for relocation of heritage items within their existing site and within the Central City, and to relocated heritage items only if they are to new sites of compatible heritage value. • Grant assistance is not applicable for the investigation of archaeological sites, whether included in the Archaeological Association records or the Register of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. • Grant assistance will not be provided to meet financial, legal, or administrative costs incurred by the grantee which are associated with the grant, a conservation covenant or the conservation or maintenance works subject to the grant, which will be met by the grant recipient • Grant assistance is not applicable to work carried out by the owner of the property, unless the owner is an approved tradesperson with trade qualifications relevant to the works provided a quotation for an agreed scope of works is approved prior to the works being undertaken.

2 Bridging Finance for Grant Approvals

In the event of an individual Grant being provided that covers future or multiple years, the Council will not provide bridging finance to the applicant(s), nor will interest payments on bridging finance be included in the Grant approval as owners are expected to appropriately manage the funds as they have been allocated in the grant approval.

4 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 56 3 Multiple Grants

The Council discourages multiple small individual Grants. Where the total approval amount for multiple Grants exceeds the threshold level requiring the entering into a covenant, a covenant should be required.

In certain circumstances, such as: • an increase in the assessed level of risk, including possible loss; • essential unforeseen maintenance identified as a consequence of other works being carried out on the building; • essential works necessitated by events such as fire, earthquakes or natural events;

additional Grants may be approved within the five year period.

4 Changes to the Agreed Scope of works

The scope of work to which the Grant relates is to be agreed prior to Grant approval. However, if the work done does not comply with the scope of work, or the resource consent or conservation principles as outlined in the ICOMOS Charter, the Council reserves the right to reduce the amount of the Grant paid or to withdraw the Grant entirely.

In some instances a Heritage Grant application for urgent work may be submitted on time but the processing of the application and hence of Grant approval may be delayed. If the scope of work has been agreed, the applicant may choose to continue with the work. However the Grant will only be paid if and when it is approved by Council accordingly, as there is no guarantee that the Grant will be approved the owner in commencing work before the Grant is approved takes a risk as to the outcome of the approval process.

5 Retrospective Grant Approvals

Where works have been undertaken without consultation with Council with regard to a Grant application and where there has been no prior written agreement as to the scope of works applicable to the project for consideration of a Grant, then no Grant application will be accepted for the work other than at the specific discretion of the Council or the Council having regard to any special circumstances which may apply.

6 Extent of Work Underestimated

In some instances once the Grant has been approved and work has begun, the full extent of the conservation and maintenance work is greater than anticipated. In such cases a further scope of work should be agreed and a revised Grant application submitted for consideration.

7 Potential Conflicts of Interest

Where Grant applications are made by members of Council staff, then this interest shall be stated in the Grant application for consideration by the CRAC or equivalent or the Council. Where Council staff who would be otherwise be involved in the assessment and Grant approval process have a personal or family interest in the receipt of a Grant, then that member of staff shall take no part in the Grant assessment and approval process and shall declare the nature of their interest to the relevant committee.

8 Conservation Covenants

Grants of $150,000 or more will be subject to a compulsory requirement for a Full Conservation Covenant (refer to the Glossary).

Grants of $15,000 to $149,999 will be subject to a requirement for a Limited Conservation Covenant (refer to the Glossary).

The CRAC or equivalent may exercise their discretion in relation to the heritage Covenant 5 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 57 conditions for specific grant applications.

Where the Grant relates to works to any part of a property which are to fall within the legal boundaries of a unit or units to be under the Unit Titles Act 1972 (or its successors), if the property is subject to a Full or a Limited Conservation Covenant, then the Covenant must be agreed and registered before the individual unit titles are created.

Where the Grant relates to works to any part of a property which falls within the legal boundaries of a unit or units created under the Unit Titles Act 1972 (or its successors), if the property is subject to a Full or a Limited Conservation Covenant, then all the unit title owners affected must agree to the registration of the Covenant over their individual unit titles before Grant payment will be made. In the event of all affected unit title owners not agreeing to a conservation covenant then the grant may be reduced on a pro rata basis calculated using the unit entitlements of each affected unit.

6 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 58 Glossary - Heritage Definitions

Additions means in relation to a listed heritage place the construction of new fabric that increases the external volume of a listed heritage place and which has the effect of altering the heritage form, fabric or heritage values of the place.

Alterations means in relation to a listed heritage place the modification or replacement of the internal or external fabric of a listed heritage place which has the effect of altering the heritage forms, fabric, and heritage values of the place. (See also ‘maintenance’).

Central City Refers to the area defined in the Christchurch Central City Plan December 2011.

Conservation means the processes of caring for a place so as to safeguard its cultural heritage value.

Demolition means in relation to a listed heritage place the destruction in whole or in part of a listed heritage place which results in the complete or significant loss of the heritage forms, fabric and heritage values of the place.

Full Conservation Covenant means a covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977 or other appropriate legal instrument approved as a Full Conservation Covenant by the relevant Council committee which requires the owner to obtain a consent in order to carry out any proposed activity on the protected heritage place.

Heritage Place means any buildings, items, objects, and sites of significant heritage value that are Listed in the City Plan, , or in the Historic Places Trust Register of Historic Places.

Heritage Fabric means any physical element, feature, material or finish which is part of the heritage value in whole or in part of a building, place or object and includes any original heritage fabric. Subsequent changes to such physical elements, features, materials or finishes which contribute to the record of the historic development of the heritage place are also considered to be part of the heritage fabric. This also includes the aggregate effect of material weathering and wear due to use over time.

Heritage Values means those tangible and intangible values of a heritage place which relate to or are derived from its historical, social, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic, architectural, technological, craftsmanship, environmental, archaeological or contextual significance or its significance in terms of its location as a landmark or as part of a group.

Limited Conservation Covenant means a covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977 or other appropriate legal instrument approved by the relevant Council committee which prevents the owner from demolishing or partly demolishing, or applying to demolish or partly demolish, the protected heritage place within a specified period of time.

Maintenance means the protective care of a place and significant features of a Setting.

7 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 4 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 59 Original Heritage fabric means any physical element, feature, material or finish which was an integral part of the original heritage item. Relocation means the removal and re-siting of any building from any site to a new site and in relation to a listed heritage place also includes removal and re-siting within the same site.

Risk Mitigation means action taken to minimise an identified significant risk to a heritage building, place or object. Where appropriate a risk mitigation plan should be prepared.

Setting means in relation to a listed heritage place, a defined area around a listed heritage place which itself is not specifically listed but which is an area identified to protect the context of a heritage place from effects that could detract from or reduce the heritage values of that listed heritage place, including view shafts of that heritage place from a public place or from within the setting. They include the contents of that area such as trees, gardens, buildings, and structures that form the context for the heritage place.

Urgent means, in the context of a heritage place, that the property is liable to damage or may be lost if the work is not done.

8 60 61 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5. CENTRAL CITY HERITAGE LANDMARK GRANTS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2012/13

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Neil Carrie, Principal Advisor Heritage and Urban Design

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to consider recommendations for the use of the use of the Central City Heritage Landmark Grants Fund for 2012/13.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

2. The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of central city heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage cannot be rectified, and places a substantial responsibility on the wider community, visitors and the Council as well as the regional and national community for the continuing retention, repair and strengthening of those remaining buildings which are recognised by the people of Christchurch as having a significant connection to their past.

Funding Rationale

3. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over five years (amended to 10 years via the Annual Plan process). The plan provided for a targeted approach prioritising additional funding toward earthquake strengthening and repair work. The plan also provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key central city landmark heritage buildings. It is anticipated that the funding of the current buildings recommended in this report launches the central city heritage landmarks fund. Other buildings shall be identified and funded over the next 10 years. ‘Heritage buildings’ in this context includes listed heritage buildings, and heritage building facades. The Council’s 2012/2013 Annual Plan provides for funding of $2.7 million for this financial year. The Draft Council Plan was superseded by the Central Government’s Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the Recovery Strategy. While no specific financial provision was included in the Government Central Recovery Plan and Recovery Strategy for heritage protection, the $2.7 million remains in the Annual Plan for allocation. Nonetheless, the allocation of the $2.7 million is consistent with and gives effect to both the Recovery Strategy and Recovery Plan supporting heritage statements.

Fund Policy/Guidelines and Principal Criteria

4. The previous Committee Report (Central City Landmark Heritage Grants and Operational Guidelines) has recommended the identification and selection process of heritage buildings that may be considered as appropriate projects for Central City Heritage Landmark Grants (CCHLG) funding:

62 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

Further Considerations

5. Council officer experience reveals six essential factors that enables the retention of a heritage building within the CERA demolition process. The six factors are:

(a) willing owner

(b) detailed structural status of the building

(c) a plausible engineering methodology to make safe/retain

(d) accurate cost is determined

(e) available funding and

(f) project implementation timeline.

6. The failure to secure one of these factors in combination with the other five invariable will lead to demolition. Hence in addition to the application of the policy and guidelines, further consideration was given to these six factors. Opportunities were identified where funding would be most effective for the 2012/13 financial year, where the six factors are reasonably aligned and the owner uptake would more likely lead to long term successful retention of significant heritage. A number of heritage buildings have not been considered further where they have other sources of finance. These include Council owned assets such as ‘Our City’, and direct Council grants to heritage buildings such as the Arts Centre buildings.

7. For the purpose of this report and when identifying potential grant recipients and funding recommendations, officers have applied a wider meaning to the term ‘Reconstruction’ than that contained in the ICOMOS (NZ) Charter to which Council is a signatory. This was done for pragmatic reasons. If the Charter definition was employed as intended, it is unlikely that a willing grant recipient could have been indentified given the level of damage to many buildings. While the majority of the heritage landmark items considered for funding are proposed in the broader sense a ‘Reconstruction’, major weight was placed on the reconstruction of heritage items which contributed to landmark and streetscape values, city identity and sense of place.

Heritage Landmark Opportunities

8. With more than 90 listed heritage buildings contained in the Central City and in the context of ongoing heritage building loss, Council Officers undertook several initial prioritising approaches, broad then more specific, applying the proposed criteria in the CCHLG Guidelines; and further practical considerations, to select specific buildings potentially suited to funding. The identification and selection process reduced the initial list to the following six buildings:

 The Christchurch Club  The former Trinity Congregation Church  The former Central Post Office  McKenzie and Willis, and Duncan’s Buildings  Sargood Son and Ewan  The former Wellington Woollen Mill’s building.

9. Discussions were carried out with the building owners, and in the case of the Sargood, Son and Ewan and Wellington Woollen Mills building, with the receivers of these properties. The owners intentions to retain, repair and as far practicable, to reconstruct in part these heritage buildings were determined, the scope of works proposed, the costs and timetables for the works were also established. The Christchurch Club and the former Trinity Congregational Church were the only instances which were advanced sufficiently for the proposals to be assessed, and costed such that funding recommendations could be considered by the Council for 2012/13 as covered in this report. The Billen’s building was destroyed by fire on 7 December 2012, and has not therefore been considered further for funding purposes. Refer to Attachment 1 - the “Central City Heritage Landmark Buildings – Location and ID Map”. 63 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

The Christchurch Club

10. The Group One listed Christchurch Club (1860 – 1862) has been identified with the site since the inception of the Club in 1856. The site is at the key junction of Latimer Square and the Worcester Street linkage with Cathedral Square. The site location of the two and three storey timber Club building reflects the significance attributed to the city squares with the 1850 Jollie Plan for central Christchurch. The proposal is to conserve, repair, seismic strengthening and reconstruct the B W Mountfort wings.

11. It is proposed that this project (Area ‘A’) be considered for an immediate funding allocation of $1.7 million as detailed in Attachment 3.

The former Trinity Congregational Church

12. The Group One former Trinity Congregational Church (1873-75) is also a B W Mountfort design which is a Group One listed heritage building, in a distinctive early French Gothic Style. This project will conserve, repair, seismic strengthening and reconstruction of the original including the roof and the rebuilding of the external walls in stone recovered from the building.

13. It is proposed that this project be considered for an immediate funding allocation of $1 million in two stages – firstly for professional fees to complete design and documentation of the project and if approved, for the reconstruction and repair of the building as detailed in Attachment 3.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

14. The funding provision of $2.7 million for the repair and strengthening of Central City Heritage Buildings was included in the Annual Budget for 2012/13.

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

15. Yes.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

16. A recipient of a grant of $150,000 or more is subject to the requirement to enter into a full covenant under the CCHLF Policy.

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

17. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

18. The CCHL Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well- designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.

19. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187). 64 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

20. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.

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

21. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

22. Alignment of the requirement for CCHL Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the CCHL Policy which in turn is relevant to:

Christchurch Recovery Strategy 23. This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document prepared by the Central City Development Unit (CCDU) which has been given Ministerial approval. The Strategy guides and coordinates the programme of work, including Recovery Plans, under the CER Act.

24. Section 15 deals in particular with historic heritage:

“The Heritage Buildings and Cultural Places Programme is ensuring heritage buildings and places remain an important part of greater Christchurch’s identity. It considers a broad range of heritage such as buildings, archaeological sites, heritage spaces and landscapes and places of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu, including wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga areas”.

25. Retention and conservation of restorable heritage buildings, places, archaeological sites and places of cultural significance, and restoration of access to heritage collections, will help recreate that distinctive sense of place and identity that has defined the region and contributed to its economic development.

The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan 26. The Plan is a critical statutory document. From the time of notification (31 July 2012) of this Recovery Plan, those exercising functions or powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 must not make decisions that are inconsistent with the Recovery Plan. If there is an inconsistency, the Recovery Plan prevails. The Recovery Plan makes reference to the importance of heritage under ‘Complementary Elements’ and incorporates the reuse of existing buildings and elements as a design principle.

Christchurch City Plan 27. Heritage redevelopment projects are consistent with the Heritage provisions of the City Plan: Volume 2, Section 4, City Identity, Objective 4.3 Heritage Protection provides for objectives and policies in relation to Heritage protection. It recognises that Christchurch is a cultural and tourist centre, a role mainly dependent on its architectural, historic and scenic attractions. Much of its distinctive character is derived from buildings, natural features, other places and objects which have over time, become an accepted part of the cityscape and valued features of the city’s identity. Protection of heritage places includes cultural, architectural, areas of character, intrinsic or amenity value, visual appeal or of special significance to the Tangata Whenua, for spiritual, cultural or historical reasons. This protection may extend to include land around that place or feature to ensure its protection and reasonable enjoyment. A heritage item may include land, sites, areas, buildings, monuments, objects, archaeological sites, sacred sites, landscape or ecological features in public or private ownership. 65 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

Heritage Conservation Policy 28. The CCHL Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, the Heritage Conservation Policy aligns with the Community Outcome “an attractive and well-designed city” through the indicator “number of heritage buildings, sites and objects”. The Central City Heritage Landmark Grants Policy is aligned with the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 29. Heritage development projects provide opportunities for increased commercial and residential activity in the city while at the same time enhancing the heritage townscape. The UDS considers heritage as an integral part of Christchurch and an aspect of growth management provided for is through the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage.

New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 30. Heritage projects improve the quality and design of the urban environment by protecting the heritage of the city, which is stated in the Protocol as being an attribute of successful towns and cities. The Limited Covenants will contribute towards the implementation of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol of March 2005 of which the Council is a signatory body.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

31. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

32. There is no requirement for community consultation for heritage grants or covenants.

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

33. Yes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve the following Central City Heritage Landmark grants in accordance with the provisions of the 2012/13 Annual Plan, the Central City Heritage Landmark Grants Policy, subject to the completion of the agreed scope of works and the owners entering into a Full Conservation Covenant with the Council:

(a) Christchurch Club, 154 Worcester Street, Mountfort wings (Area ‘A’) construction and professional fees for Grant funding of up to $1.7 million as per Attachment 2.

(b) Former Trinity Congregational Church (the ‘Octagon’), 124 Worcester Street. Professional fees of up to $115,585 and Stage 1 construction subject to detailed design documentation approval of up to $884,415, for a total of $1 million as per Attachment 3.

66 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

BACKGROUND

Introduction

34. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for ‘A Distinctive City’. Under ‘Familiar Landmarks’, increased heritage funding of $27.7 million over five years was proposed for central city heritage protection. Subsequently funding was extended over a 10 year period as a result of the Annual Plan process to reduce the created ‘financial bump’ in Council rates. A ‘Heritage Framework’ provided for a targeted approach to the prioritisation of the additional funding toward earthquake strengthening and repair work. The identification of the most important remaining heritage buildings or heritage facades for retention, repair and improvement provides the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key central city landmark heritage buildings, within the financial assets available. It is anticipated that the funding of the current buildings recommended in this report launches the central city heritage landmarks fund. Other buildings shall be identified and funded over the next 10 years. ‘Heritage buildings’ in this context includes listed heritage buildings, and heritage building facades.

35. Council officer experience reveals six essential factors that enables the retention of a heritage building within the CERA demolition process. The six factors are:

(a) willing owner

(b) detailed structural status of the building

(c) a plausible engineering methodology to make safe/retain

(d) accurate cost is determined

(e) available funding and

(f) project implementation timeline.

36. The failure to secure one of these factors in combination with the other five invariable will lead to demolition. As a consequence of officer experiences working with heritage buildings owners, coupled with need to quickly allocate funding before buildings were demolished, the following initial criteria were quickly established. These criteria are included in and help to form the CCHLG Policy and Operational Guidelines, to meet the need for the initial identification process of buildings that may be suitable for Central City Heritage Landmark Grants funding:

(a) Heritage buildings which are listed in the Christchurch City Plan and are located predominately in the Core and Frame as identified in the ‘Christchurch Central Recovery Plan’.

(b) Heritage buildings that remain and form central city landmarks. The retention of these key landmark buildings is essential to provide some sense of continuity and connection with pre-earthquake central Christchurch.

(c) Heritage buildings which are in key locations in the central city and reinforce important city streets and spaces.

(d) Heritage buildings which reinforce the heritage and wider recovery outcomes to be achieved through the ‘Christchurch Central Recovery Plan’ and Recovery Strategy.

(e) Heritage buildings which remain in identifiable groups or precincts of heritage and character buildings.

(f) Heritage buildings which have retained the integrity of their heritage fabric, such that their heritage values remain evident. 67 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

(g) Heritage buildings where additional funding can provide a positive and essential incentive for retention, repair, reconstruction and adaptive re-use.

(h) Heritage buildings where the proposed grant expenditure will achieve the maximum impact and benefit to the Central City.

37. The Council’s 2012/2013 Annual Plan provides for funding of $2.7 million for this financial year. The Draft Council Plan was superseded by the Central Government’s Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the Recovery Strategy. While no specific financial provision was included in the Government Recovery Strategy and Christchurch Central Recovery Plan for heritage protection, the $2.7 million still remains in the Annual Plan for allocation. Nonetheless, the allocation of the $2.7 million is consistent with and gives effect to both the Recovery Strategy and Recovery Plan following statements.

Recovery Strategy 38.  4.4 restoring historic buildings, where feasible, for the benefit of the community (Section 4: Vision and Goals for the Recovery  The Heritage Buildings and Cultural Places Programme is ensuring heritage buildings and places remain an important part of greater Christchurch’s identity. It considers a broad range of heritage such as buildings (Section 15: Cultural Recovery).

Christchurch Central Recovery Plan 39.  Strengthened heritage buildings that can be used for contemporary purposes (Aspirations, page 23)  Re-use existing buildings and building elements to provide continuity and reference points to the city’s past (Design Principles, page 32).

Central City Landmark Heritage Building Funding Opportunities

40. With more than 90 listed heritage buildings contained in the Central City and in the context of ongoing heritage building loss, Council Officers undertook several initial prioritising approaches, broad then more specific, then applying the amended HIG policy and guidelines; the newly developed principal criteria and further considerations, to select specific buildings potentially suited to funding. A number of heritage buildings have not been considered further where they have other sources of finance. These include Council owned assets such as ‘Our City’, and direct Council grants to heritage buildings such as the Arts Centre buildings. Considered also are the opportunities identified where funding would be most effective for the 2012/13 financial year.

41. The identification and selection process reduced the initial list to the following six buildings:

 The Christchurch Club  The former Trinity Congregation Church  Former Central Post Office, Cathedral Square  McKenzie andWillis, Billens and Duncan’s Buildings (contiguous), High Street  Former Sargood Son and Ewan, Lichfield Street  Former Wellington Woollen Mill’s building, Lichfield Street.

68 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

42. Preliminary discussions have been progressed with owners and receivers of four of these heritage properties, but circumstances have precluded further discussion or agreements for retention and funding at this time. Discussions were carried out with the building owners, and in the case of the Sargood, Son and Ewan and Wellington Woollen Mills building, with the receivers of these properties. The owners intentions to retain, repair and as practicable, to reconstruct in part these heritage buildings were determined, the scope of works proposed, the costs and timetables for the works were also established. The Christchurch Club and the former Trinity Congregational Church were the only instances which were advanced sufficiently for the proposals to be assessed, and costed such that funding recommendations could be considered by the Council for 2012/13 as covered in this report. The Billen’s building was destroyed by fire on 7 December 2012, and has not therefore been considered further for funding purposes. Refer to Attachment 2 - the Central City Heritage Landmark – Locational and ID Map.

The Christchurch Club

43. The Christchurch Club is listed as Group One in the City Plan. The timber tower/entry block remaining is largely the original 1861-62 building designed in an Italianate influenced style by B W Mountfort. The east wing fronting Latimer Square which was part of the original design (the Dining and Rhodes Rooms) has collapsed and been destroyed - including a later addition to the original wing which also has heritage significance. The tower and entry wing relies for its visual emphasis and architectural balance on the Latimer Square wing. However, the anticipated reconstruction and restoration of the original section of the east wing - at least in overall form and materials, would be a necessary consideration to achieve the significant architectural and landmark qualities provided by the original building and location (refer Area A – Attachment 3).

44. In addition, the East Frame in the Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy includes the Latimer Square boundary, but this now lacks the built edge which formerly defined the western edge of the Square. Reconstruction of the original Christchurch Club section of this wing to Latimer Square would therefore assist in providing a clearer built separation between the East Frame and Latimer Square and will provide for the essential architectural balance of the tower and entry wing.

45. The Christchurch Club has extensive drawings of the original and later buildings. The intention of the Club is to re-construct in whole the principal timber buildings which constituted the original Mountfort wings on the corner of Latimer Square and Worcester Street. By funding Area A, it is proposed to encourage the Christchurch Club for the continued benefits to heritage, architecture and urban design of the retention and reconstruction of this significant landmark building.

46. The Christchurch Club is a designated site within the East Frame. The Club is in continuing negotiations with the Central City Design Unit (CCDU) and CERA over the future ownership of the site. The current position is that ownership would remain with the Club but may be subject to a covenant over the property.

The Former Trinity Congregational Church (The ‘Octagon’)

47. The former Trinity Congregational Church (1873-75) is also a B W Mountfort design which is a Group One listed heritage building, in a distinctive early French Gothic Style. This project will conserve, repair and reconstruct the original including the roof and the rebuilding of the external walls in stone recovered from the building.

69 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

48. This was the first stone building designed and constructed by Mountfort in Canterbury. The original Tower has collapsed, and portions of the walls to the main chamber. The significant timber barrel and cross vaulted roof and sarking, which is a distinctive feature of the octagonal building remains largely intact. There has been make safe work undertaken. Stage 1 of works is intended to include additional funding for professional fees, and funding for the deconstruction of the stone of the existing walls, the construction of steel wall columns and the use of the original stone reduced to a 75 millimetre veneer to reduce weight. The original thickness of the walls will be retained. Repairs are to be also made for the roofing and roof slates and interior surfaces. Reconstruction of the Tower is not included in the current project but may be considered if additional funding is available in the future.

49. It is proposed that this project be considered for an immediate funding allocation of $1 million in two stages – firstly for professional fees to complete design and documentation of the project and if approved, for the reconstruction and repair of the building as detailed in Attachment 3.

Central Post Office

50. The former Central Post office (1877-79) is the most prominent remaining historic landmark building on a key site in central Christchurch, after the Christchurch Cathedral. The listed heritage value is Group One and Category One, NZHPT. The building with its clock tower, has retained its original east and north facades and overall building form largely intact. The Central Post Office remains as the most architecturally distinctive and recognisable building anchoring the significant central city space of Cathedral Square.

51. The building has provided a range of opportunities for adaptive re-use which are still relevant. The continuing presence of the Post Office is supported by the only other intact remaining heritage building in Cathedral Square - the former Government Buildings/Heritage Hotel on the opposite, eastern side of the Square.

McKenzie and Willis and Duncan’s Buildings

52. The McKenzie and Willis (1910-11) building features a substantial, dominant, three storey façade to both Tuam Street and to High Street with a central splayed façade bay marking the corner. The building is listed as Group Two, Cat Two This façade is of considerable architectural and landmark significance, and is directly associated with the heritage features of the High Street Triangle (Group 3) the former High St Post Office (1930, Group 4) as well with (1906, Group 4,) and Duncan’s Buildings (1905, Group 3,) to the immediate south. The Billen’s building was considered to be important to retain as it completed the High Street precinct. However, with the loss of Billen’s recently by fire it will be essential to consider a new building designed to be as an architecturally distinctive three storey façade which visually links the adjoing heritage buildings and completes the streetscape. Duncan’s Buildings provides a set of two storey brick facades individually of a smaller scale but of a strong architectural character. However, of even more significance is the extended continuity of these heritage building facades along High Street.

53. The association of these heritage features together creates an identifiable landmark High Street heritage precinct. With the New Regent Street project, this is the only opportunity to retain the most important heritage precinct remaining in a key location in central Christchurch. Historically, High Street (formerly Sumner Road) was a diagonal street feature of the 1850 Jollie central city Plan. This group of heritage buildings therefore reinforces both the historical significance of High Street since the beginnings of the Christchurch settlement and the commercial significance of these turn of the century buildings.

70 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

Sargood Son and Ewan Building

54. The Sargood, Son and Ewan building (1892, Group 3) is a substantial brick three storey commercial building of a neo-classicism design with strongly articulated fenestration, stone cornices and decorative details. The building has a further distinction in that the architectural materials and façade design is continued on the west façade to the lane. The strong visual and architectural qualities of this landmark heritage building was recognised by its inclusion in the Streetscape illustration on page 66 of the ‘A Distinctive City’ section of the Draft Central City Plan December 2011. This building designed by Australian architects for the international importing firm demonstrates the increased commercial wealth and prosperity of post 1890 Christchurch. This was associated with a concentration of substantial Lichfield Street commercial heritage buildings, of which only the adjoining Wellington Woollen Mills building still remains. Retention of both these heritage buildings would be the best heritage outcome for both buildings and for Lichfield Street.

55. The Sargood, Son and Ewan building was seismically strengthened pre-September 2010, and has remained in a repairable condition as a consequence. The partial collapse of the upper brick section of the west façade is recoverable with an existing concrete shear wall for support. The two later additions to the south of the building, are not of special significance.

56. This property and the discussions to date have been with the statutory receiver.

Wellington Woollen Mills Building

57. The Wellington Woollen Mills Building (1911, Group 2) reflects the prosperous turn of the century period of commercial development in Christchurch. The architectural design of the four storey building relies on the extensive use of concrete construction. This has provided the opportunity for the distinctive design of the marble, bronze and glass street façade in contrast to the adjoining brick Sargood, Son and Ewen building. The substantial marble-clad columns that anchor the east and west ends of the Wellington Woollen Mills street façade provide a solid visual and architectural link between the simple articulation of the ground floor columns and the marble-clad finer scale openings of the upper floor. In contrast the two intermediate floors form a glass curtain wall between the ground and upper floors. While the street façade is classical in overall style, this description does not do justice to the forward looking modernist architectural design which contributes to the unique qualities of this significant heritage building. The Wellington Woollen Mills Building with the adjoing Sargood, Son and Ewan building are the last remaining examples of landmark commercial Lichfield street heritage buildings and retention of both buildings as noted above should be an important consideration. It should also be noted that both buildings made a significant contributed to SOL Square.

58. The Wellington Woollen Mills Building has survived due in part to extensive alterations to the original structure, east and south replacement walls and roof reconstruction, while the street façade remains more substantially original.

59. This property and the discussions to date have been with the statutory receiver.

Future Central City Heritage Landmark Heritage Funding Opportunities

60. The heritage buildings detailed above have been the subject of discussions on the potential retention, repair, seismic strengthening and reconstruction. Further discussions will continue with the owners/receivers as additional information becomes available and decisions can be made regarding future funding. The following heritage building list has been included for information on further opportunities which can be explored in the coming months. The future of some of these buildings is uncertain at this time.

East Frame Former Majestic Theatre, 122-126 Manchester Street (Group 2) Likely to be demolished 71 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

5 Cont’d

Core Former Wellington Woollen Mills Building Sargood, Son and Ewan Building State Insurance Office 116 Worcester St (Group 2) Former Chief Post Office, 31 Cathedral Square (Group 1) Former Civic Offices, 163-173 Tuam Street (Group 2) - Designated for demolition National Bank, 779 Colombo Street (Group 3) St Michaels Stone Classroom, 90 Oxford Terrace (Group 2) Former Odeon Theatre, 214 Tuam St (Group 2) Former Laurie and Wilson, 210 Tuam St (Group 4)

Adjoining the Avon River Precinct Former Public Trust Office, 152-156 Oxford Terrace (Group 3) Former Midland Club (Café Roma), 176-178 Oxford Terrace (Group 3) Harley Chambers, 137 Cambridge Terrace (Group 3)

Central City West Avon Flats, 279 Montreal Street (Group 3) Shand’s Emporium 88 Hereford Street (Group 2) Victoria Mansions, 89-91 Victoria Street (Group 3) Warren Flats, 12 Dorset St (Group 3) Trinity Church Christchurch Club ATTACHMENT 1TO CLAUSE 5COMMUNITY,RECREATIONANDCULTURECOMMITTEE 5. 3.2013

Central Post Office

Wellington Mills

Duncan’s

Sargood, Son & Ewan

McKenzie & Willis 72 Attachment 1 Central City Heritage Landmark Buildings ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 5 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 73

ATTACHMENT 2

The Christchurch Club, Mountfort Wings – Repair, Reconstruction and Seismic Upgrade

Overall Scope of Works

The area of the works subject to the application for Funding (the Mountfort buildings – Area ‘A’) is approximately 586 sq metres, the total Club complex has an area of approximately 1,790 square metres.

Of area ‘A’ approximately 60% of the built area is repair and strengthening, and 40% of the built area is reconstruction.

The scope of works proposed for funding assistance (Area ‘A’ )includes the whole of the original Mountfort 1861/62 two storey timber Entry and Hall, Tower, Staircase, Atrium and Bedrooms, Ladies Drawing Room, Dining Room, Rhodes Room (1875), minor utility areas, and part basement. The Dining Room and Rhodes Room suffered collapse and subsequent removal. The remaining areas have considerable structural and fabric damage but are otherwise largely intact.

All foundations are to be replaced with new piles, steel sub floor structure, new concrete basement. The timber building is to be rolled off the existing foundations for installation of new piles, foundations and steel work and basement strengthening. Tower re-levelled and straightened when re-position on new foundations.

All internal and external timber, concrete brick and plaster works and slate roofing to be repaired, replaced or reconstructed, with walls seismically braced, based on repair and reconstruction to the original design.

Scope of Works and Costs Mountfort Wings (Area A)

Building temporary removal, $ 236, 370 Piling, foundations, sub-structure, steps and timber $1,062,310 flooring Steel frames, upper floors, chimneys and roof $ 246,955 Exterior walls and finishes, exterior doors and $ 240,115 windows Interior walls, entry, stairs, doors, ceilings and $ 585,425 finishes Fire, electrical, radiators and boiler $ 180,980 Estimate (Area A) Conservation and $2,552,155 Reconstruction Contingency (10%) conservation and reconstruction $.....25,520 Professional Fees (50%) conservation and $ 190,000 reconstruction Total Estimate (Area A) Conservation and $2,767,675 Reconstruction Total Project Estimate (Area A) $4,392,00 Proposed Central City Heritage Landmark $1,700,000 Funding Current additional funding commitments Nil

Note: The Operational Guidelines provides generally for a funding range to 50% of conservation and reconstruction costs but up to 75% for very significant projects. The recommendation for $1.7M for this project is approximately 60% of the estimated Fees, Conservation and Reconstruction Cost reflecting the very high heritage and landmark significance of this project. 74 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 5 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 75

N

76 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 5 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 77 ATTACHMENT 3 The Former Trinity Congregational Church – Repair, Reconstruction and Seismic Upgrade

Stage 1 Overall Scope of Works

Note: Stage 1 as detailed below follows the ‘make safe’ works which are not included in this summary. Also note that the original heritage Church Hall has been completely demolished and will not be reconstructed.

The Stage One works comprise deconstruction and recovery of the remaining stone work for future use in the repair and strengthening of the foundations, and the installation of vertical steel girders faced externally with a composite substrate and slips of the original stonework to the external line of the original wall. The overall depth of the walls will match the previous depth. The roof requires only temporary repair and repair or replacement of slates. The Tower, has been complete lost and reconstruction using retained stonework is anticipated as Stage 3 subject to future funding.

For the Stage 1 works approximately 40% of the built area is repair, and 60% of the built area is reconstruction

This project has not been progressed to detailed drawings and specifications to date, because of the lack of certainty over funding for Stage 1. Cost estimates are therefore indicative. It is proposed that Funding for this project therefore be provided in two stages

1. Funding assistance for the development of a detailed design proposal for Stage 1

Professional fees at 15% of conservation and reconstruction costs $231,170 Funding of 50% Professional fees $115,585

2. Funding assistance for the Stage 1 construction works subject to completion of approved design and construction project documentation

Scope of Works and Costs Stage 1 - Conservation and Reconstruction

Deconstruction, recovery stonework, interior demolition $ 158,375 Piling, foundations, ground floor slab upgrade $ 191,400, Steel wall frames and temporary roof propping $ 651,250 Exterior stone works $ 342,900 Roofing and exterior porch reinstatement $ 25.950 Interior walls, floor and ceiling finishes $ 125,385 Electrical $ 45,870 Estimate (Stage 1) Conservation and Reconstruction $1,541,130 Total Estimate (Stage 1) $2,172,506 Proposed Central City Heritage Landmark Funding incl Fees $1,000,000 Additional Confirmed Funding – Christchurch Earthquake Heritage $ 258,796 Buildings Fund (Make Safe Works)

Total Professional Fees 346,7555 Total Estimate Stage 1 2,172,506 Total Cost Stage 1 2,519,261

Note: The Operational Guidelines provides generally for a funding range to 50% of conservation and reconstruction costs but up to 75% for very significant projects. The recommendation for $1M for this project is approximately 40% of the estimated Fees, Conservation and Reconstruction Cost i.e., ($1,000,000/$2,519,261=39.69%).

78 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 5 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 79

3

80 81 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

6. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL, ST LUKES, 1280 CHORLTON ROAD, LITTLE AKALOA

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 Officer responsible: Natural Environment and Heritage Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage, Architecture and Urban Design

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for St Luke’s, 1280 Chorlton, Road, Little Akaloa.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. St Luke’s Anglican Church is located on Chorlton Road in the settlement of Little Akaloa on Banks Peninsula. The building is owned by Anglican Church Property Trustees. The building was designed by John Henry Menzies, and constructed in 1905/1906 (refer to the Statement of Heritage Significance in Attachment 1).

3. The church is built on a hill above Akaloa Bay within a surrounding graveyard. The building is an unusual design in that it is made of unreinforced concrete with a pebble dash external coating and an internal veneer of limestone. The church includes an attached bell tower with the same form of construction and surface finishes. The design of the building is also unusual in that it is a blend of European neo-gothic with internal Māori style decorative patterns and motifs. The building has not undergone any major modifications and is in largely original condition apart from the roof which was changed to slate in 1955. The original concrete roof parapet flashings were also covered at some point with new copper flashings. There have also been a series of steel rods inserted across the gables in an attempt to strengthen the structure and these proved effective in the recent earthquakes.

4. The building has been damaged in the recent earthquakes and is currently being repaired and upgraded with the addition of new structural steel. This is being inserted into the concrete through core drilling and grouting. New purpose made round steel patress plates will be fixed to the ends of the new steel rods and painted to blend in with the pebble dash coating. The exterior pebble dash coating will be repaired where the core drilling occurs and where it has cracked. The internal lining of limestone also sustained some damage and will also have to be removed in parts to allow the core drilling to take place. This will also be repaired as required using the original stone where possible and replacement stone where necessary.

5. The building at 1280 Chorlton Road, Little Akaloa, is listed in the Banks Peninsula District Plan as a Protected Building. The building is registered Category 1 by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT) registration number 7094.

6. The building has not been the subject of a previous Council Heritage Grant. Insurance is covering a substantial amount of the works but will not cover maintenance works and structural upgrades.

7. With the works outlined above, the building can be repaired to meet the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the reuse and maintenance of the building. A conservation plan is being prepared for this building by a Conservation Architect.

8. The work described below for which the applicant is seeking grant support will ensure the future protection and continuing use of this significant heritage building. The application has been determined to meet all the relevant criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

SCOPE OF WORK

9. A summary of conservation and maintenance works include:

(a) installation of new structural steel within the concrete walls

(b) remedial and maintenance work to roof, rain ware, walls and windows. 82 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

6 Cont’d

10. Costs for conservation, including code compliance and maintenance works are outlined in the table below (all excluding GST):

Particulars Costs Structural upgrade $20,340 Remedial and maintenance work $47,381 Total of conservation and restoration related work $67,721

HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS POLICY

11. The Operational Guidelines for the Policy provide for a grant of up to 50 per cent of the total heritage related costs for a ‘Protected’, NZHPT Category I heritage building.

Proposed heritage grant (50% of cost of works) $33,860

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

12. 2012/13 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2011/12 financial year $505,499 Balance of 12/13 funds $1,269,183 Approved grant to 284 – 294 Kilmore Street $48,924 Approved grant to 236 Tuam (McKenzie & Willis) $240,000 Council approved transfer to CEHBF $254,690 Approved grant to 72 Chancellor Street $3,252 Proposed grant to St Pauls, Papanui $165,683 Proposed grant to St Luke’s Little Akaloa $33,860 Total Available Funds 2012/13 $522,774

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

13. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

14. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999. A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more. These figures were amended in February 2013 from those previously used for Heritage Incentive Grants.

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

15. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be between $15,000 and $150,000 there is a requirement for at least a limited conservation covenant on this property title.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

16. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome. 83 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

6 Cont’d

17. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).

18. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.

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

19. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

20. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:

Christchurch Recovery Strategy 21. This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the CER Act. Retention and conservation of restorable heritage buildings, places, archaeological sites and places of cultural significance, and restoration of access to heritage collections, will help recreate that distinctive sense of place and identity that has defined the region and contributed to its economic development.

Banks Peninsula District Plan 22. Heritage protection is consistent with the Cultural Heritage provisions of the Banks Peninsula District Plan. These are detailed in chapter 14, Cultural Heritage, Objective 1, and Policies 1A and 1B, page 74.

Heritage Conservation Policy 23. The Heritage Incentive Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, the Heritage Conservation Policy aligns with the Community Outcome “An attractive and well-designed City” through the indicator “Number of heritage buildings, sites and objects”.

24. The Heritage Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, which the Council has adopted. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 25. Heritage development projects provide opportunities for increased commercial and residential activity in the City while at the same time enhancing the heritage townscape. The UDS considers heritage as an integral part of Christchurch and an aspect of growth management provided for is through the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage.

New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 26. Heritage projects improve the quality and design of the urban environment by protecting the heritage of the city, which is stated in the Protocol as being an attribute of successful towns and cities. The Limited Covenants will contribute towards the implementation of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol of March 2005 of which the Council is a signatory body. 84 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

6 Cont’d

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

27. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

28. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee approve:

(a) A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $33,860 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 1 heritage church at 1280 Chorlton Road, Little Akaloa, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.

(b) That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a ten year Limited Conservation Covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 6 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 85

Statement of Significance: St Luke’s Anglican Church, Little Akaloa

Historical and Social Significance

St Luke’s Anglican Church (1906) has historical and social significance as a manifestation of the commitment of the Little Akaloa community to the construction of a dedicated place of worship, and more particularly as a testament to the work of John Henry Menzies, the local farmer who was in large part responsible for the building’s design, construction, decoration and financing.

Cultural and Spiritual Significance

St Luke’s has cultural and spiritual significance as a focus for worship and social interchange in the Little Akaloa community for over a century. The church may also be seen to represent an effort to more firmly ground Pakeha culture and society in Aotearoa through the co-option of aspects of Maori culture.

Architectural and Aesthetic Significance

St Luke’s has architectural and aesthetic significance as an unique local expression of the Arts and Crafts ethos. Essentially a handsome Gothic Revival place of worship, the church is distinguished by its unexpected Maori-inspired interior decoration. The un-likeliness of this melding is further amplified when it is noted that the building was designed and executed by John Menzies, a pakeha, for a wholly pakeha congregation. In this the church is probably without precedent. Although at one level a function of the peculiar talent and interest of Menzies, St Luke’s can also be seen as product of the broader Arts and Crafts movement, with its dictums that a building should be hand-wrought and recognizably a product of its environment. Menzies was unusual ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 6 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 86 in the extent to which he rejected more conventional expressions of the Arts and Crafts movement, and embraced Maori decorative forms. Other designers were not to attempt anything approaching this until the interwar period.

Technological and Craftsmanship Significance

St Luke’s has technological and craftsmanship significance for its unusual use of concrete as a mode of construction, and for the quality and quantity of John Menzies’ decorative work. This is all the more remarkable as Menzies was a self-taught carver.

Contextual Significance

The most immediate context of St Luke’s is Rehutai, the homestead that Menzies built for his son William in nearby Menzies Bay. This house has a similarly Maori- inspired decorative scheme. Another element of context is the tiny Maori church at the Kaik near Akaroa, which was given an overtly Maori appearance by the local iwi for the Canterbury Centennial in 1940.

87 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

7. HERITAGE GRANT APPROVAL – ST PAUL’S, 1 HAREWOOD RD, PAPANUI, CHRISTCHURCH

General Manager responsible: General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 Officer responsible: City Planning Unit Manager Author: Brendan Smyth, Heritage, Architecture and Urban Design

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to obtain an in part retrospective approval for a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for St Pauls, 1 Harewood, Road, Papanui, Christchurch.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. St Pauls Anglican Church is located at the south end of Harewood Road close to the junction of Main North Road and Papanui Road in the suburb of Papanui. The building is owned by ‘Church Property Trustees’. The building was designed by Benjamin Mountfort Architect and constructed in 1876/77 (refer to the Statement of Heritage Significance in Attachment 1).

3. The church of St Paul’s is a significant landmark close to the centre of Papanui. The building is a timber framed, neo-gothic style structure with a large surrounding graveyard which is also protected. An original bell tower was demolished in 1910 and rebuilt in a different form in 1912 with timber shingles as roofing. The building has undergone other modifications with the most recent being in 1986. This last renovation included the addition of the ‘Decramastic’ tile roof. This tile roof appears to have been laid over an earlier corrugated iron and shingle roofing but the roof has leaked and this has lead to internal damage to the structural timbers.

4. The building has been damaged in the recent earthquakes and is currently being repaired and upgraded with the addition of new structural steel. The work will include a complete upgrade for fire provisions including means of escape and installation of a sprinkler system.

5. The building at 1 Harewood Road, is listed in the Christchurch City Plan as Group 1. The building is registered Category 2 by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT) registration number 7635.

6. The building has been the subject of a previous Council Heritage Grant. A Heritage Retention Incentive Grant of $8,000 was awarded in June of 2001 to assist with exterior repainting.

7. With the works outlined below, the building can be repaired to meet the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the reuse and maintenance of the building.

8. The work described below for which the applicant is seeking grant support will ensure the future protection and continuing use of this significant heritage building. Some of the work within the scope of works has already started. Notwithstanding that parts of the work are retrospective (specifically 8(c), (e) and (f)) the application has been determined to meet all the relevant criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines. The Operational Guidelines provide Council with discretion to consider retrospective works.

88 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

7 Cont’d

SCOPE OF WORK

9. A summary of conservation and maintenance works include:

(a) removal of the existing ‘Decramastic’ tiled roof and the remaining corrugated roof below

(b) removal of the ‘Decramastic’ tiled roof on the tower and any remaining roofing material (possibly shingles) below

(c) repairs to timber structure as required

(d) installation of a new corrugated iron roof to the main church and shingles to the tower on roofing underlay with associated flashings

(e) repairs and maintenance work to timber joinery

(f) installation of new structural steel

(g) installation of fire protection and a means of escape upgrade

(h) access improvements for the disabled.

10. Costs for conservation, including code compliance and maintenance works are outlined in the table below (all excluding GST) :

Particulars Costs Removal of existing roof; installation of new roof $149,201 Repairs to structure, joinery, windows and rainwater $65,042 system Installation of new structural steel $6,047 Upgrade of means of escape of fire protection $99,590 Alterations to improve access for disabled people $11,486 including reforming driveway and changes to porch floor level Total of conservation and restoration related work $331,366

HERITAGE INCENTIVE GRANTS POLICY

11. The Operational Guidelines for the Policy provide for a grant of up to 50 per cent of the total heritage related costs for a Group 1 heritage building.

Proposed heritage grant (50% of cost of works) $165,683

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

12. 2012/13 Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund $763,684 Funds remaining from 2011/12 financial year $505,499 Balance of 12/13 funds $1,269,183 Approved grant to 284 – 294 Kilmore Street $48,924 Approved grant to 236 Tuam (McKenzie & Willis) $240,000 Council approved transfer to CEHBF $254,690 Approved grant to 72 Chancellor Street $3,252 Proposed grant to St Pauls, Papanui $165,683 Total Available Funds 2012/13 $556,634

89 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

7 Cont’d

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

13. Yes. The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2009-19 LTCCP.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

14. Limited Conservation Covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999. A Full Covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more. These figures were amended in February 2013 from those previously used for Heritage Incentive Grants.

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

15. Yes. Covenants generally are a more comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

16. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcome ‘An attractive and well-designed City’ (LTCCP 2009-19, page 50). ‘Community Outcome 9. Development’ provides for, among other things, ensuring “our lifestyles and heritage are enhanced by our urban environment” (page 54). One of the success measures is that “Our heritage is protected for future generations” (page 54). “Progress will be measured using these headline indicators … number of heritage buildings, sites and objects.” (page 54). Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is the measure under the outcome.

17. Within the ‘Activities and Services’ section of the LTCCP, is ‘City planning and development’ which aims to help improve Christchurch’s urban environment, among other things. One of the activities included in ‘City planning and development’ is ‘Heritage protection’. “A city’s heritage helps to sustain a sense of community identity, provides links to the past, and helps to attract visitors. The Council is committed to protecting the heritage of our city and works with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage buildings, areas and other items” (page 187).

18. ‘Heritage Protection’, requires the Council to “Research and promote the heritage of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. Work with developers, landowners and other stakeholders to conserve heritage areas, buildings, and other items. Promote development that is sensitive to the character and heritage of the city and existing communities.” (page 192). The Council provides information, advice and funding for city heritage and heritage conservation, and will be expected to continue to do so, as part of its objective to retain heritage items.

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

19. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

20. Alignment of the requirement for Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenants stems from the Heritage Conservation Policy which in turn is relevant to:

90 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

7 Cont’d

Christchurch Recovery Strategy 21. This Recovery Strategy is the key reference document that guides and coordinates the programmes of work, including Recovery Plans, under the CER Act. Retention and conservation of restorable heritage buildings, places, archaeological sites and places of cultural significance, and restoration of access to heritage collections, will help recreate that distinctive sense of place and identity that has defined the region and contributed to its economic development.

The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan 22. The Plan is a critical statutory document. From the time of notification (31 July 2012) of this Recovery Plan, those exercising functions or powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 must not make decisions that are inconsistent with the Recovery Plan. If there is an inconsistency, the Recovery Plan prevails.

Christchurch City Plan 23. Heritage redevelopment projects are consistent with the Heritage provisions of the City Plan: Volume 2, Section 4, City Identity, Objective 4.3 Heritage Protection provides for objectives and policies in relation to Heritage protection. It recognises that Christchurch is a cultural and tourist centre, a role mainly dependent on its architectural, historic and scenic attractions. Much of its distinctive character is derived from buildings, natural features, other places and objects which have over time, become an accepted part of the cityscape and valued features of the City’s identity. Protection of heritage places includes cultural, architectural, areas of character, intrinsic or amenity value, visual appeal or of special significance to the Tangata Whenua, for spiritual, cultural or historical reasons. This protection may extend to include land around that place or feature to ensure its protection and reasonable enjoyment. A heritage item may include land, sites, areas, buildings, monuments, objects, archaeological sites, sacred sites, landscape or ecological features in public or private ownership.

Heritage Conservation Policy 24. The Heritage Incentive Grants are provided for under section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Policy. As noted above under the LTCCP heading, the Heritage Conservation Policy aligns with the Community Outcome “An attractive and well-designed City” through the indicator “Number of heritage buildings, sites and objects”.

25. The Heritage Grants Policy is aligned with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value, which the Council has adopted. The concept of places incorporates landscape, buildings, archaeological sites, sacred places, gardens and other objects. ICOMOS considers that countries have a “general responsibility towards humanity” to safeguard their heritage for present and future generations.

Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) 26. Heritage development projects provide opportunities for increased commercial and residential activity in the City while at the same time enhancing the heritage townscape. The UDS considers heritage as an integral part of Christchurch and an aspect of growth management provided for is through the protection, maintenance and enhancement of heritage.

New Zealand Urban Design Protocol 27. Heritage projects improve the quality and design of the urban environment by protecting the heritage of the city, which is stated in the Protocol as being an attribute of successful towns and cities. The Limited Covenants will contribute towards the implementation of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol of March 2005 of which the Council is a signatory body.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

28. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

29. There is no requirement for community consultation for Heritage Incentive Grants or Covenants. 91 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

7 Cont’d

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve:

(a) A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $165,683 for conservation and maintenance work for the Group 1 heritage church at 1 Harewood Road, subject to certification of compliance with the above scope of works.

(b) That payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a Full Conservation Covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 92

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ST PAUL’S ANGLICAN CHURCH – 1 HAREWOOD ROAD

PHOTOGRAPH 2010

HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE Historical and social values that demonstrate or are associated with: a particular person, group, organisation, institution, event, phase or activity; the continuity and/or change of a phase or activity; social, historical, traditional, economic, political or other patterns.

St Paul's Anglican Church has historical and social significance as the site of possibly the earliest church on the Canterbury Plains (NZHPT 2005 p 4). A first St Paul's Anglican Church was erected in 1852 to provide for Papanui, the first settlement on the plains outside Christchurch. The village grew initially because of the 30 ha Papanui Bush, which provided timber for the new town. This early date illustrates the objective of the Canterbury Association to promptly provide places of worship for its new settlers. The foundation stone of a replacement church was laid by Bishop Harper on 2 February 1876; the new building opened in December 1877. The scale of this church indicates the on-going importance of both the Anglican Church and this location in the late 1870s. The church was consecrated in 1880; to mark the occasion the first peal of bells in Canterbury was installed. St Paul's Anglican Church churchyard is the resting place of a cross-section of local Papanui society, and of a number of notable Cantabrians including politician Robert Heaton Rhodes, VC winner Charles Upham and engineer Edward Dobson.

CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE Cultural and spiritual values that demonstrate or are associated with the distinctive characteristics of a way of life, philosophy, tradition, religion, or other belief, including: the symbolic or commemorative value of the place; significance to Tangata Whenua; and/or associations with an identifiable group and esteemed by this group for its cultural values.

St Paul's Anglican Church has cultural and spiritual significance as the site of a centre of Anglican worship for nearly 160 years, and in the present building for 130 years. The early development of a church on the site indicates both the central position of the Anglican Church in directing Canterbury's early religious expression, and the desire of Papanui's early settlers ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 93

to nurture their spiritual and communal life. The churchyard and a war memorial enhance the spiritual value of the site. The church continues to be held in high esteem by its parishioners.

ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE Architectural and aesthetic values that demonstrate or are associated with design values, form, scale, colour, texture and material of the place.

St Paul's Anglican Church has architectural and aesthetic significance as one of the larger and more prominent Neo-Gothic churches designed by architect Benjamin Mountfort. A talented and individual practitioner of Neo-Gothic, Mountfort established a forty year career as one of New Zealand's leading architects from the late 1850s. As both Provincial Architect and architect to the Anglican Diocese, he executed a large number of both secular and ecclesiastical commissions, including the Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings and Canterbury Museum. Mountfort's many Neo-Gothic churches range widely in size and design, but are always accomplished ecclesiologically-correct compositions. St Paul's Anglican Church illustrates a number of features common to Mountfort's churches, including its Early English style, clear functional articulation, vertical emphasis, lancet windows, and board and batten walls with string courses. The church's belltower was demolished in 1910 and rebuilt in different form in 1912. The building was also extensively renovated in 1926, and in 1986 - when the shingled roof was replaced with decromastic tiles. The church maintains a high degree of integrity.

TECHNOLOGICAL AND CRAFTSMANSHIP SIGNIFICANCE Technological and craftsmanship values that demonstrate or are associated with: the nature and use of materials, finishes and/or technological or constructional methods which were innovative, or of notable quality for the period.

St Paul's Anglican Church has technological and craftsmanship significance as a large timber building, with numerous finely executed gothic details, and a notable open interior revealing the complex structure of the building.

CONTEXTUAL SIGNIFICANCE Contextual values that demonstrate or are associated with: a relationship to the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a degree of consistency in terms of scale, form, materials, texture, colour, style and/or detailing in relationship to the environment (constructed and natural), setting, a group, precinct or streetscape; a physical or visible landmark; a contribution to the character of the environment (constructed and natural) setting, a group, precinct or streetscape.

St Paul's Anglican Church is located in the centre of a large triangular section on the south side of Harewood Road just past the intersection with Papanui Road/Main North Road. The setting consists of an extensive graveyard, which surrounds the church. The grounds also contain a number of large trees, and a church hall. The church and its setting are located on the margins of Papanui's commercial area, which abuts the graveyard on its eastern side. On the western boundary is the main trunk railway line. Because of its size of the church, the height of its spire, the extent of its grounds, and the long open boundary with busy Harewood Road, St Paul's Anglican Church has landmark significance in Papanui.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Archaeological values that demonstrate or are associated with: potential to provide archaeological information through physical evidence; an understanding about social historical, cultural, spiritual, technological or other values or past events, activities, people or phases.

St Paul's Anglican Church and its setting are of archaeological significance because they have the potential to provide archaeological evidence relating to past building construction methods and materials, and human activity on the site, including pre-1900. The first church on the site was erected in 1852, and burials in the graveyard began in 1853. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 7 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 94 3

ASSESSMENT STATEMENT

St Paul's Anglican Church is of metropolitan significance. The church has been assessed as making an important contribution to the identity, sense of place and history of the Christchurch metropolitan area and is primarily of importance to the City for its heritage value.

St Paul's Anglican Church is significant as the site of one of the earliest churches in Canterbury; as an illustration of the central place that the Anglican Church held in the planning of the Canterbury Settlement; as a reminder of the early establishment and importance of Papanui; for its extensive and early graveyard; as an accomplished church building by pre-eminent Neo-Gothicist Benjamin Mountfort, and as a landmark in Papanui.

REFERENCES:

NZHPT Registration Proposal (2005) St Paul's Anglican Church and Churchyard

REPORT COMPLETED: AUTHOR: PEER REVIEWED: REVIEWER:

REPORT UPDATED: AUTHOR:

PLEASE NOTE THIS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF WRITING. DUE TO THE ONGOING NATURE OF HERITAGE RESEARCH, FUTURE REASSESSMENT OF THIS HERITAGE ITEM MAY BE NECESSARY TO REFLECT ANY CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF ITS HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE.

PLEASE USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CCC HERITAGE FILES.

95 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

8. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES SUPPORT FUND - FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

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

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the following applications to the Creative Industries Support Fund:

 The Physics Room ($57,500) (Attachment 1)  Arts Circus ($80,000) (Attachment 2)  XCHC (Exchange Christchurch) ($170,000) (Attachment 3)  NZ Film Festival ($70,000) (Attachment 4)  Chambers 241 ($35,955) (Attachment 5)  Beat Box ($80,000) (Attachment 6).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. As a direct result of the February earthquake Christchurch has lost galleries, studios, workshops, music, performance and film facilities that were essential to a thriving arts sector and a vibrant city.

3. In response to the needs of the sector in the recovery, the Council developed a fund through the 2012/13 Annual Plan to support the reestablishment of creative industries in the Central City. The Creative Industries Support Fund is intended to help retain creative industries and create vibrancy in the Central City.

4. The Terms of Reference for the Creative Industries Support Fund were adopted by the Council on the 25 October 2012. The fund was launched in late October 2012. Applications for more than $15,000 require Council approval.

5. The projects recommended for funding in this second round of applications represent a broad cross section of organisations and disciplines across the creative sector (see Table 1). These include galleries, professional art studios and workshops, a collaborative architecture and arts innovation hub, film, contemporary music, rehearsal and performance space.

6. Funding conditions have been proposed in some cases to mitigate risks around specific projects and ensure the long term success of the projects. All applicants have been advised of these conditions and have provided written confirmation of their agreement to the conditions.

Table 1: Summary of Applicants

Applicant Project Amount Amount Funded Requested The Physics Art gallery and public reading room $57,500 $57,500 Room Arts Circus Trust Arts Circus at the Arts Centre $80,000 $80,000 Exchange Collaborative workshop, office and $170,000 $70,400 Christchurch rehearsal space for Studio (XCHC) Christchurch, Free Theatre Christchurch and the Christchurch Centre for Architecture The New Permanent digital cinema projection $70,000 $70,000 Zealand Film facilities for the New Zealand Film Festival Trust Festival Chambers 241 Artists studios and gallery $35,995 $35,995 Christchurch Beatbox band rehearsal space at $80,000 $80,000 Music Industry BOXed Quarter Trust (CHART) 96 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

8 Cont’d

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7. A budget of $520,000 has been allocated for Creative Industries support in the 2012/13 Annual Plan. A grant of $30,000 has been made to ArtBox leaving a $490,000 to allocate during the remainder of the 2012/13 financial year. The total amount requested is $493,455 which is more than the remaining fund pool.

8. The total funding allocation recommended in this report is $393,855. This leaves a balance of $96,145 for any further applications this financial year.

9. Successful applicants to the Creative Industries Support Fund will be required to enter into funding agreements with the Council.

Do the Recommendations of this Report Align with 2006-16 LTCCP budgets?

10. The recommendations in this report align with the 2012/13 Annual Plan Budgets.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

11. If funding is approved, the Council will enter into a 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

12. See below.

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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. See above.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

16. Not required.

97 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

8 Cont’d

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve the following grants from the Creative Industries Support Fund:

(a) $57,500 to the Physics Room to contribute to operational costs and capital items, to assist the gallery to re-establish itself in its Central City premises.

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

(i) Before 1 April 2013 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.

(c) $70,400 to Exchange Christchurch to subsidise rent with the following conditions to the grant:

Before 1 April 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).

(d) $70,000 to The New Zealand Film Festival Trust towards the purchase of a projector for installing at the Isaac Theatre Royal, with the following conditions:

(i) Before 1 April 2013 a copy is provided to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager of the agreement between the Isaac Theatre Royal and the New Zealand Film Festival that the Theatre will host the New Zealand International Film Festival in the long-term; and

(ii) The Digital Cinema Projector is purchased by The New Zealand Film Festival Trust within four months of having been funded by the Creative Industries Support Fund.

(e) $35,955 to Chambers 241 to contribute to capital and operational costs, enabling the gallery to continue supporting local artists by providing gallery space and subsidised studio space.

(f) $80,000 to Christchurch Music Industry Trust for the acoustic fit-out for the Beatbox band rehearsal space at BOXed Quarter.

98 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

8 Cont’d

BACKGROUND

The Physics Room

17. The Physics Room is a non-commercial art-space and is constituted as a charitable trust. It has facilitated contemporary, experimental work for 17 years and generally produces a diverse range of exhibitions and wider programming, including publications and artist residencies. The Physics Room is committed to the retention of high-quality arts practice in Christchurch and plays a key role in encouraging contemporary work.

18. The Physics Room has re-located to the Central City premises from which it was displaced after the earthquakes of 2010/2011. It is situated above C1 Café and Alice in Videoland. The Physics Room will sub-lease to other creative businesses, such as graphic design business Designworks.

19. The re-location to the Tuam Street premises has required funding for the basic fit-out of the space which has created a cashflow issue for the business to support exhibitions and events. The Physics Room requests funds from the Creative Industries Support Fund to assist with exhibition and events programmes, promotion and the establishment of a reading room which will also be open to the public.

Arts Circus

20. Arts Circus is intended to be a transitional arts neighbourhood inspired by the Tollwood Festival in Munich. Arts Circus has a pan-arts focus and would provide a much needed performance space and a vehicle via which artists can show-case their work, drawing a diverse range of audiences and contributing to the revitalisation of the Central City.

21. Arts Circus is established as an independent charitable trust. The project itself has been under discussion since late 2011. Arts Circus is now in discussion with the Arts Centre. Staff have been advised that a Memorandum of Understanding between the Arts Centre and Arts Circus is in the process of being agreed and signed.

22. Creative New Zealand has provided $25,000 towards development of the project. Arts Circus is requesting $80,000 from the Creative Industries Support Fund for project management costs. The Arts Circus Trust is in discussion with the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust for capital funding. Council assistance would enable the project to move beyond scoping stages to implementation.

XCHC (Exchange Christchurch)

23. Exchange Christchurch (XCHC) is a proposed office, rehearsal and workshop space that would allow for collaboration among performing and visual artists, architecture, design and creative technologies.

24. XCHC has been trying to secure a site for over a year. A suitable building for the project has been identified in the central city.

25. The Trust for XCHC is currently being established. The directors of XCHC have contributed significantly to the Christchurch rebuild (The Festival of Transitional Architecture, the Pallet Pavilion, Studio Christchurch) and have based XCHC on other successful arts-cluster models in Berlin and Auckland.

26. The three key partners for the project are Studio Christchurch, the Free Theatre and the Christchurch Centre for Architecture. XCHC will draw upon local, national and international expertise to encourage dialogue and practical solutions to Christchurch’s rebuild, as well as enabling international recognition for local artists and practitioners.

27. The amount requested in the application was $170,000 to cover operational and capital items. The staff recommendation would fund the commercial rent shortfall taking into account the rent income from XCHC members and venue hire revenue. 99 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

8 Cont’d

The New Zealand Film Festival Trust

28. The New Zealand International Film Festival has been presented in Christchurch for thirty-six years and drawing audiences of 20,000–22,000 each winter. Since the multiplexing of the Festival’s regular venue, the Regent Theatre in 1995, the Festival attendance in Christchurch dropped to the lowest per capita in the Country.

29. The 2010/2011 earthquakes initially saw further dwindling of audiences. The Festival found a temporary home at Hoyts in Northlands Mall, though the insufficient size of the cinemas did not accommodate prospective audiences. The Festival is financially dependant upon drawing large crowds.

30. The Festival is proposing, in partnership with the Isaac Theatre Royal to provide a permanent home for the New Zealand Film International Film Festival by equipping the theatre with Digital Cinema Projection facilities. This relationship would be in keeping with the calibre of the Festival’s venues in other cities: The Embassy in Wellington, The Civic in Auckland and The Regent in Dunedin. From a central city vitality perspective, the return of cinema to the heart of the city would be a significant step.

31. Other businesses in the area would benefit from the attraction of large audiences. Beyond Film Festival needs, smaller film festivals and local filmmakers would also be able to make use of the venue and projection facilities. The Theatre would also have increased flexibility as a venue for hire.

32. The Festival is requesting $70,000 from the Creative Industries Support Fund to be put towards the purchase of a Digital Cinema Projector, which in total will cost $86,066 to be installed in the Isaac Theatre Royal. It is anticipated that if funded, the first New Zealand International Film Festival in the Isaac Theatre Royal would be held in August 2014.

Chambers 241

33. Chambers 241 is located at 241 Moorhouse Avenue and provides an exhibition gallery, arts venue hire and subsidised studio space (six studios) for Christchurch artists. The gallery has exhibited the work of ninety Christchurch artists over the past 18 months and provides education programmes and opportunities for interns and arts graduates.

34. Chambers 241 was established in July 2011 to address the shortage of gallery and studio spaces for artists following the February earthquake. It is an active hub for the arts in the central city connecting with a database of over 2000 individuals and local businesses. The gallery aims to be self-sustaining by January 2016 with the ongoing development of income streams, from commissions from the sale of work, curatorial programmes, art rentals and venue hire.

35. Chambers 241 submitted an application to the first panel meeting of the Creative Industries Support Fund. Further information concerning the allocation of requested funds was requested and a revised application was submitted to the Panel. The current request is for $35,955 to be put towards capital items and operational costs including rent subsidies and accounting costs.

36. Chambers 241 has successfully addressed the need for affordable studio and exhibition space for artists in the city and has helped to retain a range of professional practising artists in the city. The Council support would enable Chambers 241 to continue fulfilling this function whilst working towards a sustainable business model.

Beatbox

37. Beatbox is proposed as an affordable, dedicated band rehearsal space for musicians. It will be part of the BOXed Quarter development on the corner of St Asaph and Madras Streets and will further add to the vibrancy of the area when completed.

38. Beatbox will be managed by the Christchurch Music Industry Trust, a not-for-profit Trust that hosts regular music development workshops and plays an important role in promoting Christchurch’s music industry. 100 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

8 Cont’d

39. Beatbox will provide employment and potential internships via the MAINZ audio school, CPIT and Canterbury University.

40. The Christchurch Music Industry Trust has successfully fundraised $500,000 towards the project. Creative New Zealand has tagged a further $50,000 towards the final building costs and views this has a significant recovery project. $80,000 has been requested of the Creative Industries Support Fund to cover acoustic design and fit-out of Beatbox. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

101 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

102 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

103 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

104 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

105 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

106 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

107 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

108 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

109 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

110 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

111 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 Creative Industries Support Fund 112 Application Form

SECTION ONE: APPLICANT’S DETAILS

1. Name of applicant (group, organisation, individual)

ART CIRCUS TRUST

2. Main contact (for this application) Name Position held in group (if applicable) DEANE SIMMONDS TRUSTEE

Phone (day) Email address (03) 326 5751 [email protected]

Physical address

77 NAYLAND ST, SUMNER, CHRISTCHURCH, 8081 3. Bank Account Details - Attach a copy of your deposit slip when emailing your application.

Please note a bank account has been set up with KiwiBank and a deposit slip will be provided immediately.

SECTION TWO: PROJECT DETAILS

4. Name of project ARTS CIRCUS AT THE ARTS CENTRE

If there is not sufficient room for your answers to questions 5 to7, please provide your answers as separate, clearly labelled attachments.

5. Idea:

Arts Circus is about developing a thriving, diverse and sustainable evolving arts neighbourhood by building new performance spaces to replace those lost in the earthquakes by using a pan arts programme as a catalyst for our social, cultural and economic revival of Christchurch CBD.

The original proposal, developed in late 2011 in association with CreativeNZ and CCC, was to locate the venues on the old CCC Civic Buildings car park in Tuam St (next to the historic Odeon Theatre) which would tie into the developing arts neighbourhood with reference to Art Box, BeatBox, Life in Vacant Spaces projects. The project gained considerable support last year as an innovative transitional project that could contribute to the revitalization of inner city Christchurch. It featured in the CCP and negotiations with key council staff were progressing towards the establishment of a working group and discussions around the preferred Tuam St site. Arts Circus was included in the CCDU Blueprint, however, a site was not determined nor funding allocated. The preferred Tuam St site is part of the Frame (southern) and we have asked for clarification from CERA as to the availability of this site either in the short or longer term. We are still awaiting a response, but it is becoming increasingly probable that the site has been potentially assigned elsewhere.

In recent months new Arts Centre CEO Andre Lovatt has publicly stated that the opening up of Market Square is a priority. The Arts Circus Trustees have signalled to CCDU and CCC that we are very interested in Market Square as we could contribute to the reopening of the Arts Centre alongside other projects. This will help get the Arts Circus established and also allow it to be a potential long-term contributor to the renewed Arts Centre.

Simultaneously, we will continue to consider other larger inner city sites where the extended vision of the Arts Circus might still be developed as an integrated neighbourhood of arts and performance venues, with hospitality, markets and an interactive environment, continuing to develop the programme for growing Arts Circus within the CBD as further sites become available.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

113 This specific application is to fund the Project Management of Arts Circus development concept to initially fit into the Market Square revival at the Arts Centre. The application is for $80,000

6. Process:

The vibrancy of the site will attract hospitality, associated industry and business to develop around it. As a landscaped space, designed to be people- friendly, it will also align with the Christchurch City Council plan for a 'Green City' and will be managed according to the highest principles of sustainability, plus will promote pedestrian movement through the space.

The transformable structures and space will accommodate a range of art forms and architectural exhibits for a diverse audience: music, theatre, dance, visual arts, film, concerts, stand-up comedy, kapa haka, buskers, circo-arts, displays and exhibitions, etc. It is proposed that the performance and event programme will be populated by the city's existing festivals and established artists and will lead to more collaboration between artists and cross-over of forms and styles. Based on pre-earthquake audiences, we estimate between 250- 300K visits in the first 2 years.

The Arts Circus will also introduce new and innovative events in conversation with other initiatives arising during the rebuild. We are also exploring whether it might play host to smaller professional arts organizations that will help foster an exciting, dynamic culture.

The Arts Circus will provide a base for the city’s premiere festivals (including the World Buskers Festival, Christchurch Arts Festival, Writers Festival, Body Festival) as well as hosting innovative new events such as the Festival of Transitional Architecture (Festa). The Arts Circus will allow organisations such as Gap Filler and a variety of arts organisations to present projects and workshops. This means the Arts Circus will provide ongoing employment for the arts sector and associated industry. A cornerstone residency program will allow innovative national and international artists to work with local artists to engage with a city rebuilding itself.

Following international examples of urban renewal and economic revitalization, this initiative will act as a catalyst for hospitality, associated industry and business to emerge around the activity it generates. A central market place, themed restaurants and hospitality/venues, amongst a diverse range of art experiences, from the conventional to the experimental, will make the Arts Circus an international showcase for a community rebuilding with creativity at its heart.

7. People: (Provide brief biographies of key individuals and organisations involved in the development and implementation of this project).

Arts Circus Trust: An independent charitable trust has been formed to govern the Arts Circus which has been formerly approved by the Charities Commission (January 2103). The trustees include the creators of the project: Deane Simmonds, Jason Mill, Paul Calder and George Parker. Arts Circus obtained developmental funding of $25K from CreativeNZ – outside of this application, future funding for the project is being sought from CEAT (Prime Minister’s Fund), Vodafone Foundation, The Canterbury Community Trust.

Management: We are in ongoing discussions with the Theatre Royal Charitable Foundation (Neil Cox - ITR General Manger) with regards to creating and overseeing the management structure for Arts Circus. Deane Simmonds and Jane Gregg will oversee the development and management of the project. Jason Mill will contribute design expertise.

Creative Panel: The establishment of an Arts Circus Creative Panel will allow the full realization of the project. The Creative Panel will include the designers and management of the project working alongside local arts bodies and artists: Neil Dawson, Jenny Harper, Tom Rainey, Jodi Wright, Gretchen LaRoche, Marianne Hargreaves and Peter Falkenberg.

8. Letters of Recommendation: Provide TWO signed letters of recommendation from noted and experienced members of the Creative Sector, commenting specifically on the project. These should be attached as separate documents and clearly labelled.

2 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

114

SECTION THREE: BUDGET

9. Project Costs: Using the budget template, itemise the full cost of the project. Clearly identify the amount required of the Creative Industries Support Fund and what aspect this funding will be allocated to if the application is successful. Exclude GST and interest from your budget.

- Detail any, sponsorship, in-kind support (eg. volunteer hours), and other funds. Specify if these are confirmed or unconfirmed and what aspects of project costs those funds are intended to cover.

- Make allowances for appropriate insurances. Refer to the funding agreement template.

- If your application is successful, you will be expected to lodge an accountability report. This will include a financial report that will detail anticipated expenditure against actual expenditure. Keep receipts as you may be asked to produce these.

- Contact us if your are applying for over $15,000, as more detailed information will be required. Email [email protected]

Applications are more likely to be successful if they can demonstrate that projects are leveraging off other support and have a plan that ensures growth and sustainability of the project.

Sign the Declaration on page 4.

3 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

115

SECTION FOUR DECLARATION

I, Deane Simmonds, on behalf of the Art Circus Trust please tick

✔ declare that the details contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge; ✔ confirm that I/we am/are the applicant/s, or that I/we have obtained the appropriate authorisations to submit this application and make the relevant acknowledgements, authorisations, declarations and confirmations in full on behalf of the relevant person and/or organisation and any other person and/or organisation noted in this application; ✔ have read and understood the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) grant funding agreement template (the Template Agreement); ✔ acknowledge that CCC: (a) has the sole discretion to approve or reject applications; (b) will not enter into any further correspondence for unsuccessful applications; and (c) will not be liable for any loss caused by any reliance (whether perceived or real) on any unsuccessful application; and ✔ acknowledge that if my/our application is successful I/we be required to: (a) enter into a funding agreement with CCC that is in a form substantially the same as the Template Agreement, but that may contain additional terms and conditions if required by CCC; (b) complete or have in operation the approved project within 4 months of signing the funding agreement; (c) provide a project report within 6 months of signing the funding agreement; (d) participate in any audit or review conducted and required by the CCC or any other organisation; and (e) give positive acknowledgement in respect of the grant from time to time, as outlined in the funding agreement.

Privacy Act 1993 CCC will collect the information provided in this application pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993 (the Act). I/We: ✔ acknowledge that: (a) CCC is collecting this information for the purposes of considering and assessing the eligibility of this application, promotional purposes and conducting its relationship with the applicant (if the application is accepted); and (b) the information will be held by CCC and any personal information provided by CCC to other agencies will be held by those agencies; ✔ understand that I/we have rights of access to and correction of the information held by CCC in accordance with the Act; and ✔ authorise CCC to: (a) collect any information in relation to this application and the relevant person or organisation from any third party or source; (b) disclose any information to any third party CCC deems appropriate or is required to by law: (c) collect, retain, use and disclose personal information about individuals and organisations who are noted in this application for the purposes described above; and use any information received in respect of the application for promotional purposes.

Email your completed application form, with all attachments and supporting material to: [email protected]

4 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 Creative Industries Support Fund 116 Application Form

SECTION ONE: APPLICANT’S DETAILS

1. Name of applicant (group, organisation, individual)

Exchange Christchurch (XCHC)

2. Main contact (for this application) Name Position held in group (if applicable) Camia Young Founding Trustee

Phone (day) Email address +64 366 92770 [email protected]

Physical address

10a Sherwood Lane, Cashmere 8022 From March1st: 6c Rockview Place, Mount Pleasant 8081

3. Bank Account Details - tba

SECTION TWO: PROJECT DETAILS

4. Name of project Exchange Christchurch (XCHC)

5. Project Description

The purpose of Exchange Christchurch (XCHC) is to provide affordable workshop, office and rehearsal space for the Creative Industries in the Central City of Christchurch. XCHC is a spatial umbrella to form a collaborative platform for architecture, performing arts, media and associated disciplines. As such XCHC brings together creative minds like film makers, designers, theatre-makers, choreographers, musicians, architects, engineers and visual artists. As an innovative exchange platform XCHC explores new zones between disciplines and promotes this through public events.

The three key partners – the design and research project Studio Christchurch, Free Theatre Christchurch and the Christchurch Centre for Architecture – will bring together established Christchurch practitioners, innovators and emerging designers and researchers from all major universities throughout New Zealand. XCHC is conceived to become an active participant in the discussion and development of the Christchurch rebuild. The project is setup to localize a home for the exchange between creative disciplines and the general public. Projects developed within the facilities of XCHC will continue to provide the people of Christchurch with access to interesting and progressive arts and architecture experiences like large scale architectural installations and performances on an urban scale. As successfully proven with Luxcity and its connection to various Christchurch hospitality business in 2012, these projects contribute to enlivening the Central City and are of high benefit to the wider business community. XCHC collaborates with local and international institutions such as galleries and museums, universities, cultural institutions and independent Christchurch based artists and performers. The individuals behind XCHC are well imbedded in an international network of practitioners and researchers, which will allow for recognition not only in Christchurch but also on national and international levels.

ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

117

The Project focuses on 3 areas of operation: production, showcase and public exchange.

The XCHC project requires 800-1000 sqm of space and will be used in a highly flexible spatial configuration · office space for architects, media designer (10% of space) · workshop space for artists and designers (30% of space) · rehearsal space (actors) (30% of space) · storage (equipment) (10 % of space) · exhibition / performance space ( temporary use of rehearsal or workshop space) · Day café and occasional bar related to openings or events (10% + temporary use of the rehearsal or workshop space)

The XCHC project space needs to cater for two purposes: Non public activities: · Computer based design work (Architecture/Design/Media) · Prototyping and production (artistic installations) · Rehearsal space (performing artist)

Public activities: · Public architecture, design and media talks and lectures · Exhibitions · Performances and theatre productions · cafe/bar

The XCHC Project meets the funding criteria in the following: · It will attract the community into the central city with performance, entertainment and education projects. · It will act as a catalyst for urban regeneration, culturally, socially and economically by organising large scale public urban events such as Luxcity. · These large scale events will engage with the unique and distinctive urban character of Christchurch by bringing together artists, architects, businesses and the wider community. · It will create an exciting and inclusive environment through diverse public performances, workshops and exhibitions. · It will allow for established and emerging artists and architects to work together to create new and innovative, multi-disciplinary work. · It will give creative groups and individuals a stepping-stone to establish themselves and at the same time establish a sustainable creative industry distinct to Christchurch by providing affordable work space coupled with showcase space. · It will offer space for currently homeless organisations such as Free Theatre and CHCA. · It will offer new and innovative arts and entertainment experiences that illustrate the value of the arts to social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the city. · It will offer a creative example that will encourage other groups and initiatives to bring life to the new city.

6. Process and Time Frame

February 2013 - Legal set-up: The legal setup of the exchange is a trust consisting of 2-5 trustees. The Trust is currently in foundation. - Securing location: We have identified 800 sqm warehouse at 269 St Asaph Street as an plausible venue. The lease is set at $110,000 incl rates and insurance. We require funding to secure the location and commence the project. It should be noted that the leads in this prject have been looking for a space for over a year.

March 2013 - Preparation: The building will be prepared for the different occupants. The board will also prepare administration for the space, leading to a programme and timetable that reflects the various projects of the partner orgnisations in the XCHC. - Inhabitation: As soon as possible the building will be made available for the tenants. It may be that office space can be occupied while work on the larger areas is proceeding.

From April 2013 - Production: Each of the partners will organise events (performances, exhibitions, public talks/lectures) to be presented in the space over the year. Time and space will be made available for outside projects to come into the space (eg a touring production or exhibition) with the agreement of the board.

2 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

118

Year 1-3 - Start Up Phase: A within a 3 year period the substitution rent will decrease as occupants are expected to increase their income and to generate more own funding sources

Year 4-5: - Financial sustainability: The XCHC project will have achieved full financial sustainability. Trustees will be paid for their work according to contribution.

7. Key individuals and organisations involved in the development and implementation of this project.

XCHC Directors: Associate Professor Uwe Rieger studied Physics and Architecture in Germany. He is the co-founder of the Berlin-based interdisciplinary Artist and Designer group [kunst + technik] e.V and together with two partners the founder of the architectural office XTH-Berlin. Uwe Rieger has realized a wide range of architectural projects and experimental installations. He has been invited to exhibit his work at international key institutions and events like the Design Mai in Berlin, the Museum of Modern Art in Barcelona and Te Papa in Wellington. After teaching Architecture at various German Universities he joined The University of Auckland as an Associate Professor for Design and Design Technology 2006. Uwe introduced the large scale event and installation studios in New Zealand. In collaboration with all major architecture and design schools these studios have become a unique public presentation platform for architecture and urban design. Whether one- night events or week-long projects they have attracted thousands of visitors as key events of Architecture Weeks in Auckland and Christchurch (i.e: Amped in the Park 2011 with 76,000 visitors over 13 days, Luxcity 2012 with 20,000 visitors in one night)

Camia Young teaches design at The University of Auckland’s School of Architecture and Planning. The course she teaches, ‘Future Christchurch,’ aims to generate creative, practical solutions and deliver ideas to inspire quality design for the future of Christchurch. In addition to teaching, she is the liaison between The University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning and Christchurch. In this capacity she has assisted in the set up of Studio Christchurch, a collaborative Christchurch based research and design unit focused on praxis oriented outcomes with the intention to produce meaningful investigations and design propositions to contribute to the development of the city.

Outside of teaching Camia is actively involved in the creative scene in Christchurch. She is one of the founding trustees on the board for the Festival of Transitional Architecture (FESTA). Her primary role in FESTA in 2012 was two fold, first as an advisor to Jessica Halliday, the Director; and as a coordinator between The University of Auckland School of Architecture and Planning and FESTA for the Luxcity event. As well Camia was the lead designer for Gap Filler’s Summer Pallet Pavilion, a temporary events pavilion made out of 3000 pallets. There are three main aims for this project: to offer a space for events because so many event venues were lost in the earthquakes; to attract people back to the currently vacant city centre; and to inspire creative thinking through architecture.

Prior to moving to New Zealand, Camia was an Architect for five years with Herzog & de Meuron in Basel, Switzerland, two years with the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and two years with Studio B Architects, an architecture firm in her home town, Aspen, Colorado, USA. Beyond her work experience, she has three degrees in Architecture: a master’s degree from the Architecture Association in London, a master’s degree from the Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) in Los Angeles, California and an undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Organisations and Individuals involved: Studio Christchurch is a recent initiative to create a collaborative Christchurch based research and design centre shared between the four New Zealand architecture schools: CPIT, Victoria University, Unitec and The University of Auckland. This unit will focus on praxis-oriented outcomes with the intention to produce meaningful investigations and design propositions to contribute to the development of the city. A further aim is to enhance the international profile of New Zealand Architecture and architectural education. Studio Christchurch is a focused unit with a shared agenda based on the collaborative relationship amongst the New Zealand schools and the profession. Key to the success of this initiative is a central studio location as an active interface between profession, institutions and the public in Christchurch. Associate Professor Uwe Rieger from tTe University of Auckland leads this initiative supported by Camia Young.

3 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

119

Free Theatre Christchurch (est. 1979) is New Zealand's longest running producer of experimental theatre. The company serves as a laboratory for established and emerging artists to work together to create innovative, high quality performance work. Its original mission statement included the following objectives: to stage old and new rarely staged European plays in original translations, new New Zealand plays, and classical English texts in an unusual and experimental style. From the start the emphasis has been on non-verbal action and high production standards, discouraging the star system and encouraging long rehearsal and training periods in a company context. Over a series of projects that include Last Days of Mankind, Footprints/Tapuwae, Samson Airline, Fantasia, Philoctetes, Diana Down Under, Ella and Susn, Faust Chroma, Distraction Camp and Doctor Faustus, The Earthquake in Chile, Hereafter and I Sing the Body Electric, a committed ensemble has developed under Artistic Director Peter Falkenberg. The ensemble has ventured outside of Christchurch and received a number of awards and nominations, including an award in 2012 to tour its work Hereafter to the Adelaide Fringe Festival. Press Editor Chris Moore also awarded ‘Best Theatre Production for 2012’ to Free Theatre for I Sing the Body Electric. Free Theatre Christchurch is assembling a repertoire of old and new works to tour nationally and internationally, and developing an archive of its remarkable 33-year history. Respected New Zealand filmmaker Shirley Horrocks is producing a documentary on the company.

Peter Falkenberg is the founder and artistic director of Free Theatre Christchurch. Educated at the universities of Munich and St Andrews, he later trained as a director at Munich Kammerspiele before moving to New Zealand in 1975. Currently he is an Associate Professor in Theatre and Film Studies at the University of Canterbury and Director of the Te Puna Toi Performance Research Project. His work is highly regarded nationally and internationally. For example, in 2012 I Sing the Body Electric was described by reviewer Lin Clark as “a rare visitation of exceptional theatre” and was named by the Christchurch Press as the ‘Best Theatre Production of 2012’; in the same year, his Hereafter was described by the Judges of the Dunedin Fringe Festival as “compelling theatre of the highest calibre”. Other recent works include The Earthquake in Chile, which was described by eminent New Zealand historian Jock Philips as “one of the more remarkable theatrical ‘experiences’ I have had” and Faust Chroma, was described by Radio New Zealand’s Lynn Freeman as “mind-blowing”, “gutsy” and “quite unlike anything I have seen before”. Professor Thea Brejzek, Head of Spatial Design at the University of Technology in Sydney has said: "The Free Theatre under Peter's creative leadership has developed and consolidated into an internationally recognized group of theatre practitioners and researchers who are consistently at the forefront of the discipline's development." Falkenberg is also a filmmaker; his film Remake is loosely based on the Parker-Hulme incident. For 2013, Peter is developing an inter-disciplinary, multi-sited performance that considers Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in relation to post-quake Christchurch. He will also be directing the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra’s production of The Soldier’s Tale for the Christchurch Arts Festival.

George Parker is a long time member of Free Theatre Christchurch and the manager of Te Puna Toi Performance Research Project (Theatre and Film Studies Department at Canterbury University). In 2008 he completed a PhD titled ‘Actor Alone’, which explored solo performance in New Zealand. He lectures on New Zealand theatre and contemporary performance at Canterbury University and has written on the subjects for international journals. In April 2011, he was voted into the newly formed post-earthquake, arts-advocacy group Arts Voice Christchurch. He put forward the Arts Circus project as a wellspring for a wider River of Arts, which features in the City Council Rebuild Plan and the Government Blueprint. He also initiated and helped deliver the Festival of Transitional Architecture (FESTA) with a view to engaging with the extraordinary urban environment of Christchurch. In 2013 he will be developing and performing in Free Theatre’s Canterbury Tales, preparing a solo performance on post-quake Christchurch, and playing the role of the Soldier in the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra’s production of The Soldier’s Tale for the Christchurch Arts Festival.

The Christchurch Transitional Architecture Trust (CTAT) was established in 2012. Our objectives as set out in our Trust deed are: to benefit the wider community by promoting the participation and education of the public in the architectural environment of Christchurch, specifically to: a. Educate the New Zealand public about architecture, urbanism and the built environment through community participation; b. Develop, organise and present public architectural and art projects for the benefit of the community c. Promote exhibitions, lectures, workshops and associated events; d. Collaborate with organisations that have similar or complementary aims, especially those whose purpose is to enhance the recovery of Canterbury.

We believe Christchurch has an unparalleled opportunity to become a global epicentre for creative urban renewal through transitional, experimental and collaborative creative work in architecture, art, design and performance. To date, our major activity has been to initiate and deliver a new annual creative event for Christchurch: the Festival of Transitional Architecture (FESTA). FESTA 2013 will be held in late October and the programme is currently under development.

4 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

120

CTAT is looking for a home and we see many benefits in the opportunity to become an active member of XCHC. In 2013, CTAT would also like to take the lead in establishing the Christchurch Centre for Architecture (CHCA), which will present an on going public programme of lectures, tours, discussions, workshops, design charettes, exhibitions and events on architecture and the city throughout the year. This initiative is still in development but given stakeholder support and funding, XCHC would be the ideal location for the new Christchurch Centre for Architecture to sit alongside our annual FESTA activities.

Dr. Jessica Halliday is an architectural historian with a passion for public education and participation in architecture and urbanism. The earthquakes have had an undeniable consequence to the built fabric of the city, and while Jessica still invests her time in heritage concerns (like the campaign to retain the Christchurch Town Hall) her focus has shifted to include the future rebuild. Jessica is the Director of the Festival of Transitional Architecture (FESTA), which had its inaugural event in October 2012. As well Jessica is working with like-minded people to establish the Christchurch Centre for Architecture (CHCA), a new public platform that will embrace the past, present and future of architecture and the city.

Jessica completed her PhD in Art History in 2005 at the University of Canterbury. In 2008 she co-produced the short film ‘4 houses from 4 decades' with Zoe Roland & NZ Historic Places Trust. Also in 2008 Jessica curated the exhibition 'Constructing the Modern City: Canterbury architecture 1945-1975', which opened in the COCA Gallery October 2008. Jessica is a published writer with articles appearing in The Press, Architecture NZ, The National Grid as well as in several academic journals. Jessica often presents at conferences and has organized numerous lectures in Christchurch by local and international architects and architectural historians, including 2012's 'Re:Actions for the City' series, April-May 2012, with Christchurch Art Gallery. Jessica is on the national committee for DOCOMOMO NZ - the NZ chapter of the organisation for the Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement in architecture.

8. Letters of Recommendation

The following letters have been provided: · David Sheppard, NZIA President, in support of XCHC · Julia Morison, Artist, in support of XCHC · Tanya Muagututiá, Pacific Underground, in support of Free Theatre · Julia Milsom, Corrupt Productions, in support of Free Theatre · Tony McCaffrey, Different Light, in support of Free Theatre · Erica Viedma, Paul Young & Julia Milsom of ReMAP in support of Free Theatre

Expression of interest from project partners: · Jessica Halliday, FESTA & CHCA · George Parker, Free Theatre Christchurch · Elizabeth Aitken Rose, Head of School Architecture and Planning, The University of Auckland, Studio Christchurch

SECTION THREE: BUDGET

9. Project Costs: The financial model is set up to support emerging and new creative entities. The aim is to become self- sufficient in 3 years. We are looking for funding to subsidise the rent so that the group of start up creatives can establish their businesses. This subsidy is equally shared among the tenants, and will be reduced incrementally over the next three years. A unit price has been established as a basis for a one person or small enterprise, according to size each member is responsible for a specified number of units. There are a total of 30 units, 10 units go to Free Theatre and 10 units go to Studio Christchurch as these are larger ‘anchor’ tenants and will occupy a greater demand on the space. Smaller members, for example a graphic designer or an artist, would be responsible for a single unit. In the first year each unit is equivalent to $50/week. By the fourth year each member would be self sufficient and each unit would be equivalent to 230/week including all outgoings.

See budget template

5 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

121

SECTION FOUR DECLARATION

We Camia Young and Uwe Rieger on behalf of Exchange Christchurch Trust

X declare that the details contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge; X confirm that we are the applicants, or that I/we have obtained the appropriate authorisations to submit this application and make the relevant acknowledgements, authorisations, declarations and confirmations in full on behalf of the relevant person and/or organisation and any other person and/or organisation noted in this application; X have read and understood the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) grant funding agreement template (the Template Agreement); X acknowledge that CCC: (a) has the sole discretion to approve or reject applications; (b) will not enter into any further correspondence for unsuccessful applications; and (c) will not be liable for any loss caused by any reliance (whether perceived or real) on any unsuccessful application; and X acknowledge that if my/our application is successful I/we be required to: (a) enter into a funding agreement with CCC that is in a form substantially the same as the Template Agreement, but that may contain additional terms and conditions if required by CCC; (b) complete or have in operation the approved project within 4 months of signing the funding agreement; (c) provide a project report within 6 months of signing the funding agreement; (d) participate in any audit or review conducted and required by the CCC or any other organisation; and (e) give positive acknowledgement in respect of the grant from time to time, as outlined in the funding agreement.

Privacy Act 1993 CCC will collect the information provided in this application pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993 (the Act). I/We: X acknowledge that: (a) CCC is collecting this information for the purposes of considering and assessing the eligibility of this application, promotional purposes and conducting its relationship with the applicant (if the application is accepted); and (b) the information will be held by CCC and any personal information provided by CCC to other agencies will be held by those agencies; X understand that I/we have rights of access to and correction of the information held by CCC in accordance with the Act; and X authorise CCC to: (a) collect any information in relation to this application and the relevant person or organisation from any third party or source; (b) disclose any information to any third party CCC deems appropriate or is required to by law: (c) collect, retain, use and disclose personal information about individuals and organisations who are noted in this application for the purposes described above; and use any information received in respect of the application for promotional purposes.

Uwe Rieger, Christchurch 27.1.13 Camia Young, Christchurch 27.1.13

Email your completed application form, with all attachments and supporting material to: [email protected]

6 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 Creative Industries Support Fund 122 Application Form

SECTION ONE: APPLICANT’S DETAILS

1. Name of applicant (group, organisation, individual)

The New Zealand Film Festival Trust

2. Main contact (for this application) Name Position held in group (if applicable) Sharon Byrne General Manager

Phone (day) Email address 04 802 2570 [email protected]

Physical address

Level 2, 2 Majoribanks St, Wellington 6011 3. Bank Account Details - Attach a copy of your deposit slip when emailing your application.

SECTION TWO: PROJECT DETAILS

4. Name of project Equip the Isaac Theatre Royal (ITR) with Digital Cinema Projection facilities and provide a home for NZIFF while ensuring the ITR remains a flexible venue for optimal usage

If there is not sufficient room for your answers to questions 5 to7, please provide your answers as separate, clearly labelled attachments.

5. Idea: Write a maximum of 500 words to describe the project, its aims and how it matches the criteria and objectives for the Creative Industries Support Fund. Provide material that is in support of your application, for example a copy of a lease agreement. Clearly label support material.

The New Zealand International Film Festival (NZIFF) is New Zealand’s pre-eminent Film Festival by some considerable margin, drawing audiences of 220,000+ each winter. The lack of a Festival-appropriate venue does however mean that NZIFF attendances in Christchurch are the lowest per capita in the country. It also means that NZIFF in Christchurch currently lacks anything resembling festival culture and atmosphere experienced in Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin.

Outfitting the Isaac Theatre Royal (ITR) with Digital Cinema Projection (DCP) would provide a home for NZIFF, see the attendances increase, and once again turn going to the movies into an event. It would provide an impressive NZIFF venue to compare to The Civic Auckland, Embassy Wellington and Regent Dunedin without involving the costs of a purpose built venue. The projection unit in a DCP system could have wide AV applicability, both to other Festival and cinema events, as well as to other non-cinema theatre clients extending the ITR’s place an a flexible multi-purpose venue.

By creating a new home for NZIFF we will attract residents and visitors to the Centre City which will in turn provide business for local retailers – particularly cafes, restaurants, bars, shops and hotels. After the loss of a Central City venue following the earthquakes, NZIFF attendance dropped to 12,157 at Northlands in 2011. We would envisage that with a new Central City home attendance would return to in excess of 20,000-22,000. We hope over time it would far exceed this.

A new home for NZIFF would also encourage the general public and filmmaking community to engage more vitally with the filmmaking process and allow us to once again premiere the works of local filmmakers at true cinema event screenings. It would allow us to bring international guests to Christchurch to share their experiences, meet the audience and interact with the local filmmaking community. Their presence and ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

123 accessibility would help demystify the filmmaking process and stimulate the long-term recovery of the Creative Industries by encouraging the general public to engage with the artform.

Vitalising the culture and atmosphere at NZIFF in Christchurch will improve the vibrancy and environment of the Central City during winter, provide a sense of civic pride, and help residents and visitors connect with the recovery of the Central City by providing a sense of ownership of the event. It will ensure that both local and international filmmakers get the audiences they deserve and the general public don’t get turned away by sold out signs.

6. Process: Write a maximum of 500 words to outline how the project will be carried out. Include information regarding timeframes for the project and how the success of the project will be measured.

Equipping Isaac Theatre Royal for Digital Cinema What is required to equip the venue is:

1) a screen 2) a digital cinema projection (DCP) server/projector system 3) an audio playback system customised to the acoustic characteristics of the auditorium 4) a scaler to adapt input from other digital media

We are working closely with the Isaac Theatre Royal management and project team to determine how best to proceed to ensure the outfit has maximum benefit and allows for optimal usage. We have a commitment from Neil Cox, General Manager, that he would like to see NZIFF incorporated into the annual ITR calendar. We are currently working with him to outline the financial rental arrangements, and secure dates for the next five years. A prior long-standing booking in 2014 means that NZIFF would have to run later (and for a shorter period) than normal for 2014 but dates can be brought back into line moving forward. We see this as a long term investment and accept that 2014 will be an interim year.

NZIFF has engaged the services of a technical advisor who is providing us with advice, options and quotes. As the building plans have yet to be signed off, some changes are likely to be required, particularly in reference to the sound system, as work progresses. We will continue to work closely with the ITR team and our technical adviser on this.

We are currently commencing fundraising which will include applications to other funding bodies as well as private donations. We hope that the backing of the Christchurch City Council will provide the endorsement needed to assist us in securing the remaining funding.

Timeframe We would like to see the equipment secured and installed in time for NZIFF in August 2014. We hope to have the full funding amount in place by December 2013. Installation would begin in February 2014, subject to the building work being completed on time.

Measurements of success Increasing the attendances at NZIFF Increasing the atmosphere and vibrancy of NZIFF for locals and visitors Increasing the functionality of the ITR to potential hirers Increasing the attractiveness of Christchurch to NZIFF participants Increasing the profile of event screenings and live performance at NZIFF

7. People: Provide brief biographies of key individuals and organisations involved in the development and implementation of this project.

Bill Gosden (MNZM), Director of the New Zealand International Film Festival Bill has worked in cinemas since he was 16 and began writing about films in his high school newspaper at the same age. He became the administrator of the New Zealand Federation of Film Societies and the Wellington Film Festival in 1979 and was appointed the Federation's Programme Director in 1980. He was designated director of the Auckland International and Wellington Film Festivals after overseeing their amalgamation in 1984. In subsequent years he has overseen the expansion of the Festival into a national event, The New Zealand International Film Festival. He is the CEO of The New Zealand Film Festival Charitable Trust and

2 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

124 currently designated the director of The New Zealand International Film Festival. He has worked as a programme adviser to the International Film Festival Rotterdam and curated programmes of New Zealand film for the Australian Film Institute (Sydney) and Imagem dos Povos (Belo Horizonte). In 2012 he was appointed to the College of Governors for the Arts Foundation.

Neil Cox, General Manager of the Isaac Theatre Royal Neil Cox is currently General Manager of the 104-year old Isaac Theatre Royal Heritage performing arts venue in Christchurch and Director of Big Deal (Productions) Limited. Joining as GM of the ITR in 2008 he steered the Theatre to two of its most successful and profitable operating years in 2009/2010, as well as ensuring the venue recovered quickly and effectively from the 4th September 2010 earthquake, before the devastating 22nd February 2011 quake closed the venue and surrounding CBD. Throughout 2011 and 2012 Neil spearheaded the ITR’s $30M rebuild and recovery program, working in association with the theatre’s insurers, local and national government recovery agencies and various celebrities and philanthropists fundraising an additional $4M to the repair budget over and above the insurance shortfall. Neil continues to manage and direct the recovery program as it moves closer to reopening in mid-2014. Through Big Deal Productions, Neil has toured national and international artists throughout NZ since 1999 including Art Garfunkel, The Proclaimers, Little River Band, Air Supply, The Living End, Buzzcocks, Zed, The Dandy Warhols, The Veils, Salmonella Dub and many more. Neil also promoted the 2007 & 2008 Southern Amp concert festivals and was NZ South Island promoter’s representative for the earthquake relief concert ‘Band Together’, as well as Christchurch concerts by Sting & NZSO, Michael Crawford, and many others. Neil occupied key Senior Marketing positions for EMI Music International in UK, NZ, Australia & South Africa between 1992 and 2008 and also international marketing roles in UK with Warner and BMG Music working worldwide with music artists Paul McCartney, Coldplay, Tina Turner, Eurythmics, Cliff Richard, Crowded House, Nigel Kennedy, Radiohead, Blur, Enya, Katy Perry, Joe Cocker, Neil Finn, etc. Neil also chairs CHART (the Christchurch Music Industry Trust) and is a Trustee on the Board of the Christchurch Arts Festival.

Ryan Reynolds, Trustee, New Zealand Film Festival Trust Ryan Reynolds is an electrical engineer who turned to performance studies, receiving his PhD from the University of Canterbury in 2006, where he now teaches in the Theatre and Film Studies programme. He is president of the New Zealand Federation of Film Societies, Group Secretary of the Asia-Pacific region of the International Federation of Film Societies and a board member of the New Zealand Film Festival Trust. He is a long-standing performer and intermedial designer with avant-garde troupe Free Theatre Christchurch. After the September 2010 earthquake, he co-founded and now chairs Gap Filler, a charitable initiative activating vacant sites around the city with creative projects.

8. Letters of Recommendation: Provide TWO signed letters of recommendation from noted and experienced members of the Creative Sector, commenting specifically on the project. These should be attached as separate documents and clearly labelled.

SECTION THREE: BUDGET

9. Project Costs: Using the budget template, itemise the full cost of the project. Clearly identify the amount required of the Creative Industries Support Fund and what aspect this funding will be allocated to if the application is successful. Exclude GST and interest from your budget.

- Detail any, sponsorship, in-kind support (eg. volunteer hours), and other funds. Specify if these are confirmed or unconfirmed and what aspects of project costs those funds are intended to cover.

- Make allowances for appropriate insurances. Refer to the funding agreement template.

- If your application is successful, you will be expected to lodge an accountability report. This will include a financial report that will detail anticipated expenditure against actual expenditure. Keep receipts as you may be asked to produce these.

- Contact us if your are applying for over $15,000, as more detailed information will be required. Email [email protected]

3 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

125 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

126

PROJECT PLAN. OUTFIT THE ISAAC THEATRE ROYAL (ITR) WITH DIGITAL CINEMA PROJECTION TO PROVIDE A HOME FOR THE NEW ZEALAND INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL (NZIFF) WHILE ENSURING THE ITR REMAINS A FLEXIBLE VENUE FOR OPTIMAL USAGE.

About the New Zealand International Film Festival (NZIFF)

The New Zealand International Film Festival (NZIFF) is operated by the New Zealand Film Festival Trust, a charitable trust set up for the purpose in 1996. It is New Zealand’s pre-eminent Film Festival by some considerable margin, drawing audiences of 220,000 + to see the latest and best in international cinema every winter. It is unique in the world for taking place in several cities.

The broad scope of our programme caters every year to members of a large range of communities and special interest groups. The wide variety of films on offer ensures that NZIFF audiences range in age from seven to 97. The majority fall in the 18-55 range with a particularly strong 18-35 audience. We also strive to highlight a handful of specific "family" programmes every year.

An international reputation and a vast network of contacts established during NZIFF’s 44-year history ensure a gratifying success rate in obtaining the latest and best films.

Objectives

A Christchurch Home for NZIFF

NZIFF (and its earlier incarnation the Christchurch International Film Festival) has been presented in the city for 36 years. Since the multiplexing of the Festival’s regular venue, the Regent Theatre in 1995, NZIFF in Christchurch has been severely disadvantaged by the lack of a Festival-appropriate cinema venue. NZIFF in Christchurch since that time has experienced the lowest per capita audience in the country. (38/1000 cf 152/1000 in Wellington; 74/1000 in Auckland; 126/1000 in Dunedin).

The disadvantage of lacking a principal venue is two-fold.

First, there is the question of financial viability. Any festival is financially dependent upon the capacity to draw large audiences to its key events. The lack of a sizeable venue has seen the Christchurch manifestation subsidised, more often than not, by other cities. We have also been dependent on small art-house cinemas in the city to work very hard on very slender margins to accommodate our large and busy programmes.

For the past two years NZIFF has been accommodated at Hoyts, Northlands. 2012 saw an encouraging increase in attendance as audiences overcame their understandable reluctance to gather in darkened enclosed spaces. The unfortunate obverse is that once again we found ourselves turning away large numbers of prospective patrons from insufficiently capacious cinemas.

Negotiating venue rental at Hoyts has been a challenge, especially as the drastic reduction in screens in the city puts the existing facilities at a premium commercially. Currently our negotiations for 2013 are at a stand-still in the face of new demands from Hoyts relating to their digital equipment. ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

127

Second, there is the question of a festival culture. The foyers of our various venues, The Rialto, The Regent on Worcester and lately Hoyts Northlands, have certainly enjoyed the buzz of excited Festival audiences, but there has been nothing to compare with the particular Festival atmosphere that has been a highly attractive feature of NZIFF in the spectacular venues we enjoy in Auckland (The Civic), Wellington (The Embassy) and Dunedin (The Regent).

The last time Christchurch hosted a true cinema event was the premiere of Peter Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures at the Regent at the Film Festival in 1994. In more recent years several Christchurch filmmakers – Gillian Ashurst, Stefen Harris, Peter Young, Patrick Gillies, Gerard Smyth – have seen their premiere screenings at NZIFF dispersed over several sessions or over simultaneous screenings in adjacent small rooms.

The absence of a sizeable venue has also deprived the city of Live Cinema presentations: orchestral or other live musical accompaniments to silent-era films. These have been an exciting and popular feature of the Festival in Auckland (annually), Wellington (frequently), Dunedin and Palmerston North.

We have been reluctant to bring international guests to the Festival in Christchurch due to the lack of appropriate venues for significant audiences to meet them. In 2012 this entailed passing over the opportunity to have Sir Peter Jackson introduce the subjects of his documentary West of Memphis and participate in an audience question and answer session.

We are gratified by the readiness of the Isaac Theatre Royal to include provision for NZIFF in its substantial rebuild and refurbishment plans due to the extensive damage suffered in the 2011 earthquakes, and their annual events calendar. We welcome the opportunity this presents to plan a NZIFF commensurate with that enjoyed by the populations of Auckland, Dunedin and Wellington. Each of these cities brings its own distinctive flavour to the culture and experience of the Festival and we have no doubt that given a properly appointed venue Christchurch would do the same.

Funding Needed

What is required to equip the venue for Digital Cinema Projection is:

• a screen • a digital cinema projection (DCP) server/projector system • an audio playback system customised to the acoustic characteristics of the auditorium • a scaler to adapt input from other digital media

Conversion to DCP has been taking place in New Zealand since 2007, but the pace of change has been vastly accelerated in the last year. In 2011 the NZIFF was offered a dozen of its films on DCP (the internationally agreed studio standard for digital projection). In 2012 the overwhelming majority of our programme, including the most popular movies, was available only in DCP.

We believe that the call for 35mm film facilities is likely to be so negligible as not to justify the investment unless it happens that there is a written-off machine readily available and the space to comfortably accommodate it. ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

128

We are not seeking 3-D projection, but we are keen to see a 4K system as opposed to 2K system. More films than ever are being shot for 4K projection and several key restorations have also been prepared in 4K.

Extensive storage capacity is essential for any server being utilised for Festival programming. We suggest nothing less than 3.6 TB coupled with a CRU dataport ensuring swift ingestion times and an emergency playback feature.

We are seeking $70,000 towards the cost of the DCP projector with this application. The total cost of the project is estimated at $278,500.

Stakeholder Consultation

Sir Ian McKellen has lent his support as an Ambassador of the ITR rebuild. Sir Peter Jackson’s Wingnut Productions, Richard O’Brien, Bret McKenzie and Jemaine Clement as well as Miriam Margolyes have also provided their support to the ITR rebuild.

NZIFF have consulted with and received support from the following:

• New Zealand Film Commission • Local filmmaking community: Gillian Ashurst, Stefen Harris, Peter Young, Gerard Smyth, Mark Hadlow • Women in Film and Television, Christchurch (WIFT) • Canterbury Film Society • James Croot, Film Editor, Christchurch Press • Canterbury University: School of Fine Arts, School of Humanities • CPIT, Kay Giles, Chief Executive

In addition to hosting the NZIFF, there are other Festivals and cinema events which could and would utilise the projection facilities. At this point we have not sought support from these organisations in order not to imply any obligations on the part of the ITR who want to evaluate these events and organisations and enter into any relationships with them directly.

Examples of other groups that may be interested in utilising the facilities include the 48 Hours Furious Filmmaking Competition and the French Film Festival. The facilities would provide an excellent option for large film premiere red carpet events throughout the year.

The projection unit in a DCP system can have wide applicability in projecting other digital formats and should prove an asset to non-cinema theatre clients year round.

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

129

People

The key individuals are:

Bill Gosden, Director of the New Zealand International Film Festival

Bill has worked in cinemas since he was 16 and began writing about films in his high school newspaper at the same age. He became the administrator of the New Zealand Federation of Film Societies and the Wellington Film Festival in 1979 and was appointed the Federation's Programme Director in 1980. He was designated director of the Auckland International and Wellington Film Festivals after overseeing their amalgamation in 1984. In subsequent years he has overseen the expansion of the Festival into a national event, The New Zealand International Film Festival. He is the CEO of The New Zealand Film Festival Charitable Trust and currently designated the director of The New Zealand International Film Festival. He has worked as a programme adviser to the International Film Festival Rotterdam and curated programmes of New Zealand film for the Australian Film Institute (Sydney) and Imagem dos Povos (Belo Horizonte). In 2012 he was appointed to the College of Governors for the Arts Foundation.

Neil Cox, General Manager of the Isaac Theatre Royal

Neil Cox is currently General Manager of the 104-year old Isaac Theatre Royal Heritage performing arts venue in Christchurch and Director of Big Deal (Productions) Limited. Joining as GM of the ITR in 2008 he steered the Theatre to two of its most successful and profitable operating years in 2009/2010, as well as ensuring the venue recovered quickly and effectively from the 4th September 2010 earthquake, before the devastating 22nd February 2011 quake closed the venue and surrounding CBD. Throughout 2011 and 2012 Neil spearheaded the ITR’s $30M rebuild and recovery program, working in association with the theatre’s insurers, local and national government recovery agencies and various celebrities and philanthropists fundraising an additional $4M to the repair budget over and above the insurance shortfall. Neil continues to manage and direct the recovery program as it moves closer to reopening in mid-2014. Through Big Deal Productions, Neil has toured national and international artists throughout NZ since 1999 including Art Garfunkel, The Proclaimers, Little River Band, Air Supply, The Living End, Buzzcocks, Zed, The Dandy Warhols, The Veils, Salmonella Dub and many more. Neil also promoted the 2007 & 2008 Southern Amp concert festivals and was NZ South Island promoter’s representative for the earthquake relief concert ‘Band Together’, as well as Christchurch concerts by Sting & NZSO, Michael Crawford, and many others. Neil occupied key Senior Marketing positions for EMI Music International in UK, NZ, Australia & South Africa between 1992 and 2008 and also international marketing roles in UK with Warner and BMG Music working worldwide with music artists Paul McCartney, Coldplay, Tina Turner, Eurythmics, Cliff Richard, Crowded House, Nigel Kennedy, Radiohead, Blur, Enya, Katy Perry, Joe Cocker, Neil Finn, etc. Neil also chairs CHART (the Christchurch Music Industry Trust) and is a Trustee on the Board of the Christchurch Arts Festival.

Ryan Reynolds, Trustee, New Zealand Film Festival Trust

Ryan Reynolds is an electrical engineer who turned to performance studies, receiving his PhD from the University of Canterbury in 2006, where he now teaches in the Theatre and Film Studies ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

130

programme. He is president of the New Zealand Federation of Film Societies, Group Secretary of the Asia-Pacific region of the International Federation of Film Societies and a board member of the New Zealand Film Festival Trust. He is a long-standing performer and intermedial designer with avant- garde troupe Free Theatre Christchurch. After the September 2010 earthquake, he co-founded and now chairs Gap Filler, a charitable initiative activating vacant sites around the city with creative projects.

Management Plan

The outfitting of the ITR for Digital Cinema forms part of the wider rebuild and refurbishment plans due to the extensive damage suffered in the 2011 earthquakes. Outfitting the theatre for Digital Cinema will provide a more flexible venue allowing for optimal usage.

NZIFF staff and consultants will work closely with Neil Cox from the (ITR), and his project management team to ensure the best possible outcome for both parties. Providing a home for NZIFF and technical enhancements to facilitate cinema capability form part of the ITR’s 2013 Executive Summary.

NZIFF will engage the technical consultation services of Ian Freer from CineServe who will liaise with Neil Cox and his team to determine the exact specifications required for the installation of the projector, server, sound system and screen. Ian Freer will bring in other consultants as required to advise on the outfit.

NZIFF will be responsible (in consultation with ITR) for applying for funding to cover the costs of equipment purchase and overseeing installation.

NZIFF and ITR will enter a joint agreement on rental arrangements of the venue for the annual NZIFF and the ongoing maintenance of the equipment. Our application has the full support of the ITR.

Timeline

• January 2013. Begin consultation on the projection installation, screen system and sound system wiring to ensure that they fit with and are best suited to the redesign plans. Plans can not be finalised until the venues plans are locked off and building consent approved. • February 2013. Begin fundraising for the equipment purchase and installation costs. • May 2013. Finalise costs. • December 2013. Have all funding in place. • January 2014. Place orders for equipment. • February/March 2014. Begin installation of sound and screen. • April 2014. Install projector and server. • August 2014. NZIFF takes place for 17 days and will continue on an annual basis.

These timeframes are subject to the reconstruction of the ITR running to schedule.

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

131

Costs and Benefits

Benefits to the People of Christchurch

By providing NZIFF with a permanent home in Christchurch we can attract residents and visitors back into the Central City, support local retailers and help to create a vibrant Central City which reflects Christchurch’s unique identity in the following ways:

Increase visitation to the Central City • NZIFF draws Christchurch residents out of their houses and into the Central City and restaurants just as the harshest phase of the Christchurch winter sets in. • In 2011 our admissions at Northlands were 12,157, and in 2012, 14,910. These are exceptionally low on a per capita basis when compared with other centres. By creating a home for NZIFF in the Central City, we envisage the average admits annually over 17 days return to in excess of 20,000 - 22,000. • Out of town visitors will provide business, particularly for local hotels, restaurants, bars and shops.

Support Christchurch’s unique identity by improving the vibrancy of the Central City for residents, visitors and businesses • NZIFF is an ever evolving highly successful iconic event which with a suitable venue would enliven the heart of the Central City in the depths of winter and appeal to a diverse audience base. The ITR would provide NZIFF with a Central City home to match the atmosphere and vibrancy that has been a highly attractive feature of NZIFF in the spectacular venues we enjoy in Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. • Our general programming policies ensure that Christchurch audiences are able to see the films widely considered the world’s best; and to sample the leading edge of current cinema. Our timing, so soon after the Cannes Film Festival, ensures that Cantabrians are amongst the first in the world to see the films hailed as the year’s most important.

Strengthen and connect Christchurch communities • NZIFF works closely with various ethnic and community interest groups to identify areas of particular pertinence to them. • Interaction with schools encourages and facilitates early involvement with NZIFF. • NZIFF celebrates the achievements of local filmmakers with premiere screenings of their work.

Developing and supporting Christchurch’s Creative Industries

NZIFF fosters a cinema culture that is not dependent on Hollywood. This provides models of alternative cinema with considerable relevance to local conditions and enhances the environment in which local film culture can grow. ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

132

NZIFF provides leading New Zealand filmmakers with a high profile, internationally recognised premiere venue. Peter Jackson, Jane Campion, Vincent Ward, Niki Caro, Brad McGann, Gaylene Preston, Taika Waititi, Sima Urale, Armagan Ballantyne and Florian Habicht premiered their first features at NZIFF. A suitable Christchurch NZIFF venue would allow us to once again premiere the works of local filmmakers with a true event screening.

NZIFF offers a rare opportunity for local filmmakers to view quality international documentaries, experimental films, animations, shorts and archival programmes which would never otherwise be seen here as they are deemed non-commercial in such a small market by a risk-averse local exhibition and distribution ‘system’. International market and aesthetic trends can also be observed at NZIFF. Influential filmmakers whose first New Zealand screenings have taken place at NZIFF include Mike Leigh, the Coen Brothers, Lars von Trier, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Greenaway, Gus van Sant, Wong Kar-wai, Kitano Takeshi, Michael Moore, Zhang Yimou, Kryzsztof Kieslowski, Jane Campion, Niki Caro, Peter Jackson and Taika Waititi. In virtually every instance our premiere screenings of their work anticipated mainstream acceptance of these filmmakers by years. Our support for their work simultaneously promoted that acceptance, extending the boundaries of audience taste and expectation.

Wherever possible NZIFF expands on this role by bringing international filmmakers to New Zealand to present their work and share their experience with local filmmakers. A lack of suitable venue has prevented us from bringing these guests to Christchurch to meet the audience and interact with the local filmmaking community. The ITR would provide us with an appropriate space to do this. The presence and accessibility of visiting filmmakers also help demystify the filmmaking process for audiences and stimulate wider consideration of the issues facing practitioners. Additionally it will allow us to run workshops and discussion panels to foster and engender further discussion.

The ITR would provide an excellent venue for Live Cinema presentations: orchestral or other live musical accompaniments to silent-era films. This would allow for collaboration with local artists and arts organisations.

Building film industry relationships

• International filmmaker visits would increase, and interaction between Christchurch and international filmmakers and audiences would increase greatly. • Christchurch has a developing film industry and NZIFF works closely with various groups within this community (e.g. WIFT, Screen Directors Guild, Script to Screen, SPADE, Writers Guild, Canterbury Film Society and filmmakers – while some of these organisations have Auckland based offices, they all represent Christchurch practitioners) to develop this. We also work very closely with various media groups and individuals, sponsors and tertiary institutions.

Increasing Christchurch’s national profile

• NZIFF receives extensive media coverage through print, radio, TV, and online. • Christchurch premieres of local filmmakers work would receive considerable national media coverage, raising the City’s profile. Examples of this from other centres are Scarfies in ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

133

Dunedin which premiered the Festival and attracted a full house of 1800 patrons. The Strength of Water and Love Story both premiered at The Civic, Auckland. Two of the three films opened the Festival in their respective years and each received a vast amount of national press coverage including TV coverage. In comparison Peter Young’s film The Last Ocean was only able to accommodate 494 people across multiple Christchurch screenings in 2012. We could have easily exceeded this with an appropriately sized venue.

Increasing Christchurch’s international profile

• NZIFF is highly regarded and receives international recognition and acclaim.

“An indie Festival that loves film more than hype... The festival’s organizing idea, almost revolutionary in its simplicity, is to give movie-lovers throughout this island nation a chance to see some 150 features and shorts, a program of films that, for the most part, would never get commercial distribution...” − Joe Morgenstern, Wall St Journal

• Our visiting international guests develop relationships locally and would become ambassadors for NZIFF and Christchurch in their travels. Our guests have frequently told us that their experience at NZIFF is one of their best in their extensive travels. • By continuing to discover and nurture local talent we put Christchurch in the spotlight with the international filmmaking community. Our premiere screenings of their work anticipates and promotes mainstream acceptance of these filmmakers.

NZIFF Sponsorship

The following organisations are current sponsors/supporters of NZIFF. We have a longstanding relationship with many of these.

• Canterbury Community Trust • NZ Film Commission • Media Works • Rialto Channel • The Press • Ocean Design • Outwide • Park Road Post Production • Madman Entertainment • Kumeu River Wines • Epic Beer • Metro Magazine • McCollams Print • Flicks.co.nz • Embassies and cultural offices of Brazil, France, Poland, Germany and Taipei

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

134 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

135 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

136 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

137 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

138 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

139 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

140

To Whom It May Concern:

As NZ educators and filmmakers (as well as devoted Film Festival patrons), my colleagues Dr Mary Wiles, Dr Alan Wright and I fully concur with and support the NZIFF application to refit the Theatre Royal with a 21st century sound and projection system worthy of significant local and international film events.

Due to the rise of multiplexes all of the grand cinemas in Christchurch had disappeared well before the recent earthquakes leaving Christchurch without a suitable premiere cinema venue for over 15 years. The Theatre Royal with its spacious foyer and grand staircase would once again provide the city with a unique venue for special events without disadvantaging commercial cinemas that importantly focus on a more utilitarian enjoyment of films.

In the recent past, flexibility has always been an important facet of the theatre as it has been enjoyed by wide ranging audiences from fans of international rock bands such as “Sonic Youth” to fully orchestrated ballets such as “Giselle”. The projection facilities therefore will ensure that the theatre remains, as it always had been, a central celebration point for all the people of Christchurch to enjoy.

While the Film industry in Christchurch is very small it does however regularly “punch above its weight” with recent award winning films by Peter Young and Gerard Smyth being good examples in 2012. As Bill Gosden suggests there has not been a suitable venue to really celebrate their success. The Theatre Royal building being almost as old as the history of film would be a wonderful venue to premiere our local talent and inspire future generations. Fresh and innovative programming at the renovated theatre would galvanize the academic undertaking of Film programmes at the University of Canterbury, opening new channels of communication between practitioners and scholars, between students and the general public.

Finally I truly believe that the strategic funding of Projection equipment for the Theatre Royal will not only benefit the movie going audiences and devoted film students, but it will also ensure that the building remains, as it always was, a flexible venue. In that way Ballet, Opera and the Canterbury Symphony Orchestra will also benefit from the optimal usage of the building making the Theatre the “Center of Arts” in the “Centre of the Rebuild”.

Yours truly,

John Chrisstoffels Mary Wiles Alan Wright Senior Lecturer Senior Lecturer Senior Lecturer School of Fine Arts School of Humanities School of Humanities Canterbury University. Canterbury University Canterbury University

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

141

To Whom it May Concern. I am writing this in my capacity as a film maker to support the vision that the revised Isaac Theatre Royal be equipped as a cinema, enabling it to be Christchurch’s principal venue of the annual New Zealand International Film Festival. I first exhibited a film in the New Zealand Film Festival in 1994. Twenty years ago the festival was a very different affair. Fewer films came south to New Zealand and audiences were mostly the avid cinemagoers. But how times have changed. Bill Gosden’s New Zealand International Film Festival has grown here to be a cultural event of some significance. It has been wonderful to see audiences grow to embrace the opportunity to see the finest offerings of world cinema –some only months after completion. Alongside these internationally revered films, sit works by New Zealanders. Here Bill takes delight in locating and promoting our works. The effect is hugely warming for kiwi exhibitors and it’s here that many of us have found an initial home for works that then travel on to international festivals. Last year I was fortunate to be invited to the fabled Melbourne Film Festival where for 3 weeks every winter, the city’s focus is on celebrating film. Melbournians are enormously proud of owning this event. In no small way does MIFF contribute to the notion that this city is Australia’s cultural headquarters.

In Wellington and Auckland the NZIFF is celebrated in venerable surroundings. The Civic in Auckland and the Embassy in Wellington are the venues that make for grand social occasions as tens of thousands of New Zealanders rub shoulders and talk movies. But Christchurch has long lagged behind such a culturally rich occasion. And since the earthquakes, the festival has had to resort to screening in a popcorn smelling shopping mall environment. It just is not the same, and it does nothing to dismiss the notion that Christchurch people are not interested cinema. The earthquakes have taken so much. But just sometimes there are silver linings. Let’s bring the festival into the heart of re-imagined city. Let’s make the very beautiful Isaac Theatre Royal home to the Christchurch leg of the New Zealand International Film Festival.

Gerard Smyth Frank Film 312 Oxford Terrace Christchurch Central 8011 c 0212245123 e [email protected] www.frankfilm.co.nz fb 'When a City Falls' ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

142

January 16, 2013

To whom it may concern,

Christchurch audiences have embraced the New Zealand International Film Festival this past year. However, there's only one way for it to continue to build momentum in the city.

After last year was beset by continuing aftershocks, a populace fearful of enclosed spaces and an unusual snowfall, it was great to see the buzz around Hoyts Northlands in August.

The foyer of the six-screen suburban multiplex has been alive with the sounds of filmgoers discussing their favourite films and eagerly anticipating their next cinematic journey.

Kudos to the New Zealand International Film Festival organisers, Hoyts Northland staff and the citizens of our fair city for making the film fest such a success in 2012. I think it proved just how starved we are for quality "arthouse cinema".

But while that might been partly sated by the arrival of Alice's Cinematheque and the promise of a three-screen cinema at The Colombo (run by the indefatigable Rodney Cook and team) sometime early this year, they, Sumner's Hollywood or Northlands are not where the future of this showpiece of global cinema should be.

Long before the earth started reconfiguring and shattering Christchurch's cinematic landscape, the Garden City had a major void among its venues. Unlike Wellington, Auckland or Dunedin, for almost 20 years we have had no "picture palace" to turn going to the movies into an event.

Cathedral Square and surrounds used to be full of them, but through neglect and the rise of the mall multiplex, they all disappeared. Now, we have an opportunity to rectify that and create our own festival home to rival the Embassy, Civic or Regent, and it doesn't need to involve a purpose-built venue.

Right behind my desk they are in the process of bringing back to life the Isaac Theatre Royal.

It has hosted films before, between 1916 and 1956, and again briefly in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

With its grand interior, central location and impressive seating, it would ensure big festival films get the audiences they deserve and people wouldn't be turned away by sold out signs, as has frequently happened in the past decade at the festival.

Proving the Theatre Royal's status as a multipurpose venue, it would also help ensure its year- round use, but at the same time only take up just over two weeks out of what will hopefully be a busy schedule.

I implore you to consider assisting a project that would be of massive benefit of our great city and its cinema-loving citizens.

Kind Regards James Croot Film Editor The Press (Christchurch)

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

143

From: Martin Trusttum Date: January 25, 2013 3:26:28 PM GMT+13:00 To: "Ryan Reynolds (Gap Filler)" Subject: RE: Gap Filler phone list

Hi Ryan

Here is Kay Giles' endorsement.

CPIT would like to express its support for the inclusion of cinema capabilities in the rebuilt Isaac Theatre Royal (ITR). The ITR, under the leadership of its trust, is a key component in the rebuild of the Central City. Situated at the heart of the Performing Arts Precinct it is set to lead an arts and civic recovery by providing a magnificent resource for a range of cultural activities.

Working as a self-funding entity, the ITR would be even better served with an improved range of amenities that made it more versatile. This includes the proposed addition of equipment with full film facilities (sound, screen, DCP) in the process of its renovation. This would among other things allow groups such as the NZ International Film festival to use the Isaac Theatre Royal as its premiere venue but more importantly would allow Christchurch to hold other film premieres, and 'live cinema' events which is currently not possible.

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

144

LETTER IN SUPPORT OF ISAAC THEATRE ROYAL CINEMA REFIT

As president of the Canterbury Film Society I would like to give support on behalf of our members for the incorporation and funding of festival appropriate cinema screening equipment into the Isaac Theatre Royal for the purposes of NZIFF screenings and because such a cinema screening facility like this is lacking in the Christchurch scene.

Currently the only large capacity cinemas in Christchurch are in chain multiplexes of which there are 3 operating currently, Hoyts Riccarton, Hoyts Northlands, and Reading The Palms. Art house cinema facilities have been severely diminished since the Christchurch earthquakes and were prior to this inadequate for large screenings. Even with the rebuild which has seen the 38 seat Alice’s cinematheque open, and even with the efforts by the late Rodney Cook (of the former Academy, Cloisters & Metro Gold) being realised will be small.

Many of our members are avid NZIFF attendees and access to diverse cinema is core to both our society and the NZIFF. Cinema is not just entertainment but highly accessible cultural and personal exchanges of ideas and experiences and as such quality film is culturally important. The NZIFF is important to the New Zealand film industry as frequently the festival is the first screening of New Zealand made films that would not meet the commercial criteria for screening elsewhere. We want to see as much as is able to be screened in Christchurch as we frequently have a lesser NZIFF programme than other city centres. We want to see the NZIFF not only survive in Christchurch, but to thrive. Given that Christchurch has the lowest attendance per capita of NZ cities then we would like to see whatever possible can be done to create a stable suitable home for the festival which becomes a pleasure to attend.

Occasionally a small few of our members have travelled to see NZIFF screenings in other cities due to the lesser programmes here and the better atmosphere elsewhere, but for most this is financially untenable, especially as we have seen the rise in ticket prices. Investing in a Christchurch home for the festival is an investment in the cultural wealth of the city.

With the last 2 years of attending the NZIFF at Hoyts Northlands it has been apparent that this style of multiplex design is both limiting to a full festival atmosphere, and can cause confusion for the regular multiplex movie goers. There have also been sold out screenings which probably doesn’t encourage repeat attendance if it is the experience of the potential attendee to get turned away. Not to mention the booming sound from an action movie in the cinema next door during festival films can be less than ideal. I don’t see that changing multiplex venue will address these issues as they seem inherent in multiplex design. As a stand alone cinema venue the Isaac Theatre Royal would eliminate these problems and create a venue for other cinema events like orchestral accompanied silent cinema. We don’t even have the Town Hall for that anymore.

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

145

Seeing films in the Christchurch city centre has been a long standing part of Christchurch culture which still holds fond memories for many of us with the plethora of choice there once was centred on The Square, even with the decline of cinema in the 1980s, the city centre still retained The Regent, and for a while The Avon, The Metro, The Mid-City/Lumiere. Now all the city centre has is the new 38 seat Alice’s cinematheque. With so much of the cultural continuum of the city being demolished following the earthquakes, retaining some of heritage of cinema going in the city centre seems a vital part of rebuilding Christchurch’s identity.

Regards Eliza Hamilton ( president )

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

146

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ISAAC THEATRE ROYAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2013

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 1 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

147

1. INTRODUCTION The Isaac Theatre Royal has long been the premiere performing arts venue in Canterbury, a region which polls have consistently shown has the second highest number of attendees at performing arts in New Zealand.

A healthy arts sector is integral to a diverse and exciting community. The Isaac Theatre Royal Directors and Management recognise the role of the Theatre in the arts sector and specifically the performing arts sector, in the emotional mindset of Cantabrians, and in the recovery of our city and region. We are committed to the responsible rebuild and restoration of the Isaac Theatre Royal.

2. BACKGROUND The Isaac Theatre Royal (ITR) was subjected to severe shaking during the earthquakes of 22 February and 13 June 2011 and sustained considerable damage; this damage was exacerbated by the constant aftershocks and subsequent significant earthquake of 23 December 2011.

The Back of House, which was built in 2004/05, suffered only moderate damage and will be repaired, but the 1908 auditorium and 1928 foyer space was not considered repairable in its original form, due to the dangerous nature of the unreinforced masonry walls. It is noteworthy that the structural strengthening carried out in 1999/2000 prevented complete collapse of the theatre and enabled the retrieval of key heritage items and stabilisation of the Edwardian heritage façade, which will be retained.

Design is well underway for the rebuild with the objective to create a ‘new and improved’ Isaac Theatre Royal that has the original style and finesse of the “Grand Old Lady”, but with the structural strength well above required earthquake codes, and technical enhancements necessary to provide Christchurch with a world class theatrical experience in the strongest and safest theatre in the country.

3. THE DAMAGE The main areas damaged in the earthquakes comprise the auditorium, foyer spaces, ‘Poster Room’ and the ITR’s office area above the ‘Little India’ restaurant space. The damage sustained includes:

• Partial collapse of the walls and decorative plaster ceilings to the auditorium and foyer spaces • Subsidence of the foundations supporting the walls and floor to the auditorium • Uplift and flooding of the orchestra pit from liquefaction pressure • Partial collapse of the first floor office walls and roof parapets above the restaurant • Significant damage to the Heritage façade and western boundary wall • Damage to building services including heating, ventilation, lighting and fire safety systems

The stage, side stage and dressing rooms also sustained damage albeit to a far lesser extent due to the fact they were built in 2004/05 to much higher standards of earthquake resistance.

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 2 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

148

4. REPAIRS The ITR has appointed RCP (Project Managers), Naylor Love (Construction) and a team of engineers including Holmes Consulting Group (Structural), Powell Fenwick (Mechanical & Fire), architects Warren & Mahoney (Design) and Tony Ussher (Heritage) and Rawlinson’s (Quantity Susrveyors) plus a team of specific experts in electrical, technical, egress and accessibility design - for the rebuild/repair works. The reconstructions will need to comply with current, more stringent building standards with respect to increased earthquake resistance, fire protection, egress and disabled access. The heritage aspect of the ITR is extremely important to the city and where possible the team is working with NZ Historic Places Trust and Christchurch City Council’s Heritage Team to either preserve or faithfully reconstruct the interior heritage fabric so that, when complete, the historic venue will look substantially the same as it did prior to the earthquakes. The repairs will include: • Restoration and structural strengthening of the 1908 heritage façade • Complete replacement of the auditorium, foyers, Poster Room and western egress • Restoration and reinstatement of the original key heritage items: o Painted Canvas Auditorium Ceiling Dome o Royal boxes on either side of the Proscenium Arch o Leadlight interior “poppy” windows and original leadlight Façade windows o Complete retention of the Marble Staircase between Stalls and Circle Foyers • Recreation or restoration (where possible) of the ornate and decorative plaster work throughout the auditorium and foyer spaces • Reconstruction of the first floor façade, walls and roof over the previous restaurant space. • Repairs and replacement of the auditorium seating and venue services

5. IMPROVEMENTS In conjunction with the repair works, the team is also working on a number of improvements to the services and amenities of the ITR, including:

• An extendable stage via installation of an hydraulic pit lift across the width of the proscenium • New public Foyer space in the upper level Gallery and enhanced Stalls and Circle foyers • Extended toilet and washroom facilities on all levels • New multifunctional performance/function space off the Dress Circle foyer replacing previous Theatre Management office space • Improved accessibility facilities for disabled patrons including an elevator to all floors • New and relocated office space for Theatre Management above western egress space • New ticketing office and public ticket sales area adjacent to the Stalls foyer entrance and increased/improved bar facilities and public foyer space on all floors • Potential technical enhancements to facilitate cinema capability

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 3 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

149

6. TIMELINES The timeline for the reconstruction of the ITR, including most improvements, targets completion in 2nd quarter of 2014. The new multifunctional performance/function space and possibly the Theatre Management offices will be built on a different timeline, with a target finish by end of 2014.

The project is significantly more extensive in design and complex in construction than originally estimated. The Isaac Theatre Royal is essentially being rebuilt from Façade to Stage Front. Our target for reopening is achievable but does not come without challenges in such an intricate rebuild process. We have the best team available in research, design, construction, heritage, technical and project management on board for this extensive repair project and are confident the timelines are achievable.

7. COSTS The ITR is insured for the reinstatement of the earthquake damage with its insurers Vero and this is capped to $22.09M. A further $1M insurance policy is in place for plant/contents including movable elements of the flytower, grand piano, lighting & sound equipment, plus fittings, furniture and general theatre equipment. The reinstatement cost above the insurance cap plus the policy excess and improvements must be paid for by the Theatre Royal Charitable Foundation who have and will be embarking further throughout 2013 on a challenging fund raising programme to cover this shortfall, of approximately $9.5M. As at end of 2012, over $4 million had been already been raised or granted:

Lottery Environment & Heritage Commission - $2.13M Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust (CEAT, PM’s Fund) - $1.0M Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund - $501K (including personal donations from Flight of the Conchords, Richard O’Brien and Miriam Margolyes, amongst others) Sir Ian McKellen’s 15-show tour of NZ $350K Sir Peter Jackson’s Wingnut Productions $100K There have also been many kind and generous personal donations.

A further $1M of funding applications are pending with Christchurch Mayoral Fund, The Canterbury Community Trust, Mainland Foundation, Southern Trust and various other community support entities. We look forward to adding your support to the ongoing fundraising cause to rebuild, restore and reopen the Isaac Theatre Royal on time and on budget.

8. OUR CLIENTS The ITR is the chosen home for Royal NZ Ballet, NZ National Opera, Showbiz Christchurch, The Christchurch Arts Festival, Southern Ballet Trust, NZ Comedy Festival, CPIT Ignition and numerous International touring shows. The new technical enhancements will also allow the Theatre to provide a temporary home for Christchurch Symphony Orchestra, NZ Chamber Music, the NZSO and hopefully the NZ Film Festival. The ITR has been perennial supporters of the majority of local arts community organisations and will continue to provide affordable rates for the local community in the future.

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 4 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

150

9. PHOTOS

LAST PHOTO OF THE DRESS CIRCLE FOYER PRE-DEMO –

DECEMBER 2012

FAÇADE STRAPPED & PROPPED PRIOR TO DEMO OF FOYERS –

NOVEMBER 2012

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 5 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

151

THE DOME – PRE REMOVAL & STORING SHOWING DAMAGE – “A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM” –

JUNE 2012

PREPARING CEILING DOME FOR LOWERING INTO STAGE BOX AREA

JULY 2012

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 6 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

152

VIEW FROM WEST SIDE OF REMOVED AUDITORIUM WITH DOME SUSPENDED FROM FLY TOWER IN STAGE AREA –

OCTOBER 2012

PLASTER SAMPLES REMOVED FOR STORAGE & RE-MOLDING PROCESS –

JULY 2012

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 7 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

153

AUDITORIUM DEMOLITION SHOWING THE GALLERY STEEL BEAM SUPPORT FROM 1928 –

AUGUST 2012

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 8 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

154

THE END OF AN ERA – DIANA, LADY ISAAC PORTRAIT UPON FOYER MARBLE STAIRCASE WHICH WILL FOREVER CARRY HER LEGACY –

23 NOVEMBER 2012

Theatre Royal Charitable Foundation PO Box 13-473, Christchurch 8141

NEIL COX – General Manager 021 933440 | [email protected]

Isaac Theatre Royal – Executive Summary 9 4 December 2012 V 1.2

ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

155 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

156 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

157 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

158 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

159 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

160 ATTACHMENT 6 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 Creative Industries Support Fund 161 Application Form

SECTION ONE: APPLICANT’S DETAILS

1. Name of applicant (group, organisation, individual)

CHRISTCHURCH MUSIC INDUSTRY TRUST (CHART)

2. Main contact (for this application) Name Position held in group (if applicable) NEIL COX CHAIRPERSON

Phone (day) Email address 021933440 [email protected]

Physical address

2 HIGHVIEW LANE, CHCH 8081

3. Bank Account Details - Attach a copy of your deposit slip when emailing your application.

SECTION TWO: PROJECT DETAILS

4. Name of project BEATBOX Band Rehearsal Space at Boxed Quarter

5. Idea: Prior to September 2010 there has always been demand for a dedicated band rehearsal space for local and touring artists and over 95% of Christchurch’s music community support the creation of a multi-room rehearsal facility and music community hub (Online Musician’s Survey undertaken by CHART, Nov/Dec 2011). It is a stand alone project but is planned to be included on a shared site, using 360sqm part of a 2500sqm creative village to be known as the BOXedTM Quarter which incorporates an art gallery (ARTBOX via CPIT), retail space for small independent retailers, cafe and office spaces for creative businesses.

The BOXedTM Quarter is a development centred around a combination of art and music producing a precinct that combines office, hospitality and related retail. This creates a funky, upbeat neighborhood that sits in the young creative heart of the central city. BEATBOX (www.chart.org.nz/beatbox) sits within this environment and is an evolution of the ARTBOX concept – a modular public art gallery concept currently under construction. There are several reasons for adopting this building concept to create an indoor acoustically treated environment - steel framed (strength, safety, longevity) for modular, scalable, relative low cost, moveable, with indoor/outdoor applications.

The primary target ‘audience’ will be musicians aged 16-39 who would benefit greatly from a dedicated rehearsal space – safe, private, affordable. However, the use of the space will be non-exclusive and be available to musicians or entertainment of all ages and styles. The project will strengthen the city’s songwriters and performers’ relationships with each other and the wider NZ music industry resulting from it creating a known ‘community hub’ in the redeveloping Central City. Emerging talent will be mixing with established artists in an environment conducive to networking and collaboration, inspiring younger generations to grow a career in music and performance.

The project is to be managed by CHART – The Christchurch Music Industry Trust a music representative body for contemporary popular music in Christchurch, operating since 2006. CHART host’s regular professional development events, live music showcases, seminars and workshops and manages www.chart.org.nz - the garden city's music portal promoting the Christchurch music industry and showcasing the city’s music scene. CHART has had a successful 6 years in operation thanks to a dedicated board of active Christchurch music industry representatives, many of which have extensive local and international experience in managing and using rehearsal spaces. CHART is a not-for-profit Trust and will administer and manage the facility. ATTACHMENT 6 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

162 In association with F3 Design, Redd Acoustics, University of Canterbury, Marshall Day and various experts in the field, BEATBOX has the most modern design techniques employed to ensure Christchurch’s first dedicated music rehearsal facility meets the most up-to-date global acoustic requirements. This factor has been a major focus, and has taken time to master, allowing privacy both between the studios internally, the offices upstairs and the rest of the BOXedTM Quarter externally. This specific part of the build is vital to success of the entire project.

This application is to fund the extensive and UNIQUE specific ACOUSTICS and technical fit-out of the of the building which is vital in ensuring BEATBOX is compliant with any noise restrictions within the CBD by isolating sound between each of the 3 studios, as well as to the rest of the building and to the whole of the proposed BOXedTM Quarter. This specific cost is estimated on current build budgets (enclosed) at $80,000.

6. Process: The project has confirmed a location on the corner of St Asaph & Madras Streets on the site of the old Southlander Hotel, and has an agreement on the lease of the land which will commence from 1st April 2013. Design is in the final stages to provide draft plans to verify cost estimates (QS figures to be finalized). Valuable cost information is to be gained from the adjacent ARTBOX project which can be applied to BeatBox. Materials are currently being ordered with site preparation commencing from end Feb 2013 and completion targeted for August 2013.

Key earthquake recovery bodies have recognised BEATBOX as one of the essential central city arts projects being listed in the Transitional Central City Plan (and also referenced in the CCDU Blueprint) with the CCC Mayoral Fund providing a $80,000 start-up grant (February 2012) as a priority arts project (along with The Court Theatre and Artbox). The other principal project funders to date are CEAT UK Earthquake Recovery Fund ($50,000), Todd Foundation ($50,000), the Vodafone Foundation ($25,000), Canterbury Community Trust ($100,000), Lion Foundation ($45,000), APRA NZ ($10,000), Fulton Hogan ($70,000 in site and ground works + services), Billy Bragg Benefit Concert ($11,680) + CHART’s own contributions and fundraising donations e.g. ‘Love ChCh’ CD (a combined $58,350) totalling over $500,000 raised to the end of 2012.

The estimated project cost minimum is $780,000 with a shortfall (excluding unconfirmed pending funding applications: Fletchers/Placemakers $50K, CreativeNZ $50K) of approx $180,000.

BEATBOX building programme time lines are attached, CHART has approved for the consenting and build preparation to commence. Funds raised to date are currently in Term Deposits, excluding approximately $35K of Design costs already paid to design architects, F3 Design – www.f3design.co.nz

Potential Value For Money BEATBOX is looking to get maximum value for its capital invested in the build and also to ensure the visitors get a quality service and meet their value expectations. Thorough planning, consultation and advice should minimise the associated risks in the facility design and build.

Potential Achievability CHART believes this staff and personnel involved in BEATBOX have the available skills required to successfully deliver a quality rehearsal facility. The technical, business and industry support gained by the BEATBOX team is a significant factor in the decision to undertake the project.

Potential Client Affordability Musicians have been surveyed to see what level of charging might be acceptable with an average of $30 per session. The room sizes vary so will their hire out rate be determined by the size and use requirements. Being a community facility there will be some flexibility in charging for youth, community groups, etc.

BEATBOX will employee a manager to oversee staffing, OSH requirements, booking systems, facility policy and budgets for the complex. This person will ideally be well equipped to manage a NGO, understand creatives and be positive ‘face’ for the space. A part time administrative/finance role will be created to produce invoices, financial reports, payroll, tax and gst obligations. Part-time staff will be employed on a casual basis to take care of front desk/receptionist and the day to day running, maintenance and upkeep of the facility.

BEATBOX forecasts annual revenue of between $120,000- $150,000 from the rehearsal hire of 3 rooms and added value services (instrument and equipment hire and/or sale) with an estimated capacity of 5 sessions a day, 7 days a week for 45 weeks a year equating to foot traffic of over 100,000 visitors a year. The project will provide employment for a team of technically minded local musicians with internship possibilities via MAINZ audio school, CPIT, and Canterbury University. A $30,000 operating surplus is forecast in year 2, so financial support in year 1 as the facility is built, managed and marketed in its first 12 months will set the facility up for a successful first term (see budgets attached) ATTACHMENT 6 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

163

7. People: Neil Cox – Chairman (Brief biog attached) Jeff Fulton – Consultant David Saunders - BMA / Dip Rock CPIT – CPIT Jazz School LSDC Builders – http://lsdc.co.nz F3 Design – www.f3design.co.nz TRH Group – www.trhgroup.co.nz

Christchurch Music Industry Trust (CHART): An independent not-for-profit trust formed in 2006. The trustees include the creators of the project: Neil Cox, Jeff Fulton, Cath Andersen (CEO of NZ Music Commission based in Auckand), David Saunders (CPIT). CHART employs a manager Marc Royal (full-time) with assistant Nick Vassar (part-time) - visit www.chart.org.nz for all activities.

8. Letters of Recommendation: Various quotes and recommendations are included in the attached support information. Two signed letters, as requested, will be supplied post-application.

Additional Referee Contact name: Martin Trusttum, Faculty Stakeholder Manager (Creative Industries) CPIT Relationship: Project Collaborative Partner Best contact number: 027 5408559 Contact email: [email protected]

Additional Referee Contact name: Kent Gardner, UK Christchurch Earthquake Appeal (Awarded 2012 UK New Zealander Of The Year by The New Zealand Society) Relationship: Project Funder Best contact number: +44 20 7072 2202 Contact email: [email protected]

SECTION THREE: BUDGET

9. Project Costs: Using the budget template, itemise the full cost of the project. Clearly identify the amount required of the Creative Industries Support Fund and what aspect this funding will be allocated to if the application is successful. Exclude GST and interest from your budget.

- Detail any, sponsorship, in-kind support (eg. volunteer hours), and other funds. Specify if these are confirmed or unconfirmed and what aspects of project costs those funds are intended to cover.

- Make allowances for appropriate insurances. Refer to the funding agreement template.

- If your application is successful, you will be expected to lodge an accountability report. This will include a financial report that will detail anticipated expenditure against actual expenditure. Keep receipts as you may be asked to produce these.

- Contact us if your are applying for over $15,000, as more detailed information will be required. Email [email protected]

Applications are more likely to be successful if they can demonstrate that projects are leveraging off other support and have a plan that ensures growth and sustainability of the project.

Sign the Declaration on page 4.

ATTACHMENT 6 TO CLAUSE 8 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

164

SECTION FOUR DECLARATION

I, Neil Cox, on behalf of Christchurch Music Industry Trust please tick

 declare that the details contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge;  confirm that I/we am/are the applicant/s, or that I/we have obtained the appropriate authorisations to submit this application and make the relevant acknowledgements, authorisations, declarations and confirmations in full on behalf of the relevant person and/or organisation and any other person and/or organisation noted in this application;  have read and understood the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) grant funding agreement template (the Template Agreement);  acknowledge that CCC: (a) has the sole discretion to approve or reject applications; (b) will not enter into any further correspondence for unsuccessful applications; and (c) will not be liable for any loss caused by any reliance (whether perceived or real) on any unsuccessful application; and  acknowledge that if my/our application is successful I/we be required to: (a) enter into a funding agreement with CCC that is in a form substantially the same as the Template Agreement, but that may contain additional terms and conditions if required by CCC; (b) complete or have in operation the approved project within 4 months of signing the funding agreement; (c) provide a project report within 6 months of signing the funding agreement; (d) participate in any audit or review conducted and required by the CCC or any other organisation; and (e) give positive acknowledgement in respect of the grant from time to time, as outlined in the funding agreement.

Privacy Act 1993 CCC will collect the information provided in this application pursuant to the Privacy Act 1993 (the Act). I/We:  acknowledge that: (a) CCC is collecting this information for the purposes of considering and assessing the eligibility of this application, promotional purposes and conducting its relationship with the applicant (if the application is accepted); and (b) the information will be held by CCC and any personal information provided by CCC to other agencies will be held by those agencies;  understand that I/we have rights of access to and correction of the information held by CCC in accordance with the Act; and  authorise CCC to: (a) collect any information in relation to this application and the relevant person or organisation from any third party or source; (b) disclose any information to any third party CCC deems appropriate or is required to by law: (c) collect, retain, use and disclose personal information about individuals and organisations who are noted in this application for the purposes described above; and use any information received in respect of the application for promotional purposes.

Email your completed application form, with all attachments and supporting material to: [email protected]

4 165 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

9. FANFARE – A GATEWAY SCULPTURE FOR CHRISTCHURCH

General Manager responsible: Mike Theelen, General Manager Strategy and Planning, DDI: 941-8281 Officer responsible: Principal Adviser Urban Design Author: Hugh Nicholson, Principal Adviser Urban Design

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To seek the Council’s approval for the installation and maintenance of Fanfare, a sculpture by Neil Dawson, at the northern entrance to Christchurch on State Highway One just south of the Waimakiriri Bridge.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. Fanfare is a sculpture by Christchurch’s Neil Dawson that was commissioned by the City of Sydney for the 2005 New Year celebrations. It was raised from a barge at midnight and suspended off the Sydney Harbour Bridge for a period of three weeks. After this installation the work was dismantled and was held in storage until 2007 when it was gifted to the Christchurch City Council by Clover Moore, MP, Lord Mayor of Sydney (see Attachment 1).

3. The Council’s Public Art Advisory Group has been working in partnership with the Art and Industry Biennial Trust to re-site this major public sculpture in Christchurch. The New Zealand Transport Authority has agreed in principle to allow the sculpture to be sited on State Highway One subject to the sculpture being owned and maintained by the Christchurch City Council. Engineering feasibility studies for the main structure and the fans, which are part of the structure, have been completed, and a number of significant sponsors have been confirmed.

Fanfare 2005 at night suspended from the Sydney Harbour Bridge

Fanfare 2005 at night seen from Sydney Harbour 166 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

9 Cont’d

Fanfare 2005 under construction on Sydney waterfront

4. Fanfare is a spherical geodesic structure 20 metres in diameter and weighing 25 tonnes. It is fabricated from steel tube with 360 one metre diameter 'pinwheels' on the surface which spin freely in the wind. The pinwheels are mounted on steel shafts with sealed bearings and are fabricated from stainless steel. As part of the sculptor’s design, the work is capable of being dismantled and re-installed.

5. The sculpture offers an opportunity to create an extraordinary gateway for Christchurch on State Highway One just south of the Waimakiriri River and close to Chaney’s Corner. It would be one of the largest public sculptures in the southern hemisphere and would create a powerful iconic image symbolising the rebuilding of Christchurch and welcoming visitors to the northern entrance to the city.

Photomontage of Fanfare in situ on State Highway One at night 167 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

9 Cont’d

Proposed location of Fanfare on State Highway One

Close-up of Fanfare 2005 at night

6. The Council has already covered part of the costs of collection, transportation and storage for the sculpture. The costs of shipping the sculpture from Australia to New Zealand were sponsored by Neil Graham of Mainfreight Transport and the costs of storage in Christchurch were partly sponsored by the Port of Lyttelton. The Art and Industry Biennial Trust will project manage the installation of the sculpture. The installation is currently proposed to be completed by the end of March 2014. 168 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

9 Cont’d

7. Fanfare would be installed at the northern gateway to Christchurch and illuminated at night as a hopeful and uplifting signal of the rebuilding of Christchurch. The dynamic sculpture would be mounted four metres above the ground, responding to the changing winds that blow through Canterbury, bringing together public art, kinetics (movement), engineering, lighting and landscape.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. The sculpture has a capital value of $2 million and was a gift from the City of Sydney to Christchurch City Council. It is currently stored in Christchurch.

9. A cost estimate in February 2013 identifies the cost to commission and install the sculpture as $848,000 excluding GST. At the time of the cost estimate $730,000 of funding had been confirmed from a variety of sources including Leighs Construction, the Local Heroes Trust and the Christchurch City Council.

10. The Art and Industry Biennial Trust will manage a public appeal to raise the balance from individuals, families and corporates who financially contribute to become ‘Art Fan Club’ members. The installation of the sculpture is conditional on the Trust being able to raise the additional funds required and obtain the necessary consents for the structure.

11. The Council’s funding is primarily comprised of a commitment of $350,000 from the Council’s Public Art Fund. The Public Art Fund is administered by the Public Art Advisory Group which seeks to match public funding with an equivalent amount of private funding in order to provide better value for money. Council’s funding is included in the 2009-19 LTCCP.

12. The unfunded component of the project relates to the maintenance costs for the sculpture. A ten year maintenance cost estimate is included in Attachment 2. The maintenance programme is based around an annual inspection with some more minor repair work in year five and a full repaint and replacement of sealed bearings in year ten. The annual maintenance cost would be $3,000 per annum with costs of $10,000 and $55,000 at the five and ten year periods respectively. These costs would need to be factored into the 2015-25 Long Term Plan which will be prepared in two years time.

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

13. No, the maintenance costs for Fanfare are not included in the 2009-19 LTCCP. The annual maintenance costs can initially be accommodated within existing budgets, however when the next Long Term Plan is produced budget provision for years 5 and 10, in particular, will be required.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

14. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) has agreed in principle to site the sculpture adjacent to State Highway One near Chaney’s Corner subject to the sculpture being owned and maintained by the Christchurch City Council. Anderson Lloyd Lawyers are preparing and sponsoring legal services to prepare a draft licence to occupy for the Council and NZTA to review.

15. The site is designated as special purpose road zone and provided that NZTA support the proposal the sculpture would be a permitted activity. A traffic safety audit has been completed by Beca Infrastructure Limited identifying potential safety issues and recommending appropriate mitigation where necessary. The report’s recommendations have been accepted by NZTA and the agreed mitigation has been included as part of the project. The sculpture will require a building consent.

169 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

9 Cont’d

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

16. It is recommended that the Council approves entering into a licence to occupy with NZTA to own and maintain the sculpture on the agreed site.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

17. The recommendations support the Art Gallery and Museum’s Level of Service:

Develop, maintain and provide access to a collection of nationally-significant art.

And in particular the Activity Management Plan performance standard: 3.0.7 Administer to the CCC allocation for public art in Christchurch.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

18. The objective of the Council’s Artworks in Public Places Policy is:

To enhance the public spaces of the City of Christchurch by the introduction of artworks in to the city environment as a means to enhance city and community identity and to promote the City as a centre of artistic and cultural excellence.

19. The proposal would reinforce Christchurch’s role as the ‘gateway to the South Island’ and support the recovery of the tourism sector from the effects of the earthquake.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

20. The recommendations contribute to the achievement of the Council’s Arts Policy and Strategy and in particular the following outcomes:

 the arts are widely recognised as a means of promoting local community identity – reflecting who we are and creating a sense of local and national pride, and  artistic achievement and excellence are recognised and valued  the arts are an integrated part of all aspects of life, rather than a separate and distinct area of activity  the arts are accessible to all with participation in and enjoyment of the arts high.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

21. Key stakeholders have been consulted. No public consultation is proposed.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council:

(a) Agree to the installation and ongoing maintenance of Fanfare a sculpture by Neil Dawson at the northern entrance to Christchurch on State Highway One just south of the Waimakiriri Bridge

(b) Approve entering into a licence to occupy with the New Zealand Transport Authority regarding the siting, ownership and maintenance of Fanfare

(c) Note that the maintenance costs for Fanfare will be included for consideration in the draft 2015- 25 Long Term Plan. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 9 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 170 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 9 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 171

Job # FANFARE FOR A NEW CHRISTCHURCH Company : Art & Industry Biennial Trust Project Fanfare Sculpture - Neil Dawson 11-Dec-12 Subtitle Cost estimate Bid Currency : New Zealand Dollars

Project set up Project Funding Q/E Description Unit Qty Rate Amount drawdown drawdown stage 1 stage 2

Presentation and Fundraising Collateral Collateral Q Creation of promotional video item 1 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 Q Development of Fanfare website for fundraising campaign item 1 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 E Promotional brochure for fundraising campaign item 1 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 Q Production and supply of mini-fan brooches item 150 $43 $6,450 $6,450 Sub-total $11,950 $10,950 Maquette ChCh Art Production and supply of Fanfare Maquette, 500mm diametre, 1:40 Q item 1 $9,500 $9,500 Gallery scale - Neil Dawson - completed & paid Sub-total $9,500 Artist Fees Artist Fee Artist Fee - Neil Dawson, includes all consultation required on the Q item 1 $40,000 $40,000 $10,000 fabrication and installation of the sculpture. Sub-total $40,000 $10,000 Engineering Engineering Engineering Fees Fees Fees CCC Q Stage one: Structural Rua Moko - completed & paid item 1 $3,500 $3,500 Stage two: Structural Rua Moko - ($3,700 of this work completed at Q item 1 $14,750 $14,750 $14,750 16 April) Q Stage three: Structural Rua Moko item 1 $4,750 $4,750 $4,750

Sub-total $23,000 $19,500

Engineering Performance Review of Fans

Stage one:

Q Acoustic Review - Holmes Solutions item 1 $15,100 $15,100 $15,100

Q Structural Review - Holmes Solutions item 1 $32,950 $32,950 $32,950

Q Maintenance Review - Holmes Solutions item 1 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750

Q Development Plan - Holmes Solutions item 1 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500

Q Stage-two: Detailed Product Review: item 1 $78,850 $78,850 $78,850

Sub-total $138,150 $59,300 $78,850

Traffic Engineering Supply of Traffic Engineering Report (to include sun strike effects) : E item 1 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 BECA Sub-total $5,000 $5,000

Geo-tech Engineering

E Supply of Geo-Tech Report : BECA item 1 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

Sub-total $3,000 $3,000

Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Anderson Lloyd Q Resource consent preparation and submission - Anderson Lloyd item 1 $20,000 $20,000 Lawyers Anderson Preparation of contracts with CCC, NZTA, Artist, Lead Contractor and Lloyd Q item 1 $10,000 $10,000 Subcontractors including NZS 3910 - Anderson Lloyd Lawyers E Landscape assessment of visual effects report item 1 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500

E Consent processing fees item 1 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500

Sub-total $40,000 $10,000 $0

Setup Leighs E Landscaping item 1 $10,000 $10,000 Mitigate Leighs E Traffic management item 1 $5,000 $5,000 Sponsor Sub-total $15,000 Upgrade to Fans Leighs E Repaint fans item 360 $60 $21,600 Mitigate Leighs E Rework connection of main members - allow 1 per connection item 48 $250 $12,000 Sponsor Leighs E Replace bearings with low maintenance bearing item 360 $100 $36,000 Mitigate Leighs Q Replace 25% of fans, 4 blades per fan, price per blade - Prometal item 360 $26 $9,180 Mitigate Leighs E Upgrade shafts to low maintenance bearing item 360 $50 $18,000 Mitigate Sub-total $96,780 Funding Q/E Description Unit Qty Rate Amount Site Preparation & Foundation Leighs E Strip vegetation, cart away and dispose off site m2 67 $12 $771 Sponsor Leighs E Excavation m3 134 $23 $3,082 Sponsor Leighs E Formwork to concrete foundation m2 23.4 $91 $2,118 Sponsor Leighs E Base course AP65 m3 66 $91 $5,973 Sponsor ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 9 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 172

Leighs E Concrete columns m3 24 $345 $8,280 Sponsor Leighs E Concrete foundation m3 74 $345 $25,530 Sponsor Leighs E HD25 (T&B) kg 3969 $6 $22,821 Sponsor Leighs E HD32 kg 909.5 $6 $5,230 Sponsor Leighs E HD12 ties kg 67 $6 $385 Sponsor Sub-total $74,189

Upgrading of Sculpture Leighs E Galvanised steel support structure (escalated original cost) item 1 $48,000 $48,000 Mitigate Leighs E Sealing of ends of pipework Item 100 $200 $20,000 Mitigate Leighs E Upgrading Sculpture with replacement steel members kg 4395 $7 $30,767 Sponsor Sub-total $98,767

Lighting

Q Supply and install LED lighting with filter colour changer Item 1 $15,000 $15,000

Q First Maintenance for Lights Item 1 $4,000 $4,000 Leighs E Add in for foundations for lights Item 8 $500 $4,000 Sponsor Power connection from street lighting circuit, allow 100m of cabling, 1 E road crossing and trench. No upgrade of power connection allowed Item 1 $35,000 $35,000 for. Sub-total $58,000

Installation Leighs E Installation of Structure (Sculpture) hr 160 $85 $13,600 Sponsor E Craneage for Installation (assume 150T) Days 5 $1,500 $7,500 Sub-total $21,100

Other Costs

E Maintenance Costs - to be advised at stage two engineering item 1 $10,168 $10,168

Sub-total $10,168

Project Management - Art & Industry Project Stage 1: NZTA Presentation and Marketing Collateral Project Applied 25% drawdown Development Management Discount stage 2 E Project Costing - budget development including peer review item 1 $5,000 $5,000 $3,750 $1,250

E Project feasibility item 1 $10,000 $10,000 $7,500 $2,500

E Project risk analysis item 1 $5,000 $5,000 $3,750 $1,250 Travel costs to Wellington for NZTA Presentation - including flights E item 3 $600 $1,800 $1,800 and accommodation $21,800 $16,800 $5,000

Stage 2: Approvals E Managing approval and regulatory processes item 1 $2,500 $2,500 $625 $1,875 E Building Consent preparation and submission - administration item 1 $3,000 $3,000 $750 $2,250 E Resource Consent preparation and submission - administration item 1 $2,000 $2,000 $500 $1,500 Administration of contract preparation negotiation and execution - Art E item 1 $2,000 $2,000 $500 $1,500 & Industry $9,500 $0 $2,375 $7,125

Fundraising and Marketing E Develop and implement fundraising strategy item 1 $10,000 $10,000 $7,500 $2,500 Develop and implement aligned marketing and communications E item 1 $10,000 $10,000 $2,500 $7,500 strategies $20,000 $7,500 $5,000 $7,500 Contractors and Artist Liaison E Managing and awarding tender for contractors including artist liaison item 1 $3,000 $3,000 $750 $2,250

E Set up, monitor and run Project Control Group (PCG) item 1 $10,000 $10,000 $2,500 $2,500

E Manage and handover of asset and maintenance plan process item 1 $4,000 $4,000 $1,000 $17,000 $4,250 $4,750 25% Discount on A&I Fee item 25% $16,625 $16,625 Sub-total $68,300 $24,300 $19,375 Fanfare Publication E Printing item 1 $9,000 $9,000 E Editing & proofreading fee item 1 $2,500 $2,500 E Publication coordination item 1 $4,000 $4,000 E Designer's fee item 1 $2,000 $2,000 E Photographic documentation fee item 1 $1,500 $1,500 E Commissioned texts item 1 $1,000 $1,000 E Distribution item 1 $800 $800 Sub-total $20,800 Fanfare Launch E Invitation printing item 1 $800 $800 E Invitation design & photography item 1 $1,500 $1,500 E Event management & venue hire item 1 $1,800 $1,800 E PA system & lectern item 1 $1,500 $1,500 E Catering item 1 $2,000 $2,000 Sub-total $7,600

Sub Total ** $731,136 $142,050 $98,225 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 9 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 173

Preliminaries & General 5% $36,557 Sub-Total for Physical Works $767,693 Contingency 10% $76,769 $14,205 $9,823 Rounding Total $881,019 $156,255 $108,048

GST 15% $132,153 $23,438 $16,207.13

Estimate Total $1,013,172 $179,693 $124,255

Job # FANFARE FOR A NEW CHRISTCHURCH Company : Art & Industry Biennial Trust

Project Fanfare Sculpture - Neil Dawson 11-Dec-12

Subtitle Funding & sponsorship Bid Currency : New Zealand Dollars

CONFIRMED FUNDING $

CCC - Stage one: Rua Moko $3,500 Christchurch Art Gallery - Fanfare Maquette $9,500

Sub-total $13,000

PLEDGED FUNDING $

CCC PAAG Public Art Advisory Group $350,000

Leighs Construction Sponsorship $139,556

Leighs Construction Mitigate Sponsorship $162,780

Budget 50% Mitigation of Costs By Leighs ($81,390)

Local Heroes Trust $100,000

Art & Industry Biennial Tust in-kind project management $16,625 Anderson Lloyd Lawyers in-kind legal advise $30,000

Sub-total $717,571

PENDING FUNDING Art Fan Club Fundraising Campaign Unit Price

Sell individual & corporate Art Fan Club Package of Benefits 200 $1,000 $200,000

Art & Industry Trust Fundraising & Sponsorships 4 $25,000 $100,000

Pending sub-total $300,000

TOTAL $1,030,571 Surplus (shortfall) $17,399

Assumptions & Exclusions Costs associated with liquefaction excluded Assume that the power connection and capacity is available from the existing street lighting Galvanising of existing members allowed for, no painting allowed. Assume the bearings can be upgraded, no design currently. Art & Industry Biennial Trust Project Management total fee of $66,500+GST has been discounted by 25% being $16,625+GST (as in-kind sponsorship) 174 175 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

10. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

General Manager responsible: General Manager Public Affairs, Lydia Aydon, DDI 941-8982 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Communications Author: Linda McGregor, Unit Manager Communications

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To consider and recommend the adoption of the attached community engagement strategy for the Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The recent Communications Audit recommended that staff prepare a draft community engagement strategy and the Council resolved that this come to the Communication, Recreation and Culture Committee for discussion.

3. Staff have consulted with Community Board Chairpersons for their input into this strategy and have also taken into consideration the stakeholder engagement and formal consultation that is already occurring across the Council.

4. The strategy outlines ways to increase the participation of Christchurch people in dialogue with the Council on important decisions facing the community and increase residents’ awareness of the Council’s existing consultation and engagement processes.

5. It suggests that the Council builds on its formal engagement with a new range of initiatives focusing on innovative techniques, engaging online, reaching out to new people like youth, targeting key influencers and mobilising staff and the community as advocates.

BACKGROUND

6. The Council resolution noted that there should be input from the Community Boards and that the strategy should include a schedule of regular forums between the Mayor and Councillors and key stakeholders such as developers, investors, government departments, business sector, community groups, sports groups, ethnic communities and media. And that these be an opportunity for two way dialogue.

7. Staff have incorporated learnings from the successful Share an Idea initiative and looked at best practice and other local government engagement strategies.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. There is no budget allocated for initiatives outlined in this strategy.

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

9. No.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

10. Not applicable.

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

11. Not applicable.

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

12. 4.0.1 Percentage of residents that understand how Council makes decisions. 4.1.1 Percentage of residents that feel the public has some influence on the decisions the Council makes. 4.0.9 Proportion of residents that are satisfied with the opportunities to access information about Council decisions. 176 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

10 Cont’d

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

13. Yes.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

14. Not applicable.

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

15. Yes.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

16. Not applicable.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council adopt the Community Engagement Strategy for staff to implement. ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 177

DRAFT: 19 February 2013 Christchurch City Council Community Engagement Strategy

Council commitment to engagement: Community Outcomes for Christchurch1:

The public understands and has confidence in decision making

and:

People have a sense of connection to and participate in their community

1. Purpose of this strategy

The Christchurch City Council undertakes extensive community engagement, reaching out through a broad, formal program to seek the views of the people it serves. In the 2012 calendar year the Council conducted more than 250 formal consultations that generated more than 3800 submissions from the community on Council plans and proposals. Despite this, the Communications Audit in mid 2012 identified that the people of Christchurch feel they are not adequately consulted on Council decisions, or made aware of the rationale behind the decisions made.

The purpose of the strategy is to initiate a step-change in the Council’s community engagement practices, with two goals, to:

 Increase the people of Christchurch’s participation in meaningful, engaging dialogue with the Council on important decisions facing the community

 Increase the people of Christchurch’s awareness of the Council’s existing consultation and engagement processes

2. Principles

This strategy is guided by the following principles:

 The aim of engagement is to ensure elected representatives making the final decisions are well informed and fully aware of public and stakeholder opinion.  At the outset we will establish a clear understanding of the expectations for each engagement activity.  The extent and means of engagement will be tailored to each topic.  We will engage and consult with stakeholders on topics where there is a realistic expectation of a project going ahead.

1 Draft 2013 Community Outcomes for Christchurch - Council Plan 1 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 178

3. Context

For some time, the Council has been conscious of a need to improve the clarity, consistency and awareness of its efforts to engage with key stakeholders and the public on key decisions affecting the future of Christchurch.

The Consultation Review commenced in early 2010, defined five areas where the Council conducts formal, statutory consultation with the people of Christchurch:  Special Consultative Procedures  Resource Management Act  Reserves Act  Strategies, Policies and Plans  Capital Programme Unfortunately, the review was interrupted by the earthquakes and stopped short of outlining engagement activities against each area – on Capital Projects this is included in the new Christchurch City Three year Plan.

The Christchurch City Council Communications Audit 20122 identified the need for greater engagement with key stakeholders and the wider public as a priority for the Council.

4. Community engagement in a post-earthquake environment

Now more than ever before, the city is faced with momentous decisions that will set the direction for the future of the city and the lives of the people of Christchurch. This creates unprecedented pressure on the Council to engage with the public to gather their ideas, and win their support and trust. Compounding this pressure is an international social movement towards greater public participation3, facilitated by the louder voice afforded to ordinary people through the digital revolution and social media.

5. Importance of engagement?

A community engagement strategy is increasingly recognised as an integral component of effective communications planning for any public agency. An effective community engagement strategy can improve an organisations’ reputation, gain community support and buy-in on key issues, and highlight issues of importance.

Underpinning this view is a core value of the International Association of Public Participation, IAP2 which states: ‘Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision- making process.’

Effective community engagement is important to community wellbeing for two reasons:

1. It builds trust through sustained relationships between organisations, stakeholders and communities.

2 2012 Communications Audit Research Report: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/CCC-Communications-Report.pdf 3 International Association for Public Participation: http://www.iap2.org/ 2 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 179

In establishing and maintaining relationships with communities, an effective engagement strategy helps to build shared understanding and trust within communities and increase confidence in an organisation’s decision-making processes.

Sustaining relationships with communities also make it possible to identify and remove barriers to participation where they occur, clarify issues and opportunities, and identify the appropriate level of engagement required.

2. Community engagement helps an organisation respond to the dynamic and changing needs of communities.

The needs of communities will change over time, and from place to place, as the Christchurch earthquakes have demonstrated. The notion that ‘one size does not fit all’ is inherent to any effective engagement strategy, and reflects the need for relationships that help clarify specific community needs, issues and opportunities and how Council can respond effectively.

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) provides a useful guide to the types of engagement that could be used. Refer Appendix C.

6. How do we currently engage?

The Council has six dedicated teams directly responsible for community consultation and engagement:

Staff that lead or contribute to the Council’s formal consultation programme within:

 Public Affairs Group Consultation Team  Capital Programme Group Consultation Team  Strategy and Planning Group  Property Consultancy Team  Transport and Greenspace, and Asset and Network Planning

In addition, staff lead or contribute to a range of community engagement and development initiatives within:

 Community Services Group - Strengthening Communities, City Housing and Community Facilities; and Community and Safety Teams

Plus:  Councillors and Mayor – 14 elected representatives who make decisions on behalf of the residents of the city  Eight Community Boards – 40 Elected Members on Community Boards that represent the residents of eight Wards across Christchurch, with seven Community Board Advisers in support.  Stakeholder deputations to Committees and the Community Boards  The Earthquake Forum – information sharing public forum including CERA briefing

Plus:  Customer Service staff who directly interact with customers at Service Centres and the Call Centre 3 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 180

 All council staff

7. What other organisations also have engagement strategies?

With a number of areas of mutual interest, The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) also has a Community Engagement Strategy which has a goal to: “enable you and your communities to participate in decision-making around the rebuilding and revitalisation of greater Christchurch.”

On 16 January, 2013 CERA also released a draft Canterbury Recovery Stakeholder Plan to “provide a framework for the way CERA engages with stakeholders to lead, facilitate and partner to achieve recovery. Refer Appendix D.

8. Who do we engage with?

More than 4000 organisations are listed in Council databases and engagement with these stakeholders is tailored according to their relevance to the topic. Refer Appendix B.

The Council does not currently collect demographic data to enable it to establish a profile of residents who engage in its formal consultation programme on, for example, the Annual Plan, District Plan Changes, and Bylaws. However anecdotally, it is observed that those currently engaging with the Council tend to be older, 50 plus, often retired, home owners – people who are “civic minded”, and have motivation and the time to attend public meetings, and write submissions.

In contrast, the Council’s Share an Idea4 campaign, which collected some demographic information, attracted a more diverse demographic, engaging more broadly across the city’s population base.

Demographic Profile for “Share an Idea” Under 25 – 10% 25-49 – 53% 50-64 – 28% 65 and over – 9%

The contrast between these two profiles highlights one of the important priorities of this engagement strategy, which is to broaden public participation in and awareness

4 Share an Idea” was carried out in 2011, to gather ideas to develop the Draft Central City Plan 4 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 181 of decisions facing the community and the Council, reaching out particularly to younger residents of the city and key stakeholders.

9. What’s best practice?

In addition to attracting a broader demographic, the success of the Council’s Share an Idea campaign also demonstrated the benefits of a fresh approach to community engagement. This was a significant undertaking by the Council, and was a widely applauded initiative that enabled residents to be a part of the decision-making process for their city’s future.

Share an Idea generated 106,000 ideas for the rebuild of the Central City, which now form the basis for city planning. This was far in excess of our traditional formal engagement numbers. Refer Appendix A.

A desktop search of other Council’s websites reveals a number of other innovative ways Councils here and abroad are engaging with their communities, with use of online channels coming to the fore. Refer Appendix E.

The learnings from these successful engagement programmes inform this strategy.

10. Recommended strategy

It is recommended that the Council build on its formal engagement strategy by instigating a range of new engagement initiatives to increase the reach and diversity of those it engages with.

The focus to be on:  Employing a range of innovative techniques to ensure residents feel they are listened to and informed on Council decisions; that people understand the reasons for Council decisions, and the Council hears a range of views.  Developing the means for engaging with people online – discussion forums, interactive tools to create an online community that utilises the capability and growing relevance of this medium.  Reaching out to engage with new people the Council doesn’t touch through traditional, formal means – youth.  Engaging more closely with business leaders and key influencers – people who influence community opinion, are approached for comment/endorsement or who may be critical.  Mobilising staff as community “listening posts” and as advocates.  Raising awareness of the importance of community engagement and the opportunities for participation in decision-making.

5 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 182

11. Target audiences

In addition to the people it presently engages with through its existing formal engagement program, it is recommended the Council place special emphasis on engagement with these audiences:

 Youth  Stakeholders – key influencers  Business leaders

6 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 183

12. Tactics recommended for consideration

To deliver on the recommended strategy, the table below suggests some new community engagement initiatives, complementary to work already underway, for consideration:

Activity Outline Ballpark cost Face to face

“Meet the Council” Host community forums as required for local residents to meet Councillors and senior Council staff in an Venue hire, community forums & informal setting on key challenges facing the city – for example: pool in the east, Central City Library, Youth promotion, supp. key stakeholder Charter, Local Alcohol Policy. materials: meetings $30,000 Establish a monthly schedule of key stakeholder meetings

Council’s Conversation Two options are proposed for engaging local communities by this method. Promotion, venue Café costs, materials: 1. Trial hosting informal forums in local cafes an alternate venue to engage a different audience than those that attend Council’s formal consultation drop-in sessions. $10,000 2. Hire a venue/coffee cart and take it to specific locations or an identified venue to offer another form of engagement for local communities with Council.

Monthly Business Establish quarterly business leader forums for the Councillors and the Executive Team to regularly engage Existing budget Leader Meetings with the city’s business community as a key relationship building priority in support of the rebuild programme. Partially underway with the Mayor’s initiative: “Breakfast with Pictures”. Executive Team to continue to provide regular briefings to members of the business community.

Online

Calendar of community Establish a Calendar of the Council’s engagement and consultation opportunities on the Council website, to Existing budget opportunities, online raise awareness of upcoming opportunities to participate around Council activities and decision making.

Establish basic online Initiate new online engagement tools. This could include moderated discussion forums (e.g. Bang the To be scoped as engagement tools Table) to allow less formal public feedback, engagement, and debate around chosen topics or initiatives. part of an upgrade of the Council Online surveys/polls on particular issues or topics to gauge public sentiment and support. website & content Investigate alternative forms of reporting back to the public, such as digital ‘animations’, for example management ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 184

http://vimeo.com/49107391, to profile community engagement initiatives in a new way. system next year.

Community Board Establish an online presence for Community Boards – a dedicated “page” they can update with their meeting Part of website information online timetables, issues, points of contact and decisions. upgrade

Have Your Say Public As part of a possible revamp of the Have Your Say site/pages, provide short engaging summaries of Existing budget Feedback Summaries consultations to provide feedback to those who contributed, and the wider public, on the outcomes of completed consultations. This is currently not provided through Have Your Say and could be a demonstration project focused on informing the public how their involvement has an influence on Council’s decision-making.

New audiences

Youth engagement Work with Council staff and youth forums such as the Otautahi Youth Council to identify opportunities, Existing budget methods and issues that engage young people more compellingly in Council’s decision making. Or seek to engage on youth-led proposals from organisations such as the White Elephant Trust. In addition, review options to engage with children such as the Council partnership on the CERA led initiative: (http://www.theamazingplace.co.nz/)

Reach out to Maintain contact with and identify potential areas of support for the significant volunteer initiatives that have Existing budget Community Volunteers emerged post earthquake and represent a defining characteristic of the City’s recovery.

New suburban Work with Community Boards in supporting new residential communities that are forming rapidly (e.g. Existing budget communities Wigram Skies) to help identify local needs and support structures as these new areas are established. Underway.

Surveys

“Hot issue” surveys Establish a Citizen Survey panel online based on representative sampling that targets ‘the silent majority Panel: to be of residents’ defined as those who are not particularly interested in what Council does unless they are costed directly affected (est. 65% of population). (See www.publicvoice.co.nz). The aim would be to produce Omnibus surveys: monthly surveys to scope a range of topics that can provide a benchmark resource of public opinion as an aid to Council decision-making. $1500 - $2000 per question Include questions on “Hot topics” in omnibus surveys by external research companies. $8,000 for 5 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 185

questions

Council “Mall Surveys” Establish teams of Council people who will go out to Malls, and conduct quick-fire Mall Surveys on hot Mall surveys: and Farmer’s Markets issues. existing budget Establish a kiosk at Council events and on other community gatherings, such as, local farmer’s markets to Kiosk: $3,000 engage local residents and identify issues and opportunities they see for the City and their local area.

Tell Us What You Produce a branded card that enables residents to tell us what they think or to share an idea. The cards Printing, Think - Cards and Drop would allow people to quickly write an idea of comment down and place it in a drop box at Council libraries distribution, drop Boxes and services centres, and other locations (such as shopping malls, suburban centres). An online version boxes: using the same branding could be developed as a novel alternative engagement through the Council’s $8,000 website.

Staff

Staff as advocates Establish an intranet page for staff to raise public feedback they encounter about Council and provide FAQ Existing budget responses to inform them of the basis for Council’s decision making.

Build Stakeholder Amalgamate existing stakeholder databases to one, accurate up-to-date resource for use across the Existing budget database Council, for initiatives involving engagement.

Process enhancements

Increase awareness of Make more extensive use of Council’s communications channels, stakeholder databases and community Existing budget community networks to promote new and upcoming opportunities for the community to participate and provide feedback engagement activities on Council services and activities.

Establish Include a brief demographic section in all Submission Forms, to find out who the Council is reaching Existing budget demographics for through formal submissions. submissions

Establish “Engagement Establish a cross Council staff “Engagement Steering Group” that brings together all the teams managing Existing budget Steering Group”” community engagement to build collaboration, capitalise on resources and synergies, develop cross group initiatives and ensure consistency of approach.

9 186 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 187

13. Costs

The ballpark costs outlined are unbudgeted.

14. Measurement and evaluation

Each initiative would have targets for evaluation of their effectiveness in areas including:  No of online visitors  No of attendees at forums, events  No of comments in discussion forums  No of votes in online polls  No of Likes on facebook  No of stakeholders reached

10 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 188

Appendix A: Formal Consultations undertaken by the Council, January to December 2012

Consultations Via Have Your Say: 69 consultations

Community Board Meetings For all Wards: 139

Community Network / Liaison Meetings Strengthening Communities: 67

Submissions Suburban Centre Masterplan: submissions received: 527 Statutory Consultations, including 2707 for the 2012/13 Annual Plan: total submissions received: 3307

Plus:

Facebook followers More than 6,000 as at December 2012

Appendix B: Key Stakeholder List

The Council confers with more than 4000 different stakeholders throughout the city. These include the following:

CCC Elected Members Councillors and Community Board Members Tangata Whenua and Iwi organisations MKT - Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Onuku Runanga Wairewa Runanga Incl He Oranga Pounamu Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Te Taumutu Runanga Te Runanga o Koukourarata Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka Residents Groups and Associations Various throughout the city Assoc’s, Trusts, Societies & Advocacy Groups Age Concern Canterbury Akaroa Civic Trust Banks Peninsula A & P Society Canterbury Hospitality Group Canterbury Youth Workers Collective Council of Social Services (CoSS) Deaf Association of New Zealand Grey Power Federations Roimata Community Incorporated Society Royal NZ Foundation of the Blind Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) CANCern Adult Reading Assistance Scheme (Christchurch) Inc (ARAS) Lansdowne Management Committee Like Minds Network 11 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 189

Glenelg Children’s Health Camp Canterbury Youth Workers Collective (CYWC) Network Waitangi Otautahi Allandale Reserves Management Committee Business Groups and Industry Contacts Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Federated Farmers Lyttelton Harbour Business Association New Zealand Retailers Association New Zealand Institute of Management Canterbury Road Transport Association NZ Central City Business Association High Street Group New Regent Street Network Ballantyne & Co Ltd NZ Historic Places Trust Property Council New Zealand Orion NZ Limited Christchurch & Canterbury Marketing Ltd Christchurch International Airport Ltd Canterbury Development Corporation (CDC) Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society Health Community and Public Health Canterbury District Health Board Relationship Services Epilepsy Association PHA - Public Health Association Alcohol Advisory Council of NZ Plunket Partnership Health Canterbury Disabled Persons Centre Government and Local Government Agencies CERA Department of Conservation Environment Canterbury Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs The Department of Internal Affairs Commerce Commission Selwyn District Council Waimakariri District Council Landcare Research Department of Building and Housing Child, Youth and Family Families Commission Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) Department of Corrections Ministry of Education Waimakariri District Council Police Civil Defence, Akaroa Ward Arts Christchurch Community Arts Council (CCAC)

12 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 190

Southern Opera Arts Canterbury Inc Art & Industry Biennial Trust Christchurch Symphony Orchestra Education Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology University of Canterbury Aoraki Polytechnic Lincoln University University of Otago Rewi Alley Education and Cultural Centre OSCAR Network in Christchurch Inc Kidsfirst Kindergartens Culturally & Linguistically Diverse groups Christchurch Multicultural Council Christchurch Resettlement Services Refugee and New Migrant Forum Rewi Alley Education and Cultural Centre MPs National & Local Hon Gerry Brownlee MP Hon David Carter MP Hon Lianne Dalziel MP Mrs Amy Adams MP Hon Ruth Dyson MP Mr Phil Heatley MP Mrs Nicky Wagner MP Mrs Kate Wilkinson MP Dr Megan Woods MP Religious Groups Methodist Mission Avonhead Baptist Church Presbyterian Support Anglican Care Sport and Recreation Pioneer Recreation and Sport Centre KiwiAble Canterbury Rugby Football Union Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association Inc Sport Canterbury Christchurch Netball Centre Aquagym Canterbury Cricket Association Canterbury Masters Athletics Canterbury Hockey Association (Inc) SPARC Spokes (Canterbury Cyclists Assn) Media Local and national: print, radio, TV, online

13 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 191

Appendix C: IAP2 - Public Participation Spectrum

Appendix D: CERA DRAFT Canterbury Recovery Stakeholder Plan

Canterbury Recovery Stakeholder Plan - 16

14 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013 192

Appendix E: Examples of best practice online engagement from other Councils

Rotorua Youth Council Initiative: http://www.localgovernmentmag.co.nz/News/LatestNews/tabid/387/articleType/Articl eView/articleId/3974/Parks-for-youth--by-youth.aspx

Bang the Table – community engagement for City Councils: Budget Allocator: http://pmhc.budgetallocator.com http://talkvancouver.com/budget2012 http://northsydney.budgetallocator.com http://marion.budgetallocator.com http://burnsidebudget2012-13.budgetallocator.com

Community Planning: http://makingmarion.com.au/communityplan http://yoursaywarringah.com.au/budget2012 http://werelisteningmellville.com.au/communityplan http://yourviewhq.holdfast.sa.gov.au/ourplacecommunityplan http://yoursay.cairns.qld.gov.au/imaginetomorrow3 http://letstalkrichmond.ca/lets-talk-official-community-plan http://yoursaymarrickville.com.au/

Porirua City Council engagement platform – Buzz It: http://www.buzzit.co.nz/buzzit-products/

Porirua City Council proposal to introduce e-voting, halted by Prime Minister: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/126902/pm-quashes-porirua-move-to-trial-e- voting

Public Leaders Award for community engagement in the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/nov/20/genius-city-york- community-engagement-winner

Council partnership on the CERA led initiative: The amazing place http://www.theamazingplace.co.nz/

15 193 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

11. REPORT FROM CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE - ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORKING PARTIES FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS AUDIT REVIEW

PURPOSE

1. The purpose of this report is to formalise the establishment of the membership of the Committee’s working parties from the Communications Audit Review.

2. At its meeting of 2 October 2012 the Committee decided to delegate authority to the Chairperson to establish the working parties outlined within the Council recommendations on the Communications Audit Review.

3. The working parties established to date and their membership is as follows:

(a) Communications Policy Review: Councillors Yani Johanson, Peter Beck, Helen Broughton and Jimmy Chen.

(b) Online Communication Tools: membership to be confirmed at the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the information be received. 194 195 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

12. SCARBOROUGH PADDLING POOL

General Manager responsible: General Manager Community Services, DDI 941-8607 Officer responsible: Recreation and Sports Unit Manager Author: John Filsell, Recreation and Sports Unit Manager

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. To seek approval to demolish the irreparably damaged Scarborough Paddling Pool and grass the area until a report is brought to the Council to consider options for the site.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. The Scarborough Paddling Pool is closed and has been fenced off to the public because of significant earthquake damage. Damage includes major cracking to the pool tank, broken underground pipework, slumping of the concrete surround and cracking in the block-work of the associated buildings. Damage is comprehensive and irreparable.

3. The site is fenced off and unattractive. It detracts from the picturesque nature of the immediate area. Fencing has not prevented the site being accessed by taggers and others which is both unsightly and dangerous. Damaged block walls, cracked pool tank and uneven concrete pool surrounds are an immediate health and safety hazard.

4. Any option for the future of the site will require the demolition of the pool as all the existing infrastructure is damaged beyond repair and represents an immediate and on going safety hazard.

5. The demolition of the existing paddling pool and the sowing of a grassed lawn to complement neighbouring parkland is estimated at cost of $50,000. Options for the site will be fed into Council’s Facilities Rebuild Programme and considered by the Council.

6. It is recommended that the Community Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve the demolition of the paddling pool and the grassing of the area. The rationale behind the recommendation is that:

 the damage is irreparable  the damaged pool is an immediate and on going safety hazard  the fenced site is being accessed regularly  the site unattractive and detracts from the picturesque nature of the area  options for the site will presented to Council as part of Council’s Facilities Rebuild Programme.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7. The estimated demolition costs of $50,000 will be funded from within existing Recreation and Sports Capital budgets. It is estimated that about $2,000 of the demolition cost can be recovered from the proceeds of an insurance claim. Demolition costs will be the same what ever option Council supports for the future of the site.

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

8. As above.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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

9. The decision that the Council is being asked to make is the demolition of a paddling pool that is damaged beyond repair, is unsightly and is unsafe. The Council is not being asked to make a decision on options for the site at this time. 196 COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMITTEE 5. 3. 2013

12 Cont’d

ALIGNMENT WITH LTCCP AND ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

10. The Scarborough Paddling Pool is one to the TOP 30 projects from the Facilities Rebuild Plan. At the end of September 2012, the Council agreed that 30 facilities across the City and Banks Peninsula should be prioritised for funding, further investigation and, where possible, repairs.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIES

Do the recommendations align with the Council’s strategies?

11. The Council operates and maintains paddling pools.

CONSULTATION FULFILMENT

12. The decision that the Council is being asked to make is the demolition of a paddling pool that is damaged beyond repair, is unsightly and is unsafe. This does not require further consultation.

13. The long term options for the site will be brought to the Council as part of the Council’s Facilities Rebuild Programme. Appropriate consultation with the local Community Board will form part of the process for this facility.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

That the Community Recreation and Culture Committee recommend that the Council approve:

(a) The demolition of the existing paddling pool at Scarborough and the grassing of the site.

(b) That the consideration of options for the site be brought back to the Council as part of the Council’s Facilities Rebuild Programme process and after appropriate consultation with the local Community Board.