Submissions on the Christchurch City Council Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
Heard Submissions
Volume 1
Monday 11 May 2015
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 2015-25
SUBMITTERS WHO WISH TO BE HEARD
MONDAY 11 MAY 2015
Submission Page Time Submitter No No Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce 1:00 pm 12470 2 - Peter Townsend Central City Business Association 1:20 pm 13048 14 - Antony Gough and Lisa Goodman New Brighton Business and Landowners' Association 1:30 pm 13662 18 - Paul Zannen New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association 1:40 pm 14383 39 - Peter Suckling Unions Canterbury 1:50 pm 12432 42 - Karena Brown Rail and Maritime Transport Union Lyttelton Port and Rail 2:00 pm 12364 50 Branches - John Kerr Rail and Maritime Transport Union - South Island 2:10 pm 12343 52 - John Kerr Alliance Party 2:20 pm 12667 53 - Kevin Campbell Christchurch & Canterbury Tourism 2:30 pm 13020 54 - Timothy Hunter Labour Party Christchurch Central South Branch 2:40 pm 13606 65 - Peter Tuffley J. Ballantyne & Co Ltd 2:50 pm 13360 67 - Philip Richards Lyttelton Harbour Business Association 3:00 pm 13639 69 - Lottie Harris Project Lyttelton Inc 3:10 pm 13770 73 - Wendy Everingham Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee 3:20 pm 12544 76 - Pam Richardson 3:30 pm BREAK
4 pm - 8 pm COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSIONS
13724 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board 79
13792 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board 87
13811 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 94
13736 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 105
14370 Shirley/Papanui Community Board 109
13806 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board 115
14576 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board 118
13788 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board 122
- 1 - - 2 -
Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document”
Prepared by Peter Townsend April 2015
1. INTRODUCTION
The Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce (CECC) is pleased to submit in response to the “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document relating to the Long Term Plan” (LTP).
We consider this LTP to be the most critical in living history and one that will have more influence in determining the future direction of our city than any other plan to date. We understand that the LTP process and required inputs are described by the Local Government Act 2002 and subsequent amendments in 2014 which now require that the LTP include a financial strategy and infrastructure strategy. Clearly this plan is positioned very much in the context of city recovering and involves trade-offs and compromise to achieve optimal outcomes. It is a plan that is in the context of a city that is facing major financial shortfalls (currently projected at $1.2 billion) and some hard choices in this context. It is critical as a city we understand that: a. This is a time for calm heads and brave decisions. b. We need to work from first principles and have a strong vision for our city. c. There needs to be a significant emphasis on strategic thinking. d. We need to recognise that we are going to have to do things differently in the future than we have done in the past. e. There are serious considerations around long term benefits vs short term savings. f. We need to contextualise the central city as an ecosystem for generating growth of the wider Christchurch area. g. We have to carefully assess the level of capacity and capability the Council has to undertake its own on-going tasks. h. We need to measure how we are making progress in the context of this city’s recovery and growth.
2. SETTING THE SCENE
The LTP consultation document clearly indicates the most important issue that the Council is looking for feedback on, relates to the proposals for finding more capital and specifically the consideration of either wholly or partially selling down some of the Councils assets. There is a fundamental premise under-pinning the consultation document that the Council must create a new programme approach to financing, infrastructure, planning prioritisation, operation and implementation of its service delivery based on robust, interconnected and affordable infrastructure and financial strategies. It must do this in the context of an acceptance that all costs are not yet known or
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 1 of 11 April 2015 - 3 - understood. But we applaud the Council for being forward looking, for looking past the rebuild and for embracing a new brave and refreshing approach.
The Council is bound to stay within statutory limits (fiscal thresholds as required under current legislation) while undertaking earthquake recovery rebuild functions as well as its normal large asset maintenance programme and planning for future growth. The CECC takes some heart in the programme that is outlined in the plan and accepts the assurances that the physical systems and buildings that economic and social growth depend on, will be delivered. a. We note that the proposed base-case financial strategy involves releasing $750 million in capital by selling shares in some or all of the companies owned by CCHL. b. That rates are proposed to increase by 8.75%, 8.5%, 8.5% and 7.5% over the next four years. c. That the Council will be reviewing its programme of major works. d. That the Council will be relentlessly seeking further operating savings. e. The Council will manage its debt prudently.
We also note that the infrastructure strategy relates to a new approach to infrastructure investment and is being risk managed through prioritising renewals and replacements of identified critical elements of the three water (fresh water, sewerage, stormwater) and road networks. The rest of the asset systems are being “sweated”, suggesting that replacement will not happen until the asset meets 120% of its useful life. This means capex will be deferred, but will likely result in increased opex through increased maintenance and temporary repair costs and may also impact negatively on levels of service (through more disruptions).
The consultation document also describes transformation opportunities to build back a better city, including: a. Regenerating and developing the residential red zone. b. Creating a world class network of cycleways and the shift in the travel options available to people. c. Restoring the Avon and Heathcote Rivers.
The challenges facing the Council over the next ten years are enormous, but if the right decisions are made and implemented we believe the Council will play a positive and critical role in assuring our city’s robust future.
3. RISKS
Given the enormity of the undertaking facing the Council we believe it is appropriate to highlight our interpretation of the major risks to good outcomes:
3.1. The infrastructure (and resultant financial) strategies are aiming to meet a set of social, economic and environmental outcomes. However, in this phase of recovery, there are many moving parts to a complex rebuild, with multiple internal CCC programmes as well as multiple other programmes (such as the Crown’s rebuild programmes). This highlights risks to successful outcomes for the community. The good news is that these are acknowledged by the Council. The concern is that there appears very little fiscal headroom in the draft LTP to absorb financial shocks that the Council may face in the next few years. We believe the financial shocks will be a reality and do need to be accommodated.
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 2 of 11 April 2015 - 4 -
3.2. Specific Risks Regarding Capital Raising
Not enough capital may be realised through the financial strategy. We are strongly supportive of the Council maximising income through the strategic sale of selected Council owned assets. We believe the short game is to resolve the Council’s financial shortfall. The long game is to position those assets through equity partners who will add significant strategic value and make Christchurch more internationally significant as a result. However, it is possible that not enough capital may be realised through the financial strategy.
The specifics of the options being developed for the capital realisation programme, that is how much of each asset will be sold, are yet to be accepted by the community and the Council. We know that independent advice is being developed on the capital release options for CCHL prior to the release of any capital Council has resolved to “review and consider independent expert advice on the optimal capital realised release programme”. This options report is due out in 2015, we consider this to be a critical step in asset realisation and we will be working closely with the Council to ensure the community clearly understands the critical need to, not only sell assets, but to strategically position them. There is however, risk in the fact that the Council may not find the strategic partners it is looking for to get the best value from its asset sales programme. We are also concerned in the context of insufficient capital being realised, that the estimates of insurance proceeds coming back to the Council will not meet expectations. We have some reservations with respect to the estimates of the costs of implementing the flood protection programmes which we consider may be understated.
3.3. Further unquantified risks relate to the programmes of work involving the infrastructure strategy being larger than anticipated which may push the financial envelope past the statutory short term financial threshold. For example:
a. Natural hazard risk mitigation may be more costly than anticipated. Natural hazards risk assessments are not complete. This means capital works investment is being described without all information available on best outcomes. In addition, land settlement has exposed new areas to flood risk and adversely affected the natural drainage of some areas of the city. It is also possible that upcoming RMA changes will require improved service delivery on surface water quality, specific to the management of storm and wastewater. Just what this may mean for the Council’s management plans and financial strategy is unclear. b. The final costs of completing the SCIRT rebuild programme to an agreed level may be more than budgeted for. c. Red zone future use decisions, which are yet to be made, may impose more costs on the Council than budgeted for. It is not yet clear what Council will be required to rebuild or to manage into the long term.
3.4. Delivery of programmes may be hindered by lack of capability and resource capacity to such as extent that urban decay continues, for example:
a. “Sweating the assets” in the infrastructure programme may result in opex blow-outs or increasing stoppages in service delivery. b. Delays in the rebuilding of community facilities and anchor projects may hinder private sector confidence to reinvest across the city and ultimately obstructs vibrant social and economic transactions. c. Current capacity and capability within Council may not meet anticipated demands.
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 3 of 11 April 2015 - 5 -
3.5. Interdependencies with other pieces of work in train by CCC may not be coordinated in a timely manner for the financial and infrastructure strategies to be implemented efficiently, for example:
a. Outcomes of the work on the asset sales investigations described above may not result in a capital realisation at the level anticipated. b. The impact on the infrastructure strategy of the outcomes of the second stage of the Council’s District Plan is unclear. The Council set an April 2016 deadline for completion of the whole replacement plan. c. Outcomes from the current programmes under the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) may be more expensive than anticipated. d. The internal work underway at CCC to prioritise the activity described in the multitude of Activity Management Plans may not be timely enough to focus the work in the right places for the short term. e. Other CCC documents out for CCC consultation at the moment may impact the financial or infrastructure strategies. For example, the draft Development Contributions Policy currently out for consultation mentions “division of some activities into a number of geographic catchments where appropriate rather than one district-wide catchment”. This change responds to or is linked to requirements under the amended LGA and may have financial consequences that impact on the overall financial strategy.
3.6. The impacts and interdependencies arising from other planning processes currently underway by other institutions and asset owners (e.g. the Crown) may not be clear enough in time for the CCC to adjust the finance and infrastructure strategies in time. Uncertainty around changes in Crown contributions still exist, for example:
a. The independent review of the costs for the repair of roads and pipes is underway and the resultant review of the Crown/Council contributions may result in changes. Changes to Crown contributions may become apparent at the release of Budget 2015. b. The outcomes of the LTP consultations of CCC’s regional partners: ECan; WDC and SDC in particular may impact on the CCC’s financial or infrastructure strategies. Of particular interest are the collective outcomes related to investment in infrastructure to move people and freight (e.g. roads, rail and transport hubs). c. Talks between the Crown and Council indicated in the consultation document on “the range of other costs as a result of the earthquakes, including flooding mitigation and the costs associated with the Council taking on additional responsibilities from CERA” may result in more costs to the Council than anticipated. d. The current outcomes of the Transition Advisory Board are unclear. Therefore any costs related to transition of functions or programmes or projects from the Government’s rebuild and recovery programmes to CCC are uncertain.
All of these risks shroud the LTP in significant uncertainty and reinforce the need for Council to be prepared for additional costs and continuing strategic repositioning to cater for unknown variables as they become known.
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 4 of 11 April 2015 - 6 -
4. CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS’ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OBSERVATIONS
4.1. The CECC supports the Council’s proposals to refinance through a mix of capital release from assets, rates increases, review of the capital works programme, review of service delivery costs, and carefully managing debt. We support emphasis on maximising asset sales.
We note with that money, it is proposed to build a sustainable transport network; restore facilities, contribute to anchor projects; improve housing affordability and recovery; restore and renew water, wastewater and stormwater networks; and protect people and property from natural hazards and the effects of climate change. These are all laudable goals.
Three other projects have been described: regenerating the residential red zones; creating world class cycleways to shift modal use and restoring the Avon and Heathcote Rivers. These require very careful consideration. For example although we support a trend towards world class cycleways we don’t want to see undue emphasis placed on the restriction of car usage, in particular, in our central city.
4.2. Now is the time for calm heads and brave decisions it is apparent from public discussions over the last few months that the new financial strategy with proposed asset sales and rate hikes may be a hard sell for a community, reeling from constant change and difficult choices. It is clear that the community of Christchurch at times finds it hard to make the connections between the services they receive and the cost of that service delivery. It is also clear the Council has a real juggling act to ensure it stays within compliance guidelines imposed by both the Office of the Auditor General and good financial practice. The CECC realises that now is the time for the business community to help balance this debate by giving the Council strong support in the context of explaining that we can’t have our cake and eat it and that some hard choices must be made in the long term interests of our city.
We note that the LTP seems to be missing a set of collective high level principles on which all investment and planning decisions should be underpinned across Central, Regional and Local Institutions. These principles would give a framework for all rebuild and growth investments and would likely inform the development of a vision for the future of Christchurch. It is important that these principles would be reflected in the draft consultation documents of not only the CCC but also the Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils and ECan. All of whom are directly incentivized to optimally recover greater Christchurch. We would also hope to see these principles reflected in Crown documents that underpin investment plan. These principles may include:
a. Decision-making by Council and Government agencies, as our representatives, will be open and transparent. b. The Crown and Councils will approach everything as a partnership, therefore the risks and benefits of investments will be shared fairly across taxpayers and ratepayers. c. We will be aiming for city with a thriving central core, well connected suburbs and supported by satellite towns and a thriving regional economy; serviced by effective networks including transport systems across all modes (including foot, cycle, road and rail) for moving people and freight. d. We will build in capacity to allow for growth. e. We accept we need to “learn to live with the water” that comes and goes and is accepted to be a long term environmental challenge. f. We want our eastern suburbs to flourish as part of a diversity of cityscapes from seacoast to plains and we acknowledge that a new multi-pronged investment will be required to cauterize urban decay.
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 5 of 11 April 2015 - 7 -
Without such “first principles” the short term investments described both in the Council consultation document and the investment plans of others such as Crown departments, risk staying silo-ed and collectively may not represent wise or timely investment.
4.3. Strategy
Strategic policy and planning is critical as it clarifies and coordinates the way through the complexity of discussions and plans, short term imperatives and the noise of multiple calls on capital. Until we see more strategic policy and planning capability, outcomes are likely to continue to be bumpy and sub-optimal.
We must recognise the importance of understanding our changing city demographics, how this impacts on our population and migration, and ensures we attract and retain the right skilled people.
4.4. Doing Things Differently
Building cities takes time and is manifestly complex. We are now trying to truncate 150 years of previous investment into 15-20 years of rebuild. The size of the task has meant that people have been willing to do things differently. We need to take advantage of that. We have a chance to create dynamic planning models, supported by nimble delivery, using multiple financing models. It may be a good time to think about building specific and district-wide solutions across the city, not just in the central city, that could be implemented in coordinated phases to protect assets through adaptive master plans: modified incrementally each decade to adjust to new predictions on sea levels and anticipated storm surges. Acceptance of the advantages of new dynamic models, with phased processes and incremental improvements, must be underpinned by a focus on “place-making” and not on building buildings. We see this all as a part of “riding the great tail winds of our time”.
4.5. Long Term Benefits vs Short Term Savings
We need to better understand the long term benefits versus the short term savings associated with providing higher levels of resilience in our systems and networks. Are we sacrificing higher levels of resilience just to save money in the short term? Refreshed cost estimates for the infrastructure rebuild should provide options for open discussion, across different levels of resilience (and resultant levels of service) and across the whole of life of assets.
4.6. The Central City as an Ecosystem for Generating Growth
The timetable for the anchor project programme appears to be iterative. This is reinforced in the consultation document that describes a delay of the Metro Sports facility. Other expected public investment is hard to see yet, such as decisions around the Town Hall. Without a clear understanding of the rebuild programmes in the central city, it is difficult for others to see the way forward, interpret progress and have confidence that the Crown and Council dependence on current interventions will in fact catalyse private sector investment. In addition, continued discussion of the central city area as if it is separate from the rest of the city ecosystem is perplexing. The CECC believes it is time to bring together the governance of the whole built environment to drive one conversation around systems-wide recovery. Otherwise the CECC envisages a growing risk of a city of disconnected parts working in competition.
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 6 of 11 April 2015 - 8 -
Ensuring that the anchor projects that have the biggest economic impact in the city are enabled and accelerated and that commercial office in the inner city space meets future demands and is cost effective is absolutely critical.
4.7. Level of Capacity and Capability to Undertake the Ongoing Recovery Functions
Crown and Council staffing of strategic policy and planning and coordination functions will likely need to be supported by new delivery structures with the right governance, management, staffing and toolkits to deliver the Crown and Council capital works programmes across the city, resulting in the right commercial intelligence being brought to projects to engage the private sector. The timing of the creation of new delivery mechanisms and the introduction of any legislation required to affect them is crucial to maintain momentum and the CECC strongly supports an increased focus on this area.
4.8. Measuring our Progress
There is a lack of simple set of indicators to measure progress and growth. Although each Activity Management Plan details performance measures aligned to particular level of service agreements, these need to be rolled up into a simple set of indicators in the actual LTP which show programme level, outcome, and focused indication of progress, money being well spent and on time. These should, in turn, be part of a subset of recovery progress indicators that all parties are working from.
5. SPECIFIC ISSUES THE CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS’ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WANTS TO SEEK CLARIFICATION ON
5.1. Financial
a. It seems the figures being used for describing current Council commitments to the anchor and infrastructural programmes are inconsistent with the cost sharing agreement with Government. Why is this? b. Is the Crown giving adequate consideration to the implications to Council of the likely ongoing operating costs associated with its possible exit from the overall Anchor project programme, the infrastructure programme and the red zone programme? c. What does the Council specifically plan to do to cauterize the urban decay in east Christchurch? d. Is the assumed borrowing rate of 6% the norm across Territorial Authorities? e. Should the Council be introducing only temporary flood protection measures where necessary until current flood investigations have been completed? f. If more capital came into play through the financial strategy (which the CECC would support), how would it be spent? Would it be spent improving levels of service, or bringing timing of projects forward, or both? g. Conversely if less capital came into plan, what would be cut?
5.2. Transport
a. How does the Council see overall planning and implementation working for public transport and freight movement in Canterbury in light of the planning cross-over between the NZTA, Kiwirail, Council’s and ECan? There is no clear vision in the consultation document.
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 7 of 11 April 2015 - 9 -
b. How does the Council plan to manage freight movement increases through the new commuter flows within Christchurch? The consultation document suggests that freight movement will be moved out of the way of commuter congestion areas. How is it envisaged that this happen? We sight Brougham Street as a perfect example of predicted future serious congestion compromising freight flows.
5.3. Housing
a. Can the Council explain in more detail how it envisages its current social and affordable housing initiatives that are likely to improve housing affordability, in light of other service providers’ same issues around the cost of building new stock or repairing old stock and also in the context of the cost of ongoing opex for those assets? What is the Council’s real role here?
b. There is concern about getting the quantum of the rebuild right to ensure we do not get into a long term oversupply of housing stock and also that the central city rebuild is supportive of economically viable and attractive tenancy costs. The CECC will continue to work with Council and other stakeholders to find ways to ameliorate these concerns.
5.4. Economy
a. What are the economic costs to ratepayers of the proposed rates increases (the potential of money leaving the economy) and has this been weighed up against the value of releasing more capital and keeping rates down?
b. With the rate increases proposed, will businesses have any incentive to locate in Christchurch rather than Selwyn?
5.5. Delivery
a. Is the Council anticipating future delivery vehicles having autonomy with the necessary functional capabilities such as consenting and procurement powers? If so, will Council be looking to the Crown for new legislation?
6. FINAL THOUGHTS FROM THE CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS’ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
If extra capital was made available the business community would like to see more investment in:
. Resilient infrastructure. . The reduction of business compliance costs such as consenting costs and development contributions. . Bringing forward some of the anchor projects.
If less capital is available then there needs to be careful consideration of the reprioritisation and timing of:
. Anchor projects. . The Council’s investment in community assets, such as libraries (we do not think it is necessary for the Council to be the owner of assets such as libraries, these can easily be built and owned by the private sector and leased through to the Council).
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 8 of 11 April 2015 - 10 -
We have been saying for a long time that it is extremely important that the Central Government, the Council and community all work towards agreed common objectives. We need to ensure there is good collaboration between Crown agencies, the CCC, other Territorial Authorities and ECan on asset management pressures and demand forecasting across whole systems. We believe in the development of a regional spatial plan informed by robust and intelligent data and the consideration of entities such as Regional Transport Authorities.
The CECC is cautious about the intent to “sweat” many of the infrastructure assets to 120% of their life, in order to defer capital expenditure. We need to ensure that we have a city that operates with robust and reliable infrastructure to support economic development and growth.
The consultation document refers to “transformational opportunities” to build back a better city, such as regenerating and developing the residential red zone, creating a world class network of cycleways and shifting the travel options available to people, and restoring the Avon and Heathcote Rivers. We have commented on those earlier in our submission, but we do believe the Council might also consider the following as transformational opportunities. a. The opportunity to create multiple new commercial delivery vehicles that could work in partnership with the private sector to develop whole precincts as well as to deliver the anchor and infrastructure programmes, new delivery models are critical. b. The support for a Lyttelton Port of Christchurch rebuild and growth strategy that will meet an aggressive regional growth strategy. We know that the outcome of the draft Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan to be received by the Minister is imminent and that continues to deserve high priority. c. The support of the introduction of new technologies to improve asset management and demand forecasting e.g. introducing sensor and other technology to forecast weaknesses and to pinpoint problems. The consultation document describes the Council’s interest in exploring new technologies to do things differently. We believe that this needs to be moved forward in a context of a transformation.
We need to be strategically rethinking our relationship with water. What are the development opportunities to arise? Alongside our river – what are we really going to do about flood protection?
We believe it is important that asset owners be incentivised to embrace and fund the theme of resilience and risk reduction. Building a more resilient community will require investment over time; however the cost of doing nothing could be profoundly disruptive and exponentially more expensive. We have learned in Christchurch the importance of being resilient. This should be core to our thinking into the future.
7. CONCLUSION
The consultation document raises many critical issues, these issues present significant challenges to the future of our city, as is evidenced by the comments and recommendations made by the CECC in the submission.
We believe that with strong leadership, decisive decision making and good strategic thinking we can ensure our city has a vibrant and robust future. This is not a time for procrastination or adopting “soft” approaches in response to demands from certain minorities within our community.
The Council can be assured of the support of the CECC in looking strategically towards a bright future and some of the difficult calls that need to be made in that context:
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 9 of 11 April 2015 - 11 -
a. We understand the trade-offs that will be required. b. We recognise the need to cover off a minimum of $1.2 billion shortfall and the important of asset sales in that regard. c. We understand the Council has no wriggle room with respect to further borrowings and we also recognise there is a limit to the continuing increasing demands that can be made on ratepayers through rates. d. We believe the Council is now not thinking about business as usual with an earthquake tacked on the side, but is embracing its future in the context of the earthquake and the rebuild of our city. e. We appreciate and believe the Council must be ruthless in cutting expenditure where it can and considering the capital projects it undertakes and whether or not it needs to own those and ensuring that we do continue to have resilient infrastructure serving our city well. f. We also believe the city needs to ensure it is resilient and take heed of the lessons learned as a result of the earthquakes that have had such a marked impact on our recent past, our present and our future. g. We agree with the Council that there is a need to think creatively about the role of Local Government, communities and individuals in shaping our environment and redefining our city. h. We intend to work with the Council to ensure that creativity is best applied in the long term interest of Christchurch and Canterbury.
Attached, as Appendix 1, are some questions that we think we might be asking ourselves in the future. We would like to think that the Council and its LTP process will eliminate the need to ask at least some of them.
______
Peter Townsend Chief Executive April 2015
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 10 of 11 April 2015 - 12 -
APPENDIX 1
It is useful from time to time to think ahead and consider our positioning in the future and what it might all mean to us.
This is very important in the context of the Christchurch Rebuild.
Here are ten questions we might be asking ourselves in 2026:
1) Why didn’t we appreciate the scale of the rebuild and the consequential impacts of tipping $40+ billion dollars into a population of 360,700? 2) Why were we so optimistic about timeframes? 3) Do we remember just how well insured we were? 4) Did we underestimate the long term psycho-social impacts of the earthquakes? 5) Why didn’t we settle earlier, on a common aspiration for our City, our Region and our Island? 6) Did we get Central Government, Local Government and our community really working towards agreed common objectives? 7) Did we put enough emphasis on the economic interdependencies between our City and our Region? 8) Did we recognise early enough the importance of ensuring Council owned strategic asset sales were finalised in a way that made Christchurch more internationally significant? 9) Did we get our transport infrastructure right; easy access in and around our city and parking in the Central City? 10) Why did we ever doubt that we would create the most attractive and liveable city in Australasia post-earthquake?
CECC Submission on “Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document” Page 11 of 11 April 2015
- 13 -
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL’S DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
SUBMISSION BY CENTRAL CITY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (CCBA)
INTRODUCTION - ROLE OF THE CCBA
1 The Central City Business Association (CCBA) was set up in 2007 in response to the decline of the city centre. Prior to the earthquakes we had around 500 members, and provided retail management services for the City Mall area, including security, marketing, events and retail advice.
2 Our current activities generally fall under support and advocacy for businesses, and promotion of the central city as a destination. Our current membership is over 100 members, and this number is growing rapidly with the returning commercial momentum in the central city.
3 The CCBA’s post earthquake focus area is the core within the frame of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan; the boundaries roughly being Tuam, Manchester, Kilmore and Montreal Streets. This focus area will grow as business activity in the city continues to grow.
4 As an ‘umbrella” business grouping we provide the cohesion for businesses in the central city to work together. Our Executive Committee is representative of all sectors in the central city; retail and hospitality, accommodation, recreation, property owners and professional services. We are therefore well placed to provide advocacy and coordination for our members, and lead development of the retail precinct and wider business district.
5 We appreciate the Council’s continued financial support to the CCBA in these financially challenging times, and we are pleased that the Council continues to recognise our contribution to the city. It means we can continue to carry out our core activities while exploring ways in which sponsorship from other organisations can be obtained for promoting the central city as a destination. Ultimately we would like to move to a targeted rate by Council for funding marketing and management of the central city. The timing is not yet right for such a model, while the central city is still getting back on its feet and businesses are dealing with all the challenges that a transitional city brings. Therefore, until a targeted rate can be confirmed, we recommend continued funding provision in the LTP for an annual grant to the CCBA.
6 Our work is linked to a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) and currently we are working with Council staff to ensure those KPIs have the appropriate context for 2015/16 and beyond. In light of the changing landscape in the central city, we will constantly review those KPIs.
Central City Business Association, PO Box 269 Christchurch 8140, Ph: +64 (0)21 766900 [email protected]
- 14 - 2
SUPPORT FOR A TRANSITIONAL CITY IS VITAL
7 As the rebuild gathers pace it is a critical time for supporting businesses and showcasing what the central city has to offer. Our members have all taken a risk and established themselves in a challenging environment, but they have faith in this city and are excited about its future.
8 The impacts of demolition and rebuild projects on our members have often been underestimated by recovery agencies. If the Council wants to encourage people to live and do business in the central city, its decisions need to continue to help create an environment attractive to business – or at the least, one that does not deter business. Good infrastructure and measures to alleviate the impacts of the rebuild will make the crucial difference to the ability of businesses to survive and thrive while the city is being rebuilt around them.
9 We recognise the need for financial prudence, but given the level of investment planned by both the Council and CERA in the central city, it is vital for the city’s economic future that barriers to getting people back into the city are addressed.
FINANCIAL STRATEGY
10 We think the proposed “Base Case” package uses an appropriate mix of levers. We note that there is still a lot of detail and review yet to be worked through and offer our views on what choices could be made as part of that process.
Releasing Capital By Selling Shares in Some or All of CCC owned companies
11 We support the sale of shares as proposed in the LTP. We hope that the Council intends to review all of its assets, not just those held by CCHL.
12 That said, we do not support removal from the Strategic Assets Register of all off- street parking facilities owned and operated by the Council. We note the LTP’s statement (page 83) that in removing these and other assets the council is not proposing they be sold, but that “…perhaps it is appropriate that off-street parking in the central city be provided by the promoters of retail and commercial developments. The Council is currently undergoing a process to determine whether or not there is any interest in this”. In our view it is essential that there first be a clear pathway ahead for all central city parking requirements before any decisions are made around the strategic significance of council owned parking facilities.
Increase Rates over the Next Four Years
13 We accept that significant increases in rates will be required, but are concerned that the rates increase for business over the next five years will not be sustainable for some property owners, i.e. an extra 50% in rates compared to today’s level. Business properties already pay a premium of 66% . We think greater use should be made of some of the other financial levers to ensure that rates are kept at sustainable levels. As a general point, we recommend that the Council prioritises its expenditure on investments that will produce a return.
14 Given the need for a central city environment to be attractive to businesses and residents in the area, the Council should consider a rates rebate for central city activity – both residential and commercial. This would provide a positive incentive for those considering a move to the central city, and have many benefits including a higher rating base in the medium term.
- 15 - 3
Continuously Review the Council’s Major Work Programme (Capital Works)
15 We agree with this approach. As a starting point, we think the timeframe for the Stadium anchor project could be delayed, if that can be negotiated with the Government. We also believe that the decision to repair the James Hay Theatre should be reviewed, given the facilities offered by the recently reopened Isaac Theatre Royal and other soon to be built facilities within the Performing Arts Precinct.
Make Further Savings in the Way Council Operates its Services
16 We agree that operating costs should be reviewed, though we would not want to see that result in a reduction in essential levels of service for the central city.
TRANSITIONAL CITY PROJECTS/EVENTS AND PROMOTIONS
17 We support retaining the current level of funding in the draft LTP for continuation of Transitional City Projects. These projects to improve and activate public areas are important for adding colour and fun to what can often be a grim demolition/rebuild landscape. Most importantly they help to create an identity for the city during this transitional phase.
18 We also support retaining the level of funding for events and promotions – if well targeted they are important for bringing more foot traffic into the central city.
CARPARKING
19 Page 2 of the LTP’s Parking Activity Management Plan (AMP) notes how Parking for Christchurch supports achieving community outcomes, including:
• The central city is a vibrant and prosperous business centre • There is a range of travel options that meet the needs of the community • Christchurch’s infrastructure support sustainable economic growth.
20 We believe that the current approach to parking risks achievement of the above outcomes.
A “Modal Shift” Needs to Evolve
21 We do not disagree with ensuring the central city is safe and accessible for cyclists and pedestrians. Nor do we disagree with taking measures to help alleviate the anticipated traffic congestion in 2041. But any “modal shift” will evolve over a number of years as people respond to different transport options, and those responses will depend on a range of personal and/or economic circumstances. Commuters and customers will make choices according to their needs and the quality of transport options.
22 Planning needs to take this evolution into account; there is no point in limiting parking options now for the central city with the aim of encouraging use of other modes of transport. Today, customers, businesses and their workers are used to having choice in using their vehicles and having accessible parks. Right now, professional services firms are making decisions about where to relocate, and we have heard anecdotal evidence that some currently do not want to bring their offices into the central city due to the lack of parking for their workers. Right now, businesses are concerned whether their customers will travel into the central city and struggle to find a carpark or choose to visit a suburban shopping centre where free and plentiful carparking is available.
- 16 - 4
Planning for Sufficient Carparking is Needed Now to Ensure the Central City’s Economic Future
23 We urge the Council to give high priority to its processes currently underway to work with the private sector on the provision of long stay parking to meet the needs of commuters and businesses. It is not clear whether those processes include carparking to be provided as part of the Council’s $70M contribution to the Anchor Projects (as set out on page 47 of the LTP Consultation Document). The lack of certainty regarding any long term planning is a barrier to getting professional services firms back into the central city and is a deterrent to other business owners considering whether to establish themselves here.
24 Currently there is a very limited level of carparking available for both short stay parking for visitors and long stay parking for commuters. Many of our members currently struggle to find parking in the central city to meet their business needs. They also receive constant feedback from customers about how difficult it is to find a carpark.
25 This current shortage has already reached a critical level and is set to get worse when key developments within the Retail Precinct come onstream and more office buildings are tenanted. This is why the Council needs to prioritise low cost short term solutions, such as:
• placing more parking on empty Council land • negotiating to place more parking on private land • negotiating with CERA to use some of the South Frame or East Frame for parking until that land is needed for development • exploring use of “park and ride” buses, such as those used at the Airport, for shuttling people to and from parking on the perimeters of the central city.
Carparking Fees – a Transitional Central City Needs a Level Playing Field
26 There continue to be Council charges for parking in the central city, while there is free parking in the suburbs.
27 Our view is that there should ideally be one rule around parking for all retail and business areas i.e. charge or not charge.
28 We recognise, however, that removal of all parking fees in the central city would mean considerable loss of revenue to the Council, at a time when it is not affordable.
29 We would therefore like to propose that the Council considers some parking incentives in the short to medium term for people to come into the central city to shop, play or do business. For example, for the next three years the first hour of Council off-street parking could be free.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the draft Long Term Plan. The CCBA would like to present this submission at the Council hearings.
Antony Gough Chairman Central City Business Association (CCBA) 28 April 2015
CCBA contact: [email protected], tel: 021 766900
- 17 - Submission No. 13662 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Paul Zaanen Postal Address (Street)*: Shop 7, Carnaby Lane Postal Address (Suburb): New Brighton Postal Address Christchurch New Zealand (City and Postcode)*: 8061 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 140 Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: New Brighton Business and Landowners Association Your role in the Organisation: Manager Date Sent: 28/04/2015 10:20:00 AM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Cell: 272322448 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
New Brighton CBD, The New Brighton Business and Landowners (NBBLA)official submission can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI-pHhcxozw
Please note that this is the official submission and we wish to have confirmation that a video based version has been accepted via this consultation process. The attached document re enforces our video submission, and is a repeat of our pre LTP submission, little has changed since Christchurch City Council asked for feedback prior to LTP consultations. We view the current budget allowance via the draft LTP for the enablement of the CCC New Brighton Master Plan as well below required budget, as our submission indicates. We wish to speak to our submission. If there are any questions regarding our usage of video based submissions please contact our Manager on: 027 2322 448 or email: [email protected]
South New Brighton Camping Ground We wish to have it noted that we reject CCC's draft proposal to close this asset.
- 18 - New Brighton Golf Course We wish to have it noted that we do not endorse the full closure of this asset, rather we believe an intelligent proposal and game plan must be enabled, one that matches the clubs and the communities desires and aspirations rather than a closure.
Promenade - New Brighton Foreshore We wish to have it noted that we support this proposal to enhance linkages and walkways outside of the commercial district, this project should be approached in conjunction with any and all works within New Brighton, and that this project should not compromise other funding streams needed for the commercial district.
LTP submssion - april 2015.docx
- 19 -
Submission for
Long Term Plan (LTP) Christchurch City Council
2015
New Brighton Business and Landowners Association (NBBLA)
7/78 Brighton Mall, New Brighton
Christchurch 8061
Paul Zaanen, Manager NBBLA
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0272322448
- 20 - Executive Summary
Please find our official video based submission at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI-pHhcxozw, this document seeks to re-enforce our video based submission.
The New Brighton Business and Landowners Association (NBBLA) would like to acknowledge and thank the Mayor, Lianne Dalziel, for inviting us to provide a submission in respect of the Christchurch City Council Draft Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation process.
In preparing this submission we aim to provide the Christchurch City Council (CCC) with intelligent and thoughtful commentary on its future financial commitements to New Brighton with a specific focus on the redevelopment of the New Brighton Central Business District (NBCBD) and adjacent foreshore.
Our submision highlights:
• The need for CCC to ensure adequate and appropriate budgets and resources are allocated for New Brighton • A staged development process in order to facilitate a strategic and mutually beneficial partnership between the public and private sector • The wider economic and social benefits of CCC works through public space actions • New Brighton’s role as a Key Activity Centre (KAC) in the wider Christchurch metropolitan area • The benefit that CCC works will bring to the wider New Brighton community and the East
NBBLA is encouraged by indications of increased economic activity and both private and public sector interest in the NBCBD, however, a clear direction needs to be set by CCC in order to ensure a positive future for this unique and once thriving community.
Things need to change in New Brighton and NBBLA wants to assist CCC in bringing this change about.
Appendices:
1. CAPEX/OPEX spreadsheet 2. NBBLA Budget spreadsheet 3. Draft New Brighton Master Plan
- 21 - NBBLA Overview
The New Brighton Business and Landowners Association (NBBLA) was established in January 2013 and is an incorporated society.
Our membership and support is comprised of significant commercial property and business owners from the New Brighton Central Business District (NBCBD).
NBBLA was specifically established to address 20 plus years of economic decline in the NBCBD, which decline has been exacerbated by post earthquakes conditions on account of substantial property damage and demolition as well a decrease in population and perception difficulties.
NBBLA has established strong networks in the local community and with associated groups, working in a positive manner to ensure that the commercial interests it represents are cognisant of those of the community (and vice versa) in order to esnure an intregrated and cohesive planning environment for New Brighton's future. Simultaneously NBBLA has initiated and strengthed constructive working relationships with the appropriate public body agencies and governing bodies in order to implement this approach.
The objectives of NBBLA are detailed in its Constitution which can be found at www.societies.govt.nz and are as follows:
1. The promotion of the development, growth and prosperity of businesses in the New Brighton Business district so as to attract and retain shoppers in order to drive economic growth in New Brighton. 2. The promotion of capital investment in and the development of, commercial property interests in the New Brighton Business District so as to attract and retain commercial property investors in order to drive economic growth in New Brighton. 3. To assist and guide the development and advancement of the commercial interests of businesses in the New Brighton Business District through coordinated, structured and measurable communications, marketing and economic development programme. 4. To foster and promote the welfare of the business community of the New Brighton business district, and in particular, to provide a forum for networking and collaboration of members, and sharing of information. 5. To capitalise on the natural and historical significance of the New Brighton business centre, and the unique assets of the New Brighton Business District, and to use it’s natural and historical significance, and those assets, as a means of establishing an identity and positioning for the area within the wider Canterbury region. 6. To make arrangements, collaborate and work with the central government, the Christchurch City Council and/or persons, corporations, associations or community groups a. For the improvement of streets, reserves, playing areas and park areas, transport, services or other infrastructure, and for lighting, surfacing, security and cleaning in the New Brighton business district; b. To promote and grow a community spirit within New Brighton by promoting and supporting the provision of civic places, quality urban design and coordinated and
- 22 - sustainable urban development, and by promoting, supporting and organising community events;
NBBLA would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the LTP and would gratefully accept an invitation to expand on this written submission in due course. Master Plan implementation and staged development process
Since its establishment NBBLA has worked extensively on the CCC Master Plan for the NBCBD in order to ensure that:
• a staged development process can be enabled; and • public works and private industry developments work in a cohesive and overarching strategic manner.
NBBLA is eager to reflect the extensive work it has undertaken to date and is looking to formalise long term timing and funding to enable the development of public body works in the NBCBD.
As highlighted in the CCC Master Plan there is need to enable a staged development process allowing private investment capital to partner seamlessly with the commitments of Christchurch City Council (CCC).This feedback will:
• address the necessary stages and will highlight required time lines; and • demonstrate the potential commercial developments that the public body works will enable.
All actions are through the CCC Master Plan, with the inclusion of Action A7 – Foreshore and the inclusion of an Economic Development Precinct (EDP).
Public Space Actions: Action A1 – New north-south road corridor – Extension Oram Avenue
Proposal (refer CCC Master Plan): In order to address the poor north-south links through the NBCBD, this action proposes a new road corridor be developed that will extend from Oram Avenue (to the south) and link through to Keppel Street (to the north) (see fig 1 below).
- 23 - Figure 1 NBBLA Commentary: NBBLA fully supports this proposal.
We understand CCC is in negotiations to acquire the required landholdings and fully encourage this action through any available CCC process including utilising the Public Works Act 1981.
NBBLA would encourage CCC funding to be committed to this proposal in order for work to commence in fiscal year 2015 – 2016.
This proposal and suggested timeframe will provide certainty to commercial developers and we are confident that if implemented it will be the catalyst for significant commercial development on the eastern and western aspects of the new road.
Action A2 – Continuation of the road through the pedestrian mall
Proposal (refer CCC Master Plan): This action seeks to open up the eastern pedestrianized part of Brighton Mall to vehicle traffic. This area currently is underutilised and has a number of vacant premises; some buildings are also in a poor state of repair. (Fig 2)
Figure 2
NBBLA Commentary: This proposal is not favoured.
Through our consultation with the Community Advisory Group (CAG), and our external consultants (Sam Martin, Align and Jason Mill, ZNO/Pivnice) it was in fact roundly rejected.
It contradicts Action A4 (looking to enhance links to the foreshore and increase pedestrian flow back through the NBCBD) and is contrary to international trends favouring pedestrian areas as being sought after and promoted. Further, in light of the intersection proposed with Action A1, NBBLA envisages potential issues with intersections and pedestrian space on Marine Parade creating unfavourable dynamics between pedestrian and vehicle interactions.
NBBLA suggests that rather to continuing the slow road through the pedestrian mall that CCC embrace the conceptual ideas placed forward through the CAG groups (see fig. 3 & 4) (exclusive of the proposed footbridge over Marine Parade), creating:
- 24 - • a vibrant community square; • wind sheltered areas; and • a link between potential commercial developments that would benefit from a vehicle free environment.
Figure 3 Figure 4
Planning must ensure that links through to the foreshore and Action A4 are a priority and that planning design caters for all weather conditions.
NBBLA proposes a similar structure to that of “Eat Street” in Rotorua (see fig. 5 & 6), encouraging hospitality orientated areas, melding together a public space with that of private industry. Coupled with Action A1 the retention of the pedestrian mall in this area will enable greater and appropriate connectivity between the beach front assets of New Brighton and the business hub and flow on to NBCBD.
This will add immense value to the public space including:
• further enhancing the New Brighton Seaside Market (a weekly market moving from strength to strength via the New Brighton Project); • encouraging a strong restaurant and hospitality focus as a key initiator to developing (as per international trend on suburban regeneration models) a further destination identity for New Brighton; • employment opportunities; • cultural diversity; and • an increase in rates revenue.
- 25 - NBBLA would encourage a commencement date during fiscal year 2016 - 2017. This will provide certainty to commercial property owners and (also) prospective developers.
Significant work has to be enabled on commercial holdings to revitalise not only the NBCBD but New Brighton as a whole. Accordingly, this proposal must integrate flawlessly with the ambitions of adjacent commercial property owners and/or prospective developers. Clever design will allow for wind mitigation.
Figure 5
Figure 6
Action A3 – Bus interchange
Proposal (refer CCC Master Plan): There are currently issues with how buses operate within the NBCBD, especially for lay-overs (times when buses need to wait) with New Brighton being the eastern terminus. Buses currently wait within the car parking area on the sea front, and there are no driver facilities provided. A bus interchange has been included in the Plan as appropriate for New Brighton. This will help create a central point for visits to, and from, the centre and assists in achieving the objectives of a Key Activity Centre (KAC). (Fig. 7)
- 26 -
Figure 7
NBBLA Commentary: The Bus interchange is of significant importance given New Brighton’s role as a designated Key Activity Centre (KAC).
The current facilities for public transport are well below par and future funding allocation should address this issue.
Any proposed design must reflect that the facility will be one of the gateways into New Brighton and must embrace the concept of “where the city comes to play”.
Although figure 12 of the CCC Master Plan is not a detailed design we wish to encourage CCC to place emphasis on several key points including:
• Legacy Project Interface – Taking into account that bus routes must re-enforce future developments, namely the proposed “Legacy” project, we strongly urge that a series of stops must be strategically placed throughout the NBCBD to ensure ease of access to both retail developments, the beach front, the pier, the library and the proposed “Legacy” project.
• Gate way to New Brighton - The current design merely states this as a layover, rather than placing emphasis on this being a vital link to the city via public transport (and indeed a terminus for several key routes). This terminus is also the “gate way to New Brighton”, we wish to make it known that we are looking at an interchange that reflects and indeed embraces the future development of New Brighton and we refer you to figures 8 through 11 as exemplars. We also encourage use of materials that are sympathetic to the environmental challenges of New Brighton location and that will weather well over time (as well as have low ongoing maintenance requirements).
- 27 - • KAC - As part of the city’s movement towards sustainable transport options, NBBLA would encourage emphasis being placed on the terminus linking the city to the sea via effective transport solutions.
Figure 8 & 9
Figure 10 & 11
Action A4 – Upgrade of Marine Parade
Proposal (refer CCC Master Plan): An important aim of the Plan is to better integrate the centre with the seafront. The seafront is one of the main draw cards of the centre and the library is a major attraction for locals and visitors to New Brighton. (Fig. 12)
Figure 12
- 28 - Figure 13 Figure 14
NBBLA Commentary: NBBLA supports an emphasis on better connectivity of the foreshore to the NBCBD.
Presently the connection between the south and north ramp car parks, the Pier and the adjacent and foreshore is lacking connectivity and ease of access to the NBCBD.
In order to adequately address this issue several key elements must be taken into consideration:
• It is essential to integrate planning through to the proposed Legacy project, linkages are vital to the successes of this area and that of the Legacy project. • Action A4 contradicts Action A2 (continuation of road through pedestrian mall). Action A4 is a more sensible proposal encouraging this to be a pedestrian friendly environment with priority given to pedestrian and cycle movement. • This planning process needs to work with any proposed private development of the pedestrian mall space and the adjoining properties. • As the CCC Master Plan scope now includes not merely B1 and B2 zoning and extends to include the foreshore, it is vital that planning and design looks to compliment the design aspects for the foreshore area. NBBLA has investigated a boardwalk connection design for the foreshore which we feel should be extended into the planning around Marine Parade and connectivity to the NBCBD (see figures– 13, 14 & 15).
NBBLA envisages the implementation of this project to partner in with the completion of Action A1 (New north-south corridor) and we would encourage this action be commenced upon the completion of Action A1, in fiscal year 2016 – 2017, and to partner in with alternate Action A2 and supplementary Action A7 – Foreshore design.
- 29 -
Figure 15
Action A5 – General Streetscape Upgrades
Proposal (refer CCC Draft Master Plan): In order to provide a uniformed streetscape for New Brighton, and in light of other proposed actions, Beresford Street and Hawke Street in particular require upgrading. Furthermore, these road corridors and associated landscape areas would be upgraded to integrate and compliment any new adjacent land-uses. For example, if the existing Business 1 zone were to be rezoned for residential use, the streetscape could be updated in this area to reflect the adjoining residential land. (Fig. 16)
Figure 16
NBBLA Commentary: NBBLA is fully supportive of streetscape upgrades.
We seek to enhance the image of the NBCBD and agree that Hawke Street and Beresford Street require prompt streetscape works.
Any streetscape upgrade should run in parallel with other development of the NBCBD and should be a continuous scope of works. We see this action starting in fiscal year 2015 and continuing over
- 30 - several fiscal years in order to ensure completion and achieve bringing “…the beach into the NBCBD”.
We see a required order of works to be:
1. Hawke Street: It is, and will remain, a major feeder road into the NBCBD and foreshore. NBBLA wish to see upgrade work commence on Hawke Street in fiscal year 2015. Any replacement or redesign of the Pages Road Bridge should be taken into consideration when upgrade work is decided upon. 2. Beresford Street. The aim of connectivity of cycle networks and bus interchange is an essential component in any upgrade works which NBBLA would prefer commencing on satisfactory completion of Hawke Street, circa fiscal year 2016. Note again the impact of any proposed replacement or redesign of the Pages Road Bridge. 3. Pages Road Bridge. Presently there is a significant degree of uncertainty concerning the replacement or redesign of the Pages Road Bridge. Whatever the outcome we wish to emphasise the need to ensure that an “arrival experience” is considered a guiding principle whilst planning the gateway into New Brighton. Due to uncertainty regarding SCIRT works and associated timelines we are unable to indicate OPEX and CAPEX budgets.
We must note that CCC must address several highlighted issues regarding streetscapes and associated budgets. We also comment as follows:
• New Brighton is identified as a KAC and should be deemed as a regional asset, whereby patronage is not limited to the residential catchment but extends to cover the entire region with increased visitation numbers during the summer months. • Issues of street maintenance and amenity values require enhancement budgets to provide for the improvement of current degraded state of several council held assets (E.g. public toilets, gardens, foot paths and the pedestrian mall). • Positive direction on Action A5 will encourage commercial property owners to enhance their commercial holdings and partner with CCC street scape enhancements and maintenance programmes.
Action A6 – New Public Toilets
Proposal (refer CCC Draft Master Plan): The existing toilets in the centre (under the pier walkway and on Shaw Avenue (should also include toilets on foreshore adjacent to Whale pool)) are poorly located. Community feedback has highlighted the need for toilets to be centrally located. It is proposed that a new, centrally located toilet within the centre be explored further. (Fig.17)
NBBLA Commentary: NBBLA supports this proposal and the central location initiative.
We comment as follows:
Figure 17
- 31 - • Current toilet facilities are in poor condition and are also not well maintained; emphasis needs to be placed on implementing an operational budget to address this issue. • The area proposed for new toilets, adjacent to the proposed north-south corridor, will require negotiation with property owner(s). • Encouraging private development of community toilet facilities as part of the building development works initiated in the NBCBD would potentially assist with CCC funding streams
Action A7 – Inclusion of Foreshore in New Brighton Master Plan and Design
Proposal (as per NBBLA and CCC recommendations) – The inclusion of the Foreshore, Library, Pier and the North and South car ramps into the Master Plan for New Brighton is strongly supported by NBBLA
Figure 18, 19 & 20
This upgrade needs to be integrated with time lines relating to implementation of the Legacy project, circa fiscal year 2016.
The emphasis that CCC staff have placed on the inclusion of this area in the Master Plan is a positive forward thinking approach.
We note:
• Legacy Project. This must be an integral component behind the redesign of the foreshore areas and the crucial links back into the NBCBD (Action A4), noting the importance of car park requirements and all weather links (see boardwalk Figures 18, 19 & 20). • Whale pool, playground and recreational spaces. Until confirmation is given to placement, scope and scale of the Legacy project we are reluctant to look at recommendations to require upgrades of foreshore areas north of the Library; however this does not stop or impact on potential improvements on the southern end, please note the CAG recommendations at this point regarding current basketball/monument areas. • Wooden board walk system, as per Action A4 (see figures 13 - 15, and figures –18 - 20).
- 32 -
• An essential aspect of the redesign of the foreshore area is connectivity. A boardwalk system that links the two foreshore car parks (inclusive of potential future development including the Legacy Project) back into the NBCBD will have a positive impact on pedestrian movement and beachfront aesthetics. It will also assist with completing the vision behind the development of the pier and library complex inclusive of connections between dune top walking tracks to the north and south. Design of the linkage should incorporate concepts to address adverse weather conditions including a system which would block wind conditions from public space adjacent to the Library complex.
Private Space Actions: Development of Commercial Holdings
Rather than solely focus on a business association NBBLA recognised at its inception that given the decline in the NBCDB it was imperative to have business and landowners working together for mutual benefit.
The appointment of an ‘on-site’ manager for NBBLA has ensured communication with commercial property owners in order to enable a progressive and well planned improvement of commercial holdings. This directly relates to two key aspects of the CCC Master Plan, namely Action C1 – A strengthened, active Business Association and Action C5 – Appoint a New Brighton Case Manager. NBBLA is confident that it has advanced these two action points.
The gains made by NBBLA in building relationships with business owners, commercial property owners and community groups is evidence of the merit in appointing our Manager position as opposed to a CCC appointed Case Manager. Our Manager is independent, local and knowledgeable with the ability to not only cross between the private and public sector seamlessly but place a strong emphasis on community engagement and involvement.
Due to the commercial nature of Private space Actions B1 through to B6 NBLLA will not be making extensive notes through the LTP process; however, in light of the continuation of the stage development process for a 4- 6 year term we wish to make it known:
• NBBLA deems it vital that commercial holdings are consistently worked on to ensure that active partnerships between public space actions and that of private industry are matched to ensure continuation of suburban centre improvement. Accordingly:
o We are seeking a four year funding agreement with CCC at $106,300 per annum plus GST for financial assistance for the NBBLA management position and budgeted expenses (see attached Budget at Appendix 2). o In order for the aspirational nature of the private space actions through public planning processes to merge into commercial reality we see a continuation of current work streams being vital to ensure that forward momentum is maintained. Simply stated without continual management of commercial enterprises/projects
- 33 - and interface with public bodies we feel there is a danger of stagnation of private space actions. As per the Central City Business Association (CCBA) model we see the merit and benefit to the public body of co-funding NBBLA. The CCBA has enjoyed a consistency of funding through CCC, allowing commercial entities to partner in with community and the public body to ensure success through continuity of work streams. We would look to reassess this budget requirement after a four year term. o The previous 18 months has witnessed communication and working relationships with CCC staff go from strength to strength and NBBLA would like to acknowledge our appreciation to CCC staff. The collaboration between CCC and NBBLA has greatly assisted in identifying and addressing the issues articulated in this submission as well as improving public perception of CCC as willing to listen to the wider New Brighton community.
A strong partnership between CCC and NBBLA is imperative. We support private space actions for the enhancement of New Brighton but as these actions centre on sound financial decisions, the timing of developments may necessarily sit comfortably with public initiatives. To alleviate this friction NBBLA is confident that it can assist CCC in acting as a conduit between CCC and private property owners/developers to ensure that joint aspirations move towards reality and implementation.
Recovery Together – C Actions (refer CCC Master Plan)
C1 – A strengthened, active business association (refer CCC Master Plan): There is an existing business association operating in New Brighton, however, it has limited participation from local business owners and operators. A strong and active business association, where businesses can work together for the overall benefit of the centre, is key to its future success and recovery.
NBBLA commentary: Consistent with the CCC Master Plan a united and strong business association is deemed pivotal to commercial regeneration. To address this requirement NBBLA was established and we would like to record the extensive work completed since our inception to ensure Action C1 has been achieved.
Action C2 through to C4: Continuation of current work streams and community led recovery are occurring, however, in order for these works to continue funding streams must be enabled to ensure success.
Action C5 – Appoint a New Brighton Case Manager (refer CCC Master Plan): As part of the Suburban centres Programme, the CCC has provided an ongoing case management service to all centres that have suffered earthquake damage and disruption.
This CCC case management service is intended to be a short term service, however, the recovery and rebuild of the suburban centres will extend for some time. Therefore, the appointment of a dedicated case manager for New Brighton will continue to provide a ‘single face’ point of contact for
- 34 - commercial property owners, developers and businesses to ensure they have access to available services.
A case manager will help to liaise with different parts of the CCC to assist with repair/rebuild options and to provide assistance and support through the CCC consenting processes. The case manager will help obtain urban design advice and provide contact details for key agencies involved in the rebuild.
This approach would provide the local community with a single point of contact and ensure a degree of consistency when dealing with matters relating to the Master Plan and the future direction of New Brighton. It will help to achieve a collaborative approach to the rebuild of the centre, enabling land owners and businesses to communicate with one another to ensure ‘joined-up’ thinking and sharing of resources where possible.
NBBLA commentary: NBBLA is of the view that its manager’s role mitigates the need for a CCC employed case manager.
NBBLA would prefer to see adequate resourcing directed to NBBLA and an MOU in place to partner the current managerial role to incorporate the case manager activities. This concept has been successful in other regions including Porirua where the Porirua Chamber of Commerce partners with the Porirua City Council.
Resourcing from CCC would ensure better communication between the New Brighton community, its business and land owners and the CCC. We feel that the independence of our on-site manager provides NBBLA with an ability to cross over the diverse sectors involved in the rejuvenation models being proposed under the CCC Master Plan which will ultimately benefit the process of its implementation.
Outside of Master Plan scope
Current Levels of Service – Public Space Amenity and Improvement
Over the previous 18 months very significant issues affecting the NBCBD have been raised by NBBLA through various mechanisms, from community board deputations to NBBLA initiated physical inspections of the NBCBD with relevant staff and elected members in an attempt to highlight the lack of progression improving public space amenities.
NBBLA considers it a necessity for CCC maintenance and service levels to be drastically improved. New Brighton is a KAC and indeed should be viewed by CCC as being of regional importance and budgeted accordingly.
In order to progress immediate improvement in this respect is required. This should include street and asset maintenance, toilet, garden and car park initiatives.
Signage and way finding: There is a distinct lack of signage (and quality thereof) to highlight the environmental and cultural significance of the natural asset base that the area enjoys. Signage improvement and clear signage is considered an “easy win” for CCC. It would ensure that the linkage between the commercial and natural resource is highlighted as one of the major marketing aspects
- 35 - to drive visitor numbers to New Brighton and its existing assets. Examples include (but are not limited to): The Pier, beach, library dune tops walks, Godwit migration grounds and the Estuary, Rawhiti Domain and golf courses.
Continuation of support for associated Community based and orientated groups: From our working relationships with various community orientated groups we see the issues of current funding streams and mechanisms in place are simply inadequate to cope with the scale of work undertaken. Little change has occurred in CCC funding practices post-Earthquake. We understand that there is currently a review of this process which we hope will see drastic and positive change moving forward. NBBLA is happy to provide further advice upon request.
Encouragement and assistance in projects outside of the Master Plan scope: The NBCBD relies upon a holistic approach being taken throughout the suburb and adjacent areas to ensure engagement with the suburb leads to heavier foot traffic.
Through our ongoing work with Eastern Vision and other agencies we have been impressed with the work placed into the EVO:SPACE initiative which highlights the drastic changes that the city and the greater east is facing. EVO:SPACE is also indicative of the importance of ensuring that an over- arching planning process is prevalent and we are encouraged by the statements of “a city to sea corridor” and “the place where the city comes to play”. However, this will require cross agencies conversations to continue, ensuring that pro-active relationships between central government and the CCC reflect the aspirations of community and commercial entities. NBBLA will continue to assist in any way it can and we wish to highlight that CCC must look to planning processes and relationship building. The impact of projects outside the NBCBD on the suburb are far reaching and with the right planning and implementation will be of lasting value not only to New Brighton but Christchurch as a whole.
School site and potentials: The amalgamation of the education providers within the greater New Brighton area allows for us to look at the potential uses of the Central New Brighton School which we understand is to be vacated by the end of 2015.
The community has indicated a strong desire to keep the Roy Stokes hall and the school pool as these were funded by community fund raising efforts. A concept produced via the EVO::SPACE consultation is the appetite for a high level campground. Subject to further investigation, CCC and Ngai Tahu feedback, NBBLA would support this proposal or another proposal which would see residential based activity on the site. We see immense value in increasing available accommodation options and indeed this proposal could add further value as another attraction to the area, with increased local employment opportunities and income generating possibilities.
Economic Development Precinct (EDP): There are numerous international and national exemplar projects of economic development zones or business improvement districts that have greatly assisted in the rejuvenation of suburban centres.
NBBLA is we fully supportive of the CAG recommendations pertaining to this initiative for New Brighton. We wish to continue working with CCC staff to ensure that New Brighton moves ahead with this recommendation and indeed NBBLA wishes to be a major contributor to a potential EDP.
- 36 - CCC Staff have indicated a desire to work further on this and we are fully supportive of commentary to date including (but not restricted to):
• Development Contribution Fees reduction/waiver • Rates rebate for years 1 – 5 • Dedicated consenting officers ensuring streamlining of process and access to planning staff and meetings • Zoning – Incentive for upper level residential development to medium density • Business mentoring programs co funded by CCC • Potential conversations around future targeted rates systems
- 37 - Conclusion
NBBLA is pleased with its accomplishments achieved to date but much work is needed to be done.
One of our biggest achievements has been its relationship building with both elected members and the staff of the CCC as has identifying the issues that affect the NBCBD and our wider community.
Now that CCC is focused on improving this once thriving and unique community it needs to ensure New Brighton:
• retains and progresses its role as a KAC and is promoted and budgeted accordingly; • is viewed as a regional asset as compared to a suburban centre; • is funded and budgeted to further develop the consistent high level of non-resident visitation numbers; • is viewed in terms of a long term investment strategy and the benefits that will bring to the community and the CCC; • has public space actions with staged development of infrastructure and public area enhancements to encourage private sector development of NBCBD land holdings; • proceeds with the Legacy Project development in order to enhance clear tourism opportunities; • has appropriate funding and budget agreements in place to ensure the proposed CCC works bring about its revitalisation; • is viewed holistically to ensure linkages and planning processes throughout the east are initiated; and • has a Master Plan agreed with appropriate budgets put in place to initiate the works identified.
New Brighton has a unique opportunity to be the jewel in the crown in the rebuild of our city.
We sincerely hope that CCC will embrace the opportunity for drastic and beneficial forward movement for the benefit of the residents of New Brighton, eastern Christchurch, Christchurch City and the Canterbury region.
NBBLA would like thank CCC for the opportunity to place this submission forward for the LTP.
We would like to further talk to our submission at formal hearings.
- 38 -
28 April 2015
Freepost 178 Long Term Plan Submissions Christchurch City Council PO Box 73017 Christchurch 8156
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sirs
Christchurch City Council Smart Choices 2015-2025 Consultation Document
We have discussed and reviewed the Smart Choices 2015-2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document with our membership, and we appreciated being invited to the meeting with Peter Gudsell and members of the City Council to discuss what businesses can expect from the Plan.
The New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association represents manufacturers and exporters from around New Zealand. The majority of members are from Canterbury. Revenue by members nationally is around $6 billion per year, and of this total, about 50% is exported. In Canterbury the manufacturing sector is a significant contributor to the economy, representing over 10% of employment and around 13% of GDP. Many of the jobs in manufacturing are highly skilled and well paid, while the sector also provides lower level work with opportunities for self improvement, such as apprenticeships and training schemes.
Elaborately transformed manufactures comprise over 13% and simple manufacturers make up over 8% of New Zealand tradable exports. New Zealand manufacturers face the increasing cost of local regulation, and global competition from low cost countries without any significant support and protection. In recent years our overvalued exchange rate has been a particular headwind, cutting into margins and making it harder to compete against imported goods in the domestic market and stay competitive in export markets, where for many businesses prices cannot be adjusted in response. The Canterbury region has a disproportionately high number of high value elaborately transformed manufacturers who have significant export sales when compared with all the other regions of New Zealand.
Economic development based on elaborate transformation, commands high prices from global customers and ultimately funds our lifestyle. Generating that cash, from exports based on ever increasing skill levels, will return the lifestyles we anticipate. A failure to do so will see an ever poorer New Zealand and a widening gap between what the world has to offer and what we can afford in health, infrastructure and general consumption.
The New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association wishes to be heard on this submission.
- 39 -
-2-
The NZMEA also supports the comments made in the submissions of Snowy Peak Limited, EPL and Aucom Electronics Limited.
Comments
The NZMEA supports the sell-down of Christchurch City Holdings Limited’s assets to reduce debt by the Christchurch City Council in order to continue with the rebuild to a level which would keep rates at a manageable level.
It is important that the needs of industry are clearly understood and addressed. There is no specific mention of industry in the Plan. Industry has specific requirements, e.g. infrastructure, transport, etc that are vital for their operation and success.
Planning: industrial zones must be protected as industrial zones. In addition, far more consideration and care is needed on reverse sensitivity issues, as these continue to threaten activity and hundreds of jobs.
Support local manufacturing via an explicit local procurement policy as used by many local governments around the world. We should do much better at keeping local money circulating locally, to the benefit of our regions’ community.
The proposed increase in the level of rates is excessive and lacks any connection to the realities faced by manufacturers and exporters. Increases of 8.75%, 8.5%, 8.5% and 7.5% represents an increase of 37.6% over the four years and falls well above domestic and international projected inflation rates. We also note that business rates will increase at a higher percentage than those stated above and this is a concern.
A base line of 2% rate increases should be seen as the maximum credible position from the standpoint of an internationally competitive economy. With greater increases we threaten the rating base and negatively impact competitiveness of our firms in the real economy.
Council and community aspirations are an additional cost to manufacturers and exporters. It is cold comfort that rates might be higher elsewhere in New Zealand - if operating here is too expensive the activity will leave Christchurch and perhaps New Zealand for good. Without manufacturing the resilience of our local economy will be significantly reduced as will overall employment numbers.
The proposed 7.7% - 9.5% increase in trade waste charges are deemed excessive by our members. Structurally, the matter of “user pays” works until there are only a few “users” left, and needs further consideration. The waste water changes fall more heavily on fewer companies, at some point this needs to transfer to the general rate - it might be time to review the trade waste charges.
Focus on utility: facilities should be multipurpose and sized in light of sensitivity to demographic projections. Be prepared to modify the plans should the demographics change. Some of the current facilities are currently not being fully utilised and should be planned out – we need to live within our means.
- 40 - -3-
Priority should be given to replacing/repairing core services and improving the habitability of the city, not the fast replacement of community facilities which could be deferred to a time when the City is in a better financial position.
We would like to see more explicit risk management and scenario planning; for example, if predicted growth rates do not materialise, what major projects will be deferred or scheduled out.
We feel it is essential to build a balanced city, one which caters to the various needs of all of the ratepayers and not just a few. Whilst the current aspirations of the Council are to be commended, we need to be mindful of the commercial realities which we are currently facing and manage expenditure accordingly.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Long Term Plan and should you have any questions around our submission please do not hesitate to call me on 03 353 2540.
Yours sincerely
Tom Thomson
President - NZMEA
- 41 - Submission No. 12432 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Karena Brown Postal Address (Street)*: PO Box 1906 Postal Address (Suburb): Christchurch City Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8011 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 50000 Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Unions Canterbury Your role in the Organisation: Convenor Date Sent: 23/04/2015 10:42:00 AM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Cell: 275498479 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
Concern Over Proposed Sale of Assets Please refer to formal submission attached.
Union Canterbury submission to CCC on long term plan.docx
- 42 -
Submission
By
Unions Canterbury
To
The Christchurch City Council
On The
Long Term (10 year) Plan
- 43 - Introduction
Unions Canterbury is a regional union organisation constituted within the NZ Council of Trades Unions (Te Kauae Kaimahi) that represents approximately 50,000 people working in private and public sector workplaces in the Canterbury region.
Unions Canterbury appreciates the opportunity to make a written submission and further advises that we request to be heard and speak to this submission directly to the Council at a future occasion convened to hear public submissions.
The main points in our submission are as follows;
1. Any proposal for the CCC to sell any significant asset fully or partially shouldn’t occur unless
(a) there has been full public disclosure of all the constituent elements of the Council’s purported indebtedness, and;
(b) citizens have had serious opportunity to debate and make representations on those elements.
In addition the timeframe set for receiving public submissions and disseminating all relevant material to the public is far too tight and deficient and we respectfully urge the council to keep the consultation and feedback process open to enable sufficient time for appropriate and meaningful engagement with the Christchurch community. Given the 10 year plan has the most significant impact on Christchurch citizens in the history of our local government it’s the least the council should do in the circumstances.
2. There is insufficient clarity on the true level of the ultimate indebtedness. There is much speculation and uncertainty over what government contribution is required to support the council for anchor projects and the level of insurance pay-out is “up in the air” at the moment. The plan contains expenditure line items for hundreds of millions of dollars for anticipated projects and activities for which there is no design or construction information provided. It’s a huge worry that cost over runs on projects inevitably will occur (e.g. Ferrymead Bridge) and which potentially will put a huge burden on the Council and ratepayers of Christchurch for generations to come.
3. CERA and CCDU are making decisions in terms of the city’s development and design that the Council needs to scrutinize carefully. The cost share agreement signed off by the previous council had behind it no public consultation or input whatsoever. Alarmingly the CCC is now locked into a huge capital programme that has inherent risks such as rising construction costs and completion date over runs. Extreme caution is required when determining the roll out of those projects, and whether, in fact, some projects are too ambitious and require cut back, deferral or abandonment. These things have to be sensibly reassessed so we strongly recommend reopening discussions over the current cost share agreement between CCC and government. Given the uncertainties of such a large programme, it would also be foolish to commit at an early stage to sales of assets that may well be regretted later but turn out to be unnecessary financially.
- 44 - 4. The renegotiation of the cost share agreement is vital because the current deal with central government is unfair and forces the council into “anchor projects” most Christchurch people would be happy to defer or abandon. As part of the renegotiation process there needs to be prior comprehensive public dialogue on determining what Anchor Projects should proceed and sensible implementation timeframes of the construction programme.
5. The assets of the city have kept our rates lower than comparable cities in the country. They are not just there to sell off on a “rainy day” – they provide real services and real returns to the people of Christchurch, improving the quality of their lives as well as being a benefit to them financially. Very tangible social and economic benefits have resulted from Council ownership of our strategic assets. For example City Care and Orion played major roles in the city’s resilience after the earthquakes. Orion chairman Craig Boyce has publically stated that city ownership of Orion allowed the company to do some things that private sector owners would probably not have done such as earthquake strengthening from the 1990s. He claims Council ownership had a huge effect on getting the power back on quickly. This lessened the social and economic impact on our community that would otherwise have been far worse.
6. The Council claims that it can have little influence over the company because Orion’s prices are highly regulated. The above experience shows that this is wrong. The experience of Wellington which privatized its electricity network in the early 1990s is salutary. Economist Peter Harris, policy analyst Jim Turner, and former chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s Utility Services Committee Dick Werry, compared the performance of two local monopolies in Wellington1 - the privatized electricity company and the local water company which remained in local government ownership. They found that the operating expenses and depreciated historical values of the two operations were similar in 1990 but between 1990 and 2010 the costs of water supplies increased by just 17.5% - less than inflation – with evidence of more efficient use of the water resource, while the cost of the privatized electricity distribution increased by 295%. The huge increase in electricity distribution costs was largely to service a grossly inflated capital value of the electricity monopoly from about $180 million in 1990 to over $800 million in 2008 brought about through sale and resale of the company by successive private owners. (See more on this at Appendix “A” )
7. Regarding the Port of Lyttelton, there was heated debate in 2006 when there were proposals to sell half of the Port of Lyttelton to “strategic” private owners. One of the likely winners was huge multinational port owner and operator, Hutchison Port Holdings, another member of Li Ka- Shing’s group (owners of Wellington Electrical). The likelihood was that it (or another similar port multinational) would use its de facto control of the port to reduce it to a feeder to Hutchison’s larger regional hubs and to favour the shipping lines it owns or controls. Lyttelton would become a pawn in a larger game rather than a strategic asset for Canterbury. There would be the risk of it casualising jobs, deskilling the workforce and pushing to import low cost labour as it does in many of the other ports it owns and controls.
1 “A tale of two networks: water and electricity in the Wellington region 1990 to 2010”, available at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1111/S00231/water-and-electricity-in-the-wellington-region-1990-to-2010.htm
- 45 - 8. We need to be told what the Council means by “strategic partners”. If it is this model, we will regret it for decades to come. On the other hand, if the proposal is for greater cooperation with other councils and port authorities, then it may be worth considering.
9. It is important for the City Council to maintain control and ownership of its strategic assets. Through the democratic process of electing councillors the citizens of Christchurch, through the Council, are able to control the future development of our city much more so than if they are sold off to disparate, profit-first owners, who have less of an interest in the city and its people.
Public ownership enables those commercial assets to do things that are for the public good, not just the private profit of shareholders. The profits generated from assets such as Orion, City Care, the Lyttelton Port company and ChCh International Airport have served to keep rates much lower than they would have been if the CCC hadn’t had them. Although debt servicing will be less if we sell assets it’s very questionable whether the longer term benefits to our community will be as good once assets have gone. The returns to productive assets in the long run are greater, whether it be financial or in terms of the benefits to the Christchurch community, than the cost of debt.
10. The financial modelling upon which the Cameron Partners report builds it arguments is not the only financial modelling available. A viable alternative to the options outlined in the Cameron Partners Report is that recently announced by People’s Choice councillors in its Common Sense Plan for the next 10 years. Unions Canterbury fully supports this plan and recommends the Council adopts the four strategic steps of that plan as a sensible and sustainable plan for the future positive development of our City and its citizens.
11. It is also essential the CCC articulate a financial model that prioritises public good, provides strong leadership and stands alongside those of us who are not willing to sacrifice our communities social, economic, environmental & cultural wellbeing because of what seems to be an inflexible central government “austerity” agenda which at its centre is the promotion of selling our strategic assets and refusal to renegotiate rebuild cost share arrangements.
12. We must adopt an alternative way. It is untenable for both the community and the council to be pressured into making hasty, uncertain and potentially disastrous decisions that will have serious consequences in the future. We must not become mere passengers in an airplane flying blind because we have much less certainty where we will end up. Our preference is to fly a clearly chartered course that is affordable, sustainable and practical and one that has been fully supported by the people of this city.
In Summary
- The Council needs to renegotiate the Cost Share Agreement with the Crown with a view to establishing a priority list of Government and Council projects based on extensive and meaningful community consultation with the citizens of Christchurch.
- 46 - - The extent of the projects in terms of how many, the scale and timing of agreed projects are all matters requiring careful consideration but central to that consideration must be keeping control and ownership of our strategic assets.
- That the Christchurch City Council adopts a full review of its financial assumptions with a view to retain management, ownership and control of its Assets.
- Any proposal by the CCC to sell any significant asset (fully or partially) shouldn’t occur unless full public disclosure occurs and Christchurch citizens have full opportunity to debate and make representations on those proposals.
- Unions Canterbury endorses The People’s Choice Common Sense Plan as a preferred, viable and sensible alternative to options presented to date in the Christchurch City Council’s Long Term Plan.
We thank the Council again for the opportunity to make this submission.
Karena Brown Paul Watson Convener Unions Canterbury Unions Canterbury Earthquake recovery coordinator
Email; [email protected] Email: [email protected] Mob: 0275 498 479 Mob: 021 618 395
------
- 47 - APPENDIX “A” Commentary on Wellington City Council’s privatisation of Electricity
The huge increase in electricity distribution costs was largely to service a grossly inflated capital value of the electricity monopoly from about $180 million in 1990 to over $800 million in 2008 brought about through sale and resale of the company by successive private owners.
Did these much higher costs of electricity distribution at least lead to better service? Many Wellingtonians would say quite the contrary. A fierce storm in June 2013 cut power supplies to many homes, some for more than a week. The chief executive of privatized lines company Wellington Electricity, Greg Skelton admitted that “the storm has exposed problems with how the lines company deals with extreme events”. He said the cost of making the network able to stand up to the storm would mean higher prices and said it might be cheaper if people bought generators for emergencies.
The Dominion Post reported that “Many people were given the runaround by power retailers and Wellington Electricity, leaving them unsure where to go for help and for updates.” It recalled that questions have previously been raised about the network's reliability during normal business, too. The Commerce Commission is investigating why Wellington Electricity failed to meet the price and quality of service standards over the past two years. It is not the first time the company has fallen short of those targets, since it was bought by Hong Kong company, Cheung Kong Infrastructure, in 2009 … In 2009-10, Wellington Electricity missed the targets set by the commission. The company met them in 2010-11, but breached again in 2011-12. Wellington Electricity blamed the poor performance on "unusual weather- related events including snow and strong winds". The 2012-13 year has not been any better and, as a result, the commission has put the company under closer scrutiny.2
Skelton denied that the Hong Kong ownership of the company made any difference. But well-known local businessman Graeme Moore, co-owner of specialist grocer Moore Wilson’s, wrote in the Dominion Post the month after this experience, that3 “In recent weeks, the performance and attitudes of our local electricity network have left me, as a local businessman, feeling nervous about the future… Moore Wilson's was one of the luckier ones when the storm hit on June 20. We suffered no power outages. But I was as astonished as anyone at the way Wellington Electricity handled the crisis. It took 11 days for the company to restore power to all affected homes and businesses in the region. This was a severe storm, no question. Yet we all know the wind can blow in Wellington. Wellington Electricity's response smacked of an organisation that was neither crisis-prepared nor fast on its feet …
When the company did start talking through the media, we heard a lot about money - what the storm was costing Wellington Electricity and how it intended to recoup that money from us, the consumers. A piece of advice was also offered: the company suggested it might be better for all Wellington businesses and households to invest in our own generators. That's nothing short of absurd.
I felt some discomfort when Wellington City Council sold off the electricity network to private interests years ago. Since then the network has had a succession of overseas owners and is currently part of an empire chaired by one of the richest men in the world, Li Ka-shing of Hong Kong. All but one of Wellington
- 48 - Electricity's board are Hong Kong- based businesspeople. And that one lives in Auckland. I now feel more than just discomfort.
If this is private sector efficiency, I'm worried. Compare Wellington Electricity's performance to the openness and commitment of Orion, Canterbury's publicly owned (and award-winning) lines company, which has battled through a series of recent crises, most of them much worse than ours. The contrast is stark.
There's been a lot of talk recently about the importance to the Wellington economy of infrastructure. I would have thought energy needs were a vital part of that equation. I feel confident Wellington City Council does care about the welfare of Wellington businesses such as ours. However, I doubt Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong gives us any thought at all. And that's the problem. Our electricity network is under his control, not the council's.
------
References:
“The storm goes on for some. Why are hundreds still without power”, by Kent Blechyndenj, Dominion Post, 29 June 2013, p.C1, C2. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8855419/The-storm-goes-on-for-some
“Overseas owner safe from our storms”, Dominion Post, 12 July 2013, p.A9. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion- post/comment/8909639/Overseas-owner-safe-from-our-storms.
“Lines firm fobbed off customers – council”, by Tom Hunt, Dominion Post, 9 January 2014, p.A3, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9590326/Lines-firm-fobbed-off-customers-council.
“Power company apologises for shambles”, by Tim Donoghue, Dominion Post, 28 January 2014, p.A2, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9655787/Power-company-apologises-for-shambles.
“’Overcharging’ prompts fall in power bills”, Dominion Post, 29 November 2014, p.C6. “Electricity prices to get a trim in Wellington”, by James Weir, Dominion Post, 3 March 2015, p.B4.
- 49 - Submission No. 12364 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: John Kerr Postal Address (Street)*: 13 Dunn Street Postal Address (Suburb): Somerfield Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8024 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 500 plus Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Rail and AMrtime Transport Union Lyttelton Port and Rail Branches Your role in the Organisation: Organiser Date Sent: 21/04/2015 2:35:00 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Cell: 027 246 4941 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
Asset Sales The Rail and Maritime Transport Union represents more than 4500 workers in the transport and ports industries in New Zealand. Our Christchurch Rail and Lyttelton Port Branches number more than 500 members. We represent over half the frontline workers directly employed by Lyttelton Port Compnay.
We are vehemently opposed to asset sales by Christchurch City Council.
In our experience, the privatisation of publically owned assets that are operated as businesses leads to a deterioration of health and safety standards and increased risk of serious harm and death. This was our experience during the privatisation of the rail industry in New Zealand.
Lyttelton Port has an unhappy recent history of deaths and serious harm injuries on the waterfront and at its inland port. We do not wish this situation to be made worse by a sell off of the port.
We are opposed to the sale of the port and other assets on other grounds:
1. It is unnecessary. So called 'anchor projects' can be shelved or delayed - it is not necessary to sell assets to pay for these projects. 2. It does not make economic sense. To forego the dividends these assets return by selling them off is short sighted and will lead to rates increases. Christchurch has historically enjoyed lower rates than other major centres because of the returns from the investment the Council has made in its assets. - 50 - 3. This sell off is ideologically driven. We understand the Chair of the City Finance Committee is on the record as saying that he favours the sale of assets not because it is economically necessary but because it is 'the right thing to do'. Plainly it is not the 'right thing' to do; rather this is a initiative that is being driven through to privatise the profits of the Council owned assets.
We submit that the alternative Common Sense Plan put forward by People's Choice Councillors should be embraced by the City Council. To argue that local government is somehow apolitical, as Raf Manji, implied in the Christchurch Press on 20 April in response to the launch of the Common Sense Plan, suggests he is either being duplicitous or he is ignorant of the nature of politics.
This issue involves hundreds of millions of ratepayers' dollars; it will affect the lives of thousands of people living and working in Christchurch for years to come; if that isn't a political issue then we don't know what is.
- 51 - Submission No. 12343 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: John Kerr Postal Address (Street)*: PO Box 237 Postal Address (Suburb): Lyttelton Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8024 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 500 Christchurch Rail and Lyttelton Port Branches Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Rail and Maritime Transport Union Your role in the Organisation: South Island Oragniser Date Sent: 17/04/2015 4:55:38 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Cell: 272464941 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
Sale of assets I wish to make an oral submission on behalf of the RMTU.
1. Our union represents over 500 members in our Christchurch Rail and Lyttelton Port Branches in Christchurch. 2. Our members are opposed to the sale or partial sale of assets including the airport, port, electricity network and other strategic assets. 3. We believe this so called consultation process has been rushed and has not been properly debated. Alternatives have not been explored. 4. The Chair of the Council's Finance Committee is on the record as saying this is not about the council's financial position, rather 'we would be doing it anyway because we think it is right' i.e. this is ideologically driven and our union is deeply opposed to this ideology. 5. In particular, our port membership are vehemently opposed to the sale of assets and will embark on a full blooded public campaign against any sale or partial sale.
- 52 - Submission No. 12667 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Alliane Party Postal Address (Street)*: c/- 70A Jervois Street Postal Address (Suburb): South Brighton Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8061 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 500 Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Alliance Party Your role in the Organisation: Leadership Date Sent: 25/04/2015 11:22:00 AM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Bus: 03 3885024 or 0272709033 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
Asset Sales The Alliance requests that the Council not sell any Council owned assets. The Alliance has a proven record of opposition to the sale of publicly owned assets whether at central or local government level and while in government the Alliance created publically acclaimed Kiwibank in the face of Labour Party and National Party criticism. It also led the re-purchase of other sold public strategic assets. The Alliance considers it important it should be heard on the Council's intention to sell Council assets because the author of the Cameron Report on which the Council relies is the entity that advised the Labour led Government against the purchase of Kiwibank. The success of Kiwibank and the perseverance of the Alliance in its establishment is testimony to the Alliance's sound approach to public ownership of valuable and strategic assets. More time is needed for the Canterbury members of the Party to address this important matter and so the Alliance requests the opportunity to make further submission and to appear before the Council to be heard.
- 53 - - 54 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
Submission to Christchurch City Council from Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT)
Prepared by Tim Hunter Chief Executive Christchurch & Canterbury Tourism
24 April 2015
- 55 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism is the Regional Tourism Organisation (RTO) for our province and operates with the objective of growing the overall prosperity of Cantabrians through the economic and social contribution of our visitor economy.
Since 2012 CCT’s marketing activities have enabled the city and the region to achieve a sustained recovery in visitor sector performance.
The recent metrics highlighting this include:
1.56 International Guest Nights Christchurch in Commercial Accommodation (millions)
38% growth in international 1.03 guest nights in Christchurch .865 .912 City over the past two years .743 to 1.032 million per annum.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Delivery of five marketing campaigns in Australia over the past two years, which have contributed to an 11% lift in Australian holiday market performance over the past summer and the successful initiation of new 11%lift in Australian holiday market direct air services from Perth to Christchurch.
Strong online growth. Achieved a 33% increase in site visits to 33% www.christchurchnz.com to 520,000 per annum.
2 - 56 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
Completed 28 Christchurch City conference bids in the past 12 months, increasing our share of the 80,000 New Zealand conference market from 6% to 9% delegate days generating more than 80,000 delegate days in our city.
Developed the “Pockets of Awesome” domestic 103,000 campaign aimed at encouraging New Zealanders to awesome views visit our city. This has generated more than 103,000 video views.
Completed a substantial economic impact assessment development on the benefits of re-establishing a cruise wharf in Lyttelton and lobbied the case for a cruise wharf development to all key stakeholders.
Completed briefings and training presentations to more than 800 international travel sellers on the recovery of 800 Christchurch and the message that the city is open for travel sellers business.
These are just a few examples of CCT activities that are driving a strong recovery that now has momentum. It is vital that CCT does not lose the capability to maintain this momentum over future years, to ensure the visitor economy remains a key driver to the economic recovery of our city and creates new jobs when the rebuild economy starts to taper.
CCT therefore seeks the support of Council in approving the funding proposed in the draft LTP Activity Management Plan for Economic Development which as well as providing core visitor services will also:
1. Enable a further $1.0 million of leveraged funding from CIAL and MBIE towards the visitor sector recovery projects of the Canterbury Tourism Partnership which is primarily focused on air capacity development and new initiatives to improve tourism outcomes from China, and
2. Resource the Christchurch and Canterbury Convention Bureau (operated by CCT) to lift its Christchurch City conference bid performance by 40% in the long term and enable the Bureau to resume sales activity in Australia to attract international conferences to Christchurch.
3 - 57 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
INTRODUCTION
Tourism in Christchurch and Canterbury is a major economic sector seriously impacted by the 2011 earthquake events. It requires targeted and specific actions to both recover the decline in visitor activity and to pursue new market development opportunities for the economic and social benefit of the city and region.
Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism is the Regional Tourism Organisation (RTO) for our province and operates with the objective of growing the overall prosperity of those within our region through the economic and social contribution of our visitor economy.
Our primary functions are to :
1. Market our region to prospective visitors. 2. Support Tourism New Zealand’s international media and travel trade training programmes at a regional level. 3. Provide high quality visitor information and booking services. 4. Represent and advocate for our visitors and our industry. 5. Communicate effectively to all key stakeholders on tourism issues, trends and opportunities. 6. Maintain momentum in the recovery of the Christchurch visitor economy following the 2010 & 2011 earthquakes.
CCT also owns and operates the Christchurch and Canterbury Convention Bureau (CCCB) which markets the city and region to domestic and international conference, meetings and incentive customers and professional conference organisers.
Grow regional prosperity through economic and social impact of our visitor economy.
4 - 58 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
Over the past year CCT has made considerable progress in the following output areas:
1. We have raised $1.4 million of external funding to leverage the CCC funding contribution of $2.9 million including $0.5 million from central government towards specific recovery projects.
2. Delivered three major consumer campaigns in Australia which have contributed to an 11% lift in holiday arrivals into Christchurch over the past summer and significant growth in web traffic.
3. Upgraded content and design elements on www.christchurchnz.com which has resulted in a 33% increase in site visits to 520,000 per annum.
4. Completed 28 Christchurch City conference bids in the past 12 months and increased our share of the New Zealand conference market from 6% to 9% generating more than 80,000 delegate days.
5. Interacted with more than 800 international travel sellers at 13 international trade training events and hosted more than 70 international media in our city and province.
6. Provided media staff to assist Tourism New Zealand with the considerable local media hosting requirements around Cricket World Cup.
7. Developed the “Pockets of Awesome” domestic campaign aimed at encouraging New Zealanders to visit our city, which has generated more than 103,000 video views.
8. Completed a substantial economic impact report on the benefits of re-establishing a cruise wharf in Lyttelton.
9. Developed a unique Christchurch hotel investment model and hosted six hotel investment groups in Christchurch to assist in fact-finding and planning for new hotel investments.
Over the past 12 months international guest nights in Christchurch have grown by 14% and domestic by 3%.
5 - 59 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR CCT
The $2.94 million per annum funding proposed at the outset of the LTP will enable CCT to deliver a range of core destination marketing services that will address the following strategic priorities:
• Recover the Australian holiday market to Christchurch & Canterbury that declined by 45% after the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes.
• Grow the China holiday market to our region by improving tourism product alignment with the needs of Chinese independent travellers and enhancing our online and trade marketing in China.
• Recover our share of the New Zealand conferencing market as city infrastructure is restored.
• Re-commence marketing of our conferencing capability in Australia in the lead up to opening a new Convention Centre in Christchurch.
• Develop a new world-class Visitor Centre in central Christchurch.
• Develop a stronger domestic marketing strategy that offsets the highly seasonal demand pattern of inbound tourism.
• Align our international marketing projects with CIAL to ensure that we optimise our joint efforts to establish new direct air connections to Christchurch.
• Improve online engagement with intending travellers.
• Use partnerships to leverage further government and private sector funding for CCT projects.
• Be a substantial participant in the development of a new Visitor Strategy for Christchurch.
6 - 60 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
LTP FUNDING LEVERAGE WITH THE CANTERBURY TOURISM PARTNERSHIP
In each of the next two years, $0.5million of the CCT budget will be allocated to the partnership marketing work of the Canterbury Tourism Partnership (CTP), which was formed in 2011 to enable CCT to deliver essential visitor sector recovery projects. This structure allows Council funding to achieve a threefold leverage due to the matching contributions from MBIE and CIAL.
With the matching contributions from MBIE and CIAL the annual CTP project fund totals $1.5million and since 2011 has been able to deliver :
• A minimum of two marketing campaigns per year in East Coast Australia.
• Specific Western Australia campaigns to grow holiday traffic on the new Perth- Christchurch flights.
• New market development initiatives to grow arrivals from our fastest growing major market – China.
• The Akaroa cruise passenger facilitation plan and the Cathedral Square Information Kiosk.
• Monitoring of visitor perceptions of Christchurch.
Over the next three years of the LTP, the CTP will place more focus on projects that will:
1. Support a significant step-up in air capacity into Christchurch from Australia by attracting new carriers onto the MEL-CHC and BNE-CHC air routes.
2. Build a much higher profile for Canterbury tourism experiences with travel sellers in Southern China as a demand catalyst for the establishment of new direct air services from China to Christchurch.
3. Develop a suite of new high impact audiovisual training resources for use with the international travel trade.
7 - 61 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
OTHER NEW CCT INITIATIVES PLANNED IN THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE 2015-2025 LTP
Improving our conference marketing capability in Australia
CCT reduced its Convention Bureau staff from 4 to 1.5 FTEs in 2011 due to the sharp decline in conference demand following the earthquake events and the loss of venues and accommodation.
As accommodation returns we are now at a stage where the demand for city conference bids is escalating. The prospect of having a new Convention Centre by 2018 has increased both international and domestic enquiry levels to a point that without further staffing we cannot meet the demand for city bids.
The additional $110,000 per annum requested and included in the Draft 2015-2025 Activity Management Plan will enable CCT to take on a further FTE in the Christchurch and Canterbury Convention Bureau (CCCB) to handle the increase in conference bid demand and re-commence conference sales and marketing activity in Australia, which was retrenched after the 2011 earthquakes.
Once fully operational the new Christchurch Convention Centre will host between 77 and 95 conferences and trade shows per year bringing between 49,000 and 60,000 conference attendees into the city. This will boost the central city economy by between $95 and $117 million per annum*. The extra conferencing activity enabled by the Convention Centre will enhance the city’s off-peak visitor economy, provide significant youth job growth and enhance the economic viability of inner city hospitality and retail businesses.
CCCB expects to increase Christchurch City conference bid delivery from 28-32 per year to 40-44 per year at a conversion rate of 35% or better. This is expected to directly result in $7 million of new conferencing activity being confirmed per year.
Increase bid activity for higher off-peak economic impact
*source: Greater Christchurch Visitor Sector Recovery Plan: July 2012
8 - 62 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
New Christchurch Visitor Centre Location
To enable us to keep pace with visitor recovery and expand our revenue base we intend to re-establish the Christchurch Visitor Centre on the Worcester Boulevard side of the Arts Centre from October 2015. The net cost of rental and outgoings after considering growth in sales commission will increase CCT costs by an estimated $140,000 per year in the 2015/16 year without any increase in core funding. CCT will look to offsetting these extra costs by establishing new revenue streams within the Visitor Centre environment and increasing fees from the CCT Business Partner programme which has 486 participating enterprises.
486 Business Partners
CCT role in the future Visitor Strategy
With the LTP Activity Management Plan signaling a revision to the strategic approach to developing the visitor economy in Christchurch, the potential for future changes in the scope of CCT activities and outputs is acknowledged.
While CCT has historically been focused on developing the holiday, visiting friends and relatives and conferencing markets for the region, the “Destination 2025” discussion paper developed by CIAL suggests that a new visitor strategy with a broader focus, that also extends to attracting major events and further stimulating the export education market, should be pursued. While CCT has supported the marketing of major events it has not previously had the city mandate to operate major events or have an active role in the marketing of education services. Within the education sphere the market development role has previously been delivered by education institutions, Education New Zealand and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
It should be noted that in the context of the CCC funding for CCT delivered outputs in the LTP there is no provision for new market development initiatives in either the major events or education visitor sectors.
9 - 63 - Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership Activity Management Plan of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan
COUNCIL CO-OPERATION AND PARTNERSHIP
CCT wishes to acknowledge the substantial funding support from Council as the provider of 65% of CCT’s annual income. The CCC contribution is however far broader than just funding and we wish to acknowledge the co-operation and assistance from Council in a whole range of areas that help CCT improve the visitor experience in our city and achieve our economic development goals.
We specifically acknowledge Council’s contribution to the visitor industry in the following areas:
• The 2011 consenting of a temporary Visitor Centre in the Botanic Gardens using modular buildings. This has allowed us to provide information services to more than 700,000 visitors since 2011 and has helped visitors enjoy the city during a difficult transitional period, when way- finding within the city was difficult and accommodation in short supply.
• The consenting of new temporary information kiosks on the Akaroa wharf has greatly assisted cruise passengers, as has the Cathedral Square information kiosk which was set up in 2013 to assist summer season visitors with way-finding and information.
• The CCC Transitional City team has been an important conduit to improving the visitor experience in Christchurch and improving visitor way-finding and signage.
• Endorsement of Convention Bureau bids with letters of Mayoral support has validated the Christchurch experience and the warmth of welcome.
• The CCC events team continues to successfully secure important major events for Christchurch including the three CWC games and eight FIFA Under 20 World Cup matches.
• Providing intending hotel investors with city recovery overview presentations and briefings on District Plan rules and consenting processes have given confidence to intending investors.
• By participating in international promotions of Christchurch, the Mayor has reinforced our recovery story with influential travel sellers and helped us in our goal to reinstate Christchurch in New Zealand itineraries.
• Partnering in the common production of city maps and other collateral material has enabled both CCC and CCT to achieve significant cost economies.
RECOMMENDATION
The directors of Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism recommend that Christchurch City Council supports and approves the proposed changes for the management of the Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership activity and the associated operational budget outlined in the draft LTP.
10 - 64 - Submission No. 13606 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Peter David Tuffley Postal Address (Street)*: 114 Birdwood Avenue Postal Address (Suburb): Beckenham Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8023 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: L:about Party Christchurch Central South Branch Your role in the Organisation: Secretary Date Sent: 28/04/2015 8:52:00 AM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Bus: 332-7951 or 022-364-1885 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
See supporting document attached See written submission attached as supporting document
CCC2015LTP-ChChCentral-South-LP_submisasionDRAFT.docx
- 65 - CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DRAFT LONG TEM PLAN 2015~2025 SUBMISSION BY THE CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL SOUTH\ BRANCH OF THE LABOUR PARTY
1 Long before seismic disaster hit Christchurch the Key government made clear its desire for a selloff of Council-owned commercial; assets. Since then, the Government has quite clearly sought to exploit Christchurch’s disaster to force the Council into such a course. This was clearly an underlying motive for its rejection of the plan resulting from the Council’s “Share An Idea” consultation, and for its imposition of a “Blueprint” and a so-called “Cost-Sharing Agreement” obviously aimed at driving the Council towards major additional capital expenditure and hence in the direction of having to choose between massively increased rates and a selloff of commercial assets. To its shame the Parker-Marryatt Council acquiesced in this “Agreement”. More regrettably still, the present Council has continued that acquiescence, with the result that the draft LTP presents the rate rise/asset sales choice the Key government has sought to impose.
2 But we view this as a false choice. In our view, the real issue is about managing the timing of expenditure within acceptable debt limits, especially capital expenditure, NOT between asset sales (which in our view represents a capitulation to central government blackmail) and politically unacceptable rate rises,.
3 We reject, and we urge the Council to reject, the view that there is no alternative to asset sales.
4 Rather than selling assets, we believe that the Council should give priority to drastically reducing the proposed capital expenditure, in particular by repudiating, or at the very least seeking to renegotiate, the number, size and timing of the Government's 'wish list' of projects which they require us to pay for - including the covered stadium and the convention centre in particular.
5 In addition, the Council should drastically prune the hundreds of millions of dollars for anticipated projects and activities for which there is no investigation, design or construction information provided.
6. The Council should also recognise that capital projects (such as the Bridge Street and Ferrymead bridges) usually take longer to complete than foreseen, and should therefore spread the expenditure over a longer period that is envisaged in the draft LTP. We submit that, since that proposed debt levels do not peak until 2019-20, there is plenty of time and scope to reduce capital expenditure and hence the Council’s borrowing requirement well before then.
7 In addition, on the operational expenditure side, there should be a vigorous search for ways of “spending smarter” on, for example, routine maintenance and the way in which services are provided, while avoiding cutbacks on services and facilities whose loss or reduction would be detrimental to the quality of grassroots residential life.
We wish to be heard in relation to this Submission
Anthony Rimell Chairperson, Christchurch Central South Labopur Party Branch 1/43 Seddon Street Beckenham CHRISTCHURCH 8023 Ph 332-3561 Email: [email protected]
- 66 - - 67 - - 68 - Submission No. 13639 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Penny Mercer Postal Address (Street)*: P O Box 91 Postal Address (Suburb): Lyttelton Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8082 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 50 Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Lyttelton Harbour Business Association Your role in the Organisation: Chairman Date Sent: 28/04/2015 9:58:00 AM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Bus: 03 929 0253 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
Please see attached supporting document with Issues/Topics Submission to the Christchurch City Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025 from the Lyttelton Harbour Business Association
The Lyttelton Harbour Business Association is a membership organisation that endeavours to represent, lobby for and protect the interests of Lyttelton Harbour Businesses. This submission speaks to those points within the proposed Long Term Plan that we feel hold particular pertinence for Lyttelton Harbour Businesses and the continued recovery of our local area.
Submission to the Christchurch City Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025.pdf
- 69 -
Submission to the Christchurch City Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025 from the Lyttelton Harbour Business Association
The Lyttelton Harbour Business Association is a membership organisation that endeavours to represent, lobby for and protect the interests of Lyttelton Harbour Businesses. This submission speaks to those points within the proposed Long Term Plan that we feel hold particular pertinence for Lyttelton Harbour Businesses and the continued recovery of our local area.
1. Proposed asset sales
We do not support the proposed sale of $750million of strategic assets. As you yourselves say in Appendix 3, page 83 the local government defines strategic assets as “assets that a council needs to retain to achieve or promote important outcomes for the community”. The council’s role as owner of the Lyttelton Port Company, for example, is vital for the interests of both the residential and business communities of Lyttelton and the harbour. If this particular asset were privately owned the views, values and needs of our community could not possibly be considered to the same extent as they can be under the current council ownership. A similar argument can be applied to Orion, the bus service, the airport – for indeed that is why they have long been considered ‘strategic assets’. There are important reasons why these should remain under council ownership and we cannot support a plan that privatises them.
2. Proposed rates increases
Whilst we understand the need to introduce rates rises given the hard task faced by the council to plug the supposed $1.2billion deficit, we cannot support the level of rises that are to be imposed on businesses. We ask why the increases are significantly higher for businesses than they are for residents? Many of our members have been struggling to stay afloat since the earthquakes with reduced visitor numbers and a shortage of affordable tenancies/leases. Rates increases to the level that seem to be suggested in the plan would be a crippling blow for many businesses and would represent a serious threat to the economic recovery of our township. We are disturbed by the lack of detail within the plan pertaining to the ongoing increases that businesses can expect and feel that there should be more detail on what is being proposed.
3. Review of capital works program
This is surely the key to the matrix. There is a long list of items that are desired, some are of more import and indeed more urgency than others. Some are essential for the cities regeneration, some are clearly ‘nice to have’s’. There is not enough money to do it all in the next 10 years, it would therefore surely be prudent to prioritise capital projects that meet the essential criteria and defer if not shelve those that clearly come under ‘nice to have’s’.
Lyttelton Harbour Business Association PO Box 91, Lyttelton 8841 ~ [email protected] ~ www.lytteltonharbour.co.nz - 70 -
If the stadium can be fixed for $50million why is it being budgeted for $253, plus a further contribution from the Crown? We understand that the cost sharing agreement is in place and is a binding document, but it clearly needs to be renegotiated to reflect the reality of what the city faces.
4. Looking for further savings in the way we operate our services
We are disturbed by the lack of commitment and focus given to this point and feel that this should be much more prominent within the plan. It is no secret that the council is seen at community level as being large, unwieldy and heavy with middle management. It seems grossly unfair to offer a plan that punishes small business through rates increases without offering clear strategies to reduce operational costs within the council itself. We suggest the development of a clear strategy with articulated targets to ensure significant savings be found.
5. Managing Debt Prudently
We are aware that the council is currently running at more than $450million dollars behind in its schedule of works. We feel that the schedule is over ambitious, trying to get more work done than can physically be achieved within the given time scales. Prudent debt management needs to include a realistic look at what can be achieved by when, so that we minimise borrowing and therefore interest paid.
6. Restoring facilities, contributing to Anchor projects
We feel that Lyttelton’s recovery is being aided significantly by the restoration of the swimming pool, the rec centre and the development of the new town square. It is these rather than central city anchor projects that our communities require to support their continued recovery. We would hate to see something like the Stadium be supported whilst other smaller, suburban projects were dropped.
7. Review of our strategic assets
We are alarmed at this (page 83, appendix 3). We question why there is a need to re- categorise these assets if there are no plans to sell them? And if they are not seen as strategic why are these not being sold BEFORE the proposed sale of ones that are? The explanations given on page 83 are not sufficient.
8. Roading – Sumner road project
We are pleased to see the inclusion in the plan to reopen Sumner road. We wish to stress the importance to our community of this vital road link and also the importance to the region for the transfer of goods from the Port to the rest of Christchurch. We urge this to be treated as a priority project.
9. Process
Finally we are deeply concerned about the lack of awareness both within our membership and our wider community of this consultation process. Many residents and
- 71 -
businesses that we have spoken to were not aware of the plan, they had not received it in the mail or in some cases they had received it but with only one week to go until submissions close. We note that the public meeting held in Lyttelton was extremely poorly attended with it would seem more council staff in attendance than members of the public – a clear indictment of the lack of public awareness around this issue.
We wish to be heard on the points made here in this submission and look forward to having the opportunity to give our feedback to you in person.
Regards
Will Lomax Chair Lyttelton Harbour Business Association
- 72 - Submission No. 13770 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Wendy Everingham Postal Address (Street)*: PO Box 54 Postal Address (Suburb): Lyttelton Postal Address Christchurch (City and Postcode)*: 8841 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 45 Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Project Lyttelton Inc. Your role in the Organisation: Treasurer Date Sent: 28/04/2015 12:01:00 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Bus: 03 329-9093 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
Community Grant Funding We believe that it is impossible to re-build a city that has taken over 150 years to develop in such a short period. The city does not need to be returned to its pre quake level of standard. We don’t have to have the best roads, the best architecturally designed buildings. We just need a place that is people friendly, creative, that has basic services such as power, clean water, green spaces, transport and a place where people feel they can make a difference.
We appreciate the support of council. The only budget in the entire council not to be cut is this one. That shows the level of support you have for the ability of your own citizens to make a difference.
Unsuitability of LtP generic process for Christchurch To force Christchurch City to produce a Long term 10 year plan at this stage of the cities recovery is an unjust process. There are too many unknowns still. We don’t want to see this process force us into to some expected outcomes
Cost Savings We believe communities could provide some services more effectively and efficiently than the current council structure. The plan does not investigate how council operations could be streamlined it just trims most budgets by 2%. We believe there is lots of room for improvements here.
- 73 - We would like to see the City Council become a member of the Lyttelton Harbour Timebank. This would be a great mechanism to explore what could be possible between a council and its citizens. This would mean that together we would be co-creating. Timebank resources would be partnered with City Council resources. We envisage Timebankers running the pool, looking after reserves etc. We would like to speak to this part of our submission to introduce you to what is possible.
We would like Councillor Raf Manji’s alternative currency option explored further. Citizens could be paid in an alternative currency to perform some of the work of council.
We support the “Common Sense Approach―. Reduce the huge capital expenditure programme and make savings by having less debt. Do the urgent work first and then think about the remainder of the work. Renegotiate the cost sharing arrangement with the government and divert some funding to other projects.
Sale of Assets We do not want council to sell off in full or partially key strategic council owned businesses until all options are explored. This can only happen when we know the result of central government funding and insurance payouts. We would prefer you look at liquidating smaller assets such as unused land and under used buildings These assets provide no or little return to the council.
We have no objection to removing the following assets from the Strategic asset list: Vbase and off street parking, These could be sold.
multiple topics Topic Events Funding Comments Events are really important for the health and well- being of the population. We think it’s time to move away from the really big council events. Have a couple as suggested but take some risks with your own creative communities. Let more things bubble up from the people rather than be generated by council. Our organiisation is so much more cost effective at producing events than you. The Lyttelton model would be a good one to explore. We have a year round events programme producing 4 quality festivals per year. Total cost just over $100,000.
Support local community event funding and make larger cuts to large style council led events funding. Divert some events expenditure savings to “Gap Filler― type initiatives and other creative activities.. These activities have boosted our spirits and made Christchurch appear a very vibrant and funky place to be.
Topic Transport Comments We support your initiatives to build more cycle ways and to improve bus networks and transport interchanges. With roading we believe you should place most focus on key transport routes, the main arterials and roads that support the bus network. We don’t need to have the smoothest roads in the other parts of the city.. We believe during all works thought should still be given to light rail. Even if unfunded at this point ensure the corridors remain so that it could be retro fitted in the future.
Topic Strengthening Communities Comments • We agree that key facilities should be prioritised for repair and rebuild. Facilities that are no longer relevant or used by a community should be sold. • We agree that co-locating facilities is also a very good idea. That has worked well in Lyttelton to date. • We would like you to be even more proactive when it comes to communities managing their own facilities. It’s not just about managing a - 74 - small park or a small cottage. In this community we believe we could manage our pool and recreation centre. A key system could work for both facilities and a local computerised booking system would be worth investigating. Currently this works very well at the local information centre. As a community we believe we can provide a more cost effective model than the current system operated by council. • Our Reserves Management Committees also highlight another model for the management of parks and reserves. Passionate local people actively manage some of these areas in Lyttelton. The Community Board adopts a “hands off― approach. We need council support for materials and some technical information but apart from that we raise funds and manage the reserves on our own. • We believe that many parks and open spaces do not need to be managed to the level of service you believe we require. Whilst Albion Square in Lyttelton is a beautiful space we would have been happy with something more rustic and not as engineered. Handing over the management of local parks to local people could be a cost effective way to manage these assets better. • We do not place high priority on the rebuild of a new stadium or central city sport facility. We would rather this money re-directed to other essential community projects
Topic Affordable Housing Comments • We support making social housing land available for affordable housing • We support creating an entity that would enable the council to source additional funding to grow the affordable housing stocks.
- 75 - Submission No. 12544 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Draft Long Term Plan 2015-25
- Received via Have Your Say -
Submissions close 12 noon on 28 April 2015 Full Name*: Pamela Richardson Postal Address (Street)*: PO Box 88027 Postal Address (Suburb): Pigeon Bay Postal Address Akaroa (City and Postcode)*: 7550 Email Address: [email protected] I am Completing this Submission: On behalf of a group or organisation If you are Representing a Group or 5 Organisation, How many People do you represent?: Organisation Name: Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee Your role in the Organisation: Chair Date Sent: 24/04/2015 4:44:00 PM Are you submitting a Supporting Petition Form? Do you wish to present your Yes submission at a hearing?: Daytime Phone Number: Bus: 03 304 6285 Email 2: [email protected]
Submission:
future of Akaroa Museum We wish to comment on the Museums Activity Management Plan, a foundation planning document for the LTP, which includes Akaroa Museum. Details are in the attached submission.
Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee submission to CCC LTP April 2015.doc
- 76 -
Submission to LTP 2015-2025 from Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee 24 April 2015
Contact: Pam Richardson, Chair, Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee
We request the opportunity to present our submission to Council in person.
We understand that council’s activity management plans form the foundation of the long term plan and it is on this basis that we make the following submission.
The Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee is disappointed at apparent shortcomings in the process of development of the Museums Activity Management Plan (AMP), which includes Akaroa Museum. We note particularly the factual errors relating to the Akaroa Museum and the poor quality of the overall document, which generally minimises the activity, role and importance of the Museum and the contribution it makes to Council’s community outcomes.
Akaroa Museum is a cultural facility which has been in local government ownership and management for 30 years, the last nine of those as an asset and responsibility of Christchurch City Council. It serves the local community of Banks Peninsula as a repository for its history, the residents of Christchurch City as a well-used cultural facility, provides a valuable experience to visitors to Akaroa and contributes to the tourism infrastructure of the greater Christchurch area.
Akaroa Museum does not merely, as stated in the AMP, “attract largely tourist visitors over the summer”. Although 50% of its visitors are overseas tourists, the other 50% are New Zealanders, with 20-25% of the total being Christchurch City residents. The summer months are certainly busier at the Museum, but it continues to receive steady visitor numbers during the winter.
Nor is Akaroa Museum fully funded by Christchurch City Council. Using the definition provided in the AMP it is rather majority funded by Council as it generates revenue (from donations, grants and retail activity) to offset more than 6% of its operating costs.
The AMP (p.1) contains the statement; “Longer term, it makes good sense to ask Canterbury Museum to manage the Akaroa Museum, but its buildings should be renovated prior to this.” The Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee is alarmed at the idea of Canterbury Museum management of Akaroa Museum and can see no evidence in the document of the “good sense” claimed for this idea. On the contrary, it doesn’t seem to make sense at all to remove a well-functioning cultural facility from the Council’s embrace and transfer its management to a non-Council organisation.
The AMP appears to signal a review of the cost effectiveness of service delivery but contains no explanation or discussion of the reasons. The cost of operating Akaroa Museum is a relatively small part of the investment Council makes in cultural facilities. It is the opinion of the Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee that Akaroa
- 77 - Museum is a very effective deliverer of service at present, attracting around 20,000 visitors per annum, open 363.5 days a year, staffed by only 3.5 staff and costing around $400,000 a year to operate. Benchmarked against other comparable South Island museums it is performing very cost effectively. It is difficult to see how the costs of any review could be justified by any savings identified in the review process. We note that this is cited as a condition for not undertaking reviews for service delivery and we suggest this should be the recommendation in the AMP.
Finally, the Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee is disappointed at the lack of consultation with the Committee, the Community Board or the community about a possible review of management. It hopes that future AMPs for Akaroa Museum are developed with the involvement of the stakeholders in the Museum and will include accurate information about the Museum, its significance and the contribution it makes to Council’s community outcomes. Better process will result in a better document as a foundation for planning Akaroa Museum’s future.
- 78 -
SUBMISSION TO: Christchurch City Council
ON: Draft Long Term Plan 2015/2025
FROM: Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board
CONTACT: Pam Richardson Chairman Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Phone: 03 3046825
Introduction
The Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board (the Board) thanks the Council for this opportunity to submit on the Long Term Plan (LTP).
The Board appreciates the financial constraints faced by the whole city and which the Council had to consider when preparing the Draft LTP.
The Board has endeavoured to keep its requests to the LTP modest and/or with a neutral effect on the overall budget.
As the Board developed its submission, a recurring theme became apparent - that is to involve the Board(s) more in the early stages of projects and the prioritisation of projects, especially those in the Capital Programme and projects on reserves. The Board wishes to pursue this further when the delegations to Community Boards are reviewed.
Sale of Reserves / Property
The Board has identified some reserves and Council property in the Akaroa/Wairewa area which it believes may be surplus to requirement and could be sold to release funds for capital development in the local community.
Further investigation will be necessary, however the Board has identified approximately 108 hectares, with a Capital Value over $3.9million, which it believes could be sold to fund important projects in reserves in the Akaroa/Wairewa area.
The Board is aware that the Crown will now allow monies released from sale of reserves to be expended by councils, provided a case is put forward and accepted for the funds to be spent on capital development of reserves.
Many of our local reserves require funds for capital projects. Funds from reserve and property disposal could be applied to capital projects on land other than reserve - e.g. marine facilities
The Board wishes to signal this as an option that it would like to explore further with the Council and staff.
Akaroa Museum Museums Activity Management Plan
Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee and Friends of the Akaroa Museum - Long Term Plan Submissions
The Board supports the general principles contained in the submissions of the Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee and the Friends of the Akaroa Museum to the Council's LTP, which highlight some inaccuracies and lack of understanding in the Activity Management Plan.
The Board does not support moves to have the Akaroa Museum come under the management of the Canterbury Museum.
- 79 -
Gardens and Heritage Parks Page 223 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Garden of Tane Renewals Project ID: 3113
The Board requests that the 57k total over years 2016/18 is spread evenly over the 3 years – i.e. 19k per year. A small regular amount of funding provided to the Reserve Management Committee can achieve great results in this significant reserve.
The Board supports the submission of the Garden of Tane Reserve Management Committee (RMC) which is also requesting a small amount in the budget each year, rather than the differing amounts indicated in the Draft LTP.
The RMC is a very active group and requires a small amount of funding each year to continue its development and conservation of the Garden of Tane, which is a treasured local reserve, but used by locals, visitors and tourists to Akaroa.
Gardens and Heritage Parks Page 223 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Takapuneke Reserve Renewals Project ID: 1436
The Board requests that this funding is prioritised to work on the Britomart Memorial area within the Takapuneke Reserve which urgently needs upgrading. The Board would like to work with staff to identify the areas of need. Planting, revegetation etc. of the rest of the reserve should wait until the Reserve Management Plan is adopted.
Neighbourhood Parks Page 224 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Stanley Park Renewal Project ID: 421
The Board supports the allocated funding and would support some of the funding allocation for other projects being reallocated for continued work in Stanley Park. This would enable the entrance way enhancements at Stanley Park to be completed.
This could be achieved through the Board prioritising the spending for parks.
Neighbourhood Parks Page 224 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Robinsons Bay Reserve Renewals Project ID: 422
The Board supports this allocation, but requests that staff work with the two community groups (Robinsons Bay Reserves Management Committee and the Robinsons Bay Residents Association) to assess and allocate spending in Robinsons Bay. Both groups are enthusiastic and wish to assist Council with these projects.
Neighbourhood Parks Page 224 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Okains Bay Renewal Project ID: 423
The Board supports the allocated funding for the Okains Bay Reserve, but requests that staff work with the local Reserve Management Committee and the Community Board to prioritise the funding to what is needed most urgently, which the Board believes is a development plan for the Okains Bay Reserve. This group has funds available to expend but needs a cohesive plan to consult with the community and from there develop the reserve.
- 80 - Cemeteries Cemeteries Activity Management Plan
The Board acknowledges the Key Issue in the AMP that states Insufficient land in the right location to meet demand. This is the case with the Akaroa Anglican Cemetery.
The Board wants an opportunity to make amendments to the Cemeteries Master Plan to make it a less prescriptive document so that alternative burial methods can be pursued in cemeteries where a lack of space is becoming an issue. The Board believes there are alternative self-funding options, such as a columbarium wall, which could be implemented in the cemeteries where land area has been exhausted, but staff advice is that this cannot be done if it is not included in the Master Plan.
The Board would also like to be able to set the priorities for implementation of works under the Cemeteries Master Plan, rather than the expenditure being decided on by staff.
Parks and Reserves - General Garden and Heritage Parks Activity Management Plan Neighbourhood Parks Activity Management Plan
Parks Maintenance - The Board welcomes the opportunity to look at an Akaroa /Little River focus for maintaining parks and reserves. There is a need to have a strong relationship between the Board and the community and raise the profile of doing things differently.
Reserve Management Committees - The Board wants to promote and foster community groups working with the Council, especially our Reserve Management Committees, which work on a volunteer basis to help maintain and enhance many of the reserves on Banks Peninsula. The Board requests that an allocation be included in the LTP to assist these groups with administration costs.
Events on Reserves - the Board requests that the Council develop a policy around events on reserves to encourage people to use our parks and reserves. The Board is concerned that the current rules and regulations imposed on groups wanting to hold an event are prohibitive, especially to small groups, with limited funding.
Prioritisation of Funding - the Board would like to see Community Boards have more say in how funds on reserves are spent and requests that this be considered as part of the review of delegations to Community Boards.
Harbours and Marine Structures Activity Management Plan Seawalls Parks Activity Management Plans Roads and Footpaths Activity Management Plan
The Board has been concerned for a number of years, and has requested information from staff on several occasions, regarding the seawalls on the Peninsula. These seawalls which in some cases support roads and in other cases are adjacent to reserves have had little or no maintenance for many years. It appears that only reactive work is carried out on the seawalls which are deteriorating rapidly with every new storm event. The seawalls also provide an important protection in terms of sea level rise and will assist in protection leading up to any necessary retreat.
In the Harbours and Marine Structures AMP where there is reference to only two seawalls, it is noted that most seawalls are included in other activities - e.g. Parks, Transport. The Board notes that there is no reference to seawalls in any of the Parks AMP's or the Roads and Footpaths AMP.
The Board submits that seawalls should be included in all appropriate Activity Management Plans, so that their maintenance and repair can be scheduled.
The Board further submits that funding should be provided to prepare a database of all seawalls and their current condition, so that funding can be allocated in subsequent years of the Long Term Plan for maintenance and renewal where necessary. This should be done in conjunction with long term planning for the effects of sea level rise and the funding requirements of staged retreat.
Wharves and Jetties Harbours and Marine Structures Activity Management Plan
- 81 - Table 1.1 - Key Issues - Old stock, many structures in poor condition and deteriorating, some are closed. More funding is required to bring them back up to standard. The Board agrees with this statement.
These wharves and jetties are used by a wide number of people, not just locals, but more so by visitors from the city and the wider Canterbury region. There are local community groups eager to help repair these structures through actively working on them, and helping to raise funds from external sources. These structures are important heritage assets that contribute to the physical and social wellbeing of Christchurch residents.
The Board urges the Council to work with local community organisations to help bring these assets back up to standard.
The Board has suggested in the past that the standard of these structures does not need to be the same as for the purpose for which they were built - that is, they are now used for recreational purposes, not for transporting freight.
The Board supports the submission from the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust which is also submitting on this issue and the importance of these structures.
Harbours and Marine Structures Page 224 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Akaroa Wharf Renewal Project ID: 2356
The Board requests that the planning for this project is brought forward and the bulk of the capital is brought forward to the beginning of the 2019/21 three year term.
This is an historic wharf and resource consents for the work may take some time to obtain. Opus recommendations state that the wharf has another 5-10 years remaining. If it is the lower estimate, the wharf will need work to be commencing in 2019.
Regional Parks Regional Parks Activity Management Plan
The Board is concerned at the proposed reduction in budgets as these will impact negatively on our community. If this is to happen there needs to be extensive interaction with the community.
Table 2.1 - Prioritisation of spend due to reduced budget - again, the Board would like to be involved in the prioritisation work. The Board would support less focus on planting and the spending prioritised for management of weed and pest control.
Clause 3.2 - What services we provide - the Board would like to add a point around providing assistance for further walking opportunities, and working with the community to do that.
Clause 3.3 - Our key customers - the Board supports Council continuing to work closely with local groups driving biodiversity as it is important to know the community and know the issues. As with many of Council's other activities the community and landowners play an important role in partnering with the local authority. The Board particularly supports continued close relationships with the Quail Island Trust, Orton Bradley Park, the Summit Road Society, the Port Hills Park Board, the Ihutai Estuary Trust and the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust.
The Board also supports the work of the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust and supports the Trusts submission to the LTP: Spine of the Lizard Project The Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust, is seeking support through the LTP for the Spine of the Lizard project and is requesting the following: - Retention of the Regional Parks team budget to allow continued track maintenance - Support for the Spine of the Lizard project as a project in the Long Term Plan, noting that no additional budget is required.
Clause 4 - Levels of Service and Performance Measures - Item 6.3.5 - Implement an annually updated Operational Pest Management Programme for Regional Parks - the Board supports this - the Council has a responsibility as the landowner to manage weeds and pests. Regional Parks - continued
- 82 - Clause 4 - Levels of Service and Performance Measures - Item 6.3.6 - Implement annual programmes for indigenous restoration planting areas - the Board suggests that after review it may be that restoration could be more targeted. It would be more important to continue weed and pest control before planting more areas.
Table 8.2 - Significant Positive Effects - the Board supports this as an important table of positive effects. By partnering with other organisations the dollars skills and knowledge compounds - strengthens the community resilience adaptive management etc.
Table 9 .1 Significant risks and control measures - the Board wants to be a part of this process. The Council needs to maintain infrastructure so we don't see demolition by decay. The Board suggests looking at new ways of partnering with communities to get good outcomes. There has to be prioritisation because we can’t maintain everything - have to be realistic.
Overall the Board asks that the Council continues to work closely with the Community Boards and the community for the maintenance and development of Regional Parks.
Social Housing Housing Activity Management Plan
The Board wants to maintain Social Housing in Akaroa at current levels, particularly as it is noted in the AMP that there has been a deprivation increase in Akaroa.
The Board is concerned to ensure that the maintenance on the current units in Akaroa is carried out to an acceptable level.
Lake Forsyth / Te Roto o Wairewa Flood Protection and Control Works Activity Management Plan
The Board wishes to highlight the need for a funding allocation of Flood Control Works to incorporate the process of consenting the Wairewa lake control structure (canal at the mouth of Te Roto o Wairewa/Lake Forsyth) and ensure adequate provision is made for likely consent requirements, including access across the structure. Insufficient funding could impede the Council's ability to give effect to any consent granted for the structure.
The Board recognises the value of the Wairewa lake control structure, in terms of its role in flood protection for Little River township, and in progressing the aspirations of the Wairewa Runanga and the local community for improved lake health; whilst also acknowledging the importance of the connection between Birdlings Flat and Bossu Road to residents and recreational users.
The Board submits that the funding allocation for Flood Protection and Control Works should provide for managing the full set of values associated with the Wairewa lake control structure.
Stormwater Drainage Page 235 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Banks Peninsula Stormwater Renewals Project ID: 390
The Board would like to see higher funding coming in from the 2019 year because of the inability of current stormwater assets to cope in flood situations, and the long term climate change and sea level rise effects, especially with stormwater/flood control work around Little River.
Stormwater Drainage Page 224 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Open Water Systems - open drains reactive Project ID: 990
As with Project 390, the Board would like to see higher funding coming in from the 2019 year because of the inability of current stormwater assets to cope in flood situations, and the long term climate change and sea level rise effects, especially with stormwater/flood control work around Little River.
- 83 - Little River Strategic Plan Strategic Policy and Planning Activity Management Plan
The Board wishes to see a strategic plan developed for Little River. The town faces a number of issues, many of which are inter-related and cannot be advanced/resolved without consideration in a wider context. The Board believes several issues, including the following, need to be addressed for the town to survive and develop: - Parking - Rail Trail - Bus Parking - Heritage Lease - Future uses for Council land - Flooding - Traffic Calming - Runanga needs - Speed Management - Walking Tracks - Pedestrian Safety/Linkages - Youth Recreation - Service Centre Improvements - Banks Peninsula Signage Plan - Strategic Future - District Plan Review – Eastern side of SH 75
The Board has already been involved in the production of an introductory scoping document and has formed the Little River Issues Working Party made up of Board members and community members, to prioritise and advance the recommendations in that document.
The Board is requesting that funding be included in the LTP for a full strategic plan to be developed. The Board envisages that this could be something similar to a Suburban Master Plan. The development of a strategic plan for the Little River community would reflect the preference for "place based planning" as discussed in the Strategic Policy and Planning AMP.
Active Travel Page 236 LTP Volume 1
Project Name: Major Cycleway: Little River (Little River Route) Project ID: 1990
The Board supports the retention of this project in the LTP, but stresses that it be looked at in conjunction with an overall strategic plan for Little River, so that as an important project for the township it is not considered in isolation.
Waterways and Open Space Strategic Policy and Planning Activity Management Plan
The Board can relate well to this document, and the clear message is, that the Council needs to work very closely with Community Boards. Adaptive management and new ways of doing things is going to be important and that if we understand the issues we can take part in the debate and work with the changes.
The Key Issues - there are a number of key issues identified in the document which clearly reflect the issues that we are focusing on and the real need for working together and finding new ways of doing things. Two of those are: Page 14 - Improving Waterway Quality - this highlights the importance of the Canterbury Water management strategy and the opportunities for a tremendous number of partnerships that are working well and continuing to grow. The Zone Committees work covers a number of Council policies and strategies.
Page 15 -Provision of a planning framework to facilitate alternative methods of open space provision across the District such as partnerships and covenants - the community is already working to enable opportunities for public access to special sites and walkways etc. The Community Board and other parties need to be working together. Changes to activities - once again anything involving our community needs to be channelled through the Board and include our community so we understand the issues and adapt to change.
Rural Fire Rural Fire Management Activity Management Plan
The Board believes it is important that Banks Peninsula has a system, facilities and equipment ready for fires. It is also important that we have staff and teams working on the ground who are familiar with our Banks Peninsula conditions. This past dry summer has highlighted the move towards dryer conditions.
The Board supports a continued level of service for these important resources and requests that local communities are consulted about the proposed review of Banks Peninsula Rural Fire Parties. (The review is identified as a Key Issue in Table 1-1 of the AMP.)
- 84 -
Events and Festivals Page 162 Long Term Plan
Frenchfest
Page 162 - Long Term Plan - the Board understands the need to reduce the overall allocation to Events and Festivals but requests that funding continue for the biennial FrenchFest held in Akaroa.
The Frenchfest is a one day event held in Akaroa to celebrate the area’s “frenchness”. It is organised and run by a local committee in conjunction with the Council's Events Team. The Board endorses and supports the festival and the continued funding of it by Council. The resources of our small community could not possibly take over the festival on its own, especially with all the requirements and regulations that have to be adhered to.
The benefits to our community are substantial. The festival attracts around 8,000-10,000 visitors to Akaroa and surrounds which helps the local businesses and kicks off the start of the visitor season in early October. The event is family friendly and has a focus on celebrating our unique history and heritage as well as the produce that comes from the Peninsula.
Environmental Education Environmental Education Activity Management Plan
The Board believes that Local Government and sustainability are fundamental and agree to the continued support indicated in the AMP for this activity.
Board members agree that we should be working with our communities and taking more opportunities to improve our environment - ecosystem health and biodiversity, waste reduction, water used efficiently, natural hazards and floods etc. This work should be extended to storm water sediment control etc. The Board believes that all organisations should be working together so we have no duplication of this important work, but with a focus on whoever has responsibility for the particular issue.
The Board would like to raise the profile of this work with Community Boards to support the considerable positive impact on our communities and to improve whole community knowledge. The Board would also like to integrate some of this work with the programmes that are run in our local schools - e.g. Enviro Schools
Roads & Footpaths Roads and Footpaths Activity Management Plan
The Board does not believe that this AMP relates to Banks Peninsula - it does not reflect the differing road standards and difficult terrain on Banks Peninsula. There is no reference to unsealed roads in the document or to stormwater or to the control of roadside vegetation. Overall the Board feels the AMP has a city (urban) focus - with no reference to the rural environment. The roads on Banks Peninsula are the life blood of the community - connecting our widespread communities.
The Board is particularly concerned about stormwater management and the clearance of roads following storms, because of the apparent increase in storm events.
The Board also has a continuing concern that not enough funding is being budgeted to maintain the standard of the roads on Banks Peninsula. Keeping the same dollar amount in the budget results in less cubic metres of road metal being applied to the roads. The Board believes that the continuing under investment in gravel roads will lead to a further downgrading of the base of the roads, which will cost more in the long term to reinstate. Work is urgently needed on gravel roads to protect the Council’s investment.
The Board is not aware of any significant policies around roading and requests that Council consider the implementation of some formal policy that would allow roads in a particular area (e.g. Akaroa/Wairewa) to be ranked in order of priority so that main linkages on the Peninsula would receive first priority for funding. The policy could also cover issues on unformed legal roads which is a significant and contentious issue on Banks Peninsula. To this end the Board would like to work with other Boards and the Infrastructure, Transport & Environment Committee to develop a Strategic Roading Policy.
- 85 - Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild Activity Management Plan
The Board supports looking for new ways of doing things and looking for all stakeholders and partners to explore new ways of doing things. We need to see the processes move along at an acceptable pace with the community being a major focus.
The Board believes that the rebuild should involve Community Boards and the community, with a focus on community engagement and managing community expectations based on city wide priorities.
Assets and Networks Assets and Networks Activity Management Plan
Long Term Infrastructure Strategy The Board sees this as an important Strategy outlining the core activities - water supply, wastewater, stormwater, flood protection and control works, roads and footpaths, and emerging issues.
Page 4 - Key Challenges and Opportunities for Assets and Networks - Table 1-1 a Key Issue is identified around providing infrastructure and facilities to support the future growth - the Board submits that with the present Council funding situation we need to work with our communities to find acceptable outcomes - for example we already have communities such as Okains Bay and Tikao Bay asking for improved water supplies. The Board suggests that central government could be lobbied for the reinstatement of subsidies to improve water quality for small community supplies to meet New Zealand drinking water standards. Council could also work with those communities to assist them in implementing improved systems. If we are to keep our rates at an affordable level we need to ask our communities how they can assist.
The Board appreciates the opportunity to make comment on the Long Term Plan development. The Board does have concerns about the submission process for the LTP. Boards need to have more information and earlier involvement with Activity Management Plans. It is a mammoth task trying to assimilate all the information contained in these documents to make a meaningful submission to the LTP. Documents are not easy to follow and identifying matters directly relating to Banks Peninsula has become a challenge.
The Board wishes to be heard in support of its submission.
Pam Richardson 28 April 2015
- 86 - SUBMISSION TO: Christchurch City Council
ON: Draft Long Term Plan 2015 - 2025
BY: Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board
CONTACT: Paula Smith Chairperson, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board c/- Lyttelton Service Centre P O Box 73027 Christchurch 8154
027 241 3772 [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board responds to Christchurch City Council's draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 as required by Section 52 of the Local Government Act.
The Board does wish to be heard in support of this submission.
2. OVERALL COMMENT
Asset Sales - The Board does not support the wholesale sale of Council assets unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Before any such sales, there needs to be a full community conversation on which Council assets are to be disposed of and other ways funding can be found.
The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board has a particular interest in Lyttelton Port of Christchurch, now wholly owned by Christchurch City Council. It is an opportunity not to be missed to modify the Port's objectives to benefit the Lyttelton community. If the Port Company is sold, it will put future revenue from the company into private hands. The Board asks that Council retain ownership of land needed for public good if the Port Company is sold.
Rates Increase - The Board notes that the population is aging and the rate take will decrease over time. The purpose of holding strategic assets is to ensure a revenue stream to cushion the Council from this decrease. The Board would support a small additional increase in rates as an alternative to asset sales.
Capital Works Programme - The Board generally supports the draft Long Term Plan as proposed and believes that reviewing timelines of some capital projects and additional savings on capital works could reduce the need to sell assets.
Purchase of Moepuku Peninsula (Unfunded) - This land purchase is supported by the Board not only because of its local benefits but also for its contribution to Christchurch’s whole open space network. A track around the headland would be a fantastic addition to the Head to Head Walkway, and will create future opportunities for overnight camping and other recreational activities such as kayaking tours, wildlife observation, and education outside the classroom, particularly in association with facilities at Orton Bradley Park and Living Springs. The Board suggests the Council-owned residential zone land in the Diamond Harbour area be sold to fund the purchase of this peninsula.
Community Funding - The Board does not support any cuts to community funding.
Line Item Funding for Orton Bradley Park and Otamahua Quail Island Restoration Trust - The Board supports continued line item funding for these and other community organisations working for biodiversity restoration and outdoor recreation on Banks Peninsula.
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long-Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 1 of 7
- 87 - Banks Peninsula Ecological Survey - The Board strongly supports continued funding for the urgent work of identifying and protecting sites of ecological significance on Banks Peninsula. The Board also supports funding for a landowner support package to enable practical protection of identified sites.
Heritage Assessment - The Board supports the ongoing programme of heritage assessment (Activity Management Plan for Protection Statement of Service Provision, volume 1, page 119). We are aware of sites on Banks Peninsula which may be significant but do not currently have District Plan protection, including pre-1900 wharves and jetties.
Urban Design Panel for Lyttelton - There is a high level of interest and awareness of urban design issues in Lyttelton. The Board has long supported the concept of an advisory panel made up of local design professionals who bring both professional expertise and deep local knowledge to assess consent applications for buildings in the Lyttelton Town Centre and for other projects coming up, such as Lyttelton Port Company's Dampier Bay development. The Board requests some funding to enable this to happen as well as a commitment from staff to refer proposals to the panel, particularly in pre- application phase.
Line Item Funding for Contents Insurance for Lyttelton Torpedo Boat Museum - Every year Lyttelton Torpedo Boat Museum has to apply for small grants funding to pay for insuring the museum contents. The Board understands the main item is on loan from University of Canterbury. The museum, which is in a Council-owned heritage building on the foreshore at Magazine Bay, is run entirely by a few enthusiastic volunteers. The Board would like Council to support the museum's contribution to community life by relieving them of the requirement to fill out the forms every year.
Universal Access to Public Transport Network at Diamond Harbour Wharf - The Board continues to request funding for upgrading ferry landing facilities at Diamond Harbour Wharf to enable all people to use the ferry easily and safely. We acknowledge there are engineering challenges and the solution is likely to be costly but this is an urgent matter. Only last year an elderly woman visiting Diamond Harbour for lunch on Mother's Day fell between the wharf and the ferry and had to be taken to hospital with a broken shoulder. It could have been fatal.
Diamond Harbour Town Centre Parking and Circulation Issues - Numbers of visitors to Diamond Harbour at weekends and holidays have increased significantly since the earthquakes and parking and pedestrian safety issues have emerged. The Board supports a review of roading and parking layout in partnership with Diamond Harbour Community Association's SPRIG Subcommittee, which commissioned some conceptual designs for solutions.
Bringing Cruise Ships Back to Lyttelton - The Board supports the performance measure for Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) (Activity Management Plan for Economic Development Statement of Service Provision, Christchurch Economic Development Coordination and Leadership, volume 1, page 110) which requires CCT to “...work with cruise lines to grow the cruise sector for Christchurch/Lyttelton & Akaroa.”
3. LYTTELTON/MT HERBERT WARD CAPITAL PROGRAMME COMMENTS
The Board makes the following comments in relation to the specific projects highlighted below.
Project Name Pedestrian Safety Initiatives Project ID 201 Part of this project funding needs to be spent in Charteris Bay between Orton Bradley Park and the Charteris Bay jetty. Charteris Bay has no alternative Comment walking route than the main road which has no footpath. This is also a planned route for the Head to Head walkway.
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 2 of 7
- 88 - Project Name Banks Peninsula Track Renewals Project ID 228 The Board supports the Ron Donald Trust submission to the Long Term Plan relating to the "Spine of the Lizard" network of walking tracks. Comment The recently approved Stoddart Point and Coastal Cliff Management Plan identifies a number of currently unfunded projects, some of which could be achieved using this budget.
Project Name Banks Peninsula: Seal Extension Project ID 241 The Board believes that this project is not a priority and could be spread out more Comment over the years or in fact reduced. The Board supports this project in the long term as it does reduce maintenance cost and sediment into the harbour.
Project Name Inner Harbour Road Improvement (Lyttelton to Diamond Harbour) Project ID 245 The Board supports this project. The Board notes that while Sumner Road continues to remain closed the over dimension heavy traffic is having to use the Comment Inner Harbour Road and there is a noted increase of weekend traffic. The community frequently comment on the state of this important corridor.
Project Name New Kerb & Channel - Rural Project ID 246 The Board comments that Charteris Bay is an area within Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Ward Comment that needs attention. It has areas of serious broken kerbs and channels.
Project Name Lyttelton Marina Environs Development Project ID 357 The Board notes that the funding for a development plan is planned for 2016 but there is apparently no funding for implementation of the plan. The development of a Comment plan raises community expectations. The risk with this strategy is the plan would be out of date if not implemented soon after the plan is approved.
Project Name Banks Peninsula Stormwater Renewals Project ID 390 The Board supports this project, especially in Lyttelton where ageing and Comment inadequate infrastructure contributes to flooding of private property.
Project Name Head to Head Walkway Project ID 408 The Board strongly supports this project, which enjoys strong community support. Additional funding will be needed to make the Inner Harbour road between existing sections of the Head to Head Walkway safer for increasing number of pedestrians expected. Comment The Board wants the Head to Head Walkway budget to be spent on developing new sections of the track. The Board would not support funding from this project budget used for pedestrian safety improvements on the Inner Harbour road.
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 3 of 7
- 89 - Project Name Lyttelton Brick Barrels Project ID 479 Comment The Board supports this project.
Project Name WW Lyttelton Harbour WWTP Project ID 890 The Board strongly supports this project per the agreed timeline Comment (refer Attachment 1) through the Environment Court mediation. There is a long history of community involvement in this project.
Project Name Intersection Improvement: Simeon/Godley Quay Project ID 918 The Board supports this project as improvements to the safety of the intersection is Comment critical. Is this part of the Lyttelton Marina Environs Development Project (ID 357)?
Project Name PT Facilities: Lyttelton Project ID 17155 The Board requires further information on this project as part of the narrative is missing in the LTP Capital Prioritisation Database. The Board notes there will need Comment to be changes to public transport facilities in Lyttelton associated with the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan.
Project Name Lyttelton Access - Freight Project ID 17217 The Board strongly supports Option C in the Lyttelton Access Statement, as highlighted in Action M2 of the Lyttelton Masterplan. Separating heavy port freight away from Norwich Quay has been a long held objective for the Lyttelton Comment community. The Board still hopes that the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan will accommodate this. Recovery of Lyttelton Town Centre depends on rerouting heavy traffic off Norwich Quay. The Board will be strongly supporting this through the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan.
Project Name Lyttelton - Pedestrian Links Project ID 17223 The Board does not support this because we note that by the time funding is Comment available there will not be two separate schools in Lyttelton as the new school will be complete.
Project Name Diamond Harbour Cemetery Drainage Works Project ID 17908 The Board needs to have a briefing on this matter. If the cemetery can meet short Comment term needs then the Board supports deferring the issue of drainage to later in the Long Term Plan.
Project Name Port Levy Public Toilet Renewal Project ID 17916 The Board notes there is sensitivity around this project arising from the toilet’s location near an historic site and the sea. The relocation of the toilet was identified Comment in a landscape development plan prepared in partnership with papatipu rūnanga. The Board supports the toilet block being programmed for 2019/2020.
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 4 of 7
- 90 - Project Name Naval Point Breakwater and Marine Project (Unfunded) Project ID 17918 The Board strongly supports this project. The Board notes there has long been community concern about the risks to recreational boat users, especially young and inexperienced sailors, trying to get their boats out of the water quickly and safely when a southerly change makes conditions on the water unsafe. Comment This project is currently unfunded. However, this is a critical safety issue for the community. The Board supports the submission of the Boat Security and Safety Association to the Long Term Plan. The Board wishes to highlight that this project should be developed alongside the work of the Naval Point Redevelopment Project.
Project Name Purau Foreshore and Reserves Project Project ID 18100 The Board supports this project, however believes that after consultation with papatipu rūnanga that the reclassification, interpretation and physical protection of Comment the urupa is the most urgent part of this project. The rest of the project could be deferred.
Project Name Banks Peninsula Track Renewals Project ID 2226 The Stoddart Point and Coastal Cliff Management Plan was recently approved, following consultation with the Diamond Harbour community. No funds are allocated to implement the Plan. The process of developing and approval of the Plan has Comment raised community expectations that the objectives of the Plan would be funded through the Long Term Plan. We request that part of this budget be used for tracks in Stoddart Point and Coastal Cliff Reserves.
Project Name Kirk Park Netball Court Renewal Project ID 2266 The Board advises there are no netball courts at Kirk Park in Diamond Harbour. Comment There are fenced tennis courts, which are only available to club members. This project refers to Kirk Reserve in Hornby.
Project Name Lyttelton Service Centre and Library Integration Project ID 20119 Comment The Board supports the project to repair and refurnish the Lyttelton Library.
Project Name Lyttelton Port Access Road & Lyttelton Access - Freight Project ID 919 The Board seeks clarification on the relationship between this project and Project ID 17217. The Board strongly supports Option C in the Lyttelton Access Statement, as highlighted in Action M2 of the Lyttelton Masterplan. Separating heavy port freight away from Norwich Quay has been a long held objective for the Lyttelton community. Comment The Board still hopes that the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan will accommodate this. Recovery of Lyttelton town centre depends on rerouting heavy traffic off Norwich Quay. The Board will be strongly supporting this through the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan.
Community Board contact: Liz Beaven Lyttelton Service Centre P O Box 73027 Paula Smith, Chairperson, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Christchurch 8154 28 April 2015 Phone: (03) 9415602 Email: [email protected] Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 5 of 7
- 91 - ATTACHMENT 1
TIMELINE for LYTTELTON HARBOUR WASTEWATER (Draft) Prepared by Paula Smith, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board, 27 August 2014 2004 CCC required to establish a working party to explore options for treatment of wastewater going into Lyttelton Harbour as a condition of consent to continue discharge at Diamond Harbour. Sewage was, and is still, treated and discharged at three locations around the harbour: Lyttelton, Governors Bay and Diamond Harbour. 2005 Lyttelton Harbour Wastewater Working Party made up of representatives from Council, Community Board (2), Te Hapu o Ngati Wheke (4), Church Bay Neighbourhood Association, Governors Bay Community Association and Lyttelton Environment Group, ECan, DOC and Community and Public Health. Between 2005 and 2009 the Working Party meets at least 22 times. Nine options are explored. Two preferred options identified. 2008 Brochure (A, attached) delivered to all households in Lyttelton Harbour Basin seeking community feedback on the working party's two preferred options. 162 submissions received. 2009 Working Party hosts a series of community workshops. Lyttelton Harbour Wastewater Working Party forms recommendations to Council. Council decides to accept working party's recommendation on 30 May 2009. A second brochure (B, attached) delivered to all harbour households to update community. Long Term Plan 2009-2019 provides $13 million over three years in capital programme (BAU Legal) for Lyttelton Wastewater Review. Expected date of completion 2022. 2010 Consent to discharge wastewater at Governors Bay expires. Consent to discharge at Diamond Harbour due to expire in 2014. CCC applies for consents for both Governors Bay and Diamond Harbour (Land Use Consent CRC101819 to store wastewater at Governors Bay, Coastal Permit CRC101760 to discharge to coastal water at Governors Bay, Land Use Consent CRC101843 to store at Diamond Harbour, Coastal Permit CRC101835 to discharge to coastal waters at Diamond Harbour) Application publicly notified. Hearing by commissioners Sharon McGarry and Edward Ellison. Decision to decline dated 23 August 2010. CCC appeals the decision (ENV 2010 – CHC235, dated 17 September 2010). 2011 All parties attend Environment Court mediation on 25 January and 17 February 2011 and reach a settlement which allows the consent to be granted. Parties to the appeal include Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tahu, Te Hapu o Ngati Wheke (Rapaki) Rūnanga, Diamond Harbour Community Association, Paula Smith, Church Bay Neighbourhood Association, Governors Bay Community Association, Lyttelton Harbour/Whakaraupo Issues Group and Cass Bay Residents Association. Expected date of completion of entire project brought forward to December 2022. 2011 Earthquakes, February 22, June 13 and others 2011 Following the earthquakes all parties attended a further mediation to re-evaluate the agreed settlement. Again agreement was reached. Consent Order released by Judge Jackson dated 18 November 2011 (NZEnvC163) Clause 5, Other Relevant Matters states: “the parties have entered the settlement agreement in reliance on the Council's commitment that there will be no use of section 124 to continue the existing discharges or use of section 127 to extend the project milestones except where extraordinary external events occur. Such circumstances will not include the failure of the Council to provide funding for the works, or any other financial consideration including increased construction costs or delays in the consenting process. The Council shall do nothing to frustrate the fulfilment of the conditions of the consents and other agreements and arrangements made for the wastewater discharges settlement the subject of this appeal.” 2012 Erratum issued by Judge Jackson correcting some minor errors to conditions as noticed and requested by CCC. 8 August 2012. 2015 All preliminary design details to be completed by 30 June 2015 (condition 22 (I)). All necessary
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 6 of 7
- 92 - TIMELINE for LYTTELTON HARBOUR WASTEWATER (Draft) Prepared by Paula Smith, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board, 27 August 2014 resource consents are to have been applied for by 30 September 2015 (condition 22 (ii)). 2017 Detailed design work completed by 30 June 2017 (condition 22 (iii)). 2018 Consent to discharge at Governors Bay ceases on 31 December 2018. 2021 All works commissioned and after a period of testing the Diamond Harbour treatment plant is to be decommissioned. Consent to discharge at Diamond Harbour ceases on 31 December 2021. 2025 Consent to discharge from Lyttelton treatment plant ceases.
Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 – 28 April 2015 Page 7 of 7
- 93 - SUBMISSION TO: The Christchurch City Council
ON: Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan 2015-25
BY: The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board
CONTACT Sara Templeton Chairperson Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Care of: Jo Daly, Community Board Adviser PO Box 73 052, Christchurch 8154 Phone: 941 6601 Email: [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board (the Board) thanks the Council for the opportunity to submit on the Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan 2015-25.
The Board would like to discuss this submission at the hearings to be held in May 2015.
The Board has the following comments to make for the Council's consideration on the information contained in the Consultation Document, Volumes 1 and 2 of the Long Term Plan and supporting documents.
2. ANCHOR PROJECTS
The Board acknowledges that all the Anchor Projects are physically located in the Hagley/Ferrymead ward and submits in support of the Board being involved in the development of these.
2.1 Anchor Projects Cost Sharing
The Board submits that the Council should seek to renegotiate the costs and timing of key anchor projects. Review with the intention of a renegotiation of the cost sharing agreement - horizontal infrastructure and anchor projects.
2.2 The Stadium - Anchor Project (1026)
The Board submits that a stadium is unnecessary spending of money when Christchurch has an adequate facility at the moment. Examples of other stadia in New Zealand, include the Forsyth Bar Stadium in Dunedin has shown clearly that such facilities are subject to build cost escalation and continual operational loss-making for a Council and are not accessible for community groups due to high cost of use.
The Board submits in support of at the very least the Council delaying funding this project from the 2022/23 start to 2024/25 with a lower allocation of funds to $20 million. The Board acknowledges that the requested review of the Cost-Sharing Agreement with the Government will hopefully have an impact upon Council funding for this Anchor Project.
15/488309 - 94 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
2.3 Metropolitan Sports Facility - Anchor Project (1026)
The Board submits that the Council should spend only the $77 million insurance money allocated to the Metropolitan Sports Facility on the facility without further borrowing.
Local community facilities should be the Council's priority and the requested review of the Cost Sharing Agreement should allow this.
3. SERVICE PROVISION AND GENERAL
3.1 Housing Statement of Service Provision (LTP Volume 1, pages 123 and 124)
Housing, Social housing complexes
The Board supports the Council performance targets to increase the provision of Council owned units from 2,100 currently to 2,366 by 2018.
Housing, Emergency/transitional housing services
The Board supports of the provision of at least 60 additional home spaces as emergency/transitional housing spaces.
The Board submits that the Council approach the appropriate Ministries to discuss the acquisition and relocation of the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service (CETAS) houses currently in Linwood Park and Rawhiti Domain for this purpose.
3.2 Natural Environment Statement of Service Provision, Environmental education, Environmental education programmes (LTP Volume 1, page 129)
The Board submission on this programme relates to the disaster preparedness programme for schools and the booklet "Stan's Got a Plan". The Board submits that a householder version of this type of publication be distributed to all households in Christchurch. The Board suggests the Council should consider sponsorship opportunities to enable this to happen.
3.3 Regulation and Enforcement Statement of Service Provision, Regulation and compliance, licensing and registration, Alcohol licencing (LTP Volume, page 147)
The Board submits in support of the inspection of all high risk alcohol licensed premises at least twice per year.
The Board takes this opportunity to record its continued support for the Council notifying and adopting a Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible.
2 - 95 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
3.4 Resilient Communities Statement of Service Provision, Community Grants (LTP Volume 1, page 162)
The Board is concerned at the reduction of the overall amount allocated to Community Funding. The Board submits in support of increasing, or at the very least continuing the 2014/15 allocation for community grants.
A reduction in community grants will result in hardship for projects and not for profit organisations providing services to the city. The Board considers that the value of enterprise funded by community grants will be greater to the community than that of events and festivals.
With regard to the performance targets set for this activity, the Board suggests consideration be given to a high trust model for well established community groups allowing funding for two to three years or line items to be dedicated to their funding.
3.5 Resilient Communities Statement of Service Provision, Events and Festivals (LTP Volume 1, page 159)
The Board suggests caution is required with regard to the performance targets for this activity to "Attract a range of regional national and international events". The Board considers that investment in home grown events based on Christchurch qualities that cannot be replicated elsewhere should be a priority.
The Board submits in support of the Council's Events Strategy being updated prior to any requirement for major event development.
3.6 Resilient Communities Statement of Service Provision, Capital Endowment Fund Grants (LTP Volume 1, page 164)
The Board queries how the development of new events will be possible with the reducing budgets for Iconic Events and One-off Events from Capital Endowment Fund Grants.
3.7 Resilient Communities Statement of Service Provision, Community Facilities (LTP Volume 1, page 161)
The Board submits in support of the provision of maintaining volunteer libraries rent-free and support for their collections.
The Board comments regarding the facilities rebuild programme are elsewhere in this submission.
3.8 Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal Statement of Service Provision, Wastewater treatment and disposal (LTP Volume 1, page 172)
The Board supports the performance measures and performance targets for this activity, including the 100% compliance with Environment Canterbury (ECAN) resource consents for discharges to air.
3 - 96 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
3.9 Stormwater Drainage Statement of Service Provision, Stormwater drainage, Water quality is maintained and/or improved (LTP Volume 1, page 184)
The Board submits in support of the service provided and of the performance measure that resource consent compliance for consents held by Land Drainage Operations for discharge from stormwater system.
3.10 Strategic Governance Statement of Service Provision, Public participation in democratic processes, City Governance and Decision- making (LTP Volume 1, page 188)
The Board submits that the performance measures for the service "Provide advice, leadership and support for engagement and consultation planning and processes" should include a face to face survey, as well as online and other measures. This form of survey increases the effectiveness and integrity of survey results.
3.11 Strategic Planning Statement of Service Provision, Strategic policy and planning (LTP Volume 1, page 193)
The Board submits in support of the services and performance measures included in this section that provide for the establishment of new Council policies and plans on natural hazards, urban regeneration and the central city and looks forward to working with Council staff in their development.
3.12 Transport Statement of Service Provision, Parking, Council owned on- street and off-street parking (LTP Volume 1, page 200)
The Board comments that the performance measures for this section should include clarification for the current targets that are not defined in the Three Year Plan.
The Board submits in support of Council control by owning and/or operating on-street and off-street parking throughout the central city. The Board considers that Council involvement will contribute to moderating the costs of parking in the central city.
3.13 Transport Statement of Service Provision, Public Transport Infrastructure, Bus stops, shelters, travel information and priority systems (LTP Volume 1, page 201)
The Board submits that the reinstatement of the free central city circuit bus/shuttle would be a vital contributor to supporting this service and the performance measure to provide journey reliability on high frequency core services.
Reinstatement of the central city circuit would also contribute to increasing Transport education, Travel Choice performance measure for a mode shift: contribute to overall increase in percentage of trips made by alternative transport modes - public transport.
4 - 97 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
3.14 Water Supply: Activities, Rationale and Negative Effects (LTP Volume 1, from page 205)
"Negative Effects: Land use compromises aquifer security and/or quality.
Council's Mitigation Measure: Ensure land use documents at City and Regional level recognise virtue of water supply. Work with the Canterbury Water Forum to improve risk understanding in land use."
The Board submits that this section requires revision as the Council is a partner to the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee, the Zone Implementation Plan and provisions therein in on water management city wide. The Canterbury Water Forum is a farmer-based group established in June 2012.
3.15 Water supply (including water conservation), Supplying potable water to properties (LTP Volume 1, page 206)
The Board submits in support of the performance measures for this service, including ensuring potable water is supplied in accordance with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand and Demand Management - Manage the average consumption of drinking water per day, per resident.
The Board submits that as Christchurch drinking water is the same as that used for every other water based activity, Council should consider care and conservation as per the demand management performance measure and give consideration to publicity and planning around this as well as an appropriate campaign.
3.16 City Council Fees & Charges proposed for 2015/16, Hagley Park Wickets - CCC Prepared Rep Matches (LTP Volume 2, page 89)
The Board submits that the setting of non CCA Events/Charity Matches hire rates is discretionary and that a maximum fee of half of the CCA rate would be more appropriate for charities.
The Board submits that the Council set a significantly higher rate for international cricket matches.
3.17 City Council Fees & Charges proposed for 2015/16, Wedding Ceremonies (LTP Volume 2, page 93)
The Board submits that the fees and charges for wedding venue hires should include the Rose Chapel, to allow for its availability after repairs are complete.
3.18 Regional parks, Provide and manage a network of parks of regional significance (Volume 1, page 134)
The Board submits in support of the implementation of an annually updated Operational Pest Management Programme for Regional Parks. The Board considers this is an essential activity and requests a budget increase to address evident animal and plant pest increases throughout the city. Cutting costs now will result in a false economy.
5 - 98 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
3.19 Water Supply (Water Supply (combining Water Conservation) Activity Management Plan Long Term Plan 2015-2025, 5 November 2014)
The Board submits on the Proposed Changes to Activities and the Key Change recommendation that states "In year 15/16 conduct investigation into universal water billing: with the expected benefit being a reduction in consumption and thereby deferring future capital investment to meet peak summer day demand."
The Board submits that a definition of expected benefit should not be part of the activity and that an investigation should be exactly that to avoid predetermining the expected benefit. The Board considers that a comprehensive and long term Christchurch water education/conservation programme is required as mentioned elsewhere in this submission.
3.20 Community Resilience, Community Newsletters
The Board submits that additional funding (with clear guidelines developed in conjunction with Community Boards) should be allocated for production and support of community initiated newsletters. This will enable Community Boards to support their communities in communication.
3.21 Rates Remission Policy and Rates Postponement Policy (LTP Volume 2, pages 31 to 35)
The Board submits in support of the Council Rates Remission Policy and Postponement Policy. The Board suggests that the Council publicise these policies in the community.
3.22 Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust (LTP Volume 2, page 66)
The Board submits in support of the Christchurch Agency for Energy Trust and the Council decision not to relinquish ownership of this agency and notes performance targets are set annually.
3.23 Community Boards Training Budgets (Public Participation in Community and City Governance and Decision-making, Activity Management Plan, Long Term Plan 2015-2025, 24 November 2014)
This activity management plan encompasses elected member capacity development and leadership training. The Board submits in support of increasing funding available for Community Boards and Community Board Members training.
Board members require adequate training to ensure quality decision making at the Community Board level. Currently the entire annual allowance for a community board is less than the budget allocated to each Councillor.
The Board submits in support of an increase from the 2014/15 budget to support professional development, training and mentoring for Community Board members.
The Board further submits that consideration be given to an increase in budgets every second year to allow attendance at the biennial Community Boards conference.
6 - 99 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
The Board supports that professional development relevant to the Community Board role can be provided through a variety of methods, including but not limited to current training providers.
3.24 Natural Environment (LTP Volume 1, page 128)
The Board submits in support of the increase in LEOTC numbers to pre- quake levels but has a concern that it may impact on the activities of the Regional Park Rangers. For that reason the Board submits that consideration should be given to an increase of funding for Regional Park Rangers to ensure these essential programmes can be continued without reducing other work undertaken.
The Board also supports an increase of the numbers of children receiving education on water and waste from 2,400 each year.
3.25 Asset Sales (LTP Consultation document, page 23)
The Board is concerned at the timing and scale of the proposed asset sales. As there may be further funding available from external sources, for example insurance and a review of the Cost-Sharing Agreement. It would be unwise to sell shares in assets now that may prove to be unnecessary. The Board also records concern over the administration and marketing costs involved in asset sales and acknowledges that information on the potential cost to the Council of asset sales is not available.
The Board support shares only being sold to strategic partners who have the community's long-term interests at heart.
The Board submits that the Council consider amending wording to include reference to an up to amount, "Release up to $750 million in capital by selling shares in…" and sell shares only where necessary.
The Board acknowledges the Council resolution of 26 February 2015 regarding the 2015/25 Long Term Plan Adoption of Financial Strategy and Underlying Information confirming release of $551 million capital as agreed on 5 December 2014 and agreeing to the release of an additional $200 million capital making a total of $750 million to ensure the Council solve [sic] for the worst case scenario.
3.26 Smart Choices 2015 - 2025 Christchurch City Consultation Document Christchurch Otautahi (LTP Consultation Document, page 13)
The Board comments on the paragraph below from this page in the consultation document:
"But we do know that the financial constraints applied to the SCIRT programme mean that while the parts of the city's infrastructure that have been replaced are now in much better condition than pre-2010, some will be returned to the city in a worse condition than pre-earthquake and will have a reduced remaining life."
7 - 100 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
The Board considers that returning roads to the city in a worse condition is unacceptable and submits that the Council should be taking action to ensure this is not the case.
4. CAPITAL PROGRAMME
4.1 Flood Protection and Control Works, Stormwater Drainage (2416) and (19398)
The Board submits in support of the Stormwater Management Plans for the Avon (2416) and Heathcote, Estuary and Coast (19398).
4.2 Garden & Heritage Parks, Linwood nursery clearance and land reinstatement (18098)
The Board submits in support of minimal reinstatement of this land following demolition of the buildings, to ensure future use is considered in an overall plan for this area.
On 31 July 2014 the Council considered the report: Facilities Rebuild Plan: Proposed Demolition of Linwood Library Cranley Street and resolved:
"2.5 Establish a working party of elected members and staff including the Board to consider the long term options around future use for this land and Council services in the Linwood area, with the Mayor and Chief Executive to agree on the membership of the working party."
The Board continues to record its support of the Council resolution and the development of an overall plan for Council services in the Linwood. The Board is disappointed that this has not yet happened.
The Board acknowledge the following capital programme projects in the Linwood area: Linwood Park Pavilion work budgeted at $351,000 in 2017-19 (1445) and Woolston/Linwood Pool $17,202,000 in 2019/20 (21129). Also included in the Council's capital programme in the Linwood area are the Community Facilities (Inl Heritage) Rebuild Programme (19590) which includes the Linwood Library and the Corporate Property R&R (462) which allows for Linwood Service Centre additional co-location costs with the Linwood Library in 2019.
4.3 Road and Footpaths, Suburban Masterplan: Linwood (Transport Activities) (1973)
The Board submits in support of the Linwood transport activities project.
4.4 Intersection Safety: Aldwins/Buckleys/Linwood (17103)
The Board submits that consideration be given to the impact on this project for intersection safety of the proposed Rapanui Shag Rock major cycleway signalised cycle crossing at the Linwood Park across Aldwins Road.
8 - 101 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
4.5 Intersection Safety: Deans/Riccarton/Riccarton (17124)
The Board submits in support of this project taking into consideration the work currently being consulted on in the Proposed Riccarton Road bus priority measures and Central Riccarton street enhancements.
4.6 Parks & Open Spaces, Neighbourhood Parks, Scott Park redevelopment as per master plan for main road (1446)
The Board submits that the redevelopment of Scott Park requires some immediate funding, as the project is currently unfunded. This park is at the gateway to the coastal suburbs and the Christchurch Coastal Pathway and should be in tidy condition. Future funding should be allocated to the redevelopment of the park in line with the master plan and other estuary edge planning documents.
4.7 Road and Footpaths, Road Network, Taylors Mistake Road Upgrade (2448)
The Board submits that this project should be funded.
4.8 Linwood/Woolston Pool (21129)
The Board submits in support of this project, the funding allocated and requests that it is bought forward by two years to 2017/18.
The Board requests that the facility be an aquatic and recreational facility, in line with the Eastern Recreation and Sports Centre ($36 million) and South West Leisure Centre ($22 million) and additional funding allocated to enable this to happen. There are no community recreation and gym facilities in the wider Linwood/Woolston area and these are required to meet the first Sport and Recreation Community Outcome "Give people equitable access to parks, open spaces, recreation facilities and libraries.
The Board also supports that the Linwood/Woolston Pool is included in the Sport and Recreation Activity Management Plan 2018-25.
4.9 Heathcote/Opawaho and Avon Rivers (LTP Consultation document, pages 15 and 58 and capital projects)
The Board submits in support of the following funded capital projects:
- Heathcote West Weather Overflow Reduction (880) - Lower Heathcote Masterplan Implementation (21132) - Mid Heathcote Masterplan Implementation (1414) - Heathcote, Estuary and Coast Stormwater Management Plan (19398)
The Board supports the restoration of the Heathcote/Opawaho and Avon waterways and submits that more ambitious goals towards the restoration of these waterways should be developed and achieved.
The Board acknowledges and supports the goals within the Avon River/Otakaro Masterplan.
9 - 102 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
4.10 Major Cycleway Route Programme (multiple capital projects)
The Board submits in support of the network for 13 major cycleway routes and continues to support involvement and input from Community Boards in the development and decision making on the routes and related matters.
4.11 Community Facilities (Inl Heritage) Rebuild Programme (19590)
The Board submits generally in support of the Community Facilities Rebuild Programme and submits specifically in support of the following Tranche 2 projects:
- Woolston Library and Toilets - Redcliffs Public Library
The Board would like confirmation through the Long Term Plan of the actual funding allocated to each facility within the Community Facilities Rebuild Programme.
5 ADDITIONAL POINTS
5.1 Estuary Edge Masterplan
The Board submits in support of the development of the Estuary Edge Masterplan and the Council decision to reinstate this project and acknowledges that funding has not been allocated to a specific capital project for the masterplan.
5.2 Matuku Waterway
This waterway completion has been overlooked as it was initially due to be funded through development contributions as the Morgan's Valley development was completed. This is no longer the case as the land is prone to rockfall and has been red-zoned. The Council already owns the land for the previously proposed waterway. The temporary diversion currently in place is under capacity and responsible for flooding (including above floor level) in the flooding events of 2014.
The Board submits that the completion of the waterway should be included in the Long Term Plan and funding allocated within the next two financial years.
Below is supporting information to the Board submission from the Mayoral Flood Taskforce: final progress report to the Council 14 August 2014.
Mayoral Flood Taskforce, Final report, Part B: Issues and Options
"20.6 Options for investigation or future work (not costed)
- The priority of the next stage of the Matuku Waterway (Morgans Valley) may need to be reassessed. Currently this waterway discharges into Heathcote Valley Drain and then into a network of DN750, DN900 pipes and open channel that is under capacity.
10 - 103 - HAGLEY/FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD SUBMISSION TO THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL LONG TERM PLAN 2015-25
- A DN1600 pipe was laid out into Bridle Path Road for later extension up and into section 112R Bridle Path Road. The Council purchased a route through a proposed subdivision prior to the earthquake for the next stage of this work to divert the waterway from Heathcote Valley Drain. This route now lies in red zoned land.
5.3 Phillipstown Community Centre
As Phillipstown School has closed there needs to be funding in place to ensure continuous provision of, or a new, community centre facility for the area. The current Community Centre building is unsuitably small and is on the Ministry of Education owned former school site. The Board acknowledges that there is temporary use of the school facilities confirmed for a year and submits that the Council should be allocating or allowing for funding for a community centre facility to be provided past this time.
The Board welcomes the opportunity to provide clarification for the Council should it be required and advises it may present further supplementary information to this submission.
The Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson look forward to presenting at the hearings on the Long Term Plan in May 2015.
Sara Templeton Chairperson, Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board
28 April 2015
11 - 104 -
SUBMISSION TO: Christchurch City Council
ON: Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025
BY: Riccarton/Wigram Community Board
CONTACT: Mike Mora Chairperson 027 4303132 [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board appreciates the opportunity to provide this submission to the Christchurch City Council on its Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (the Plan).
The Board does wish to be heard in support of this submission.
2. BOARD SUBMISSION
2.1 Introduction
The Board commends the Council for the extensive work that has gone into the preparation of this Plan and the reality of the financial challenges that were faced in its compilation.
The Council is congratulated on the wide ranging and extensive engagement undertaken in developing and promoting this draft Plan. The Board also acknowledges the significance of this being the first audited Plan since 2009.
Under the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) and the Council’s South West Area Plan (SWAP), there is acknowledgment that the Riccarton/Wigram ward is one of the leading growth areas in the city and will remain so for the next two decades. Additionally, the Board notes that the intent and framework of both the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan reflect a clear emphasis on intensification in the post earthquake environment.
A specific example of this major shift in land use intensification which is of major concern to the Board, are the adverse effects on local communities that will arise from the expansion of quarrying activity on the periphery of urban areas. In this regard, the Board cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring that the Council has through the life of this budget, the capacity and resources allocated so that high standards of monitoring and compliance of associated consent conditions are in place and are capable of being maintained.
With such rapid development growth happening now and projected to occur in its ward, the Board is especially keen to ensure that this Plan will contribute to managing the challenges, opportunities and expectations of the Riccarton/Wigram community for the next ten years.
2 3. Capital Programme (Volume 2)
3.1 Local Capital Projects
Given the Council’s present financial pressures, the Board notes the extent of the proposed capital programme.
The attention being given in the Riccarton/Wigram ward to the road networks, road safety improvements, cycleways, infrastructure works, open space areas and to the community facilities being provided by the Council, is noted by the Board with appreciation.
In particular, the Board supports and endorses the following local projects:
• Hornby Library and Service Centre (ID 1019) • South West Leisure Centre (ID 862) • Halswell Skate Park (ID 17928)
The Board is pleased to note the funding provision made for the Carrs Reserve Kart Club Relocation (ID 1454), albeit not until 2021/2022. The Board understands that the developers of the adjoining Copper Ridge subdivision are wanting to proceed with their residential development and accordingly, the Board does request that the shifting of the Kart Club be expedited earlier than the timeframe set out in the Plan.
3.2 Bradshaw Terrace
Through this submission, the Board seeks the inclusion of Bradshaw Terrace in Riccarton, in the Council’s street renewal programme.
Over recent months, the Board has received several representations from street residents concerned about the condition of the street and related drainage problems.
By way of background, the issue for the Board is for the street to be brought up to the same standard as surrounding streets, particularly as consultation on the upgrade of Bradshaw Terrace had begun just before the earthquakes in 2010. Priority however was given at that time to a children's playground. Subsequent efforts in the intervening period to complete the upgrade have not been successful. Bradshaw Terrace is a short cul-de- sac and the sole remaining street in the immediate area to be renewed. This is the only street being requested by the Board.
3.3 Templeton Community
The residents of Templeton recently approached the Board with their concerns regarding historic flooding issues in and around the Kirk Road area.
While this issue has been forwarded to Council staff for a response, the Board understands that there is no capital budget available in the Plan to undertake any remedial flooding/drainage improvements.
Accordingly, the Board would request that funding for such work be considered for inclusion in the Plan.
Also, in response to a community request, the Board has asked that a bus shelter be provided in Templeton to cater for the needs of local bus passengers. The Board is optimistic that this particular request can be met within the Council's operational budget for bus shelters.
3 3.4 New Kerb and Channel and Footpaths
The Board requests that funding be assigned in the new footpath and/or kerb and channel programmes for the following locations that have not been provided commensurate with adjoining development:
• Dunbars Road (north side Wigram Road to Halswell Road) – new kerb and channel to complete links.
This side of Dunbars Road has remained unkempt for many years with inadequate drainage to remove surface water, no kerb delineation to control on street parking or facilities to service this popular bus route.
• Main South Road – new footpath (Carmen Road intersection towards Chappie Place)
The establishment of the adjoining Countdown/Mega Mitre 10/Harvey Norman commercial area has seen an increase in pedestrian movements to and from the Hornby Hub side of Carmen Road (SH1)/Main South Road. There is no physical footpath to meet this need nor is there any associated pedestrian crossing facility at the traffic signals nearby.
In the Board’s opinion, this is as safety issue on an increasingly busy section of roadway and therefore needs attention. The Board has raised this matter separately with the New Zealand Transport Agency given the proximity of State Highway 1 nearby.
• Halswell Road (SH75) (Dunbars Road to Aidanfield Drive) - this section of road currently has no footpath over the majority of its length. The provision of a footpath here would complete this well used pedestrian linkage.
3.5 University of Canterbury
In October 2014, the Board received representations from the local community in Ilam/Upper Riccarton regarding operational changes occurring post the earthquakes at the University of Canterbury and the effects of these changes on the residential areas bordering the Ilam and Dovedale Campuses.
The Board's response was to seek from Council staff a response to the request for a Master Plan or similar planning mechanism such that the residents around the University can be engaged meaningfully in the planning and development of the University and the area around the University.
Subsequent feedback to the Board from staff was that funding was not available for such a plan and accordingly through this submission, the Board does request that budget provision be made to enable the preparation of an appropriate plan.
The Board also record its appreciation of the effective ongoing engagement and information flows that are now occurring between the Council, Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, University of Canterbury, Ilam/Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association and local residents.
4 3.6 Community Facilities Rebuild
The Board offers its full support regarding the Council's commitment to replace the Riccarton Community Centre and associated Service Centre and Volunteer Library in Clarence Street.
The Board is disappointed however to understand that the future of the Wharenui Pool and Recreation Centre is linked to the commissioning of the Metropolitan Sports Facility.
Should this be the case, the Board expresses its opposition to any plans to close the Wharenui Pool. This is a special and longstanding facility that in the Board's view has a meaningful future in the aquatic recreation services it provides.
4. Funding Alternatives
While noting and understanding the Council’s intentions regarding the proposed sale of assets in Christchurch City Holdings Ltd, the Board offers some other ideas for the Council to contemplate in future budget considerations, namely: • Goods and Services Tax on Rates – that these taxes be returned to the Council to contribute towards the city's recovery with the proviso that this be for a defined period • Regional Fuel Tax – as is applied in Auckland • International Airport Departure Tax • Targetted Rates – wider application across the city especially in relation to more isolated communities • Capital Endowment Fund – the Board questions in the current financial circumstances whether the structure and purpose of the Fund is still relevant to current needs.
Alternative suggested uses could be to apply the funds towards the capital works programme and/or contribute to debt reduction.
The Board can elaborate on these ideas when speaking at the forthcoming hearing of submissions.
5. Rating Levels
The Board expresses a concern at the compounding impacts of the projected rate increases as set out in the Plan, particularly the effects that will occur for those ratepayers on fixed incomes.
This is shown in the following example of a property in Riccarton, north of Riccarton Road:
A two storied older character house with a Rateable Value of $970,000.
2013/2014 rates $4412.74
2014/2015 rates $4795.42
Applying the proposed rate increases:
2015/2016 (Year 1) (plus 8.7%) $5212.62 (or $417.20)
2016/2017 (Year 2) (plus 8.1%) $5634.84 (or $422.22)
2017/2018 (Year 3) (plus 8.2%) $6096.90 (or $462.06)
5 This results in compounding rate increases for the next three years of over 25 per cent or $1301.48.
While it acknowledges that the Council is in a difficult position financially, the Board would ask that the Council continue do all it can to limit the extent of such future rate rises.
6. Strengthening Communities Funding
The Board is opposed to the intended progressive reduction in strengthening communities discretionary grants funding.
Challenging times are continuing for local communities and support organisations so it is the Board's view that any reduction in the level of the Council's grants funding will be detrimental to the general wellbeing of our communities and providers.
7. Community Boards
The Board reiterates its comments of previous years that the city's community boards fulfil a pivotal role in the Council's governance framework.
The Board is optimistic that the pledge made by the Council to enhance the delegations, responsibility and resourcing of Boards will occur during the remaining period of this electoral term. Budget allowance should therefore be provided in the Plan to give effect to this intention.
Achieving this would, in the Board's view, contribute much to enhancing local democracy and enable the Council to shift its focus to the more strategic issues of importance to the city.
Mike Mora
Chairperson Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 28 April 2015 SHIRLEY/PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD Draft Long Term Plan – Community Board Submission 1 May 2015
Mike Davidson, Chair Shirley Papanui Community Board Papanui Service Centre PO Box 73024 Christchurch 8154
021 189 6700 [email protected]
I am completing this submission on behalf of the Shirley Papanui Community Board. I wish to present my submission at the Community Board LTP Submission Hearings on Monday 11 May 2015.
Project/Activity Project Change/Amendment requested ID Belfast Park Plan 12692 Support Change 43: Cycle/Pedestrian Rail Underpass Active Travel Major Cycleway: 1984 Support Papanui Parallel (Grassmere Route) - Papanui to City Active Travel Major Cycleway: 1986 Support Northern Line Cycleway (Northern Rail Route) - Belfast to Riccarton Suburbs Active Travel Major Cycleway: 1993 Support Nor'West Arc (Western Inner Orbital) Active Travel Local Cycleway: 2411 Support Northern Arterial Link Belfast to Waimakariri Active Local Cycleway: 17214 Support Northern Arterial Link Cranford to Rutland Reserve Active Travel Belfast Cemetery 15749 Support Extension Cemeteries Shirley community 20053 Support as a priority for the Shirley Community. centre Community Facilities Abberley Park 17737 Support. Can this project be deferred if playground condition is satisfactory (and not Playground Renewal a Health & Safety issue)? Garden & Heritage Reconsider the closing of existing paddling pools in neighbourhood parks at the end Parks of their useful life. Paddling pools in neighbourhood parks are very well used and a great asset to local communities. Belfast Library & 838 Support but defer for five years and retain the Redwood Library in the interim.. Service Centre Change name to North Library & Service Centre to assist with community perception Libraries of this project.
- 109 -
The Groynes 426 Support. Can this project be deferred if playground condition is satisfactory (and not Renewals a Health & Safety issue)? Neighbourhood Parks Craighead Reserve 2234 Support. Can this project be deferred if playground condition is satisfactory (and not Playground Renewal a Health & Safety issue)? Neighbourhood Parks PT Facilities : 17152 Support. Northlands Hub Public Transport St Albans 21131 Support as a priority and bring funding forward by a year. Permanent Community Centre The funding for a St Albans Community Facility currently listed in the draft Long Recreation and Sports Term Plan is noted and strongly supported. This funding needs to be adequate to Services provide a community centre that is appropriate for the needs of the St Albans community and other users.
The Board also notes the strong community support for the exploration of partnership opportunities and options as they arise, including the consideration of a community pool project.
Spencer Park 2361 Support Recreation Facilties renewal Regional Parks Spencer Park Mini 2364 Support Golf Renewal Regional Parks Intersection 17877 Support Improvements: Cranford / Main North Road Network Intersection 17887 Support Improvements: Harewood / Main North / Papanui Road Network Intersection 17888 Support Improvements: Harewood / Railway Road Network Main North 18770 Support Road Corridor Optimisation Road Network Cranford Street 232 The Board acknowledges the concerns of the affected community and is committed Upgrade (4 Laning) to trying to mitigate these concerns. The board also acknowledges the reduction in Road Network traffic congestion that this project will bring to other suburbs in the ward. The Board has major concerns that this project will create major traffic congestion due to the potential bottle-neck at the Innes-Cranford intersection. There needs to be a new major standalone roading project which is integrated into the Cranford Street 4-laning project (constructed in tandem). This is seen as urgent.
Northern Arterial 233 The Board acknowledges the concerns of the affected community and is committed Extension (Cranford - to trying to mitigate these concerns. The board also acknowledges the reduction in QEII) Road Network traffic congestion that this project will bring to other suburbs in the ward. The Board has major concerns that this project will create major traffic congestion due to the potential bottle-neck at the Innes-Cranford intersection. There needs to be a new major standalone roading project which is integrated into the Cranford Street 4-laning project (constructed in tandem). This is seen as urgent.
Intersection 235 Support as a priority for safety reasons – bring funding forward. This project needs Improvement: Belfast to be initiated immediately. / Marshland Road Network
- 110 - Intersection 243 Support Improvement: Greers / Northcote / Sawyers Arms Road Network
- 111 -
Northcote Road 4 915 Support laning Road Network
Intersection 1327 Support Improvement: Lower Styx / Marshland Road Intersection 1350 Support Improvement: Highsted / Sawyers Arms Road Intersection Safety: 1351 Support Cavendish/ Styx Mill (28) Road Network Suburban Masterplan: 2381 Support Edgeware (Transport Activities) Road Network RONS Downstream 2421 Support Safety Improvements: Sawyers Arms Pedestrian Crossing Points Road Network Network Management 17043 Support Improvements : Main North Road Corridor Road Network 17086 Funded RONS 17086 Support Downstream Route Improvements : Cotswold Avenue Road Network RONS Downstream 17088 The Board has concerns that this project is under budgeted. Needs to be a new Intersection major standalone roading project which is integrated into the Cranford Street 4- Improvements : laning project (constructed in tandem). This is seen as urgent. Cranford Street Downstream Road Network RONS Downstream 17092 Support Route Improvements : Marshland (Queen Elizabeth II - Shirley) Road Network Intersection Safety: 17142 Support Hills/ North Avon (25) Road Network Intersection Safety: 17166 Support Marshland/ New Brighton/ North Parade/ Shirley (8) Road Network RONS Downstream 17199 Support Intersection Safety: Main North/ Marshland/ Spencerville (Chaney's Corner) (4) Road Network RONS Downstream 17207 Support Safety Improvements: Sawyers Arms Route Road Network
- 112 -
Intersection 2446 Support Improvement: Blakes / Radcliffe Road Network Intersection 2447 Support Improvement: Greers / Harewood Road Roto Kohatu Reserve 411 Support. Ensure that sufficient funding is provided in the LTP to enable maintenance (ex-landfill site) to be provided at an adequate level. Recent reductions in maintenance have been Sports Parks noted. The excellent work of the PD workgangs is noted. Papanui Domain 1415 Support. Can this project be deferred if playground condition is satisfactory (and not Playground Renewal a Health & Safety issue)? Sports Parks St Albans Park Sport 2241 Support as a priority and bring forward to commence FY 16 (liaise with Bowling Club Turf Renewal Sports re their plans for development). Recommend that the Toilet Facility and Shower Parks project move into Tranche 1 Styx Mill Conservation 485 Support Reserve Stormwater Drainage WW PS58 Upgrade 17875 Support Wastewater Collection WW Northern Relief 56 Support Grassmere Wastewater Collection WS Averill Station 17924 Support Replacement Water Supply Grampian PS well 7521 Support replacement ( NWDWS ) Water Supply
Unfunded Waimakariri Bridges - 17228 Support as a priority – request to be funded Cycle Connectivity & Safety Active Travel
Heritage Tranche 2 Kapuatohe Cottage – 12 Support Main North Road Kapuatohe Museum 13 Support as a priority for funding. Kapuatohe Dwelling 14 Support
Community Boards The Shirley/Papanui Community Board asks that consideration be given to Training Budget increasing the Boards training budgets sufficiently to allow professional development • Travel (current to be provided to members to assist them in fulfilling their strategic and leadership $1,000) roles in the community. • Conferences (current $1,500) • Staff Training (current $1,009)
General Comments Level of rate Not supported. increases. The board does not support the level of rates increases forecasted for the next 10 years and believes the amount of capital expenditure needs to be reduced to keep rates increases at a level that is affordable to the residents of Christchurch.
- 113 - Parks, Open Spaces, Ensure that sufficient funding is provided in the LTP to enable maintenance to be Garden and Heritage provided at an adequate level. Funding The excellent work of the PD workgangs is noted. Source to the Sea Add to the LTP as a project to be supported should funding be requested. Project Social Housing Request that numbers of houses/units available be restored to original numbers pre- earthquake. Repair of Damaged Support funding for the repair work required, particularly to our roading and request infrastructure that this be address urgently to restore roading to at least pre-earthquake standards. The Board also notes the urgent need for repairs to waste water and water supplies. Flood Protection and 2415, 2679 Ensure adequate funding is provided. Control Work The board has concerns over the increased vulnerability the city faces especially for areas in our ward that have suffered several large scale flood events over the last 4 years. With the inevitable increase of sea levels over the coming years the board hopes careful consideration is made before any money is invested in protecting resident's homes from flooding that may prove to be wasteful in 50 years time because of this increase in sea levels and would urge the council to investigate property purchase options if this can decrease the funding required for flood protection that would eventually prove fruitless. Feedback from residents it that staff have been helpful and supportive in dealing with this issue.
Sale of Council owned Although the Board's preference would be to not sell council owned assets, the assets Board understands and supports the need to release capital from these assets. The Board has concern for future generations with reduced dividends from the remaining assets. The Board recommends that Council retain at least 51% share of all strategic assets.
Predator Fence at the Funding is requested to complete this project. Styx Mill Reserve Walk/bridge over the Include funding for a joint project between CCC and Waimakariri District Council for Waimakariri River a walk/bike bridge over the Waimakariri river.
An Accessible City - The Board has concerns over the level of expenditure for this project and notes the major cycleway large increase in the budget from that originally notified. The Board also notes that project it may not be well understood that subsidies will significantly reduce the Council expenditure for the cycleways and requests this information be distributed to the public.
Mike Davidson Chairperson Shirley/Papanui Community Board 4 May 2015
- 114 -
To: Freepost 178 LTP Submission Christchurch City Council PO Box 73017
Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board - submission to the 2015-2025 CCC Draft LTP
Introduction
1. The Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board (‘the Board’) would like to thank the Council for the opportunity to make a submission on the Christchurch City Council 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP). 2. The Board would like to speak to its submission before the Council.
General comments
3. The Board does not believe that the Christchurch City Council LTP Consultation Document (CD) is truly consultative, in terms of presenting viable options for the people of Christchurch to consider. 4. It would appear that Council have not been through the Capital Programme (CP) in detail by the lack of prioritisation that would have indicated that serious attention had been paid to each project in terms of its importance to the community. 5. The Board has worked through the CP in Spreydon/Heathcote twice with community representatives, as well as being involved in many consultation meetings, clinics, and events, and has a very good understanding of the priorities that the people of our ward support, both in terms of the ward and the city as a whole. We have therefore submitted a list of projects for deferral, removal, and prioritisation. 6. The Board also notes that the earthquake, subsequent flood events, and climate change has increased the importance of dealing with infrastructure issues relating to the Heathcote River/Opāwaho. The Board consider this to be the top priority in Spreydon/Heathcote.
Financial Strategy
7. In general, the Board believes that the Council’s strategy for managing its CP should be to delete unneeded projects and delay non-urgent projects. a. The CP over the decade is $4.68b (p.29). For example, deferring 10% of the CP beyond the term of the LTP would save almost half a billion dollars and the savings on interest and loans over that period would be around $90m. 8. The Board considers it a matter of urgent priority that the Council publicly state the pressure the Cost Share Agreement (CSA) with the Crown, made by the previous Council without apparently properly understanding the true financial situation must be renegotiated with the Crown. a. The Council should ask the government to spend the $37m allocated to the stadium on currently underfunded infrastructure repair and renewals (e.g. roads, sewers, storm water). b. The Council should ask the government to pay the conservatively estimated $180m share it owes towards unfunded earthquake repair work, pending the promised review. 9. Large capital projects are seldom completed within planned timeframes. Currently, an estimated $450m is unspent for the 2014/15 year. 10. The Board is opposed to the sale of dividend-earning assets to pay for capital projects which will bear ongoing and uncertain operational costs without significant capital returns. The loss of $230m of dividends over the next decade will result in higher rates for longer for the community. The Board emphatically rejects that there is any wisdom in selling these assets. This position of the Board’s has had overwhelming support from our community in the consultations that the Board has held. 11. The Board opposes the removal of any asset from the Register and strongly believes that any sale of any asset currently listed on the Strategic Assets Register should be subject to a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) to provide the community with an opportunity to comment.
Metropolitan opportunities for savings
12. Anchor projects: a. The Board supports the building of the central library and it is clear that our community does too. b. While the community has indicated strong support for the refurbishment of Cathedral Square, there is also an understanding that it cannot be completed while the issue of the Cathedral remains in limbo. c. The Board opposes Council contribution towards the funding of:
- 115 -
d. i. A Convention Centre ii. More carparking (other than disability accessible parking) iii. A new stadium of any description iv. Accessible City Phases 2 and 3.
13. Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP)
a. As has been raised previously, the Board supports all urgent projects in the LDRP should proceed as planned. b. The Board wishes that $180m of non-urgent spending be deferred from this. c. The Board does not believe that $440m of spending on the LDRP is even possible in the LTP period, given just the labour market constraints let alone the material or capital equipment constraints. d. It appears that finance costs for the LDRP and stormwater have been omitted from both the CD and the LTP documents. This is a serious omission and understates the costs of borrowing.
14. An Accessible City (AAC)
a. The Board understands that the Council and the Crown have committed $72m for Phase 1, as per the CSA. But the Board question why further phases have been budgeted for in the LTP when it is not required by the CSA and not urgent. b. AAC is planned over 20-30 years and should be concentrated near the end of the period.
15. Other targets for capex reduction:
a. Defer $60m of non-urgent water main renewals b. Defer $100m of non-urgent sewer main renewals c. Defer $30m of stormwater renewals d. Reduce the IT budget to $63m e. Defer Museum capital grant of $19m
16. The Board strongly opposes any cuts to Council grants to community organisations. Very conservatively, the proposed buts amount to almost 9.5% cut over the decade. The total sum allocated to community grants constitutes a tiny percentage of the Council's total operational budget and outperforms much larger sums allocated in other areas of council expenditure in terms of social benefit to Christchurch citizens. These cuts will be to the detriment of the most vulnerable people in our community including young, older and disabled people and single parents. The cuts also ignore the extremely strong evidence (where is the evidence) that we can expect a $5 return to the community for every $1 spent. We support a return to pre 2006 funding levels in real terms.
17. Top Spreydon/Heathcote Ward Projects for Prioritisation and Deferral
Priorities
17.1 The Opāwaho/Heathcote River is the Board's top ward-specific priority.
The Board understands that there is extensive drainage, stormwater, wastewater, greenspace, and roading work to be undertaken along the Heathcote, including wet weather overflow capacity improvements in the Opāwaho catchment (880) (LTP Vol.1 page 232).
17.2 Which will need to be done before everything in the Mid Heathcote Master Plan (1410) (LTP Vol.1 page 224) is implemented, but the medium to long-term aim of the Board is to have the Plan fully implemented. Improving the Cashmere Stream (325) (LTP Vol.1 page 235). green corridor will improve water quality of the Opāwaho. N.B. Restoring the Old Piggery is not as important as the rest of the project.
17.3 The residents of Grange St, Opawa, advocated and worked to get improvements to their street, for which the funding was allocated in the 2010/11 Annual Plan and then deferred. The Board considers that it is time to place it back in the capital programme, especially in an area that is flood-prone. - 116 - 17.4 The Locarno St Pump Station 20 (3284) (LTP Vol.1 page 241). needs repairing urgently, as residents are regularly subjected to the smell of sewage.
17.5 The Barrington/Lincoln/Whiteleigh (17112) (LTP Vol.1 page 235). intersection is the most dangerous in our ward and essential to improve.
17.6 Hill and Gully Waterway Planting (2649) (LTP Vol.1 page 235). will assist in improving water quality in the Opāwaho.
17.7 Improvements to the Brougham/Selwyn intersection (1974) (LTP Vol.1 page 230). are essential for the safety of the community, especially for Addington School students.
17.8 The Opawa Public Library listed in Facilities Rebuilt Programme Tranche 2 is yet to have a full QS estimate.
17.9 Risingholme's heritage Craft Workshops listed in Facilities Rebuild Tranche 2 are both heritage and community services, and as such they are a good investment for the community.
17.10 The Sydenham Heritage Church site will not be cleared without Council assistance. The site is the gateway to Sydenham and the issue must be resolved quickly. The Board considers that Council should bear the responsibility for this.
Deferral
17.11 The Board is strongly opposed to any further widening of Lincoln Road through Addington, or any provision to increase its capacity for traffic (907) (LTP Vol.1 page 232)., due to the importance of preserving the integrity of Addington village as a mixed-use village.
17.12 The Board believes that it would be prudent to delay works to the South Library and Service Centre (20836) (LTP Vol.1 page 228). building (likely to take 8 months) to repair this facility to maintain services for the community while other libraries are being repaired/built.
17.13 The Board does not consider the Byron/Gasson intersection (17119) (LTP Vol.1 page 230). to merit improvement at this stage.
17.14 The Board requires more information regarding the safety fences (17211)( (LTP Vol.1 page 231) and guardrails (17208 (LTP Vol.1 page 231)) and the need for them. But, prima facie, believes they are not a priority.
17.15-16 The Board requires more information regarding repairs/improvements at Pioneer Leisure Centre listed the Facilities Rebuild Programme Tranche 2.
17.17 The Board supports the deferral of improvements to 441 Colombo St (18010), as greenspace is provided at nearby Buchan Park and should be sufficient at this stage of redevelopment.
17.18 The Board considers that the Victoria Park Driveway (8445) (LTP Vol.1 page 230) renewal should not be a priority given the state of roads across the city.
17.19 The Board has not seen the concept plan for Coronation Reserve (405) (LTP Vol.1 page 224 and does not see development of it as a priority.
17.20 The Addington Water Tower listed in the Heritage Rebuild Tranche 2 does not need urgent repair and should be delayed
Paul McMahon
Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Chairperson
- 117 -
SUBMISSION TO: Christchurch City Council
ON: Christchurch City Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025
BY: Burwood/Pegasus Community Board
CONTACT: Linda Stewart Chairperson, Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Submissions Committee 423A Bower Avenue Christchurch 8083
027 4053257 [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board appreciates the opportunity to provide this response to the Christchurch City Council Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (‘the Plan’).
The Board wishes to be heard in support of this submission.
2. BOARD SUBMISSION
2.1 General Comments
The Board agrees that the Plan assists the Council in its most important challenge over the next 10 years and beyond to help to fund the rebuild of the city.
2.1.1 Item 1026 - The Board recommends deferral of the Council contribution of $235m towards the former AMI stadium complex rebuild and instead investigate and accept a repair programme based on independent engineering evaluation.
2.2 Ward Specific
BURWOOD-PEGASUS WARD'S CRITICAL RECOVERY NEEDS:
The Board wishes to endorse the concerns conveyed by its community noting the large number of submissions received from within the Burwood-Pegasus ward.
The Board recommends that the Council consider that the proceeds of the sale of part of the Queen Elizabeth II Park to the Ministry of Education and other potential sale of land be invested in the Burwood-Pegasus Ward for the purposes of:
o Providing the proposed Eastern Recreation and Sports Complex at Queen Elizabeth II Park with additional pool space to meet community demands and allow for usage by the two proposed relocated high schools on that site;
o Providing the New Brighton Legacy Project with additional funds to expedite a recovery project for the community of New Brighton;
o Providing funding to assist with the urgent flood protection work that is required within the Burwood-Pegasus Ward.
- 118 - 2.3 Capital Works Proposed for the Ward
• Item 424 New Brighton Playground. The Board proposes moving the amounts of $559 (FY19) and $2,408 (FY20) into financial year 2018.
This proposal is to afford the work more priority.
• Item 2344 Bottle Lake Forest Park Rangers HQ Replacement: The Board prefers that the funding allocated to this project be used instead for the addition of toilets and a kitchen to the information centre at Bottle Lake Forest Park to provide a community meeting space.
There is no such space in the area and the provision of a community meeting space is important as the population of the Prestons development increases.
• Item 1982 Major Cycleway: Avon-Otakaro
• The Board proposes that the $25,000 in financial year 2016 be moved to 2017 to increase that budget to $363,000. The reason for this is to move financial pressure from 2016 to enable consideration of a proposal later in this submission.
• Item 913 Marshland Road Bridge - Staff have already been alerted that this bridge is entirely within the Shirley-Papanui ward.
• Item 2383 Suburban Master Plan: New Brighton (Transport Activities)
• The Board fully supports this proposal.
The Board has considered the Unfunded listing of Capital Projects.
• Item 19321 New Brighton master plan open space projects.
The Board requests the transfer of $263,000 (being the total of years 2016 and 2017) from item 1982. Major Cycleway: Avon - Otakaro Route, into year 2016 for item 19321.
• Item 931 Core Public Transport Route & Facilities: East (New Brighton).
2.4 The People's Choice A Common Sense Plan for Christchurch: An alternative to the Council's Long Term Plan
The Board has examined this document and the key strategies that it promotes. There are aspects of the alternative plan that the Board agrees with.
In principle, the Board supports the following components of the Key Strategy 1:
• Flood protection ($440m). Spend $260m on urgent work. Defer $180m of non-urgent, unspecified work until plans are ready
• Museum redevelopment. Defer capital grant of $19m.
The Board requests that $19m from the Museum redevelopment capital grant be deferred (as recommended in The People's Choice document) and used instead for immediate footpath repairs where health and safety is an issue.
- 119 -
• Corporate IT enhancements ($126m). Reduce spend by $63m
• New cycleways ($156m). Do the easy routes quickly. Recognise that property purchases will cause long delays. Schedule payments for routes that require expensive property purchase later. Save $30m.
(The Board proposes the reallocation of part of the cycleway fund later in this submission.)
In principle, the Board supports the following components of the Key Strategy 2:
• Don’t privatise parts or our entire airport, port, electricity network or other strategic assets. They bring in good money.
The Board supports non-privatising and recommends retention of at least 75% of assets and look at selling non-strategic assets (such as surplus land, City Care, Enable, Orion, Red Bus) ahead of strategic assets.
With regards to the An alternative to the Council's Long Term Plan, The Board sees merit in delaying non-urgent capital proposals.
In principle, the Board supports Key Strategy 3 in its entirety:
Use our savings wisely:
• Reduce borrowing which will save ratepayers hundreds of millions in interest • Speed up repair of local roads • Restore funding cut from community groups (approx. $1m per annum) • Restore funding to Community Boards for local projects ($2m per annum).
In principle, the Board supports Key Strategy 4 in its entirety:
The Council needs to work with the Government:
• Ask Government to use $37m they have allocated to the stadium for repair of roads. • Ask the Government to pay its share of unfunded earthquake repair work. If the current review finds the unfunded earthquake repair work is $300m, the Government's 60% share would be $180m.
To summarise the Board's view of The People's Choice A Common Sense Plan for Christchurch: An alternative to the Council’s Long Term Plan:
The Board neither agrees nor disagrees with the alternative Plan in total as the stated achievements of it are hypothetical. The Committee did, however, agree with most of the strategies within the alternative plan and as outlined above.
2.5 Support for other groups/organisations
• The Board strongly supports retention of the Rawhiti Golf Club and that the Council gives consideration to the proposal from the Rawhiti Golf Club committee and members administer and maintain the Pro-Shop, Golf Course and Golf Club.
• The Board supports an open process to investigate retention of the South New Brighton Camp Grounds, including evaluation of the privately sourced Geotech report on the Camp Grounds land and that the Council takes note of the overwhelming public support for the facility's retention.
- 120 -
• The Board supports the evaluation of the proposal from the Northshore Residents Association and Community Connection Nga Ngaru Trust for a North Beach Walkway/promenade on the foreshore/dunes, noting that the Trust has spoken to Environment Canterbury regarding the promenade sand are in ongoing discussion.
The concept is similar to the Christchurch Coastal Pathway. The Board requests that the Plan makes an ongoing line item to enable continuous development of this concept and to maintain existing portions of it. A sum of $200,000 per annum over the 10-year Plan cycle is suggested.
2.6 Other
The Board notes that operational funding is available to enable elected members to attend training and conference opportunities.
The Board requests that the amount of the training budget be increased every other year (commencing 2017) to enable community boards a greater opportunity to attend the biennial New Zealand Community Board Conference without necessitating Board's having to subsidise attendance from their Discretionary Response Fund.
Linda Stewart Chairperson, Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Submissions Committee
4 April 2015
- 121 - SUBMISSION TO: The Christchurch City Council
ON: Christchurch City Council Smart Choices 2015 - 2025 Draft Long Term Plan
BY: The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board
CONTACT: Val Carter, Chairperson Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Care of: Edwina Cordwell, Community Board Adviser Phone: 941 6728 Email: [email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board (the Board) thanks the Council for the opportunity to submit on the Christchurch City Council Smart Choices 2015 - 2025 Draft Long Term Plan ( The Plan).
The Board would wish to be heard and to present its submission at the hearings to be held in May/June 2015.
The Board acknowledge the difficult situation the Councillors face and wish them courage.
We support alternative views and robust debate. We ask that all Councillors remain open minded to all the options ahead from whatever source. and be prepared to modify plans in the light of submissions from all stakeholders.
The Board recommends that once a final decision is made the Council and Community Boards work together for the good of Christchurch in the long term.
We acknowledge and congratulate the Council for engaging a team of experts (CCHL, Treasury, Deloitte, Korda Mentha and Cameron Partners) to work with the CCC's own financial staff to prepare options regarding the financial situation of the city.
We also acknowledge that there is no single ‘silver bullet’ to solve our issues but that a range of solutions is needed.
2. KEY ISSUES
2.1 Rates
The Board acknowledges the significant challenges faced by the Council but remains concerned at the level of proposed rates increases year on year as identified in The Plan.
The Board advises the Council that there are many households within the ward and city wide for whom this will have a major detrimental impact. The ward has an elderly demographic on fixed incomes and like those in other wards on benefits would not be able to absorb significant year on year increases.
Were rates to rise this will impact on home owners and also push up rentals too affecting all sectors of society. We would like to remind the council that the Bryndwr and Jellie Park areas of the ward are amongst the most socially deprived areas of the city.
The Board requests that the Council also consider those agencies and other organisations that do not currently pay rates and that it review this situation with a view to widening the potential 'rate take' at this extraordinary of times.
- 122 - The Board also recommends that the Council increases significantly the Annual General Charge to provide a more equitable basis for supporting the city rebuild.
The Board offers the following options and recommendations for potential cost savings to enable proposed rate rises to be reduced whilst still ensuring a vibrant rebuild and economy.
2.2 Deferment of Anchor Projects
The Board recommends the deferment of the AMI Stadium rebuild indefinitely and that no Council capital funding be allocated within the life of the Long Term Plan, based on the current scenarios.
2.3 Asset Sales
Whilst the Board acknowledges that this may have to be considered it expresses its concerns about the potential for these assets to move into private/commercial ownership.
It has been suggested that other local authorities or other public service bodies embodying a public service ethos may wish to take up an initial sale of shares but that this cannot be controlled either short or long term.
The Board recommends that some form of public service ethos/restriction be legally embodied in any approach to asset sales should this prove to be the only option to underpin the budget shortfall.
2.4 Capital Programme - Downstream effects of the Roads of National Significance (RONS ) projects.
The Board notes a number of large scale and expensive capital projects city wide that have been triggered solely by the NZTA Roads of National Significance programme and are defined as 'downstream effects' of the RONS.
Many, many millions of dollars are identified in the proposed LTP to support these consequential aspects of the RONS and the Board submits that the funding for these works should not rest with the Council and that these should, and must, be funded by NZTA.
The Board recommends that stringent negotiations at the highest levels of the Council and government address these matters urgently.
2.5 Cost Sharing agreement - Infrastructure
The Board urges the Council to renegotiate the cost sharing agreement to support the key infrastructural initiatives including 3 waters, road repair, bridge repair and many of the works identified within the SCIRT programme that are now identified as requiring significant Council funding.
2.6 Increasing the contribution of the Greater Christchurch local bodies to the Christchurch City rebuild
The Board urges the Council ( and the government ) to consider a Greater Christchurch approach to both the prioritisation and funding of a number of major initiatives. This to include but not necessarily be limited to the proposed Anchor and other projects that benefit the City's residents but also those from within the Greater Christchurch area.
- 123 - 2.7 Differential charging
The Board urges consideration of 2.6 above as a key strategic funding option.
However on a smaller scale the Board suggests that consideration of differential charging could be extended for some services. For example charges are already levied by the Library service for residents from outside of Christchurch City. This could extended to other chargeable services - e.g. pools and recreation/community buildings.
2.8 Level Playing Field - charges and restrictions on permanent and mobile facilities
The Board also observes that some of the initiatives used to stimulate growth of the city centre and community interaction may now have become more permanent and created a 'non level' playing field to the detriment of re vitalising the City Centre.
Examples include the costs associated with running a restaurant or cafe together with the restrictions on pavement seating and costs of licences and other services to that establishment.
Contrast this with the mobile coffee/café/eatery who is able and indeed encouraged to set up in a range of locations to stimulate night life or community interaction and does not have to conform to such rules nor incur any similar costs.
This is perfectly reasonable on a truly mobile/temporary basis - for example at an event or community festival. However a number of city centre revitalisation initiatives have enabled 'mobile' eateries to become a more permanent fixture.
The Board asks that this situation now be addressed either through charging a more equitable rate for occupying/conducting business in such 'semi-permanent' locations or moving back to a post EQ mobile eatery/café regulatory provision.
If the matter is allowed to continue many permanent establishments repopulating the city may be forced to move out of the city once more on pure economic grounds and inequitable competition.
2.9 Residential Red Zone
The Board is sympathetic to those households still living within the designated Red Zone. However the Board also notes that over $2 million is being expended in the maintenance of services and infrastructure to those few properties.
The Board urges the Council to lobby Government to conclude negotiations and arrangements for the few households as a matter of urgency to enable these costs to be removed from Council budgets or alternatively for the Council to request that these costs be covered by the Government.
Val Carter - Chairperson Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board
- 124 -