Council Thursday 23 August 2018
Time: 11.00am
Venue: Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 2 of 133
Council
Membership
Chair Steve Lowndes
Deputy Chair Peter Scott
Membership David Caygill, Iaean Cranwell, Rod Cullinane, Elizabeth Cunningham, Tom Lambie, Claire McKay, Lan Pham, Dr Cynthia Roberts, Peter Skelton, John Sunckell
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 3 of 133 Council Meeting 2018-08-23 4 of 133 Council Meeting
Table of Contents 1. Karakia ...... 7
2. Apologies...... 7
3. Conflicts of Interest ...... 7
4. Deputations and Petitions...... 7
4.2. Save the Bromley Bus Petition ...... 8
5. Minutes ...... 15
6. Matters Arising...... 36
7. Committee Reports...... 37
7.1. Standing Committees ...... 37
7.1.1. Performance, Audit and Risk Committee...... 37
7.1.2. Regulation Hearing Committee...... 47
7.2. Joint Committees ...... 51
7.2.1. Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee ...... 51
8. Matters for Council Decision ...... 52
8.1. Representation Review...... 52
8.2. Retrospective approval of submissions on central government transport policy
...... 81
8.3. National Planning Standards- final submission ...... 102
8.4. Appointments to Regulation Hearing Committee...... 129
9. Outstanding Contribution Award ...... 131
10. Exclusion of the Public from Part of the Council Meeting...... 132
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 5 of 133 11. Other Business ...... 133
12. Notices of Motion...... 133
13. Questions ...... 133
14. Closing Karakia...... 133
15. Next Meeting...... 133
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 6 of 133 1. Karakia
2. Apologies
3. Conflicts of Interest
4. Deputations and Petitions
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 7 of 133 4.2. Save the Bromley Bus Petition
Council report
Date of meeting Thursday 23rd August 2018 Author Louise McDonald, Senior Committee Advisor
Purpose
1. To receive the Save the Bromley Bus Petition
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. receives the Save the Bromley Bus Petition; and
2. requests that the Chief Executive investigate the issues raised in the petition.
Background
2. In response to submissions made to the Council’s draft Long-Term Plan 2018-2018 changes were made to some Christchurch bus routes. These changes included altering the current 145 service that travels from Westmorland to Eastgate. The new service will travel from Westmorland to the city.
3. On Friday 10 August 2018 a petition was presented to Councillors. This petition requests that the Council retain the Bromley Bus service.
4. This petition now needs to be formally received and considered.
Attachment Save the Bromley Bus Petition
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 8 of 133 av^. ^ mhvB eF^i*iop
Environment Canterbury have announced changes to the 145 bus service which will see the new route no longer coming through Bromley.
Environment Canterbury are inviting feedback on the changes. You can email metroreview@ecan. govt. nz or ring 03 366 8855 to voice your concerns until Friday August 10th at 5pm
Please also sign the paper copy of the petition or sign on ine at: https://our. actionstation. org. nz/p/bromleybus
Please return paper copies of the petition to Bromley Community Centre, 45 Bromley Road, by August 9th or ring 03 389 1657 and we'll come pick them up
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 9 of 133 Sa ^e i;i^ s -»5 Sfomley Bus Campaign
of public bus the of By ^e e^d f 45 bus as is the will be left a to as and find a way to stiii a bus to link the community to
This petition has been organised by staff and users of the Bromley Community Centre, 45 Bromley Road.
This petition is part of the Bromley community's feedback on the proposed rerouting of the 145 bus.
The Save the 145 Bromley Bus Campaign has a very local focus. The petition has gathered signatures from concerned persons within our community who use the 145 bus service themselves, or have family members who rely on this bus service. Other signatures come from representatives who work for local businesses in Bromley that have some staff, customers or clients that use the bus.
Signatories of the petition are calling on Environment Canterbury to please retain some level of public bus service through the suburb of Bromley.
Even if it is a less frequent service than the one that currently operates through Bromley, any level of public transport would be better than fully discontinuing the Bromley end of the route.
By entirely discontinuing the Bromley end of the 145 bus route, as is currently proposed, the suburb will be left without a vital connection to essential services such as doctors, pharmacies, grocery stores, libraries and well-being providers. Please find a way to still provide a bus service to link the Bromley community to these services.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 10 of 133 Who Has Signed?
Many signatures have been gathered at the bus stops on Bromley Road from people getting on or off the 145 buses. These people expressed their concerns surrounding the discontinuation of this sen/ice, stating that they are dependent on it, and often saying they had also already emailed in submissions voicing their concerns.
Other concerned parties from Bromley who have had representatives sign the petition include:
Bromley Community Centre (Staff, tutors, and people who attend groups/ classes) The Affordable Fruit and Vege Group (A number of volunteers and people who are carrying out their community service hours with the group use the bus to reach the packing and distribution centre at Bromley Community Centre on Wednesdays.) Cathedral City Line Dancers (A group of older people who dance at Bromley Community Centre twice a week) Katang Fitness (A low impact aerobics and fitness class that happens at Bromley Community Centre 4 times a week, and is largely attended by elderly people and people with disabilities and mobility limitations, some of whom arrive by bus) Bromley School (A number of staff and parents/caregivers use the service) Bromley MASH Afterschool Programme (Parents and Supervisors who use the service) Flip Out Trampoline Arena (a number of staff and customers from Flip Out use the bus service. Manager Andrew Moss was actively involved in seeking petition signatures) WECO Textile Manufacturing, Maces Road, Bromley (several factory workers at this business use the bus service to get to work) P/us staff at the following businesses: Fix Cafe, Maces Rd, Bromley Hel's Food Bar, Maces Rd, Bromley Argus Heating, Maces Rd, Bromley Chubb Security, Maces Rd Bromley New Zealand Scaffolding, Maces Road, Bromley
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 11 of 133 Comments from People Who Have Signed:
'7 see the bus come past my work daily and can see that the people who use the service need it, they are old people, people with disabilities, people who can't walk very far, people who can't drive, it would be unfair to leave them without a bus service that comes through this part of the neighbourhood. " - EmmaS.
"7 signed because I'm sick of the eastside of Christchurch being left out again. Yet another bus to be stopped. Not ok. " - Shania L.
"My mum uses the bus everyday. " - Chrissy I.
"I live in Bromley and there is elderly that live in Bromley and they need the bus they can't walk very far" - Lexi J
"This bus sen/ice is the only one my Mum can catch to get to Eastgate without having to walk down to Linwood Ave. As my Mum has a back injury and lives with Chronic pain this bus service is a need for her to go out. " - Kasey J
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 12 of 133 Why are we Petitioning?
We are petitioning because the Bromley end of the 145 bus service is set to be discontinued and we see the bus as a vital service for our community.
As a result of decisions made through Environment Canterbury's Long-Term Plan 2018-28 process, it has been decided the 145 route that currently runs from Westmorland to Eastgate will be changed.
The proposed options for public transport in the draft Long-Term Plan included that the six lowest-performing bus routes in Christchurch would be discontinued. Over 700 submissions were received about the public transport proposals, including many verbal submissions at the hearings held in late April and early May. These submissions were considered by the Councillors before the decisions about the final route changes were made. The new solution includes changes such as reducing frequency instead of entirely removing routes, and redirecting existing routes. Despite the new solution being reached, the section of the 145 bus route that currently services Bromley is still set to be discontinued. These changes are expected to be implemented in October 2018.
There is a high level of concern from residents and businesses regarding the discontinuation of the Bromley end of the 145, so Environment Canterbury are going to consider whether it might be possible to retain any ievel of service for this area at the same time. An update on these options will be shared with the Environment Canterbury Council in August 2018.
We are calling on Environment Canterbury to retain public transport services in our neighbourhood, as the walk to reach alternative bus routes is not manageable by many of the people who currently use the 145. It's not practical for people with mobility limitations to make the walk. We fear that without the vital bus service link to places such as Eastgate and the associated social experiences and essential services that some people, particularly the elderly, wiil become more socially isolated.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 13 of 133 Save the Bromley Bus Service
To: Environment Canterbury
Please retain some level of public bus service through the suburb of Bromley. By entirely discontinuing the Bromley end of the 145 bus route, as is currently proposed, the suburb will be left without a vital connection to essential services such as doctors, pharmacies, grocery stores, libraries and well-being providers. Please find a way to still provide a bus service to link the Bromley community to these services.
Why is this important? As a result of decisions made through Environment Canterbury's Long-Term Plan 2018-28 process, it has been decided the 145 route that currently runs from Westmorland to Eastgate will be changed. The proposed options for public transport in the draft Long-Term Plan Jncluded that the six lowest- performing bus routes in Christchurch would be discontinued. Over 700 submissions were received about the public transport proposals, including many verbal submissions at the hearings held in late April and early May.'These submissions were considered by the Councillors before the decisions about the final route changes were made. The new solution includes changes such as reducing frequency instead of entirely removing routes, and redirecting existing routes. Despite the new'solution being reached, the section of the 145 bus route that currently services Bromley is still set to be discontinued. These changes are expected to be implemented in October 2018. There is a high level of concern from residents and businesses regarding the discontinuation of the Bromley'end of the 145, so Environment Canterbury are going to consider whether it might be possible to'retain any level of service for this area at the same time. An update on these options will be shared with the Environment Canterbury Council in August 2018.
We are calling on Environment Canterbury to retain public transport services in our neighbourhood, as the walk to reach alternative bus routes is not manageable by many of the people who currently use the 145. It's not practical for people with mobility limitations to make the walk. We fear that without the vital bus service link to places such as Eastgate and the associated social experiences and essential services that some people, particularly the elderly, will become more socially isolated. This petition has been organised by staff and users of the Bromley Community Centre, 45 Bromley Road. Please sign the petition to add your voice.
Signed by 173 people:
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 14 of 133 5. Minutes
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 15 of 133 Minutes of the 488th Meeting of the Canterbury Regional Council held in the Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch on Thursday, 19 July at 11:00am
Contents 1. Karakia 2. Apologies 3. Conflicts of Interest 4. Deputations and Petitions 5. Minutes 6. Matters Arising 7. Committee Reports 7.1. Standing Committees 7.1.1. Canterbury Water Management Strategy Regional Committee 7.1.2. Regulation Hearing Committee 7.1.3. Performance, Audit and Risk Committee 8. Matters for Council Decision 8.1. National Planning Standards - delegation of submission approval 8.2. Approving Environment Canterbury submission: Our Climate Your Say: Ministry for the Environment’s Zero Carbon Bill discussion document 8.3. Attendance to the 2018 LGNZ Conference
9. Exclusion of the Public from Part of the Council Meeting
10. Other Business
11. Notices of Motion
12. Questions
13. Next Meeting
14. Closing Karakia
Welcome
Chair Lowndes welcomed everyone to the meeting and confirmed that Councillors had received the following documents:
Item 8.2 - copy of the draft submission on the Zero Carbon Bill discussion document Item 10 - late item: Appointment to the Hearing Panel for the draft Christchurch Future Development Strategy
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 16 of 133 1. Karakia
Cr Caygill opened the meeting with a karakia.
2. Apologies
Apologies were received from Councillors Cranwell, Roberts and Skelton
3. Conflicts of Interest
No declarations of interest were declared.
4. Deputations and Petitions
There were no requests for deputations or petitions.
5. Minutes
Refer pages 9 to 45 of the agenda.
Resolved
That the Council:
Confirms as a true and correct record and adopts the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2018.
Cr McKay/Cr Cunningham CARRIED
6. Matters Arising
There were no matters arising from the minutes.
7. Committee Reports
7.1. Standing Committees
7.1.1. Canterbury Water Management Strategy Regional Committee Refer pages 47 to 54 of the agenda.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 17 of 133 Resolved
That the Council:
1. Receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Regional Committee meeting held on 12 June 2018.
Cr McKay/Cr Scott CARRIED
7.1.2. Regulation Hearing Committee Refer pages 55 to 58 of the agenda.
Cr Lambie presented this item and explained the Committee’s decision to exercise its existing delegation to consider and decide consent applications that have been notified, but there are no submissions to be heard. The Committee had agreed that Crs Scott and McKay who are both accredited with the Making Good Decisions Programme should be invited to join the Regulation Hearing Committee.
Resolved
That the Council:
1. Receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Regulation Hearing Committee meeting held on 21 June 2018.
Cr Lambie/Cr Pham CARRIED
7.1.3. Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Refer pages 59 to 82 of the agenda.
A request was made for the Efficiency and Productivity Reporting presentation to be provided to all Councillors. Resolved
That the Council:
1. Receives and confirms as a correct record the minutes of the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 28 June 2018.
2. Receives the Audit NZ Audit Plan for the 2017/18 Annual Report.
3. Receives the summary of the financial reports to 31 May 2018. Cr Cullinane/Cr Caygill CARRIED 8. Matters for Council Decision
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 18 of 133 8.1. National Planning Standards - delegation of submission approval
Refer to pages 83 to 84 of the agenda.
Resolved
That the Council:
1. approves delegated sign-out of the National Planning Standards submission
2. Delegates to an appointed Councillors Skelton, Caygill and Pham the responsibility for signing out the submission
Cr Lambie/Cr Cunningham CARRIED
8.2. Approving Environment Canterbury submission: Our Climate Your Say: Ministry for the Environment’s Zero Carbon Bill discussion document
Refer to pages 85 to 86 of the agenda and the draft submission circulated separately.
Cr Pham presented this item with the Environment Canterbury submission in support of a net zero emissions target to be set in legislation. She explained that this target is appropriately ambitious and holistic and provides long-term signals to all sectors of the economy.
The submission supported clarification of roles and responsibilities for both mitigation and adaption and a nationally consistent approach.
Resolved
That the Council:
1. Approves the tabled submission ’Our Climate Your Say: Consultation on the Zero Carbon Bill Discussion Document' to go to the Ministry for the Environment.
Cr Pham/Cr Sunckell CARRIED
8.3. Attendance to the 2018 LGNZ Conference Refer to pages 87 to 88 of the agenda.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 19 of 133 Resolved
Cr Cullinane advised that he was an apology for the conference.
Cr Scott thanked Corinne Paine and Tim Davie for their excellent work in organising and hosting the regional tour. He paid tribute to Crs Cunningham and Cranwell for their work in arranging the Te Maruata Hui at Tuahiwi, to Cr Cranwell for his powerful and moving mihi, and to Cr Pham for her role with the Young Leaders Forum.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. retrospectively approves attendance at the Local Government New Zealand Annual Conference held on 15-17 July 2018 for; Chairman Lowndes, Deputy Chair Scott and Councillors Cullinane, Lambie and Pham
2. retrospectively approves attendance at the Local Government New Zealand Annual Pre-Conference tour held on 12-14 July 2018 for; Deputy Chair Scott and Councillor Lambie.
Cr Cunningham/Cr McKay CARRIED
9. Exclusion of the Public from Part of the Council Meeting
Resolved
That the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting, namely: 1. Council minutes 21 June 2018 2. Performance, Audit & Risk Committee minutes 28 June 2018 The general subject of the matters to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
Item Report Reason for passing this Ground(s) under No. resolution in relation to each section 48(1) for the matter passing of this resolution Council minutes 21 June Good reason to withhold exists Section 48(1)(a) 1 2018 under Section 7 2 Performance, Audit & Risk Committee minutes 28 June 2018
1. This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 20 of 133 section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceeding of the meeting in public are as follows:
Item No. 1. Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information should continue to be suppled. (Section 7(2)(c)(i))
Maintain legal professional privilege
2. Enable the Council holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) – Section 7(2)(i)
2. That appropriate officers remain to provide advice to the Committee.
Chair Lowndes/Cr Pham CARRIED
The meeting went into public excluded session from 11.25 to 11.29 am.
10. Other Business Refer to the late report circulated separately.
10.1 Appointment of Hearing panel for the draft Greater Christchurch Future Development Strategy
Resolved
That the Council
1. Receives and considers the report ‘Appointment to Hearing Panel for the draft Greater Christchurch Future Development Strategy’ at the Council meeting on 21 June 2018. Chair Lowndes/Cr Lambie CARRIED
Resolved
That the Council 1. Ratifies the appointment of Councillor Skelton as Canterbury Regional Council’s representative of the Greater Christchurch partnership’s Hearings Panel for the draft Greater Christchurch Future Development Strategy.
Chair Scott/Cr Cullinane CARRIED 11. Notices of Motion
There were no notices of motion.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 21 of 133 12. Questions
There were no questions.
13. Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on 23 August 2018.
14. Closing Karakia
Chair Lowndes thanked everyone for their participation and Cr Caygill closed the meeting with the karakia at 11.30 am.
CONFIRMED
Date______Chairperson
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 22 of 133 Unconfirmed Minutes of part of the 488th meeting of the Canterbury Regional Council held, with the public excluded, in the Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch on Thursday 19 July 2018 at 11.25am.
Present Chair Steve Lowndes, Deputy Chair Peter Scott, Councillors David Caygill, Rod Cullinane, Elizabeth Cunningham, Tom Lambie, Claire McKay, Lan Pham, and John Sunckell
Management and officers present
Bill Bayfield (Chief Executive), Nadeine Dommisse (Chief Operating Officer), Miles McConway (Director Finance & Corporate Services), Stefanie Rixecker (Director Science), Katherine Trought, (Director Strategy and Planning), Catherine Schache (General Counsel),) and Louise McDonald (Senior Committee Advisor)
1. Minutes – 21 June 2018 Refer to pages 3 to 4 of the public excluded agenda Resolved
That the Council:
Confirms as a true and correct record and adopts the minutes of the part of the meeting held, with the public excluded, on 21 June 2018.
Cr Lambie/Cr Sunckell CARRIED
2. Performance, Audit & Risk Committee Refer to pages 5 to 6 of the public excluded agenda
Resolved
That the Council:
1. Receive and confirm the minutes of part of the meeting of the Performance, Audit & Risk Committee held, with the public excluded, on 28 June 2018. Cr Cullinane/Cr Scott CARRIED
Readmit the public Council Meeting 2018-08-23 23 of 133 Unconfirmed
Resolved
That the Council:
1. Readmits the public.
Chair Lowndes/Cr Scott CARRIED
The meeting came out of public excluded session at 11.29 a.m.
Confirmed
Date Chairperson
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 24 of 133 Council Meeting 2018-08-23 25 of 133 Minutes of the 489th Meeting of the Canterbury Regional Council held in the Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch on Friday, 10 August 2018 at 1.00pm
Contents
1. Karakia
2. Apologies
3. Conflicts of Interest
4. Matters for Council Decision
4.1 Representation Review
4.2 Committee Appointments
5. Exclusion of the Public from Part of the Council Meeting
6. Other Business
7. Notices of Motion
8. Questions
9. Next Meeting
10. Closing Karakia
Present Chair Steve Lowndes, Deputy Chair Peter Scott, Councillors David Caygill, Iaean Cranwell, Rod Cullinane, Elizabeth Cunningham, Tom Lambie, Claire McKay, Lan Pham, Dr. Cynthia Roberts, Peter Skelton and John Sunckell.
In Attendance Bill Bayfield (Chief Executive), Katherine Trought (Director Strategy and Planning), Tafflyn Bradford-James (Director Communications), Ken Renz (Acting Director Finance and Corporate Services), Catherine Schache (General Counsel), David Perenara-O'Connell (Programme Manager), Cindy Butt (Team Leader Governance Services) and Louise McDonald (Senior Administration Officer). Welcome
Chair Lowndes welcomed everyone to the meeting. He advised that there was a video link to the Timaru office to enable some submitters to present their submission on the Representation Review proposal (item 4.1).
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 26 of 133 1. Karakia
Cr Iaean Cranwell opened the meeting with a karakia.
2. Apologies
There were no apologies.
3. Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were declared.
4. Matters for Council Decision
4.1. Representation Review
Refer to pages 7 to 186 of the agenda.
Resolved
That the Council:
1. receives the submissions to the representation review as appended to the report
2. hears and considers the submissions to the representation review
3. notes Council will resolve to adopt its final proposal at its meeting to be held on 23 August 2018.
Cr Sunckell/Cr Roberts CARRIED
Chair Lowndes welcomed submitters to the meeting and invited them to present their submission.
No. 36 - Timaru District Council
Deputy Mayor Richard Lyon apologised that Mayor Damon Odey was not available and presented this submission on behalf of the Timaru District Council. He acknowledged the challenges of the representation review and the constraints of the legislation. But encouraged Environment Canterbury to make use of the flexibility available when considering the representation for the South Canterbury constituency.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 27 of 133 Population is only one component of the assessment for a constituency. To have fair and effective representation for South Canterbury the size of the area also needs to be considered. The proposal for only one representative would disadvantage South Canterbury and Timaru District could not see any good reason not to have an extra member.
In response to a question regarding the boundary of the South Canterbury constituency, Deputy Mayor Lyon advised that Timaru supports the proposed boundary that reflects that community of interest.
No. 34 – Southern Canterbury Councils Joint Submission
Mayors Craig Rowley (Waimate District), Graham Smith (Mackenzie District) and Gary Kircher (Waitaki District) presented this submission and highlighted the following points in support of two members for the South Canterbury constituency: The workload for one regional councillor over a large area (18,062 square kilometres) with significant resource management issues including water management, air and biodiversity. 14 members is not excessive for the largest regional council in New Zealand. Pre- 2010 Environment Canterbury had 14 elected members. There is a strong case for 2 members for South Canterbury to reflect the rural communities of interest. The regional council needs to be fully informed about what is happening in a vast area experiencing a lot of development, including tourism. The area has a high level of non-residents who own holiday homes. Waitaki District works with two regional council and good representation on both councils is important.
No. 37 – Combined Canterbury Provinces, Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Michael Salvensen with Lionel Hulme presented this submission. They raised the issue of the workload for one councillor to represent the large area of the South Canterbury constituency. He reminded councillors that Timaru is the second largest city in Canterbury and has issues in common with Christchurch including air quality and public transport.
In the current proposal South Canterbury is under represented.
No. 38 – South Canterbury Province, Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Jason Grant, Colin Hurst and Simon Williamson presented this submission. They spoke in support of two representatives for the South Canterbury constituency citing the following aspects of the South Canterbury community of interest: the Waitaki hydro-electricity generation dams that are nationally significant. 9 high schools dairy farming, tourism, biodiversity, water 3 territorial authorities
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 28 of 133 No 11 – St Andrew Ratepayers Association
Bryn Sommerfeld, Secretary St Andrews Ratepayers Association, with Jim Anderson presented this submission in support of two councillors for the proposed South Canterbury constituency. Mr Sommerfeld presented data from other South Island regional councils that showed the 13 proposed members for Canterbury, with the largest population, would result in the least representation.
He explained that there are a lot of issues facing South Canterbury and for such a large area the workload would be too much for just one councillor.
No. 41 – Waitaki Irrigators Collective Limited
Elizabeth Soal presented this submission in support of 14 elected members for Canterbury including two for the South Canterbury constituency. The Collective represents over 600 irrigators across North Otago and South Canterbury. Due to the land area and complexity of water issues in the area there needs to be a balance between the geography and the population.
No. 47 – Charles Roebuck
Charles Roebuck presented his submission and questioned the proposal to have just one councillor for South Canterbury. He stressed the need for accountability from the council to the community. The issue of air pollution needs to be addressed. He also expressed concern about dairy farming and didymo.
No. 5 – Mark Alexander
Mark Alexander presented his personal submission as a resident and ratepayer of Selwyn District Council. He endorsed the submitters that spoke in support of two councillors for South Canterbury. Due to the geography and distances in South Canterbury it would be better to have over rather than under representation.
He was not convinced about the Christchurch ward boundaries and suggested that larger wards would allow more diversity of candidates.
He supported Ngāi Tahu representation that would provide value to the council and to the region.
No. 42 – Jim Hopkins
Jim Hopkins provided further information in support of his personal submission. He supported the submissions from the southern councils requesting two members for South Canterbury.
Mr Hopkins then explained his idea of the regional council constituency boundaries being based on the successful Canterbury Water Management Strategy zone boundaries. This would create 9 or 10 constituencies, with one member each except for Christchurch/West Melton with 8 members elected at large.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 29 of 133 The meeting adjourned between 3.00 and 3.14 pm.
No. 61 – William Penno
Former councillor Bill Penno presented his submission, accompanied by former councillor Mark Oldfield. Mr Penno tabled notes in support of his submission and described his experience as a regional councillor representing the Waitaki constituency. He travelled over to 2 hours to meetings in Christchurch often following by evening meetings in his constituency with travel time often over 2 hours. The South Canterbury constituency is very large and diverse area and just one member representing the people would be untenable.
Mark Oldfield endorsed Mr Penno’s submission and noted that in addition to water and other issues, coastal issues were important in South Canterbury. He agreed that regional councillors consider the whole region, but they also need to have local knowledge of their constituency.
No. 26 – Network Waitangi Otautahi
Katherine Peet tabled notes in support of this submission. She explained that Network Waitangi Otautahi supports mana whenua representation (Article 2 of the Treaty) that will lead to Maori participation (Article 3). They support a governance framework that includes Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti.
No. 62 – Beckenham Neighbourhood Association
Peter Tuffley presented this submission in support of the 13-member Council, including 8 Christchurch seats. He expressed concern about the proposed boundary between the Mid and South Canterbury constituencies and spoke against any changes to that boundary that would alter the proposed 8/5 split in a 13- member council.
Commenting on the issue of Ngāi Tahu representation he suggested using the existing provisions in Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act that enables non-members to be appointed to council committees.
No. 52 – Chrys Horn
Chrys Horn spoke to her submission that suggested larger constituencies for Christchurch. This could be done with two Christchurch constituencies (north and south) with 4 members each.
Attendance - Cr Cranwell left the meeting at 4.00 pm.
No. 35 – Christchurch City Council
Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner presented this submission in support of eight representatives for Christchurch and mana whenua representation. Christchurch City Council supports the dual English/Māori names, but requested that the proposed Christchurch North/Ōrei constituency be named Christchurch North-East/Ōrei to reflect that this constituency extends along the east coast.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 30 of 133 4.2. Committee Appointments
Refer to pages 187 to 188 of the agenda.
Resolved
That the Council:
1. appoints Hugh Logan as Chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Regional Committee.
2. appoints Cr Peter Scott as Deputy Chair of the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee.
Cr Sunckell/Cr McKay CARRIED 5. Exclusion of the Public from Part of the Council Meeting
Refer to page 189 of the agenda.
Recommendations
1. That the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting, namely: a) Purchase of land The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: Item Report Reason for passing this Ground(s) under No. resolution in relation to each section 48(1) for the matter passing of this resolution 1. Purchase of land Good reason to withhold exists Section 48(1)(a) under section 7.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceeding of the meeting in public are as follows: Item No. 1 Enable the Council holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). 2. That appropriate officers remain to provide advice to the Council Chair Lowndes/Cr Skelton CARRIED The meeting went into public excluded session from 4.14 to 4.20 pm
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 31 of 133 Adjournment
Resolved
That the Council: 1. adjourn the meeting of 10 August 2018; and 2. reconvene the meeting on Thursday 16 August 2018 at 9.00am. Chair Lowndes/Cr Pham CARRIED
The meeting reconvened on Thursday 16 August 2018 at 9.00am in the Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch
Present Chair Steve Lowndes, Deputy Chair Peter Scott, Councillors David Caygill, Iaean Cranwell, Rod Cullinane, Elizabeth Cunningham, Tom Lambie, Claire McKay, Lan Pham, Dr. Cynthia Roberts, Peter Skelton and John Sunckell.
In Attendance Bill Bayfield (Chief Executive), Katherine Trought (Director Strategy and Planning), Tafflyn Bradford-James (Director Communications), Ken Renz (Acting Director Finance and Corporate Services), Catherine Schache (General Counsel), David Perenara-O'Connell (Programme Manager), Cindy Butt (Team Leader Governance Services) and Louise McDonald (Senior Administration Officer). Welcome
The Chair welcomed everyone back to the meeting to consider the submissions to the representation review proposal (item 4.1) and invited Cr Cranwell to open the meeting with a karakia.
4.1. Representation Review
Refer to pages 7 to 186 of the agenda and the additional report circulated following the hearing of submissions on 10 August 2018.
Chair Lowndes explained that following hearing from submitters on Friday 10 August the Council now needed to deliberate on all the submissions received.
Resolved
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 32 of 133 That the Council: 1. receives the report ‘Review of the representation arrangements for the 2019 local elections – deliberations” 2. considers all the written and verbal submissions received. Cr Roberts/Cr Caygill CARRIED
Chair Lowndes referred Councillors to paragraphs 10 to 13 of the additional report that summarised the key themes from the 64 submissions received: 27 submitters supported the initial proposal. 20 submitters requested an additional councillor for South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi, the majority requesting that this be achieved by increasing to 14 councillors. Other submissions made a range of requests including changes to the Christchurch constituencies.
Starting from the base of support for the initial proposal the Chair invited councillors to consider any amendments to the proposal in light of the submissions received.
South Canterbury - Ōtuhituhi A motion was put by Cr Scott, seconded by Cr Sunckell to amend the proposal to include 2 councillors for the South Canterbury constituency and retain 2 each for Mid and North Canterbury with 8 councillors for Christchurch.
Noting that many of the submission points are interrelated and that the decision on the final proposal will be made at the meeting scheduled for 23 August, Crs Scott and Sunckell withdrew their motion so that all the submission points could be considered before making recommendations for any amendments to the proposal.
The submissions requesting two councillors for the South Canterbury constituency were considered and the following comments were made in support of those submissions: Support from the southern rūnanga for two councillors. The tyranny of distance for a large and remote area. Two councillors would assist in maintaining and enhancing relationships with the four territorial authorities. The strong submission from the combined Southern Councils. Applying the +/-10% population criteria to the initial proposal resulted in South Canterbury being under represented by 30.2%, an additional councillor would result in an over representation of 29.9%. The legislation provides flexibility for a constituency to be outside the +/- 10% population criteria if the proposal provided fair and effective representation. Representation is about people; not data, numbers or methodology.
It was noted that when submitters were asked about changing the boundary as a way of meeting the +/-10% population criteria for the South Canterbury constituency, there was no support for moving the boundary from the Rangitata River to the Rakaia River.
The view was expressed that adding an extra councillor for South Canterbury was not consistent with the one person/one vote principle.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 33 of 133 The Chair then called for a show of hands for accepting the submissions in support of two Councillors to represent the South Canterbury- Ōtuhituhi constituency in a 14-member regional council. This was supported 10/2.
Christchurch The submissions that suggested that the Christchurch have two constituencies – North and South Christchurch or one constituency with 8 members elected at large were discussed.
Councillors in support of larger constituencies in Christchurch argued that this would enable a better reflection of Christchurch communities of interest. It was noted that in this term of council four councillors were elected from one Christchurch constituency and this was working well. This would be a good model to establish for future councils.
Speakers in support of retaining the initial proposal of 4 constituencies with two members each, highlighted the benefit of matching the Christchurch City Council ward boundaries. This would enable constituency regional councillors to work with City Councillors to strengthen the relationship between the two councils. it was also noted that the Christchurch City Council supported the four constituencies and there were only 5 or 6 submissions that proposed a change.
A show of hands supported retaining the initial proposal of four Christchurch constituencies 7/5.
Christchurch North–Ōrei
There was unanimous support for the Christchurch City Council request to rename the Christchurch North-Ōrei to Christchurch North East-Ōrei. This would reflect a more accurate description of the constituency. It was acknowledged that peoples of East Christchurch were dealing with many issues post-earthquakes.
Resolved
That the Council: 1. after considering the submissions to the proposed Canterbury Regional Council Representation Review provides the following guidance to the Chief Executive for consideration of the final proposal at the 23 August 2018 meeting: a. Support for a 14-member council with two representatives for all constituencies: i. Christchurch – four constituencies ii. South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi iii. Mid-Canterbury-Ōpākihi iv. North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke b. Change the name of the Christchurch North-Ōrei to Christchurch North East-Ōrei. Cr Caygill/Cr Scott CARRIED
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 34 of 133 6. Other Business
There was no other business
7. Notices of Motion
There were no notices of motion.
8. Questions
There were no questions.
9. Next meeting
Thursday 23 August
10. Closing Karakia
Chair Lowndes thanked everyone for their participation and Cr Cranwell closed the meeting with a karakia at 9.55 am.
CONFIRMED
Date______Chairperson
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 35 of 133 6. Matters Arising
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 36 of 133 7. Committee Reports
7.1. Standing Committees
7.1.1. Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Council report
Date of meeting 23 August 2018 Author Vivienne Ong Committee Advisor
Purpose
1. For the Council to receive the minutes from the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 9 August 2018 and to receive the summary of the financial reports for the year ending 30 June 2018.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. Receive and confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 9 August 2018.
2. Receive the summary of the financial reports for the year ending 30 June 2018
Attachments
1. Minutes of the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 9 August 2018.
2. Summary of the financial reports for the year ending 30 June 2018.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 37 of 133 Unconfirmed
Minutes of the 143rd meeting of the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee held in the Waimakariri Room, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch on Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 2.00pm
Contents 1A. Appointment of Acting Chair 1. Apologies 2. Conflicts of Interest 3. Deputations and Petitions 4. Risk 4.1 Health and Safety 5. Performance 5.1 Action List 5.2 Public Transport Financial Update 5.3 Financial Health Report June 2018 5.4 Operational Report June 2018 6. Audit 6.1 Audit NZ Long-Term Plan Final Report 6.2 Internal Audit Standing Paper 7. Notices of Motion 8. Extraordinary and Urgent Business 9. Questions 10. Next Meeting 11. Closure
Present Cr Peter Scott (Acting Chair) Cr John Sunckell Cr Claire McKay Chairman Steve Lowndes
Management and officers present
Bill Bayfield (Chief Executive Officer), Ken Renz (Acting Director Finance and Corporate Services), Katherine Trought (Director Strategy & Planning), Katherine Harbrow (Chief Financial Officer), Catherine Schache (General Counsel), Stewart Gibbon (Senior Manager Public Transport) and Vivienne Ong (Committee Advisor)
Report writers and supporting staff were also in attendance.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 38 of 133 Unconfirmed Welcome
Chair Lowndes declared the meeting open.
1A. Appointment of Acting Chair
Resolved
That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee:
1. Appoint Councillor Peter Scott as the Acting Chair for the meeting
Chair Lowndes/Cr Sunckell CARRIED
Acting Chair Peter Scott welcomed everyone to the meeting
1. Apologies An apology was received from Councillor Rod Cullinane.
2. Conflicts of interest
There were no conflicts of interest recorded.
3. Deputations and petitions
No petitions or requests for deputations were received.
4. Risk
4.1 Health and Safety Report
Refer page 7 – Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda
Matthew Bennett presented the report and went through progress and improvements made during the past month.
Concern was expressed with icy walkways/slippery bridges and potential for significant injury to people at the Tuam Street and St Asaph Street entrances. Whilst grit on walkways and tread on the bridges were put in place, Committee members expressed the need for further mechanisms to also be explored. Matthew said he would investigate further and added that after this winter the concrete would be changed to a more non- slip texture.
Resolved
That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee:
1. Receive the Health and Safety Governance report for June 2018. 2. Receive the report on Health and Safety progress and indicators.
Cr McKay / Cr Sunckell CARRIED
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 39 of 133 Unconfirmed
5. Performance
5.1 Action List
Refer page 14 – Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda
Katherine Harbrow presented the Action List.
Resolved That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee: 1. Receive the Action List for 9 August 2018 meeting agenda. Chair Lowndes / Cr Sunckell CARRIED
5.3 Financial Health Report
Refer page 24 – Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda Wendy Gainford and Katherine Harbrow took the Committee through the financial results for the year ended 30 June 2018.
Debtors were particularly low (lowest in recorded history, 2001), mainly due to improvements in debt management processes and procedures. The PARC Committee acknowledged the splendid work in getting debt down and gave thanks to Miles McConway, Katherine Harbrow and her team.
Resolved
That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee: 1. Receive the monthly Financial Health report for year ended 30 June 2018.
Cr Sunckell / Cr McKay CARRIED
5.4 Operational Report
Refer page 31 – Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda
Wendy Gainford reported on operational performance by portfolio for the year ended 30 June 2018 and explained why the current financial position was better than anticipated.
The Committee was pleased with the level of reporting and thanked Wendy for ensuring they had a clear understanding of the organisation’s current operational performance.
Resolved
That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee: 1. Receive the Operational Performance report for the year ended 30 June 2018.
Cr McKay / Chair Lowndes CARRIED
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 40 of 133 Unconfirmed
5.2 Public Transport Financial Update
Refer page 16 – Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda
Stewart Gibbon provided an update on the financial position of Public Transport and summarised key activities and proposed innovations either currently on trial or to explore further:
Express services/fast buses Leeston and Darfield trials Metro card accessibility Capital and project-based enhancements Service improvements
An explanation was given on the impact of excise tax, public transport cross-elasticities, fuel prices and individual circumstances of patrons and how this influenced their transport choices.
Members thanked Stewart for the work to date and supported the direction Public Transport was heading.
Resolved
That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee:
1. Receive the Financial Update on Public Transport.
Cr Sunckell / Cr McKay CARRIED 6. Audit
6.1 Audit NZ Long-Term Plan Final Report Refer page 51 – Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda Katherine Harbrow presented the final Audit NZ report on the audit of the 2018-28 Long- Term Plan (LTP).
Members appreciated what was achieved and expressed thanks to Bill Bayfield, Miles McConway and everyone involved with the audit. Resolved That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee: 1. Acknowledge the Audit NZ Long-Term Plan management report, including findings raised
Cr McKay /Cr Sunckell CARRIED
6.2 Internal Audit Standing Paper Refer page 59 - Performance, Audit and Risk Committee Agenda Tanya Clifford and Katherine Harbrow presented the Internal Audit Standing Paper.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 41 of 133 Unconfirmed Interest was expressed in determining the potential fourth unassigned internal audit. Recommendations from staff were to withhold from committing to a fourth audit pending completion of prior planned audits, budget availability and future expressed Government priorities/reviews. Resolved That the Performance, Audit and Risk Committee: 1. Note the progress of the internal audit programme, and 2. Advised there were no internal audit issues for this month. Cr McKay / Cr Sunckell CARRIED
7. Notices of motion There were no notices of motion.
8. Extraordinary and urgent business
There was no urgent business.
9. Questions
There were no questions.
10. Next meeting
Thursday, 4 October 2018
12. Closure Peter Scott declared the meeting closed at 2.44pm.
CONFIRMED
Date Chairperson
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 42 of 133 Council Meeting 2018-08-23 43 of 133 Council Meeting 2018-08-23 44 of 133 Council Meeting 2018-08-23 45 of 133 Council Meeting 2018-08-23 46 of 133 7.1.2. Regulation Hearing Committee Council report
Date of meeting 23 August 2018 Author Alison Cooper, Consents Hearing Officer
Purpose
1. For the Council to receive the unconfirmed minutes from the Regulation Hearing Committee meeting held 2 August 2018.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Regulation Hearing Committee meeting held on 2 August 2018.
Attachment
Unconfirmed minutes of the Regulation Hearing Committee meeting held on 2 August 2018.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 47 of 133 Unconfirmed REGULATION HEARING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting held in the Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch, on Thursday, 2 August 2018 at 8.30am
CONTENTS
1.0 Apologies 2.0 Conflict of Interest 3.0 Minutes of Meeting – 21 June 2018 4.0 Matters Arising 5.0 Deputations and Petitions 6.0 Items for Discussion 6.1 Appointment of Hearing Commissioner – Objection to Decision 6.2 Revocation of Appointment of Hearing Commissioners 6.3 Update on Logistics for Regulation Hearing Committee hearings 6.4 Appointment of Hearing Commissioner – Hurunui District Council 7.0 Extraordinary and Urgent Business 8.0 Next Meeting 9.0 Closure
PRESENT Councillors Peter Skelton (Chairperson), Tom Lambie, Elizabeth Cunningham and Lan Pham
IN ATTENDANCE
Tania Harris (Senior Manager Operational Support), Philip Burge (Acting Consents Manager), Alison Cooper (Consents Hearings Officer)
Councillor Lambie (Acting Chairperson) opened the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8.31am and resumed at 8.50am with Councillor Skelton as Chairperson
1. APOLOGIES
Councillor Lan Pham For lateness – Councillor Peter Skelton
2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts of interest were declared.
3. MINUTES OF MEETING – 21 JUNE 2018
Resolved:
The Regulation Hearing Committee:
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 48 of 133 Unconfirmed
Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2018 as a true and correct record. Cr Cunningham / Cr Lambie CARRIED
It was noted that Item 6.2 of the unapproved minutes of 21 June 2018 presented to Council recommended Councillor Cranwell to join the Committee. This should read as Councillor McKay.
4. MATTERS ARISING
There were no matters arising.
5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS
There were no deputations or petitions.
6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
6.1 Appointment of Hearing Commissioner – Objection to Decision
Resolved:
That the Regulation Hearing Committee in regard to an objection to decision of resource consent CRC051766, CRC040989 and CRC071825 held by Mr Nathaniel Small:
1. Appoint Cindy Robinson as a Hearings Commissioner, under s34A of the Resource Management Act 1991; and
2. Delegate to Cindy Robinson, pursuant to s34A(1) Resource Management Act 1991, the function, powers and duties required to: deal with any preliminary matters; hear; and decide the objection to decision
Cr Lambie / Cr Cunningham CARRIED
6.2 Revocation of Appointment of Hearing Commissioners
Resolved:
That the Regulation Hearing Committee in regard to resource consent application CRC160056 to be held by Christchurch City Council revoked the appointment of:
1. Ken Gimblett as a Hearings Commissioner, member and Chair of the Hearing Panel under s34A of the Resource Management Act 1991; and
2. Hugh Thorpe as a Hearings Commissioner, and member of the Hearing Panel under s34A of the Resource Management Act 1991; and
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 49 of 133 Unconfirmed 3. Raewyn Solomon as a Hearings Commissioner, and member of the Hearing Panel under s34A of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Cr Cunningham / Cr Lambie CARRIED
Item 6.4 was taken at this time.
6.4 Appointment of Hearing Commissioner – Hurunui District Council
Resolved:
That the Regulation Hearing Committee in regard to resource consent application CRC175709 to be held by Hurunui District Council:
1. Appoint Emma Christmas as a Hearings Commissioner under s34A of the Resource Management Act 1991; and
2. Delegate to Emma Christmas pursuant to s34A(1) Resource Management Act 1991, the function, powers and duties required to: deal with any preliminary matters; hear; and decide the resource consent application.
Cr Lambie / Cr Cunningham CARRIED
6.3 Update of Logistics for Consent Decisions via Regulation Hearing Committee
Philip Burge spoke to the report outlining the process and timeline table for the Regulation Hearing Committee to consider and decide notified applications where there were no parties to be heard.
The advice was noted.
6. EXTRAORDINARY AND URGENT BUSINESS
There was no extraordinary or urgent business.
7. NEXT MEETING
To be confirmed.
8. CLOSURE
The Chairperson declared the meeting closed at 9:10am
CONFIRMED
Date: Chairperson:
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 50 of 133 7.2. Joint Committees
7.2.1. Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee Council report
Date of meeting Thursday, 23 August 2018 Author Vivienne Ong, Committee Advisor Endorsed by Cindy Butt, Team Leader Governance
Purpose
1. For the Council to receive, for information, the unconfirmed minutes from the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee meeting held on 15 August 2018
2. These minutes will be presented to the next meeting of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee for adoption.
3. There are two recommendations from agenda item 7.0 to the Regional Council from the Committee
a. recommend to the Environment Canterbury Council that they approve the draft RPTP for consultation;
b. recommend to the Environment Canterbury Council to delegate authority to the Environment Canterbury Chief Executive to make alterations of minor effect or to correct minor errors to the Draft Greater Christchurch Public Transport Regional Plan Recommendations
That the Council:
1. receive the unconfirmed minutes of the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Joint Committee meeting held on 9 August 2018
2. approve the draft Canterbury Regional Public Transport Plan for consultation
3. delegate authority to the Environment Canterbury Chief Executive to make alterations of minor effect or to correct minor errors to the Draft Greater Christchurch Public Transport Regional Plan Attachments 1. Unconfirmed Minutes of GCT – to be circulated separately 2. Draft Canterbury Regional Public Transport Plan – to be circulated separately
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 51 of 133 8. Matters for Council Decision
8.1. Representation Review
Council report
Date of meeting Thursday 23rd August 2018 Author Cindy Butt, Governance Services Team Leader Endorsed by Bill Bayfield, Chief Executive
Purpose
1. To recommend Council resolves its final representation arrangements for the 2019 local authority elections.
Value proposition
2. Representation arrangements determine the number of electoral constituencies, their boundaries, names and number of members.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. Notes that it has considered all submissions received on its resolutions dated 21 June 2018, made pursuant to section 19I of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (‘the Initial Resolution”)
2. resolves under section 19N to make amendments to the Initial Resolution, so that the number of constituencies, names of each constituency, the number of members to be elected by the electors of each constituency, and the boundaries (as set out in the maps appended to this report) are:
North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke 2 members Mid Canterbury-Ōpākihi 2 members South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi 2 members Christchurch North East-Ōrei 2 members Christchurch West-Ōpuna 2 members Christchurch Central-Ōhoko 2 members Christchurch South-Ōwhanga 2 members Total 14 members
3. notes that the amendments made to the Initial Resolution are:
a) that the total number of members to be elected is 14, rather than 13;
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 52 of 133 b) that the number of members to be elected by the electors of the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency is 2, rather than 1; and
c) that the name of one of the constituencies is Christchurch North East-Ōrei, rather than Christchurch North-Ōrei
4. receives and adopts the report ‘Representation Review’ as providing its reasons for the amendments proposed and the reasons for rejection of some submissions.
5. notes that the Councils representation arrangements do not comply with section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and therefore that the Council must refer its decision to the Local Government Commission for its determination, pursuant to section 19V(4) of the Local Electoral Act 2001
6. notes the final representation review proposal is the subject of an appeal period of not less than one month following the date of the public notice of its decision
7. notes that if it receives appeals/objections to its final representation review proposal, the matter is forwarded to the Local Government Commission to consider
8. notes that the Local Government Commission is required to make its decisions by 11 April 2019
9. delegates to the Chief Executive whatever is necessary for the Council to meet its obligations under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including to
a) distribute copies of the resolution (section 19N) b) give public notice following consideration of public submissions (section 19N) c) forward appeals and objections as well as Councils decisions under section 19V(4) to the Commission (section19Q).
Key points
3. Under the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the LEA) a local authority is required to undertake a representation review at least once every 6 years. In the case of Environment Canterbury, the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016 requires Council to review its representation arrangements before the next local authority elections in 2019.
4. The Local Electoral Act 2001 sets the parameters within which the representation review process must be undertaken. The 3 key principles to consider in a representation review are:
(i) communities of interest (LEA s19U) (ii) effective representation (LEA s19U)
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 53 of 133 - which includes constituency boundaries, so far as practicable, coincide with boundaries of territorial authority districts or boundaries of wards (iii) fair representation (+/-10%) (LEA s19V).
5. Councils initial proposal for representation arrangements was the subject of a public consultation process that concluded at the end of June 2018. Council is now required to decide its final representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.
Background
6. Under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016 Council is currently represented by a transitional governing body comprising seven elected councillors and five appointed councillors. These arrangements were made to transition Environment Canterbury to a fully-elected council in 2019.
7. In March 2017 Council was advised about the representation review process and considered preliminary election matters about its electoral system options and establishing Māori constituencies.
8. In May 2017 Council resolved to retain First Past the Post as its electoral system and to not establish Māori constituencies (however Council agreed to work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to seek further discussion with Government on how to continue with mana whenua representation). A local bill is being pursued with Ngāi Tahu for mana whenua representation to continue at Environment Canterbury.
9. In April and May 2018 four workshops were held with Council that presented various options and investigated possible representation scenarios. Council considered these, and at its meeting held on 21 June 2018 decided an initial proposal for representation arrangements that comprised a 13 member council elected from 7 constituencies.
10. This initial proposal was the subject of a public consultation process, submissions opened 28 June 2018 and closed on 30 July 2018.
The initial proposal
11. In summary the initial proposal was:
Constituencies Members North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke 2 Mid-Canterbury-Ōpākihi 2 South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi 1 Christchurch North- Ōrei 2 Christchurch West-Ōpuna 2 Christchurch Central-Ōhoko 2 Christchurch South-Ōwhanga 2 13
The changes from current representation arrangements were:
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 54 of 133 a) an increase from 7 to 13 elected members b) the Christchurch Constituency is allocated into four constituencies c) dual English / Māori names for each constituency.
Submissions
12. A total of 64 submissions were received and 14 submitters were heard.
13. The key themes from the submissions were:
- 27 submitters supported the initial proposal
- 20 submitters requested an additional Councillor for South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi, and Council comprise 14 members
- Other single submitters made a range of requests that are outlined in the appended submissions report.
14. Those submitters who wished to be heard presented their submissions to Council at a meeting held on 10 August 2018. This meeting was reconvened on 16 August 2018 for Council to consider all the written and verbal submissions and to deliberate a final proposal.
15. Council is required to provide reasons for acceptance or rejection of submissions. Draft reasons are outlined in the submissions report attached.
The final proposal
16. After considering the submissions Council supported amendments to its initial proposal as follows:
(i) that the total number of members to be elected is 14, rather than 13;
(ii) that the number of members to be elected by the electors of the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency is 2, rather than 1; and
(iii) that the name of one of the constituencies is Christchurch North East-Ōrei, rather than Christchurch North-Ōrei
17. The final proposal maintains Council’s current electoral boundaries (with the exception of Christchurch City that changes from 1 to 4 constituencies) and complies with section 19U(c) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 that requires regional council constituency boundaries, so far as practicable to coincide with territorial authority districts or the boundaries of wards. Maintaining alignment with territorial authority and ward boundaries was supported by submitters and strongly supported by the regions territorial authorities.
18. The final proposal results in 4 constituencies that do not comply with s19V of the Local Electoral Act 2001 (the +/-10% rule) and therefore must be referred to the Local Government Commission for its determination.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 55 of 133 19. Assessment of the final representation arrangements
Total estimated population (June 2017) 612,280 / 14 Councillors = 43,734 Range +/- 10% = 39,361 to 48,107 7 Constituencies Population No. of Population Deviation Percentage +/-10% Councillors per from region deviation per councillor average from region constituency (43,734) average North Canterbury- 75,800 2 37,900 -5,834 -13.34 No Ōpukepuke Mid-Canterbury-Ōpākihi 93,440 2 46,720 +2,986 +6.83 Yes South Canterbury- 61,320 2 30,660 -13,074 -29.90 No Ōtuhituhi Christchurch North 100,400 2 50,200 +6,466 +14.79 No East-Ōrei Christchurch West- 95,700 2 47,850 +4,116 +9.41 Yes Ōpuna Christchurch Central- 103,300 2 51,650 +7,916 +18.10 No Ōhoko Christchurch South- 82,320 2 41,160 -2,574 -5.89 Yes Ōwhanga 612,280 14
20. In accordance with section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 the population that each member represents in the Mid Canterbury-Ōpākihi, Christchurch West-Ōpuna and Christchurch South-Ōwhanga Constituencies falls within the range of 43,734 +/- 10% (39,361 to 48,107).
21. The proposal for 2 members in the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency does not comply with section 19V(2) (+/-10% rule) and would result in over representation (a - 29.90% deviation from the regional average councillor to elector ratio). In respect of the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency Council noted that the election of two members is necessary to provide effective representation for communities of interest taking into account:
the large land area of the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency being 39.84% of the Canterbury region
the significant amount of Canterbury Regional Council work undertaken in the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency together with the increased focus on freshwater management, indigenous biodiversity and land management issues in the constituency which are requiring greater Councillor involvement
the diverse, relatively sparsely populated and widely spread communities that make up the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
the boundaries align with territorial authority boundaries and reflect the communities of interest of the districts in the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi area
Consideration was given to extend the boundary from the Rangitata, North to the Rakaia however Council (and submitters) consider this violates the sense of
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 56 of 133 communities of interest of the districts in the South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency (part of Waitaki, Waimate, Mackenzie and Timaru Districts).
22. The proposal for 2 members in the North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke Constituency does not comply with section 19V(2) (+/-10% rule) and results in over representation (a - 13.34% deviation from the regional average councillor to elector ratio). In respect of the North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke Constituency Council noted that the election of two members is necessary to provide effective representation for communities of interest taking into account:
the large land area of the North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke Constituency being 28.5% of the Canterbury region
the significant amount of Canterbury Regional Council work undertaken in the North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke Constituency together with the increased focus on freshwater management, indigenous biodiversity, land management, and post Kaikoura Earthquake issues in the constituency which are requiring greater Councillor involvement
the diverse, relatively sparsely populated and widely spread communities that make up the North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke Constituency
the boundaries align with territorial authority boundaries and reflect the communities of interest of the districts in the North Canterbury-Ōpukepuke area.
23. The proposal for 2 members each in Christchurch North East-Ōrei and Christchurch Central-Ōhoko Constituencies does not comply with section 19V(2) (+/-10% rule) and results in under representation in each of these 2 constituencies (Christchurch North East-Ōrei +14.79% and Christchurch Central-Ōhoko +18.10% deviation from the regional average councillor to elector ratio). In respect of these 2 Christchurch constituencies that do not comply with the +/-10% rule Council noted the election of two members in each of these constituencies is necessary to provide effective representation for communities of interest taking into account:
prior experience in previous representation reviews has shown that moving boundaries to comply with the +/-10% rule compromised communities of interest and eroded relationships between constituents and regional councillors and also between the Regional Council and the City Council
this proposal, on the other hand, ensures that each constituency will not just be represented by 4 City Councillors (1 from each ward), but will also be represented by 2 Regional Councillors. It will provide a greater likelihood that constituents will know who represents them. It is also more even handed in providing 2 councillors for each and every constituency
this proposal which sees Christchurch City Council ward boundaries matching the Regional Councils constituency boundaries is well understood by electors, allows more cooperation between the City Councillors and Regional Councillors, and therefore effective representation
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 57 of 133 the boundaries align with territorial authority boundaries and reflect the communities of interest of the wards within the Christchurch North East-Ōrei and Christchurch Central-Ōhoko areas.
24. Council believes the final arrangements provide fair and effective representation to best serve its communities of interest. Submissions from across the region also support the final arrangements.
The appeal/objection period
25. Council’s final representation arrangements are subject to a one month appeal/objection period.
26. Any person or organisation that made a submission to Council’s initial proposal may lodge an appeal against Council’s final proposal. The right of objection exists only if the Council’s final proposal differs from its initial proposal. An objection must identify the matters to which the objection relates.
27. If any objections or appeals are received, the matter is forwarded to the Local Government Commission (the LGC) to decide. If the Council’s final proposal does not comply with the requirements of the LEA, it also must be referred to the LGC for determination.
28. The Local Government Commission is required to make its determinations on all local authority representation reviews by 11 April 2019.
Cost, compliance and communication
Financial implications
29. The cost of the representation review is provided for in the governance services budget. Costs to date include staff time to develop the proposal including internal GIS mapping services and internal communications/web services.
Risk assessment and legal compliance
30. The representation review process has been conducted under the requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016.
Significance and engagement
31. The representation review has a high degree of significance and a public consultation process has been conducted as required under the Local Electoral Act 2001.
Consistency with council policy
32. The representation review is required under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 58 of 133 Communication
33. Engagement and communication are outlined in the timetable below.
Next steps
Representation review timetable
Thursday 14 December Council briefing 2017
Early February 2018 Meet with the project team
Monday 12 February Chief Executive Forum (present timetable) 2018
Friday 23 February 2018 Mayoral Forum (present timetable)
Thursday 5 April 2018 Council Workshop 1 (present factors that will influence representation options such as population, TA boundaries and consider communities of interest)
Thursday 19 April 2018 Council Workshop 2 (use feedback from the first workshop to develop option(s))
Thursday 3 May 2018 Council Workshop 3 (present options developed from the workshops)
Thursday 10 May 2018 Council Workshop 4 (present a draft initial proposal developed from the workshops)
May-June 2018 Pre-review engagement with key stakeholders Friday 25 May, Chair briefing to the Mayoral Forum Friday 8 June, email and fact sheet sent to key stakeholders
Thursday 14 June A representation review information page went live on Councils website (the day the council report on the initial proposal is publicly available)
Thursday 21 June 2018 Council meeting (resolve initial proposal)
Wed 27 June 2018 Public notice of initial proposal and invite submissions (within 14 days of resolution, and not later than 8 September 2018 (LEA, section 19M)). The community will be invited to make submissions by; writing to us, emailing us, and using an on-line submission tool from Council’s website.
On-line submission portal went live on Council’s website
Thurs 28 June to Submission period (close not less than one month after public notice Mon 30 July (close) (LEA, section 19M))
Friday 10 August Council meeting to hear submissions (within 6 weeks of closing of
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 59 of 133 submissions (LEA, sections 19M and 19N) meeting adjourned to deliberate
Thursday 16 August 10 August Council meeting reconvened to deliberate a final representation proposal
Thursday 23 August Council meeting (resolve final proposal)
Wed 29 August Public notice of final proposal (within 6 weeks of closing date of submissions). If the proposal does not comply with the +/-10% requirement it must be forwarded to the LGC for determination
Not later than Council must resolve its final proposal 8 September
Mon 10 September to Objection/appeal period (close not less than one month after the date of Mon 8 October 2018 public notice of the final proposal (LEA, section 19O))
By 31 October 2018 Forward objections/appeals to LGC
By 11 April LGC decision
Attachments Draft Submissions Report Map of Canterbury Constituencies Map of Christchurch City Constituencies
Legal review Catherine Schache, General Counsel Peer reviewer Catherine Schache, General Counsel
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 60 of 133
2018 Representation review Submission report
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 1 Ruthie Enemy Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and the proposed number of Support, no change Accept in part: the final councillors. Does not support the names and boundaries representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 2 Michelle Cavanagh Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. Would prefer an Create an East Christchurch Accept in part: the final East Christchurch Constituency because the environment out east is Constituency representation arrangements are unique and has separate special challenges post-earthquakes for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency The name of the Christchurch North-Ōrei Constituency was changed to “Christchurch North East-Ōrei Constituency” 3 Donald Hutton Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. More More representation needed Accept in part: the final representation is needed to ensure council is not controlled by vested representation arrangements are interests. Supports having all Maori names and the proposed number for a 14 member Council elected of councillors from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
1
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 61 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 4 Matthew Bayliss Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. Using population to Retain appointed Commissioners Reject: the Commissioner set boundaries gives urban areas a disproportionate voice. South for South, Mid and North governance model ended in 2016 Canterbury is vast, diverse and complex with critical environmental Canterbury, reduce City to 2 and under the Environment issues. One Councillor is unfair. Environment, landscape and councillors, and reallocate these Canterbury Transition Act 2016, catchments should determine representation, not population. Retain positions to Commissioners for Council is required to return to a appointed Commissioners for South, Mid and North Canterbury, South and Mid Canterbury fully democratically elected Council reduce City to 2 councillors in 2019. The election must be conducted under the Local Electoral Act 2001. The suggestion of 2 Councillors in Christchurch City would result in under representation that could not be supported 5 Mark Alexander Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies as produces an 3 Christchurch constituencies with Accept in part: the final unbalanced urban rural split. Have one less Christchurch constituency a 6-5 or 8-7 rural/urban split representation arrangements are and increase rural Councillors to a 6-5 or 8-7 urban rural split At the hearing the submitter for a 14 member Council elected clarified 14 Councillors, 2 in each from 7 constituencies (4 constituency is a good option. constituencies in Christchurch), Favour fewer, larger Chch including 2 Councillors elected from constituencies, 2 Chch city South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi constituencies a good option. Constituency 6 Ashburton District Council Support Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
2
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 62 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 7 Andrew McKay Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies, but South Canterbury is Support, no change Accept in part: the final under represented. Move the rural boundaries to balance out. Supports representation arrangements are the return to democracy for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 8 Sally McKay Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies, names and boundaries. Support, no change Accept in part: the final Fantastic to see democracy back representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 9 Rachel Tompkins Supports the proposal but says representation from mid to south More even distribution of Accept: the final representation Canterbury is light. Suggests more even distribution of representatives representatives across the region arrangements are for a 14 member across the region Council elected from 7 constituencies (2 Councillors elected from each and every constituency) 10 Rosemary Neave Supports the proposal, and strong support for the longer term proposal Support, no change Accept in part: the final that Mana Whenua have 2 at the Council table elected through their representation arrangements are own processes for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency A local bill is being pursued with Ngāi Tahu for mana whenua
3
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 63 of 133
representation to continue at Environment Canterbury. Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 11 St Andrews Ratepayers Association, represented by Bern Sommerfeld South Canterbury had 2 representatives in 2010, expected this to be Two representatives for South Accept: the final representation maintained for 2019. Population on its own is inadequate criteria. Must Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member recognise location and intensity of ecological and environmental issues Council elected from 7 beyond the City. South Canterbury will remain disenfranchised with constituencies, including 2 only one Councillor Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 12 Dagmar Fikken Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. 4 Christchurch Create 3 Christchurch Reject: The suggestion of 6 constituencies seems a bit much. 8 representatives in Christchurch constituencies with 6 Councillors, Councillors in Christchurch results and 1 in South Canterbury does not seem fair. Drop Christchurch to 3 allocate 2 Councillors for South in under representation that could constituencies and 6 Councillors. Over representation of Christchurch Canterbury not be supported would be unfair and undemocratic 13 Helen Davidson Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies, supports the No comment provided Accept in part: the final names and boundaries. No other comments or suggestions given representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 14 Dirk De Lu Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. Communities of Christchurch at large or allocated Accept in part: the final interest concerned with preserving the environment are not to two constituencies may better representation arrangements are represented. Supports names and boundaries. A regional focus may maintain a regional focus for a 14 member Council elected be better maintained in Christchurch with a city wide or 2 ward split from 7 constituencies (with 4 (either North/South or East/West). Other proposed wards heavily constituencies in Christchurch), and dominated by agriculture. How could the proposal encourage a region 2 Councillors elected from South wide focus Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency.
4
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 64 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 15 Mike Currie Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. Double North, Mid Double North, Mid and South Reject: Splitting the Canterbury and South constituencies with 1 Councillor each. Support the name Canterbury constituencies to make constituencies creates significant and boundaries. The electors in each constituency should have the 10+ constituencies. Vote for one deviation from the +/-10% rule that right to vote for 1 councillor in their own constituency with a weight of councillor in each constituency could not be supported one and to vote for 1 councillor in each of the other constituencies with with a weight of one. Vote for one a weight of one divided by the total number of constituencies councillor in each constituency with a weight of one divided by the total number of constituencies 16 Dr Jean Drage Concern about process. Decision already made, consultation tokenism. 14 Councillors with 2 councillors in Accept: the final representation Appointed Commissioners should not be part of the decision making. each constituency. arrangements are for a 14 member Canterbury region representing more electors and should have the Council elected from 7 maximum 14 Councillors, with 2 in each constituency. Plan for an constituencies, including 2 extensive campaign for the 2019 election Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 17 Peter McIllraith Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. 1 representative for Two representatives for South Accept: the final representation South Canterbury is unfair, increase it to 2. Supports the names and Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member boundaries. Unitary Councils is the optimal answer Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 18 Jakki Guildford Support the proposal for 7 constituencies, supports the names and Support 7 constituencies, 2 Accept: the final representation boundaries. South Canterbury should have 2 Councillors. Using representatives for South arrangements are for a 14 member population alone is ludicrous. Concerned about the amount of Canterbury Council elected from 7 representation in the urban area compared to rural constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
5
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 65 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 19 Stan Rinaldi Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies. Māori names are Two representatives for South Accept: the final representation unnecessary. South Canterbury should have 2 Councillors Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 20 Andrew Swallow Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies, supports the names and Six councillors for Christchurch Accept in part: the final boundaries. South Canterbury should have 2 Councillors, 8 for and 2 each for South, Mid and representation arrangements are Christchurch is excessive. Using population alone as a basis for North Canterbury for a 14 member Council elected council representation is flawed. Suggest 6 Councillors in Christchurch, from 7 constituencies, including 2 2 each for South, Mid and North Canterbury. Even then Christchurch is Councillors elected from South over represented Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 21 Jan Buckland Support the return to a fully elected Council. Request Banks Peninsula Allocate the Banks Peninsula Accept in part: the final be moved to Mid Canterbury and the 4 Christchurch City Ward to Mid Canterbury, and representation arrangements are constituencies rearranged to even up their populations per member rearrange Christchurch City to for a 14 member Council elected ensure an even spread of from 7 constituencies, including 2 representation Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 22 John Richardson
Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and supports the names Support, no change. Accept in part: the final and boundaries. Prefer strict compliance with the +/-10% rule. Uneasy representation arrangements are about the proposed separate arrangements for Ngāi Tahu for a 14 member Council elected
representation, serious conflicts of interest could arise. Let Ngāi Tahu from 7 constituencies, including 2 stand in the election Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
6
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 66 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 23 Kevin Dean and Linda MacIntyre Supports the proposal Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 24 Joan Werner Supports the proposal. One elector, one vote, regardless of where they Support, no change Accept in part: the final live. NB not allowing rural members any more votes than urban representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 25 Don Smith Christchurch denied democracy for the past few years and been Support, no change Accept in part: the final disenfranchised. Support the principle of one person, one vote representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 26 Network Waitangi Otautahi Organising Group – Katherine Peet Supports the proposal, and for separate arrangements for Ngāi Tahu Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
7
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 67 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 27 Jo Luxton (MP Rangitata) Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies, but objects to only 1 14 Councillors, 2 representatives Accept: the final representation member for South Canterbury and asks it be increased to 2. There is for South Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member no statutory impediment for the additional member (total of 14) and no Council elected from 7 issue to breach the +/-10% rule constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 28 Ken Rouse Supports the proposal Support, no change Accept in part the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 29 Beth Rouse Supports the proposal Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 30 Waimakariri District Council Fully supports the proposal of 13 elected members within the Support, no change Accept in part: the final constituencies proposed, and the names and boundaries representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
8
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 68 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 31 Tom Henderson Does not support the proposal and suggest 7 members for 7 Christchurch, 2 each for North, Accept in part: the final Christchurch and 2 each for South, Mid and North Canterbury. 1 Mid and South Canterbury representation arrangements are member in South Canterbury is an insult and would not be appropriate for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 32 Gavin James Supports the proposal. It best reflects the view that those who pay Support, no change Accept in part: the final (rates) should have the say representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 33 Frank Hill Generally supportive of the proposal but Māori Councillors should be Support, no change Accept in part: the final elected and not appointed by Ngāi Tahu. The sooner return to a fully representation arrangements are for elected council representative of ratepayers the better. Should not a 14 member Council elected from 7 have to wait until 2019. constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 34 South Canterbury Councils Joint Submission Representation should not be driven by population, but should be 14 Councillors, 2 representatives Accept: the final representation focused on land area, population complexity and diversity of region. for South Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member Return to a 14 elected member Council from 7 constituencies with 2 Council elected from 7 representatives in South Canterbury constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
9
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 69 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 35 Christchurch City Council Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies, the names and boundaries Support, no change. The submitter Accept in part: the final and number of members. Also supports the proposed legislative clarified at the hearing that East representation arrangements are approach for mana whenua representation Christchurch should be for a 14 member Council elected recognised, and renaming North to from 7 constituencies, including 2 North/East would address the Councillors elected from South concern Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency. The Christchurch North-Ōrei Constituency was renamed to “North/East-Ōrei Constituency” 36 Timaru District Council Supports the return to a fully democratically elected Council, and the 14 Councillors, 2 representatives Accept: the final representation approach taken to mana whenua representation. Supports returning to for South Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member 14 Councillors, the proposed constituencies, and requests South Council elected from 7 Canterbury is increased to 2 members. Disappointed no opportunity for constituencies, including 2 pre-engagement prior to the release of the initial proposal. Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 37 Federated Farmers, Combined Canterbury Provinces – Dr Lionel Hume Supports the proposed number of constituencies, names and 14 Councillors, 2 representatives Accept: the final representation boundaries. Requests the number of representatives for South for South Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member Canterbury is increased to 2, and the total number of councillors to 14. Council elected from 7 It is vital representation reflects diverse landscapes, land uses and constituencies, including 2 unique communities of interest from the Canterbury/North Otago region Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 38 Federated Farmers, South Canterbury Province – Dr Lionel Hume Supports the proposed number of constituencies, names and 14 Councillors, 2 representatives Accept: the final representation boundaries. Requests the number of representatives for South for South Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member Canterbury is increased to 2, and the total number of councillors to 14. Council elected from 7 If effective representation cannot be provided for rural constituencies constituencies, including 2
10
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 70 of 133
such as South Canterbury, rethink the over-arching structure to a Councillors elected from South possible South Canterbury Unitary Council Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 39 Irrigation New Zealand – Andrew Curtis Supports the proposal and any options that would increase the Support, but consider and support Accept: the final representation representation in South Canterbury options to increase South arrangements are for a 14 member Canterbury to 2 Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 40 The Peoples Choice – Leslie Keir Support the number of constituencies, names, number of members Support, no change Accept in part: the final and boundaries. Support Council continues to work with Ngāi Tahu on representation arrangements are for dedicated representation. Could adjust South, Mid and North a 14 member Council elected from 7 Canterbury and Selwyn boundaries to achieve voter-to-councillor constituencies, including 2 representation balance, but it is for those affected communities to lead. Councillors elected from South Simply adding another Councillor to South Canterbury is not an option Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 41 Waitaki Irrigators Collective Ltd – Elizabeth Soal The proposal does not provide fair representation for South Canterbury 14 Councillors, 2 representatives Accept: the final representation Ōtuhituhi. Request the total number of members increases to 14, with for South Canterbury arrangements are for a 14 member 2 for South Canterbury Ōtuhituhi Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 42 Jim Hopkins Support the Joint South Canterbury submission to add a second Model Ecan’s representation on Reject: This is a radical shift from the councillor. The new representation model should recognise that the Zone Committee boundaries, and Council’s initial proposal that was interconnected and mutually dependent nature of rural and urban comprise 17 or 18 elected the subject of a public consultation Canterbury cannot be measured, captured or fairly expressed by members, with 9 or 10 process. The community has not numbers alone. Support the proposal includes variations from the +- representing single member had opportunity to consider it. The 10% rule. Local Government Commission confirms there are no grounds in the
11
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 71 of 133
wards, and a large ward (Chch Local Electoral Act 2001 to exempt City, of 8) ECan from the requirement of section 19D that a regional council is to consist of not fewer than 6
members nor more than 14 members. The majority of submitters supported the proposal for 7 constituencies (and the boundaries). Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 43 A.G. (Ainslie) Talbot Supports the proposal. Critical for fair and legal representation that the Support, no change Accept in part: the final number of Councillors per constituency is based on population. representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 44 Annette Hamblett Supports the proposal. Very supportive of the urban representation Support, no change Accept in part: the final proposed. representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 45 Sara Templeton Supports the proposal for South, Mid and North Canterbury but Support, but allocate the City into Accept in part: the final concern about boundaries for Christchurch. In Christchurch suggest 8 2 constituencies (North and South) representation arrangements are Councillors elected from 2 constituencies (North and South for a 14 member Council elected Christchurch) from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
12
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 72 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 46 Debbie Jones Supports the proposal Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 47 Charles Roebuck Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies, does not support 2 representatives for South Accept in part: the final the proposed names and boundaries. South Canterbury needs 2 Canterbury representation arrangements are Councillors for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 48 Richard Hurst Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies, supports the names and 2 representatives for South Accept in part: the final boundaries. 2 Councillors in South Canterbury is needed for fair and Canterbury. Move South boundary representation arrangements are effective representation, move the boundaries for South Canterbury to to achieve compliance for a 14 member Council elected achieve the population ratio. from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 49 Stephen Doran Have 9 constituencies. Split the South Canterbury constituency. 1 Create 9 constituencies and split Reject: Splitting South Canterbury Councillor for South Canterbury is not sufficient, in terms of community South Canterbury into 2 into 2 constituencies creates a of interest Christchurch is over represented constituencies significant deviation from the +/-10% rule that could not be supported
13
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 73 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 50 Matthew Baird Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies. Regroup wards in Support, but allocate the City into Accept in part: the final Christchurch to align with communities of interest. Reconsider a 2 constituencies (North and South) representation arrangements are North/South Canterbury split for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 51 Katia De Lu Does not support the proposal for 7 constituencies. Revise the 2 Canterbury constituencies and Accept in part: the final Christchurch Constituencies so that Christchurch East gets fair adjust all other boundaries to representation arrangements are for representation as a community of interest. Revise the other comply a 14 member Council elected from 7 Constituencies to ensure none are over or under represented, the 2 constituencies, including 2 Canterbury model appeared much more proportional. Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency. The Christchurch North-Ōrei Constituency was renamed to Christchurch North East-Ōrei 52 Chrys Horn Supports the proposal for Canterbury constituencies. Larger Support, but allocate the City into Accept in part: the final Christchurch Constituencies would make for better range of councillors 2 constituencies (North and representation arrangements are including Māori representation. Suggest 8 representatives from 2 South) for a 14 member Council elected (North/South) Christchurch Constituencies from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
14
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 74 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 53 Angela McPherson Supports the proposal Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies, including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 54 Sarah Tabak Does not support the current arrangement. Concern is ensuring General support, no change Accept in part: the final collaborative action across Ecan to work towards the solutions needed representation arrangements are to protect environment and water ways. Important those elected do not for a 14 member Council elected have conflicting interests, and main purpose is to protect the from 7 constituencies (with 4 environment and waterways for long term sustainability constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 55 David Hawke Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and supports the names General support, no change Accept in part: the final and boundaries. Perhaps consider moving Banks Peninsula into Mid representation arrangements are Canterbury to provide for the rural community of interest, although it for a 14 member Council elected has strong links to Christchurch City and Lyttelton from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 56 Jake McLellan Supports the proposal Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4
15
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 75 of 133
constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 57 Hamish Keown Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies. Raises the importance of Support 7 constituencies, and 2 Accept in part: the final having accessible and representative Councillors with reference to representatives for South representation arrangements are communities of interest for young people, isolated communities and the Canterbury for a 14 member Council elected disability community. Suggest Māori names before the English. from 7 constituencies (with 4 Suggests two councillors for South Canterbury constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 58 Ben Reid Supports the proposal. The review needs to ensure that Christchurch’s Support, no change Accept in part: the final population is represented proportionally to that of other parts of representation arrangements are Canterbury. for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 59 Kerry Neilson Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and supports the names 13 Councillors, 2 South Accept in part: the final and boundaries. Constituencies should be weighted for land area and Canterbury representation arrangements are industrial activity to reflect unique environmental issues of those areas. for a 14 member Council elected South Canterbury should have 2 representatives from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
16
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 76 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Decision 60 Briony Woodnorth Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and supports the names 13 Councillors, 2 South Accept in part: the final and boundaries. South Canterbury needs 2 representatives Canterbury representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 61 William Penno Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and supports the names Support 7 constituencies, and 2 Accept: the final representation and boundaries. 1 Councillor for South Canterbury is unacceptable, representatives for South arrangements are for a 14 member increase it to 2. Canterbury Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 62 Beckenham Neighbourhood Association – Peter Tuffley Supports the proposal. Supports return to full democracy. Any Māori Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation must be under the LEA framework, unless Parliament representation arrangements are and electors determine otherwise. While South Canterbury is under for a 14 member Council elected represented, rural Canterbury as a whole is not. In the case of South from 7 constituencies (with 4 Canterbury, consideration should be given to the question of whether constituencies in Christchurch), achieving a more even balance of representation should be given including 2 Councillors elected from greater weight than conformity with district boundaries. Emphatically South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi opposed to rearranging Mid and South Canterbury constituencies to Constituency create an additional rural seat and thereby negate Canterbury’s fair share of representation.
17
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 77 of 133
Sub # Submitter Relief sought Staff recommendation 63 Andrew Falloon Supports the proposal for 7 constituencies and supports the names Support 7 constituencies, and 2 Accept: the final representation and boundaries. Amend the proposal to give South Canterbury 2 representatives for South arrangements are for a 14 member representatives Canterbury Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency 64 Warren Williams Supports the proposal. Support, no change Accept in part: the final representation arrangements are for a 14 member Council elected from 7 constituencies (with 4 constituencies in Christchurch), including 2 Councillors elected from South Canterbury-Ōtuhituhi Constituency
18
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 78 of 133 Councillors Per Cons tituency Clarence 2
Kaikoura District
2 2 2 2 2 Kaikoura
2
∙
7A}
∙ 7 }
Hurunui District Cheviot
NORTH CANTERBURY Territorial Auth ority Bound aries 2017 ŌPUKEPUKE Propos ed Cons tituencies CONSTITUENCY North Canterbury-Ōpuk epuk e
Mid -Canterbury-Ōpāk ih i
S outh Canterbury-Ōtuh ituh i
Ch ristc h urc h North East-Ōrei
Ch ristc h urc h West-Ōpuna
Ch ristc h urc h Central- Ōh ok o
Ch ristc h urc h S outh -Ōw h ang a Amberley
Waimakariri District Rangiora
∙
71 }
Kaiapoi
∙ } See Detail 73
Selwyn District Springfield
∙ 74 }
Christchurch
Darfield West Melton
MID - CANTERBURY Rolleston ŌPĀKIHI Lincoln Christchurch City CONSTITUENCY
Akaroa
∙
75 }
∙ 77 } Rakaia Ashburton District
Ashburton
Mount Cook Timaru District NORTH CANTERBURY Christchurch Detail
Geraldine
ŌPUKEPUKE ∙
Mackenzie District Springfield }
1 CONSTITUENCY
∙ Lake Tekapo ∙
}
80 79 }
∙ } Fairlie 8
Temuka Innes
Harewood CHRISTCHURCH NORTH EAST SOUTH CANTERBURY ŌREI CHRISTCHURCH WEST
ŌTUHITUHI CONSTITUENCY
ŌPUNA Papanui Coastal
∙ } CONSTITUENCY CONSTITUENCY Burwood Ward 78 Timaru Bound aries
Waimairi Fendalton Twizel Central Linwood Hornby Riccarton CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL ŌHOKO Springfield CONSTITUENCY
Spreydon
Heathcote
Halswell Cashmere Waimate District
Omarama
Waimate CHRISTCHURCH SOUTH ŌWHANGA
MID - CANTERBURY CONSTITUENCY ∙ } ŌPĀKIHI Waitaki District 83 CONSTITUENCY
Banks Peninsula
∙ 82 }
CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL CONS TITUENCIES I 0 10 20 30 40 Inform ation h as been d erived from various org anisations, inc lud ing Environm ent Canterbury and th e Canterbury Maps partners. Bound ary inform ation is d erived und er lic enc e from LINZ Dig ital Cad astral Database (Crow n Copyrig h t Reserved ). Environm ent Canterbury and th e Canterbury Maps partners d o not g ive and expressly d isc laim any w arranty as to th e ac c urac y or c om pleteness of th e inform ation or its fitness for any purpose. Inform ation from th is m ap m ay not be used for th e purposes of any leg al d isputes. Th e user sh ould ind epend ently verify th e ac c urac y of any inform ation before tak ing any ac tion in relianc e upon it. Kilom etres S c ale: 1:375,000 @A0 (Main Map) Map Created by Environm ent Canterbury on 20/08/2018 at 2:31:15 PM Council Meeting 2018-08-23 79 of 133 Constituencies North Canterb ury-Ōpukepuke Mid-Canterb ury-Ōpākih i Kaiapoi-Woodend Ward Ch ristc h urc h North East-Ōrei Oxford-Ohoka Ward Ch ristc h urc h West-Ōpuna Ch ristc h urc h Central- Ōh oko Ch ristc h urc h South -Ōwh ang a
NORTH CANTERBURY Ō PUKEPUKE Ward Boundaries CONSTITUENCY State Hig h ways
R oads
∙ 1 }
Innes Ward
∙ } Harewood Ward 1
CHRISTCHURCH WEST Ō PUNA CONSTITUENCY Coastal Ward REDWOOD CHRISTCHURCH NORTH EAST PARKLANDS HAREWOOD Ō REI
CASEBROOK CONSTITUENCY
∙ 74 }
Papanui Ward
WAIMAIRI BEACH BISHOPDALE
∙
74 }
∙ 74 } NORTH NEW BRIGHTON PAPANUI Burwood Ward
MAIREHAU
BURNSIDE
SHIRLEY BRYNDWR AVONDALE
Waimairi Ward ∙ }
∙ 1 } 74 NEW BRIGHTON Fendalton Ward SAINT ALBANS DALLINGTON BEXLEY MERIVALE ARANUI AVONHEAD
RICHMOND WAINONI
∙ 73 } RUSSLEY FENDALTON
ILAM AVONSIDE
SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON Central Ward UPPER RICCARTON
BROOMFIELD Riccarton Ward
∙
} CHRISTCHURCH CENTRAL
LINWOOD
1 ∙
RICCARTON } ∙ } Ō HOKO BROMLEY SOCKBURN 74 73 CONSTITUENCY Linwood Ward
ADDINGTON
MIDDLETON
∙ HORNBY } 73 SYDENHAM WALTHAM SOUTHSHORE Spreydon Ward WOOLSTON OPAWA
SPREYDON SAINT MARTINS
HILLMORTON SOMERFIELD BECKENHAM REDCLIFFS
HILLSBOROUGH MOUNT PLEASANT
HUNTSBURY
HOON HAY Heathcote Ward
CASHMERE
SUMNER
∙ OAKLANDS } 74 HEATHCOTE VALLEY
Cashmere Ward
Halswell Ward CRACROFT
∙ 75 }
CHRISTCHURCH SOUTH Ō WHANGA CONSTITUENCY
LYTTLETON
MID - CANTERBURY Ō PĀKIHI CONSTITUENCY
Banks Peninsula Ward Springs Ward CANTER BUR Y R EGIONAL COUNCIL CONSTITUENCIES - CHR ISTCHUR CH DETAIL I 0 1 2 3 4 Inform ation h as b een deriv ed from v arious org anisations, inc luding Env ironm ent Canterb ury and th e Canterb ury Maps partners. Boundary inform ation is deriv ed under lic enc e from LINZ Dig ital Cadastral Datab ase (Crown Copyrig h t R eserv ed). Env ironm ent Canterb ury and th e Canterb ury Maps partners do not g iv e and expressly disc laim any warranty as to th e ac c urac y or c om pleteness of th e inform ation or its fitness for any purpose. Inform ation from th is m ap m ay not b e used for th e purposes of any leg al disputes. Th e user sh ould independently v erify th e ac c urac y of any inform ation b efore taking any ac tion in relianc e upon it. Kilom etres Sc ale: 1:24,000 @A0 (Main Map) Map Created b y Env ironm ent Canterb ury on 20/08/2018 at 2:58:19 PM Council Meeting 2018-08-23 80 of 133 8.2. Retrospective approval of submissions on central government transport policy
Council report
Date of meeting Thursday 23 August 2018 Author Lorraine Johns, Principal Advisor Endorsed by Sam Elder, Programme Manger
Purpose
1. This paper seeks ratification of the following submissions on central government transport policy:
a. Environment Canterbury submission on the revised draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018 (draft GPS).
b. Environment Canterbury submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill (Regional Fuel Tax Bill).
Value proposition
2. The Environment Canterbury submissions on the draft GPS 2018 and the Regional Fuel Tax Bill endorsed the submissions of the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee (RTC).
3. The RTC is progressing work which:
aligns with the objectives of the Transport Workstream of the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy, and
involves advocating with central government to influence national policy to achieve better transport outcomes in Canterbury and across the South Island.
4. Supporting these submissions demonstrates our commitment to advancing the economic and social wellbeing of the Canterbury region and the South Island.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. Ratifies the attached Environment Canterbury submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018, that was submitted on 2 May 2018.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 81 of 133 2. Ratifies the attached Environment Canterbury submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, that was submitted on 19 April 2018.
Environment Canterbury submission on draft GPS 2018
5. The GPS sets out the Government’s priorities for expenditure from the National Land Transport Fund over the next 10 years. It sets out how funding is allocated between activities such as road safety, state highways, local roads and public transport. Regional Land Transport Plans need to be consistent with the GPS.
6. As part of developing GPS 2018, the Ministry of Transport released a revised draft GPS for consultation in April 2018. Submissions closed on 2 May 2018 and the final GPS was released on 28 June 2018.
7. Due to the late issue of the draft GPS and the willingness of Canterbury councils and the South Island Regional Transport Committee Chairs Group (RTC Chairs Group) to co-ordinate feedback, we were not in a position to take this submission to full Council prior to the close of submissions.
8. Recognising the importance of making an Environment Canterbury submission, Councillor Steve Lowndes (the lead portfolio councillor for regional transport) agreed that we make the attached submission, which was provided in draft to all councillors, and formally present it to council following submission.
9. The Environment Canterbury Submission endorsed the submission of the Canterbury RTC and was aligned with the submission of the RTC Chairs Group. The RTC submission covered the key issues that Environment Canterbury staff identified with the draft GPS. The Environment Canterbury submission did not raise any additional issues.
Regional Fuel Tax Bill
10. The measures in this Bill are intended to provide funding for transport-related capital projects which would benefit regions but cannot reasonably be fully funded from existing sources within the timeframes desire. The Bill is intended to help address the immediate transport funding challenge in Auckland, although the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) will be open to other regions to utilise from 1 January 2021. The Bill was enacted on 26 June 2018.
11. We became aware of the opportunity to submit on this Bill shortly before submissions closed. While Environment Canterbury generally supports such a funding mechanism, there were concerns as to how it might apply to such a large and diverse region such as Canterbury. Our concerns were largely addressed at select committee stage.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 82 of 133 12. As above, Councillor Steve Lowndes agreed that we make the attached submission, which was provided in draft to all councillors, and formally present it to council following submission.
13. The Environment Canterbury Submission endorsed the submission of the Canterbury RTC and did not raise any additional issues. Cost, compliance and communication Financial implications
14. There are no financial implications. Risk assessment and legal compliance
15. The submission on the Regional Fuel Tax Bill included some concerns around the risks of developing and implementing a Regional Fuel Tax Scheme. These concerns were largely addressed at the select committee stage. Significance and engagement
16. We worked with territorial authorities to develop a submission on GPS 2018 and the Regional Fuel Tax Bill on behalf of the RTC. Environment Canterbury’s submissions endorsed the RTC’s submissions.
17. We also worked with the South Island RTC Chairs Group to develop aligned submissions on the revised draft GPS.
Consistency with council policy 18. These submissions are consistent with council policy.
Communication 19. These submissions have been published on Environment Canterbury’s website along with the agenda for this meeting.
20. Environment Canterbury’s Regional Fuel Tax Bill submission is also available on the Parliamentary website. Attachments Environment Canterbury submission on draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018 Environment Canterbury submission on Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill
Legal Review Catherine Schache Peer reviewer Darren Fidler
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 83 of 133 Environment ^& Canterbury 2 May 2018 Regional CoundL Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha
Customer Services P. 03 353 9007 OF0800 324 636 GPS Policy Team 200 Tuam Street Ministry of Transport PO Box 3175 PO Box 345 Christchurch 8140 Wellington 6140 E. ecinfo@ecan. govt. nz GPS2018(StransDort. aovt. nz www. ecan. govt. nz
Dear Sir or Madam
Environment Canterbury submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport released on 3 April 2018
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport, released on 3 April 2018.
Environment Canterbury works in partnership with the communities of Canterbury to promote the sustainable management of our resources. An important part of this is working with city and district councils, and other partners such as the NZ Transport Agency, to identify and prioritise our region's longer-term transport needs as set out in the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan. We also provide public transport services in the Canterbury region.
We strongly support the significant change in direction for transport policy signalled in the draft GPS.
We would like to endorse the full submission of the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee. We consider this submission raises compelling issues that need to be addressed to ensure that regions will be positioned to implement the ambitious programme outlined in the GPS.
Yours sincerely
Steve Lowndes Chair
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 84 of 133 2 May 2018
GPS Policy Team Ministry of Transport PO Box 3175 Wellington 6140 GPS2018@transDort. aovt. nz
Dear Sir or Madam
Canterbury Regional Transport Committee submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018
1. The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee (RTC) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport 2018, released on 3 April 2018.1 2. We welcome and strongly support the step change signalled in the draft GPS, particularly: . consideration of the holistic benefits that a well-designed transport system offers for our communities, economy and the environment . the key strategic priorities of safety and access, to be addressedwith full regard to the supporting strategic priorities of environment and value for money . effective delivery of these priorities through the themes of transitioning to a mode neutral approach to transport planning and investment; using transport to shape urban form and create liveable cities; and greater leverage of technology and innovation. 3. Canterbury's transport strategy as articulated in the draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) is well aligned with the new direction outlined in the draft GPS. However, there will be some challenges in flowing the new strategic direction through to the regional programme of transport activities in a timely manner. 4. The core recommendation of the RTC's submission is that central government engages with local government to identify mechanisms to enable Canterbury to respond rapidly to the step change signalled in the draft GPS, including developing an agreement on transport's role in the future development of Greater Christchurch. 5. A number of other recommendations are also made in relation to the key components of the draft GPS, as set out below.
Working in partnership to explore mechanisms to support rapid implementation of the GPS in the Canterbury region
6. The alignment between the draft GPS and draft Canterbury RLTP creates significant opportunities for the region, including:
1 Seethe appendixfor information about the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 85 of 133 freight mode optimisation to support the significant freight growth projected for Canterbury, while reducing the social and environmental impact of freight; . using transport to help shape urban form, particularly in greater Christchurch; . creating innovative, fit-for-the-future public transport solutions for Greater Christchurch;
. increasing community and economic resilience through appropriate transport infrastructure and planned alternatives for high risk routes and supply chains; . improving road safety, particularly on our rural roads; and . accelerating the transition to a low emissions transport system. 7 Due to the nature and extent of the changes signalled in the draft GPS, many of the implementation details are still to be worked through. This, coupled with the incongruent timing of the GPS, RLTP, and Long Term Plan processes, implies a lag of at least a year for alignment between the investment priorities in the GPS and the funding requested through RLTPs and allocated in councils' annual plans. 8. Some councils may be in a position to use their reserves to effect change more quickly; however, many Canterbury councils are not in this position, having used their reserves over recent years to maintain levels of service following the disruption posed by the earthquakes. 9. The RTC recommends that Government work with us to identify funding mechanisms which will enable Canterbury to overcome these constraints and respond rapidly to the draft GPS, including 'quick win' initiatives which demonstrate the potential offered by this new direction for transport policy in New Zealand. 10. The draft GPS signals that the second stage GPSwill involve developing local and central government agreements on transport's role in the future development of metro areas such as Christchurch. 11. The RTC strongly supports the proposed development of a local and central government agreement on transport's role in the future development of Greater Christchurch. Investment to improve public transport services and lift patronage in the short term, coupled with development of rapid transit solutions, will help to shape urban form and avoid the need to retrofit public transport into a car-centric city as congestion reaches unacceptable levels due to projected population growth.
Feedback on key components of the draft GPS
12. We strongly support the overarching direction of the draft GPS, including the four investment priorities and the three themes. 13. Outlined below are our key points on:
. investment priorities
. themes
. activity classes and funding allocations
. investing in outcomes.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 86 of 133 Investment priorities 14. Safety: . We recommend the Government engages with local government on efficient, collaborative approaches to implementing NZTA's speed management guidelines. . We recommend that road safety promotion campaign collateral is developed nationally in collaboration with local government, as a more cost-effective approach than individual councils designing campaigns in isolation. . To achieve improved safety at rail level crossings, we recommend clarifying responsibility for level crossing improvements.
15. Access:
. The draft GPS proposes enabling lead investment to access serviced land for development in high growth areas. We recommend that the GPS 2018 also enables lead investment to improve public transport services, as a way of improving access, driving demand, and hence enabling greater cost recovery over time. . There is an acknowledged trade-off between travel time and access for public transport services; a focus on travel time results in direct services being provided on a smaller number of routes, whereas a focus on access results in more extensive geographical coverage with greatertravel times. The general shift in priority from travel time to access therefore has major implications for the design of public transport services in Canterbury: o We recommend that Government work with local government to increase access to public transport for urban and rural communities, and also to those persons with an impairment who experience particular mobility challenges. o We also recommend that the objectives of amenity and increased mode share are not compromised by an exclusive focus on coverage as opposed to balancing coverage with other factors such as frequency, reliability, and travel duration.
. We recommend travel time reliability be explicitly included in the GPS 2018 as an element of access. Travel time reliability is a very different concept from actual travel time and is a vital aspect of people's ability to access goods and services, and opportunities. When travel time reliability is low on a particular route, this creates uncertainty about the time it takes to move between points on that route. It is difficult for people to manage significant and unpredictable delays, and those delays can have adverse social and economic impacts on individuals and businesses. In particular, freight transport relies on meeting time schedules and missing transit deadlines can increase costs. Travel time reliability is a key component of increasing the attractiveness of public transport. . We recommend that Greater Christchurch be recognised under Section 2. 3.1 'Results: Metropolitan and high growth urban areas are better connected and accessible'. Christchurch is the second largest city in New Zealand and the Greater Christchurch sub-region is facing significant population growth with a projected increase of 33% over the next 30 years.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 87 of 133 . We recommend clarifying what the rapid transit activity class covers, including whether it covers rail.
. We recommend that the GPS clearly supports and enables investment in risk mitigation, especially for natural hazard risk and climate change adaption. For example, the North Canterbury earthquake highlighted the importance of investment in alternative routes, to maintain access for communities and freight. However, it is not reasonable or realistic to expect small territorial authorities to cover the cost of maintaining a regional or local road to a standard suitable to act as an alternative route to a state highway.
16. Environment:
. The increased focus on reducing the environmental impact of transport is strongly supported, noting the opportunity the draft GPS creates for investment to mitigate New Zealand's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. . We recommend that the Government (through the Climate Change Commission and development of the second stage GPS) engage with RTCs and industry on mechanisms to achieve a rapid reduction in GHG emissions from transport. Examples could include enabling freight shift from road to rail and shipping; the roll out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure; and national and regional transport pricing mechanisms which account for externalities. We also recommend that the Government engage with local government to explore the potential for nationwide bulk purchase of electric buses to deliver a step change in public transport, environmental and service level outcomes, while obtaining the best value for money . We recommend that the national funding model recognise that electric vehicles will have an impact on revenue from Road User Charges and Fuel Excise Duty. 17. Value for Money: . We recommend that the GPS 2018 is clarified so that the value for money outcome clearly includes non-economic benefits, such as improved wellbeing and environmental outcomes.
. We recommend that the 50% farebox recovery measure for public transport services be reviewed. This measure creates difficulties for bus services in Greater Christchurch and Timaru, where we do not have adequate demand density from the working population as a consequence of the earthquakes or geographically constrained transport routes. Farebox recovery does not recognise, and can counter, improvements in access to public transport, and the numerous other social and economic benefits of public transport services. . We recommend that the Government lead the development of a nationwide data, modelling and analytics toolset, for use by central and local government to support transport planning, development and review of investment priorities and business cases, project benefits realisation, and outcomes reporting. A centralised approach will be cost effective and provide greater consistency, including in the consideration of holistic benefits and externalities in transport planning and investment.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 88 of 133 Themes:
18. Mode neutrality: . To implement the principle of mode neutrality, we recommend that road, rail and coastal shipping are brought into a decision-making framework that enables integrated land use and multi-modal transport planning and investment. . South Island RTCs are collaborating on work to optimise freight modes, and we recommend that Government engage with South Island RTC Chairs Group on opportunities to align this work with related initiatives. The re-establishment of the South Island Freight Governance Group may provide a useful mechanism to bring together key public and private sector stakeholders from across the South Island. . Similarly, we recommend that any proposed passenger rail solutions are considered in the context of the wider transport nehwork and urban environment. 9. Technology & innovation . Transport systems are expected to fundamentally change over the coming years, driven by new technologies, markets, and societal expectations and norms. A future- focussed and adaptive approach to transport planning, investment and delivery will be critical to leverage new developments and avoid poor investment decisions. . We recommend the Government ensure that the GPS 201 8 supports funding of innovative approaches and pilot projects. The ability to pilot new technology and approaches is critical to both test the effectiveness of interventions, and to support community buy-in and encourage behaviour change. A significant constraint on innovation to date has been the inability to gain adequate grant funding and support for research and development and trial activities. Providing mechanisms that enable faster and easier access to financial and technical support for innovation initiatives will aid the accelerated delivery of modern, state of the art solutions for transport. 20. Integrating land use and transport planning and delivery . We strongly support the intention to improve the integration of land use and transport planning, in particular the premise that transport services should be an early service provision to shape new land use development and enable community access and use of public and active transport modes as soon as possible within a development cycle. This approach requires a "Loss Lead Investment" approach. Historical transport investment policy has been largely driven by financial measures, farebox recovery and service efficiency, and investment from a public transport perspective has had to take a "lag investment" or demand-based approach. . We recommend the Government continue to explore opportunities to enable greater integration of land use and transport planning. There are strong links between the draft GPS and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (acknowledged in the draft GPS); greater alignment of the processes and timelines for NPS-UDC implementation and transport planning cycles may be helpful.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 89 of 133 Activity classes and funding allocations 21. We strongly support the signalled increase in investment for public and active transport, travel demand management, local and regional roads, and the new activity class and funding for rapid transit. 22. The current funding model for infrastructure and services relies on a large local share component. If councils are required to match fund at current FARs then it may be difficult to effectively implement the draft GPS. We particularly recommend an enhanced FAR for public transport, which will be critical to support the priority of increasing access to services. 23. We recommend that the activity class "road safety promotion and demand management" be titled "demand management and road safety promotion" to make it clear that demand management is not limited to safety initiatives. 24 We note the percentage increases quoted in the "Government Policy Statement on land transport (GPS) 2018 Questions and Answers" are different than the percentage increases calculated directly from the table of activity classes and proposed funding ranges. Investing in Outcomes 25. We consider there is a need to recognise and address the following matters, in order to achieve the desired outcomes:
. Government leadership and resourcing will be imperative to implement the ambitious programme of work presented in the draft GPS as follows. We recommend that government leadership and resourcing is provided in areas where there is a strong national dimension, where nationwide consistency is required, or where solutions are likely to require government action. For example: o We recommend that the Government invest in centralised data, analytics and information systems, designed for use by central and local government to more effectively target investment and monitor effectiveness. For the step change in road safety to be achievable, high quality and consistent information is needed to ensure issues are appropriately identified and prioritised, and interventions effectively targeted. o Visitor journeys are another area that would benefit from central government leadership. To address the needs of tourists and help disperse the benefits of tourism across and within regions, we recommend the Government lead the alignment of planning and investment from the tourism and transport sectors. . We support the increased emphasis in the draft GPS on monitoring, evaluation and reporting, and the role of central government in developing and overseeing these measures. We recommend reported measures be drillable to regional and territorial authority level, and councils be given access to the data sets, methods and tools to enable us to further analyse, interpret and report on these, and hence both support investment cases and ensure we also deliver on regional and local outcomes. . We recommend the Government investigate transitioning to a model in which investment cases are based on the delivery of specific outcomes and objectives, agnostic of mode or activity
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 90 of 133 . We recommend the timing of the GPS be better aligned with other significant planning and funding documents, in particular long term plans and RLTPs, to support timely alignment and implementation of the GPS. This would also reduce the number and cost of managing variations and associated additional consultation. In particular, we recommend that the second stage GPS be timed to inform councils' annual planning processes. 26. We hope you find the matters raised in this submission useful for the development of the final GPS 2018. 27. We commend the Government on the new direction that has been signalled in the draft GPS. We look forward to working alongside central government to accelerate the implementation of the final GPS 2018 and so deliver the envisaged step change in transport outcomes for our communities.
Yours sincerely
-i^n^^x^
Steve Lowndes, Chair, Canterbury Regional Transport Committee
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 91 of 133 Appendix 1: Information about the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee
The Canterbury RTC is a statutory body constituted under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The Act requires Environment Canterbury to appoint a councillor from each territorial authority, as well as a representative from the NewZealand Transport:Agency. Two councillors must also be appointed from Environment Canterbury as the Chair and Deputy Chair. The map below shows the councils which are within the Canterbury region (however, note that the Waitaki District Council's transport activities are included in the Otago Regional Land Transport Plan, not the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan).
Under section 106 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the functions of the Canterbury RTC are: . to prepare for approval by the Regional Council a Regional Land Transport Plan or any variation to the Plan . to provide the Regional Council with any advice and assistance it may request in relation to its transport responsibilities . to adopt a policy that determines significance in respect of variations to the Regional Land Transport Plan and activities included in the Regional Land Transport Plan.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 92 of 133 In addition, the Canterbury RTC will also: . develop, advocate for, and implement the Transport Workstream of the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy (CREDS), in conjunction with the lead Canterbury Mayor for this Workstream . engage directly with Ministers and the Government to influence national policy.
CREDS represents Canterbury's commitment to maximising the region's economic growth, by ensuring the region makes co-ordinated, optimal investment and development decisions that position it for long-term, sustainable growth. Transport is one of seven core workstreams in CREDS. The objective of this workstream is integrated transport planning across modes (air, rail, shipping and road transport) that: . enables the efficient movement of people and freight into, out of and within the Canterbury region . improves social connectedness and wellbeing, supports regional visitor strategies and improves road safety
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 93 of 133 Environment 20 April 2018 ^& Canterbury Regional Council KauniheraTaiao hi Waitaha
Customer Services P. 03 353 9007or 0800 324 636 Finance and Expenditure Committee Parliament Buildings 200 Tuam Street Wellington PO BOX 345 [email protected]. nz Christchurch 8140 E. ecinfo@ecan. govt. nz
www. ecan. govt. nz
Dear Sir or Madam
Environment Canterbury submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill (the Bill).
Environment Canterbury works in partnership with the communities of Canterbury to promote the sustainable management of our resources. An important part of this is working with city and district councils, and other partners such as the NZ Transport Agency, to identify and prioritise our region's longer-term transport needs. We also provide public transport services in the Canterbury region. We would like to endorse the submission of the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee.
We consider this submission raises compelling issues that need to be addressed to ensure the Bill will enable a Regional Fuel Tax to be effectively introduced in a region as large and diverse as Canterbury, as well as minimising the risk of legal challenge and the financial burden imposed on regional councils which administer a Regional Fuel Tax Scheme.
Yours sincerely
't^CT^s^2-'2-^-
Steve Lowndes Chair
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 94 of 133 20 April 2018
Finance and Expenditure Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington fe@parliament. aovt. nz
Dear Sir or Madam
Canterbury Regional Transport Committee submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill
The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee (RTC) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill (the Bill). 1 We would like to speak to our submission. The measures in this Bill are intended to provide funding for transported-related capital projects which would benefit regions but cannot reasonably be fully funded from existing sources within the timeframe desired. The Bill is intended to help address the immediate transport funding challenge in Auckland, although the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) will be open to other regions to utilise from 2021. We would like to express our general support for such a funding mechanism. In Canterbury, this funding source might be used to support the delivery of projects that: . are critical for resilience and risk management, but are unaffordable on a territorial authority basis . support freight mode shift from road to rail and/or coastal shipping . enable improved public transport infrastructure and services . support New Zealand's post-2020 commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement. The central points of this submission are that: . the Bill should enable an RFT to be applied effectively in a large and diverse region such as Canterbury . an RFT should only be proposed in relation to projects that are included in Regional Land Transport Plans . the RFT should not create undue legal risk or impose a significant administrative burden on councils and associated costs to ratepayers - it should also be possible for regional councils to recover administrative costs through the RFT
Information about the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee is provided in the appendix.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 95 of 133 Key submission points
1. The Bill must support capital projects carried out by city and district councils within regions
The majority of transport infrastructure projects in a region are undertaken by district and city councils, rather than the regional council. Regional councils generally have limited regulatory responsibilities for capital projects, unlike unitary authorities which have extensive responsibilities. We recommend that the Bill enable an RFT to be applied to projects that are carried out by city and district councils, and NZTA.
2. For a region as large and diverse as Canterbury, the Bill needs to enable the RFT to be applied to projects which deliver benefits at a sub-regional level
The Canterbury region has a population of around 600, 000 and is the largest region in the South Island, largest by geographical area in New Zealand, and has the second largest city in New Zealand. There are 10 diverse territorial authorities, with some smaller councils servicing a population of four to five thousand people, and the largest council a population of around 380,000. Ultimately, over three quarters of Canterbury's population lives in the Greater Christchurch area, and almost two thirds in Christchurch City.
As a result, in considering an RFT, the regional council (having regard to the views of the RTC) might identify a programme of diverse projects for funding via this mechanism. This might include projects which have region-wide value (e. g. infrastructure which mitigates natural hazard risk to the transport system) and those which primarily offer value at a sub-regional level, but are also critical and cannot reasonably be funded from other sources (e. g. investment in public transport infrastructure in Greater Christchurch or Timaru).
It is important that the Bill enables an RFT to be applied to such a range of projects. This issue has been raised in the Christchurch City Council submission and we would like to express our support for their concerns, while also noting the importance of a coordinated regional approach to the design of an RFT.
Hence the regional council (having regard to the views of the RTC) may require the flexibility to apply a differential rate of tax across the region, or for the tax only to be applied in a particular district or sub-region, or for the definition of "regional benefit" to be broad enough to include critical sub-regional projects.
It should be noted that the Waitaki District in Canterbury is included in the Otago Regional Land Transport Plan, rather than the Canterbury Regional Land
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 96 of 133 Transport Plan, due to a closer alignment with southern councils for transportation purposes. A consistent approach should be taken to an RFT.
3. Guidance is needed on how to assess whether a project has regional benefits, to avoid undue risk of legal challenge
To prepare a proposal for an RFT scheme, regional councils must consider that the project has "regional benefits". As outlined above, we are concerned that this could be difficult to establish in a diverse region such as Canterbury.
We consider regional councils should be able apply a fuel tax at a sub-region, district or city level (which would mean the benefit should also be demonstrated at that level). However, we also consider there is a need to provide more guidance on what is meant by "regional benefit", given the risk ofjudicial review For example, would consistency with transport priorities outlined in Regional Land Transport Plans be sufficient to establish a "regional benefit"?
4. The process for initiating and developing an RFT needs to be clear to reduce the possibility of legal challenge
An RFT could be controversial, and the statutory process for initiating and developing a proposal needs to be clear, to avoid increasing the risk of judicial review.
We do not consider the process in the Bill is clear. In particular, it is not clear whether a person or organisation needs to have a particular status to raise a project for inclusion in an RFT, and whether the regional council will need to consider all requests, for example, from a member of the public, community group or the private sector.
We consider that only approved organisations under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 should be able to propose projects for inclusion in an RFT scheme. We also consider that all projects being considered would need to be included in an RLTP, as this would ensure that projects had been scoped in accordance with NZTA's Business Case requirements, and would reduce the risk that regional councils and RTCs would be asked to consider RFT funding of projects which had not been scoped in this way.
This would also support the important role of RTCs in enabling collaborative decision making on transport planning and investment prioritisation, and the
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 97 of 133 introduction of any such tax in the region, including considering which projects or outcomes the tax should contribute to and why.
5. A simple process is needed for administering an RFT scheme
The Bill requires regional councils for those regions in which an RFT is in place, to establish and operate an RFT account.
Just under one billion litres of petrol and diesel is sold within Canterbury annually. A regional fuel tax of 10 cents per litre, assuming a price rise has no impact on demand, indicates an annual fund of up to approximately $100 million for use on regional projects. This would be a significant source of funding for the region.
In the Canterbury region, an RFT would generally support projects undertaken by city or district councils, or NZTA, rather than the regional council. There is a need to avoid the imposition of a significant administrative burden on regional councils. The Bill should enable, if it does not already, regional councils to pay to approved organisations, the capex that the Regional Transport Committee has agreed to include in the Regional Land Transport Plan for the capital project.
Alternatively, there may be value in regional councils being focused on the development of the RFT, while the implementation involves funds being transferred directly between NZTA and the different councils undertaking projects within the RFT scheme. We note that this is the approach taken to administering the National Land Transport Fund (NZTA transfers funding directly to councils).
6. Development of regional fuel tax proposal and administration of regional fuel tax account should be funded through the regional fuel tax
We are concerned about the costs that the development and implementation of a regional fuel tax proposal could impose on regional councils. For example, extensive technical and legal input would likely be required to develop a proposal. We consider overheads should be funded through the tax, and not through rates.
We note that the Bill provides for NZTAto charge their administrative costs against the tax revenue. Regional councils should be able to do the same.
7 Transport services
We consider the Bill should also enable the inclusion of funding for transport services (i. e. public transport services) and the Travel Demand Management / behaviour change projects necessary to meet the outcomes envisaged from the infrastructure investment. In respect to public transport services, this would assist councils to meet upfront costs when new services are introduced and farebox
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 98 of 133 recovery rates could take several years to reach target levels. This is particularly important when considering mass transit investments.
We consider this approach is necessary to support the focus on public transport in the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport released on 3 April 2018.
8. Other
We note that clause 65D of the Bill refers to "regional land transport committees . The term under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 is "regional transport committee".
We also note that the increased uptake of electric vehicles will lead to reduced income from fuel taxes in the longer-term.
We thank you for taking the time to consider the points raised in our submission.
Yours sincerely
CV^Lj^ v^cAs^,
Steve Lowndes Chair, Canterbury Regional Transport Committee
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 99 of 133 Appendix: Information about the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee
The Canterbury RTC is a statutory body constituted under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The Act requires Environment Canterbury to appoint a councillor from each territorial authority, as well as a representative from the New Zealand Transport Agency. Two councillors must also be appointed from Environment Canterbury as the Chair and Deputy Chair. The map below shows the councils which are within the Canterbury region (however, note that the Waitaki District Council's transport activities are included in the Otago Regional Land Transport Plan, not the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan).
-s^y
Under section 106 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the functions of the Canterbury RTC are: . to prepare for approval by the Regional Council a Regional Land Transport Plan or any variation to the Plan . to provide the Regional Council with any advice and assistance it may request in relation to its transport responsibilities . to adopt a policy that determines significance in respect of variations to the Regional Land Transport Plan and activities included in the Regional Land Transport Plan.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 100 of 133 In addition, the Canterbury RTC will also: . develop, advocate for, and implement the Transport Workstream of the Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy (CREDS), in conjunction with the lead Mayor for this Workstream . engage directly with Ministers and central government to influence national policy.
CREDS represents Canterbury's commitment to maximising the region's economic growth, by ensuring the region makes co-ordinated, optimal investment and development decisions that position it for long-term, sustainable growth. Transport is one of seven core workstreams in CREDS. The objective of this workstream is integrated transport planning across modes (air, rail, shipping and road transport) that: . enables the efficient movement of people and freight into, out of and within the Canterbury region . improves social connectedness and wellbeing, supports regional visitor strategies and improves road safety.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 101 of 133 8.3. National Planning Standards- final submission
Council report
Date of meeting Thursday 23rd August 2018 Author Cameron Smith, Team Leader Regional Leadership and Policy Endorsed by Andrew Parrish, Regional Planning Manager
Purpose
1. This paper asks that Council receive the final Environment Canterbury submission on the draft National Planning Standards.
Value proposition
2. The Environment Canterbury submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s draft National Planning Standards was approved by delegated Councillors and lodged with the Ministry on 17 August 2018. Providing the final submission to Council enables the submission to become part of Council record.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. receives the Environment Canterbury submission on the draft National Planning Standards
Background
3. A new type of national direction (‘National Planning Standards’) was introduced through 2017 amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). These will form a standardised national framework for RMA plans and policy statements. National Planning Standards must give effect to National Policy Statements and be consistent with any National Environmental Standard, RMA regulations, and water conservation orders.
4. Consultation on the draft Standards closed on 17 August 2018. At the Council meeting on 19 July 2018, Council delegated submission approval to Councillors Skeleton, Caygill and Pham to enable staff the time to prepare a considered submission within the required consultation period.
5. The Environment Canterbury submission on the draft National Planning Standards was approved by the delegated Councillors on 15 and 16 August 2018, and the submission was lodged with the Ministry for the Environment on 17 August 2018.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 102 of 133 6. The submission is attached for Councillors information.
Communication
7. The Environment Canterbury submission will be published on Environment Canterbury’s website as is standard practice.
Next steps
8. Environment Canterbury will continue to seek opportunities to work with the Ministry for the Environment as the National Planning Standards are finalised. Staff will keep Councillors informed of progress.
9. The RMA requires the first set of Standards to be Gazetted by April 2019.
Attachments Environment Canterbury submission on the draft National Planning Standards
Legal review Peer reviewers Sam Leonard
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 103 of 133 Environment Canterbury 17 August 2018 Regional Council KauniheraTaiao ki Waitaha
Customer Services P. 03 353 9007 or 0800 324 636
PC Box 345 National Planning Standards Submission 2018 Christchurch 8140 Ministry for the Environment P. 03 365 3828 F. 03 365 3194 [email protected]. nz E. [email protected]. nz www.ecan.govt.nz
Dear Sir or Madam,
Environment Canterbury submission: Draft National Planning Standards 2018
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the draft National Planning Standards. Please find Environment Canterbury's submission attached.
Environment Canterbury acknowledges the intent of the National Planning Standards, and the extensive work undertaken by the Ministry. We recognise that there remain considerable challenges that need to be resolved, particularly with regard to how some of the standards will be applied through regional policy statements and plans. We would like to offer our support to the Ministry as the standards move through the final development stages ahead of gazettal in April 2019.
For all enquiries please contact:
Andrew Parrish Regional Planning Manager Phone: 027 4569 7644 Email: andrew. parrish@ecan. aovt. nz
Yours sincerely
\^SS^y^^-e^
Steve Lowndes Chair
End: Environment Canterbury submission to the Ministry for the Environment on the draft National Planning Standards
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 104 of 133
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 105 of 133 Environment Canterbury submission: Draft National Planning Standards
Summary
1. Environment Canterbury appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed National Planning Standards. This submission is presented in relation to Environment Canterbury’s roles, functions and responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).
2. Environment Canterbury acknowledges the work of the Ministry in developing a set of standards that can be implemented by 78 councils across New Zealand, and the challenges associated with this. We recognise the next six months will be crucial in finalising the standards, and would like to offer support to the Ministry, drawing on the considerable plan-making and implementation experience we’ve gained, particularly over the past 8 years.
3. When finalising the Standards, we encourage the Ministry to take an approach that builds on the good practice already seen in regional plans across the country, promotes an integrated planning approach, retains flexibility to manage local issues, and last but not least, mitigates the cost to ratepayers where the benefits are less clear.
4. With these factors in mind, our two primary areas of concern are:
• Mandatory definitions – we have significant policy concerns around mandatory definitions. As drafted, the mandatory definitions are overly prescriptive, and are inconsistent with definitions used or being developed by Environment Canterbury for Canterbury conditions. We seek that this requirement be removed for regional plans, or at the very least, that the proposed definitions be amended in accordance with Appendix 1. The Definitions Standard ranked poorest in the Ministry’s cost-benefit analysis, and coupled with potentially unforeseen policy implications, a cautious approach to mandatory definitions is warranted.
• Implementation timeframes – we oppose the proposed five-year timeframe for implementation of the Standards, and instead recommend a blanket extended timeframe for all regional councils. This approach is supported by the Ministry’s cost- benefit analysis, which shows greater benefit where implementation is over a longer period as this enables councils to align implementation with scheduled plan reviews. Importantly, it would enable Environment Canterbury to undertake a review of our regional policy statement first, which provides guidance to the development of regional and district plans, enabling a holistic and integrated planning framework across regional and district plans.
5. This submission will focus on the above two issues, along with the following: • Table-based rule structure • Theme-based approach to plan structure • Regional Policy Statement structure • Electronic functionality and accessibility • Minor points
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 106 of 133 Mandatory Definitions
Recommendations
6. Environment Canterbury opposes the use of mandatory definitions in regional policy statements and regional plans due to implementation costs and policy implications.
7. Environment Canterbury requests the abandonment of the draft Definitions Standard as it applies to regional councils. If retained, Environment Canterbury recommends that the definitions be amended in accordance with Appendix 1.
Commentary
8. Where a mandatory term has a definition that is materially different, or results in a significant departure from a plan outcome, provisions that implement that term (i.e. an objective, policy or rule) will need to be amended to preserve the plan outcome.
9. Environment Canterbury envisages that the draft definitions standard will require substantive changes to the objectives, policies and rules within our regional plans. This will require an RMA Schedule 1 process, incurring significant cost and litigation of operative provisions. We note that the draft Definitions Standard has the lowest benefit/ cost ratio of all the standards because of the Schedule 1 costs. This emphasises the need to be cautious when considering the value of mandatory definitions.
10. Many of the definitions proposed are also problematic for Environment Canterbury from a policy perspective. Two examples illustrate this point:
• The proposal to incorporate the RMA definition of ‘bed’ as a mandatory definition. Canterbury’s braided river systems are typified by multiple divergent channels, variable flows and ill-defined banks. These characteristics make it difficult to define the ‘bed’ of a braided river using the RMA definition. The Council is currently undertaking a significant and costly project to define the extent of the bed of Canterbury’s nationally unique braided rivers, with the intent that the information will be used to amend the definition of ‘bed’ in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP).
• The proposal to incorporate the RMA definition of ‘wetland’ as a mandatory definition. The Council has chosen to independently define wetland within our regional plan as the RMA definition is too broad and captures a range of artificially created systems that provide ‘wetland’ benefits but which have been constructed for other purposes (e.g. stormwater collection). Furthermore, amendments are necessary to ensure wet exotic pasture is excluded from the definition.
Implementation timeframes
Recommendations
11. Environment Canterbury opposes the proposed five-year timeframe for implementation of the National Planning Standards. Environment Canterbury recommends councils be able to implement changes at the point of scheduled plan reviews, or at the very least, all councils be afforded an extended seven-year timeframe.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 107 of 133 Commentary
12. Environment Canterbury has undertaken significant plan-making / plan review processes since 2010. The Council has completed a full review of the Regional Policy Statement; and made operative a new Land and Water Regional Plan. Since 2016 we have made operative five changes to that Plan to introduce both region-wide and catchment-based solutions to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) with a further three plan changes still in development. We have also made changes to the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan and completely reviewed our air plan to provide for the now operative Canterbury Air Regional Plan
13. The scale of this planning work shouldn’t be underestimated. Plan Change 5 (PC5), notified in 2017 and not yet fully operative, is a useful example:
• PC5 was a significant plan change for the Council, prepared in two parts. The plan change amended both the region-wide framework of the Land and Water Regional Plan and introduced NPSFM-compliant water quality limits for the Waitaki catchment.
• Part A of PC5 was the product of an extensive collaborative effort with the primary sector to define a set of industry-agreed good management practices (GMP). A scientific model was developed to estimate nutrient losses from farming activities at good management practice and an online tool (the Farm Portal) was developed which enables farmers to estimate nutrient losses at good management practice using their individual OVERSEER budgets. The outputs of the project were incorporated into Plan Change 5, along with new policies and rules which require farmers to reduce nitrogen losses to rates that reflect good management practice.
• Part B of the plan change followed an extensive collaborative process with the Waitaki community that culminated in a plan change that delivers community aspirations for water quality. GMP and the Farm Portal are also key elements of this package.
14. The cost of reviewing these plans will fall on the Council and ratepayers, and our experience shows this can be very expensive. As stated in our 2017 submission, reviewing, reformatting and updating the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) provisions into the LWRP cost Canterbury ratepayers $6 million, and this was with no appeals to the Environment Court because of the provisions of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. The Council will not have the benefit of these provisions after October 2019.
15. What remains somewhat unclear are the benefits of reviewing these plans, especially as they relate to regional councils. The Ministry’s analysis of plans across New Zealand identified that regional plans are generally becoming more streamlined and concise, however the Ministry’s cost/benefit analysis didn’t develop a cost/benefit ratio for regional council plans. This is a shortcoming of the Ministry’s analysis, especially given the benefits of standardised plans are increasingly recognised as being greater for district plan users.
16. The existing timeframes also create barriers for developing integrated regional and district planning frameworks. The existing timeframes will require Environment Canterbury to
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 108 of 133 undertake concurrent reviews of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Land and Water Regional Plan, which may also occur alongside reviews of district plans.
17. This will hinder our ability to create an integrated planning framework. Councils are required, when developing a district plan or regional plan, to give effect to regional policy statements. If a regional or district plan is developed before the regional policy statement is settled, Councils will have difficulty in giving effect to that document. This risks regional and district plans being out of step with regional policy statements.
Tabular vs narrative format for regional plans
Recommendations
18. Environment Canterbury requests the option of a rule structure that allows rules to be prepared in a narrative form.
19. Environment Canterbury requests that if a table-based rule structure is retained, changes are made to Table 26 which recognise that the status of an activity (i.e. controlled, restricted discretionary etc) changes depending on the condition of the rule contravened.
Commentary
20. The table-based rule structure mirrors the structure used in Environment Canterbury’s first-generation resource management plans (e.g. the NRRP). Environment Canterbury abandoned this style of rule structure when preparing the Air Regional Plan and LWRP after receiving feedback from the community that table-based rules are complex and inaccessible to plan users. The proposed structure will require Environment Canterbury to convert its plan documents to this former style of document, potentially resulting in less accessible plan documents.
21. The table-based rule structure could be improved if the amendments shown in Appendix 2 are included. Supporting commentary for these changes is provided at the end of Appendix 2.
Regional Plan Structure
Recommendations
22. Environment Canterbury does not support a ‘theme’ based plan structure as this does not encourage holistic or integrated management of resources.
23. Environment Canterbury supports providing councils’ flexibility to choose a ‘catchment/FMU’ or ‘theme’ based plan structure.
24. Environment Canterbury requests councils are provided the option of a region-wide structure in addition to a catchment-based structure.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 109 of 133 Commentary
25. Environment Canterbury’s LWRP and Air Regional Plan use ‘activity’ based rules, where all the component parts of an activity (e.g. the use of land, the discharge, the disturbance of the bed of a river) are managed through a single rule. This enables the full range of effects of an activity to be considered and managed in an integrated and holistic manner. Our initial analysis is that the ‘catchment or freshwater management unit’ based plan structure provides flexibility to accommodate this approach, but changes would be required to the region-wide structure to enable this approach to continue.
26. Councils should be provided with an option which allows issues to be addressed at a ‘region-wide’ scale, but also provides an opportunity to introduce a catchment-based framework where this is necessary to achieve community outcomes. This approach will support councils that have already commenced a staged implementation of the NPSFM, but which have chosen to adopt a ‘region-wide’ framework to ‘hold the line’ on water quality, until catchment planning processes can be initiated.
27. Environment Canterbury considers the ‘theme’ based plan structure does not encourage holistic or integrated management of resources. If this plan option is retained Environment Canterbury makes the following comments: • Themes should be constructed in a way that encourages horizontal integration (i.e. a plan structure that ‘looks across’ topic areas to consider the relationships between topic areas). • Themes should be identified in a consistent manner. The draft Standard uses a mix of approaches, whereby some themes are resource based (e.g. water, land) and some themes are value-based (e.g. historic heritage). This inconsistent approach to theme identification will create challenges to implementation of the standard. Councils will be required to make value-based judgements as to where to best include provisions that have relevance to multiple themes.
Regional Policy Statement Standard
Recommendations
28. Environment Canterbury recommends an amendment to the chapters to provide for a specific chapter on management of urban growth and integration of development and infrastructure.
Commentary
29. The proposed approach to separate out ‘land’ and ‘infrastructure’ would be to the detriment of the integrated approach which we have developed with our district councils. It is also a poor fit with the integrated approach required by the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity.
30. Regional councils play an important role in setting policies which manage urban growth, encourage the development of a range of housing types, promote high quality urban design and ensure that growth is well serviced with efficient and sustainable infrastructure. Under the proposed structure for a regional policy statement, these polices would be split
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 110 of 133 between the ‘Land’ chapter, and the ‘Infrastructure and Energy’ chapter. We consider these policies should be dealt with holistically, in a clearly identifiable chapter which deals with urban growth, or at least that this should be allowed as an option.
31. We consider that the ‘Land’ chapter should be retained to cover soils, contaminated land and any other relevant topics. The “Infrastructure and Energy” chapter should also be retained to cover aspects of these topics that are not specifically related to managing urban growth.
32. We also note that the standard for ‘Introduction and General Provisions’ contains elements which appear to be mandatory, but which are not relevant to a regional policy statement, for example Table 9 for designations and heritage orders, and Table 15 for national environmental standards. The suite of standards should be reviewed to clarify which requirements are mandatory for plans and which for regional policy statements.
Provision of Electronic Copies of All Previous Plans
Recommendations
33. Environment Canterbury recommends that the requirement to make all plans electronically available be amended to apply only to those operative on the date when this Planning Standard is gazetted. Councils with fewer plans under the RMA may choose to provide a full record, but it should not be compulsory.
Commentary
34. While useful in principle, we consider the benefits of making all Environment Canterbury RMA plans developed since 1991 available electronically are unlikely to outweigh the costs of undertaking this exercise.
35. The draft Standards are unclear on whether this requirement applies only to plans prepared under the RMA, or whether it is intended to include transitional plans which had effect under the RMA. If it is the latter, this will be particularly difficult for Environment Canterbury to achieve, given that there have been a number of transitional plans applying for various periods after the RMA was enacted.
36. Regardless of whether the requirement includes transitional plans or not, we consider the work involved in recompiling a complete record of plan versions from 1991 to the present day would be out of proportion to the benefits it would provide for the public.
Hyperlinks Between Regional and District Rules
Recommendations
37. Environment Canterbury recommends that this requirement be rewritten to clarify that cross-references between regional and district plans are required only where there are clear overlaps or duplications in the rules, and that they are provided by councils as a prompt for plan users, not as a statutory mechanism for determining what consents are required.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 111 of 133 Commentary
38. Environment Canterbury acknowledges the intentions behind this requirement, as it will help alert plan users to potential overlaps between regional and district rules. There are some areas which are commonly controlled by rules at both regional and district level, for example, clearance of riparian vegetation and earthworks adjacent to waterways. These types of overlapping rules are relatively simple to identify and cross-reference.
39. However, this part of the Standard is very broadly drafted, and if interpreted widely could require significant work trying to cross-reference regional plans with, in Canterbury’s context, 10 district plans. It may also carry significant legal risks if applicants come to rely on the cross-references to confirm whether or not consents are required from another council.
Ability for Users to Query Rules Electronically
Recommendations
40. Environment Canterbury recommends that the requirement to provide an electronic search function for rules applying to a particular property or a particular activity not be applied to regional councils. The breadth of activities addressed by regional plans is such that for any property a significant number of rules are likely to have relevance. Providing all these rules to an end user would be of limited benefit and may increase confusion for the user.
Commentary
41. This functionality is already being provided on a property basis by several district councils. This is feasible at a district level, as the rules are constructed around discrete zones. We understand that this functionality has not yet been shown to be feasible on a regional basis, and our initial testing as part of our ePlan project shows that it is not achievable with our current plan structure and layout.
42. For example, a single property may be subject to a majority of the regional rules in the region-wide section of the Land and Water Regional Plan, a number of rules in a sub- regional chapter of the Land and Water Regional Plan, the majority of rules in the Canterbury Air Regional Plan, plus potentially rules in the Regional Coastal Environment Plan. This would be several hundred rules in total and delivering this bundle of rules electronically would not provide any clear benefits to the user.
43. The option of being able to search for all the rules that apply to a particular activity may be feasible, but to our knowledge it has not been demonstrated to be feasible by any regional council. If it is feasible, delivering this functionality in a legally robust way (i.e. in a way that a customer can rely on) is likely to be very costly.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 112 of 133
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 113 of 133 Minor points
Draft Status of Rules and Other Text and Numbering Form Standard
We request the omission of Sections 2 and 3 of the Numbering Form Standard instruct councils to include an explanation in their plan of the legal status of the word ‘provisions’ and provisions. Section 86B of the RMA, which sets out when a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect, only applies to rules and insertion of the word ‘rules’ does not apply to provisions generally. in its place.
We request the standard Section 12 (Objectives) instructs councils to number the Objectives in a Plan according to the ‘relevant zone, topic, or spatial remove the requirement for planning tool number’ and requires an abbreviation for the ‘objective’. The example given in the instruction is: objectives to be numbered An objective in the Natural Hazards Section of the Environmental Risks chapter of a district plan according to the relevant NH-O1 zone, topic or spatial planning number. The draft Regional Plan Standard provides Councils the option of preparing a single set of over-arching objectives, instead of ‘theme’ based objectives. Given this point the Standard should not require the use of abbreviations that require reference to a specific objective.
Draft Regional Policy Statement Structure Standard
We request that the The Regional Policy Planning Standard provides for nine separate ‘theme-based’ chapters in a set order, with the ability to add standard clarifies how chapters to cover ‘special topics’. As noted earlier, the RPS Standard does not provide for a land use and infrastructure chapter. ‘special’ topics should be It will also require changes to the current CRPS chapters with introductory information, and the chapters covering Ngāi Tahu. integrated into the proposed RPS chapters, and / or This Standard does not specifically provide for the current CPRS chapters on Beds of Rivers and Lakes; Waste Minimisation and provide separate chapter Management; Soils; Contaminated Land; Hazardous Substances; or Natural Hazards headings for them. We assume the intention is for these topics to be dealt with in either the “Land” chapter or the “Environmental Risk” Chapter, but this is not explicit.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 114 of 133 Appendix 1: Recommended amendments to the Draft Definitions Standard
Requested amendments to proposed definitions in the draft Definitions Standard. Requested changes are shown in strikethrough and underline
Number Definition (with tracked changes) Reason 1. Aquifer The definition should be constrained to only water below the ground Means a permeable geological formation, group of surface. The definition as proposed includes water stored in all forms, formations, or part of a formation, beneath the both below and above ground (e.g. lakes, rivers, artificial reservoirs). ground, that is capable of receiving, storing, transmitting and yielding water. 2. 1. Ancillary activity The phrase ‘on the same site’ should be omitted as this phrase is not 2. Means an activity that either provides support to, or appropriate where the term is used in a regional plan. Activities in a is incidental and subsidiary to, the primary activity. regional plan often occur across more than one site. on the same site. 3. Bed The definition adopts the definition of ‘bed’ in Section 2 of the RMA. Means — Environment Canterbury has experienced significant challenges in … enforcing and applying the RMA definition to Canterbury’s braided river (a) in relation to any river, systems, due to these rivers being characterised by multiple divergent … channels, variable flows, and ill-defined banks. (ii) in all other cases, the area defined as ‘bed’ in a relevant regional plan; and in all other cases, the space of land which the waters of the river Environment Canterbury recognises that providing a definition of the cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its extent of the ‘bed’ of a river is necessary to enable clarity on the banks; and expectations and regulations that apply to activities in the ‘bed’. For this reason, the Council has undertaken a project to define the edge of Canterbury’s braided river systems using a combination of methods including detailed river modelling, historic aerial maps, and consultation with communities.
Environment Canterbury intends to use this information to prepare a set of Planning Maps that define the extent of the ‘bed’ of Canterbury’s braided
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 115 of 133 river systems. This information will be incorporated into the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, via a plan change notified in mid-2019.
The requested amendment allows an alternative to the RMA definition of ‘bed’ where this has been otherwise defined in a regional plan.
We note the draft Standard proposes alternatives to terms used in the RMA, where it is appropriate to do so. An example is the definition of ‘structure’ in the Standard which proposes alternative wording to that used in the Act. We agree this a practical and pragmatic approach and support the use of alternatives to RMA definitions. 4. 3. Bore A range of other temporary devices should be excluded from the definition (a) Means any hole constructed into the ground to ensure these devices are not unintentionally captured that is used to – (i) Investigate or monitor conditions below the ground surface; or (ii) Abstract liquid substances from the ground; or (iii) Discharge liquid substances into the ground; but (b) It does not include test pits, and soak holes, lysimeters, trenches used for dewatering, or well- pointing devices 5. 4. Fertiliser Both biological and chemical compounds should be provided for within the (a) Means any substance, or biological or chemical definition of fertiliser. In addition, the word ‘promote’ should be inserted to compound that is- accommodate circumstances where fertilisers are added to soils to applied to plants or soils, whether in solid or (i) promote germination. liquid form; and (ii) promotes, supports, or sustains the growth, productivity or quality of soils, plants or, indirectly, animals; but
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 116 of 133 (b) but does not include livestock and human effluent, or pathogens. 6. 5. Greywater The term ‘household’ should be omitted to ensure the definition is relevant 6. Means untreated liquid waste water, from sources to greywater generated from non-domestic sources (e.g. industrial and such as households sinks, basins, baths, showers commercial properties). and or similar appliances fixtures. It but does not include any sewage, trade wastes or discharges from industrial activities. The term ‘fixtures’ should replace the term appliances as this more appropriately describes the greywater source.
Trade wastes and industrial discharges should be excluded from the definition as these waste sources typically contain other types of contaminants. 7. 7. Groundwater All land underlying the ground surface contains water at various points in 8. Means water occupying openings, cavities, or time, e.g. after irrigation and after rainfall events. spaces in soils or rocks under the surface of the land within the saturated zone. The proposed phrase distinguishes water that is present in the ground 9. surface following periodic irrigation/rainfall events, and water that is continually present in the saturated zone as a result of a high water table or aquifer. 8. Height A single definition of height for both regional and district plans is more [in relation to a district plan] appropriate, ensures consistency between regional and district plan Means the vertical distance between ground level at documents, and reduces complexity. any point and the highest part of the structure
immediately above that point. The proposed definitions introduce elements that relate to the term’s Height application. Height is simply a vertical distance between two points and [in relation to a regional plan or policy statement the definition should be constrained to solely this point. or a combined plan that includes a regional plan or regional policy statement] Constraining the definition of ‘height’ to a vertical distance that is relative – means the vertical distance between the highest to a structure is inappropriate. Policies and rules in regional plans use the part of a structure and a reference point. The
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 117 of 133 reference point outside the coastal marine are is term ‘height’ in relation to a range of different receptors. For example, ground level unless otherwise stated in a rule. The rules in regional plan may require a certain ‘height’ of vegetation to be reference point inside the coastal marine area is maintained for ecological purposes. mean sea level.
Height For these reasons we request replacing the three proposed definitions [in relation to boundary] with a single definition as shown. Means the maximum height of a structure relative to tis distance from the boundary of a site or other specified location.
Height Means the vertical distance measured between two reference points. 9. Industrial activity The definition of industrial activity inappropriately constrains the definition Means an activity for the primary purpose of – to only the activities listed. This is inconsistent with the definition of (a) manufacturing, farbricating, processing, ‘industrial or trade process’ contained in the RMA which anticipates a packing, storing, maintaining, or repairing much broader range of activities. goods; or (b) research laboratories used for scientific, industrial or medical research; or The definition should be omitted and the RMA terms ‘industrial or trade (c) yard-based storage, distribution and logistics premises’ and ‘industrial or trade process’ relied on to manage these activities; or types of activities. (d) any training facilities for any of the above activities.
10. Intensive primary production Intensive primary production activities occur both indoors and outdoors Means primary production activities that involve the and include a range of activities broader than those listed in the definition. production of fungi, livestock or poultry that principally occur within buildings. Further, in recognition of the different effects these activities give rise to (and the need for different Planning responses), regional plans often need separate definitions of ‘intensive pig farming’ ‘intensive poultry farming’ and ‘intensive outdoor farming’ to manage the effects of the activities.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 118 of 133
We request the definition is omitted, and where necessary regional plans insert their own definitions to manage these activities. Landfill The definition defines the term ‘landfill’ by reference to the land’s intended Means the use, or the previous use, of land for the use (i.e. the term is defined in the context of a verb). However, for primary purpose of the disposal of waste. regional plans it is more appropriate to define the term as a noun as Means a site used for, or previously used for, the shown. disposal and deposition of solid waste material into land The term ‘deposition’ should be included to convey that a key element of the definition is the burying of material. The term ‘waste’ should be constrained to ‘solid waste material’ to more appropriately reflect the characteristics of the material, and to ensure other liquid wastes (e.g. effluents) are not captured by the definition. 11. Primary Production The definition in the standard has considerable overlap with definition of (a) means any agricultural, pastoral, ‘production land’ in the RMA. We request the omission of the definition. horticultural, forestry or aquaculture activities for the purpose of commercial gain or In the alternative, if the definition is retained we request the phrase ‘for the exchange; and (b) includes any land and auxiliary buildings purpose of commercial gain or exchange’ is omitted. This phrase used for the production of the products that inappropriately constrains the definition and would preclude the council result from the listed activities; but from regulating primary production activities that give rise to adverse (c) does not include processing of those environmental effects, but which are not carried out for the purpose of products commercial gain (e.g. farming activities on lifestyle blocks). If the definition is retained the exclusion in clause (c) needs to apply to both clauses (a) or in the alternative: and (b) of the definition. For this reason, the definition should be formatted
Primary Production as shown. (a) means any agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, forestry or aquaculture activities for the purpose of commercial gain or exchange; and
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 119 of 133 (b) includes any land and auxiliary buildings used for the production of the products that result from the listed activities; but but does not include processing of those products 12. Quarry The term ‘extraction’ should be inserted so the definition applies to Means an area of land where the excavation or substances and material that are extracted but not excavated. extraction, with or without the processing, of minerals and other solid natural substances occurs. 13. Reclamation The proposed definition uses terms that are undefined and poorly Means the infilling of any part of a waterbody, bed of understood by the general public (e.g. beach re-nourishment). We lake or river or part of a waterbody or coastal marine recommend changes to simplify the definition and improve area, to create permanent land, and includes any comprehension. embankment or causeway, but does not include beach re-nourishment or any deposition of material or infilling that is not permanent.
Means the creation of permanent land by deposition of infill or other material onto the bed of a lake or river or coastal marine area. Residential activity The proposed definition is inconsistent with the definition of ‘residential Means the use of land and buildings by people for activity’ used in s95A(6) of the RMA. To avoid inconsistency with that the primary purpose of living accommodation. definition we request the term is omitted, or in the alternative another term is used (e.g. residential use). 14. Reverse Sensitivity The suggested changes would improve clarity of the definition. means the potential for the operation of an existing lawfully established activity to be compromised, constrained or curtailed by the more recent establishment or alternation of another a new or proposed activity which may be sensitive to the actual, potential or perceived adverse environmental effects generated by the existing activity.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 120 of 133 15. Sewage The definition should describe the contaminants rather than the source of Means any water containing human faecal matter the waste. Industrial or commercial waste streams should be excluded as and urine that contains any toilet or urinal waste, or contaminants present in industrial or trade process wastes are not the any waste in water from industrial or commercial same as ‘sewage’. purposes. 16. Sign The definition would benefit from simplification as shown. It is more (a) Means any device, character, structure, appropriate to describe the term generally rather than attempt to describe graphic, or display (including electronic all the types of ‘sign’ that may exist. displays), whether temporary or permanent,
used to communicate or advertise information to the public. that is visible from beyond the site boundary, for the purposes of – (i) Identification of and provision of information about any activity, site or structure: (ii) Providing directions; (iii) Promoting goods, services or forthcoming events; and (b) Includes the frame, supporting device and any associated ancillary equipment whose principal function is to support the message or notice; and (c) May be two- or three-dimensional, and manufactured, painted, written, printed, carved, embossed, inflated, projected onto, or fixed, or attached to, any structure or natural object; and (d) May be illuminated by an internal or external light source. 17. Small scale renewable electricity generation The requested amendments define the phrase ‘renewable electricity Means renewable electricity generation of electricity generation’. The requested changes reflect that used in the National from solar, wind, hydro-electricity, geothermal, Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011. biomass, tidal, wave, or ocean current energy sources, which does not exceed a power rating of an output of 20kW.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 121 of 133 18. 10. Stormwater The definition needs to convey that ‘stormwater’ is the run-off generated Means run-off water and entrained contaminants from precipitation on structures and land, and not the precipitation itself. arising from natural precipitation (including any The definition should be limited to describing the elements that comprise contaminants it contains) that flows over land or on stormwater and should be silent in respect of the discharge point (be it the external surface of any structures or land modified by human action. (including in a network), land, surface water, a wetland, a reticulated network or the coastal marine to a waterbody or the coastal marine area. area). 19. Swale The definition should describe the key components of a swale and its Means an grassed or vegetated watercourse purpose; that being that it is a grassed or vegetated watercourse used for designed, formed and constructed to treat and treatment and conveyance of stormwater. convey stormwater area of land that has been shaped to allow a watercourse to form during stormwater collection 20. Wastewater The definition should exclude contaminants and sources as shown. Includes Means sewage, and greywater, and excludes stormwater, processing wastes, and other wastes from other industrial, commercial or trade activities. 21. Water sensitive design The proposed definition serves no useful purpose and should be omitted. Means an interdisciplinary approach to land use and In particular, the last part of the definition ‘particularly from stormwater development planning, design and implementation run-off’, inappropriately constrains the application of the term. which integrates land us and water management, to
minimise adverse effects on freshwater system and coastal environment, particularly from storm water runoff. 22 Wetland The RMA definition of ‘wetland’ is broad and captures a range of Includes permanently or intermittently wet areas, artificially created systems that provide ‘wetland’ benefits but which have shallow water, and land water margins that support been constructed for other purposes (e.g. stormwater collection). The a natural ecosystem of plants and animals that are exclusion of wet exotic pasture is necessary to exclude pastoral adapted to wet conditions. It excludes wet exotic pasture, artificial reservoirs and artificial systems environments from the definition. used to treat, collect or dispose of stormwater or wastewater.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 122 of 133 Appendix 2: Recommended amendments to Table 26 of the Draft Chapter Form Standard
Table 26: Rule table
Insert unique rule Insert rule title in bold text number in format required by the F-6: Status of Rules and Other Text and Numbering Form Standard
This cell is to be used This cell is required for permitted This cell is required for permitted activities where rules are applied activities if the rule includes rule requirements. on an area specific Activity status: Insert activity status. If Activity status when compliance with basis (ie, zones or to abbreviated use a mandatory the rule/ condition number [choose spatial planning tools) abbreviation relevant option] is not achieved: Insert If required, insert name Where: Insert rule descriptor Describe activity status. If abbreviated use a of relevant spatial the scope of the activity to which the mandatory abbreviation. planning tool/s rule relates (Use for C activities) Or Matters over which control is reserved: 1 insert rule detail If required insert name 1 insert matter of relevant zone/s xx 2 insert rule detail insert matter. zone or all zones 3 insert rule detail. (Use for RD activities) Where this activity complies with the Matters of discretion are restricted to: following conditions rule requirements: 1 insert matter 1 insert reference to rule 2 insert matter. requirement/s. insert rule conditions.
Where the status of an activity (e.g. controlled, restricted discretionary, non- complying or prohibited) depends on the condition of the rule that is contravened,
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 123 of 133 include any other relevant activity classifications here.
Notification: Insert notification detail, if any. If notification requirements or restrictions do not apply do not include this section.
This cell is required for controlled This cell is required for controlled activities activities if the rule includes rule Activity status: Insert activity status. If requirements abbreviated use a mandatory abbreviation. Activity status when compliance with Where: Insert rule descriptor Describe the rule/ condition number [choose the scope of the activity to which the relevant option] is not achieved: Insert rule relates activity status. If abbreviated use a mandatory abbreviation. 1 insert rule detail Use for RD activities) 2 insert rule detail 3 insert rule detail. Matters of discretion are restricted to: Where this activity complies with the 1 insert matter following conditions rule 2 insert matter. requirements:
1 insert reference to rule requirement/s. insert conditions. Where the status of an activity (e.g. controlled, restricted discretionary, non-
complying or prohibited) depends on the Notification: Insert notification detail, if condition of the rule that is contravened, any. If notification requirements or include any other relevant activity restrictions do not apply omit this classifications here. section.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 124 of 133 Matters over which control is Notification: Insert notification detail, if reserved: any. If notification requirements or restrictions do not apply omit this section. 1 insert matter 2 insert matter
This cell is required for restricted This cell is required for restricted discretionary activities. discretionary activities if the rule includes Activity status: Insert activity status. If rule requirements. abbreviated use a mandatory Activity status when compliance not abbreviation. achieved: Insert activity status. If Where: Insert rule descriptor Describe abbreviated use a mandatory the scope of the activity to which the abbreviation. rule relates
1 insert rule detail Where the status of an activity (e.g. controlled, restricted discretionary, non- 2 insert rule detail complying or prohibited) depends on the 3 insert rule detail. condition of the rule that is contravened, include any other relevant activity Matters of discretion are restricted classifications here. to:
1 insert matter Notification: Insert notification detail, if 2 insert matter. any. If notification requirements or restrictions do not apply omit this section. Where this activity complies with the following conditions rule requirements: 1 insert reference to rule requirement/s. insert conditions.
Matters of discretion are restricted to:
1 insert matter
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 125 of 133 2 insert matter.
Notification: Insert notification detail, if any.
This cell is required for discretionary This cell is required for discretionary activities. activities if the rule includes rule Activity status: Insert activity status. If requirements. abbreviated use a mandatory Activity status when compliance with abbreviation. the rule/ condition number [choose Where: Insert rule descriptor Describe relevant option] is not achieved: Insert the scope of the activity to which the activity status. If abbreviated use a rule relates mandatory abbreviation. Where the status of an activity (e.g. 1 insert rule detail controlled, restricted discretionary, non- 2 insert rule detail complying or prohibited) depends on the condition of the rule that is contravened, 3 insert rule detail. include any other relevant activity Where this activity complies with the classifications here. following conditions rule requirements: Notification: Insert notification detail, if 1 insert reference to rule any. If notification requirements or requirement/s. insert conditions. restrictions do not apply omit this section.
Notification: Insert notification detail, if any. If notification requirements or restrictions do not apply omit this section.
This cell is required for non-complying This cell is required for non-complying activities. activities if the rule includes rule Activity status: Insert activity status. If requirements. abbreviated use a mandatory Activity status when compliance with abbreviation. the rule/ condition number [choose relevant option] is not achieved: Insert
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 126 of 133 Where: Insert rule descriptor Describe activity status. If abbreviated use a the scope of the activity to which the mandatory abbreviation. rule relates 1 insert rule detail Where the status of an activity (e.g. controlled, restricted discretionary, non- 2 insert rule detail complying or prohibited) depends on the 3 insert rule detail. condition of the rule that is contravened, include any other relevant activity Where this activity complies with the classifications here. following conditions rule requirements: 1. insert reference to rule requirement/s. Notification: Insert notification detail, if insert conditions. any. If notification requirements or restrictions do not apply omit this section.
Notification: Insert notification detail, if any. If notification requirements or restrictions do not apply omit this section.
This cell is required for prohibited activities. Activity status: Insert activity status, if abbreviated use a mandatory abbreviation. Where: Insert rule descriptor Describe the scope of the activity to which the rule relates.
1 insert rule detail insert rule detail insert rule detail.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 127 of 133 Supporting commentary to recommended changes to Table 26 of the Draft Chapter Form Standard: 1. Column 2 of Table 26: (a) the ‘where’ section of the rule should be used to describe the scope of the activity to which the rule relates. This would be better described in narrative form rather than as a list, as it will more easily enable a conversion of narrative-based rules. (b) the references to ‘rule requirements’ should be omitted and instead replaced with ‘conditions’. This reflects the language typically used in district and regional plans and is more readily understood by plan users. (c) the sections titled ‘matters of which control is reserved’ or ‘matters of which discretion is restricted’ should be relocated below the section titled ‘where this activity complies with the following conditions’. From a plan user perspective, it makes logical sense to first read the ‘entry’ conditions to the rule, before then reading the matters of control/discretion. (d) the notification restrictions should be optional in recognition that restrictions or requirements will not always apply. 2. Column 3 of Table 26: (a) the section titled ‘activity status when compliance is not achieved’ should be amended to enable the plan drafter to specify the condition of the rule that is contravened. In addition, the ability to include other activity classifications needs should be provided for. Both of these points recognise that the classification of an activity will depend on the condition of the rule that is contravened.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 128 of 133 8.4. Appointments to Regulation Hearing Committee
Council report
Date of meeting Thursday 23rd August 2018 Author Louise McDonald, Senior Committee Advisor Endorsed by Cindy Butt, Team Leader Governance Services
Purpose
1. To amend the Terms of Reference for the Regulation Hearing Committee to increase membership from four to six members.
2. To appoint two additional Councillors to the Regulation Hearing Committee.
Recommendations
That the Council:
1. amends the Terms of Reference for the Regulation Hearing Committee to increase the membership of the Committee to 6 members.
2. appoints Councillors Claire McKay and Peter Scott to the Regulation Hearing Committee.
Background
3. At the Regulation Hearing Committee meeting of 21 June 2018, the Committee agreed to return to exercising its delegation to consider and approve resource consent applications.
4. The Council’s delegation to the Committee includes the authority to consider and decide resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act that have been publicly notified but where there are no parties to be heard.
5. To exercise this delegation all Committee members will need to be Ministry for the Environment (MfE) certified decision makers.
6. Committee members Councillors Elizabeth Cunningham and Lan Pham hold current certificates from the MfE Good Decisions Programme. Councillor Peter Skelton, as a former Environment Court Judge, is accredited both for decision making and to chair the committee.
7. Councillors Claire McKay and Peter Scott have current MfE certification.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 129 of 133 Financial implications
8. There are no financial implications from this proposal.
Risk assessment and legal compliance
9. No risk has been identified. Both Councillors McKay and Scott hold the required current certification.
Legal review Catherine Schache, General Counsel Peer reviewer Alison Cooper, Consent Hearing Officer
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 130 of 133 9. Outstanding Contribution Award
9.1. Outstanding Contribution Award - Peter Lowe
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 131 of 133 10. Exclusion of the Public from Part of the Council Meeting
Council paper
Meeting Date 23 August 2018 Author Louise McDonald, Senior Committee Adviser
Recommendations
That the public be excluded from the following part of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:
1. Council minutes 10 August 2018
1. The general subject of the matters to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
Item Report Reason for passing this Ground(s) under No. resolution in relation to each section 48(1) for the matter passing of this resolution Council minutes 10 August Good reason to withhold exists Section 48(1)(a) 1. 2018 under Section 7.
2. This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceeding of the meeting in public are as follows:
Item No. 1 Enable the Council holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).
2. That appropriate officers remain to provide advice to the Council.
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 132 of 133 11. Other Business
12. Notices of Motion
13. Questions
14. Closing Karakia
15. Next Meeting
Council Meeting 2018-08-23 133 of 133