CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2014
9.30AM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET
Watch Council meetings live on the web: http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream
AGENDA - OPEN
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL
Thursday 23 October 2014 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Council: The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Raf Manji, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner
ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. NO.
1. APOLOGIES 1
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2014, 1 2 OCTOBER 2014 AND 9 OCTOBER 2014
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT 1
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS 1
6. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 21
7. REPORT OF THE REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE MEETING OF 39 16 SEPTEMBER 2014
8. REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF 41 23 SEPTEMBER 2014
9. REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MEETING OF 23 SEPTEMBER 2014 43
10. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECOVERY PROGRAMME QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT 69
11. FLOODING ISSUES AT NORTH HALSWELL 79
12. ADOPTION OF REPORT ON DOG CONTROL POLICY AND PRACTICES 2013/14 89
13. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT UNIT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2013/14 99
14. ADOPTION OF ANNUAL REPORT TO THE ALCOHOL LICENSING AND REGULATORY 141 AUTHORITY FOR PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 2014
15. APPOINTMENT OF A PROXY FOR CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LTD ANNUAL 151 GENERAL MEETING
16. FOOD FORESTS AND EDIBLE PLANTINGS 153
17. RATES REMISSIONS – POTENTIAL TO INCREASE STAFF DELEGATION FOR FAIR & 169 EQUITABLE REMISSIONS
18. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT OF THE BURWOOD PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING 175 OF 20 OCTOBER 2014
19. UPDATE ON THE DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW 181
20. NOTICES OF MOTION 263
21. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC 263
1 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - COUNCIL MEETING OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2014, 2 OCTOBER 2014 AND 9 OCTOBER 2014
Attached.
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
2 3
MINUTES
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.34AM ON THURSDAY 25 SEPTEMBER 2014
PRESENT: Lianne Dalziel, The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Ali Jones, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Raf Manji, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner.
1. APOLOGIES
An apology for early departure was received from Councillor Cotter who left the meeting at 12.05pm.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor East, that the apology be accepted.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
2.1 Councillor Livingstone declared a conflict regarding item 12, Report of the Finance Committee meeting of 2 September 2014.
3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING OF 28 AUGUST 2014 AND 11 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the open minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 August 2014 and 11 September 2014 be confirmed.
The agenda was dealt with in the following order.
4. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
4.2 Jim Anderton and Tim Shannanan spoke regarding Clause 22, the Christchurch Stadium Tust Funding Application.
4.1 Tom Hooper and Garth Carnaby spoke regarding Clause 20, the Canterbury Development Corporation Update.
20. CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION UPDATE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Mayor seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council receive this report and associated presentation for information.
5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
37. RESOLUTION TO BE PASSED - SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the following supplementary reports be received and considered at the Council meeting of 25 September 2014:
ADOPTION OF THE REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM 4 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 2 -
37 Cont’d
ADOPTION OF THE REVISED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM
DELEGATIONS FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM
AWARD OF THE PHYSICAL WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE WAINUI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE – STAGE 2 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 13/14-115 (PUBLIC EXCLUDED)
17. COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN – STAGE 1
Note: Item 17 was not received for consideration by the Council at this meeting. This item will be considered at the 2 October 2014 extraordinary Council meeting.
6. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Gough, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the report be received.
The meeting adjourned from 10.57am to 11.07am.
Councillor Jones and Councillor Gough were absent when the meeting reconvened.
Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 11.10am.
25. ADOPTION OF THE REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM 26. ADOPTION OF THE REVISED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM 27. DELEGATIONS FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM
Items 25, 26, 27 were considered together.
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater:
1. That the Council defer the implementation date of 1 October 2014 for the new Committee Structure (resolved by Council on 11 September 2014) until the matters are resolved at the extraordinary Council meeting on 2 October 2014.
2. That the Council hold an Extraordinary Meeting on 2 October 2014 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber to consider the following items on the agenda:
2.1 New committee structure
2.1.1 Consideration of implementation date of the new committee structure
2.1.2 Adoption of the revised terms of reference for the 2013 – 2016 Council
2.1.3 Adoption of the revised schedule of meetings for the 2013-2016 Council Term
2.1.4 Delegations for the 2013 – 2016 Council Term.
2.2 Council submission to the proposed replacement district plan – stage 1 (as noted above).
5 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 3 -
7. REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN FUNDING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 25 JULY 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the report be received.
8. REPORT OF THE REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE MEETING OF 19 AUGUST 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the report be received.
9. REPORT OF THE STRATEGY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 19 AUGUST 2014
(1.) WITHDRAWAL OF PLAN CHANGES
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lonsdale moved, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the Council:
1.1 Withdraw Plan Changes 61 (General Objective and Policy Framework for Greenfield Residential Growth) and Plan Change 56 (Urban Design and Amenity in Suburban Centres) to the Operative District Plan.
1.2 Direct staff to inform submitters on the plan changes, explain the reasons for it, and advise them of the upcoming District Plan Review notification and the opportunity to make submissions to that process.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Gough, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the report as a whole be adopted.
10. REPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS PANEL MEETING OF 19 AUGUST 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Tuner, seconded by Councillor East, that the report be received.
11. REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE MEETING OF 26 AUGUST 2014
(1.) OCCUPATION OF AIRSPACE AT 169 MADRAS STREET
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Chen, that the Council:
1.1 Grant retrospective approval as landowner of the legal road (being Madras Street and Southwark Street) for the proposed construction by Peer Partnership encompassing the occupation of airspace subject to:
1.1.1 Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager.
1.1.2 Approval from the Urban Design Panel.
1.1.3 A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation of Airspace being entered into.
1.2 Grant delegation to the Property Consultancy Manager for authority to negotiate, conclude and enter into the licence as approved in 5.1 above (including Licence fee and all other terms and conditions) under clause 2.3 “Use of the airspace over roads for the increasing the floor area of a building” of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010. 6 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 4 -
11 Cont’d
(2.) PAPANUI / NORTHLANDS PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUB – SUPERSTOP AND WAITING LOUNGE OPTIONS REVIEW
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the Council:
2.1 Notes the contents of this report.
2.2 Recommends that staff report back to the Environmental Committee once the design concepts for the proposed waiting lounge and on-street bus stops have been undertaken. Staff would also report on any updates concerning the progress of the Kiwi Income Property Trust proposal and the discussions to provide Real Time Information within the Northlands Mall.
2.3 Recommends that staff investigate options to improve the pedestrian crossing facilities adjacent to the proposed on-street bus stops and report findings back to the Environmental Committee.
2.4 Recommends that staff continue to review potential longer term public transport hub options at Papanui / Northlands (including a passenger waiting lounge) and provide an update to the Environmental Committee early in 2015.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the report as a whole be adopted.
12. REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF 2 SEPTEMBER 2014
Item 1 was dealt with at a meeting on 11 September 2014.
(2.) LEASE EXTENSION EPIC 100 MANCHESTER STREET CHRISTCHURCH
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:
2.1 That EPIC Christchurch Ltd be granted a further seven year lease term from the expiry of the their present lease on the 7 March 2018 on the similar terms and conditions but subject to:
2.1.1 The ability to withdraw part of the site at any stage enabling the areas identified for the proposed public realm to be excluded from the leased Premises by notice as detailed in clause 2.10 in this report and
2.1.2 The new business case and rent structure reflecting the principles of the Council leasing this land to Epic. Namely that the lease to Epic is discounted to a nominal rate so that start up businesses can be similarly financially supported by Epic. Should the financial arrangements alter to the extent that Epic unreasonably profits from the Council’s financial support then the Council reserves the rights to revisit that lease arrangement.
2.2 To delegate authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:
2.2.1 Negotiate, manage and enter into a lease extension with Epic as set out in this report on terms and conditions satisfactory to his discretion.
2.2.2 Negotiate, manage and enter into any and all arrangements necessary to determine the public realm issues associated with the Crown (including any necessary written approval from the relevant Government Minister who is the requiring authority in relation to any land that is the subject to a designation). Included but not limited to any issues arising from the designation and any sale or creation of access rights in any other form. 7 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 5 -
12 Cont’d
(3.) DRAFT STATEMENT OF INTENT FOR THE WORLD BUSKERS FESTIVAL TRUST FOR 2014/15
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the Council:
3.1 Accept the draft statement of intent for the World Busker’s Festival Trust and request that the Trust considers the following comments when finalising the Statement of Intent:
3.1.1 The Council acknowledges the importance of the World Buskers Festival to the city and the Council would appreciate the opportunity to receive a pre-festival briefing from the Trustees on the 2015 festival including key measures which the Trust and Council will use to measure the success of the festival.
3.1.2 Note the requests which the Council made in its resolution dated 10 April 2014 regarding the level of reporting to Council and to develop more robust governance and management structures and that these should be reflected in the statement of intent.
(4.) FINAL STATEMENTS OF INTENT FOR CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED, VBASE LIMITED, CIVIC BUILDING LIMITED, TUAM LIMITED, CANTERBURY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HOLDINGS LIMITED, NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AGENCY, ROD DONALD BANKS PENINSULA TRUST, RICCARTON BUSH TRUST AND CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR ENERGY TRUST
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Turner that the Council:
4.1 Adopt the staff recommendation.
4.2 Request that staff write to the Riccarton Bush Trust and ask for the timing of the cycleway agreement to be reconsidered and brought forward as this is a matter of urgency.
(5.) EARTHQUAKE CLAIMS UPDATE AS AT 31 JULY 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the report be received.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor East, that the report as a whole be adopted.
13. REPORT OF THE EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF 4 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the report be received.
14. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MEETING OF 9 SEPTEMBER 2014
(1.) LIBRARIES 2025 FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that this report is referred to the community boards for their formal consideration.
8 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 6 -
14 Cont’d
(2.) ARTS UPDATE REPORT – MAY TO AUGUST 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the Council:
2.1 Request that a report is prepared which provides information on the implication of extending the Creative Industries Support Fund to wider than the central city.
2.2 Places on record its appreciation for the collaborative approach between funders, central government, local government, the wider arts community and their supporters in supporting the city post-earthquake.
(3.) CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT - FUTURE LYTTELTON TUNNEL EVENT
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the Council request a meeting be arranged with the Council, New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) and the Lyttelton Port Company (LPC) and the chairs of the local community boards to examine the possibility of making the closure of the Lyttelton Tunnel to motorised traffic a regular event.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the report as a whole be adopted.
Councillor Jones joined the meeting at 11.50am.
15. REPORT OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE MEETING OF 9 SEPTEMBER 2014
(1.) FACILITIES REBUILD PROGRAMME SOCIAL HOUSING STATUS UPDATE
Councillor Livingstone moved, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the report be received and that the Council expresses the urgency with which repairs must be completed on Christchurch closed social housing units.
The motion on being put to the meeting was declared carried.
(2.) SOCIAL HOUSING – FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the reports be received.
Councillor Jones left the meeting at 11.55am and returned at 11.59am.
(3.) CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT - ACCOMMODATION SUPPLEMENT INCREASE FOR CHRISTCHURCH
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor Cotter, that the Council:
3.1 Write to the Minister of Social Development, requesting that she bring the Accommodation Supplement for Christchurch, as a sub-region of Area 3 (Canterbury), in line with Area 1 (Auckland), given the close proximity of Area 1 rental levels to those in Christchurch. 9 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 7 -
15 Cont’d
3.2 Write to the Ministers of Social Development and Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to request a re-evaluation of the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service (CETAS) subsidy.
Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 12.05pm.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor Jones, that the report as a whole be adopted.
16. COUNCIL NOMINATION – CANTERBURY REGIONAL TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by the Mayor, that the Council
16.1 Nominate Councillor Phil Clearwater for the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee, and
16.2 Following approval by the Regional Council amend the membership schedule for the 2013- 2016 Council Term to reflect this change.
18. APPLICATION TO THE 2014/15 METROPOLITAN DISCRETIONARY RESPONSE FUND – CHRISTCHURCH YOUTH COUNCIL
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council makes a grant of $20,000 to the Christchurch Youth Council towards salary cost of a fulltime Coordinator.
19. PIONEER EARLY LEARNING CENTRE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Mayor, that the Council:
19.1 Note this report concerning the criteria to be included in a tender of the Pioneer Early Learning Centre; and
19.2 Agree to delegate to staff the authority to tender the operation of the Pioneer Early Learning Centre service; and
19.2.1 Note that tender documentation and the tender evaluation process will cover appropriate key criteria derived from the consultation referred to in this report.
21. APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO WATER MANAGEMENT ZONE COMMITTEE SELECTION WORKING GROUPS
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council reappoint two elected members each to the Christchurch-West Melton and Selwyn- Waihora Selection Working Groups.
22. CHRISTCHURCH STADIUM TRUST FUNDING APPLICATION
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:
22.1 Agree to fund the Christchurch Stadium Trust in the sum of $2,000,000 in the form of a loan agreement to purchase leased temporary seating in order to secure the operation of the Temporary Stadium for an extended period up to 31 December 2022. 10 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 8 -
22 Cont’d
22.2 The terms of the loan include but are not limited to:
The loan shall commence not later than 1 December 2014 and shall expire on 31 December 2022 or such earlier date as the Christchurch Stadium Trust is wound up.
The loan shall be interest free with principal payments made to a minimum of 60% of the value of the loan ($1,200,000) as soon as is reasonably possible but no later than 31 December 2022 or such earlier date as the Christchurch Stadium Trust is wound up.
The loan will be secured over the assets of the Christchurch Stadium Trust by way of a third ranking General Security Agreement.
Upon winding up of the Christchurch Stadium Trust, the Trust will repay the remaining balance of the loan. The final repayment to be determined according to the available assets of the Trust at the time. Any outstanding balance will be written off by the Council.
The Christchurch Stadium Trust and the Council may agree to repayment of part of the loan in kind. For example, the Christchurch Stadium Trust may transfer the corporate boxes and/or other assets to the Council on expiry of the loan. Any such assets will be transferred at an agreed value as at the date of expiry of the loan.
Christchurch Stadium Trust will recognise the Council’s contribution in promotional material.
22.3. Allocate the sum of $2,000,000 from Council’s Building and Infrastructure Allowance to fund the Christchurch Stadium Trust purchase of leased temporary seating.
22.4 Resolve that the proceeds of repayment of the loan be returned to the Building and Infrastructure Allowance Fund.
22.5 Recognise that Council’s support for the purchase of temporary seating is based upon assurances received from the Christchurch Stadium Trust that it will use its best endeavours to obtain all consents and other authorisations necessary to operate the Stadium on the Addington site during the term of loan.
22.6 Confer upon Council’s Recreation and Sports Manager the delegated authority to make such arrangements on Council’s behalf as are necessary to give effect to this resolution and ensure that the Councils interests are appropriately protected.
23. RECREATION AND SPORTING HUB AT NGA PUNA WAI SPECIAL CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the Council:
23.1 Approve:
23.1.1 The Statement of Proposal (with further minor editorial additions to be made by staff of a contents section, pages numbers etc); and
23.1.2 The Summary of Information, which the Council determines is necessary to enable better public understanding of the proposal, for the proposed Recreation and Sporting Hub at Nga Puna Wai (attached to this report as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively). 11 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 25. 9. 2014 - 9 -
23 Cont’d
23.2 Determine in accordance with section 41(9) of the Reserves Act 1977 that the proposed amendment to the Nga Puna Wai and Canterbury Agricultural Park Management Plan 010 relating to the proposed recreation and sporting hub development on Nga Puna Wai attached to this report as Attachment 3 constitutes a non-comprehensive review of the management plan; and
23.2.1 Pursuant to section 41(5A) of the Reserves Act 1977 that written suggestions on the proposed amendment to the management plan would not materially assist in its preparation; and
23.2.2 The process for consultation on the proposed amendment of the management plan be the process provided for in section 41(6) of the Reserves Act 1977.
23.3 Approve for consultation purposes the proposed amendment to the Nga Puna Wai and Canterbury Agricultural Park Management Plan 2010 relating to the proposed recreation and sporting hub development on Nga Puna Wai attached to this report as Attachment 3.
23.4 Approve the timelines and decision making process for the Special Consultative Procedure incorporating the management plan amendment consultation required under the Reserves Act, as detailed in section 2.6 of this report.
23.5 Appoint a Hearings Panel to consider submissions on the proposed Recreation and Sporting Hub at Nga Puna Wai and the proposed amendment to the management plan and report back to Council no later than April 2015.
24. REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND EMPLOYMENT MATTERS COMMITTEE MEETING OF 18 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report be received.
28. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
29. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 377 of the agenda be adopted.
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the public be readmitted at 2.52pm.
39. CONCLUSION
The meeting concluded at 2.52pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
MAYOR 12 13
MINUTES
MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.30AM ON THURSDAY 2 OCTOBER 2014
PRESENT: Lianne Dalziel, The Mayor, (Chairperson). Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Raf Manji, Tim Scandrett and Andrew Turner.
1. APOLOGIES
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Jones.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the apology be accepted.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.
3. ADOPTION OF THE REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE 2013 – 2016 COUNCIL TERM
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the Council:
3.1 Adopt the draft terms of reference for the Committees of Council outlined in Appendix 2 in the report.
3.2 Agree that the Chairs and Committees refine these Terms of Reference over the next three months.
3.3 Agree that Committees develop Terms of Reference and appoint membership for their subordinate bodies
3.4 Adopt the Schedule of Meetings in Appendix 3 in principle, delegate authority to the Governance and Civic Services Manager to make changes as necessary to meet circumstances as required and instruct the Governance and Civic Services Manager to:
3.4.1 Swap the monthly meetings of Communities, Housing and Economic Development and Strategy and Finance Committees.
3.4.2 To start the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meetings at 8am.
3.4.3 Agree that the Regulatory and Consents Committee hold an extraordinary meeting from 12-1pm on 9 October 2014 to ensure that the IANZ report is received.
3.4.4 Note that the activity management plans timetable is indicative only and that the Monday sessions will not start until 10am to allow time for the council informal sessions.
3.4.5 Agree that the quorum for the District Plan Subcommittee be 3 members
3.5 Agree that subordinate bodies will not have regular meetings but will meet as and when required.
3.6 Note that where Committees may appear to have overlapping issues, the Chairpersons will determine which Committee takes the lead. 14 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 2. 10. 2014 - 2 -
4. POSSIBLE DELEGATIONS TO COMMITTEES AND COMMUNITY BOARDS
4.1 It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor East, that Council hold a workshop to discuss possible delegations to and terms of reference of committees, subordinate decision making bodies, and community boards, matters relating to the reporting process of Committees and Community Boards to the Council, how deputations are received, including but not limited to:
4.1.1 The types of powers the Council wishes to delegate to committees and community boards; and
4.1.2 The allocation of delegated powers between the Committees and the Community Boards.
4.2 Any previous delegations made by the Council this term to the Community Committee be given to the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee.
5. COUNCIL SUBMISSIONS ON THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN – STAGE 1
Councillor Buck moved, seconded by Councillor Manji, that the Council:
5.1 Approve the submissions included in Attachment 1 as submissions to be made by the Council on the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan, Stage One, except; i. Delete Submission No. 31 in the Definitions Chapter – New Submissions table (Page 911 ).
5.2 Approve the submissions in the Additional Table of Residential Chapter and Natural Hazard Chapter Submissions tabled at the Council meeting on the 25 September 2014, as additional submissions to be made by the Council on the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
5.3 That relevant master plans that contain urban design provisions will be added to the submission.
5.4 That the Council include an overarching statement of commitment to quality urban design in the rebuild of the city to reflect the community’s aspirations for the city as proposed through the stage 1 chapters of the proposed District Plan.
Councillor Johanson moved by way of amendment
5.5 That the Council remove the proposed submissions in regards to the reduced notification regarding the outline development plans.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Lonsdale and on being put to the meeting was declared carried.
The substantive motion as amended when put to the meeting was declared carried.
6. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
At 11.27 am, it was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on page 41 of the agenda be adopted.
15 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 2. 10. 2014 - 3 -
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the public be readmitted at 12.37 pm.
8. CONCLUSION
The meeting concluded at 12.40 pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
MAYOR
16 17
MINUTES
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HELD AT 9.36AM ON THURSDAY 9 OCTOBER 2014
PRESENT: The Mayor (Chairperson) Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, Phil Clearwater, Pauline Cotter, David East, Jamie Gough, Yani Johanson, Glenn Livingstone, Paul Lonsdale, Raf Manji and Andrew Turner.
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ali Jones and Tim Scandrett.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor East, that the apologies be accepted.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil
Councillor Raf Manji arrived at 9.40am.
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
3.1 LINCOLN HARRISON AND TIM MARSHALL OF ST THOMAS OF CANTERBURY COLLEGE
Messrs Harrison and Marshall, students from St Thomas’s College, addressed the Council regarding the school’s success at the Prime Minister’s Excellence in Education awards.
It was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, to write to St. Thomas of Canterbury College to congratulate the school on its social enterprise initiative and its success at the Prime Minister’s Excellence in Education awards.
4. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Nil.
25. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO THE MEETING
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Scandrett seconded by Councillor Turner, that the information in the supplementary agenda, in relation to clause 18 of the substantive agenda, be received and considered at this meeting.
5. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE AKAROA / WAIREWA COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 13 AUGUST 2014
Pam Richardson, Chairman, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor East, that the report be received.
18 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 9. 10. 2014 - 2 -
6. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE LYTTELTON / MT HERBERT COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 20 AUGUST 2014
Paula Smith, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Clearwater, that the report be received.
7. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE BURWOOD / PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 1 SEPTEMBER 2014
Councillor East spoke to items 7 and 8.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor East, seconded by Councillor Livingstone, that the report be received.
8. REPORT OF THE BURWOOD / PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 15 SEPTEMBER 2014
(1.) DEED OF LICENCE – VELOCITY KARTS LIMITED AT BEXLEY RESERVE
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor East, that the Council:
1.1 Approve the granting of a Deed of Licence to Velocity Karts Limited for a period of five years, with one right of renewal for a further five years, to enable Velocity Karts Limited to construct and maintain BloKart and Drift Kart courses within a prescribed area of 15,000 square metres of Bexley Reserve being part of Rural Section 5854 as fee simple contained in Certificate of Titles 192/211 and 40A/84 in the Canterbury Electronic Land Registry.
1.2 Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms of the Licence including the determination of any right of renewal of the Licence being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Licence being complied with.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Livingstone, seconded by Councillor East, that the report as a whole be adopted excluding subclause 14 (Burwood Landfill Resource Recovery Park Development), which should be reported back to the Council for a decision on 23 October 2014.
9. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE FENDALTON / WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 1 SEPTEMBER 2014
Val Carter, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of items 9 and 10.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Manji, seconded by Councillor Gough, that the report be received.
10. REPORT OF FENDALTON / WAIMAIRI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 15 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Gough, seconded by Councillor Manji, that the report be received.
19 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 9. 10. 2014 - 3 -
11. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE HAGLEY / FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2014
Sara Templeton, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of items 11, 12 and 18.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Lonsdale, seconded by Councillor Johanson that:
11.1 The report be received.
11.2 The Council inform the Christchurch Central Development Unit that it wishes to be involved in the decision making around the naming of any public realm spaces within the central city.
12. REPORT OF THE HAGLEY / FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Lonsdale, that the report be received.
18. REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE HAGLEY / FERRYMEAD COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 1 OCTOBER 2014
(1.) ELECTED MEMBERS’ INFORMATION EXCHANGE
1.1 SUMNER LIBRARY, COMMUNITY FACILITY AND MUSEUM
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Johanson, seconded by Councillor Scandrett, that the Council delegate authority to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to establish a Joint Working Group for the Sumner Library, Community Facility and Museum rebuild.
13. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RICCARTON / WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 2 SEPTEMBER 2014
Mike Mora, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of items 13 and 14.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Chen, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the report be received.
14. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON / WIGRAM COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 16 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Buck, seconded by Councillor Chen, that:
14.1 The report be received.
14.2 Staff be asked to work with sports organisations which are interested in the development of a facility in the “Knights Stream” subdivision.
15. REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE SHIRLEY / PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2014
Mike Davidson, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of items 15 and 16.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the report be received.
20 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 9. 10. 2014 - 4 -
16. REPORT OF THE SHIRLEY / PAPANUI COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2014
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor East, that
16.1 The report be received
16.2 Staff be requested to update the Shirley/Papanui Community Board with information about earlier plans to upgrade the community facility on Colombo Street and how the commitment of funds to the Council budget was addressed.
17. REPORT OF THE SPREYDON / HEATHCOTE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETING OF 2 SEPTEMBER 2014
Paul McMahon, Chairperson, joined the table for discussion of this item.
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Turner, that the report be received.
19. NOTICES OF MOTION
Nil.
20. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
At 10.40am, it was resolved on the motion of the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Buck, that the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 86 and 87 of the agenda, be adopted.
CONFIRMED THIS 23 DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
MAYOR
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 21
CE Report - #18
FOREWORD
This Report has been split into two sections: Part A provides information and updates about Core Council Services. Part B provides information and updates on the Recovery and Rebuild.
At the start of this Report, a ‘dashboard’ has been created to provide an overview of the organisation’s performance against its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This ‘dashboard’ will continue to evolve.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As this report will show, rebuild and recovery efforts continue to gain momentum around the city. The rebuild of the city’s major and community facilities is progressing well and within budget.
Although the Draft Long Term Plan (LTP) preparation has been behind schedule, it is now progressing well. The LTP will remain a priority for staff over the next two months in order to meet the December 2014 deadline.
The Council received more than 250 media enquiries during the month. Key topics of interest are included in Part A of this report. The number of LGOIMA enquiries is on the increase.
In today’s Public Excluded agenda, there is a report on the Dudley Creek work programme and options for responding to the increased flood risk – ‘Dudley Creek Post Earthquake Remediation Option Recommendation’. For completeness, it is timely to include an update on the overall Flood Management programme. This update is included in Part B of this report.
The Chief Executive continued to attend key events throughout the month. A particular highlight was the Christchurch Employers’ Chamber of Commerce AGM. The Chief Executive, as the guest speaker, reflected on her ‘First 100 Days’ in her role at the Council, and the challenges the organisation has experienced both internally and externally.
The Council continues to work collaboratively with local Government agencies to inform residents on land issues in their area. The ‘In the Know’ Land Information Hub, provided residents with an opportunity to seek information about their land, ask questions and gain a better understanding of how local Government agencies are working together to solve land issues throughout the region.
2. RECOMMENDATION
That the information contained in this report be received.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 22
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 23
PART A - CORE SERVICES UPDATE
1. FINANCIAL
Operating Expenditure September 2014 year-to-date expenditure was $119 million, $20 million less than planned. The variance remains largely timing, relating to heritage grants, the prioritisation process being undertaken for Housing which is delaying repairs, and the Port Hills Mass Movement resolution. Revenue of $106 million is $1 million below plan and is also considered a timing variance. A cash operating shortfall of $4.2 million is forecast, largely due to unbudgeted hearing costs relating to the District Plan Review.
Capital Expenditure The September 2014 year-to-date spend was $139 million, $84 million less than planned. Of the shortfall, $33 million relates to the normal capital works programme which is considered to be timing difference and will be on track by year end. The balance of $51 million relates to the rebuild, which is forecast to grow to a shortfall of $253 million by June 2015, significantly more than the $90 million forecast last month. The $161 million change is due to a reassessment of the forecast for the year, particularly in the facilities rebuild, ($61 million change) and non SCIRT ($22 million) areas. In addition, SCIRT has updated its forecast and now expects $53 million under delivery this year. The following major projects are also not expected to be completed this year: Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant, wells, Performing Arts Precinct, South West and Central libraries, Art Gallery and parking. It is expected that this work will be carried forward to 2015 / 16.
Year to Date Results For ecast Year En d Resul ts ($m) Actual Pl an Variance Forecast Plan Variance Council Activities Expenditure 108. 9 114.3 -5.4 475. 5 472. 8 2.7 Revenues and Funding -101. 0 -97. 1 -3.9 -454. 2 -455. 7 1.5 Borrowing required 15. 7 17. 2 -1.5 17. 1 17. 1 -0.0 Ratepayer cash operati ng shortfall (sur pl us) -7.8 - -7.8 4. 2 -0.0 4.2
Capital Programme Expenditure 23. 3 55. 9 -32. 6 213. 8 212.9 0.9 Revenues and Funding -24. 8 -22. 6 -2.2 -104. 5 -103. 7 -0.8 Borr owing requir ed -1.5 33. 3 -34. 8 109. 3 109. 2 0.1
Earthquake Rebuild Expenditure 115. 4 166.4 -51. 0 862. 1 1114. 8 -252. 7 Recoveries and Funding -105. 7 -167. 0 61. 3 -548. 6 -715. 3 166.7 Borr owing requir ed 9. 6 -0.7 10. 3 313. 5 399. 5 -86. 0
Earthquake Response Expenditure 10. 1 23. 4 -13. 3 88. 9 97. 3 -8.3 Recoveries and Funding -5.0 -9.8 4. 8 -32. 1 -36. 5 4.4 Borrowing required 5.1 13.6 -8.5 56.8 60.8 -3.9
Total New Borrowing Required 28. 9 63. 4 -34. 5 496. 7 586. 5 -89. 9
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 24
2. LEVELS OF SERVICE
Service Delivery (Levels of Service (LOS) Progress Report) The most recent data on Levels of Service (30 September 2014), shows 85.3% of LOS on target. This is consistent with Council trend line results over years. Most directorates are above the 85% mark, the exception being Building Control. However results in this area are showing improvement.
Customer Services The Council received 55,882 calls for September 2014 in the Call Centre and achieved a Service Level of 66%. The Year-To-Date result is 67%.
This month, the Council began operating a 'blended' model with Call Centre and walk-in customer teams to provide a transparent, collective, ‘one team’ approach to the way the Council manages customers for the organisation.
In September 2014, the new Hornby Service Desk provided service on Thursdays and Fridays, processing 111 interactions for the month, averaging 14 per day.
Civic, Linwood and Shirley customer desks were the busiest this month due to area rates, which were due on 15 September 2014. The network processed 9799 transactions for the month, against 8979 for September 2013.
The Council received 3,079 emails in the info@ccc inbox. This was down on last month where 3,947 emails through info@ccc were received.
Online Channels Visits to the Council corporate website were up on last month. The Council received 202,092 visits during September 2014. The top pages included the property rates search (75,927 page views), home page (54,428 page views), and search results page (40,969 page views). The majority of visitors (80%) found the Council website via Google and over 25% of our visitors use a mobile device to access ccc.govt.nz online.
Current campaigns and consultations: District Plan (http://proposeddistrictplan.ccc.govt.nz): 11,686 visitors, 6,205 unique visits, 99,211 page views. Accessible Cities: 513 page views on the Accessible Cities landing page, 159 page views for the Accessible Cities ‘Have Your Say’ page.
On social media: an increase of 435 likes on Facebook brings the total number of likes to 9,225. On Twitter, 123 new followers brings the total number of followers to 8,262. The top post on Facebook was an invitation to the public opening of NZ IceFest which reached 28.1k people on 25 September 2014.
3. KEY PROCESSES
Long Term Plan (LTP) Process Update The LTP process as a whole is later than usual, but the streamlined approach for dealing with Activity Management Plans (AMPs) is working. To date, around a third of AMPs have been considered by the Council, and the majority have been within the financial parameters set by the Council and Executive Leadership Team.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 25
There are three areas of risk in the LTP process at present. The first is the development of a well-aligned and phased capital programme. The majority of AMPs to be considered in November 2014 will be infrastructure-oriented. At the same time, the first draft of the capital programme will be considered by Council on 10 and 11 November 2014. This timing is intentional to help drive alignment between capital projects being considered, and the operational performance standards that they will enable.
The second risk is the Council's Financial Strategy. There will need to be specific direction to staff in December 2014, to enable the preparation of a detailed draft LTP for the end January 2015.
Finally, there will need to be a streamlined process for development and sign-off of the Consultation Document for the draft LTP. Changes to the Local Government Act make this document critical. Its format and content must comply with a wide range of legal requirements, while at the same time meeting Council's objectives in engaging with the community. It will be complex, but provided a clear approval process is in place, it will be delivered in time for the draft LTP.
Building Consent and Re-accreditation Update
Timeframes Accepted Granted
15 – 19 September 2014 207 177
22 – 26 September 2014 187 187
29 Sept – 3 October 2014 216 174
6 – 10 October 2014 207 174
As at 13 October 2014, the Council had 568 building consents in progress with 771 on hold. All applications that are on hold are where Requests for Further Information (RFIs) have been made of applicants.
Accreditation A pre-IANZ visit by members of MBIE, to audit the Council’s Corrective Actions and Strong Recommendations, was undertaken from 13-15 October 2014. This pre-visit should confirm that the Council is on the right track to regain its Accreditation by the end of 2014.
Since 15 September 2014, the Council has undertaken its own internal audits on the new procedures, including technical aspects. These audits have identified areas needing attention, but have also been very encouraging.
Inspections The Inspections Scheduling Team is receiving up to 320 in-bound calls each day. From these calls, approximately 230 inspections are being booked daily.
A total of 4722 inspections were undertaken in the month of September 2014 compared to 4603 in August 2014. This figure is made up of 551 Commercial Inspections and 4171 Residential Inspections. As at 13 October 2014, the Council has undertaken 1629 inspections. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 26
The current inspection timeframe is down from an average of 6.1 days in September 2014 to approximately 5.4 days.
4. PEOPLE
Organisational Change On 1 October 2014, the Asset and Networks Unit Final Decision was announced. IM&CT and the Office of the Chief Executive are also undergoing structural review. The outcomes of the organisation-wide restructuring process will enable the Council to prioritise its focus on the rebuild, develop relationships with key city partners and the community, and address the organisation’s financial challenges.
People and Culture Committee On 30 September 2014, the Chief Executive was joined by more than 40 Council colleagues and one Councillor at the People and Culture Committee workshop. The purpose of this two-hour session was to enable all those who volunteered to be on the Committee to express their views and ideas on how the organisation can work more collaboratively, efficiently and effectively. Small group discussions generated a wide range of suggestions and ideas on how and where improvements could be made. A recurring theme was strengthening relationships; both internally and externally. The outcomes from the workshop will be used to inform the first People and Culture Committee, due to take place in November 2014. This Committee comprises 13 staff members representing all levels of the organisation, and two Councillors.
Visits by the Chief Executive Over the last month, the Chief Executive has continued to visit Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) businesses. Most recently, the Chief Executive visited Eco Central, and was given a tour of the facility by Eco Central Chief Executive Bob Lineham.
On 24 September 2014, the Chief Executive and Mayor attended a Trans Tasman Business Conference along with key Canterbury business leaders. Both the Mayor and Chief Executive spoke at the event about the lessons learnt during Christchurch’s recovery, the challenges the Council now faces as the rebuild gains momentum, and the organisation’s long-term vision and aspirations for the city as it develops its Long Term Plan.
On 27 September 2014, the Chief Executive attended the formal opening of NZ IceFest, one of the major Council events which celebrates Christchurch’s link with Antarctica. This festival was named by The Press as the number one activity for families of all ages to enjoy over the school holidays. Throughout the festival, media coverage was positive.
During the month, the Chief Executive was given a behind-the-scenes tour of Canterbury Museum by Director, Anthony Wright. The tour provided an insight into the challenges the Museum now faces post-earthquakes, particularly with regards to the storage of precious artefacts and taonga.
On 7 October 2014, the Chief Executive attended AECOM’s Christchurch Connected Forum, an opportunity for leaders, thinkers and decision-makers to discuss the critical issues at play as Christchurch rebuilds.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 27
Shaun Hubbard, AECOM Regional Manager South Island, was the host for this interactive discussion and the panellists included: Peter Townsend – Chief Executive, Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Don Miskell – General Manager, Christchurch Central Design and Planning, CERA Tony Sewell – Chief Executive, Ngāi Tahu Property
On 9 October 2014, the Chief Executive was the guest speaker at the Christchurch Employers’ Chamber of Commerce AGM. She spoke on her ‘First 100 Days’ and reflected on the challenges the Council has experienced both internally and externally since beginning in her role as Chief Executive in June 2014.
5. MEDIA
From 12 September 2014 to 10 October 2014, the Council’s Media Manager received 259 media enquiries. Of these enquiries, the key topics of interest included:
Follow-up questions regarding the COO/FIR organisational restructure. A number of media outlets followed this story and wanted to know how many people had been disestablished, received redundancy payouts and left the Council as a result of the restructure. The spokesperson for these enquiries was Jane Parfitt (OPG).
LGOIMA response for Lois Cairns from The Press about the cost of consultants in organisational restructuring since October 2013, how much redundancy has been paid out and the expected savings as a result of the restructure. The spokesperson for this enquiry was Jane Parfitt who carried out interviews and provided written responses for a number of media outlets (OPG).
LGOIMA response for Lois Cairns from The Press regarding ratepayer arrears. She wanted to know if rates arrears were a concern; specifically, she wanted to know when the Council decides to write-off unpaid rates and what steps the Council is taking to reduce the financial pressure on ratepayers. A number of media followed this story. Peter Gudsell was the spokesperson for this enquiry (FCG).
The Council received an enquiry on its plans to convert some of the land at the Jellie Park Sport and Recreation Centre into parking. This enquiry followed a report that went to the Fendalton-Waimairi Community Board. Residents are calling this "environmental degradation" and have drafted a petition opposing this plan. The spokesperson for this enquiry was John Filsell (OPG).
LGOIMA response for Radio New Zealand regarding P-card spending. Radio New Zealand requested the P-card spending figures for the 12 months prior to October 2013. A number of media outlets picked up on this story. Karleen Edwards was the spokesperson for this enquiry (OCE).
There were a number of queries about the traffic sheep installed in High Street as part of the High Street Transitional Project. Carolyn Ingles was the spokesperson for this enquiry (SPG).
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 28
The Council received a number of media enquiries and interview requests regarding NZ IceFest. Chloe Dear, IceFest Director, was the spokesperson for these enquiries (OCE).
The Council received a number of media stories regarding horizontal infrastructure funding and the state of the city’s roads. David Adamson was the spokesperson for these enquiries (FIR).
The Council received a media enquiry about Lyttelton Port Company CEO Peter Davie's salary increase. Raf Manji was the spokesperson for this enquiry (Councillor).
The Press published a story about pollution in the Heathcote River and asked what the Council is doing about the pollution. Mark Christison was the spokesperson for this enquiry (OPG).
The Council received several queries about the foetus found at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, following a media release issued by the Police. The Council advised that it was working closely with Police on this matter and that no further comment was available as it was a police investigation.
LGOIMA response for Lois Cairns at The Press related to the cost of couriering agendas and reports to Councillors and Community Board members over the last financial year. Peter Mitchell, Acting Unit Manger Governance and Civic Services, was the spokesperson for this enquiry (OCE).
6. CDC REPORT
CDC has engaged with the Council over its Economic Development Activity Management Plan. This process is working well with both staff and Councillors. CDC is considering its role in the Antarctic strategy, education / workforce, and suburban community economic development.
CDC briefed ECan on the regional Digital Strategy progress which went very well. CDC has been asked to appear at the next Mayoral Forum to provide a further update.
CDC is preparing a six-monthly economic update presentation to a wide regional audience and media. There is a lot of interest in the economic information that CDC is preparing.
CDC met with Marc Jacobs of Treasury who has replaced Tom Hall. This was a positive meeting about the way forward for the city and the rebuild.
CDC held a positive briefing session with City Councillors by the Chair and Chief Executive. The focus of the session was on CDC activity and success in securing external funding streams.
A working group is forming with CIAL, CCT and others on developing an overall Visitor Strategy for the city.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 29
CDC is working with MBIE and Immigration NZ on an ‘Immigration Islands’ campaign to attract skilled technology migrants to New Zealand in general, and Christchurch specifically.
Nurturing home grown talent - this is the next phase of the technology sector workforce plan and aims to encourage more young people to take study options that allow them to access careers in technology. There is a working group ‘kick off’ session is scheduled for October 2014.
ICT Grad School (MBIE initiative) – CDC is facilitating engagement with the business sector around this local tertiaries bid for this function. There is a high level of interest from the technology sector in the program, and CDC is hopeful that a joint industry and education bid will result.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 30
PART B - REBUILD AND RECOVERY
1. INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE
Overall delivery of the SCIRT programme is approximately 51% complete with design of the programme approximately 80% and construction delivery approximately 45% complete.
Currently there are 148 projects totalling $754.1 million being constructed.
Work in the central city is approximately 71% complete. The bulk of the programme in the central city will be completed by December 2014 with construction activity relating to the HI programme starting to decline from July 2015.
Horizontal Infrastructure Spend by Funder (actual data 30 September 2014) (Source: CERA)
To date, the funding partners have contributed the following in relation to the funding caps agreed at Cost Sharing to 31 August 2014:
DIA $205 million of $205 million (100% spent) CERA $643 million of $960 million (67% spent) NZTA $274 million of $635 million (43% spent) CCC $684 million of $1,143 million (60% spent) Total $1,806 million of $2,942 million (61% spent)
The $3,342 million programme minus the $2,942 million agreed at Cost Sharing initially resulted in $399 million of the programme being unfunded. Significant reviews of the Non-SCIRT programme are underway to revise the cost estimate.
Programme Commitments to Date (actual data 30 September 2014) (Source: CERA)
To date, the funding partners have jointly contributed the following in relation to the cost categories to 31 August 2014:
Response (opex) $242 million of $214 million (13% overspent) Temporary repairs (opex) $261 million of $335 million (78% spent) SCIRT $1,215 million of $2,189 million (55% spent) Non-SCIRT $47 million of $553 million (9% spent) Other $41 million of $51 million (80% spent) Total $1,806 million of $3,342 million (53% spent)
$1,806 million of the programme has been spent to-date on the horizontal infrastructure programme to 30 September 2014. This leaves $1,536 million of the $3,342 million Cost Sharing programme estimate remaining.
Physical Works Complete (Please refer to Appendix A) The Physical Works Complete table (Appendix A) identifies progress made on the physical works across the SCIRT programme to-date.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 31
2. FACILITIES REBUILD UPDATE
Anchor Facilities
Hagley Oval/Test Cricket The Canterbury Cricket pavilion, embankment and infrastructure services are all complete apart from some minor finishing work. The final International Cricket Council certification inspection will take place this month. Ahead of the Cricket World Cup in February 2015, the venue will be tested by a series of domestic Twenty20 matches, the Boxing Day test match and a one day game against Sri Lanka.
New Central Library Initial public engagement concluded in May 2014. The outcomes of this process have influenced the design of the new facility. The early design stage (Concept Design) is 90% complete. On completion of this stage, a report / presentation will be provided to Council. A second round of public engagement is proposed on aspects of the design and / or service delivery, further developing public engagement and reinforcing community input to this project. Stakeholder workshops are continuing throughout the design process. Construction is due to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2017.
Performing Arts Precinct The Crown has announced that the Music Centre will begin constructing its new facility in the Precinct this year. Negotiations with the Court Theatre and Christchurch Symphony Orchestra are continuing. Construction could start in late 2014 and be completed by the end of 2017.
Christchurch Town Hall Expressions of Interest closed on 8 October 2014. These responses are currently being evaluated by the Project Team. The Town Hall will go to tender in late 2014 and close in February 2015. Construction will commence mid-2015 with anticipated completion by mid-2018.
Major Facilities Rebuild
Christchurch Art Gallery The Seismic Resilience Contract has been awarded to install base isolation. The overall project remains on schedule for completion in December 2015.
Athletics Track Replacement Nga Puna Wai, near the showgrounds, is the preferred location for the proposed all-weather athletics track to replace athletics facilities lost at QEII. A Master Plan and preliminary investigation is complete. A Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) is being undertaken.
Eastern Pool and Aquatic Centre Following the decision that the QEII site was preferred for the new facility, a feasibility study will be reported back to the Council by April 2015, through the Burwood Pegasus Community Board in conjunction with other Boards as appropriate.
Christchurch Provincial Council Buildings and Our City O-Tautahi Ensuring these buildings are safe and weather-tight is ongoing and almost complete. Full damage assessments and insurance claim resolution is ongoing. Final agreement on the scope of work, budget and timing is yet to be confirmed. A COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 32
preliminary, high-level estimate of costs will be prepared and presented to Council. This estimate will identify the additional funds that may be required to repair and restore the Christchurch Provincial Council Building and Our City O-Tautahi, in excess of anticipated insurance proceeds.
South West Area Hub - New South West Library and Service Centre An initial site selection investigation is currently underway. This will be reviewed to go to the Community Board, before being presented to Council.
Community Facilities Rebuild
The Council approval of more than $40 million to fast-track the repair and rebuild of ‘priority’ community and heritage facilities across the city and Banks Peninsula, has meant the Community Facilities Rebuild Unit can now accelerate the repair and rebuild of key community and suburban facilities.
Work is underway allocating Project Managers to each of the priority projects and to accelerate the programme. A tender has been undertaken to put in place a series of builders / contractors for work up to $500k. This will enable quick matching of projects and builders.
A draft programme for each of the priority projects has been prepared and this will be discussed with the CHED Committee on 16 October 2014, and will form the basis of monthly progress reporting.
With summer on its way, a number of pools are due to reopen, namely Norman Kirk Pool Lyttelton, Waltham Pool and Scarborough Paddling Pool.
Work is well advanced on the new eight Social Housing Units being built at Knightsbridge Lane; these are due to open February 2015.
Suburban Master Plans
Ferry Road The final adopted Master Plan has been printed and distributed to key stakeholders. The Capital Programme Group has been briefed regarding the planned streetscape improvements for Woolston. Detailed design is underway.
Main Road The Hearings Panel met on 29 July 2014 to deliberate on the submissions received. Staff have provided additional information to the Panel and are preparing revisions to the draft Master Plan in response to the submissions and directions from the Panel. The schedule is for deliberations to be completed in October 2014, with the Panel’s recommendations for finalising the Master Plan to be reported back to Council for adoption.
New Brighton Staff are continuing to make good progress in preparing final amendments to the Master Plan. Also relevant to the Master Plan is the New Brighton Legacy Project / hot salt water pool, for which the Council has allocated $5M. The Council’s Major Facilities Rebuild Unit is overseeing this project and the EOI process to find a potential project partner. The EOI process closed on 24 September 2014.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 33
Lyttelton Construction of Albion Square remains on schedule for completion in late October 2014 in all respects, except for the carved waharoa. Difficulty sourcing appropriate timber has meant that this will not be able to be installed until mid-to-late January 2015. On 24 September 2014, approximately 20 children (representing all classrooms) from Lyttelton Main School were involved in the construction, and helped plant the planters under the pergola on the paved lower terrace. The official opening is scheduled for 2.00pm on Saturday 8 November 2014, and a committee consisting of Lyttelton / Mt Herbert Community Board members and relevant staff has been established to progress its organisation. Staff continue to work with the Lyttelton Historical Museum Society regarding possible sites and planning requirements applicable to re-establish the museum. Submissions received to-date on the proposed District Plan include a number in support of the proposed provision for the Lyttelton Farmers' Market on London St.
Linwood The transitional street works are completed with the installation of solar cubes, planters, bike stands, rose arbours, play balls and street painting. Works on the public toilets are ongoing with the old toilet block having been demolished and the new toilet block being installed. This work is scheduled to be completed by the end of October 2014. The upgrade to the landscaping in Doris Lusk Park has been completed. Funding has also been awarded to the community to investigate the potential for a market to be established in the area. The community is also looking at creating a community café on a vacant site on Stanmore Road. A giraffe sculpture as part of the Wild in Art event ‘Christchurch Stands Tall’ and sponsored by the Council, is to be installed from November 2014 to end of January 2015 in Doris Lusk Park.
Sydenham Agreement has been reached with adjoining property owners to reconfigure Buchan Park as part of the proposed remodel, and a report will be presented to Council shortly. The Artbeat event, ‘First Thursdays’, held on 2 October 2014 was partly funded by the Community Board. This event was a great success with many people attending the range of events and visiting many venues during the evening. This event was organised in collaboration with the Sydm Qtr Business and Community Association. The road corridor review is underway and should be completed by early 2015.
Transitional Projects Linwood Village Street works are complete. A street mural for New Brighton by local artist Marie Ockleford has been installed.
Two projects for the Central City are currently being finalised:
High Street: Hoarding artwork is completed, together with the landscaping for the DOC Visitor Centre site. New transitional planters and seats and a new Ngāi Tahu transitional artwork/sculpture has been installed at the intersection of Cashel Street and High Street. Colourful traffic sheep have also been installed in various locations to help manage traffic in the pedestrian areas. The project had its official opening by the Mayor on the 26 September 2014. On-street parking layout and traffic calming work is being reviewed, following comments received from High Street businesses, and installation will be completed in these areas in the next month. The DOC Visitor Centre building COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 34
and a jointly funded ‘green wall’ (part of the 2015 Transitional Programme) to the rear of the DOC site, is due to be delivered in November 2014.
Worcester Street: Solar pavers have been installed in the footpath between Manchester Street and Latimer Square. Solar bollards have been installed within the landscaped area at the intersection of Worcester/Manchester Streets. More traffic sheep were installed along the route and road painting completed. The whole project was completed by 17 October 2014.
The new 2014/15 Central City Transitional Work Programme is being developed and new projects are being scoped.
Coastal Pathway A stakeholder and local resident workshop for the developed design of the Beachville Road section at Redcliffs was held on 16 September 2014. Discussions have also taken place with the Mount Pleasant Yacht Club and Canterbury Windsports Association, regarding finalising the alignment around the vehicular entrance to Scott Park.
Urban Renewal Projects Funding has been allocated towards outdoor public areas, such as showers and seating, as part of the Sumner Life Surf Club rebuild and the Scarborough aquatic play facility, to provide additional facilities such as picnic benches and shades to enhance the public space as part of the rebuild.
Funding has been set aside to assist the community fundraising efforts for the Merivale Reserve upgrade. Investigations into the lighting of historic buildings are underway to enhance their presence in the evenings.
The remainder of the 2014/15 Urban Renewal Work Programme is being developed and new projects are being scoped.
An Accessible City There are three key areas of work underway as part of the An Accessible City work programme: the Public Realm Network Plan, the Christchurch Central Parking Plan and the First Phase Transport Projects. An update on each of these work streams is summarised below.
Public Realm Network Plan: The draft Public Realm Network Plan has been prepared and the Project Team is undertaking a stakeholder engagement process before it is workshopped with elected representatives, and reported to Council.
Christchurch Central Parking Plan: A draft Parking Plan has been prepared and a public workshop on the draft Parking Plan was held with the Environment Committee on 9 September 2014, with around 75 participants. The draft Parking Plan will go to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for endorsement, with feedback from the workshop.
First Phase Transport Projects: The first phase Transport Projects have been prioritised to align with the delivery of early key Anchor Projects, especially the bus interchange due to open in April 2015. Public consultation on Transport Projects for Hospital Corner and Hagley / Moorhouse Corner and surrounding streets closed on 8 September 2014. A summary of responses and recommendations for scheme refinements is being prepared for consideration by the new Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 35
Consultation on further Transport Projects for Colombo Street, Lichfield Street and Tuam Street opened on 17 September 2014 and closed on 8 October 2014. Four public drop-in sessions are planned through the consultation period. A briefing with the Hagley / Ferrymead Community Board was held on 15 September 2014, prior to consultation commencing. A report is expected to be prepared for Committee and Council on this consultation feedback during November 2014.
3. FLOOD MANAGEMENT
An update on the overall Flood Management Programme is presented in the attached diagram (Appendix B) which shows individual work programmes against a timeline for delivery.
The earthquakes have had a significant impact on the both the built and natural surface water network and the patterns of flooding have changed dramatically in some parts of the city hence the programme spans policy and planning, new infrastructure and repair, and operation and maintenance of the existing stormwater network and flood protection works.
The Key Workstreams include: a. Implementation of the recommendations of the Mayoral Task Force b. Implementation of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) c. District Plan Review – the Natural Hazards chapter has been notified d. Development of Stormwater Management Plans for the Avon, Heathcote and Estuary and obtaining a global consent for stormwater discharges e. Development of a policy framework for the properties at risk of frequent flooding above the floor following the earthquakes (1 in 10 year event) f. Engaging with EQC on the potential for joint funding of area wide catchment management and flood protection works g. Implementation of those aspects of the SCIRT work programme that enhance flood protection.
With regard to the District Plan Review, the Notification of the Replacement District Plan Natural Hazards Chapter occurred in July 2014 and submissions closed on 8 October 2014. Hearings will begin in December 2014 with the first decisions due on 28 February 2015. The District Plan is proposed to become fully operative in March 2016.
4. PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS
In the Know – Land Information Hub On 7 October 2014, EQC in partnership with the Council launched the ‘In the Know’ Land Information Hub. The hub, which ran until 16 October 2014 at the Beulah Church, provided Christchurch residents with information about their land from hazard risks through to flooding issues. In addition to EQC and the Council, the hub was supported by a range of earthquake agencies involved in the rebuild including Environment Canterbury, CanCERN, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and CERA. An important aspect of the hub was to ensure Christchurch residents understood the role each agency plays in the rebuild, and how the agencies are working collaboratively and effectively to solve land issues in the region.
36 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 37
APPENDIX A
2012 Percent Current Percent Estimated Percent Confirmed Percent Network Estimated of Estimated of C onst ruct ion of in Handover of in Total Damage Network in Scope Network Complete Scope Complete Scope Wast ewat er Ret iculat ion Km 1,613 659 41% 659 41% 318 48% 69 10% Pump St at ions (Repair) No. 164 136 83% 71 43% 31 44% 8 11% Pump St at ions (New) No. 30 14 14 47% Pump St at ions (Decommisioned) No. 11 - - 0% Lif t St at ions No. 66 16 18 27%
Wat er Supply Ret iculat ion Km 2,843 69 2% 69 2% 48 70% 48 70% Pump St at ions & Reservoirs No. 220 125 57% 68 31% 29 43% 25 37%
Storm Water Reticulation Km 329 26 8% 26 8% 14 54% 7 27% Pump St at ions (Repair) No. 38 15 39% 7 18% 3 43% 3 43% Pump St at ions (New) No. - 3 0%
Roading Carriageway m2 11,671,807 1,320,375 11% 1,320,375 11% 403,025 31% 295,844 22% Bridges No. 224 149 67% 148 66% 95 64% 89 60% Retaining Walls No. 490 141 29% 219 45% 33 15% 26 12%
Ret aining Walls (Evaluat ed t hrough Design, No Repairs Needed) No. 9 7 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 CLAUSE 6 38
APPENDIX B
Clause 7 39 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
REGULATION AND CONSENTS COMMITTEE 16. 9. 2014
A meeting of the Regulation and Consents Committee was held in Committee Room 1 on 16 September 2014 at 9.05am
PRESENT: Councillor David East (Chairperson) Councillors Tim Scandrett (Deputy Chairperson), Vicki Buck, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones, and Glenn Livingstone
APOLOGIES: An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Glenn Livingstone who arrived at 9.06am and was absent for clauses 1 and 2.
An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Vicki Buck who left the meeting at 9.54am.
The Committee reports that:
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Nil.
3. UPDATE OF THE BUILDING CONTROL AND CITY REBUILD GROUP
The Committee considered the August 2014 update report of the Building Control and City Rebuild Group.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee decided to note the content of this report.
4. MONTHLY REPORT ON RESOURCE CONSENTS
The Committee considered the August 2014 monthly report on resource consents.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Regulation and Consents Committee decided to receive the Monthly Report on Resource Consents for the month of August 2014.
The meeting concluded at 10.18am.
CONSIDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
MAYOR 40 Clause 8 41
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Held in Committee Room 1, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street on 23 September 2014 at 1.03pm.
COMMITTEE: Chair: Sue Sheldon Deputy Chair: Councillor Raf Manji The Mayor, Councillors Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen, David East, Jamie Gough, and Michael Rondel.
IN ATTENDANCE: Dr Karleen Edwards, Chief Executive Officer.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and accepted from Mr Mark Russell.
The Committee reports that:
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
1. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil.
2. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillors Vicki Buck and Jamie Gough declared an interest in item 9 of the public excluded agenda as they are both Board members of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE
3. APOLOGIES
An apology for absence was received and accepted from Mr Mark Russell.
4. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public, as set out on page 3 and 4 of the agenda, be adopted and that Murray Hamilton and Sonja Healey (PricewaterhouseCooper) and Hugh Jory and Julian Tan (Audit New Zealand) be invited to attend for items 6, 7 8 and 9 of the public excluded agenda.
The Committee resolved to readmit the public at 3.16pm
The meeting concluded at 3.17pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
CHAIRPERSON 42 43 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 Clause 9
ENVIROMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
A meeting of the Environmental Committee was held in the No. 1 Committee Room on 23 September 2014 at 9.33am.
PRESENT: Councillor Phil Clearwater (Chairperson) Councillors Jimmy Chen (Deputy Chairperson), Vicki Buck, Pauline Cotter, David East and Tim Scandrett
APOLOGIES: Councillor Buck arrived at the meeting at 9.34am missing clause 7 and left the meeting at 10.54am and so was absent for clause 10 (public excluded item). Councillor East was absent for part of clause 6, from 10.41am to 10.46am. Councillor Cotter was absent for part of clause 10 (public excluded item), from 10.54am to 10.56am. Councillor Chen was absent for part of clause 10 (public excluded item), from 10.55am to 10.58am.
The Environmental Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. CONSTRUCTION SITE HOARDINGS-TEMPORARY USE OF LEGAL ROAD FEE REBATE PROGRAMME
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer, Operations Member responsible: Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager Transport and City Streets Author: Malcolm Park – Road Assets Operations Manager
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 During the Christchurch rebuild, fences and protective hoardings are being progressively erected around major central city construction projects. In many cases these necessarily involve use of part of the adjacent public road space.
1.2 Comment has arisen from developers about the charges for fences and hoardings, levied for the temporary use of legal roads. There have been requests of Council staff to remit charges normally made for this activity.
1.3 The purpose of this report is to explore methods of incentivising developers and contractors to erect hoardings around their building sites that contribute to improved visual appearance, amenity and public information in the central city. This may include reducing the charges currently used for the temporary use of legal roads.
44 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
1 Cont’d
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 There is a degree of community good to be derived from well designed, engaging and informative hoardings fronting building sites in the central city. To encourage the production of such hoardings, a tool box comprising design and technical guidelines and incentives has been prepared. However, it is important to note that any incentives do not encourage occupation of the public realm beyond that which is necessary to facilitate developments.
2.2 This report recommends that authority to rebate or alter a part of the charges, under certain qualifying conditions, be delegated to the Chief Operating Officer.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Public footpaths and roads are occupied for “private” purposes for a variety of reasons, examples including protection of the public from unsafe buildings, hoardings to allow for building works on adjacent land, or where the works involve protrusion above or below footpaths (e.g. verandas, base isolation foundation works), temporary storage and or work space, and short or long term lease of space for partial private use (e.g. tables and chairs for hospitality outlets). This report is focused on situations where public space is occupied and enclosed by hoardings for the purpose of rebuilding in the post-earthquake environment.
3.2 Charges are made for fences and hoardings occupying roads and footpaths where construction companies and developers occupy public space. The Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, Section 20 applies:
“20. USE OF WASTE-TAKER BINS, RECEPTACLES, OR ANY OTHER OBJECT (1) Subject to the sub clause (6), waste-taker bins, similar receptacles or shipping containers or any other object that interferes with the use of a road (not being a vehicle) may be placed on the road if: (a) the person placing the bin, receptacle, shipping container or other object has obtained the prior consent of an authorised officer;”
3.3 The Council’s Charges and Fees schedule of the Three Year Plan (page 170) apply, Temporary use of legal road $7.50 per month (per square metre).
3.4 Applications for temporary hoardings and fences on legal roads are approved and monitored by the Asset Protection Team.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Reason for Charge Hoardings or fences are erected to delineate work sites, protect the public from work site hazards, and protect the developers from incursions by unauthorised persons and unwanted interference with their structures and plant. Fences and hoardings on legal road take up space otherwise available for roads, pedestrian footpaths, cycles and vehicle parking. A charge for the legal road used helps to ensure:
occupied areas of road and footpath are removed from public use for no longer than necessary a minimum area of road and footpath is removed from public use parking availability is disrupted for a minimum of time parking revenue is protected.
45 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
1 Cont’d
4.2 However there are some anomalies and situations which are seen by concerned parties as being unreasonable. For example:
where public (pedestrian) access is not possible because of repair and other works occurring elsewhere on the road space (e.g. Oxford Terrace - Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) and Avon River Precinct works) where public (pedestrian) access is not unduly compromised – e.g. wide pedestrian areas such as Worcester Boulevard, Oxford Terrace (Cashel to Worcester), High and Cashel Malls where the need to occupy public land is a legal requirement - as in the case of a fall zone required for an unsafe building where the Council charges may be seen as a disincentive to retention and repair of an existing building, contrary to other Council policies - e.g. heritage listed buildings.
4.3 Visual Impact of Hoardings Due to their size, solid construction and interface with the public realm, hoardings will have an increasing presence and will impact significantly on the way people experience the city. The look and feel of our city could easily become visually dominated by temporary hoardings, graffiti and a jumble of signage. Hoardings can go beyond simply meeting compliance requirements of the building code, and could tell people about building projects, showcase construction partners, let people safely watch projects take shape, and engage the public in the project and its role in the future of the city.
4.4 Public Benefit The quality and visual impact of hoardings vary from basic plywood fences to colourful painting and design interpretations. The current public benefit of hoardings in the central city is that of pedestrian safety and protection of site works. However, there is the opportunity to use the growing number of hoardings around building sites to further benefit visitors and residents as well as the project. If the hoardings were to provide useful information and enhance the resident and visitor experience, then such efforts could be rewarded by way of fee rebates.
4.5 Eligible Streets It is proposed that the streets within or bounding the 30 kilometre per hour Inner Speed Zone defined in the Accessible City chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (page 6), will be eligible for fee rebates. (See Attachment 1.)
4.6 Rebate Amounts Qualifying hoardings will be eligible for a Temporary Use of Legal Road fee rebate of 50 percent, except that in the case of heritage listed buildings being restored, 100 percent rebate may be given, and fees will be waived when public access along the frontage containing the hoarding is prevented for any period in excess of one month because of road works.
4.7 Programme Life The rebate programme will be initially offered until 30 June 2016 and will be reviewed prior to that date to determine its success and consider whether it should continue in its current form, be amended or cease. 46 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
1 Cont’d
4.8 Qualifying Attributes of enhanced hoardings To qualify for a fee rebate the hoarding shall go beyond compliance with the building code, and fulfil other normal considerations, such as site access requirements, appropriate robustness and site health and safety requirements. Specifically, to qualify for a fee rebate the hoarding shall be designed, such that the hoarding:
4.8.1 includes artwork or features which are creative, playful and engaging overall – creative hoardings build public and local business goodwill for the development, and safeguard the medium to long term positive vision for the area. For the purpose of this programme, branding and corporate logos do not constitute artwork, but can be successfully integrated into the artwork 4.8.2 visually defines the site – clearly showing where a project begins and ends 4.8.3 uses large scale images – helping people visualise their future relationship with the site 4.8.4 showcases the delivery team – communicating a team approach through collated presentation of corporate logos. Critical to success is avoiding negative impacts from clutter or excessively large commercial signage 4.8.5 provides public viewing of the construction – inviting people to watch the build progressing with accessible viewing windows at a variety of heights and widths 4.8.6 portrays the history, present and future of the site – concise, interesting information making links with what was there before, what is coming, and current activity towards that end. This builds immediate and long term engagement, anchoring the project in the life of the city 4.8.7 includes way-finding – as appropriate to help people make navigational decisions (such as large format street names close to corners or maps highlighting nearby destinations). This supports business recovery, as well as aiding residents and visitors endeavouring to find their way around, due to loss of built form.
4.9 To qualify for a fee rebate the hoarding design must integrate all seven attributes, unless good reason is provided and accepted as to why a given attribute is not applicable.
4.10 Application Process Applications for the rebate will be by way of email to a specified Unit of the Council attaching the required information. A simple guide to the process has been prepared as part of a tool box including design and technical guidelines (see Attachment 2), templates and incentives. The application can be made at any time, and the rebate will be applied from the date on which proof of implementation of the hoarding design is available (e.g. date stamped photograph).
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Temporary use of legal road charges are made across a range of developers on a regular basis. This revenue was budgeted to be approximately $200,000 in 2014 and is anticipated to be $400,000 in 2015. Examples of organisations paying these charges include: Fletcher Construction, Armitage Williams, Arrow International, Hereford Holdings, Ganellen Construction, Leighs Construction, Naylor Love, Uretek Ground Engineering, SouthBase.
5.2 The cost of the fee rebate programme depends on the number of qualifying applications, but is likely to be approximately $100,000 per year. 47 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
1 Cont’d
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council approve:
6.1 That delegation be given to the Chief Operating Officer to authorise rebates of 50 percent for the Temporary Use of Legal Road fees for qualifying hoardings projects.
6.2 That delegation be given to the Chief Operating Officer to authorise of up to 100 percent permitted in the case of a listed heritage building made safe, under repair or refurbishment.
6.3 To waive fees for hoardings on the footpath for the duration that public access to the remaining footpath is not possible due to road works beyond the control of the applicant, where road works exceed one month.
6.4 That the Temporary Use of Legal Road fees for qualifying hoarding projects will apply to those streets within or bounding the 30 kilometre per hour Inner Speed Zone defined in the Accessible City chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (page 6).
6.5 That to be a qualifying hoarding all of the following criteria will apply:
6.5.1 Include artwork or features which are creative, playful and engaging overall. For the purpose of this programme, branding and corporate logos do not constitute artwork, but can be successfully integrated into the artwork; and 6.5.2 Visually defines the site – clearly showing where a project begins and ends; and 6.5.3 Uses large scale images – helping people visualise their future relationship with the site; and 6.5.4 Showcases the delivery team – communicating a team approach through collated presentation of corporate logos avoiding clutter or excessively large commercial signage; and 6.5.6 Provides public viewing of the construction – inviting people to watch the build progressing with accessible viewing windows at a variety of heights and widths; and 6.5.7 Portrays the history, present and future of the site – concise, interesting information making links with what was there before, what is coming, and current activity; and 6.5.8 Includes way-finding – as appropriate to help people make navigational decisions.
6.6 That the rebate will apply from the time proof of implementation of hoarding is received and accepted by the Chief Operating Officer and will apply until such time as the road space is no longer being used for the site construction hoarding line.
6.7 That any rebate available under this policy will cease on 30 June 2016.
6.8 That delegation be given to the Chief Operating Officer for the establishment of any operational procedures necessary to support this resolution.
7. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Staff Recommendation be adopted with the addition of the words “up to” in 6.1 so it reads:
“6.1 That delegation be given to the Chief Operating Officer to authorise rebates of up to 50 percent for the Temporary Use of Legal Road fees for qualifying hoardings projects.”
48 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
2. OCCUPATION OF AIRSPACE AT 270 ST. ASAPH STREET
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer N Member responsible: Officer responsible: Team Leader Network Planning Y 941-8690 Transport Author: Kathy Jarden Y 941-8203
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a recommendation from the Environmental Committee that the Council approve the Occupation of Airspace proposed by Boxed Quarter Limited for the commercial development that would encroach on the corner of St. Asaph Street and Madras Street.
1.2 The report originates from staff acting on an application by the project manager for Boxed Quarter Limited.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Box Quarter Limited (the “Applicant”) is seeking approval in principle from the Council to occupy airspace with respect to a proposed retail, café and office building.
2.2 The application for the area of occupation is approximately 53.9 square metres with the encroachments as shown in Attachment 1.
2.3 The Council must be satisfied that a request to grant the right to use the airspace over the road meets with the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010. The decision making authority as per Clause 6 of the Policy is exercised by the Council, advised by the relevant Community Board. As the property is within the central city, staff are seeking the recommendation of the Environmental Committee that the Council grant delegation to the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude negotiations subject to:
2.3.1 engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager 3.2.2 approval from the Urban Design Panel 3.2.3 a formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation of Airspace being entered into.
2.4 Comments from Urban Design Panel
The Urban Design Panel reviewed the plans in June 2012 and commented:
“The panel:
1. Considers the plans as presented to be diagrammatic as a result of the modular nature of the design being applied to the whole site. The panel recommends the applicant further develop the design to take account of: circulation within, and around the buildings including points of entrance, staircases and upper levels likely scenarios for hospitality and office fit out specific wall elevations locating solid walls, glazing and doors, and service cores for hospitality tenancy. 2. Notes that to be visually successful on this prominent corner site the proposal relies on being a mix of two and three storeys.”
2.5 Resource Consent and Building Consent applications have been lodged. 49 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
2 Cont’d
3. COMMENT
3.1 The impending rebuild of the central city environment is likely to give rise to an increased occurrence of the use of airspace to increase the net area of a building. Staff previously reported to the Council on 3 October 2013 the matter of Hereford Holdings and a proposal to use airspace for their development along Oxford Terrace and Cashel Street.
3.2 Staff sought the recommendation of the previous Council to delegate to the Chief Executive or nominated manager authority to conclude negotiations of any future applications covered by clause 2.3 “Use of airspace over roads for increasing the floor area of a building” of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 subject to the stipulations of clause 3.3 above. That recommendation was not adopted and was to be referred to the incoming Council.
3.3 Council officers are proposing a change to the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 for the use of airspace with the report going before the Council at a later date.
3.4 In the interim, individual applications to utilise airspace will be brought to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, which replaces the Environmental Committee under the new structure, and the Council for approval. There is currently one other application for multiple air space encroachments that will be presented in due course and the expectation is that these applications will increase for the duration of the rebuild of the central city.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 An annual licence fee will be charged for the occupation of air space. A market rental valuation has been undertaken with the value of the airspace being assessed at $2100 per annum, plus GST.
4.2 The costs to prepare the licence agreement will be met by the Applicant.
5. STAFF AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
5.1 Grant approval as landowner of the legal road (being St. Asaph and Madras Streets) for the proposed construction by Boxed Quarter Limited encompassing the occupation of airspace subject to:
5.1.1 Engineering plans being approved by the Asset and Network Planning Unit Manager; 5.1.2 Approval from the Urban Design Panel; and 5.1.3 A formal Deed of Licence for the Occupation of Airspace being entered into.
5.2 Grant delegation to the Property Consultancy Manager authority to negotiate, conclude and enter into the licence as approved in 5.1 above (including Licence fee and all other terms and conditions) under clause 2.3 “Use of the airspace over roads for the increasing the floor area of a building” of the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010. 50 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
PART B – REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
Nil were received by the Committee.
4. WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TEAM QUARTERLY REPORT
The Committee decided to receive the Waste and Environmental Management Team Quarterly report.
5. DRAFT TREE POLICY WORKING PARTY REGARDING APPLICATIONS FROM RESIDENTS TO REMOVE COUNCIL OWNED TREES CITING HEALTH REASONS
The Committee decided:
5.1 To thank the Chair and Working Party for the work it has completed on the Draft Tree Policy and request that staff prepare a report covering the matters raised for discussion by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, which replaces the Environmental Committee under the new structure.
5.2 That the staff report include information on point 6 of the memo tabled by Paula Smith, Chair of the Tree Policy Working Party, as detailed below:
“Where a person’s health is the reason given for an application to remove a healthy tree the Tree Policy Working Party considers additional information is required. For example, if the health reason given is an allergy, it is suggested the formal reports to Boards should contain:
up-to-date advice from the medical officer of health a map showing the location of trees of allergy causing species in the vicinity on council land and, wherever possible, on adjacent private land a pollen dispersal calendar any other factual health-related information which may help the board make a sound evidence-based decision.”
6. FOOD FORESTS AND EDIBLE PLANTINGS
6.1 A memo from Andrew Rutlege, the Council’s Parks Unit Manager, providing an update on progress in regard to resolutions passed in relation to ‘food forests and edible plantings” was tabled.
6.2 The Committee decided:
6.2.1 To receive the memo. 6.2.2 Request that staff prepare a report for the 23 October 2014 Council meeting with information on: pilot sites guidelines on plantings and species including their location (excluding berms at this stage) replacing restrictive rules and barriers with a proactive framework which achieves outcomes. 51 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014
PART C – DELEGATED DECISIONS
7. APOLOGIES
The Committee resolved that an apology for lateness be accepted from Councillor Buck.
8. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Nil were received by the Committee.
9. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the resolution to exclude the public as set out in the agenda be adopted and that Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Chairperson, Mike Mora, be permitted to be present for item 10.
The meeting concluded at 11.16am.
CONSIDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2014
MAYOR
52 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 53 54 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 55 DRAFT Rebuild Hoardings Design Guidelines Executive Summary September 2014
‘As the world watches
Definition: Hoarding our rebuild, construction “A structure alongside a public way providing side protection but no hoardings can overhead protection.” achieve a win-win – Source: New Zealand Building Code for building projects, Compliance Document AS/VM F5 for the community and for the city’.
Purpose of Guide
The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for the visual appearance of public-facing hoardings around construction sites in Christchurch. It is aimed at rebuild delivery teams – developers, architects, project managers and contractors. As a tool for client-contractor discussion, the intention is to encourage a designed approach to hoarding implementation that goes beyond compliance to provide benefits for both the development and the public.
The guidelines do not prescribe any particular construction methods or materials, or constrain corporate branding. Instead, we outline a design approach based on seven principles and offer a toolkit to help you implement it.
Refer to these guidelines when you come to plan the appearance of your hoardings. Enhanced hoardings which follow these guidelines may be eligible for reduced fees for temporary use of legal road.
Background
Hoardings are structures alongside a public way intended to delineate and secure work sites, and to provide for the safe passage of pedestrians. Normal considerations are site access, robustness, and placement of health and safety and other notices. Although a multitude of construction solutions are possible, many hoardings follow the plywood sheets over post and rail format outlined in ‘Acceptable Solution F5/AS1’ in order to simply achieve compliance with the New Zealand Building Code. Charges are made for fences and hoardings occupying public roads and footpaths.
Due to their size, solid construction and interface with the public realm hoardings will have an increasing presence and will impact significantly on the way people experience the city. The look and feel of our city could easily become visually dominated by temporary hoardings, graffiti and a jumble of signage.
However creatively designed hoardings can go beyond compliance requirements and normal other considerations. Hoardings can tell people about the building project, proudly showcase the construction partners, let people safely watch the project take shape, and can engage the public in the project and its role in the future of the city.
These guidelines form part of a free tool box to help maximise the benefits for the project and the city, including:
• Seven Design Principles of Enhanced Hoardings • Design principles, benefits and implementation explained • Loads of examples – see also www.pinterest.com/transitionalcty • Simple 5-step guide • Preparing outline of normal considerations (template) • Preparing the creative brief onsite (template) • Contacts including incentives
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 56 DRAFT
Seven design principles for enhanced hoardings
Each project is unique and will require hoardings to be constructed. Enhanced hoardings go beyond compliance and normal considerations by implementing an overall design reflecting seven principles outlined below. Normal hoardings can be transformed into enhanced hoardings at any time.
Enhanced hoardings have an integrated design reflecting the following attributes:
1. Overall design is creative, playful and engaging 2. Visually defines the site 3. Includes large scale images 4. Showcases the delivery team 5. Provides public viewing of the construction 6. Portrays the history, present and future of the site 7. Includes way-finding
Enhanced hoardings integrate branding successfully for a more attractive, effective and memorable result than excessively large or frequent logo placement.
Design principles, benefits and implementation explained
1. Overall design is creative, playful and engaging
Key to successful creative hoardings is developing a design unique to that project. This is an opportunity to set the tone of the project, reflect values central to the build, and integrate branding. For the purpose of this programme, branding and corporate logos do not themselves constitute artwork, but can be successfully integrated into the artwork. Taking a creative approach overall can be highly memorable and attract positive attention. Clever ideas can create enduring intrigue and even go viral on social media. See these guidelines and pinterest.com/transitionalcty for many examples of creative, playful and engaging approaches.
Benefits: * Build public and local business goodwill for the development Enrique Peñalosa famously * Attract the attention of investors and tenants * Safeguard the medium to long- said: “Children are a kind of term positive vision for the area. indicator species. If we can Implementation: * Prepare brief onsite (see template) * Client and contractor build a successful city for agree brief. * Provide brief to your own creative team or local artists (see contacts). children, we will have a
successful city for all people” 2. Visually define the site
The hoarding should include a visual cue which clearly define where a project begins and ends. This is an opportunity to signal project scale and ensure a project sitting midblock stands out. For projects creating laneways, driveways or a main entranceway this is an opportunity to hint at future flows of people and traffic between the project and street. Making future movements of people and vehicles discernable from the street may inform and influence other design projects, helping collectively achieve a better urban design result.
Benefits: * Shows scale of individual projects. * Projects won’t blend into each other. * Shows future flows of people and vehicles – enables better urban design in the neighbourhood. Implementation: * End-to-end visual device. * Patterns. * Contrasting skirting or trim. *Other effective option. * Indicate future laneways or entrances.
3. Include large scale images
At the edge of the footpath, hoardings rise from ground level to 2.2 m height, occupying the normal pedestrian field of peripheral vision. The sheer scale and impenetrability of hoardings is itself an overly dominant feature in a streetscape, removing 180° of movement choice for long stretches at a time.
Enhanced hoardings use project-related images at large scale to occupy the full normal pedestrian field of peripheral vision between skirting and trim. This softens hoarding impact while showcasing the project. Include people in the image at an appropriate scale (consider pedestrian viewing distance). This humanises the project. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 57 DRAFT
Benefits: * Promotes project. * Softens dominance of hoardings in the streetscape. "A good city is like a good * Humanises project. * People can visualise their future relationship with the project. party - people stay longer Implementation: * Use project-related images. * Occupy normal pedestrian field of than really necessary, peripheral vision. * Include people in the image at appropriate scale. because they are enjoying themselves” - Jan Gehl 4. Show the team delivering your new project
Christchurch is being rebuilt by teams working hard together. Designating an area for collating corporate logos shows a team approach. Critical to success is avoiding negative impacts from clutter or excessively large commercial signage.
Benefits: * Shows team approach. * Showcases level of collaboration and expertise. * Respectful – builds goodwill. Implementation: * Designate area for project team logos. * Avoid clutter and excessive font size.
5. Provide public viewing of the construction
People are naturally curious, and builds are fascinating. Whether walking by or waiting in traffic, people want to watch the activity. Identify which spots offer a good view or a specific vista. Viewing windows can be integrated into the artwork, and any shape is possible as long as views are protected from potential solid debris in accordance with the Building Code Clause F5.
Benefits: * People can see progress. * Builds anticipation. * Great exposure for the project. Implementation: * Provide accessible viewing at a variety of heights and widths. * Choose safe locations with a particular view in mind. * Know why a particular viewing location is chosen. * Use chain-link netting (per F5/AS1) or approved Alternative Solution.
6. Portray the history, present and future of the site
With the loss of so many buildings it can be hard for people to remember what was there before, let alone feel a sense of anticipation or connection to what’s coming. Make links to the past using images or brief information to help people remember. This could be a great student research project.
Also, projects develop quickly, and people will stop briefly to read concise, interesting information. Providing child- friendly updates about what’s happening onsite is a great way to engage families and locals. A parent in the project team may want to take this on as part of their job. Providing a Good Neighbour Board can help affected locals plan their lives. Site staff need to keep this current.
Benefits: * Builds rapport. * Promotes project. *Anchors project in the life of the city. * Builds engagement. * Good Neighbour Boards help locals plan their lives. * Can be replicated online, showcasing industry leadership. Good Neighbour Boards Providing updated information relevant to affected local residents Implementation: * Can use timeline, storyboard, infographics. and workers on a Good Neighbour Board is a * Overlay images and bite-sized information on artwork, or integrate great way to help people plan their lives in a into artwork. *Locate where safe to stop and read. more informed way. * For content: Provide links to past, profile the project, provide regular Information to include: * Contacts . * Timeframes. * Type of work. updates including milestones. * Provisions for vehicle access to avoid traffic * Resources include locals, old newspapers, Archives NZ, Heritage NZ. queuing. * Approved hours of work. * Temporary changes to pedestrian access. 7. Include wayfinding * Traffic Management provisions. Size: Can be small. Recognise that the widespread loss of landmarks and links has made it Location: A safe space to stop and read. quite challenging for people to get their bearings. Wayfinding consists Optional: letterbox for locals to post of tools which help people navigate. questions.
Benefits: * Help people get their bearings and find their way. * Support business recovery.
Implementation: * Show street names close to intersection corners. * For street names, use font size visible from across the intersection. * Provide a map highlighting nearby destinations. * Maps can be creative, playful, or integrated into the artwork.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 1 58
DRAFT
Examples
Caption – This example shows people the project is backed by a team from client to contractor. Caption – These corporate logos are overlaid on colours associated with the project’s overall branding.
.
L to R, Top to Bottom: (1) Human experience through the decades outside this stadium upgrade highlights that its part of the fabric of the local community. (2) London’s newest street softened by printed ivy graphic. Storyboards create a sense of rhythm, breaking up a monotonous line. (3) 3-D space creates sense of intrigue. (4) Past history in art. (5) Showcase team. (5) Integrate windows into artwork. (6) Accessible and social windows add colour and interesting frames. (7) Holes and tape reveal an evolving poem. (8) Hand drawing shows location of nearby destinations. (8) Timeline. (9) Branding integrated into artwork related to the site which forms a pattern, this is overlaid with project information. (10-12) Creating movement and texture is playful. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 59
N St Asaph Street
15.4m214.25m2 77.25m2.7m2 77.25m2.7m2
77.25m2.7m2
Madras Street
77.25m2.7m2
77.25m2.7m2
SITE PLAN AREAAREA OVEROVER COUNCIL FOOTPATH FOOTPATH Address: 270 St Asaph Street Scale 1:200
ROADBOUNDARY BOUNDARY LINE LINE Sites: Lot 1, DP 15519 APPROXIMATE AREA OVER MADRAS ST: 30.8m2 458m2 Approximate area over Madras Street = 21.75 m2 Lot 1, DP 15554 APPROX. AREA OVER ST ASAPH ST: 23.1m2 Approximate area over St Asaph Street = 29 m2 701m2 CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Pt. T.R. 7 Chch TOTAL AREA OVER STREET: 53.9m2 893m2 Site Plan Showing Cantilevers Over Footpath ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 60
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Overview ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 61
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Looking West Down St Asaph Street ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 62
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Looking East Down St Asaph Street ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 63
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Looking East Down St Asaph Street ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 64
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Looking South Down Madras Street ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 65
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Looking North Down Madras Street ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 66
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Perspective ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 23. 9. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 67
CANTILEVER DOCUMENTATION SET Perspective 68 69 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
10. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECOVERY PROGRAMME QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT
Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Chief Planning Officer Y Diane Campbell, SPG 03 941 8281 Officer responsible: Unit Manager Y Michelle Oosthuizen, Environment & Heritage 03 941 8812 Author: Clive Appleton Y 03 941 8352
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report updates the Council on the implementation and progress of the Natural Environment Recovery Programme (NERP).
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 In May 2013, the Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG) agreed to the NERP Technical Advisory Group continuing in an advisory role for the implementation of the NERP until April 2016, with consideration being given to it continuing as a sub-group of the Urban Development Strategy (UDS).
2.2 The NERP Technical Advisory Group meets monthly and partners are collaborating to ensure implementation and reporting of the 17 NERP projects (see Attachment 1) is undertaken on a quarterly basis, which will be presented to the Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee. These reports will then be presented to the partner governance groups.
2.3 The NERP was adopted by Environment Canterbury Commissioners on 3 October 2013.
2.4 The NERP Third Quarterly Progress Report was presented to the Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee in September 2014 (see Attachment 2).
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Many of the Council’s programmes and projects directly support the NERP and along with Attachment 1, this report provides a high-level update on work being implemented by the agencies over the last three months. Quarterly reporting on the NERP is undertaken because this is the time interval that provides the best picture into progress being made against each of the projects.
3.2 The following programme highlights for the Council are: 3.2.1 Investigate and plan for natural hazards
The Draft Natural Hazards Chapter of the replacement District Plan (including flooding, liquefaction and slope instability) has been publically notified. Natural hazard risk in existing urban areas will be assessed and reflected in land planning documents, including in the second phase of the replacement District Plan. Other hazards are to be considered in phase 2 of the replacement District Plan and the scope has been released to the strategic partners for comment.
3.2.2 Investigate and monitor coasts and estuaries
● Information from this work will help inform the Coastal Chapter, phase two of the replacement District Plan. 70 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
10 Cont’d
3.2.3 Reduce flood risks and restore drainage capacity of waterways
Mayoral Flood Task Force has working groups looking to identify both short term flood responses and medium to long term solutions to return Christchurch to pre- earthquake flood risk levels, particularly for Flockton and lower Heathcote. Extent of flood risk in post-earthquake environment needs careful analysis and evaluation of options – including consideration of long-term settlement patterns across the city. Land drainage recovery programme investigations on all waterways being conducted through to late 2014. The Council is working with CERA on future use of residential red zone – particularly in lower Avon catchment – and location of stopbanks, pumping stations and horizontal infrastructure.
3.2.4 Plan for stormwater management
Working with Mahaanui Kurataiao to ensure cultural matters are appropriately addressed as part of the Stormwater Management Programme. Investigating comprehensive stormwater discharge consent to cover Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, which will replace current consents for the South-West and Styx River catchments.
3.2.5 Act on opportunities for stormwater treatment and improving the water quality and ecosystem health of waterways
Staff from the Council and Environment Canterbury Regional Council have formed a Stormwater Action Team (SWAT) formed for the purpose of undertaking an integrated approach, to reduce: 1. Sediment discharges from bulk earthworks associated with subdivision development. 2.The ongoing discharge of contaminants to the reticulated stormwater network from industrial and commercial sites. 3.Pollution response within the Council’s reticulated stormwater system.
3.2.6 Manage sediment from liquefaction
Land drainage recovery programme surveys are continuing. Programme of work required for land drainage remediation being put forward for Long Term Plan funding consideration.
3.2.7 Rehabilitate and enhance wetlands changed by earthquakes
● Opportunities are being identified through technical investigations for stormwater management plans and the land drainage recovery programme.
3.2.8 Act on opportunities to reduce sewage overflows and their effects
● The Council has developed pre and post earthquake models of wet weather flows and overflows in wastewater network. ● Next task is to develop the post Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team model to enable comparison of pre earthquake to post-rebuild. This model is to be calibrated in winter 2016, near the end of the rebuild period. Results of this modelling will determine if consent compliance is achievable or whether a new consent will be required. 71 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
10 Cont’d
3.2.9 Protect groundwater and springs
● The replacement District Plan is to consider land use controls over the unconfined aquifer. ● Stormwater management plans are identifying significant spring features and will ensure these sites are protected and managed appropriately.
3.2.10 Control pests and weeds
The Council is party to the Regional Pest Management Strategy review work undertaken by Environment Canterbury Regional Council. Maintenance work and weed control is continuing on Council reserves.
3.2.11 Assess, retain and enhance biodiversity
● The Council’s Stormwater Management Programme is undertaking ecological investigations and these will form the basis for future management of biodiversity alongside and in the waterways.
3.2.12 Provide access to and opportunities for outdoor recreation
Coastal Pathway work is progressing. Christchurch Adventure Park (Port Hills) is being planned by Select Evolution NZ Ltd, is at Resource Consent stage. More biking and walking tracks have been reopened on the Port Hills, between Rapaki and Bridle Path. Rockfall work continues, which will enable reopening of more biking opportunities later in year Part of the Summit Road is not suitable for vehicles so is currently being managed for non-motorised recreation use.
3.2.13 Manage earthquake waste
The Council is part of the Waste Environmental Management Team (WEMT) and to date can report the following outcomes: There are only 44 known properties in the Christchurch Residential Red Zone Flatlands still requiring an initial screen for potential hazardous material. These will be screened at the time of demolition given there are current hazard/access issues present at these properties. Responsibility for the removal of hazardous materials in relation to theses properties now sits with the landowner and demolition contractor. In the Port Hills Residential Red Zone; 41 out of approximately 700 properties have been cleared. Hazardous material is being removed on a case by case basis at demolition time due to ongoing health and safety and access issues across the Port Hills area.
3.2.14 Manage contaminated sites
Further work with respect to contaminated land is being undertaken in replacement District Plan phase 2, which will include a hazardous substances and contaminated land chapter. That chapter will be looking at contaminated land matters outside of the National Environment Standard.
3.2.15 Track earthquake effects on emissions and air quality
The Christchurch Agency for Energy Grant provides incentives for renewable energy, district energy nodes and advanced energy efficiency measures in the central city. Further feasibility work on the district energy scheme has been endorsed by the Council. 72 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
10 Cont’d
3.3 For detailed information on where the other NERP agencies have got to in progressing respective projects see Attachment 1.
4. COMMENT
4.1 See Attachment 1.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Council projects listed in the NERP are funded by existing levels of service.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
6.1 Receive the Natural Environment Recovery Programme Third Quarterly Progress Report for 2014.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 10 73 Natural Environment Recovery Programme – Progress Report – Third Quarter – July/August/September - 2014
Lead agency/ agencies Project title July/August/September - 2014 Next steps Emerging issues Milestone Date
Project (bold) and partners
1 Investigate and plan for natural ECan ECan Ashley-Loburn Fault Oct CERA, NHRP, GNS, UC, 2014 hazards ECan organised meetings of hazards staff, planners and regional CDEM, to discuss statutory responsibilities on report CCC, WDC, SDC, hazards Distant source Hazards investigations; land use TRONT Oct planning tsunami report Active fault investigation and reports ongoing 2014 Reassess the risks and 4-monthly forum for Distant source tsunami hazard modelling for Canterbury – final draft received. Regional source tsunami Dec susceptibilities of natural hazards. TA planners, modelling underway 2014 Report and map the results to hazards staff, and Student projects on ECan sponsored hazards projects. (co-funded by CCC, WDC, SDC, CDEM and others) inform land use planning and Regional CDEM staff ECan/TAs development. RMA /CDEM Act As part of LURP Action 46 ECan Council approved the coastal hazard lines for greater Christchurch being relationship removed from the RCEP and inserted into the RPS. Land use consenting functions for hazard zones will be a “User guide” on Feb requirement of district plans. The Minister for CER will consider whether any additional public process is application of fault 2015 necessary. reports in planning ECan is providing technical support to CCC for their scoping exercise to determine whether to review the coastal released hazard zones between the Waimakariri River and the Avon Heathcote Estuary/Ihutai, based on sea level rise Regional Source March information in the 2013 Tonkin and Taylor report. Tsunami Report 2015 CCC Natural hazard risk in existing urban areas to be assessed and reflected in land planning documents, including in DPR. - Natural Hazards Chapter in District Plan Review (DPR) - Phase 2 CERA CERA holds the Geotechnical Database. Discussions continue with partners on best location for database. EQC EQC groundwater monitoring will end in a year. Discussions ongoing between ECan, CCC, WDC, SDC, GNS, NIWA, LINZ, EQC and universities on value of the network and future home/funding for the work. 2 Investigate and monitor coasts ECan, NIWA ECan Continued data CCC district plan Early and estuaries UC, CCC, WDC, SDC, Coastal water quality monitoring continues – within Avon Heathcote Estuary/Ihutai and on the coast collection and analysis notification 2015 TRONT of coastal Te Tai o Mahaanui/ Canterbury Continues to survey coastal cross sections along the coast of Christchurch and Waimakariri and topographic geomorphology coastal investigations; estuary surveys of the South Brighton and Brooklands spits.
investigations; Investigate and Preparing a summary report on historic surveys and aerial photography to aid CCC’s work on reviewing hazard monitor earthquake changes in zones along the Christchurch urban shoreline (in project 1 above) coastal and estuary processes and physical parameters. Build in sea CCC level rise and climate variability. DPR Phase 2 - Coastal Chapter being drafted 3 Reduce flood risks and restore CCC, SCIRT, WDC, CCC Extent of flood risk in drainage capacity of waterways SDC, ECan Christchurch flooding Mayoral Flood Task Force has reported. The Flood Management Steering Group (CCC, post-earthquake Flood mitigation; stopbanks and CERA, developers, CERA, ECan, MBIE and DPMC) are assessing options, particularly for Flockton and lower Heathcote. environment needs careful analysis and other works; resilient sustainable TRONT Land drainage recovery programme investigations on all waterways being conducted through to late 2014 infrastructure in rebuild. Includes evaluation of options Working with CERA on future use of residential red zone in lower Avon catchment on location of stopbanks, CCC land drainage recovery flood zones, pumping stations and horizontal infrastructure programme. WDC Waimakariri District Flood Team established to respond to flood issues from June 2014 flooding event. Need to investigate longer term solutions to drainage issues in around Kaiapoi and review of the LIDAR results to identify areas where ground levels have shifted and affected the drainage network 4 Plan for stormwater management CCC, WDC, SDC CCC Proposals for Avon Need for consistency CCC ECan, CERA across stormwater by preparing Stormwater Avon River SMP development continues. River/Ōtākaro city to Avon River/Ōtākaro Dec Management Plans (SMPs) sea link will need to be management planning Working with Mahaanui Kurataiao so cultural matters are appropriately addressed as part of SMPs SMP completed 2014 taken into account and and across the Develop an SMP for each Comprehensive Investigating comprehensive stormwater discharge consent to cover Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, which integrated with consenting catchment to fulfil the requirement Stormwater would replace current consents for the South-West and Styx River catchments. stormwater mechanisms so May for catchment-wide stormwater Discharge Consent discharge consent. Important for WDC management greater effort made to 2015 raise awareness of lodged planning for the RRZ and CCDU District wide stormwater quality monitoring methodology prepared and being implemented within Rangiora, to requirements stormwater anchor projects including in Te support the district’s first network consent application. A key focus is to address sources of sediment into the Papa Ōtākaro/Avon Kaiapoi River, and determine and address sources of zinc and copper entering the waterways. management principles in Council’s operations. River Precinct. SDC SMPs developed and global stormwater consents obtained for Lincoln and Rolleston townships. Darfield, Kirwee and West Melton SMPs in development. 5 Act on opportunities for CCC, WDC, SDC, SCIRT CCC/ECan A long term aim is to stormwater treatment and ECan, CERA, CCDU, Stormwater issues management group (SWiM) meeting regularly develop a stormwater improving the water quality and TRONT, CDHB, research, teaching, Joint agency Stormwater Action Team (SWAT) formed to integrate approach, to: ecosystem health of waterways developers, UC, LU, testing and o reduce sediment discharges from bulk earthworks associated with subdivision development. Stormwater treatment systems; NIWA, Landcare demonstration park on o reduce discharge of contaminants to the reticulated SW network from industrial and commercial sites. stream and river restoration; riparian Research, ESR, NGOs, UC campus. 6 10 9 8 7
Project areas. pests to and earthquake affected for controlling weeds programmes existing Extend safety and health biodiversity, on or haveimpact to have potential affect peststhat and Control weeds daylighting streams. natural andretention of springs aquifer.Encourage unconfined use land Ensure over controls groundwater andProtect waterways; effect. to their minimise overflowsweather sewage directly reduce/avoidto infrastructure wet rebuild, During improve wastewater effects overflows and theirsewage reduce to Actopportunities on wetlandsexisting inventory,Mapping, rehabilitation of earthquakes by wetlands changed the andenhanceRehabilitate controls sediment tributaries;erosion andand removal riverssediment in removal on advice of sediments; assessmentInvestigations, and liquefaction sedimentfrom Manage shade. food habitatprovide sources, and ecology.stream form of waterwaysthe enhance to int improve and quality of stormwater flows, reduce stormwater sediment, to attenuatesystems/wetlands Use wetlands establishment zones; o waterways.o C LID
/stormwater treatment
Project title Project
strategies strategies and Plantriver banks to
onsider onsider changing
of of constructed
springs
TRONT,NGOs CERA/LINZ CCC,SDC,DOC WDC, committees Rūnanga, Papatipu MBIE,CERA, SCIRT CCC,SDC, WDC, ECan, Rūnanga TRONT,Papatipu SCIRT, CDHBECan, , CCC,SDC WDC, committees zone TRONT,NIWA, UC, CCC, WDC, ECan TRONT NIWA, CCC, committees zone consultants, Lead agency/ Lead agencies (bold) andpartners (bold)
WDC, SDC,ECan , consultants, UC, consultants,
CCDU
ECan,
TRONT,
SDC,
zone zone
...... WDC CCC University of SDC WDC CCC ECan ECan WDC CCC CCC ECan CCC/ECan:
o o o o o Student projects: Student be dependent may installed, budget New Christchurch. from urban stormwater withtypical roads), the (e.g.tocatchments aim a identify toolboxtreatment for of systems fundingFormalising agreement stormwaterprojectwith research which a CCC for investigates characteristics of sampling theOngoing programme L2 catchment. in recovery.earthquake in 2013. flooding June residents residents votedLeeston a via funding Initial stormwater a Developed monitoring to programme consider effects of throughout discharges urban Beach and Kairaki.The Pines treatmentdevicesRetrofitting partof considered theas recovery works for the stormwater in Kaiapoi, systems funding funding consideration drainageLand recovery programme Maintenance work 2016 thenotified before June expiry current plan. the of management options for pestskey and pest management programmes. ECan material guidance requirements ECan future and structure content of the Biosecurity to changes Actand the of 1993 development Policy National a Direction Regional The Canterbury wells. environment groundwater to quantityContinues monitor and qualityin continuing forRepairs wastewater damaged in K network volumes.overflowand frequencies Currently through flows to up 60% higher CWTP than pre that extentwastewaterRisk of rebuildnetwork not suffi 2016. Developing pre andHave post developed drainageLand Waimakariri earthquakeassess changesWill to state Develop options including sediment concept trapping meandering and channel within River. the Kaiapoi the KaiapoiThemeeting of first RiverRehabili including implemented, Fund RiverEnhancement established.Cam Initial Subcommittee projects approved
q d m m pollution ensure response place forin
uantifying remote logging eveloping inof thewater Okeover quality landscaping around Okeover bein Stream landscaping onitoring gree and optimisatioodelling
will has resolved extend theto Results ing release a discussionrelease a document
a - programme of removal sediment for from Avon C Brooklands Lagoon,Ihutai) (LiDAR survey will a
anterbury for the programme of the NPD of post
atmospheric depositionatmospheric in different incatchments will determine will determine if whether compliance consent achievable or newwilla be consent required recovery
- SCIRT model to SCIRT to model and weed and control n roofn modu
Design work to underway,2014/15.construction start three traps sediment and
programme
, make proposed, a sure
Pest Management Strategy 2011 n ofn treatment different thetrains campus for catchment -
earthquake models of models wetearthquake weather flows overflows wastewater network. and in strategies that strategies les the engineering building on budgeted 2014/15. in RPMS compare
– - continuin
investigations waterways associated on all wetlands and surveys continuing. surveys July/August/September July/August/September '
survey to survey to undertake stormwater bypass thea township following in expiry and extent of wetlandscoastal surveyed previouslyLower (i.e. CCC reticulated stormwater in
2015
pre
are to be known as plans. g on CCC reserves on g tation tation Party Working g g torain designed wetlands and a include A garden. date date - ear RPMP bed raking riffle formation. seek
to 30 Juneto 2016 thquake post to ing feedback ing feedback cient to equal better achieve or than pre
is consistent with it, withbest consistent it, and get value is from the greater greater aiapoi.
– Programme work of being Programme put LTPforward for /Ōtākaro 15 was15 ssist with this ssist work in east
Stream
Christchurch. - Christchurch from the of set of a state
2014 was
- due to expire due on to 30 2015. June on the current strategy on futuand , Heathcote rebuild. M to allow understandto the time
system. and Avon and
held on held
A proposed Canterbury
This workunrelated is to
ode
3 September.3
/Ōpāwaho River/Ōtākaro l to be tol be wintercalibrated in by s
Waimakariri District Waimakariri (NPD) ubcommittee beingubcommittee and Kaiapoi Riversand - Consideration earthquake.
- will affect the will affect continuing
earthquake earthquake RPMP
the
storm filterstorm
Recent
re re
District. will be will be NPD
Next steps Next
Emerging issues Emerging
ATTACHMENT 1TO CLAUSE 10
survey Ihutai and Lower Waimakariri completion programme recovery Land COUNCIL 23.10.2014
drainage Milestone
20 2015 2016 Date 16
-
74 12 11 13
Project beside the River/Ōtākaro Avon beside water establishment of sports areas withConsider disabilities.people wellbeing. and communityamenity visual for passiveprovide recreation, otherrecreation facilitiesand and mountain tracks cycling bike develop facilities; available maintain and and advertisePromote currently recreation outdoor for opportunities to Provideand access on availableproduction land. andgardens, orchards, local food of development more community Christchurch. greater in Support community27 gardens forestry food production local and urban communitySupport gardens, spawning sites. sanctuary. ka mahinga corridors,biodiversity reserves and I ecosystems. Assess, biodiversity retain Assess, and
a networkwalkinga of paths, monitor highest Provide Provide foraccess
Rehabilitate inanga i. Investigate i. Project title Project
nvestigate
enhance enhance already exist -
sites for value an ecoan
.
- NGOs NZTA, TRONT, CCDU, DOC, SDC, CCC, WDC, Group LeadershipEarthquake Recreation and Sport SCION, EnviroSchools TRONT, ECan, LU, SDC, NGOs,CCC, WDC, Branch Association Health and Soil committees, zone consultants, UC,Landcare CERA,TRONT, ECan, DOC, CCC,WDC, SDC Lead agency/ Lead agencies (bold) andpartners (bold)
zone committees, committees, zone
NGOs Canterbury Research,
ECan,
Health Associationand Soil and Collaborative DOC CCC Other WDC ECan/CCC/CPH Recreation Leadership and Earthquake GroupSport CCC
Centre. CommunitySumner Gardens planting major theheld day for forest vanEducation newproject food at Deaf Asch Reserve in Corcoran NZ highlighting made Video the unprecedented foropportunities Forests Food Canterbury (anFood Forum UC EcoWeek Student planned for event) Website communications Visual engaged tospecialist develop branding FRN for the Canterbury FoodExpo forCommunity November confirmed 1,pl loca to FRN input CCC Environment to Committee FRN deputation RRZareaTravis and of south group Working continuing withfor Sanctuary planning with pest Waitākiri environment. surrounding and giveinform educate, another example visitor (cornerHigh Transitional centre Cashel of Streets)and oasis and nature built.being of development stormwaterfacilities management ecologicalAvon River/Ōtākaro completed investigations and to used inform futurewill the be SMP and Ch Kaiapoi River and coast EarthquakeChristchurch Appealfundedrelocation Trust repair/ of dama Summit Roadof for not suitable forPart vehiclesmanaged non Ro walking Moreand track biking PathwayCoastal work progressing recreation meeting Held ( cycleway), yachtŌtākaro circuit, clubfitness rebuild) wake board cable whitepark, w VisionEastern collating other recreation in outdoor the (egopportunities includingeast them publicfeedback on a T establishing trust. Canterbury leading Sport with discussion re sport in Christchurchgreater recreation and Recovery Recreation Spaces,Sport Places People:A recovery Programme; and programme for andsport Opawa Souther engagementandsite community carrypladevelopment out Urban Agropolis Farm project coordinato Chris Schools in programOrchards partnership. underway restore ofhealth to trees existing and bui Kaputone HeriKaputone http://evospace.co.nz/ ch AdventurePark (Porch work ckfall continues.
tions for and foodforesttions communityplantings. gardens tchurch Food Collective Forest
n Seed Exchange to Seed Exchange n hold
riverside walkway, Bay walkway mountain Pegasus and being developedbeing by the Christchurch of Forestmembers Collective Food
CCC’s Food
on 11 Julyon to withAvonusers Heathcote recreational discuss grading of Estuary/Ihutai for contact tage Orchard (former Sunleytage Orchard(former Orchard, now land) working CCCgroup formed reserve bees and -
community projects Kaiapoi BMX, Boating ClubCure replacement, Waimakariri Kaiapoi approved for Forest Food Greenspace plantings by Unit. WDC echnical echnical investigations
more opportunitiesbiking )
Resilience Pol t Hills)t being planned Canterbury me developed by C me
s reopened on Port Hills reopened on Port s ater course, wave cycling course, and walkway garden, CCCater Avon (including network 6 -
-
available monthly seed seed monthly swap gatherin and community
July/August/September July/August/September
icy and Actionicy Plan and r hired forr hired 6 Branch of of
still as native biodiversity,urban recreation and linking the it to by Select Evolution by Select NZ Ltd a web based strategy requ
HS, with
flat
to reopento ld community thisld around space - , with community input with input EVO::SPACE, community on anning led intern,anning by led UCstudent
month fixedmonth term. ired Soil & Health Canterbury)Soil & withHealth leading de
water lake in sports Christchurcheast
subsequent recommendations subsequent endorsed Council by full between
19 19 Sept
n. , including
later in year
- Rāpaki motorised recreationmotorised use, - bike between trail Kairaki and Woodend. -
2014 , led, by UCintern, Health FRN and Soil&
identifying
Role is to Role is to develop on and Bridleand Path ged recreation ged recreation fac
- exclusion fence and and examples in action throughout
at resource at stage consent - Ashle g at School,g Seven Oaks
suitable treesuitable types and y coastguard facilities,y coastguard -
a CCCa FRNHe Soil& and
ilities along along ilities
Opportunity to Opportunity to – - i
- ncluding
community project project community the Travis Wetland sign input from input sign - ground
Kaiapoi alth
-
Resilience Network Resilience Food coordination of advocacy and ongoing needs,community bids to funding support further development, foodprojectcommunity local coordination of agency processes, in representation community sustainable support toapplication(s) funding Possible
Next steps Next
Network Resilience Food coordination of advocacy and ongoing needs,community bids to funding support d foodprojectcommunity local coordination of agency processes, in representation community for sustainable support of adequateLack evelopment, further evelopment, further Emerging issues Emerging
ATTACHMENT 1TO CLAUSE 10
COUNCIL 23.10.2014
Plan and Action Policy Resilience CCC Food Network FoodResilience the Expo and Launch of Food Community Successful Trust Community Canterbury lodged withbe application Funding to
Milestone
2014 Nov 2014 Nov 1 2014 Sept
Date
75
15 14 17 16
Project plantings. harakeke, and nativerongoā pā Ki Ki of Uta principle Establish Tai. promote customary the use; of and sites and traditions resources andmahinga enhance Restore kai enhance mahinga and kai restore to Actopportunities on ( Environmental StandardNational to2016 meet Plan targets and If quality. necessary amend air Air differentheating appliances of and monitoring changes Continue in use airemissions and quality earthquake effects Track on NES. withcomply the the requirementeducate on to identification.Inform site and a programme HAILUndertake of contaminated Manage sites disasters. for future management plans Prepareenforcement. waste monitoringcompliance and bydumping increasing illegal recycling disposalMaximise sites. and aftercare storage,manage of sorting waste; andearthquake enforce and trackingImprove monitoring of earthquake Manage waste NES) requirements. at or near source. Reduce
Project title Project
ECan, WDC, SDC,DOC ECan, WDC, TRONT) Papatipu Tahu (Ngā Ngāi ECan TRONT SDC, CCC, WDC, ECan MfE,CERA, CDEM CanCERN, industry, SDC, CCC, WDC, (WEMT) ECan Lead agency/ Lead agencies (bold) andpartners (bold)
Rūnanga,
waste
ECan Environmental Team (WEMT)Waste Management Health Combined and ECan CCC ECan/CCC
identified. Pyrolysis recoveryidentified. pilot option in willtrial begin Timaru in 2014 late Timber Treated Waste illegally C onbackfilling si WEMT management.dust and TransportPrecinctsJustice WEMT has demolition P the In landownerwith and demolition the contractor. these presentissues at properties. material hazardous now There known are Christchurch 44 in the properties still only screeningRRZ requiring flatlands for potential hazardous of material household of Clearance hazardous by waste c RRZflat on WEMT disposal, contaminated soil for encourage to correct disposal. as partof disposal, the l Shop” Stop A “One has been to established provide advice for owners land residential A require response a that coordinated CHER PCG Other partner agencies partner Other a role; Network lead taking exemplarMahinga Kai project progressedbeing for work range withagencies to a Continuing tovulnerable of assist households heating. with home supportingwarm health outcome homes work with theContinued Christchurchheating survey for with Air the CDHBproject the Plan Review will as part of rel and be assessment impact for A health providing to tips and burn waste better wood and less winter The 2014 for February 2015. scheduled public Plan ReviewPreliminary consultation Air on Notif 2014. in June undertaken with the compliance NESachieve targets withinInvestigations undertaken Christchurch haveemission reductions identified that required are tostill include DPR been sites have HAIL Christchurchidentified in and with allotherTA’sarrangement a Developing shared forservices model technical support on applications. NESconsent May similar consider Christchurch. in ontinues with ontinues investigations, and prosecutionsenforcements where demolitionmaterial
Draft MOU Draft for
phase 1 includes 1 draft phase land contaminated provisions.
is hazardous hazardous substances Hills ort
working due to ongoing health due and safety and access i
worked closely with work tes tes and home DIY demolitions
RRZ 41 RRZ 41 out of ~
Let’s Clear the Air Programme theLet’s Air Clear s this
with
across agencies on earthquake waste,
-
group Environmental
t
was hese willhese time be at screened the of demolition given there are currenthazard/access WorkSafe NZ on NZ the WorkSafe Minimisati AvON, UC,LU and project. ECan repair CDHB
removed from RRZproperties by of 2014. June end local primaryschools involved has
and land and contaminated chapter. , Warmer Canterbury Group , Healthy Christchurch focusing airand and on clean Warmer
. This This . has and healthand a CERA
wood burning households households wood has burning in Christchurch been undertaken joint as a been 700 have700 properties cleared. been Hazardous is material on Dec Project completed in Responsibility forhazardous the of removal for properties materials these -
including work place including work place wasafety,disposal,on impact the drafted and is awaiting
Hazards Pr Hazards and the and July/August/September
have have MoUsigned an M with TRoNT re
highlighted potential regarding issues asbestos, waste demolition and
managementof containing asbestos material in with waste
. effects literature review
CCDU
focused on on focused a campaign is leadingthe reducing removing workor into associated costs ogrammeGroup (CHER Control
landholders notified. Communitylandholders notified. workshops Anzac Drive
to remediat land to enable ssues across thessues across PortHills
hazardous andmaterial, contaminated issues land Provision
sign
2013. Four2013. disposal potential were solutions
Reserve with Reserve - -
ompleted Augustompleted 2014. off by the all agenciesoff 2014 eased October.eased in s for under s phase 2 that development
to promote smoke . If. successful itwill be io ahinga Kai ahinga Ngāi Tahuand
n and construction works works and construction n in ication proposed of the isplan .
This included included This a PCG on .
is is
project contaminated contaminated soil A323,089 of total kg -
being being free operation burner buried or disposed or ofburied )
ste ste stream
Avon Ōtākaro
held removed at also operate .
home home
will
the
is
Selwyn District. HAIL of in ID phase for nextPlanning Next steps Next
construction wastes construction available freely amountof increased heating for materials home inappropriate of Burning managersland management by all improved require Woolston Dust in use still are wood burners more polluting older number A large o Emerging issues Emerging
issues issues at because in Ch ATTACHMENT 1TO CLAUSE 10
ch
of of f
Selwyn HAIL in ID Complete COUNCIL 23.10.2014
milestone Final properties RRZ hazardo household of Clearance Milestone
Port Hills Hills Port WEMT us waste on
project project
2015 June 2015 March 2015 Mar Date
76 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 10 77
Chief Executives Advisory Group Paper Paper Title: Implementation and reporting of the Natural Environment Recovery Programme (NERP) – third quarter 2014 Author: Chrissie Williams, NERP Programme Leader Meeting Date: 24 September 2014 RSAC meeting date: 10 October 2014 Purpose This report updates CEAG on the implementation, reporting and risks of the Natural Environment Recovery Programme for the third quarter of 2014, and seeks feedback prior to reporting to RSAC on 10 October.
Background 1. CEAG has agreed to the three-year NERP programme leader position to May 2016, based at Environment Canterbury. 2. The NERP Technical Advisory Group is meeting regularly, providing guidance to the programme, input to progress reporting of the NERP projects, and, where appropriate, support for specific projects. 3. Implementation of the NERP includes: quarterly progress reports on the 17 NERP projects to the Recovery Strategy Advisory Committee. The TAG members then present these reports to the partner governance groups. The report for the third quarter 2014 is attached facilitation and advocacy for projects in the NERP that require leadership and co-ordination the first annual forum with all stakeholders was held on 2 July 2014. Feedback from participants suggested that forum be held six-monthly rather than annually. Planning is underway for a series of lunchtime fora in February/March 2015. 4. Integration with other plans and programmes continues: future use of residential red zone land – contributing to the technical and planning work being led by CERA. Community engagement in Waimakariri has occurred in August/September with ideas and feedback registered on a website (https://canvasredzone.org.nz/ ), and community meetings held. Recreational facilities, parks and gardens are frequent themes in the ideas submitted. linking with Zone Committees and zone implementation programmes (ZIPs) for Christchurch West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Waimakariri zones working with the Sport and Recreation Earthquake Leadership Group participating as an observer on the Project Steering Group for anchor projects Te Papa Ōtākaro/Avon River Precinct and North and East frames. 5. Contribution will be made to the recovery strategy transition planning for NERP projects. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 10 78
Risks This risk assessment is presented to CEAG, with any urgent or high risks being taken to the chief executives as they arise. The risks and mitigations are summarised in the RSAC report.
Natural Environment Recovery Programme – Risk assessment and control – third quarter 2014
Overall Risk Risk Impact1 Likelihood2 Risk Owner Risk Mitigation / Control category Rating3
Programme Uncertainty of decisions on Moderate Likely High CERA Future use discussion is the future use of residential underway in WDC. Process red zone (RRZ) affects and timing for Christchurch projects 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, RRZ is still to be 11, 12, 13, 17 announced.
Programme Lack of funding for Moderate Possible High CERA, Many of the projects are implementation which TAs already budgeted. 2015- results in delays or 2025 LTPs need to reduced outcomes recognise on-going because of competing operational commitments priorities in LTPs as well as capital funding.
Legal compliance The NERP aligns with the purposes of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 Part 1 s3 and the Recovery Strategy.
Financial Implications The programme does not commit to specific projects, with those decisions being with lead agencies that have these included in their programmes of work/LTPs, or will consider them in future planning and budgeting. Consultation NERP engagement with partner organisations is through the technical advisory group (TAG) and stakeholder workshops. Publicity / Communication The NERP is available on the Environment Canterbury (www.ecan.govt.nz/nerp) and CERA websites. Media includes articles in Living Here, in CERA’s Greater Christchurch Recovery Update, and through a series of information sheets for the 17 projects in preparation. Presentations on the NERP have been requested and made to a number of groups including schools and universities. Chrissie Williams is presenting a paper on the NERP at the Australasian Natural Hazards Management Conference in Wellington on 24 September 2014 (http://www.hazardseducation.org/conference/2014/2014index.php)
1 Insignificant, Minor, Moderate, Major, Critical 2 Rare, Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Almost Certain 3 Low, Medium, High, Extreme (calculated based on the Impact and Likelihood) 79 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11. FLOODING ISSUES AT NORTH HALSWELL
Contact Contact Details General Manager responsible: Acting Chief Planning Officer, Strategy & Planning Officer responsible: John Higgins, Unit Manager, Resource Y 941-8224 Consents Author: John Meeker, Senior Urban Regeneration Y 941-8960 Advisor, Urban Design & Regeneration.
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 On 11th September, Council requested (as recorded in relation to agenda item 17.7) that “any further decisions in relation to the Meadowlands Subdivision be deferred until the Council has considered a report, on the issues raised in the Riccarton / Wigram Community Board Notice of Motion, at a Council meeting in October.”
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Meadowlands (also known as North East Halswell or Spreydon Lodge) is being used for pastoral grazing. It is intended to be developed for residential housing and is listed as an exemplar project in the Land Use Recovery Plan. No application for subdivision has been received. However, there have been ongoing pre-application discussions and staff understand an application is to be lodged soon.
2.2 The land has been subject to extensive planning over the last decade primarily through South West Area Plan and later a proposed Plan Change. As part of that work, there have been extensive investigations into flooding and stormwater management across the wider North Halswell area.
2.3 The particular properties identified by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board are situated between Hendersons Road and the North East Halswell farmland. There are no reported flooding issues caused by run off from the farmland. Once the farmland is developed comprehensive stormwater network would deal with stormwater and mitigate flooding.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 At the meeting of the Wigram/Riccarton Community Board on 19th August 2014, board members passed a Motion, at item 4.1 of that agenda, in relation to concerns around flooding arising from the development of land for the proposed Meadowlands subdivision at North East Halswell. That Motion stated
1. That Council staff be requested to provide the Board with information on the current flooding issues affecting land to be developed as the Meadowlands subdivision including recognised effects on existing properties located on the west side of Hendersons Road. (Note: These properties back onto the proposed development and have deteriorated seriously over the last five years with flooding, resulting health and safety concerns for affected property owners and up to four IHC homes.)
2. That as part of the consent process for the Meadowlands development, explicit attention be paid to the following matters: (i) That local property owners in Hendersons Road will not be adversely affected by this subdivision. Furthermore, that the developer will be expected to contribute to remedying the present and future flooding run-off and drainage related issues. 80 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11 Cont’d
(ii) That the affected residential land on the west side of Hendersons Road will not be compromised further during the undertaking of the development and its subsequent completion.
3. That the engineering report on the drainage plans for the Meadowlands subdivision be made available to the Board, and to the residents at a local location.
4. COMMENT
4.1 The South West Area Plan, approved by Council in 2009, set out a framework for urban growth across the south western part of the city. Within that plan, an area of land of about 150 hectares – bounded by Halswell Road, Hendersons Road and Sparks Road – was identified for future residential development. Map 1 (on the next page) shows the extent of this area, Halswell North, edged in blue. Around half of this area (75 hectares) is in the ownership of Spreydon Lodge Ltd and being promoted for development by Dannemora Holdings Ltd and the Wayne Francis Charitable Trust (“Dannemora”). Dannemora is promoting its residential development under the name “Meadowlands” with the full extent of this area (with an indicative layout) edged in red on Map 1.
4.2 A Plan Change to rezone the whole North Halswell area for Residential use was being advanced in 2009/10 and then put on hold in light of the Canterbury Earthquakes. In December 2013, the area was identified as a Greenfield Priority Area within the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) signalling that the land continues to have a role in meeting future housing supply. As directed by the LURP, the North Halswell area is now included for rezoning within the District Plan Review, whose first tranche of content was publicly notified on 27th August 2014.
4.3 However, in parallel to the direction to rezone the land via the District Plan, the LURP also identified that a first stage of the site’s residential development could be promoted as an exemplar development – in effect a showcase of a different form of housing development. In March 2014, a proposal for the area shaded purple in Map 1, was submitted by Dannemora and evaluated by LURP partner organisations (CERA, Ngai Tahu CCC, MBIE, NZTA) who recommended that the scheme be ‘approved in principle.’
4.4 Council considered the detail of this proposal under item 7 of the Earthquake Recovery Committee on 3rd April 2014 leading to the Council meeting of 28th April1 and ‘approval in principle’ the proposal. This approval does not circumvent the normal resource consenting process under the Resource Management Act, but did identify sources of delivery support should the scheme gain its required consents.
The Water Environment
4.5 In pursuing urban growth within the South West Area Plan, Council and all the stakeholders engaged in its preparation, have been aware of the constraints imposed by surface water and drainage patterns. This was especially so in the vicinity of the Halswell North area where the plan recognises the close interaction with Hendersons Basin – a natural ponding area – and the need to work with the south easterly flow paths of existing water courses. The map in Attachment 1 shows the spatial extent of the measures proposed to manage stormwater.
1 See http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/meetingsminutes/agendas/2014/April/CommitteeoftheWhole3April2014AgendaFull.pdf 81 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11 Cont’d Map 1: Component Areas of the Halswell North Greenfield Priority Area
Exemplar Area (19ha 320 homes)
Spreydon Lodge Ltd Landholding (75ha)
Halswell North Greenfield Priority Area (153ha 1800 homes)
Broad location of proposed commercial centre (KAC) Current Flooding issues at North Halswell / properties on the west of Hendersons Road.
4.6 The hydrology of this part of the city is well understood, on account of the work to secure the global stormwater consent for the South West area. The North Halswell area – separated from the Henderson’s Basin area by Sparks Road – is relatively low lying and ponding of water does occur during storm events.
4.7 Map 2 on the following page shows the modelled extent of potential flooding for a 1 in 50 year rainfall event (36-hour design storm event including 16% increase in rainfall intensity to account for climate change). Map 3 shows the estimated extent as observed in the March 2014 storm.
4.8 Map 4 contains ‘Rain on Grid’ mapping which identifies areas at risk of immediate ponding – those locations where there is likelihood of short term ponding during and immediately after a high intensity rainfall event. The data shown here reflects more localised topography mapping.
4.9 The modelled and actual flooding and ponding are broadly confined to the land adjacent Sparks Road. The key points relevant to the request made by the Community Board are:
None of the Hendersons Road properties lie within the 50-year mapped floodplain. None of the Hendersons Road properties were within the mapped flood extent of the March 2014 storm event. There are areas adjacent to Hendersons Road where – at peak rainfall intensities – short term ponding is likely to occur. 82 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11 Cont’d
MAP 2: Modelled extent flooding resulting from a 1 in 50 year rainfall event
MAP 3: Estimated extent of observed flooding ‐ March 2014 Storm Event.
83 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11 Cont’d
MAP 4: ‘Rain on Grid’ 10 year evaluation
4.10 In terms of recording of flooding related events, Council ‘Request for Service’ records indicate the following calls. These calls were raised from properties in Hendersons Road between Sparks Road and Halswell Road. Most are several years old and generally align with large storm events.
Date Property originating Issues and Commentary complaint (actual addresses withheld) 4 May Hendersons Road The sump grate here is blocked deep down and causes flooding 2006 when it rains and hasn't been cleared out in a long time please investigate. Investigated - inspection showed sump was clear.
8 August Hendersons Road Customer has rung today wishing to be contacted as to when 2006 she will hear what is happening with this request she said the whole backyard is now about a foot under water (NB. This was a very large storm event resulting in widespread flooding where the bulk of rainfall was centred over the port hills above Cashmere Stream and Hendersons Basin)
20 Hendersons Road Resident in front flat advises that the people at the back unit January don’t have any stormwater piping connected to their roof only to 2010 their garage and it is all coming thru to her property and blocking her drains etc which she is having to pay to have cleaned out - she is asking if we could send someone out to investigate.
17 June Hendersons Road Street flooding between Sparks and Halswell Roads has 2013 become very bad. There are signs out but caller thought maybe roading should take another look. Called to downers. (NB.a large storm event where more rainfall depth in this area exceeded that of the 14 March 2014 event) 84 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11 Cont’d
4.11 While the recorded incidents are limited, there may be unreported incidences of localised nuisance flooding or issues with high groundwater. Also it is noted there are a variety of issues recorded from perceptions about sump maintenance to inadequate rainwater fittings on adjacent properties. The reported incidents generally do not indicate an issue with surface water coming across from the North East Halswell farmland area.
4.12 In locations closer to Sparks Road, where the known patterns of ponding exist, there would be an expectation that some properties may endure persistently high levels of ponding water or groundwater.
Evaluation of Meadowlands
4.13 No subdivision consent has been lodged with Council at the time of writing this report. When it is, staff will be required to evaluate the proposal (which will include engineering reports provided by the developer) to determine the effects upon the wider area as well as the immediate surroundings.
4.14 It is a mandatory requirement for flooding and stormwater to be evaluated through the subdivision consenting process. The normal process is that engineering reports are provided as part of the application and they are then peer reviewed by staff. In this particular case, there is extensive existing information relating to flooding and stormwater management as a result of the South West Area Plan and other work. The flooding issues in the area are therefore well known and understood
4.15 Having said this, based on the directions from the South West Area Plan, the associated Stormwater Management Plan and advice being given to the developer, the Meadowlands development will
Be required to capture all of the runoff from their development area and manage it appropriately within their own system. This means that any historic sheet flow of runoff from the paddocks will now need to be directed AWAY from the strip of existing properties along Hendersons Road. Be required to mitigate the stormwater runoff from their development in accordance with Council's South West Area Stormwater Management Plan, which means capturing the full 50-year, 36-hour storm event with slow release over 96 hours, resulting in a REDUCTION of peak flows from the existing condition. Need to manage groundwater by installing subsoil drainage in order to install and operate underground utilities and mitigate liquefaction risk. Be required to provide compensatory storage for any lost flood volume due to filling in the Hendersons Basin ponding area, to ensure that they do not displace ponding flood waters onto lower lying properties or cause a rise in the peak flood levels. Be required to ensure their final earthwork levels do not adversely affect the natural land drainage patters of neighbouring properties. This may require earthworks or specific drainage systems to be constructed in order to mitigate any differences in final land elevation along the boundary.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 None of the proposed issues identified in this report have additional financial implications for Council.
85 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
11 Cont’d
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Receive the information in this report and note that the issues raised by the Community Board are being addressed. 6.2 Circulate the report to the Riccarton Wigram Community Board for their information. 86 Attachment 1: Plan 1 of the South-West Christchurch Area Plan (April 2009) COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 11 87
88 89 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
12. ADOPTION OF REPORT ON DOG CONTROL POLICY AND PRACTICES 2013/14
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director of Corporate Services, N Member responsible: Corporate Services Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Inspections & N Enforcement Author: Mark Vincent, Animal Control Team Y DDI: 941 7041 Leader
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The Dog Control Act 1996 (“the Act”), section 10A requires all territorial authorities to report on the administration of its dog control policy and practices annually. Once Council has adopted the report, a public notice must be given of the report and a copy sent to the secretary for Local Government. This provision in the Act was introduced by the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003. The Act lists the information required in the report.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Dog Control Act 1996 was amended by the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 with a focus on increasing public safety. As part of the amendments, Central Government has introduced the requirement for Territorial Authorities to report annually with certain information.
2.2 The annual report requires Territorial Authorities to provide details in relation to such matters as: dog exercise and leash control; dog prohibited areas; impounded animals; education programmes and initiatives and a range of specific annual statistics including aggressive/dangerous dogs, number of dogs classified as dangerous or menacing dog, the number of registered dogs, number of infringement notices issued, and the number of prosecutions etc.
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 There are no direct financial implications in relation to the preparation of the annual report nor any financial implications should Council adopt the recommendation contained in the report.
4. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached Report on Dog Control Policy and Practice for 2013/14, pursuant to Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.
90 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 91
Report on the Administration of Christchurch City Council’s Policy and Practices in relation to the Control of Dogs for the year 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 (Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996)
Mark Vincent Team Leader Animal Management Inspections & Enforcement Unit Christchurch City Council
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 92
CONTENTS:
o BACKGROUND o DOG REGISTRATION o CLASSIFICATION OF OWNERS – RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP o TWO OR MORE DOG LICENCES o EDUCATION PROGRAMME o FEAR OF ATTACK AND INTIMIDATION o DANGEROUS AND MENACING DOG CLASSIFICATIONS o OFFENCES AND PENALTIES o DOG EXERCISE AND LEASH CONTROL AREAS o DOG PROHIBITED AREAS o IMPOUNDMENT OF DOGS o STATISTICAL SUMMARY COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 93
Report on the administration of Christchurch City Council’s Policy and Practices in relation to the control of dogs for the year 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 (Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996)
BACKGROUND
Council adopted the “Control of Dogs” Policy (“the policy”) in September 2008. The Policy has provisions relating to the control of dogs in public places which are enforceable under the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2008.
The objectives of the policy are to:
● Set the framework for Dog Registration Fees and Classification of Owners;
● Identify mechanisms for promoting responsible dog ownership and interaction with dogs;
● Set the framework for Issuing of Infringement notices and Impounding of Dogs;
● Specify the requirement for neutering of dogs classified as dangerous or menacing; (sections 32(1) (c) and 33E (b));
● Provide adequate opportunities to fulfil the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners;
● Set the framework for categories of Dog Control;
● Notify areas where specific dog control status has been designated for reasons such as public health, safety and hygiene and protection of wildlife, animals and stock;
● Identify the matters to be covered by bylaws.
In adopting a policy under section 10A Dog Control Act 1996, the territorial authority must have regard to:
(a) the need to minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally; and
(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and
(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and
(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 94
DOG REGISTRATION
Dog registration fees are set by Council resolution and have been held at current levels (apart from a slight increase in 2010 due to an increase in the GST component) for the last eight years. Council approved a 3% CPI increase across all fees for the 2014/15 year.
Annual dog registration fees and dog impoundment fees completely fund the dog control functions. There is no contribution from general rates that funds this business model.
The dog registration numbers are currently 36,586 compared to 34,072 for the last period. An overall increase of 2514 dogs.
Currently the Council has 16,136 dogs registered as holding the “standard dog” category with 13,878 owners. 20,450 dogs are recorded as being in the ‘Responsible Dog Owner’ category with 15,843 owners.
There are 824 dogs with the ‘working dog’ status; they also pay a reduced annual dog registration fee.
Council’s financial services indicate dog owners should be able to pay dog registration fees on-line in the next dog registration period. Both teams are working together to make this payment method possible.
CLASSIFICATION OF OWNERS - RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP
Responsible Dog Owner status was set by Council resolution in the Dog Control Policy 2008. The Council continues to promote responsible dog ownership to dog owners and the wider community.
Currently the Council has 15,843 dog owners holding the ‘Responsible Dog Owner’ classification – which accounts for over 55% of all dogs in the city. There are 20,450 dogs registered to these owners with some owners having more than one dog.
Comment
Responsible Dog Owners receive an annual reduced registration fee (for prompt registration) as reward for continued compliance of the Responsible Dog Owner status criteria.
TWO OR MORE DOG LICENCES
The Council conducted 964 property inspections checking for compliance for two or more dog applications in accordance with Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council dog control bylaw 2008.
Dog owners in the previous Banks Peninsula District Council are not required to obtain a licence to keep two or more dogs, in accordance with Clause 9 (d) of the Christchurch City Council Dog Control policy 2008.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 95
EDUCATION PROGRAMME
The team’s vision is that every child in the city will be better equipped to stay safe around dogs.
In 2013, the Council’s dog education programme was rebranded to reflect a more modern, 21st century version. The new look programme has been renamed ‘Dogsmart’ and has been rated by industry peers as the best school education programme in New Zealand. The programme has been strongly supported by industry leaders and is being promoted to other New Zealand Territorial Authorities for use.
‘Dogsmart’ continues to provide a comprehensive bite prevention and dog safety educational presentation to children, as well as promoting responsible dog ownership, good dog ownership and dog welfare. The team conducted 48 presentations over the current period.
The team also provide adult training and presentations to staff working for the Ministry of Justice, Housing New Zealand, NZ Post and other community groups based on dog bite prevention and safety around dogs. The team conducted 12 presentations over the current period.
Seasonal e-newsletters – K9 News – are sent to 10,308 email addresses, the majority being registered Christchurch dog owners. The newsletter is personable, informative, educational and fun and receives positive customer feedback.
FEAR OF ATTACK AND INTIMIDATION
Council investigated 12,808 nuisance dog complaints, these related to dog attacks, unregistered dogs, dog impounds and 2 or more licence investigations.
This year’s statistics show a marginal decrease in the number of Priority 1 complaints, with 1279 complaints in 2012/13 to 1265 in 2013/14. Figures include complaints relating to dangerous and menacing dogs.
There is a small increase (8%) in the number of general dog complaints of 5772 compared to 5335 in 2012/13, figures relate to dogs barking, lack of containment, dog wandering and fouling.
Council responded to 376 complaints to check on properties where dogs were not receiving the essential elements of life (food, water and shelter). This equates a 10% reduction in the number of these type of complaints received in comparison to 2012/13.
Council responded to 27 requests to urgently action situations where dogs were reported to be at risk or in distressed situations – this is similar to the volume of complaints received in 2012/13.
DANGEROUS AND MENACING DOG CLASSIFICATIONS
Dogs classified as Dangerous – 12 dogs were classified as dangerous, increasing the total number of dogs classified as on the Councils register to 95. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 96
Dogs classified as Menacing - (based on aggressive behaviour), 55 dogs were classified as menacing, increasing the total number of dogs classified as menacing on the Councils register to 425.
Dogs classified as Menacing - (based on breed or type), 31 dogs were classified as menacing, increasing the total number of dogs classified as menacing on the Councils register to 618.
All dogs classified in all categories must be neutered, muzzled and micro- chipped in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996. Regular impromptu property inspections ensure compliance is met.
Council provide owners with a free muzzle and free micro-chipping, this proactive approach enables dog owners to comply with their legal requirements, and significantly reduces the compliance costs that Council would normally incur.
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
Council successfully took 13 summary prosecutions against dog owners (12 owners in total) for offences against Section 57 of the Dog Control Act 1996. All prosecutions resulted in convictions where reparation was ordered to be paid to victims. As a result of these prosecutions all 12 dog owners had been disqualified from owning dogs ranging between 2-3 years. In accordance with the Act; the maximum period of disqualification is 5 years. The range of fines/penalties over the 13 prosecutions was between $200 - $1100.
Dog owners convicted of any offence under the Act, must be disqualified from owning dogs (in accordance with Section 25 of the Act); these owners have disqualification periods between 2-3 years.
Council classified 3 owners as “probationary dog owners” (in accordance with Section 21 of the Act). These owners incurred 3 or more infringement offence notices, they are required to meet conditions of the Act over a 2 year period.
The Council issued 1406 infringement notices relating to breaches against the Dog Control Act 1996 and Council’s Dog Control bylaw 2008. The previous year 1016 notices were issued.
DOG EXERCISE AND LEASH CONTROL AREAS
The Council has historically established a number of dog parks and dog exercise areas within the city. Presently there are seven designated dog parks situated at: Groynes reserve, at the Groynes, Belfast Styx Mill reserve, off Husseys Road, Northwood Horseshoe Lake reserve, off Horseshoe Lake Road, Shirley Victoria Park reserve, within the Elizabeth Park reserve, Cashmere Radley reserve dog park, at Cumnor Terrace, Woolston Bexley reserve, on Pages Road, Bexley Rawhiti dog park within the Rawhiti Domain, New Brighton.
Greenspace teams operate and manage these dog exercise environments. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 97
All of the dog park areas above (with the exception of Radley Park) are fully fenced to contain the dogs, allowing dogs to run freely off leash in a controlled and safe environment.
The development of dog parks have proven to be extremely popular for dog owners and enabled owners and dogs to socialise amongst family and friends in a dog friendly environment.
One other benefit of dog parks is that there appear to be fewer dog-related complaints at local sports grounds where children participate in sports.
The Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2008 requires all dogs to be leashed while exercised on roads.
DOG PROHIBITED AREAS
Dogs are prohibited from certain specified areas within the city. The following criteria have been used in assessing dog-prohibited areas were:
Children’s playgrounds – safety and hygiene Areas of intense public use – sports grounds, beaches Areas of ecological sensitivity - wildlife significance Any other areas as resolved by Council as specified in the dog control policy
Considering the large number of dogs in the city, the Council receives very few complaints about dogs wandering uncontrolled on city streets, or dogs causing annoyance at local beaches. There is however, always a small group of owners who will not comply with Council’s Bylaw and the team continues to use proactive enforcement action to seek compliance.
Regular patrols are programmed to coincide with peak seasonal times at high profile prohibited dog areas. These areas are prohibited primarily due to health, hygiene and child safety concerns including some wildlife and environmental reasons.
IMPOUNDMENT OF DOGS
A total of 1,834 dogs in 2013/14 were impounded. This is an increase of 3% on last year’s figures. The Council returned 1231 dogs back to their owners, 297 dogs were adopted back into the community and 306 dogs were euthanized.
Dogs that were found at large for the first time and having a micro-chip implant or a registration tag were generally returned home as opposed to being impounded. This action is consistent with the teams approach to managing stray and roaming dogs, which is to:
“Return the dog back to its owner, as quickly as possible, without penalty”
This approach enables dog owners to be better educated on how to control their dogs, is better for the dogs welfare, is cost neutral for the Council as it removes the impound process and has a better outcome for the wider community.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 12 98
STATISTICAL SUMMARY
2013/14
Total number of registered dogs 36,586
Total number of probationary owners 3
Total number of disqualified owners 12
Total number of dogs classified as dangerous (live records
only) . S.31 (1)(a) Section 57A conviction 5 . S.31 (1)(b) Sworn evidence 79 . S.31 (1)(c) Owner admits in writing 3
Total number of dogs classified in 2013/14 as menacing
(brackets indicate total number classified) . S.33A Observed or reported behaviour (deed) 55 (425) . S.33A Characteristics associated with its breed or type (breed) . S.33C Dogs listed in schedule four 31 (619)
Number of infringement notices issued (not waived or 1406 cancelled) Number of dog related complaints . Dog attacks on people 278 . Dog attacks on domestic animals 448 . Dog rushed at people 539 . Dog barking 2188 . Dogs roaming (covers self generated bylaw, roaming and 3584 miscellaneous matters) Number of prosecutions 13
Send to: Secretary for Local Government Department of Internal Affairs PO Box 805 Wellington 99 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
13. INSPECTIONS & ENFORCEMENT UNIT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2013/14
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director of Corporate Services Member responsible: (Corporate Services Group) Officer responsible: Inspections & Enforcement Unit Y (03) 941 8653 Manager Author: Anne Columbus Y (03) 941 8653
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 Inspections & Enforcement Unit staff have recognised the need to provide Council, through the Regulations and Consents Committee, with better information in regards to the service outputs and operational issues as they relate to Councils regulatory compliance, licensing and registration functions. Such reports have been submitted annually since 2007/08.
1.2 To better inform Council and provide a handy reference document, staff have developed an annual performance report detailing regulatory compliance, licensing and registration activities for the previous year. A copy of the 2013/2014 report is attached (refer to attachment 1).
2. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
2.1 The cost of producing the annual performance report has been met out of the Inspections & Enforcement Unit’s operational budget.
2.2 The Inspections & Enforcement Annual Performance Report is submitted in a “word document” format and will be published on the Council’s website after Council formally acknowledges receipt of the report.
3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council note and acknowledge receipt of the 2013/14 Inspections & Enforcement Unit Annual Performance Report.
100 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 101
2013/14
Inspections & Enforcement Unit
Annual Performance Report
TRIM: 14/1029692 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 102
2013/14 Inspections & Enforcement Unit Annual Performance Report
Contents
1. Manager Overview and Enforcement Strategy...... 4 Inspections & Enforcement Unit Structure...... 8
2. Animal Management Team ...... 9 2.1 Enforcement Approach 2.2 Dog Registration 2.3 Unregistered Dogs 2.4 Dangerous and Menacing Dogs Classifications 2.5 Complaints Management and Enforcement 2.6 Dog Parks Development 2.7 Education and Dogsmart Awareness 2.8 Micro-chipping 2.9 Dog Impounding 2.10 Stock Control and Impounding
3. Parking Enforcement and Administration Teams ...... 15 3.1 Adjudication Process 3.2 Complaints 3.3 Special Events Management 3.4 School Enforcement and Chaos at the School Gate Programme 3.5 Bus Lane Enforcement
4. Compliance Support Team………………………………………………………………………..17
5. Environmental Compliance Team...... 18 5.1 Nuisance Complaints 5.2 Recreational Water Quality Monitoring 5.3 Housing 5.4 Asbestos 5.5 Drug House 5.6 Noise Complaints 5.7 Land Contamination 5.8 Consent Processing 5.9 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act)
6. Alcohol Licensing Team ...... 24 6.1 Licence Application Process and Hearings 6.2 Trends/Issues 6.3 Initiatives 6.4 Liaison with other Agency Groups 6.5 Manager’s Certificates
7. Health Licensing Team...... 27 7.1 Food Premises 7.2 2013/14 Food Premises Inspections and Process 7.3 Food Hygiene Enforcement Action 7.4 Food Act 2014 Enactment 7.5 Voluntary Implementation Programme 7.6 Food Premises Grading 7.7 Complaint Investigations
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 103
2013/14 Inspections & Enforcement Unit Annual Performance Report
Contents (cont’d)
8. Compliance/Enforcement Team...... 32 8.1 Compliance Tools Utilisation 8.1.1 Significant Prosecutions/Environmental Court Orders 8.2 Resource Consent Monitoring 8.3 Quarries and Cleanfill Site Monitoring 8.3.1 Waste and Environmental Management Team (WEMT) 8.4 Complaints Volume 8.4.1 Signage Breaches 8.5 Swimming Pool Compliance 8.6 Brothels and Street Prostitution
Notes...... 39
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 104
01. Unit Overview and Compliance Strategy ______
The Inspections & Enforcement Unit has been established for seven years as a separate business unit managing the majority of compliance/enforcement functions undertaken by Council. In the past year, this unit has moved into the Corporate Services Group following the organisational restructure of Regulation and Democracy Services in November 2013. Unit functions include: the Animal Control Team, Parking Enforcement and Administration Teams and an Investigations and Compliance Department consisting of Compliance/Enforcement, Health Licensing, Alcohol Licensing and Environmental Compliance teams supported by a Compliance Support Team.
Compliance and enforcement decisions have implications for many people. Residents and businesses have the right to expect that the Council will maintain the integrity of its planning processes and regulatory framework and apply the relevant legislation fairly, equitably and effectively.
Inspections & Enforcement Mission Statement The Unit’s mission is to:
Facilitate and encourage compliance achieved through fair and independent regulatory services including, where appropriate, a graduated enforcement model based on an assessment of evidential sufficiency and public interest factors.
Risk-based Compliance Strategy There is a need to take into account the often unique and special circumstances of each case, the level of harm or degree of non-compliance and any history of previous breaches. As the Council’s resources are finite, it is necessary to target the available resources based on a risk-based compliance strategy. In planning terms, this means tailoring the compliance/enforcement approach based on the degree of harm to individuals, amenities or the environment. A risk-based compliance strategy recognises that most people and businesses are willing to comply with their regulatory obligations voluntarily or can be encouraged to do so.
Staff utilise a proportional, risk based model – known as the VADE model detailed in Table 1 - in managing non compliance of with the relevant legislation or regulations. The model was originally developed by the Ministry of Fisheries and is also utilised by the Department of Inland Revenue. This model identifies the likely compliance approach into four differing groups depending on the observed level of compliance of the regulated activity. Such compliance behaviours fall into the categories of Voluntary, Assisted, Directed and Enforced (VADE) and are explained/exampled in Table 1.
Table 1: VADE compliance approach Description of compliance Example Likely Likely behaviour scenario Compliance/ Enforcement approach
Voluntary Persons seek to voluntarily Undertake consented activities in a Most likely Praise comply and be informed about careful and considerate manner their legal The activities that towards the local community and Education/Advice they undertake are compliant environment where required and cause no related nuisance from the activity they are Ensures swimming pool fencing meets undertaking the requirements of the Act
Such people know and aware of their obligations and make every effort to consciously comply.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 105
Description of compliance Example Likely Likely behaviour scenario Compliance/ Enforcement approach
Assisted People are attempting to comply Unintentionally undertakes an activity Most likely Education/Advice – but are uninformed about their that contravenes their consent verbal and various obligations or approvals and/or underlying application collateral responsibilities Minor potential for environmental or Praise for They will alter unintentional community impact compliance nonconforming behaviour when educated.
Directed People take advantage of the Does not always complete required Less likely Education -– verbal opportunity not to comply with actions in manner agreed because and collateral their legal obligations or quicker or less costly alternative; responsibilities Warnings Disregards any potential impact for They know the rules but will take environmental or community impact; Infringement the opportunity to avoid notices complying Risks for environmental or community impact are medium to high Abatement notice Likely to challenge Officer (where ‘near miss’ requests; for significant environmental Will likely alter behaviour when breach) educated.
Enforced People deliberately, and without Deliberately undertakes non-consented Least likely Infringement notice any regard, undertake non activities; complying activity in breach of Abatement notice known obligations and Deliberately Disregards impact for local responsibilities environment and communities Prosecution (Gross breaches) Recidivist activities Risks for environmental or community impact are high Knows the rules and associated parameters/conditions and has complete disregard for operating within these;
Very likely to challenge Officer requests
For matters other than strict liability offences (for example parking offences), Council's role as regulator is represented in the compliance pyramid in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Compliance model
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 106
The model illustrates the graduated approach taken to non-compliance, and that punitive or maximum sanctions such as prosecution action are reserved for deliberate, repeated or serious offending – as mirrored in the VADE compliance model.
Use of Solicitor General Guidelines and Crown Law 2013 Prosecution Guidelines The Inspections & Enforcement Unit also adheres to the guidelines issued by the Solicitor General for use by all regulatory agencies to ensure that decisions to both commence and to continue enforcement action are made on a principled and publicly-known basis. The Crown Law 2013 Prosecution Guidelines require consideration of two major factors: evidential sufficiency and the public interest. Each of these factors must be separately considered and satisfied before a decision to prosecute can be taken. Evidential sufficiency requires an assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the offence (i.e. whether there is admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed), and whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction. Table 2 describes the criteria considered for evidential sufficiency and public interest factors.
If an evidential basis exists (i.e. there is sufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish that an offence has been committed) then the public interest to proceed or not to proceed with enforcement action needs then to be considered.
Table 2: Criteria for evidential sufficiency and public interest factors Evidential Sufficiency considerations Public interest considerations An identifiable offender(s) (natural or legal) The seriousness of the offence Credible evidence can be adduced i.e. reliable Where the offence is premeditated and legally admissible evidence Where the offence is prevalent and the Evidence which could reasonably be expected need for deterrence to satisfy conviction of the offence Where the offender has previous Evidence available must be beyond warnings or convictions for a similar reasonable doubt offence in the past Commission of an offence Where there are grounds to believe that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated The effect on public opinion of a decision not to proceed with the offence.
From time to time, there are situations where public interest considerations suggest against taking enforcement action – and include such factors as: Where the Court is likely to impose a very small or nominal penalty Where the loss of harm can be described as minor and was a result of a single incident Where the offender is elderly or a youth Where the offender has no previous warnings or convictions for similar offences Where the victim accepts that the offender has rectified any loss or harm caused The physical or mental health of the alleged offender.
Now and Looking forward to 2014/15 As the rebuild/recovery effort continues to increase related activities, our risk-based compliance approach has ensured priority is placed on issues that pose a significant risk to public safety, including but not limited to, dangerous buildings and unconsented building works with significant adverse effects. Pragmatic decisions continue to be made around the reintroduction of compliance work associated with parking and general bylaw enforcement along with low risk regulatory matters such as signage, overhanging trees and general nuisance matters. Staff have continued to work with customers to bring higher risk regulatory matters into compliance, such as unconsented building matters and land activities.
Our current approach is focused on ‘Delivery through Change’ with a clear focus on continuing to meet (and exceed) our Three Year Plan 2013/14 objectives, supporting the community and Council in a pragmatic, risk-based approach to compliance. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 107
The Unit is set to rebrand in 2014/2015 to the Regulatory Compliance Unit with an emphasis on compliance and licensing activities rather than a strict enforcement approach. This aligns with our Unit’s mission statement and utilisation of the VADE approach as a proportional risk based model in managing non-compliance of with the relevant legislation or regulations. This model focuses on obtaining compliance through educating and working with customers rather than a hard enforcement approach. This rebrand includes renaming our regulatory functions into the following: the Animal Management team, the Parking Compliance and Appeals teams and the Licensing and Compliance department encompassing the Compliance team, Alcohol Licensing, Environmental Health and the Food Safety and Health Licensing teams.
The post-earthquake environment continues to drive compliance activity for the Unit including several new work streams. This includes monitoring compliance for Temporary Accommodation approvals, understanding the status of and managing ongoing dangerous building matters, and monitoring and investigating demolition waste storage/disposal. Resource consent monitoring and compliance activities will continue to increase in volume as the rebuild activities in both commercial and residential settings builds momentum. The assessment of new land based activities occurring on suspected or actual contaminated land (because of past historical use by a hazardous activity or industry) has required increased expert reporting on environmental health matters – and driving more specialist consent monitoring of these activities.
RMA monitoring and compliance is a future focus area for our Compliance teams through until 2017. We are focusing on delivering a professional service, linking up with consent holders early, achieving better cost recovery for the activity, refining business process and introducing environmental risk and priority assessments. Through benchmarking with other Territorial Authorities and developing a risk/priority-based approach to RMA related approvals we seek efficient and effective use of RMA compliance resources. We continue to anticipate a regulatory change in the area of swimming pool fencing following the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) 2013 submission paper seeking Council’s view of a raft of regulatory changes designed to make pool compliance more cost effective and streamlined. MBIE have also signalled possible changes to the regulation of amusement devices that currently fall under the Machinery Act 1950.
The implementation of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 became effective on 19 December 2013 with the introduction of a new decision-making structure through District Licensing Committees. The committees have enabled better community participation in alcohol licensing decisions as well as more detailed reporting on the good order and amenity effects of alcohol licensed premises on their surrounding areas. This wider assessment criteria provided in the Act around environmental effects of licensed premises has provided new challenges in legislative understanding and application to the operation of licensed premises – and will continue to do so until such time as the industry and regulators obtain legal clarity on these aspects.
The recently enacted Food Bill 2014 will bring change to food premises from March 2016. In the interim, food premises can voluntarily implement Food Control Plans ahead of the compulsory transition period. Our staff are looking to get as many businesses on board with this new regime in the next 18 months to better facilitate the compulsory industry transition into the new risk-based quality system from March 2016. Unknowns still exist for territorial authorities in terms of the inclusion of prescribed fee regulations for this activity and we anticipate consultation in the next 12 months with regard to these regulations.
Finally, our next annual report will reflect our Unit’s rebranding of name and team titles in 2014/15. We are focusing on the word compliance because of the compliance model that all regulatory agencies use - where enforcement is just one aspect of getting people to carry out activities in the way they have been regulated. With our focus on prevention first, managing high risk early and partnering business and people to do the right thing we get much better community and environmental outcomes with the carrot rather than the stick!
Anne Columbus Inspections & Enforcement Unit Manager COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 108
Inspections & Enforcement Unit Organisational Structure
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 109
02. Animal Management Team ______
The Animal Management team is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Dog Control Act 1996, the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw 2008 (which includes the general control of dogs), Christchurch City Council stock control bylaw 2008 and the Impounding Act 1955 (which includes the general control of stray and wandering stock).
The team consists of: Technical administration officers are responsible for revenue collection through annual dog registration and permit licence fees, infringement fines and impounding fees. Officers update the Councils dog registration database, allocate resources to service complaints, update the National Dog Database and provide technical support. Animal Management officers are responsible for investigating dog nuisance complaints relating to barking, stray dogs, dog attacks and inspections of properties to ensure compliance is met. A significant proportion of officers’ time relates to educating owners, promoting responsible dog ownership, investigating on dog care and welfare and checking compliance. They also investigate complaints about stray stock on roads causing traffic hazards. Animal shelter officers are responsible for the care, welfare and disposal of impounded animals. Officers evaluate impounded dogs and conduct temperament assessments to measure the dog’s suitability for adoption back into the community.
2.1 Enforcement Approach The focus of the Animal Management team is firstly to encourage compliance through education and co-operation. Punitive enforcement action will normally only be taken if education and cooperation has been unsuccessful.
The performance statistics demonstrate a judicious use of punitive enforcement action (i.e. infringement notices/prosecutions) unless the offence is serious or where the dog owner has been uncooperative or irresponsible.
2.2 Dog Registration Dog registration fees are set by Council resolution. There have been two fee increases in the past eight years (2010 increase to reflect GST increase and a general increase of 3% for the 2014/15 years).
Annual dog registration fees, infringement fines and dog impoundment fees are received and used to fund 100% of the dog control functions.
There is no contribution from general rates that supports this business model. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires that revenue generated by dog fees can only be utilised for the purpose of this Act.
The total number of dogs recorded with the Council for the period was 36,586. Of these, 55% (or 20,450 dogs) were recorded as being in the ‘Registered Dog Owner’ category. The remainder (45% or 16,136 dogs) were registered as being in the ‘Standard Dog’ category.
Responsible dog ownership Responsible dog ownership was introduced by Council in 1995 and has successfully rewarded dog owners with reduced dog registration fees since then. The status requires dog owners to consistently demonstrate responsible dog ownership through compliance with central and local government dog laws. The status strongly supports care, welfare and containment of dogs.
Responsible Dog Owner status was continued by Council in the Christchurch City Council Dog Control Policy 2008.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 110
2.3 Unregistered Dogs Approximately 3000 dogs remain unregistered for the 2013/14 period. Dog owners have received final reminder notices to comply and non complying owners are provided with enforcement options to ensure compliance is met.
Council also conducts house-to-house survey visits throughout the city to identify unknown, unregistered dogs and seek compliance through the normal process channels. This work is carried out between February and May of each year.
Officers check properties for compliance of responsible dog owner status, two or more dog permits and the general living conditions of the dogs.
2.4 Dangerous and menacing dog classifications All dogs classified as either dangerous or menacing must be neutered, muzzled while at large and micro-chipped in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996.
Council provide free muzzles and micro-chips to ensure dog owners comply with their legal requirements and significantly reduced compliance costs that would normally occur. Regular programmed inspections ensure compliance is met.
Dogs classified as Dangerous – 12 dogs were classified as dangerous, increasing the total number of dogs classified on the Council’s register to 95.
Dogs classified as Menacing - (based on aggressive behaviour), 55 dogs were classified as menacing, increasing the total number of dogs classified as menacing on the Council’s register to 425.
Dogs classified as Menacing - (based on breed or type), 31 dogs were classified as menacing, increasing the total number of dogs classified as menacing on the Council’s register to 618.
2.5 Complaints Management and Enforcement The Animal Management Job Allocation System (JAS) has been operating for 12 years and continues to provide the most efficient use of the Council’s resources (labour and vehicle running costs). Jobs are allocated to officers in the field using remote handheld devices.
Table 3: Job Allocation Job Allocation 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Priority 1 Jobs 1,141 1,279 1,265 dog attacks, dog in distress. Priority 2 Jobs 5,172 5,335 5,772 barking dogs, fouling Jobs initiated via Animal Control 3,751 3,675 3,937 Impounded dogs 1,815 1,785 1,834
Total Jobs 11,879 12,074 12,808
As can been seen in Table 3, over the 2013/14 period, the Council investigated 12,808 dog nuisance complaints (dog attacks, unregistered dogs, dog impounds and licence investigations), which is an increase of 6% on the previous year.
This year’s statistics show a slight decrease of 1% in the number of Priority 1 complaints. This figure includes complaints relating to dangerous and menacing dogs.
There was a 7.5% increase in the number of general dog complaints relating to barking, uncontrolled, stray and fouling dogs.
The Council issued 1406 infringement notices for breaches against the Dog Control Act 1996 and Council’s Dog Control bylaw 2008. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 111
Council responded to 376 complaints to check properties to ensure dogs were receiving the basic needs of life (food, water and shelter) and responded to 27 requests to urgently check on dogs that were reported to be at risk or in distressed situations.
2.6 Dog Park Development The Council established a number of dog parks and dog exercise areas within the city. Presently there are seven designated dog parks situated at: Groynes reserve, at the Groynes, Belfast Styx Mill reserve, off Husseys Road, Northwood Horseshoe Lake reserve, off Horseshoe Lake Road, Shirley Victoria Park reserve, within the Elizabeth Park reserve, Cashmere Radley reserve dog park, at Cumnor Terrace, Woolston Bexley reserve, on Pages Road, Bexley Rawhiti dog park within the Rawhiti Domain, New Brighton.
The Council’s Greenspace teams operate and manage these dog exercise environments. All of the dog park areas above (with the exception of Radley Park) are fully fenced to contain the dogs, allowing dogs to run freely off leash in a controlled and safe environment.
The development of dog parks have proven to be extremely popular for dog owners and enable owners and dogs to socialise amongst family and friends in a dog friendly environment.
2.7 Education and Dogsmart Awareness The team’s vision is that every child in the city will be better equipped to stay safe around dogs
In 2013 the Council’s dog education programme rebranded to reflect a more modern, 21st century version. The new look programme has been renamed “Dogsmart”, and has been rated by industry peers as the best school education programme in New Zealand. The programme has been strongly supported by industry leaders and is being promoted to other New Zealand Territorial authorities for use.
“Dogsmart” continues to provide a comprehensive bite prevention and dog safety educational presentation to children, as well as promoting responsible dog ownership, good dog ownership and dog welfare. The team conducted 48 presentations over the period.
The team also provide adults training and presentations to staff working for the Ministry of Justice, Housing New Zealand, NZ Post and other community groups based on dog bite prevention and safety around dogs. The team conducted 12 presentations over the current period.
Seasonal e-newsletters – K9 news - are sent to 10,308 email addresses, the majority being registered Christchurch dog owners. The newsletter is personable, informative, educational and fun and receives positive customer feedback.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 112
2.8 Micro-chipping dogs Micro-chipping of dogs became a statutory requirement on 1 July 2006 with the passing of an amendment to the Dog Control Act 1996.
These laws only affect those dogs classified under the Act as either dangerous or menacing (e.g. American Pit Bulls) and all newly registered dogs. The Animal Shelter is open every Wednesday between the hours of 11 am -12 noon and attracts 20-25 dog owners per week for free micro-chipping.
2.9 Dog impounding Table 4 shows a total of 1834 dogs were impounded for the 2013/14 period and this figure has remained fairly constant over the past three years. The Council returned 1231 dogs home to their owners, 397 dogs were adopted back into the community (23% increase from 2012/13) and 306 dogs were euthanized (25% less dogs euthanized from 2012/13).
Dogs found wandering local streets that are first time offenders and having been micro-chipped and registered are generally returned home, as opposed to being impounded. This approach is an efficient use of resources, has better community outcomes and fair to dog owners. The team’s philosophy is to: “Return the dog back to its owner, as quickly as possible, without penalty”
This approach enables dog owners to be better educated on how to control their dogs, is better for the dogs welfare, is cost neutral for the Council as it removes the impound process and has a better outcomes for the wider community.
Table 4: Outcomes of impounded dogs 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Returned to owner 1,181 1,073 1,231 Adopted 299 305 397 Disposal of 335 407 306 Total dogs impounded 1,815 1,785 1,834
2.10 Stock control and impounding Over the period, the Council received 477 complaints relating to stock wandering/fouling on Council roads. The majority of these complaints were resolved by using the farming community network to secure the stock off the road and not requiring Council intervention.
This network (a telephone list of local farmers) was a huge success in helping return wandering stock back onto rightful properties. The Council conducted (65) formal investigations requiring enforcement action relating to stock wandering or fouling on roads.
Over the period, officers monitored a larger number (5) of farm properties on a more regular basis than previously, ensuring the control of stock and permit requirements were met in accordance with the Impounding Act 1955 or the Christchurch City Council stock control bylaw 2008. The Council spent considerable time and resources managing two stray and wandering horses owned by a person living in the Riccarton area. The section improved its reporting of stock related complaints over the period, hence the large increase in the number of recorded complaints. Officers are called out to respond to stock wandering loose on roads after normal hours (early morning and late evening), and undertake investigations to move stock off roads to ensure other road users safety. Table 5 reports on the outcome of stock impounded.
Table 5: Disposal of impounded stock 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Claimed by owner 8 6 5 Sold by action 0 8 11 Destroyed 10 0 0 Total 18 14 16 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 113
03. Parking Enforcement and Administration Teams ______
The Council’s Parking Enforcement team is responsible for the enforcement of traffic and parking legislation that incorporates both New Zealand regulations and bylaws set by the Council.
The two teams comprise of management staff, adjudication officers, an abandoned vehicle support officer and parking officers.
Parking Officers are active in the field, responding to customer service requests, e.g. blocked vehicle entrances, parking on broken yellow lines and bus stops. Additional duties also include the on-site investigation and removal of abandoned vehicles from the road.
A large part of the officers’ day involves educating drivers, answering questions and assisting the public. A key focus is on road safety matters including traffic movement near school as well as proactively identifying parking non-compliance offences. The officers attend schools, proactively engaging with school staff, pupils, parents/caregivers and the Police to change behaviours to ensure a safe environment outside the school gate. This programme is called “Chaos at the School Gate” and is outlined further in section 3.4 below.
The team is also involved in assisting with the traffic management of some events held in the city which are detailed below.
The primary role of the administration staff is to manage the adjudication process which is detailed further in the following section. However, the team also audits the Court lodgement documentation prior to Council initiating legal proceedings for recovery of outstanding infringement notices. The number of these are outlined in Table 6.
The team also administers the abandoned vehicle process which is set out in the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Act 2006. Table 7 shows the number of abandoned vehicles reported and removed during the year.
Senior officers are also responsible for managing the District Court defended hearings and act as Prosecutors on behalf of the Council.
3.1 Adjudication Process The Council provides an adjudication process that enables vehicle owners or drivers who have been issued with infringement notices to write a letter of explanation to the Council. The Council will then consider whether to proceed with the infringement notice. The adjudication process follows the guidelines issued by the Solicitor General, as outlined in Section 1 of this report. In accordance with those guidelines, the first step in the adjudication process is an assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the offence.
To do this, the adjudicator (a Council officer) must consider whether there is admissible and reliable evidence that an offence has been committed by an identifiable vehicle, and whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction. If an evidential basis exists then the public interest factors to proceed with enforcement action is then considered.
Adherence to the Solicitor General’s guidelines helps ensure similar cases are treated alike. This means that if there is nothing to distinguish one case from another, then the decision in each case should be the same, or similar, to ensure the consistent and fair application of the law.
However, factors which lead to a decision to continue with an infringement notice often vary from case to case. Generally the more serious the charge such as a safety related offence (eg. expired warrant of fitness and parked on a broken yellow line) and the stronger the evidence to support it, the more likely it is that it should proceed. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 114
The decision of the adjudicator must not be influenced by the offender’s colour, race, ethnic or national origins, sex, marital status or any other grounds on which discrimination could be claimed. Similarly, the adjudicator’s personal views of the offender must not influence the decision-making process.
The role of the adjudicator is to balance all relevant factors in determining whether the Council should proceed with the offence.
The infringement ticketing device the officer’s use have the capability of taking photographs. This helps to support the evidential gathering process should a matter proceed to a Court hearing, and has also assisted adjudication staff in the assessment process. Often a photograph removes any ambiguity as to whether an offence has been committed or not.
Table 6 provides a summary of the volume of tickets issued, those submissions accepted from the adjudication process for waiving, the number of tickets lodged with the Court for collection and the number of defended hearings relating to parking matters for the year.
Table 6: Outcomes of tickets issued per year Ticket Figures 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Tickets issued 62,320 64,924 72,820 Tickets waived 4,548 6,431 7,702 Court lodgements 8,562 13,843 17,473 Defended hearings 0 24 8
Figure 2: Parking tickets issued and outcomes
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000 2011/12 40,000 2012/13 2013/14 30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Tickets issued Tickets waived Court lodgements
The closure of the CBD as a result of the cordon has had a significant impact on the overall delivery of parking enforcement services. Pre-earthquake ticket numbers typically were around 90,000 per annum. As the CBD has opened up further in the 2013/14 year, there has been an increase in vehicle movements which has contributed to the growth in the number of infringements of just over 12%.
It is also worth mentioning that there has been a 20% increase in the number of infringement notices waived as a result of written applications to the Council. There has been a continued approach by staff over the last few years to consider the emotional and financial effects that the earthquakes have had on the residents of Christchurch. Consequently a higher degree of understanding and empathy has been given when dealing with these submissions to waive tickets. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 115
There has been a 21% increase in the volume of tickets sent to the Courts for collection. This can be attributed to the increase in the number of infringements issued during the year and motorists electing to make payment through the Court system. Defended hearing matters for the 2013/14 year dropped by 60% over the past 12 months. It should be noted however, that a large number of hearings held in 2012/13 were those deferred as a result of the earthquake in February 2011 and this is reflected in the “Zero” return for the previous year.
The earthquakes and the closure of the CBD also resulted in the displacement of parking related problems (business’s moving locations) to suburban areas requiring the need to patrol these areas more regularly and this has continued in the last 12 months.
3.2 Complaints Complaints and Customer Service Requests (CSRs) include offences such as parking on broken yellow lines, blocked vehicle entrances, bus stops, taxi stands and parking illegally on mobility and motorcycle stands.
The number of general complaints as indicated in Table 7 dipped in 2011/12 due to the varying affects the earthquakes have had on parking enforcement related issues, although the number the following year increased significantly. The 2013/14 has seen a small increase of just over 7%. In addition, the number of abandoned vehicles reported has remained relatively steady.
Table 7: Number of complaints by year Investigations 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Complaints or CSRs 2,473 3,458 3,701 Abandoned vehicles reported 937 913 922 Abandoned vehicles removed 28 59 50
3.3 Special Events Management Parking Enforcement is involved in a number of high-profile special events each year.
The role of the team in such events is to assist in the management of traffic and safety issues associated with each event that requires a Traffic Management Plan. The events managed during the 2013/14 year included:
● Concerts in Hagley Park (Christmas in the Park and Classical Sparks) ● New Brighton Fireworks Night ● A&P Show
Parking Enforcement also has a presence at major events, such as Super Rugby fixtures, where their role is to enforce the designated no-stopping areas.
3.4 School Enforcement and Chaos at the School Gate Programme Part of the mobile Parking Officer duties is to have a presence at primary schools within their designated patrol beat. Officers attend before and after schools opening times and are primarily focused on safety offences including parking on broken yellow lines, parking over vehicle entrances, double parking and parking within a bus stop.
The Parking team also offer a specialised programme called ‘Chaos at the School Gate’ which involves Council Parking Enforcement Officer’s with the support of the Police Education officers and School staff.
During this two-week programme the first week is used by the Parking officers to educate drivers who are illegally parked with a friendly reminder to park in a more suitable and safe manner.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 116
The second week involves issuing infringement notices for illegal parking such as those indicated above. These infringement notices are posted out to drivers in order not to detain them and to lessen the congestion and safety issues around the school.
3.5 Bus Lane Enforcement In May 2008, the Council approved the implementation of special vehicle lanes, primarily focusing on public transport corridors that will give priority to buses during the morning and afternoon peak times.
However, enforcement of vehicles driving in a bus lane has been suspended since February 2011 due to the majority of the CBD still being closed in the 2011/12 year. Many of the bus lanes have been affected by building demolition issues, road and infrastructure repairs. The decision to suspend the enforcement of the bus lanes was made in the interests of supporting the earthquake recovery effort and the impracticality of taking enforcement action given the state of some roads after the earthquakes. Council staff are looking to re-instigate bus lane enforcement relating to vehicles driving in such lanes in the current year.
With regards to those vehicles parking in a bus lane, normal enforcement practices have continued to ensure that buses still using those routes are unhindered as much as possible.
The number of infringement notices issued in relation to bus lane offences is detailed in Table 8.
Table 8: Infringement notices relating to bus lane offences Tickets Issued 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Driving in a bus lane 0 0 0 Parked in a bus lane 916 890 712
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 117
04. Compliance Support Team ______
The Compliance Support Team provide centralised administrative and business support to teams within the Compliance Department; namely Compliance/Enforcement, Environmental Health and Health Licensing.
The team was established within I&E earlier this year as a result of the disestablishment of the Regulation and Democracy Services Group. These staff members previously sat within the Customer and Business Support Unit and delivered support to these I&E teams. There are currently four staff (Compliance Support Officers) working in this team who work more collaboratively in delivering end to end services to the aforementioned teams. The team are actively engaging in coaching each other on their specialised and detailed work practices to ensure there is a consistent application of ‘best practice’ support services applied across the teams they provide assistance to.
The staff provide professional business administration and reporting services for internal customers focusing on specific areas as required. Additionally, they provide information and business support for personnel administration, procurement, cost monitoring, reporting and records management. The team are a source of information to assist and advise customers regarding legislative requirements as well as Council policy and practice on a range of applied regulatory processes and licensing.
The team are responsible for conducting day to day operations of customer application support processes for a range of health licensing and permit types e.g. applications for new/renewal food premises licenses. They act as a ‘first point of contact’ for customer service requests and assess these for completeness after which these are processed or forwarded to the relevant team or external party for appropriate actioning.
In 2013/14, the team processed approximately 3000 letters to the residents of Christchurch concerning overhanging trees, 350 fire hazard notices and 4000 correspondences pertaining to swimming pool inspections. They are responsible for scanning 4800 files on behalf of the Compliance teams they service. The team create 710 resource consent monitoring files and 116 Temporary Accommodation Permit monitoring files to enable the officers to appropriately monitor and inspect these activities.
Of uppermost importance to this team is the ability to provide a professional and friendly phone manner when handling customer enquiries whether these relate to swimming pool inspections or health license enquiries.
.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 118
05. Environmental Compliance Team ______
The Environmental Compliance team comprises of ten members of staff. The team is responsible for managing and monitoring matters of public health, including:
Inspection/monitoring/abatement of environmental health nuisances Noise control management Investigation and assessment of contaminated land Public health comment and input into building and resource consents Registration and inspection of offensive trades Hazardous substances duties to protect public safety.
Environmental Health
5.1 Nuisance Complaints The Health Act 1956 outlines local authorities’ powers and obligations relating to nuisances. Environmental Health ‘nuisance’ generally refers to a situation, pest or material that is offensive or likely to be injurious to the environment or human health
Table 9 provides a summary of the number of complaints received by the Environmental Compliance team relating to nuisance complaints since 2011. The data for 2013/14 year is spilt into the number of complaints received relating to residential and commercial properties with the majority of complaints occurring in residential areas.
Table 9: Health Nuisances 2013/14 Nuisance by type 2011/12 2012/13 Residential Commercial Total Vermin 149 193 156 16 172 Housing 74 76 41 3 44 Rubbish 42 60 49 3 52 Mosquitoes 49 28 56 7 63 Hazardous Substances 29 31 9 0 9 Odour 32 30 23 7 30 Cats 20 24 36 3 39 Birds/Poultry 10 20 18 1 19 Flies/Insects 11 13 7 1 8 Animals 7 10 12 2 14 Glare/Lightspill 4 6 3 3 6 Chemicals/P Houses 13 6 8 0 8 Dust 18 8 2 10 12 Contaminated sites 2 3 1 1 2 Other 0 15 17 7 24 Total 460 523 438 64 502
Complaint numbers are slightly down on the previous year; with most health nuisance complaints remaining relatively stable across the past 3 years. There is always interest in the levels of complaints regarding vermin and whilst we saw a 30% increase in vermin complaints between 2011/12 and 2012/13, the past year saw a 12% drop in these complaints. One of the reasons for this decline might be attributed to the clearing of areas where there had been harbourage and food post quake.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 119
There continues to be an increase in the number of complaints being received relating to either abandoned cats or properties housing significant numbers of cats. Generally this increase appears to be related to the post earthquakes environment where cats have been left behind by their owners and seek refuge in nearby areas.
There has also been a significant increase in the numbers of mosquito complaints in the past year – up 65% of the previous year. However, about half of these complaints have been attributed to a non-biting variety of fly known as a crane fly. It would appear that it has been a very good season for this species, leading to peoples concerns about their presence.
Staff continue to work closely with the Public Health Unit to identify mosquito types and potential habitat. This is particularly important near the ports due to the risk of an incursion by exotic species which could be the vector for disease and also more voracious biters.
5.2 Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Environmental Compliance is part of an interagency group alongside Environment Canterbury and Community and Public Health to ensure that the public is aware of the water quality for recreational use in the Christchurch area. Factors such as rainfall can affect the water quality and increase the risk of illness. If the results do not meet recreational water standards the group is responsible for communicating with the public and ensures that appropriate signage is erected or updated. The Environmental Compliance team takes responsibility for ensuring the correct signage is in place with the signage bearing the logos of the three Agencies.
Public education and awareness programmes have been developed to ensure appropriate levels of understanding relating to recreational water quality issues within the community are attained. One mechanism used to achieve this awareness is through presentations to Community Board meetings.
5.3 Housing Housing is widely acknowledged as a determinant of health. Cold and damp housing, substandard housing and overcrowding all contribute to the health of our community. These issues have all featured in housing complaints with a 40% decrease in complaints as can be seen in Table 9. Over the past year, Environmental Health Officers have continued to investigate insanitary and substandard houses with the majority of the complaints being associated with damp, cold and mould issues.
In the incidents where very young, very old, ill and other vulnerable individuals are involved; a joint visit is undertaken with an officer from the Community & Public Health team of the Canterbury District Health Board. This initiative, which is now in its’ second year enables the introduction of other important services into these substandard households such as energy efficiency, GP medical, Maori health or mental health services.
In February 2014, staff took part in a national rental accommodation Warrant of Fitness (WOF) trial. The results of this survey are currently being studied by a national group and have been picked up by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment as part of a national initiative to understand and manage rented housing standards.
Age Concern’s Hoarding Liaison Group was re-established this year to assist in the co- ordination of services for vulnerable elderly and reclusive people which is a challenging area of work.
5.4 Asbestos The Environmental Compliance Team has always had a level of involvement with asbestos matters, notably investigating complaints in residential properties and public places. In the post- quake demolition and rebuild environment, asbestos issues have come to the fore. A significant removal and disposal industry has sprung up in Christchurch and Council has become a key interagency regulatory player. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 120
There were twelve instances of asbestos being found in public places, vacant sections and roadways. This has resulted in action to have it removed from roadways and other places. In residential settings, follow up often involved informing property owners about the dangers of asbestos and their obligations. In all cases, asbestos work is given urgent priority. In the majority of situations, WorkSafe New Zealand are the led regulatory for asbestos – as the majority of occurrences are in work place situations (e.g. construction or demolition sites).
5.5 Drug Houses Under the Health Act 1956, Council has responsibility to ensure living conditions are safe for any occupants after drug activity has been discovered in their residence. Notifications of suspected hazardous chemical contamination are received from the Police and enquiries of alleged drug activity are received from property owners and occupiers.
Council officers utilise a photo-ionising detector to measure vapour levels of volatile organic compounds to screen suspected drug houses. Subsequent chemical testing and decontamination of premises is often extensive and the responsibility of the property owner. Table 10 details the number of drug houses identified by Council officers since 2011.
Table 10: Number of Drug Houses 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Drug Houses 5 6 7
5.6 Noise Complaints
Background Noise control continues to be a significant activity for the Environmental Compliance team with 12,575 noise complaints made to Council during the 12 month reporting period. The team manages both daytime and after-hours complaints. After-hours complaints are dealt with in the first instance by a contractor but staff are involved in following up many of these complaints to seek resolution and prevent re-occurrence.
Complaint numbers The past two years have seen a continuous reduction in the number of noise complaints received by the Environmental Health team (see trend discussion below for further information).
Table 11 provides a breakdown of the types of noise complaints and their numbers for residential and non-residential areas in 2013/14.
Table 11: Noise Complaints 2013/14 2013/14 Noise Complaint Types 2011/12 2012/13 Residential Non - Residential Total Radios, Stereo's, TV's 11,931 11,584 9,279 209 9,488 Parties 1,119 387 467 14 481 Bands, Concerts, PA's, etc 711 873 163 685 848 Musical Instruments 257 301 236 29 265 Construction 197 372 144 451 595 Alarms 197 158 154 62 216 Motor Vehicle Operations 181 200 101 135 236 Other Machinery 121 86 67 19 86 Animals 76 72 55 1 56 Other 166 86 86 51 137 Yelling, Singing 60 57 48 8 56 Plant and Equipment 106 143 22 89 111 Total 15,122 14,319 10,822 1,753 12,575
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 121
Discussion on trends Overall there has been a 12% reduction in noise complaints from 2012/13 to 2013/14. A significant influence in this was an 18% reduction in complaints involving radios, stereos and televisions. Factors impacting on this result include - The issuing of written notices immediately upon the first visit when noise is confirmed as excessive. Staff seeking resolution in ongoing and repeat noise complaints. The change and shift of population post earthquake.
Other trends influencing the noise figures for this year include – Construction noise complaints have risen involving both demolition and construction work, foundation work and concrete pours. Staff work with these construction firms to understand if any practical changes or mitigation measures (such as quieter equipment or alternative work hours) can be arranged.
Seizures of Noisy Equipment The level of seizure of noisy equipment continues to decrease in line with the overall reduction of complaints involving radios and stereos and the serving of written directions on the first visit. Table 12 indicate 58 equipment seizures for the 2013/14 year. The noise directive notifies the owner that the equipment will be seized if any further complaints are received by Council staff
In addition, seized equipment is not returned unless officers are satisfied there has been no further instance of noise complaints at the property. The costs of the seizure are recovered before equipment is returned.
Table 12: Number of seizures of noisy equipment Seizure of Noisy Equipment 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Seizures 72 65 58
Routine co-ordination between the Council’s Alcohol Licensing and Environmental Compliance teams occurs where copies of excessive noise reports are provided to Alcohol Licensing inspectors. When the Council receive complaints from residents about a licensed premise, from either a noise or a behavioural point of view, both teams work together to respond in a co- ordinated manner. The Alcohol Licensing team utilise this information when considering a renewal application for an Alcohol Licence and team members present evidence on noise complaints at alcohol licence hearings.
Sound Level Monitoring Environmental Health officers carry out objective sound level monitoring relating to entertainment venues, concerts, resource consent applications and in response to complaints as well as assessing general environmental effects.
5.7 Land Contamination The National Environmental Standard (NES) covering ‘contaminated land’ came into force in January 2012. It consolidated and updated five national contaminated land management guidelines and associated documents, and acts as a regulation under the Resource Management Act 1991. It has input into the Council’s consenting and processing systems, requiring more controls and detailed assessments of consents involving land management. Coupled with the post-earthquake demolition and rebuild environment; land assessments where past use suggests contamination continue to increase and require expert public health advice on these matters. This continues to have a significant effect on the work of the Environmental Compliance Team.
There were a total of 447 resource and building consents that involved contaminated land processed in the past year. This has increased from 144 during 2011/12 year. This is a 300% increase in the number of investigations over the past two years. This is primarily as a result of earthquake recovery activity. It is comprised of land use change, subdivision and building COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 122
consent processes, where the land has been identified as having had HAIL activity either currently or in the past. Staff expect this trend to continue for some years given the damage to residential and commercial buildings throughout Christchurch and the associated rebuild program. Also team members are dealing with additional enquiries at an increasing level from both internal and external clients which requires review and investigation of council records and comment on the NES.
Ongoing implementation is occurring around this activity, including: Improvements around contaminated land information handling, storage and data sharing between the Council and Environment Canterbury. This has also included extensive communication with Ministry for Environment and CERA to clarify, interpret and implement the NES. Process improvements associated with consent applications including presentations to other departments on technical aspects.
Earlier this year, the Environmental Compliance team supported Environment Canterbury in preparing information for the Hazardous Activities and Industrial List (HAIL) identification project. A range of information on properties was sourced for Environment Canterbury’s staff and consultants. The HAIL ID project saw the creation of a register of properties in the Christchurch area that have had past HAIL activities occur on them. This was made publically available through a four week tranche of letters to affected land owners in May 2014.
5.8 Consent Processing Resource consent applications requiring Environmental Compliance Team input have increased by approximately 172% in 2013/14 (see Table 13) due to earthquake recovery activity on HAIL identified land. The Ministry for the Environment’s introduction of the National Environmental Standard for contaminants in soil means more thorough assessments of environmental effects of land based activities on land that may previously have been associated with hazardous activities.
Table 13: Resource Consents by Type Types of Resource Consents 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Contamination 53 191 346 Noise 81 81 88 Electromagnetic Radiation 36 33 19 Hazardous Substances 10 17 14 Others (Plan Changes) 11 8 1 Lighting 4 3 7 Total 195 333 475
Table 14 shows the number of building consents processed over the past two years – this has remained fairly consistent in the post-earthquake environment.
Table 14: Building Consents by Type Types of Building Consents 2012/13 2013/14 Contamination 98 101 Noise 3 0 Hazardous Substances 5 7 Total 106 108
5.9 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) A hazardous substance is anything that can cause significant harm to people or the environment and may include materials that are explosive, flammable, toxic or poisonous. The HSNO Act in Section 97 outlines Council’s obligation to enforce the Act in respect of public places and domestic dwellings. Council is also expected to assist emergency services responses to major hazardous substance incidents. This activity mainly entails advising and educating homeowners about household and garden chemical disposal along with referring commercial operators to lead Agencies. Support is also provided to the NZ Fire Service and other Agencies COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 123
attending to spills and pollution incidents. For 2013/14, six HSNO related incidents were notified to Council as detailed in Table 15.
Table 15: HSNO Incidents by Type Date Nature of Incident Comment Lead Agency December Cyanide container discovered Disposed through hazardous Christchurch 2013 in shed waste firm City Council January 2013 Spillage of Iso-paraffin at Large scale Worksafe freight depot Emergency services response March 2014 Spillage of methyl-cyanante at Large scale Worksafe freight depot Emergency services response April 2014 Accumulation of 44 gal drums Low level Christchurch on property Empty drums removed City Council May 2014 Small spill of solvent at Low level – vented Christchurch residence City Council May 2014 Chemical odours affecting Low level - vented Worksafe Lyttelton Service Centre staff
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 124
06. Alcohol Licensing Team ______
The Alcohol Licensing Team administers, on behalf of the Council, the processing of applications for Alcohol Licences and General Managers’ Certificates under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 became fully operational on 18 December 2013, transitioning from the previous Sale of Liquor Act 1989.
The Alcohol Licensing inspectors also carry out enforcement and compliance monitoring of licensed premises in conjunction with the NZ Police and representatives of the Medical Officer of Health.
6.1 Licence Application Process and Hearings
The Alcohol Licensing team receive and process all new and renewal applications relating to on/off/club licences, special licences, temporary authorities and Manager’s Certificates.
Inspectors inquire into each application and since 18 December 2013 report to the Council’s newly formed District Licensing Committee (DLC) on all applications. Inspectors are independent and report in their own right to the DLC and can oppose an application without an objection being received.
The Council’s has four DLC’s, each Chaired by an appointed Commissioner. Commissioners may sit alone and hear non-opposed applications on the papers. Matters requiring a hearing are heard by a full DLC, comprising a Commissioner and two list members. List members must have experience relating to alcohol matters and all appointments to the DLC list were through resolution of Council.
Unlike the previous District Licensing Agency the DLC is now able to hear all applications, including those where public objections have been received or opposition raised by the agencies.
Enforcement actions are still forwarded to the Alcohol Licensing and Regulatory Authority (ARLA) in Wellington for determination. There may be instances where licence renewals are opposed / public objections are lodged in addition to enforcement applications being made. In this circumstance the DLC would usually request that ARLA hear both matters in conjunction.
Prior to the 18 December 2013 opposed Temporary Authority and Special Licence applications were referred to the District Licensing Agency Council Hearings Panel for determination, normally by way of a public hearing. This Panel did not sit in 2013/14 given an absence of opposition to those Temporary Authority and Special Licences.
District Licensing Committees have convened on 11 occasions to hear applications. Since December 2014, these Committee hearing related to 6 Special Licence applications, 2 On- licence applications, 1 off licence application, 1 manager’s certificate application and 1 temporary authority.
The Committee granted 8 applications and declined 3.
Hearings are a resource intensive, timely and costly exercise. On average, about 20+ hours of an inspector’s time is taken up in briefing and preparing a case for an opposed licence, excluding the hearing time to present the case to the Committee / Authority. The average time spent preparing for an opposed Manager’s Certificate would be one to three hours.
6.2 Trends/Issues
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 125
On 18 December 2012 the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (SSAA) gained Royal Assent and the processes to replace the Sale of Alcohol Act (SoLA) 1989 began their transition. From 18 June 2013 all licence applications and renewals have been subject to expanded reporting criteria under SSAA. However, those licences were still issued under SoLA until 18 December 2013 when SSAA took full effect.
In Christchurch there has been a noticeable increase in licenses being issued for businesses that have not previously been licensed. Previously the Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Act Permitted Activities) Order 2011 provided some leniency around City Plan rules for displaced earthquake businesses to facilitate recovery. In effect a displaced business was able to locate out of usual planning zones for a maximum of five years without the need for resource consent if it met the criteria established by the Council. However, these Temporary Accommodation Permits have not been a feature of licensing trends this past year. There has been a trend in the development of permanent venues, locating in areas where a number of other licensed premises existed, such as Lincoln Road, or in newly establishing areas of the central city, such as St Asaph Street.
Demolitions and removals of large numbers of commercial buildings have largely been finalised and new buildings are being established. The addition of new building stock will assist in providing a barrier between licensed premises and the perceived noise and general disorder in/around residential areas.
General disorder including urination in public places, side-loading, yelling, swearing and sex/drug taking in public places has continued to cause significant consternation for nearby business and residents in many areas, particularly Victoria Street. The Inspectors anticipate that the new Act provision regarding good order and amenity may have some impact in dealing with anti-social behaviour associated with licensed premises.
Christchurch City Council took advantage of the opportunity to start developing a Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) as allowed for in SSAA. The LAP provides the opportunity for greater community input into the activities of licensed premises in Christchurch. At the time of writing the provisional LAP is on hold pending the outcome of appeals against other territorial authorities LAP’s.
6.3 Initiatives
Controlled Purchase Operations There were four Controlled Purchase Operations (CPO) carried out during the year, resulting in 66 premises being visited.
All CPO’s were conducted utilising minors. Seven premises sold to a minor in breach of the Act resulting in those premises being referred to the Authority. The typical recommended suspension periods were for Off licences: 24 hour closure and 30 day suspension of the COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 126
Manager’s Certificate; On-Licences: 2-3 days suspension of the licence and 30 day suspension of the Manager’s Certificate.
Current City-wide Alcohol Accord
Work has continued with the hospitality industry and a number of other partners to establish a city-wide alcohol accord. Prior to February 2011 Christchurch had an effective city centre alcohol accord, which included a voluntary one-way door restriction.
The developing city wide accord is to be driven within each suburban area by the hospitality industry and supports a series of minimum standards which licensees must sign up to in order to become an accord member. Two significant hospitality areas, Victoria Street and Lincoln Road, have accords in place. Victoria Street hospitality premises have employed their own Street Safe Officers to patrol public spaces; this forms part of an initiative along the lines of the national mellow yellow campaigns.
6.4 Liaison with Other Agency Groups
The Christchurch Alcohol Licensing Team, NZ Police, and Community and Public Health have maintained a close working relationship as the Tri-Agency Group. This includes weekly meetings and interagency monitoring teams.
The Tri-Agency Group continues to use the Licensed Premises Risk Matrix. This is maintained by the Alcohol Licensing team and is shared electronically with the other agency groups, via a shared workspace. It is kept up-to-date in a collaborative manner. All licensed premises are now on the website and there are over 4100 monitoring notes. The Police are using this database to store their visits to licensed premises. The relationship and co-operation between the three agencies is strong and collegial.
The Christchurch Alcohol Licensing Team has also had regular contact with the Department of Internal Affairs, Health Promotion Agency, Hospitality Standard Institute and Hotel Association of NZ.
6.5 Manager’s Certificates
There are 3401 current holders of Manager’s Certificates in the Christchurch territorial area. This number varies from the application figure as the certificates are renewed at three-yearly intervals.
Table 16 shows the number of applications received for the financial years 2010 to 2014.
Table 16: Number of applications received yearly Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 On/Off/Club Licenses 580 438 460 422 410 Manager’s Certificate 2,120 1,718 1,338 1,759 1,641 Total 2,700 2,156 1,798 2,181 2,051
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 127
07. Health Licensing Team ______
The Council registers and undertakes inspections of food premises, hairdressers, funeral directors and camping grounds under the Health Act 1956. The Act places a general obligation on the Council to promote and conserve public health and to monitor compliance with all statutory requirements within its territorial boundary.
7.1 Food Premises
Legislative requirements relating to food premises are governed by the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974, Food Act 1981 and Building Regulations 1992. The Food Act 1981 is being replaced by the Food Act 2014 which will take effect on the 01 March 2016.
Food business owners have the option of registering their premises with the Council utilising an off-the-peg template Food Control Plan developed by the Ministry for Primary Industries ahead of the 01 March 2016 commencement date of the Food Act 2014. They are subject to the same fee structure as other premises. The new legislation aims to give food businesses the tools to manage food safety themselves based on the level of risk associated with the kinds of food produced and in a way that suits their business. Therefore some of the premises will be required to operate a food control plan (discussed further below in Section 7.5).
They can choose to develop a customised Food Safety Programme (FSP) that is registered directly with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The number of premises opting for the FSP option is around 200 and mainly involves food manufacturing businesses, supermarkets and their approved suppliers, and franchise businesses (eg. petrol stations).
Table 17: Food Premises by Type Type of Premises 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Food Premises 2,049 1,664 1,602 1,724 1,805 Hairdressers 329 320 240 265 267 Camping Grounds 18 19 19 21 21 Funeral Parlours 7 7 7 7 7 Total 2,403 2,010 1,868 2,017 2,100
Table 17 shows that while Hairdressers, Camping Grounds and Funeral Director registrations have remained steady over the last 5 years, the numbers of food premises registrations have continued to increase from the immediate post earthquake lows.
Figure 3 shows a steady increase in food premises registrations equalling about 5% each year which is a net gain of 90-100 premises over a year. This increase has so far been in areas outside of the CBD and across the city with a concentration in those areas experiencing growth such as Addington, Hornby and Riccarton.
As the rebuild work continues the likely revitalisation of historical and new hospitality zones in the CBD is likely to see increasing numbers of operations returning to this area. It seems reasonable to expect total numbers of food premises in the city to equal pre-earthquake numbers by the end of the 2015/16 financial year.
Staff spend considerable time working both with applicants, and other departments in Council, in ensuring that businesses are set up in accordance with the Building Act and Resource Management Act requirements.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 128
Figure 3: Number of Food Premises Registrations since 2009/10
Food Premises Registrations
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500 Number of premises 0 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Year
7.2 2013/14 Food Premises Inspections and Process
1775 food premises were inspected at least once during the 2013/14 year. A feature of registrations at present is the continual increasing number of moveable premises which take more effort to locate and inspect when they are operating. Also in line with legislation changes more time was needed to encourage the higher risk food service operators to voluntarily adopt the Food Service and Catering FCP.
The team are moving to a risk-based approach whereby premises that are viewed as non- complying are given an immediate (1-7 day) follow-up inspection, and are given another inspection within three months to ensure that required improvements are being maintained
The team has identified 76 premises that have required follow up visits and have completed or scheduled all of the required inspections. Extra inspections beyond those identified by this process due to continued issues for food safety would incur additional cost to the operator which represents additional incentive for compliance. .
The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) carries out unscheduled inspection on premises for compliance with the relevant legislation. After the officer introduces themselves, a comprehensive inspection is carried out to determine compliance with the Food Hygiene Regulations, or the relevant legislation for other licensed premises types. An officer conducting an audit of a Food Control Plan arranges the audit time with the operator COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 129
to ensure all of the responsible mangers are present and able to be interviewed, to demonstrate food safety procedures and to answer specific questions in regards to their food safety procedures.
The officer discusses food safety matters and non-compliances with the proprietor and necessary food hygiene education is provided. Areas of non-performance are noted on a premises inspection report, which is signed by the proprietor or person in charge and they are provided with a copy of this report. The Council retains a copy of this report and it is filed on a premise file where it can be referred to when re-inspections are made or when change of ownership occurs.
In line with the new Food Act 2014, EHOs were actively encouraging food premises that will be required to operate with Food Control Plan in Year 1 transition schedule, Food Service sector with general on-licence. Refer to section 6.6 below.?????
The verification process requires the EHO//Verifier to not only complete a site visit but also review Food Control Plan documentation and verify that processes meet with their FCP. The verifier generally arranges a suitable time to complete verification of their FCP.
7.3 Food Hygiene Enforcement Action
Food legislation is enforced by Food Safety Officers (FSOs), employed by MPI supported by evidence from Environmental Health Officers (EHOs)/verifiers employed by local Councils.
Under the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974, where an Environmental Health Officer believes that a premise is non-complying and the food in the premises may be exposed to contamination or taint, or deteriorate or become dirty, they can request a Designated Officer from Ministry for Primary Industries to close the premises. The Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 Reg (82) detail instances where a Designated Officer is permitted to close premises. Only 1 premise was closed by MPI during this report period to address serious hygiene issues identified at the time of routine inspection.
Under the Food Act 2014, FSOs and verifiers will have more effective tools for protecting consumers from unsafe food, unethical food operators and misleading or inaccurate labeling. As the Act will introduce infringement offences, FSOs will have the power to quickly and effectively deal with minor offences (as set by regulations).
The new Act will also considerably strengthen the penalties that can be given for the worst offences that put people’s health at risk or undermine New Zealand’s export reputation.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 130
7.4 Food Act 2014 Enactment
After considerable review by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the government enacted the Food Act 2014 on 06 June 2014 with commencement date of 01 March 2016.
The Food Act 2014 aims to make food businesses more responsible around food processing and selling and ensuring the food produced is safe and suitable for sale.
The new Act steps away from the one-size-fits-all approach to food safety and recognises that each business is different. The higher risk food businesses, for example, prepare and sell meals or sell raw meat will operate with a Food Control Plan (FCP). Here businesses identify food safety risks and the steps to manage these risks. The FCP can be based on a template developed by MPI or businesses can develop their own to suit their individual business.
The businesses that produce or sell medium risk foods, for example, non-alcoholic beverages, will come under National Programmes. There will be three levels of National Programmes (NP3, NP2 and NP1) that are based on the level of food safety risk. They will need to meet the requirements for producing safe food in accordance to the new regulations including registering business details, keeping records and periodic checks.
The new Act provides exemption so the kiwi traditions including fundraising sausage sizzle or home-baked goods at school fairs can take place. However the rule applies that food sold must be safe.
The Act applies to food that is sold or traded therefore growing food for personal use and sharing it including ‘bring-a-plate’ for committee meetings, lunch for visiting sports team or social group are outside the scope of the Food Act.
Over the next 19 months MPI will develop regulations, tools and guidance for industry and local government. This involves consultation with the regulators, industry and public and provides the opportunity to comment on the detail of the new food safety system.
Once the new Act is in place in 2016 the food businesses will transition in groups over three years into the new rules depend on food safety risk. The transition period only applies to existing food businesses. The Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 will be revoked at the end of the three years to be replaced by the new regulation(s). From 01 March 2016, any new food business will immediately operate under the relevant tool, i.e. Food Control Plan or National Programmes.
Under the new law, individual operators will be able to influence their own compliance costs. Those businesses that are performing well will be rewarded with less frequent checks, while businesses not managing food safety well will receive extra attention.
Under the proposed transition schedule to get existing food businesses compliant with the Food Act 2014, it is likely that in Year 1 the Food Service sector general on-licence will be required to operate with FCP and therefore has been the focus for the Health Licensing team. Refer to Section 7.5 below.
7.5 Voluntary Implementation Programme
The Ministry for Primary Industries initiated the Voluntary Implementation Programme (VIP) to allow local Councils to begin the transition to verify and audit food premises with template Off- the-Peg Food Control Plans (OTP-FCP) and for the food service businesses the choice to adopt the OTP-FCP earlier ahead of the Food Act 2014. This programme has been in place since 2008.
The template Off-the-Peg Food Control Plans are developed by MPI. Currently there are three types of plans that are available for use including Food Service and Catering Industry, Homemade Jam and Meat at Stalls. With the enactment of the Food Act 2014 MPI will be COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 131
developing more template OTP FCP, for example, Retail Food Control Plan (Meat, Seafood, Deli, Bakery and Produce & Other Retail).
VIP allows Councils, the Food Service and Catering sector of the food industry to develop processes to implement the new regime earlier before mandatory requirement once the Food Act 2014 is enacted along with the associated Regulations and Notices.
Council has participated in this initiative, along with other territorial authorities. 92 food operators registered in the 2013-14 year for Off-the-Peg Food Control Plans. Staff have been trained in the application of the new risk management tool so that they can provide information and support to businesses wanting to adopt a FCP. The template for the food service sector was available until stock ran out and now must be downloaded from MPI website. In the Christchurch area there are currently around 600 food businesses that fit into the group that is likely to transition in Year 1. These premises, Food Service sector general on-licence, will be targeted by staff to encourage adoption of FCP over the next two years. Any new food businesses on 1 March 2016 must operate with relevant tool, FCP or NP.
Staff are responsible for ensuring that a template FCP: meets the requirements to be an approved food safety programme is the right fit for the business is being followed.
Most of the Council’s Health Licensing team staff have completed training by MPI as auditors and have been appointed as Food Safety Programme Auditors of template OTP-FCP in New Zealand. The newest member of the team will go on the training once the course becomes available at MPI.
7.6 Food Premises Grading
Christchurch is one of the few larger local authorities that do not have a bylaw to grade food premises. The new legislation indicates that the Food Act 2014 has provisions for the development of regulations for a national grading scheme once appropriate consultation has been carried out. The aim of a grading scheme is to: improve, promote, or protect the safety or suitability of food; and provide consumers with information about the level of a food business's compliance with the food safety regime
There appears to be support for food premise grading with many food premise operators and public enquiring about such a system. The commencement of The Food Act 2014 means that time is required to develop, complete consultation and finalise the associated Regulations and Notices. There has been little indication that national grading will be addressed in the early development stage. The impact of the Food Act 2014 on the provisions and scope of possible grading systems is being assessed in reference to Christchurch.
7.7 Complaint Investigations
A total of 70 complaints were recorded by the customer services request (CSR) system and investigated during the reporting period. This compares with 125 in 2013/14 licensing year and 99 in 2012/13 licensing year.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 132
08. Compliance/Enforcement Team ______
The Compliance/Enforcement Team ensures compliance with a broad range of legislative requirements including provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Building Act 2004, the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1997, Local Government Act 2002, Litter Act 1979 and Amusement Devices Regulations 1978 and Machinery Act 1950.
The team also monitors and ensures compliance with a number of Christchurch City Council Bylaws including the Clean Fill Licensing Bylaw 2008, Urban Fire Safety Bylaw 2007, Brothels (Location and Signage) Bylaw 2013, and Public Places Bylaw 2008.
The monitoring of Resource Consent conditions and follow up for breaches of City Plan rules also falls within the responsibilities of the Compliance/Enforcement Team.
Currently the team consists of the Team Leader, two Senior Compliance Officers, a fixed term Earthquake Building Coordinator, nine Compliance Officers and two Swimming Pool Inspectors. The team responds reactively to internal and external complaints and proactively when non compliant issues are identified.
During this Annual Report period the team responded to over 5,800 customer service requests.
A range of compliance and enforcement tools are used by the team through a graduated compliance model to achieve a favourable outcome. Compliance tools include giving verbal advice and education, warning letters, infringement notices, abatement notices, notices to fix under the Building Act 2004, enforcement orders or, for serious offending or habitual offenders, prosecutions either through the Environment Court or the District Court.
8.1 Compliance Tools Utilisation
Decisions are made after assessing the facts of each case against two broad criteria provided by the Solicitor General Guidelines 2010:
Sufficiency of admissible evidence to support the charge/offence/enforcement action. Whether in the public interest, enforcement action is justified.
A range of compliance tools are available depending on the legislation/bylaw creating the offence and Table 18 provides a summary of the type and volume utilised since 2010.
Table 18: Types and Volume of Compliance Tools Compliance Tools 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Abatement Notice 13 5 11 5 Notice to Fix 68 26 39 47 Infringement Notice 40 24 19 79 Enforcement Order 0 1 0 0 Prosecution (No. of information’s laid) 0 2 2 1
Individual Compliance Officers have authority to issue abatement notices, notices to fix and infringement notices. However, all decisions regarding prosecutions and enforcement orders must be approved by the Unit Manager under delegated authority.
The figures indicate a reduction in enforcement action post the Canterbury earthquakes in 2010/2011. During this period the post earthquake strategy was to assist economic recovery with a primary focus for enforcement being public safety matters. A rise can be seen in the 2012/13 figures in relation to those issues requiring the issue of an abatement notice or notice to fix to ensure compliance. This increase has carried over into 2013/14 with a rise in the number of notices to fix and infringement notices issued as building work around the city increases as the Christchurch rebuild gathers momentum. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 133
8.1.1 Significant Prosecutions/Environmental Court Orders:
Table 19 summaries the significant court decisions or ongoing court prosecutions over the 2013/14 period.
Table 19: Court Decisions Name of Recipient Location Incident Offence Status Summary CCC v Fan Jiang England Street Operating a Ongoing – Ongoing business without currently before resource consent the Court
8.2 Resource Consent Monitoring
The team run a resource consent monitoring system to ensure that conditions imposed on the granting of resource consents are complied with.
Continuous improvement is being made to this monitoring system to ensure a desired proactive monitoring approach in relation to current operative consents. A composite team of representatives from the Compliance and Investigation Team and the Environmental Compliance Team meet weekly to assess and prioritise consents to be monitored. The team continues to have an overview of the process as monitoring progresses to ensure accountability and consistency across the varied resource consent conditions.
Table 20 sets out the number of current operative resource consent files requiring monitoring (also shown in Figure 4).
Table 20: Current operative resource consents requiring monitoring Operative Resource Consent Files 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Requiring Monitoring Resource Consent 325 342 469 710 Ongoing Resource Consent monitoring 1,570 1,514 1,079 1,592 Temporary accommodation permits - 335 660 849
Figure 4: RMA monitoring files
RMA files for monitoring
1600 1400 1200 Resource Consents Number of 1000 800 consents 600 Ongoing Resource 400 Consent monitoring 200 Temporary 0 2010/11 2012/13 Accommodation Permits Year
There has been a significant increase (up 34%) in the number of resource consent files received for monitoring in the 2013/14 year as the Christchurch rebuild begins in earnest.
The 2012/13 and 2013/14 figures show the number of temporary accommodation permits issued under Order in Council provisions. As with resource consents, temporary accommodation permits (TAPs) have a number of conditions that are required to be adhered to by the permit holder. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 134
8.3 Quarries and Cleanfill Site Monitoring
Cleanfill sites can be defined as active or inactive quarry sites which use cleanfill to fill the hole created from the excavation of aggregate. The Council’s Cleanfill Licensing Bylaw 2009 currently requires all sites disposing of more than 50m3 of material to be licensed. Only inert, unadulterated material that does not cause adverse environmental or health effects can be disposed of into a cleanfill site.
In the 2013/2014 year, 14 quarry sites were run by private businesses within the Christchurch City boundaries. The Council visits each site monthly to ensure that the sites are complying with the requirements of the cleanfill bylaw. Three cleanfill sites currently also have temporary accommodation permits to store and sort demolition materials and waste.
The sites continue to be monitored with no significant issues identified over the 2013/14 time period. Overall, the improved monitoring process in relation to quarries and cleanfill sites has resulted in improved compliance and quarry cleanfill operators taking their responsibilities seriously.
8.3.1 Waste and Environmental Management Team (WEMT)
It is estimated that the Canterbury earthquakes have generated approximately 8.75 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste, equating to roughly 40 years worth of waste normally sent to landfill from the city. Some waste requires special handling, such as material containing asbestos, waste from buildings containing other hazardous substances or waste located on contaminated land.
The pre-earthquake waste management system and approach did not have the capacity to process the expected volumes of earthquake waste. As a consequence, multiple additional sites have been, and continue to be, set up for temporary storage and/or processing of waste under RMA provisions. There are approximately 50 known sites currently handling earthquake waste, including storage yards, processing yards, recycling yards, transfer facilities and disposal facilities. Such sites are operating under either the provisions of a cleanfill licence, resource consents or temporary accommodation permits.
To effectively monitor the movement of waste appropriately throughout Canterbury, the Waste and Environmental Management Team (WEMT) was established in July 2012. This team is an initiative that arose through a collaborative effort between CERA, Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and Selwyn District Council who jointly funded this project team for a period of three years. The primary objective of the WEMT team is to support earthquake recovery through protecting the natural environment in both the short and long term around the management of earthquake waste. The activities of the WEMT team are reported quarterly to the Council’s Environmental Committee.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 135
8.4 Complaints Volume
This section deals with complaints and enquiries related to the Resource Management Act, Building Act, Local Government Act, Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and bylaw matters.
In 2013/14 the focus of the Compliance/Enforcement team moved from post quake recovery to a re-focus on general bylaw enforcement especially around low risk regulatory matters such as signage, overhanging trees and general nuisance matters. Priority is still given to matters posing a serious risk to public safety such as dangerous buildings however the volume of work in this area has shown a general decrease since peaking in 2010/11 after the earthquakes. As can be seen in Table 21 this reduction has been offset by an upsurge in bylaw and general building compliance work as the Christchurch rebuild begins in earnest. This gradual return to business as usual across the board is reflected in the figures in Table 21.
Table 21 indicates the type and number of CSR complaints recorded and managed by the Compliance/Enforcement team.
Table 21: Number and types of CSR complaints Customer Service Requests (CSR) 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Received by Type Overhanging tree from private property 1,391 937 2,817 2.787 Fire hazard/overgrown sections 440 796 925 517 Other 327 264 224 357 Illegal use – land or building 163 184 210 274 Building (no consent) 156 183 195 200 Building enforcement general 198 174 191 287 Dangerous buildings 1,6761 148 88 118 Signs (in a public place) 194 133 197 353 RMA (no consent) 82 112 132 104 Litter/roadside rubbish 129 104 143 158 Resource consent conditions 87 81 113 144 Obstruction of footpath 77 65 82 102 Overgrown/untidy property 49 51 85 76 Buildings dilapidated/adverse effects 48 32 45 48 Storm water/flooding from private land 15 22 41 66 Defective drains (private) 27 19 19 41 Fires incinerators/rubbish 10 8 14 14 Total 3,4692 3,313 5,722 5,846
Of note, is a decline in fire hazard complaints – during 2013/14 Compliance officers attended 517 complaints alleging the presence of a fire hazard – an almost 50% decrease on the previous year. This significant decrease is due in part to the demolition and clearance of many earthquake damaged properties, a cooler summer, and a proactive mail out to property owners with identified fire hazards from the previous season.
The team continued with a more customer centric approach to managing confirmed and potential fire hazard issues with earthquake affected customers. This also included liaison with CERA to ensure the removal of the fire hazard especially in the residential red zone areas.
1 1,600 of these CSR’s relate to Dangerous Building CSR files created following the September 2010 earthquake event. 2 Total excludes 1,600 Dangerous Building CSR’s COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 136
8.4.1 Signage Breaches
Complaints about signage fall within two general categories:
● Signage erected on private land ● Signage erected on public land under the control of the Council
A considered and pragmatic approach to signage to assist with the business and economic recovery in the central city continues. The main focus is to achieve compliance of signage posing any risk to public safety. Education and advice is a key enforcement tool in the post earthquake environment however a gradual return to enforcement of the Public Places Bylaw 2008 is anticipated in 2015 as more businesses return to the central city.
A proactive approach to remote signage was taken in 2013/14 with almost 1200 corflute signs removed from trees, berms, fences and other public areas.
Non compliant A-framed trailer signs have also come to the attention of the team and 10 of these have been removed from public or private land after a graduated compliance approach including:
Managing Signage Erected on Private Land In relation to signage erected on private land, Compliance Officers become involved where advertising signage breaches the rules in the City Plan. The overall objective of the rules controlling outdoor signage is to ensure that advertising does not distract from the amenity values, does not have a detrimental impact on natural or built heritage environments and does not or causes potential danger to public safety. To achieve these aims, the plan includes sign controls on the area, number, height above ground level and illumination.
These controls vary depending on the City Plan zoning and the location of the sign. Typically, Enforcement staff become involved when either the signage complained about is outside the dimensions allowed under the City Plan or where the property owner has not obtained permission to erect the signage.
The City Plan also allows for temporary outdoor advertisements displayed for electioneering purposes, advising forthcoming cultural, religious, educational or sporting events to a maximum total area of three square metres.
Temporary advertising signs for cultural or sporting events are allowed under the City Plan and may be placed on any land, providing consent has been obtained from the appropriate property owner.
Managing Signage Erected on Public Land under the Control of Council Signage erected on public land under the control of Council is governed by the Public Places Bylaw 2008. Under clause 6(1) of that bylaw, no person may undertake commercial activities in a public place (under the control of Council) without the written permission of Council. The definition of commercial activities in the bylaw includes advertising goods, services or events.
Signage in public places is further governed by a Council-approved policy.
Where signage complaints relate to breaches of the Public Places Bylaw 2008, the only enforcement options available are to:
● Seize the signage after a sufficient warning period has been provided to the sign owner. It is a requirement under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) that a warning is provided before seizure unless the sign is a remote sign, in which case can be seized without warning pursuant to the LGA 2002.
● Prosecute the sign owner pursuant to clause 15 of the Public Places Bylaw 2008, the penalty for which is a fine not exceeding $20,000 as set out in section 242(4) of the Local Government Act 2002. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 137
There is currently no provision to issue infringement notices in relation to signage bylaw offences.
Taking a prosecution for illegal signage demands that an assessment be made of whether the individual case requires the intervention of the criminal law. Typically, prosecutions for the erection of illegal signage are not taken by the Council as it is not in the public interest to do so. Many illegal signs are temporary and are linked to community, sporting, cultural or charity events.
Resolution of complaints about this type of illegal signage is primarily achieved through obtaining the co-operation of the event organiser to remove the offending sign(s).
Alternatively, where the Council permission to erect the sign has not been obtained for signage and Council owned land, the alternative method to resolve the issue is to refer the matter to the Council’s Transport & Greenspace Unit, as ‘owner’ of the land, requesting them to remove the signage.
As warnings must be given under the LGA 2002 before the seizing of signs on the Council- controlled land, shop and business owners usually comply with the warnings which negates any public interest issues that might otherwise justify taking a prosecution.
Due to the legal limitations on the enforcement tools available to deal with signage complaints, most signage complaints are dealt with in a pragmatic way. Complaints are typically responded to within 48 hours and typically resolved within five working days.
Managing Overhanging Trees During 2013/14, 2987 issues relating to overhanging trees and vegetation were attended and resolved. These issues comprised either complaints or a proactive response predominantly to vegetation encroaching from private properties on to footpaths or access ways.
8.5 Swimming Pool Compliance
There are approximately 5,200 known pools in the Council’s pools database. The inspection and re-inspections completed in this year totalled 5078 and included inspections related to building consents and LIM inspections (shown in Table 22).
Table 22: Breakdown of outcomes of swimming pool inspections Swimming Pool Figures 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Inspection/re-inspection of swimming 1,894 2,248 4,936 5078 pools Prosecutions taken 0 0 0 0 Notices to Fix 11 27 0 3 Infringement notices 0 2 1 1
The agreed LTP level of service for 2013/14 was a minimum of 25% of pools (1,300) or pools were to be inspected annually. Improved processes and the enthusiasm and motivation of the swimming pool team have seen this target exceeded by 11% - with 36% of pools visited.
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 138
A decline in Notices to Fix is attributed to the removal and repair of earthquake damaged swimming pools and the recent drive from the Compliance and Investigation Team toward improving the compliance of the private swimming pools in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.
8.6 Brothels and Street Prostitution
The 2013 Christchurch City Council Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013 restricts the location of brothels, with the exception of small owner- operated brothels, to certain parts of the district and to regulate the display of signs in relation to the business activity.
Under the bylaw no brothel or small owner-operated brothel can locate in any multi-unit residential complex.
Brothels, like any other business, are subject to rules contained in the City Plan. These rules vary, depending upon the zone. For example, a small-scale owner operated brothel could locate in a residential area (‘Living Zones’ as defined in the City Plan), provided it complied with City Plan rules.
The Council is only empowered to take enforcement action if the brothel fails to comply with either the Brothels Bylaw or the City Plan rules regarding the size of the premise, the number of workers living on site, hours of operation, traffic generation parking requirements.
Table 23 demonstrates the number of brothel related CSR complaints received since 2010. As can be seen, all relate to the business activity itself rather than signage concerns.
Table 23: Brothel complaints by type Brothel-related complaints 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Business activity 11 14 31 14 Signs 0 0 0 0 Total 11 14 31 14
Investigations are conducted to ascertain whether there are breaches of the bylaw or City Plan relating to the use of houses and flats as brothels and action is taken when appropriate. Of the 14 investigations in 2013/14, enforcement action was initiated against two businesses for breaches of City Plan rules.
A focus on proactively working with the community in 2013/14 to address breaches of the bylaw contributed to a significant decline in the number of complaints received.
Street prostitution is a legal activity and Council enforcement has no specific regulatory powers tailored towards this type of activity to control this activity on private or public land
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 13 139
(Notes)
39 140 141 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
14. ADOPTION OF ANNUAL REPORT TO THE ALCOHOL LICENSING AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR PERIOD ENDING 30 JUNE 2014
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Director, Corporate Services Member responsible: Officer responsible: Inspections & Enforcement Unit Manager Author: Fiona Proudfoot, Alcohol Licensing Y 941 5064 Team Leader
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (“the Act”) section 199 requires every District Licensing Committee (DLC) to prepare and send to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) a report of the DLC’s proceedings and operations during the year.
1.2 ARLA advises the DLC of the annual report format and the information required in the report. The annual report attached and marked Attachment 1 has followed the required report format. The only exception is the returns data: some elements of the format differ due to the reporting constraints of the licensing clerical system. Additionally of note is the requirement to append a current list of licensed premises to the report. In order that this report is sufficiently accurate the report will be requested immediately prior to the DLC report being forwarded to ARLA.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 This report is required to be submitted to cover the year July 2013 to June 2014. The year has seen the implementation of the new legislation in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the subsequent implementation of District Licensing Committees.
2.2 Christchurch continues to change with the rebuild and this year has seen a significant reduction in the number of current licences as licences pertaining to buildings/businesses which have ceased to exist expire at the end of their three year term.
2.3 The implementation of the new Act has brought a number of challenges; questions still arise over the interpretation of significant parts of the legislation and the framing of certain sections of the Act.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 From 1 July 2013 to 17 December 2013 the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 prescribed the functions of the Christchurch District Licensing Agency. On 18 December 2013 the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and its supporting regulations, came fully into force. The new Act prescribes the functions for the new Christchurch District Licensing Committee.
3.2 The change in legislation part way through the year has required a report which covers both the activities of the DLA, under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and the DLC, under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
3.3 From 18 December 2013 ARLA changed their requested style of statistical reporting to be based on risk categorisation of premises / events. The statistical reporting which accompanies this report is based on the different reporting requirements of ARLA. 142 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
14 Cont’d
4. COMMENT
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Pursuant to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, section 199, requires every territorial authority, within 3 months after the end of every financial year, to prepare and send to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) a report of the proceedings and operations of its licensing committees during the year.
Subsection (3) of section 199 requires the territorial authority to supply, on payment of any reasonable fee it may prescribe, a copy of each report to any person who asks for one.
Subsection (5) of section 199 requires a copy of every annual report to be made available by the territorial authority, for inspection free of charge and on an internet site maintained by, or on behalf of the territorial authority, for a period of not less than 5 years.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no financial implications arising out of the report.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Adopt the attached 2013/14 Annual Report to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority pursuant to section 199 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 143
18 August 2014
Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority Private Bag 32 001 Featherston Street Wellington 6146
Attention: Ms A Cannell
Christchurch City Council District Licensing Committee Annual Report to the Alcohol Licensing and Regulatory Authority for Period Ending 30 June 2014
1. Christchurch City Council District Licensing Committee Overview
District Licensing Committee Structure
The Council has 4 District Licensing Committees (DLC), each chaired by an appointed Commissioner. The appointed Commissioners are: Paul Rogers Al Lawn Robin Wilson Grant Buchanan
Council has approved the following persons as list members: Paul Rogers Al Lawn Robin Wilson Grant Buchanan David Blackwell John Verry Paul Buttell Tanya Surrey
Christchurch City Council Alcohol Licensing Team Structure and Personnel Changes
The Alcohol Licensing Team consists of the persons named below; there have been three changes in the last 12 months.
Fiona Proudfoot Team Leader / Chief Licensing Inspector Ph: 03 941 5064 Martin Ferguson Senior Inspector Ph: 03 941 8956 Paul Spang Inspector Ph: 03 941 8826 Jenn Davison Inspector Ph: 03 941 8828 Allison Houston Inspector Ph: 03 941 8821 Natashia Lafituanai Technical Assistant Ph: 03 941 8827 Gina Moore Technical Assistant Ph: 03 941 8068 Karin Bathgate Technical Assistant Ph: 03 941 5470
Fax number: 03 941 5033 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ccc.govt.nz/business/licencesconsents/alcohollicensing/index.aspx
Jenn Davison was appointed to a full-time Inspector role in August 2013. In November 2013 Maria White moved from her role as Technical Assistant to become a Customer Service Coordinator in another Council unit. In December 2013 Allison Houston was seconded for 6 months as an Alcohol Licensing Inspector and subsequently took up a full-time position in June 2014. Karin Bathgate joined the team as a Technical Assistant in April 2014. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 144
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 Staff Training
The Inspectors attended the New Zealand Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors Conference in September 2013. Paul Spang is a member of the NZILLI Executive Committee.
In November 2013 the Inspectors also attended the national Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act implementation training run in conjunction with HPA.
The DLC members all attended the LGNZ training seminar run in October 2013.
Changes in business compared with the District Licensing Agency
The Committee continues to see a number of brand new premises with new operators resulting from rebuilding within areas of the Central City and suburbs.
The Committee are in a unique situation with the fluid environment resulting from the re-build. Rather than long-established areas of hospitality and substantive buildings, the nature of the environment is the establishment of new buildings and hospitality hubs, often changing the previous demographic.
District Licensing Agency and District Licensing Committee Meetings or Hearings
The District Licensing Agency (DLA) Officer panel appointed under the delegated authority met every Wednesday up until the 17 December 2013 to consider all unopposed applications. In the period June – December 2013 the Agency Officer Panel met 24 times.
The DLA Hearing Panel heard no matters during the period June – December 2013.
The District Licensing Commissioners usually meet every Wednesday to allocate work and determine Temporary Authority applications.
Since 18 December 2013 eleven District Licensing Committee public hearings have been convened. These have comprised 6 Special Licence applications, 2 On-licence applications, 1 off licence application, 1 manager’s certificate application and 1 temporary authority.
The Committee granted 8 applications and declined 3.
Noticeable Trends or Issues
The number of Special Licence applications continues to be high. This reflects the loss of function venues across the City and is representative of a significant number of events being held on Club premises for non members.
The Victoria Street precinct has continued to see growth of licensed premises in direct conflict to the wishes of the local residents. Residents concerns centre around the late night, 3am, closure of many premises and the impact on good order and amenity to adjacent residential premises. Victoria Street has become a late night entertainment hub and there is considerable migration. There are currently 23 licences on Victoria Street. Public objections to the issue of new licences and the renewal of existing licences have resulted in four hearings by the Authority.
New premises applications are trending towards permanent structures and premises locations, established where necessary through the Resource Consent processes in line with City Plan requirements.
The overall number of current licences has fallen significantly to around 870 from the peak of 1149 in early February 2011. This year has seen a considerable number of licences, which had, in effect, been in limbo, expire at the end of their three yearly renewal period. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 145
The ability to operate a fully fee-funded licensing system may be impacted by the reduction in licence numbers whilst Christchurch transitions through the re-build process. In the interim Christchurch will continue to subsidise the activities of licensed premises through rate-payer contributions.
2. DLC Initiatives
Controlled Purchase Operations
There were four Controlled Purchase Operations (CPO) carried out during the year, resulting in 66 premises being visited.
All of the CPO’s were conducted utilising minors. Seven premises sold to a minor in breach of the Act resulting in those premises being referred to the Authority. The typical recommended suspension periods were for Off licences: 24 hour closure and 30 day suspension of the Manager’s Certificate; On-Licences: 2-3 days suspension of the licence and 30 day suspension of the Manager’s Certificate.
Ministry of Justice Data Exchange Pilot
Christchurch Alcohol Licensing Team assisted the Ministry of Justice with a national pilot for an information exchange system utilising a SharePoint platform. A review of the pilot resulted in a decision to maintain the status quo whereby information is shared with Wellington using the standard postal system.
Current City-wide Alcohol Accord
Work has been continuing with the hospitality industry and a number of other partners to establish a city-wide alcohol accord. Prior to February 2011 Christchurch had an effective city centre alcohol accord, which included a voluntary one-way door restriction.
The developing city wide accord is to be driven within each suburban area by the hospitality industry and support a series of minimum standards which licensees must sign up to in order to become an accord member. Two significant hospitality areas, Victoria Street and Lincoln Road, have accords in place. Victoria Street hospitality premises have employed their own Street Safe Officers to patrol public spaces; this forms part of an initiative along the lines of the mellow yellow campaigns.
Document Exchange
The Commissioners workloads are managed via a secure cloud-based document exchange system. Committee work streams are established on a monthly basis, with the Commissioner accessing the relevant stream via the cloud. The Territorial Authority has found this to be a cost-efficient way of transferring large quantities of data in a timely manner.
3. Local Alcohol Policy
Christchurch City Council began the development of a Local Alcohol Policy under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 in early 2013.
Public consultation of the draft Local Alcohol Policy document was completed at the end of June 2013. Public Hearings were held in July 2013. A total of 4,060 submissions were received, with 1,053 submissions received through the Council’s Have Your Say process, 1,929 submissions based on Hospitality NZ’s facebook survey and 1,078 submissions based on the “ChCh Late” facebook petition. Of the submissions received 161 were from groups and organisations, including many statutory bodies, community and neighbourhood organisations. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 146
Notification of the provisional LAP has been deferred awaiting the outcome of appeals against other territorial authority policies.
4. Current legislation
We wish to raise the following matters as being of concern within the legislation and the supporting regulations: s.38 Caterer’s On Licence endorsement: The legislation makes no reference to this style of licence being exempt from the provision of the sacrosanct days (s.47), nor do the regulations. However, within the regulations Form 9, the licence template, seems to allude that this style of licences should, in fact, be exempt from these provisions. Clarity is needed. s.102(4) Objections to applications: “An objection may be made only in relation to the suitability of the applicant if – the application relates to any premises for which a licence is in force and the applicant seeks conditions the same as applying to that licence.” This is similar wording to the relevant sections in the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, however the phrase “an objection may be made only in relation to the suitability of the applicant” has been moved within the context of the paragraph. It appears by this move that the interpretation of this section could now suggest that if a licence is in force but an applicant seeks different conditions from those applying to the current licence then the suitability of the applicant cannot be challenged. The DLC questions whether this was the intent of the legislation? s.241 Supplying alcohol to minors: Sections 239, 240 and 241 have generated public confusion. The Council have dealt with a number of concerns around the new ‘supplying alcohol to minors’ offence, s.241. The public and licensees are confused as to whether this offence is applicable on licensed premises, or whether it is purely applicable in a social setting. The Health Promotion Agency has generated some excellent promotional and advisory material. However, the DLC considers that further clarification could be gained by splitting s.241 into 2 separate sections as 2 separate tests. The sections would be clearer if the express parental consent defence was included as an exception under s.240, if it was intended to apply to licensed premises / authorised suppliers: S.241 should refer to supply on other than licensed premises (private and public places). S.241(A) – supplying in a reasonable manner test, applicable to all supply to minors. And that test is referred to in both sections 240 and 241.
Managers Certificates: LCQ providers were still teaching the ‘old’ curriculum post 18 December 2013 and those providers who were teaching under the new legislation were still having LCQ Certificates issued by ServiceIQ under SoLA. A manager attempting to complete the Bridging Test raised concerns about ServiceIQ’s insecure website and refused to complete the test until ServiceIQ addressed this. The website was only secured in July 2014, it appears that prior to this any person completing the Bridging Test online will have been subject to potential abuse of their personal data.
There appeared to have been some disconnect between the Ministry of Justice’s policy team and the Authority over interpretation of some aspects of the statute. This created uncertainty regarding the interpretation of certain aspects of the legislation, for example s. 406(3) and temporary licences. The TA would suggest any future matters could be better resolved by a direction from the Authority.
The application of a single-area condition for the display and promotion of alcohol in supermarkets has resulted in significant amounts of all parties time being taken. The DLC look forward to case-law to provide guidance to all parties in the application of this aspect of the legislation. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 147
The new Act has brought with it considerable additional reporting requirement by Inspectors. Written reports on applications have on average tripled in content.
Implementation of the new fee structure has been somewhat problematic due to the exemptions in place, this should cease once the exemption provision expires on 18 December 2014.
The Alcohol licensing team anticipate that the transition to a fully fee funded process is likely to be around 2016/17.
5. Any other matters the TA wishes to draw to the attention of the Authority
Alcohol related Bylaws
Christchurch has the Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw which came into force on 1 July 2009. There are currently twelve permanent Alcohol Ban Areas, the most recent areas came into force on 9 September 2012 in Papanui and Merivale. A one-day temporary ban for Cup Day at Addington Raceway was successfully implemented in November 2013.
Summary of Inspections undertaken of Licensed Premises
Inspection notes are recorded by all members of the Tri Agency Group within the shared website. There are now over 4100 monitoring/inspection notes on the shared website.
The Christchurch Licensing Inspectors, NZ Police, and Community and Public Health have maintained a close working relationship as the Tri-Agency Group. This includes weekly meetings, controlled purchase operations and inter-agency monitoring teams.
The Tri-Agency Group continues to use the Licensed Premises Risk Matrix. This is maintained by the Alcohol Licensing Team and is shared electronically with the other agency groups, via a shared workspace. It is kept up-to-date in a collaborative manner.
The Christchurch Alcohol Licensing Team has also had regular contact with the Department of Internal Affairs, ACC, Health Promotion Agency, Hospitality Standard Institute, and Hotel Association of NZ.
6. Statistical information
Due to the change in reporting requirements during the course of the financial year the data reported is split into 3 different tables. They represent: - Applications received and determined during the period 1 July 2013 – 18 December 2013 - Premises Applications received before 18 December 2013, but determined under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. - Application received on or after 18 December 2013 and determined under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.
Please see attached
Fiona Proudfoot Team Leader Alcohol Licensing Inspections & Enforcement On Behalf of the Secretary, Christchurch City Council District Licensing Committee
TRIM14/830245 5 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 148
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DLA / DLC ANNUAL RETURNS
A. FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2013 TO 18 DECEMBER 2013:
Category Number of Number of DLA revenue applications applications (gross) received determined On-licence New/renewal/variation 158 141 109,208.00 Off-licence new/renewal/variation 57 58 46,005.60 Club licence new/renewal/variation 10 15 11,898.00 GM certificate new/renewal 900 892 12,0330.80 CM certificate new/renewal 37 39 5261.10 Subtotal to LLA 1162 1145 292,703.50 Special Licence 957 931 60,179.84 Temporary Authority 50 44 5935.60 Total 2169 2120 358,818.94
B. PREMISES APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BEFORE 18 DECEMBER 2013 BUT DETERMINED UNDER SALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL ACT
TOTALS On-licence new 21 On-licence variation 0 On-licence renewal 34 Off-licence new 10 Off-licence variation 0 Off-licence renewal 10 Club licence new 0 Club licence variation 0 Club licence renewal 4 Total number 79 Total Fee paid to ARLA $10,014.04
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 149
C. ANNUAL RETURN FOR RISK-BASED APPLICATIONS FOR PERIOD: 18 December 2013 – 30 June 2014
On-licence, off-licence and club licence applications determined:
Number Number Number Number Number Application Type received in received in received in received in received in fee category: fee category: fee category: fee category: fee category: Very Low Low Medium High Very High On-licence new 0 20 16 2 0 On-licence variation 0 1 1 0 0 On-licence renewal 0 4 4 1 0 Off-licence new 1 2 1 1 0 Off-licence variation 0 0 0 0 0 Off-licence renewal 0 1 4 4 1 Club licence new 0 1 0 0 0 Club licence variation 0 0 0 0 0 Club licence renewal 2 0 0 0 0 Total number 3 29 26 8 1 51.75 1000.50 1345.50 690.00 172.50 Total Fee paid to ARLA (GST incl)
Annual fees for existing licences received:
Licence Type Number Number Number Number Number received in fee received in received in received in received in category: fee category: fee category: fee category: fee category: Very Low Low Medium High Very High On-licence 0 24 34 4 0 Off-licence 1 3 9 13 0 Club licence 21 11 5 0 0 Total number 22 38 48 17 0 Total Fee paid to ARLA 379.50 1311.00 2484.00 1466.25 0.00 (GST incl)
Managers’ certificate applications determined:
Number determined Manager’s certificate new 259 Manager’s certificate renewal 451 Total number 710 20412.50 Total Fee paid to ARLA (GST incl)
Special licence applications determined:
Number received in Number received in Number received in category: category: category: Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Special licence 34 89 340
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 14 150
Temporary authority applications received:
Number received Temporary authority 31
Permanent club charter payments received:
Number received Permanent club charter payments 0
TRIM14/830245 8 151 15. APPOINTMENT OF A PROXY FOR CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LTD. ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Director responsible: Director, Office of the Chief Executive Manager responsible: Governance and Civic Services Manager Author: Peter Mitchell
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to request the Council to appoint, for the remainder of the 2014 – 16 term, the Mayor or a Councillor to act as a proxy for the Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) Annual General Meeting (AGM).
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Each year CCHL holds its AGM around November. This year the AGM is to be held on Wednesday, 19 November 2014.
2.2 Each year CCHL sends to the Council the Notice advising of CCHL’s AGM and the Proxy form for Council to appoint a Proxy for the meeting.
2.3 As the shareholder the Council needs to appoint the Mayor or a Councillor, who is not a Director of CCHL, to act as the Council’s proxy at the AGM with the authority to exercise a majority of the votes to be cast on the business to be transacted at the AGM. The proxy is also required to establish the quorum at the AGM
2.4 At its 22 September 2011 meeting the Council passed this resolution:
That the Council adopt a policy recommending the proxy be given to the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee with the first alternate being the Deputy Mayor.
That this be for all future Annual General Meetings.
2.5 Given that the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee is not a Councillor, and that the Deputy Mayor is a director of CCHL, it is considered necessary for the Council to appoint the Mayor or a Councillor to act as the Council’s proxy for the CCHL AGMs for 2014 and 2015.
3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
3.1 Note the date of the Christchurch City Holdings Limited Annual General Meeting of 19 November 2014;
3.2 Appoint the Mayor, or a Councillor who is not a director of Christchurch City Holdings Limited, as the Council’s proxy for the 2014 Annual General Meeting;
3.3 Appoint the same person as the Council’s proxy for the 2015 Christchurch City Holdings Limited Annual General Meeting.
152 153 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
16. FOOD FORESTS AND EDIBLE PLANTINGS
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer, Operations N Member responsible: Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, Parks N Author: Tony Moore, Principal Advisor Y DDI 941 6426 Sustainability
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on progress following the 23 September 2014 Environment Committee recommendation which stated:
Request that staff prepare a report for the 23 October 2014 Council meeting with information on:
Pilot sites;
Guidelines on plantings and species including their location (excluding berms at this stage);
Replacing restrictive rules and barriers with a proactive framework which achieves outcomes.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 On 23 September 2014 the Environment Committee considered a Memo prepared by Andrew Rutledge on establishing food forests and edible plantings on Council land. This report provides an update on the actions taken to advance on the Committee’s recommendations.
2.2 Three pilot sites have been identified to plant edible fruit and nut trees or shrubs as an initial demonstration. Attachment 1, Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 show park locations and indicative sites for planting. These sites are:
2.2.1 Nga Puna Wai – potential for at least 150 new plants.
2.2.2 Shirley Community Reserve – potential for at least 28 new plants.
2.2.3 Mountfort Park – potential for at least 26 new plants.
2.3 The New Zealand Tree Crops Association has generously provided the Council with a list of edible plant varieties that are particularly suited to Christchurch conditions (refer Attachment 4). These varieties tend to be hardy, disease resistant, nutritious and delicious. The Biological Husbandry Unit at Lincoln University has agreed to compile comprehensive list and present the information in a more user-friendly way. Once this information is finalised, the Council will make it available to community organisations interested in edible gardens in Canterbury. The Council will also create a new webpage to host a compilation of relevant information about gardening at home, school and on public land to support the wider its proposed food resilience policy objectives.
2.4 Strengthening Community Advisors and Community Boards will be asked to work with local community groups to build support for, establish and maintain the edible gardens on these three pilot sites.
2.5 The Council is developing a Food Resilience Policy and Action Pan in collaboration with the Community (e.g. Food Resilience Network). Staff will bring the draft policy, updated community gardens policy and related guidance to the Council in November 2014 as was initially requested by the Environment Committee on 29 July 2014. 154 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
16 Cont’d
2.6 The Food Resilience Network is hosting a Food Resilience Expo on Saturday 1 November 2014 between 10:00am and 4:00pm at the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Information Centre to launch a newly created umbrella brand called “Edible Canterbury”. Councillors and the community are invited to attend this event officially being launched by Vicki Buck at 2:30pm. This new brand will support wider food resilience activities in Canterbury such as community gardens, food forests, school gardens, market gardens, farmers markets, food co-ops and home growing.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Community interest in productive urban landscapes and the availability of local, fresh, healthy and affordable food is growing. The Garden City has a proud and rich history of gardening and productive landscapes within and surrounding the city. In 2003 the Council established a Community Gardens Policy and since, has resourced the establishment of eight new community gardens in the city. Christchurch now has approximately 24 community gardens and at least 25 school gardens that continue to provide multiple benefits for the community. Many more gardens could be established if a clear pathway was agreed and suitable land, resources and responsibilities identified.
3.2 A deputation from the Food Resilience Network was given to the Christchurch City Council’s Environment Committee on 29 July 2014. This deputation provided an overview of the benefits of productive landscapes in Christchurch and explored potential roles for the Council. The Food Resilience Network comprises individuals and organisations (such as the Soil and Health, Canterbury Community Gardens Association, Greening the Rubble, Tree Crops Association, Christchurch Food Forest Collective, Lincoln University, Project Lyttelton and Community Public Health) interested in the promotion of fresh, healthy, affordable food and the support of a resilient local food economy. The Food Resilience Network has a vision of Christchurch becoming the “best edible garden city in the world.”
3.3 Following the deputation at the 29 July 2014 Environmental Committee meeting, the following recommendations were passed:
That the Council:
1. Enthusiastically endorse and support food forests and other edible plantings throughout Christchurch.
2. Identify and make available to the community public land where members of the public are welcome to plant and tend their own fruit and nut trees or other edible plants and that the produce be available to anyone.
3. Provide guidelines on plantings and species.
4. Replace restrictive rules and barriers with a proactive framework which achieves these outcomes.
5. Bring a further Food Resilience Policy and Action Plan to Council in November 2014.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Council staff are keen to support edible gardens but internal systems and processes need to be established to better enable such planting. A more proactive framework that also addresses our legal responsibilities will be brought before the Council in November along with the proposed Food Resilience Policy and Action Plan.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 This work is currently unfunded. 155 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
16 Cont’d
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council:
6.1 Request that staff compile the following information and make it available on the Council website:
6.1.1 Approved trial sites and locations;
6.1.2 Appropriate species; and
6.1.3 Planting methodology.
6.2 Approve that the Strengthening Community resources build local support for establishing and maintaining new sites. 156 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 16 157
Potential Planting Site Proposed Site
Canterbury Agricultural Park Park
Nga Puna Wai Metres 0 100 200 300 400 500 Scale 1:6500 when printed @ A3
WorkSpace: 101850B.gws Layout: NPW Nga Puna Wai and Canterbury Agricultural Park Potential Community Garden Sites Scale: 1:6500 Corporate Support Date: 13/10/2014 158 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 16 159
Potential Planting Site Shirley Community Reserve
Proposed Site Park
Metres 0 25 50 Scale 1:600 when printed @ A3
Workspace: 101850B Shirley Community Reserve Potential Community Garden Sites Layout: SCR Corporate Support Scale: 1:600 Date: 13/10/2014 160 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 16 161
Potential Planting Site
Proposed Site
Park Metres 0 25 50 Scale 1:600 when printed @ A3
Workspace: 101850B Mountfort Park Potential Community Garden Sites Layout: MP Corporate Support Scale: 1:600 Date: 13/10/2014 162 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 163
FRUIT TREE HERITAGE VARIETIES RECOMMENDED FOR CHRISTCHURCH
APPLES:
EATERS IN ORDER OF HARVEST: COOKERS IN ORDER OF HARVEST: end Jan>>Feb>>Mar>>April>>May>>June>>July>>Aug end Jan/Feb>>Mar>>April>>May>>June>>July>>Aug>> Discovery Lord Nelson Epicure (Laxton's) Lord Suffield Gravenstein...... (keeps) Mount Cook Sunset....(keeps) Alexander Fiesta...... (keeps) Gravenstein..(keeps) Fortune (Laxton's) Lobo Egremont Russet Peasgood's Nonsuch..(keeps) Merton Worcester...(keeps) Antonovka...... (keeps) Hetlina...... (keeps) Monty's Surprise....(keeps) Berlepsch...... (keeps) Transparent of Croncels Kidd's Orange Red...... (keeps) Belle de Boscoop...... (keeps) Belle de Boscoop...... (keeps) Canadian Reinette...... (keeps) Telstar...... (keeps) Kentish Fillbasket...... (keeps) Adams Pearmain. (keeps) Lord Wolseley...... (keeps) Reinette de Thorn...... (keeps) Ballarat...... (keeps) Orleans Reinette...(keeps) Annie Elizabeth...... (keeps) Lundbytorp...... (keeps) Merton Russet...(keeps) Freyberg...... (keeps) Tydemans L.O....(keeps>>) Winston...... (keeps>>) Sturmer...(keeps>>)
APPLE ROOTSTOCKS: M793 for street/park/orchard planting; MM106 for small community gardens.
PEARS:
IN ORDER OF HARVEST: Mar>>April>>May>>June>>July>>Aug>>Sept Beurre Hardy....(keeps) Williams Bon Chretien Packham's Triumph....(keeps) Louise Bonne de Jersey Conference...... (keeps) Glou Morceau...... (keeps) Uvedale's St. Germain...... (keeps)
PEAR ROOTSTOCKS: Pyrus communis for street/park/orchard planting; Quince A for small community gardens. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 164 Table 1: Disease-resistant apple & pear varieties trialled for ten years (in some cases longer) at several sites:
EATING APPLES From COOKING APPLES From Adams Pearmain UK Alexander RUSS Belle de Boscoop & Belle de Boscoop red HOLLND Annie Elizabeth UK Berlepsch (Freiherr von) ([Baron] Berlepsch) GERM Antonovka grammovaya RUSS Blenheim Orange UK Ballarat AUS Discovery UK Gravenstein EUR Dunn's Seedling [Munroe's Favouriteri] AUS Kentish Fillbasket UK Egremont Russet (rich, moister soils only) UK Lobo CANA Epicure UK Lord Nelson NZ Fiesta UK Lord Suffield UK Freyberg NZ Lord Wolseley NZ ?Gewurzluiken (ID unconfirmed) GERM Mt. Cook NZ Hetlina CZECH Monty's Surprise NZ Kidd's Orange Red NZ Peasgood's Nonsuch UK King of the Pippins FRA Reinette du Canada [Canadian Reinette] FRA Lawfam CANA Transparente de Croncels FRA Lundbytorp (for moister soil) DENM Merton Russet (for rich, moister soil) UK PEARS: From Merton Worcester UK Beurre Hardy (very sweet & juicy) FRA Orleans Reinette FRA Conference (sweet, stores well) UK Reinette de Thorn POLND Louise Bonne de Jersey FRA Sturmer Pippin UK Glou Morceau (stores well till mid-winter) BEL Sunset UK Packhams Triumph (very sweet & juicy) AUS Suntan UK Williams Bon Chretian (good for bottling) BEL Telstar NZ Uvedale's St. Germain (cooking pear) UK Tydeman's Late Orange UK
NOTE 1: In Table 1 apple variety synonyms are included, in square brackets. NOTE 2: Wrongly identified King of the Pippins has been sold by Waimea Nursery as Blenheim Orange.
EATING APPLES - THE TOP FOUR for Taste:
BERLEPSCH (FREIHERR VON BERLEPSCH) [GERMAN]
HIGH VITAMIN C GOURMET APPLE
LATE SEASON
SUPERB INTENSE COX'S ORANGE TASTE. CRISP JUICY FLESH
PICK APRIL, USE TILL AUGUST KEEPS VERY WELL; RETAINS TASTE TILL END OF STORAGE PERIOD COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 165
BOSCOOP (BELLE DE BOSCOOP) [HOLLAND]
HIGH VITAMIN C GOURMET APPLE
VERY LATE SEASON DUAL PURPOSE
FIRM DENSE FLESH, 'NUTTY' SWEET SUB ACID TASTE. NO ADDED SUGAR NEEDED WHEN BAKED, SLICES RETAIN SHAPE IN PIES.
PICK END MARCH; USE TILL END SEPT. KEEPS VERY WELL; RETAINS TASTE TILL END OF STORAGE PERIOD
KIDD'S ORANGE RED [NZ]
LATE SEASON GOURMET APPLE
DELICIOUS, INTENSE COX'S ORANGE TASTE. SWEET, SUB ACID. CRISP, JUICY, FIRM, DENSE FLESH.
PICK APRIL, EAT TILL END JUNE KEEPS VERY WELL
NOTE: A much better option than Cox's Orange Pippin (one of its parents). Bred by J H Kidd IN 1924, and streets ahead in taste of its later commercially-bred relative Gala. A total mystery as to why K.O.R hasn't taken over the world.
AND THE BEST OF THE BEST (and my favourite) IS...... :
REINETTE DE THORN [POLAND]
LATE SEASON GOURMET EATING (& BAKING) APPLE
LOVELY RICH, FRUITY 'APPLE' TASTE. REFRESHING, JUICY, SOFT, CRISP FLESH.
PICK THROUGH APRIL, USE TILL END SEPTEMBER. KEEPS EXTREMELY WELL. TASTE IS RETAINED THROUGHOUT STORAGE.
DELICIOUS, LARGE, DUAL PURPOSE APPLE NEEDING NO ADDED SUGAR WHEN BAKED. PROBABLY TRIPLOID
Why is this my favourite? Because this is truly the best-performing, best-tasting eating apple variety I have ever come across. It grows well near some huge pine trees on our small block, and holds it holds its own in droughts and storms. The tree hates being pruned, but obligingly grows into a natural tulip shape. Has never exhibited any trace of blackspot or mildew. Crops regularly each year.
Crops prolifically; producing very large apples that look like they might be cooking apples - not at all. Reinette de Thorn has the most 'appley' taste of any apple I've ever eaten. The flesh is soft but crisp, melting, sweet, fruity, juicy and very refreshing.
It flowers early, for an entire month, frosts don't damage the blooms, and then its fruit ripens over a month as well. And the apples keep very well (outside in the cold) till the end of September; when you finally put the last apples out of their misery by stewing or baking them without any sugar needed. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 166 STONEFRUIT& NUT HERITAGE VARIETIES RECOMMENDED FOR CHRISTCHURCH
PEACHES & APRICOTS: (disease-resistant & high taste) PEACHES: RESISTANT TO LEAF CURL: Blackboy Peach, Golden Queen.
APRICOTS: FROST HARDY for Chch: Trevatt, Moorpark.
PLUMS & PRUNES: (disease-resistant & high taste) PLUMS JAP-USA hybrids (ie. tangy): EARLY: Duff's Early Jewel, Billington. MID: Hawera, MacVerna, Burbank.
EUROPEAN PLUMS (ie. sweet) LATE: Angelina Burdett, Blue Diamond, Louisa.
PRUNE PLUMS (very sweet & for drying) Early Italian Prune, Italian Prune, Stanley Prune.
NOTE: plums will only cross-pollinate within each harvest group.
WALNUTS & HAZELNUTS (disease-resistant) HAZELNUTS
MAIN CROPPING VARIETIES: Whiteheart, Lansing, Ennis, Barcelona, Tondo Romano
POLLINATORS: EARLY: Butler, Barcelona EARLY>MID: Lansing MID: Melville de Bollwiller(MDB) LATER: Alexandra
WALNUTS
MAIN CROPPING VARIETIES: Rex and Meyric are the most frost-hardy for Canterbury. POLLINATOR: Te Hama COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 167
DUFF'S EARLY JEWEL ^ …...... can pollinate …...... BILLINGTON ^
BLACK DORIS ^ …...... can pollinate …...... OMEGA ^
LUISA ^ ANGELINA BURDETT ^
BLUE DIAMOND >
NB: Louisa, Angelina Burdett and Blue Diamond - any two of these can pollinate each other.
ITALIAN PRUNE ^ (NB: Grow STANLEY prune as pollinator) COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TO CLAUSE 16 168 MISCELLANEOUS: (selected from the Southern Woods Nursery and Diack's Nursery lists):
SWEET CHESTNUT – large, trouble-free spreading [5m x 5m] specimen trees. The trees loathe heavy, soggy soils in winter. Excellent source of protein and starches, substitute for wheat flour. Nuts easily harvested.
Varieties: 1002, 1005, 1015 [two out of three required for pollination]
QUINCE tree: Smyrna
NASHI PEARS - Hosui, Nijiseiki (both needed for pollination)
ALMONDS - frost resistant flowers: Monovale, All in One (both needed for pollination).
CITRUS varieties not requiring frost protection, AND planted against a north-facing wall:
LEMON: Lemonade, Meyer
NOTE: All other available citrus will require frost-free, protected, sheltered conditions in Christchurch.
SOFT FRUIT
GOOSEBERRY - prefers moit soils and semi-shade: Pax [mildew resistant]
BLACKBERRY – needs heavy, rich, moisture-retentive soils: Thornless
RASPBERRY – needs lighter soils and consistent water supply : Aspiring
CURRANT – needs lighter soils and consistent water supply: any available varieties are worth a go.
OTHER FRUIT:
FEIJOAS & HYBRID BERRIES such as Boysenberry are worth a go but may be underwhelming in terns of cropping due to lack of rainfall during summers.
CRANBERRIES, CHILEAN GUAVA BERRIES AND BLUEBERRIES – cultural requirements:
All three require acid, porous, constantly moist soils.
Blueberries require full sun. Two varieties from each sub-group (eg. Highbush) must be planted for pollination.
Chilean guava berries and cranberries prefer semi-shade. 169 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
17. RATES REMISSIONS – POTENTIAL TO INCREASE STAFF DELEGATION FOR FAIR & EQUITABLE REMISSIONS
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Financial Officer N Member responsible: Officer responsible: Corporate Finance Manager N Author: Funds & Financial Policy Manager Y [email protected] 941-8447
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report responds to a Councillor query: Is it appropriate for the decision to grant new rates remissions under the Fair & Equitable Remissions policy to be delegated to the Chief Executive?
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 A rates remission is effectively a discount on full rates charges. Council provides a range of remissions, as outlined and approved in the Annual Plan.
2.1.1 This approved remissions policy allows for new remissions to be granted without further public consultation where the Council considers it fair and equitable to do so. Currently, the Council has approved two such new remissions. One is for properties most affected by March 2014 flooding events, and the other for properties made uninhabitable by the recent Mass Land Movement study of the Port Hills (where those properties had not previously been made uninhabitable by the risk of rock-fall, cliff collapse, or other geotechnical risk).
2.1.2 Councillors have asked whether future decisions under this fair & equitable policy should be delegated to the Chief Executive, rather than requiring a Council Resolution.
2.2 It is recommended that no such delegation be made, and that future fair & equitable remissions continue to require a Council Resolution, because: Timing: Although a Chief Executive decision is likely to be faster than a Council resolution, the difference may not be very great. Policy slippage - staff decisions may begin to deviate from Council-approved principles, particularly for persistent ratepayers; the noisy advocate would potentially be advantaged, rather than the disadvantaged. Uncertain cost - the cost of remissions for un-anticipated circumstances obviously can't be estimated until the circumstances become known. Lobbying - aggrieved ratepayers are likely to undermine the process by lobbying Councillors to reverse staff decisions, which puts staff in an invidious position. Communication – the Council needs to make an effort to ensure that all potentially qualifying ratepayers are made aware of their right to apply: This effort is implicit where a remission has been approved by the Council at a public meeting, but would require specific communication efforts if approved under staff delegation – the end result may be unfair if the ratepayers lobbying for a remission end up being the only ones being aware of it.
2.3 It is also noted that people in extraordinary circumstances may have access to several sources of cash-flow support, including central government’s social welfare system and the Mayoral Relief Fund, as well as being able to negotiate with their Mortgagees. Rates relief is only appropriate for circumstances which are sufficiently common that they are more efficiently addressed through a systematic (rather than individualistic) response.
170 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
17 Cont’d
3. BACKGROUND 1 – CURRENT RATES REMISSIONS
3.1 It is important to note the difference between rebates and remissions: Rebates are a social welfare payment, administered by local authorities but provided and funded by central government. They have no impact on Council revenues. Remissions are where Council elects to waive some of the rates revenue it is legally entitled to collect, for ratepayers in certain specified circumstances. They reduce Council’s rates revenue, so must be paid for by charging slightly increased rates to all other ratepayers.
3.2 Current remissions are detailed in the Policy published in the 2014/15 Annual Plan (pages 206-209). Their purpose is to provide rates relief in circumstances where it is considered fair and equitable to do so. Remissions are expected to amount to around $5.2 million in 2014/15 (excluding GST), equivalent to around 1.5% of total rates revenues.
3.3 There are three broad types: Routine remissions – ie. those typically adopted by all Councils, Earthquake remissions – ie. specific to earthquake damage, and Fair & equitable remissions – this allows Council to respond to circumstances not adequately addressed by existing policy, without public consultation.
3.4 Routine Remissions:
Community-benefit: o Not-for-profit organisation leasing Council land, up to 100% remission of all rates o Not-for-profit organisations occupying other land, up to 100% remission of general rates plus up to 50% remission of targeted rates.
Late Payment Penalties: o Up to 100% remission in cases of genuine one-off error o Up to 100% remission in cases of hardship, provided the remission facilitates full payment of all outstanding arrears (and/or an acceptable schedule of payments) o 100% remission of late penalties for Instalment 1 amounts where full payment for the year is made with Instalment 2.
Contiguous land: o 100% remission of the uniform annual general charge (UAGC) where the land is contiguous with a neighbouring plot (ie. should reasonably be treated as a single block). . Note: only applies where the contiguous plots are in different ownership; contiguous plots under the same ownership must be treated as a single rating unit by law.
Wastewater pump electricity costs: o A fixed amount per year (currently $25+GST) for residential properties where Council has installed a low-pressure sewer pump and connected it to the property’s power supply. . Note: does not apply to new subdivisions.
Excess water rates: o Up to 100% remission where the ratepayer could not have been reasonably expected to know that a leak within their boundary has resulted in unusually high water consumption. 171 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
17 Cont’d
3.5 Earthquake-related remissions:
CCDU public realm land: o 100% remission for land specifically identified as future public realm (eg. non- rateable items such as roads, footpaths, and public spaces).
Uninhabitable residential property: o 100% remission on that portion of rates charged on the value of improvements (ie. rates are effectively charged based on land value only, as if the property has been demolished).
Inaccessible commercial property: o 30% remission where a property cannot be accessed for assessment or repair due to a dangerously earthquake-damaged adjacent building.
section 124 residential property: o 100% remission where Council has served an evacuation Notice under section 124 of the Building Act, where this Notice specifically relates to the risk of rock- fall, cliff-collapse, or similar geotechnical risk.
Vacant red-zone residential land: o 100% remission for sections where the Crown has not yet made a decision about the future of the land (only applies to sections that were vacant or under construction as at 22 February 2011).
3.6 Fair & Equitable remissions:
3.6.1 All of the above remissions are set through the annual planning process, subject to public consultation. Logically, circumstances may arise where a remission may be justifiable on equity grounds without being adequately captured by these remissions. The remissions policy therefore allows Councillors to create any new remission that they consider fair and equitable by resolution, without the need for further public consultation.
3.6.2 Two such specific Council resolutions have been granted and are still active:
March 2014 flooding, 100% remission – applies to residential properties which: o are unable to be occupied due to flooding damage arising from the March 2014 flooding events, and o can not progress with repair until after Council has completed drainage remediation work.
Port Hills mass land movement, 100% remission1 – applies to properties which would have qualified for the section 124 remission if the risk of mass land movement had been fully-understood at the time when Council was permitted to serve such notices for geotechnical risk.
1 This remission is not specifically listed in the Annual Plan, as at the time it was expected to apply to only one property (10 Cliff St). 172 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
17 Cont’d
3.6.3 The scope of these remissions in 2014/15 is estimated to be as follows (all excluding GST):
Type # of Rating Units Amount (approx)
Routine remissions 1,800 $ 3,000,000 Earthquake remissions: Public realm CCDU (East Frame) $ 70,000 Uninhabitable 1,400 $ 1,800,000 Commercial nil nil s.124 231 $ 150,000 vacant red-zone 64 $ 90,000 Fair & equitable remissions: Flooding 55 $ 100,000 Mass land movement 1 $ 2,500 Total c. $5.2 million
4. BACKGROUND 2 – STAFF DELEGATIONS
4.1 Currently, Council decides and staff implement – eg. staff can apply the Port Hills Mass Land Movement remission to any property meeting the relevant criteria, but the remission itself required a full Council resolution to be created.
4.2 There is a proposal to increase staff delegation – specifically, that Council pass a resolution under the fair & equitable policy, delegating the CEO to approve new earthquake-related remissions (where appropriate).
4.3 Any such remission would need to be consistent with the principles established by Council in the existing policy – that is: Only the most affected qualify (eg. if a ratepayer is living in a caravan in the garden, they do not qualify for the uninhabitable remission, irrespective of the condition of the house, because they are still living on-site). Uninhabitable houses awaiting demolition are treated as if they're already demolished (ie. rated at land value only). For all other remissions, the pre-requisite is that the owner is unable to progress due to some external factor beyond their control (eg. the central city cordon, rocks on other people's property, Council remediation of Flockton drainage, etc.).
4.4 Care is required to ensure that any delegation is clear, unambiguous, and beyond reasonable debate – a significant risk associated with any staff delegation is that it results in decisions which are subject to protracted challenge by affected ratepayers, requiring a large expenditure of staff time and, often, ultimate resolution by referral to Councillors.
4.5 Advantages of increased staff delegation:
4.5.1 The principles and precedents in paragraph 4.3 are the same as would be considered in any staff report to Council. The key advantage of staff delegation is therefore timeliness – staff approval of a new remission can often be achieved much faster than approval at a public Council meeting.2
4.5.2 However, this advantage should not be over-stated: Any new circumstance requiring a new remission is likely to have existed for some time, limiting the urgency of the required response; and Any new remissions will likely be back-dated to 1 July of the relevant rating year, irrespective of the approval mechanism.
2 Although note that the Council’s response to March 2014 flood events was relatively fast; the possibility of remission was discussed by the Earthquake Recovery Committee of the Whole on 1-May, and approved by Council on 22-May. 173 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
17 Cont’d
4.6 Disadvantages of increased staff delegation:
4.6.1 There are four key disadvantages of increased staff delegation: Policy slippage - staff decisions may begin to deviate from Council-approved principles, particularly for persistent ratepayers; the noisy advocate would potentially be advantaged, rather than the disadvantaged. Uncertain cost - the cost of remissions for un-anticipated circumstances obviously can't be estimated until the circumstances become known. Lobbying - aggrieved ratepayers are likely to undermine the process by lobbying Councillors to reverse staff decisions, which puts staff in an invidious position. Communication – the Council needs to make an effort to ensure that all potentially qualifying ratepayers are made aware of their right to apply: This effort is implicit where a remission has been approved by the Council at a public meeting, but would require specific communication efforts if approved under staff delegation – the end result may be unfair if the ratepayers lobbying for a remission end up being the only ones being aware of it.
4.6.2 It should also be noted that people in extraordinary circumstances may have access to several sources of cash-flow support, including central government’s social welfare system and the Mayoral Relief Fund, as well as being able to negotiate with their Mortgagees. Rates relief is only appropriate for circumstances which are sufficiently common that they are more efficiently addressed through a systematic (rather than individualistic) response.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Uncertain. Per paragraph 4.6.1, increased delegation is likely to lead to an increased volume of rates remissions over time (representing a cost to Council), but the extent of this cannot be reasonably quantified.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that no change is made to current staff delegations relating to remissions policy – specifically: Most remissions are approved through the annual public consultation process, Any new remissions under the fair & equitable policy outside the annual public consultation process are approved by Council resolution at a public meeting, The role of staff is to apply Council-approved remissions and provide advice to the Councillors relating to any proposed new remissions.
174 Clause 18 175 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BURWOOD PEGASUS COMMUNITY BOARD
20 OCTOBER 2014
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. BURWOOD LANDFILL RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK REDEVELOPMENT
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Operating Officer, Operations N Member responsible: Group Officer responsible: Unit Manager, City Water and Waste N Author: Kim Swarbrick, Consultation Leader Y Kim Swarbrick, DDI 941 5176 Dave Harris, Landfill Aftercare Officer Y Dave Harris, DDI 941 8272
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 To revoke the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board’s decision of 15 September 2014 to approve the proposed Burwood Landfill Resource Recovery Park Redevelopment Plan as the delegation for that decision rests with the Council.
1.2 To seek the Council’s approval of the concept plan of Burwood Landfill Resource Recovery Park Redevelopment in order to proceed with detailed design and construction when the Landfill closes.
1.3 A requirement of the Burwood Landfill Resource Recovery Park Resource Consent by Environment Canterbury is that a closure plan is produced by September 2014. Hence this report has been generated to meet consent conditions.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Burwood Landfill within Bottle Lake Forest Park (BLFP) has been used for disposal of Christchurch‘s refuse since 1984. Following the Canterbury earthquakes the landfill was reopened as the Burwood Resource Recovery Park for the sorting and disposal of demolition material. It is due to be closed at the end of 2017 and rehabilitated for integration with BLFP. The Park has the status of a regional park, making it a metropolitan asset.
2.2 A Council approved landscape plan for the rehabilitation of the landfill is required by September 2014. The landscape plan will guide the final capping and contouring of the landfill and the provision of design features.
2.3 BLFP is a working forest with popular public tracks for walking, running, biking, and horse riding. The trees are owned and managed by a commercial forestry company (Matariki). The underlying land and recreational facilities are owned and managed by the Christchurch City Council (CCC). The closed CCC landfill has the potential to become a significant feature within BLFP. Its elevation, approximately 25 metres above ground, gives impressive 360 degree views from the summit.
3. COMMENT
3.1 A public drop in session at BLFP was held on Saturday 3 May 2014. Key stakeholders, neighbouring residents and the general public were invited to attend. Ideas from this session were compiled into themes then utilised in the development of a preliminary concept plan. 176 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
1 Cont’d
3.2 The preliminary concept plan was circulated to key stakeholders early June 2014 to obtain feedback. The proposal is for an extension of existing recreation tracks onto the Landfill site, improved links to beach access, incorporation of two viewing areas and picnic tables, a nature trail to view the ponds and wildlife, installation of interpretation panels, and implementation of a mountain bike dual slalom area. Stakeholders were asked to indicate their support/non support for the concept plan and were provided the option to comment. In total 24 responses were received with 100 percent indicating their support and positive comments. Submissions came from the public, Parklands Residents Association, Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) and Burwood Pegasus Community Board’s Submissions Committee.
3.3 Whilst MKT indicated support for the overall project they have indicated that they oppose any reference to Ngai Tahu and Ngai Tuahuriri in association with the capped landfill. This includes, but is not limited to information and interpretation panels, and artworks. This is due to the culturally inappropriate nature of establishing a link between the landfill and Ngai Tahu taonga and wahi tapu. MKT wish to continue to liaise with Council staff in regards to plant species selection for the site, development of any proposed interpretation panels and design of the proposed sculpture to ensure it is culturally appropriate.
3.4 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Submission outlines the need for clear signage, a request for lower resting benches, assurance that preventative measures have been taken to prevent pollution and more information regarding tree milling. The project team have respondent by letter and will also be available on the night this report is presented to answer any further questions.
3.5 A number of other suggestions and comments were made that have been considered by the project team and where applicable recommendations have been passed on to the wider BLFP Management. In this instance no changes have been made to the plan due to the very positive response from submitters. Please see Attachment 1 for further details on the concept plan.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The main cost of the work will be met as part of the operational costs for work and restoration currently underway at the landfill. This includes a soil and hardfill disposal at the landfill operated by the Council which is self funding and the Burwood Resource Recovery Park (BRRP) operations where costs will be covered by operational expenditure by BRRP. Funding is also available for restoration of areas outside the current disposal sites as part the final restoration of the original landfill site.
4.2 It is estimated the cost or capping, top soiling and grassing the remaining areas of the landfill and BRRP, which will be undertaken as part of the regular landfill operations, will be $3,900,000 and this includes an allowance of $350,000 for track construction.
4.3 Once developed the area will be maintained by Coastcare Rangers. Therefore the area will receive regular maintenance management. Any ongoing maintenance costs will be absorbed by BLFP operational budget.
5. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Council:
5.1 Note that under delegated authority, the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board has revoked its decision of 15 September 2014 to approve the proposed Burwood Landfill Resource Recovery Park Redevelopment Plan as the delegation for that decision rests with the Council.
5.2 Approve the proposed Burwood Landfill Resource Recovery Park Redevelopment Plan so the final capping and contouring can be completed ready for installation. 177 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
1 Cont’d
6. BOARD RECOMMENDATION
That Board recommendation will be forwarded following the meeting.
178 179 20. 10. 2014 - 4 -
ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 1
180 181 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19. UPDATE ON DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW (DPR)
Contact Contact Details Executive Leadership Team Chief Planning Officer Y 941 8177 Member responsible: Officer responsible: Unit Manager City Planning Y 941 8669 Author: Brigitte de Ronde Y 941 8669
1. PURPOSE AND ORIGIN OF REPORT
1.1 This report for an update on the District Plan Review has been requested by the Chief Executive Officer.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 The Order in Council, gazetted 7 July, truncates the standard Resource Management Act (RMA) process for the review of the District Plans.
2.2 Independent Commissioners have been appointed to the Hearings Panel. The Terms of Reference for the Hearings Panel with respect to the priority matters they must make decisions on by 28 February 2015 has also been gazetted. Premises have been leased and will be fitted out to provide office accommodation (for both the Panel and Secretariat) and the hearings venue. Cost details for fit-out and IMCT for Manchester Street are presented in this report. Temporary venues are also secured to cover the 6 weeks up until the Hearings Panel and Secretariat can be located at Manchester Street, further details of this are provided below. A general update on the 2nd stage chapters is also provided.
2.3 Additional funds are required to the current 14/15 and 15/16 years District Plan Review budget to provide for the set up costs of the Independent Hearings Panel and Secretariat as allowed for under the Order in Council. Further, some of the additional funds are required to be transferred from opex to capex. See sections 4.1.2 and 5 of this report for more detail on these matters. The recommendations at the end of this report authorise the budget overspend and transfer to capex.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The District Plan Review (the Review) project commenced on 1 July 2013. It is divided into two stages with the first stage chapters notified for submissions on 27 August 2014. Submissions close on 8 October and are then made available to the public on 22 October and open for further submissions on 24 October until 6 November. The dates for the submission periods, process and operations of the hearings are set out in the Order in Council, titled the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014, which was gazetted on 7 July 2014. 182 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
3.2 The table below outlines the chapters in the first and second stages of the Review.
Stage 1 Chapters Stage 2 Chapters (notified 27 August 2014) (to be notified mid 2015) Introduction General Rules and Procedures (remainder) e.g. noise, signage, waterway setbacks, other) Definitions Papakainga Areas Strategic Directions Natural & Cultural Heritage Natural Hazards (part) Utilities, Energy & Infrastructure Transport Hazardous Substance Subdivision, Development and Central City Earthworks Residential (part) Rural Commercial (part) Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Industrial (part) Coastal Contaminated Land Future Urban Development Areas Designations (non CCC) Specific Purpose Zones General Rules and Procedures (part remaining Definitions, Residential, Commercial, – Temporary Recovery Activity) Industrial, Natural Hazards, Subdivision/Development, CCC Designations Maps Maps
Order in Council (see Attachment 2)
3.3 The Order in Council (OiC) truncates the standard RMA process to provide for a streamlined review of the existing Christchurch City Plan and the Banks Peninsula District Plan. It requires a full review of all operative provisions to produce a single Replacement District Plan. The OiC stipulates mandatory consultation with the Ministers, other Ministers of the Crown, Environment Canterbury, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency. And, as per the normal RMA process, any discretionary consultation must be in accordance with section 82 of the LGA02.
3.4 Schedule 4 to the OiC sets out the 'expectations' of the Ministers. The Council must have particular regard to these expectations in its review of the operative plans and in preparing proposals. The Council is directed to send all draft proposals to the Ministers for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and for the Environment (the Ministers), and have particular regard to their comments, prior to notification. Council sent the draft proposal to the Ministers on 15 August 2014. The Stage 1 proposals were notified on 27 August 2014 in accordance with the standard RMA notification requirements.
3.5 The OiC provides for a Terms of Reference to be established by the Crown for the hearings panel. This specifically addresses the key priority matters the Crown will want the panel to address first. It also sets the expectation on the panel as to what matters need to be addressed by what date. The decision making parameters for the panel are referenced back to the Resource Management Act, and the Statement of Expectations in the OiC (which specifically relate to earthquake related outcomes). See Attachment 1 for a copy of the Terms of Reference. 183 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
3.6 The Independent Hearings Panel, chaired by Sir John Hansen, will conduct hearings on submissions and make final decisions on the proposals notified by the Council. At the hearings, the Council will present the proposals to the Hearings Panel. This will require opening legal submissions, evidence (experts will be subject to cross-examination by opposing counsel) and closing legal submissions. The Council may also make its own submission and further submission on the proposals following notification.
3.7 The hearings panel has wider decision making powers than a standard RMA panel and is not limited to making changes within the scope of submissions made on that proposal. The Panel may also reconsider a decision already made, to ensure the Replacement District Plan is coherent and consistent. The panel's decisions are subject to appeals to the High Court on points of law only. To be clear, the panel’s decisions are not required to be referred to the Council for approval. In addition to usual RMA considerations (such as giving effect to higher order statutory documents) no decision can be inconsistent with the Recovery Strategy, the Land Use Recovery Plan, the Central City Recovery Plan, or the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan (when it is completed in 2015). The Panel must also have particular regard to the Statement of Expectations.
3.8 During the life of the OiC, the Council must forward any private plan changes (to an operative plan or to the replacement district plan) it receives to the Hearings Panel. The Panel will decide whether to accept or reject the request. If accepted, the plan change will be notified as a 'proposal' under the OiC process.
3.9 As per a standard RMA review, existing designations are to be 'rolled over', with or without modification, through the review process. The key change to this process is that rather than the Council making a recommendation and the requiring authority making the final decision on the designation, in this case the Hearings Panel will make a draft decision. There will be a limited ability for comment on this draft report by the relevant requiring authority, Council, Ministers and any submitters, followed by a final decision made by the Hearings Panel. The Council will need to decide whether any notices of requirement that are lodged with the Council during the life of the OiC, are heard under the normal RMA procedure, or are also 'wrapped' into the OiC process as just described.
4. COMMENT
4.1 Information relating to the District Plan Review (DPR) process, budget for set-up and ongoing operation of the Hearings Panel and Secretariat, and who the Panel is, is outlined below.
4.1.1 Independent Hearings Panel and Independent Secretariat
Paul Thomas has been appointed to lead the Independent Secretariat. The Honourable Sir John Hansen, a former High Court Judge, has been appointed as Chair of the Independent Hearings Panel. Another 5 members have been appointed to the Hearings Panel by the Ministers in consultation with the Council. These appointments were formally announced on 8 October 2014 and include:
Judge John Hassan (Environment Court Judge) Sarah Dawson (Planning consultant) Jane Huria (Tikanga Maori expertise) Dr Phil Mitchell (Planning consultant) John Sax (Property Developer)
The biographies of the Panel members can be found in Attachment 3. The bio for John Sax was not available at the time this report was finalised.
A Procedural Minute was received from the Chair of the Panel which outlines the timeframes for pre-hearings and the hearing of priority matters, which reinforces the need to quickly establish the hearing and secretarial venue. CERA have advised that the Hearings Panel will make the Procedural Minute public through their proposed website in the coming weeks. 184 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
4.1.2 Lease Arrangements
The building at 348 Manchester Street has been leased (approved by Council 25 September 2014) for 2 years from 1 October 2014. Design for the fit out, including IT requirements, have been approved by Sir John Hansen. It is expected that the fit out and IT installations will be completed by end November 2014. A copy of the fit-out design can be found at Attachment 5.
A temporary office for the Hearings Panel and Secretariat is required for up to 6 weeks until the fitout at Manchester Street is completed.
Temporary venue/s have been secured for the Panel and Secretariat offices, and for the first hearing (if that takes place before Manchester Street is ready for occupation. Sir John has agreed that pre-Hearing meetings can be held at Council and the Chamber and meeting rooms have been booked for this purpose.
CERA was involved in the search for appropriate venues for both the long term and temporary accommodation for the Panel and Secretariat however investigations of all of the buildings it now owns did not produce a suitable venue for either option.
The appointment of a dedicated Hearings Panel, making for a compressed period, and with extended powers of inquiry, pre-hearing mediation and dispute resolution creates a resource burden, including dedicated venues, office facilities, and equipment (a similar process and set up have been pioneered for the hearings associated with the Auckland Unitary Plan). The savings envisaged with the process result from compressed hearings times, and limits to appeal.
4.1.3 Set up and running costs for the Independent Hearings Panel and the Independent Secretariat
A memo was sent to all Councillors regarding cost estimates of the hearing on 2 September 2014. A copy of that memo can be found in Attachment 6. An update on the costs (both Capex and Opex) for Manchester Street and temporary accommodation can be found at Attachments 7 - 11 where full budget estimates are given. Cost estimates in brief are below.
Capex cost estimates:
The total cost for the fit-out at Manchester Street (including furniture, design) ex GST $ 611,438.00 The total cost for IMCT (ex GST) at Manchester Street $ 357,939.00 Sub total $ 969,377.00 (it is prudent project management practise to add a 10% contingency to this budget to allow for unexpected costs) $ 100,000.00
Opex cost estimates:
The totals costs for operating expenditure (rent, IMCT support, panel expenses transcription, interim office etc) $ 1,630,290.00
Total cost estimate up to end March 2016 $ 2,699,667.00
Note: these costs do not include panel or secretariat salaries, costs of expert advice/work that the panel may request throughout the hearings, legal expenses, or the cost of a temporary hearing venue should it be needed. Council has not yet received advice as to the salaries of the Hearings Panel or secretariat staff (which will be set by the Crown). 185 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
Discussions are underway with CERA regarding how the costs will be shared and what mechanism will be put in place to ensure that costs are not able to escalate in an uncontrollable fashion.
4.1.4 Submissions received to the Proposed Replacement District Plan, Stage 1 chapters and maps
The submissions period closed on 8 October with the Council receiving circa 1100 submissions, but with still more moderation to undertake, final precise number not yet known. 50 late submissions have also been recieved to date, for the Chair of the panel to determine whether to accept or not. It is not yet know how many submission points are contained in the submissions.
One submission was received by the Whole of Government that is consistent with the Statement of Expectations contained in the OiC and the ‘Joint Official’s’ comments in April 2014 and the Ministers’ comments on the draft Proposals in August 2014.This reflects the importance of the role of the district plan to the rebuild and recovery of greater Christchurch. A similar approach was adopted for the submission on the Auckland Plan – the first combined regional and district plan for the new Auckland supercity. It is understood that Government agencies will represent themselves at the hearings on the plan, and CERA will co-ordinate the government input.
The submission is in three parts: Outline of the government’s interests and objectives building on the Statement of Expectations The Central City – CERA will be working to recast CCRP provisions into the Replacement Plan format Detailed submissions on the twelve notified proposals, including parts of the Central City Recovery Plan formatted in the way of the Replacement Plan.
Other noteworthy submissions at this point (given subs closed on 8 October) include:
200+ on the standard form from Generation O supporting the KACs, urban density and consolidation and public and active transport, sustainable buildings, car parking and planning for natural hazards 100+ in support of the Lyttelton market 100+ in support of the Up Shot café on Bridle Path road Halswell KAC location
4.1.5 Council Briefings and decisions for Stage 2 chapters and maps
The timetable is set out in the table below
Councillors required for: Dates Briefing of draft chapters and approval for pre- 4 full days between notification engagement with public. 19-29 Jan 2015 Draft dates have been entered into diaries Briefing of draft chapters following (public) pre- 6 full days between notification engagement feedback. Approval of 13-28 April 2015 chapters and section 32 reports to go to Ministers for Draft dates have been their comments. entered into diaries Review of final chapters following receipt of Ministers’ 2 full days between comments and consideration of staff draft responses. 9-24 June 2015 Approval of Stage 2 chapters and maps for public Draft dates have been notification. entered into diaries 186 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
Following the above dates and post notification when submissions close there may be a need for approval of Council submissions to the Stage 2 proposals and/or Council further submissions.
Council may wish to make further submissions on the original submissions lodged against the stage 1 chapters and maps.. A date has already been included in the meetings schedule to allow for this to occur before 6 November 2014 when further submissions close.
4.1.6 Progress on Stage 2 Chapters
These chapters have been divided into 3 groups depending on the time required for them to be completed.
The chapters in Group 1 have been drafted and are now with external reviewers for comment. The chapters in Groups 2 and 3 are well developed with respect to clarifying issues, setting policy direction and drafting of objectives and policies (and rules for some chapters). External review of Group 2 chapters will be completed by end of October, with Group 3 chapters completed by end of November/mid December. Some of the Group 3 chapters will require detailed site or feature assessment (eg historic heritage buildings, outstanding landscapes). While the drafting of objectives, policies and rules of these Group 3 chapters will be completed earlier, the schedules of features will not be completed until the end of the year.
All chapters are progressing well through the internal technical review and the Collaborative Advisory Group (strategic partners) process.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The following table shows the budget that was approved early 2013 as part of the three year annual plan process:
Approved Budget Fiscal year 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total Advertising 255,667 255,667 255,667 767,001 Consultants Fees 3,616,333 2,516,333 2,516,333 8,648,999 Hearings 296,667 296,667 296,667 890,001 Legal Fees 213,333 213,333 213,333 639,999 Staff Costs 5,140,869 3,994,128 3,964,327 13,099,325 Subtotal 9,522,869 7,276,128 7,246,327 24,045,325 2% LTP Plan Cap Savings ‐74,599 ‐74,599 Cost Inflation 83,393 83,393 Carry forward to next yr ‐933,143 933,143 0 Total 8,589,726 8,209,271 7,255,121 24,054,119
The above budget is not sufficient given the Order in Council now in place. There was no hint of an Order in Council to truncate the process for a District Plan Review when the above budget was estimated. Therefore the 3 Year Annual Plan budget above did not include costs to attend the Environment Court which would have taken place outside of the three year timeframe and would have cost some millions. It only included costs for the Council hearing of submissions which would normally involve Commissioners and Councillors and a small amount of legal time. The average number of years for the development of the Plan to notification (5-7 years), hearings (2-3 years) and environment court (3 – 15) takes many years. The current Operative City Plan has taken 13 years to complete the resolution of all appeals, and the Banks Operative District Plan with Variations, also took 13 years to complete the resolution of all appeals. 187 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
The total cost of the City Plan from development through to the resolution of all appeals was circa $30,116738.00. Of this, 19.629 Million was spent on appeals at the Environment Court. The total cost of the Banks Peninsula plan from development to appeals was circa $ 3.3 Million. These figures have not been adjusted for inflation.
The Order in Council does not allow for recourse to the Environment Court. The only way this step can be taken is to ensure that the hearings process is made more legally robust by allowing for cross examination of expert witnesses by barristers and by having an independent panel which includes Judges and highly qualified specialist Commissioners. The Hearings Panel will make its decisions which can only be appealed on points of law to the High Court. However it does mean that the costs (set up, payment of salaries, and ongoing costs of the independent hearings panel and secretariat) that would have occurred over a longer timeframe are now condensed into 2 years until end March 2016 by which time all decisions must be made and any High Court appeals resolved.
Hearings held by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) are the most similar type of hearings (i.e. Board of Inquiry hearings) to those outlined above for the Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan. Costs for the most recent of EPA hearings are given below, noting that these hearings are dealing with sole plan changes and not a whole District Plan review.
NZ King Salmon - $2.588M Basin Bridge - $2.966M (current forecast) Waterview Connection - $1.865M Transmission Gully (Plan Change) - $857,000 Transmission Gully (NoR) - $1.633M Christchurch Southern Motorway - $1.633M Peka Peka to Otaki Expressway - $1.123M McKays to Peka Peka Expressway - $2.093M
The benefits of the Order in Council provides for a more cost effective Replacement District Plan but more importantly provide an operative newly updated, user friendly, modern plan within an highly truncated timeframe to ensure it will have an effect on the rebuild and recovery of Christchurch City and its environs.
The cost of hearings is now anticipated to be in the order of $6.5M (rather than the $890k in the budget). In other words, additional funds in the order of $5.6M are expected to be required (taking into account the carry forward of $933K from last year). Additional staff time will also be required. The outcome of the new budget is that overall it is cheaper than having to defend all Council decisions through the Environment Court, but the costs do create a spike in expenditure within a 2 year timeframe. Once the cost share arrangement is signed by CERA then the budget will be reduced to reflect the agreement reached.
The expected total project costs are estimated below:
Interim Forecast Fiscal year 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total Advertising 255,667 255,667 255,667 767,001 Consultants Fees 3,616,333 3,472,040 2,516,333 9,604,706 Hearings 296,667 3,900,000 2,600,000 6,500,000 * Legal Fees 213,333 213,333 213,333 639,999 Staff Costs 5,140,869 6,762,458 4,464,915 16,368,242 Carry forward to next yr ‐ 933,143 ‐ 933,143 Total 8,589,726 14,603,498 10,050,248 33,243,472 * This report focuses solely on the additional costs to set up the Hearings panel and secretariat. 188 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
19 Cont’d
Part of hearing cost is classified as capital instead of operating costs. Capital assets are those assets that will be held for greater than a year and are tangible assets. The total capital is $1,069,377.00: Fit out $ 611,438 IT $357,939 (including Audio Visual Equipment, Video Conference Equipment, Infrastructure (Computer) Setup and Decommissioning, Panels/LCD Screens, Laptops and PC's, Printers and Scanners, Electronic Whiteboards, Network and cabling costs, Fibre, Telephony (Handset purchase), GeoMedia Suite Licencing) Contingency $100,000.00 Delegation to move this operating budget to capital is required.
To ensure accountability of spend the Executive Director of the Independent Secretariat is required by 1 December to provide a detailed estimate of costs for the hearing process and provide this to Council/CERA for their approval. Also, at the end of each month the Executive Director is to present a report to the General Manager Recovery Strategy and Planning of CERA and the Chief Planning Officer of the Christchurch City Council. The report is to cover the financial expenditure in the previous month and identify any unusual or higher than expected expenditure in the next three months, based on the estimate of costs approved by the Parties. If the Executive Director considers that there will be insufficient finances to complete the work of the hearings panel, the Executive Director shall advise the Parties as soon as practicable so that alternative finances and cost savings can be identified. At the end of March 2016, the Executive Director must provide a reconciliation report and identify what remains of the financial contribution.
6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
6.1 It is recommended that this report be received.
6.2 Delegate authority to the Chief Financial Officer to:
6.2.1 Approve $1,069,377.00 operating budget in 2014/15 be transferred to capital. 6.2.2 Allow the District Plan Review project budget to be overspent in the 2014/15 and 2015/16 years by $5.6 million to provide for the Independent Hearings Panel and Secretariat. Any cost recoveries from government agencies will be used to reduce this hearings panel overspend. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 19 191
MEMO
To: Councillors and Mayor
Cc: Mike Theelen
From: Brigitte de Ronde
Date: 2 September 2014
Subject: District Plan Review Project Outlook and Costs
1. Purpose The purpose of this memo is to inform councillors of the remaining program for the District Plan Review and the associated costs to CCC as requested at the full council meeting held on 15 August 2014.
2. Background Generally speaking, the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires district plans to be reviewed every ten years. There are currently two operative plans in place for the area under CCC’s jurisdiction: the Christchurch City Plan and the Banks Peninsula District Plan. The purpose of the District Plan Review (DPR) project, which commenced in July 2013, is to review and combine these two plans into one document and publish the new proposed replacement district plan electronically.
To enable the Council to undertake the review within a timeframe that would have an impact on the rebuild and recovery of Christchurch, the government issued an Order in Council (OiC) which truncates the normal Schedule 1 Resource Management Act process by eliminating the step of recourse to the Environment Court and enhances the hearing, with a Board of Inquiry type hearing. The OiC, which was gazetted on 7 July 2014, requires the DPR project to be completed by April 2016.
The DPR project was split into two stages. The purpose of this split was to prioritise preparation of DPR chapters that are important for the rebuild. The following table lists the DPR chapters and which stage they are allocated to:
Stage 1 (priority) Chapters Stage 2 Chapters (notified 27 August 2014) (to be notified mid 2015) Introduction General Rules and Procedures (remainder) Definitions Papakainga Areas Strategic Directions Natural & Cultural Heritage Natural Hazards (part) Utilities, Energy & Infrastructure Transport Hazardous Substance Subdivision, Development and Earthworks Central City Residential (part) Rural Commercial (part) Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Industrial (part) Coastal
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 19 192
Contaminated Land Future Urban Development Areas Designations (non CCC) Specific Purpose Zones General Rules and Procedures (part – remaining Definitions, Residential and all those Temporary Recovery Activity) where there are parts still to be done. Maps CCC Designations Maps
3. Key Future Dates for Councillors and Program Councillors will be asked to review and approve the Stage 2 chapters and maps for subsequent steps, as was done for Stage 1. The current program for the DPR project suggests that councillors are required for these reviews during the following periods:
Councillors required for: Dates Review of draft chapters and approval for pre-notification engagement 19-29 Jan 2015 with public. Review of draft chapters following (public) pre-notification engagement 13-28 April 2015 feedback. Approval of draft chapters for minister review. Review of final draft chapters following receipt of ministers’ comments and 9-24 June 2015 consideration of staff draft responses. Approval for public notification.
The following tables provide more detail on the current programs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the DPR project:
Phase 1 Dates 1. Closure of submissions on chapter and S32 (6 weeks, as per OiC) 8 Oct 2014 2. Processing and publication of submissions online (CCC staff, 2 9-22 Oct 2014 weeks, as per OiC) 3. Further submission of chapter and S32 (2 weeks, as per OiC) 23 Oct – 6 Nov 2014 4. Hearings (by a government appointed panel). tbc (hearings will be scheduled by the panel at its discretion) 5. Decisions on Matters of Priority (yet to be determined by govt 28 Feb 2015 through Terms of Reference, refer OiC) 6. All other decisions 28 Feb 2016
Phase 2 Approx. Dates 1. Chapter scope completed Jan 2014 2. Scope review by Collaborative Advisory Group (CAG). CAG Feb 2014 includes: Ngai Tahu, ECan, Selwyn DC, Waimak DC, central govt 3. Prepare draft chapters and S32s Feb – Nov 2014 4. Technical and legal reviews of draft chapters, S32 and maps Aug 2014 – Jan 2015
- 2 -
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 19 193
Phase 2 Approx. Dates 5. Chapter review by CAG – Collaborative Advisory Group Jul 2014 – Jan 2015 6. Present draft chapters to council for review and approval to move Jan 2015 towards pre-notification engagement exercise 7. Pre-notification engagement with public (online survey, public Feb – Mar 2015 meetings etc) 8. Chapter revision, taking public feedback into account Mar – Apr 2015 9. Present revised draft chapters to councillors for review and approval Apr 2015 to submit to Ministers for comments (as required by the OiC) 10. Chapter review by Ministers May 2015 11. Council to have “particular regard” to ministers’ comments (as May – Jun 2015 required by the OiC) and provision of responses 12. Submissions on chapter and S32 (30 working days, as per OiC) 1 Jul – 12 Aug 2015 13. Processing and publication of submissions online (CCC staff, 10 13-26 Aug 2015 working days, as per OiC) 14. Further submission of chapter and S32 (10 working days, as per 27 Aug – 9 Sep 2015 OiC) 15. Hearings (by a government appointed panel). tbc (hearings will be scheduled by the panel at its discretion) 16. Final decisions March 2016
4. Project Costs Under the TYP (three year financial plan) the DPR project has an approved budget of approx. $24M:
Approved Budget Fiscal year 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total Advertising 255,667 255,667 255,667 767,001 Consultants Fees 3,616,333 2,516,333 2,516,333 8,648,999 Hearings 296,667 296,667 296,667 890,001 Legal Fees 213,333 213,333 213,333 639,999 Staff Costs 5,140,869 3,994,128 3,964,327 13,099,325 Subtotal 9,522,869 7,276,128 7,246,327 24,045,325 2% LTP Plan Cap Savings ‐74,599 ‐74,599 Cost Inflation 83,393 83,393 Carry forward to next yr ‐933,143 933,143 0 Total 8,589,726 8,209,271 7,255,121 24,054,119
The planning for the TYP took place in May 2013. At the time, it was assumed that the DPR project would be following the usual process under Schedule 1 of the RMA. There had been no detailed discussions on a truncated process.
- 3 -
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 19 194
However, since then, the OiC was gazetted on 7 July 2014, changing part of the RMA process. Most significantly in terms of the budget, submissions and further submissions are to be heard by an independent hearings panel with all decisions due by March 2016. The cost of the hearings will therefore accrue over a period of only approx. 1.5 years, as opposed to the typical five to ten years moving through hearings and then dealing with appeals to the Environment Court as is the normal Schedule 1/RMA process. As a result, the original budget is no longer considered sufficient, the costs which may have accrued over 10 years in effect, have been brought forward.
While the project managed to come in under budget for consultant costs by approx. $1M for FY13/14 (of which approx. $933k were carried forward to FY14/15), a more recent estimate of the total project cost suggests that together, the costs of hearings; staff time; consultants; and legal fees will significantly exceed budget.
The cost of hearings makes up the majority of the expected unbudgeted costs. The cost of hearings is now anticipated to be in the order of $6.5M (rather than the $890k in the budget). In other words, additional funds in the order of $5.6M are now expected to be required to pay for the cost of hearings (subject to potential cost sharing with CERA). The cost of hearings includes items such as:
Fit out and rent (for the hearings venue, the current estimate is based on $250k and $750k respectively for fit out and annual rent, incl. outgoings) Fees for the chair, panellists and panel secretariat (staff numbers tbc) Fees for advisors and mediators to the panel and to council staff (e.g. legal advice) IT infrastructure and ongoing IT costs Expenses (travel and accommodation for any panellists from outside Christchurch, consumables and other ongoing costs)
Until a lease agreement for the venue has been signed; submissions have been received; and the hearings panel has been established and advised how it will run the hearings, it is not possible to provide an estimate with any accuracy greater than ‘order of magnitude’.
Staff costs have and will continue to exceed budget. However, it is expected that this can be handled at staff level through reprioritisation of other tasks.
Whether legal fees and consultant costs will exceed budget is not yet clear and will partly depend on the extent and type of submissions.
Brigitte de Ronde City Planning Unit Manager City Planning Unit, Strategy & Planning Group DDI: 941 8669
- 4 -
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 195
2014/228
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014
Jerry Mateparae, Governor-General
Order in Council
At Wellington this 7th day of July 2014
Present: The Right Hon John Key presiding in Council
Pursuant to section 71 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011, His Excellency the Governor-General makes the following order, acting— (a) on the advice and with the consent of the Executive Council; and (b) on the recommendation of the Minister for the Environment made following the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel’s review of a draft of the order.
Contents Page 1 Title 3 2 Commencement 3 3 Interpretation 3 4 Modification of RMA 4 5 Application of RMA 5
1 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 196
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
Review and replacement of existing district plans 6 Council must review existing district plans and prepare 6 replacement district plan 7 Application of Schedule 1 7 Hearings panel 8 Hearings panel and chairperson 7 9 Terms of reference 8 10 Functions and powers of hearings panel 8 11 Application of Schedule 2 9 Jurisdiction of hearings panel 12 Hearings and decisions on proposals 9 13 Decisions on proposals (other than in relation to 9 requirements) 14 Considerations relevant to decision making 11 How effect to be given to decisions of hearings panel 15 Proposal deemed to be approved 12 16 Council must make decisions of hearings panel operative 12 17 Application of Schedule 3 12 Objections and appeals 18 Objection rights 12 19 Appeals only on questions of law 13 Requests for changes to existing district plans or replacement district plan 20 Request for change 14 21 Decision on request for change 14 22 Withdrawal of requests 15 Administrative matter 23 Administrative charges 16 Application of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 24 Application of Local Government Official Information 16 and Meetings Act 1987 Schedule 1 17 Process for review of existing district plans and preparation of replacement district plan Schedule 2 24 Further provisions on appointments to hearings panel
2 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 197
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 3
Schedule 3 27 Provisions relating to functions and powers of hearings panel Schedule 4 38 Statement of expectations Schedule 5 40 Form
Order 1 Title This order is the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Re- placement District Plan) Order 2014.
2 Commencement This order comes into force on the day after the date on which the order is made.
3 Interpretation (1) In this order, unless the context otherwise requires,— alternative dispute resolution means any process, other than that of a court or tribunal, that is designed to resolve, or assist in resolving, a dispute Christchurch district means the Christchurch district as de- scribed in the Local Government (Canterbury Region) Re- organisation Order 1989, Gazette 1989, pp 2296 to 2327, as amended by the Local Government (Banks Peninsula District) Reorganisation Order 2005, Gazette 2005, pp 5179 to 5181 council means the Christchurch City Council existing district plans means the district plans for the Christchurch district that are operative immediately before the commencement of this order hearing means any hearing or part of a hearing conducted by the hearings panel under this order hearings panel means the panel appointed under clause 8 Ministers means the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Re- covery and the Minister for the Environment, acting jointly
3 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 198
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 4 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
proposal— (a) means a proposal or part of a proposal that— (i) has been notified by the council under Schedule 1 for incorporation into the replacement district plan; but (ii) has not become operative under clause 16; and (b) includes a requirement replacement district plan means the single district plan for the Christchurch district that is prepared and made operative in accordance with this order as a replacement for the existing district plans requirement means a designation or heritage order (with or without modification) or a requirement for a designation or heritage order that is included in a proposal under clause 4 of Schedule 1 RMA means the Resource Management Act 1991 statement of expectations means the statement set out in Schedule 4. (2) The modifications to the RMA made by this order do not affect the text of the RMA, but require that Act to be read as if it had been amended in the manner indicated by this order. (3) Unless the context otherwise requires, a term or expression used, but not defined, in this order, but defined in theRMA, has the same meaning as it has in that Act.
4 Modification of RMA (1) On and from the commencement of this order, in relation to the Christchurch district,— (a) the council must not notify a proposed plan under Schedule 1 of the RMA: (b) Schedule 1 and section 37 of the RMA do not apply to the council acting under this order: (c) Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA does not apply: (d) clause 6 applies to the council instead of section 79 of the RMA. (2) Nothing in this order affects— (a) a request for a change to the existing district plans made under clause 21 of Schedule 1 of the RMA if the council
4 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 199
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 5
had made a decision on the request under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA before the commencement of this order: (b) a change notified under Schedule 1 of the RMA before the commencement of this order. (3) Any change to the existing district plans that is made operative by the council under clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA while this order is in force is deemed to be part of the replacement district plan. (4) The council may make changes of minor effect to a change referred to in subclause (3) without using the process set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA or in this order. (5) If a requiring authority or heritage protection authority gives notice of a requirement under Part 8 of the RMA before the commencement of this order or while it is in force and the re- quirement is determined under Part 8 of the RMA, sections 175 and 192 of that Act apply, subject to references in those provisions to a proposed district plan being treated as refer- ences to the replacement district plan under this order. (6) Unless subclause (2)(a) applies, the council must not process, or make decisions on, requests for changes to the existing dis- trict plans received under clause 21 of Schedule 1 of the RMA before the commencement of this order. (7) The following provisions of the RMA do not apply to a rule contained in a proposal notified under this order: (a) section 86B(1)(b) and (c), (2), and (4); and (b) sections 86C and 86D; and (c) section 86E(1)(b).
5 Application of RMA (1) The RMA applies to the functions and powers provided for by this order, except to the extent that this order modifies the provisions or application of the RMA. (2) The following matters are to be treated in the manner specified for each: (a) a proposal notified under clause 5 of Schedule 1isto be treated as if it were a proposed district plan notified under clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the RMA:
5 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 200
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 6 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(b) a requirement included in a proposal under clause 4 of Schedule 1 is to be treated as if it had been included in a proposed district plan under clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the RMA: (c) a decision of the hearings panel notified by the council under clause 15 of Schedule 3 is to be treated as if it were a decision made and notified by a local authority under clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA: (d) a proposal or part of a proposal that becomes operative under clause 16 is to be treated as if it were a district plan or part of a district plan under the RMA: (e) a provision of the replacement district plan that gives effect to a requirement is to be treated as if it were a designation or heritage order under the RMA. (3) Sections 85 and 85B of the RMA apply as if references in those sections to a submission were references to a submission made under Schedule 1 of this order.
Review and replacement of existing district plans 6 Council must review existing district plans and prepare replacement district plan (1) The council must, in the manner required by this order,— (a) undertake a full review of the operative provisions of the existing district plans; and (b) develop a replacement district plan by preparing and notifying proposals for the replacement district plan, including identifying the parts of the existing district plans that are to be replaced by proposals for the re- placement district plan. (2) In reviewing the existing district plans and preparing propos- als for the replacement district plan, the council must have par- ticular regard to the statement of expectations. (3) Despite clause 4(6), in reviewing the existing district plans, the council must consider— (a) any requests described in clause 4(6); and (b) whether to make provision for those requests. (4) The council must—
6 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 201
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 8
(a) notify 1 or more proposals not later than the date that is 37 working days after the commencement of this order; and (b) ensure that it notifies all proposals for the replacement district plan in sufficient time to enable the hearings panel to make all decisions not later than 9 March 2016. (5) Any action taken under subclause (1) before the commence- ment of this order is to be treated as having been taken under and in accordance with this clause, except to the extent that clause 3(2) of Schedule 1 applies.
7 Application of Schedule 1 Schedule 1 sets out procedural matters applying to the review of the existing district plans and development of the replace- ment district plan required by clause 6(1).
Hearings panel 8 Hearings panel and chairperson (1) The Ministers must, in accordance with this clause, establish a hearings panel to hear submissions and make decisions on any proposal notified under clause 5 of Schedule 1. (2) The Ministers must appoint— (a) the chairperson of the hearings panel, who may be a cur- rent, former, or retired Environment Judge or a retired High Court Judge; and (b) at any time after the commencement of this order, not fewer than 3 other persons to be members of the hear- ings panel. (3) The Honourable Sir John Hansen is appointed to be the first chairperson of the hearings panel as if he were appointed in accordance with subclause (2). (4) In appointing the members of the hearings panel, the Ministers must consider the need for the panel to have available to it, from its members, knowledge, skill, and experience relating to— (a) the RMA; and (b) tikanga Māori; and (c) the local community.
7 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 202
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 9 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(5) Before appointing persons to be members of the hearings panel under subclause (2)(b), the Ministers must consult— (a) the council on the persons proposed to be members of the panel; and (b) the chairperson on the date or dates when the appoint- ments are to be made. (6) Despite clause 3 of Schedule 2 (which relates to the powers of the chairperson), until the members of the hearings panel are appointed under subclause (2)(b), the chairperson’s juris- diction is limited to determining only the matters described in clause 4(4) of Schedule 3 (subject to any obligations specified in terms of reference under clause 9).
9 Terms of reference (1) The Ministers must, after consulting the council, set terms of reference for the hearings panel. (2) The terms of reference for the hearings panel under subclause (1)— (a) must specify the matters of priority for which the hear- ings panel must make decisions not later than 28 Febru- ary 2015; and (b) may specify the matters and time limits referred to in clause 4(4) of Schedule 3 for the purpose of ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the hearings panel and that it completes the performance of its functions in a timely manner. (3) The Ministers may, after consulting the council, amend the terms of reference for the hearings panel, including the time limit specified under subclause (2)(a). (4) The Ministers may grant an extension of the time limit speci- fied under subclause (2)(a), but only if they consider thatspe- cial circumstances apply.
10 Functions and powers of hearings panel (1) The principal functions of the hearings panel are to— (a) hold hearings on submissions on proposals that have been notified under clause 5 of Schedule 1;and
8 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 203
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 13
(b) make decisions in relation to those proposals as required by clauses 12 to 14. (2) The hearings panel has the powers set out in this order for the purpose of, or incidental to, carrying out its functions under this order. (3) The hearings panel must determine its own procedures, ex- cept— (a) as set out in clause 3 of Schedule 2; or (b) as otherwise provided for in this order.
11 Application of Schedule 2 Schedule 2 sets out further provisions relating to the hearings panel.
Jurisdiction of hearings panel 12 Hearings and decisions on proposals (1) The hearings panel must— (a) hold a hearing on submissions on a proposal; and (b) as soon as practicable after the close of the hearing,— (i) in the case of a requirement, make a draft deci- sion and final decision; and (ii) in the case of all other provisions of a proposal, make a decision; and (iii) in both cases, report on the decision or draft de- cision in accordance with Schedule 3. (2) The hearings panel must complete its obligations under sub- clause (1) within the time limits specified in any terms of ref- erence given under clause 9, and in any case not later than 9 March 2016.
13 Decisions on proposals (other than in relation to requirements) (1) This clause applies to the making of decisions on proposals other than in relation to requirements. (2) In making a decision on a proposal, the hearings panel— (a) may make any changes to the proposal that it considers appropriate:
9 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 204
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 13 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(b) is not limited to making changes within the scope of the submissions made on the proposal. (3) After having regard to the parts of the existing district plans identified for replacement by the council under clause 6(1)(b), the hearings panel must identify the parts of the existing dis- trict plans that are to be replaced by proposals for the replace- ment district plan. (4) If the hearings panel considers that changes are needed to deal with matters that are, in a material way, outside the scope of the proposal as notified and to deal with submissions on it, the panel must direct the council to— (a) prepare and notify a new proposal; and (b) invite submissions on the new proposal in accordance with Schedule 1. (5) While the hearings panel is considering a proposal, it may re- consider any decision it has already made on another proposal if it considers it is necessary or desirable to do so to ensure that the replacement district plan is coherent and consistent. (6) If the hearings panel considers, after reconsidering a decision under subclause (5), that an earlier proposal or a part of the replacement district plan requires change, the panel may direct the council— (a) to make changes of no more than minor effect; or (b) to prepare and notify a new proposal, and invite submis- sions on the new proposal in accordance with Sched- ule 1. (7) If the council is directed by the hearings panel under subclause (4) or (6),— (a) the council must comply with— (i) the provisions of Schedule 1 (other than clauses 3 and 4 of that schedule); and (ii) any time limits specified by the panel; and (b) the hearings panel must comply with this clause, clause 12, and Schedule 3. (8) Clause 12(2) applies to the obligations of the hearings panel under this clause.
10 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 205
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 14
14 Considerations relevant to decision making (1) In making decisions on proposals under clause 12, the hearings panel must— (a) have regard to the information provided to the panel under clause 9 of Schedule 1; and (b) have regard to any reports prepared under clause 3(4), 8(1), or 9(3) of Schedule 3; and (c) take account of any outcomes reported under clause 10(4) of Schedule 3; and (d) have particular regard to the statement of expectations. (2) In making a decision on a requirement, the hearings panel must,— (a) in relation to a designation or requirement for a desig- nation, comply with section 171 of the RMA as if the panel were a territorial authority; and (b) in relation to a heritage order or requirement for a her- itage order, comply with section 191 of the RMA as if the panel were a territorial authority; and (c) treat all references to a recommendation in sections 171 and 191 of the RMA as references to a decision. (3) In making a decision on an existing designation or heritage order that is included in a proposal without modification, and on which no submissions are received, the hearings panel— (a) must confirm the designation or heritage order; but (b) must not alter, or impose new conditions on, the desig- nation or heritage order. (4) In making decisions on all other provisions of a proposal, the hearings panel must— (a) undertake, and have particular regard to, a further evalu- ation of the proposal prepared in accordance with sec- tion 32AA of the RMA; and (b) apply sections 74 to 77D and 85B of the RMA as if it were the council; and (c) comply with section 23 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 as if the panel were making a deci- sion under Schedule 1 of the RMA. (5) Subclause (1)(d) does not limit subclause (4)(c).
11 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 206
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 15 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
How effect to be given to decisions of hearings panel 15 Proposal deemed to be approved (1) This clause applies once the council has given public notice under clause 15 of Schedule 3 of the decisions of the hearings panel on a proposal. (2) The proposal is deemed to have been approved by the council under clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA on and from— (a) the date on which the appeal period expires, if no ap- peals relating to the proposal are made under clause 19 of this order; or (b) the date on which all appeals, including further appeals, relating to the proposal are determined, if appeals are made under clause 19 of this order.
16 Council must make decisions of hearings panel operative (1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the date that a pro- posal is deemed to have been approved, the council must make the proposal operative as part of the replacement district plan by giving public notice in accordance with clause 20 of Sched- ule 1 of the RMA. (2) On and from the day on which a proposal is made operative under subclause (1), that proposal replaces any parts of the existing district plans that were identified in the report of the hearings panel required by clause 13(1)(c) of Schedule 3. (3) The obligation on the council under subclause (1) does not limit the application of section 86F of the RMA (which relates to rules being treated as operative).
17 Application of Schedule 3 Schedule 3 sets out the procedural matters relevant to the func- tions and powers of the hearings panel.
Objections and appeals 18 Objection rights (1) A person who makes a submission on a proposal has a right of objection to the hearings panel in relation to—
12 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 207
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 19
(a) a decision of the hearings panel under clause 3(6) of Schedule 3 to decline to consider the person’s submis- sion: (b) a decision of the hearings panel to strike out the whole or a part of the person’s submission under clause 7(1)(e) of Schedule 3. (2) An objection must be made by notice in writing, setting out the reasons for the objection, not later than 5 working days after the decision is notified to the person or any longer time allowed by the hearings panel. (3) The hearings panel must— (a) consider the objection as soon as practicable; and (b) hold a hearing on the objection at which all members of the panel are present, after giving the objector not less than 5 working days’ notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing. (4) After the hearing, the hearings panel must— (a) dismiss or uphold the objection in whole or in part; and (b) inform the objector in writing of the panel’s decision and the reasons for it. (5) A decision of the hearings panel under this clause is final and there is no right of appeal against it.
19 Appeals only on questions of law (1) The persons or bodies listed in subclause (2) may appeal to the High Court against a decision of the hearings panel made under clause 12(1)(b). (2) The persons or bodies are— (a) the Ministers: (b) the council: (c) a submitter on the relevant proposal, but only in relation to matters raised in his or her submission. (3) An appeal under this clause is available only on a question of law. (4) In relation to a decision on a requirement, the following per- sons also have a right of appeal on questions of law: (a) the relevant requiring authority or heritage protection authority; and
13 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 208
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 20 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(b) the owners and occupiers of land who are directly af- fected by the decision. (5) Notice of an appeal must be filed with the High Court and served on the council not later than 20 working days after the council notifies the decision of the hearings panel under clause 15 of Schedule 3. (6) Except as otherwise provided in this order, sections 299(2) and 300 to 307 of the RMA apply, with all necessary modifications, to an appeal under this clause. (7) Section 308 of the RMA applies in respect of an appeal from a decision of the High Court.
Requests for changes to existing district plans or replacement district plan 20 Request for change (1) Any person may request a change to an existing district plan or the replacement district plan. (2) A request must be made to the council in writing, and must— (a) set out the purpose of the proposed change and the rea- sons for making the request; and (b) include an evaluation prepared in accordance with sec- tion 32 of the RMA; and (c) specify the environmental effects anticipated from the proposed change, taking into account the provisions of Schedule 4 of the RMA in the detail that corresponds with the scale and significance of the actual or potential effects anticipated from implementing the change. (3) The council must, not later than 10 working days after receiv- ing a request, provide the request to the hearings panel.
21 Decision on request for change (1) Not later than 20 working days after receiving a request under clause 20(3), the hearings panel must decide whether to accept or reject the request. (2) In making its decision, the hearings panel must have particular regard to the evaluation provided under clause 20(2)(b). (3) If the hearings panel accepts the request, it must direct the council to notify the request as a proposal, in accordance with
14 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 209
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 cl 22
clause 5 of Schedule 1, within the time that the hearings panel specifies. (4) The hearings panel may reject a request on the grounds that the request or part of it— (a) is frivolous or vexatious; or (b) does not accord with sound resource management prac- tice; or (c) would make the replacement district plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA or this order. (5) The hearings panel may also reject a request if— (a) the hearings panel considers that— (i) it would be unable to make a decision on the proposal by 9 March 2016; or (ii) it has insufficient information to enable it to con- sider or approve the request; or (b) the substance of the request— (i) is included in a proposal that has been notified under this order; or (ii) has been given effect to or rejected by the hear- ings panel under this order. (6) If the council is directed by the hearings panel under subclause (3),— (a) the council must comply with— (i) the provisions of Schedule 1 (other than clauses 3 and 4 of that schedule); and (ii) any time limits specified by the panel; and (b) the hearings panel must comply with this clause, any time limits specified in any terms of reference given under clause 9, and Schedule 3.
22 Withdrawal of requests (1) A person who has made a request under clause 20 may with- draw the request at any time before the hearing panel’s deci- sion is notified by the council under clause 15 of Schedule 3. (2) If the council has reasonable grounds to consider that a person who has made a request no longer wishes to continue with it, the council may give written notice to the person that, unless the person confirms within 30 working days that he or she
15 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 210
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch cl 23 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
intended to continue with the request, the council deems the request to have been withdrawn.
Administrative matter 23 Administrative charges (1) Section 36 of the RMA applies, as far as it is relevant, to the functions of the council under clauses 20 to 22. (2) The council may recover— (a) its costs in carrying out its functions under clauses 20 to 22; and (b) the costs incurred under clause 4 of Schedule 2 in rela- tion to a request received under clause 20, other than the council’s costs in making a submission to the hearings panel or presenting evidence in support of the submis- sion.
Application of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 24 Application of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies, with the necessary modifications, to the hearings panel as if it were a board of inquiry with authority to conduct a hearing under section 149J of the RMA.
16 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 211
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 1
Schedule 1 cls 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 21 Process for review of existing district plans and preparation of replacement district plan Contents Page 1 Consultation when undertaking review and replacement 17 2 Evaluation report 18 3 Changes in response to comments from Ministers 18 4 Process for inclusion of requirements in replacement 19 district plan 5 Public notification of proposals 20 6 Submissions 21 7 Public notice of submissions and right to make further 21 submission 8 Further submissions 22 9 Information to be supplied to hearings panel 22
1 Consultation when undertaking review and replacement (1) This clause applies when the council reviews the existing dis- trict plans and prepares proposals (other than requirements) under clause 6(1) of this order. (2) The council must consult— (a) the Ministers; and (b) any other Ministers of the Crown whose responsibilities may be affected by the replacement district plan; and (c) the Canterbury Regional Council; and (d) Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu; and (e) the Selwyn District Council; and (f) the Waimakariri District Council; and (g) the New Zealand Transport Agency. (3) The council may consult any other person during the process of reviewing the existing district plans and preparing proposals (other than requirements). (4) The council must carry out consultation— (a) with the persons specified in subclause (2) in the manner agreed with those persons; and
17 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 212
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 1 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(b) under subclause (3) in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. (5) Consultation carried out with the persons referred to in sub- clauses (2) and (3) before the commencement of this order on any proposal that becomes part of the replacement district plan is consultation for the purposes of this clause.
2 Evaluation report (1) Before publicly notifying a proposal (other than a require- ment), the council must— (a) prepare a draft proposal that complies with Part 5 of the RMA and section 23 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011; and (b) prepare an evaluation report on the draft proposal in accordance with section 32 of the RMA; and (c) have particular regard to the report when deciding whether to proceed with the draft proposal. (2) An evaluation report may not be challenged other than in a submission lodged under this schedule. (3) Subclause (2) applies instead of section 32A of the RMA.
3 Changes in response to comments from Ministers (1) If the council decides to proceed with a draft proposal (other than a requirement), it must provide a copy of the draft to the Ministers, who may, within 15 working days of receiving the copy, provide comments with reasons to the council. (2) If the Ministers consider that the Council has not had particu- lar regard to the statement of expectations, the Ministers may make comments under subclause (1) on how they consider the statement of expectations should be addressed in the propos- als. (3) The council— (a) must have particular regard to any comments provided by the Ministers; and (b) may modify the draft proposal— (i) in response to the Ministers’ comments: (ii) to correct minor errors.
18 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 213
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 1
(4) Before notifying the draft proposal, the council must give writ- ten notice to the Ministers, summarising its response to the comments and the reasons for the response. (5) The council is not required to prepare a further evaluation re- port if it modifies a draft proposal in response to the Ministers’ comments.
4 Process for inclusion of requirements in replacement district plan (1) Not later than 5 working days after the commencement of this order, the council must issue a written request to requiring au- thorities to give written notice to the council of any designa- tions that should be included in a proposal. (2) The council— (a) must specify the date by which requiring authorities must respond, which must not be earlier than 30 work- ing days after the request is issued; and (b) must not notify a draft proposal before the date specified under paragraph (a). (3) If written notice is not received from a requiring authority by the date specified, the designation must not be included inthe proposal. (4) If a requiring authority wishes to have a designation included with modifications in the proposal, the requiring authority must specify in its written notice to the council the modifica- tions required and the reasons for them. (5) The council must, in the proposals notified under clause 6(4)(a) of this order, make provision for— (a) any designation it receives notice of under this clause; and (b) any existing heritage orders. (6) The council may include in a proposal— (a) requirements for designations or heritage orders for which the council has responsibility; and (b) existing designations or heritage orders, with or without modifications, for which the council has responsibility. (7) Subclause (8) applies if the council—
19 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 214
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 1 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(a) is given notice of a requirement for a designation under section 168 of the RMA or a heritage order under sec- tion 189 of the RMA; and (b) proposes to give public notice of a proposal under clause 5 of this schedule within 50 days of receiving the requirement. (8) The council may, with the consent of the requiring authority or heritage protection authority, include the requirement in a proposal instead of complying with section 169 or 190 of the RMA. (9) If the council includes a requirement in a proposal, the council must make relevant information about the requirement avail- able for public inspection. (10) A requiring authority that has given written notice to the coun- cil under subclause (1) may withdraw the requirement in ac- cordance with section 168(4) of the RMA, and the council must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, amend the proposal accordingly, without applying the process in this order. (11) If the council issues a written request of the kind referred to in subclause (1) to a requiring authority before the commence- ment of this order, the request must be treated as if it were given under this order.
5 Public notification of proposals (1) After the council has considered any comments on a draft pro- posal received from Ministers under clause 3 of this schedule, it must— (a) give public notice of the draft proposal as provided for in subclause (2); and (b) if the proposal includes a requirement, give notice to any land owners and occupiers who, in the council’s opinion, are likely to be directly affected. (2) The public notice required by subclause (1) must be given in the form set out in Schedule 5. (3) The council must provide 1 copy of a proposal without charge to— (a) the Ministers; and (b) the Canterbury Regional Council; and
20 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 215
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 1
(c) Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu; and (d) the Selwyn District Council; and (e) the Waimakariri District Council; and (f) the New Zealand Transport Agency. (4) The council must make the proposal available in every public library in its district and in any other place in its district that it considers appropriate. (5) The obligation under subclause (4) is in addition to the coun- cil’s obligations under section 35 of the RMA (which relates to a council’s records). (6) After a proposal has been notified under this order, the council must not amend or withdraw any provisions of the proposal, except as provided for by clause 13(4) of this order and clause 4(10) of this schedule.
6 Submissions (1) When a proposal is publicly notified under clause 5 of this schedule, the council and any person may, not later than 30 working days after the date of the public notice given under clause 5 of this schedule, make a submission to the hearings panel on the proposal. (2) However, if a person could gain an advantage in trade compe- tition through making a submission, that person may make a submission only if the person is directly affected by an effect of the proposal that— (a) adversely affects the environment; and (b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.
7 Public notice of submissions and right to make further submission (1) Not later than 10 working days after the closing date for sub- missions stated in the notice given under clause 5(1) of this schedule, the council must— (a) give public notice that submissions are available for in- spection, and invite further submissions; and (b) publish the submissions on its Internet site. (2) The public notice given under subclause (1) must state—
21 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 216
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 1 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(a) where the submissions may be inspected; and (b) the closing date for further submissions, which must be not later than 10 working days after the date of the public notice; and (c) the persons who may make further submissions, as spe- cified in subclause (3); and (d) any limitations applying to the content and form of any further submission. (3) The persons referred to in subclause (2)(c) are— (a) the Ministers: (b) any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest: (c) any person that has an interest in the proposal greater than the interest that the general public has: (d) the council.
8 Further submissions (1) A person making a further submission under clause 7 of this schedule must serve a copy of it— (a) on the council; and (b) not later than 5 working days after the copy is served on the council, on the person who made the submission to which the further submission relates. (2) A further submission must be limited to a matter in support of, or in opposition to, the relevant submission made under clause 6 of this schedule. (3) The council must publish any further submissions on its Inter- net site not later than 10 working days after the closing date for the further submissions.
9 Information to be supplied to hearings panel (1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after a proposal has been notified, the council must provide copies of the following documents and information to the hearings panel: (a) a copy of the relevant proposal; and (b) the council’s evaluation report referred to in clause 2(1)(b) of this schedule; and (c) any notice of, or information about, a requirement; and
22 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 217
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 1
(d) any other information that the council considers to be relevant. (2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the council receives any submissions on the proposal (including submissions re- ceived after the closing date specified under clause 5 or 7of this schedule), the council must provide them to the hearings panel.
23 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 218
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 2 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
Schedule 2 cls 8, 10, 11, 23 Further provisions on appointments to hearings panel Contents Page 1 Appointments to hearings panel 24 2 When member ceases to hold office 24 3 Powers of chairperson 25 4 Funding of hearings panel 25 5 Liability of members of hearings panel 26
1 Appointments to hearings panel (1) The Ministers must give a person appointed as a member of the hearings panel written notice stating— (a) the date on which the appointment takes effect; and (b) the terms of reference for the hearings panel. (2) The term of appointment for the hearings panel continues until the panel has completed the performance of its functions and duties and the exercise of its powers in relation to reviewing and replacing the existing district plans required by clause 6(1) of this order, including any appeals that are filed in any court.
2 When member ceases to hold office (1) A member of the hearings panel remains a member of the panel until the earliest of the following: (a) he or she dies: (b) he or she resigns by giving 20 working days’ written notice to the Ministers: (c) he or she is removed under subclause (2): (d) the hearings panel ceases to exist. (2) The Ministers may, at any time for just cause, remove a mem- ber by written notice to the member (with a copy to the hear- ings panel), stating— (a) the date on which the removal takes effect, which must not be earlier than the date on which the notice is re- ceived by the member; and (b) the reasons for the removal.
24 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 219
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 2
(3) The Ministers may appoint a member to replace a member who ceases to hold office under subclause (1) or (2). (4) Clause 8(4) of this order applies to members appointed under subclause (3). (5) A member of the hearings panel is not entitled to any compen- sation or other payment or benefit relating to his or her ceasing, for any reason, to hold office as a member. (6) In subclause (2), just cause includes misconduct, inability to perform the functions of office, neglect of duty, and breach of the collective duties of the hearings panel or the individual duties of members.
3 Powers of chairperson (1) The chairperson of the hearings panel has the power— (a) to decide how many, and which, members of the hear- ings panel are to be present at each hearing or pre-hear- ing: (b) to direct that members sit as 2 hearings panels and ap- point a second chairperson for that purpose: (c) to approve persons, whether members of the panel or other persons, to chair pre-hearing meetings: (d) to determine when submissions are to be heard and other procedural matters for the hearing of submissions: (e) to decide whether to accept any late submissions: (f) to direct the council to participate in an alternative dis- pute resolution process: (g) to deal with any complaints in respect of the hearings panel or any member of the panel. (2) If a chairperson is not able to attend any part of a hearing, he or she must appoint another member as chairperson.
4 Funding of hearings panel (1) The council is responsible for— (a) all costs incurred by the hearings panel; and (b) all costs of activities related to the performance of the hearings panel’s functions or duties or the exercise of its powers.
25 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 220
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 2 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(2) Without limiting subclause (1), the council is responsible for— (a) the remuneration and expenses of the members of the hearings panel; and (b) the administrative costs of each hearing, including venue hire and public notices; and (c) the remuneration of any expert, mediator or other dis- pute resolution facilitator, or other person whose ser- vices are engaged by the hearings panel; and (d) the allowances of any witness called by the hearings panel, subject to section 25 of the Inquiries Act 2013. (3) For the purposes of subclause (1), each member of the hearings panel must be paid— (a) remuneration by way of salary, fees, or allowances at a rate determined by the Ministers after consultation with the council; and (b) actual and reasonable travelling and other expenses in- curred in carrying out his or her office in accordance with the Fees and Travelling Allowances Act 1951, and that Act applies as if the members were members of a statutory Board within the meaning of that Act.
5 Liability of members of hearings panel A member of the hearings panel is not liable for anything the member does or omits to do, in good faith, in performing the functions and duties or exercising the powers of the hearings panel.
26 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 221
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 3
Schedule 3 cls 5, 8, 9, 12–19, 21, 22 Provisions relating to functions and powers of hearings panel Contents Page 1 Officer or representative of council required to attend 27 hearings 2 Persons with right to be heard 28 3 Pre-hearing meetings 28 4 Conduct of hearings 29 5 Compliance with time limits 31 6 Directions as to evidence 31 7 Procedural directions and requests 32 8 Hearings panel may commission reports 32 9 Conference of experts 33 10 Alternative dispute resolution 33 11 Availability of evidence and reports 34 12 Protection of sensitive information 34 Reporting and notifying 13 Reports on decisions 35 14 Draft and final reports on decisions relating to 36 requirements 15 Public notice and service of decisions 37 16 Minor corrections 37
1 Officer or representative of council required to attend hearings (1) The council must ensure that an officer of the council, ora person commissioned by the council for the purpose, attends every hearing conducted by the hearings panel in order to as- sist the panel in 1 or more of the following ways: (a) to clarify or discuss matters in a proposal: (b) to give evidence: (c) to provide a response to submissions or deal with issues raised by any submission: (d) to provide any other relevant information requested by the hearings panel.
27 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 222
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 3 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(2) Despite subclause (1), the hearings panel may excuse the coun- cil from attending or remaining at a hearing or any particular part of a hearing. (3) If the hearings panel excuses the council under subclause (2), that does not invalidate a hearing or any part of a hearing. (4) To avoid doubt, this clause does not limit or prevent the council from— (a) making a submission on a proposal; or (b) being heard on that submission.
2 Persons with right to be heard (1) If the council and persons who have made a submission or further submission on a proposal have stated that they wish to be heard at the hearing, they may speak at a hearing personally or through a representative and call evidence. (2) If a person referred to in subclause (1) fails to appear at the hearing, the hearings panel may proceed with the hearing if it considers it fair and reasonable to do so.
3 Pre-hearing meetings (1) Before a hearing is conducted on a proposal, the hearings panel may invite or require the persons listed in subclause (2) to attend a meeting for the purpose of— (a) clarifying a matter or an issue relating to a proposal or a submission; or (b) facilitating resolution of a matter or an issue relating to a proposal. (2) The persons are— (a) any submitters: (b) the council: (c) any other persons that the hearings panel considers ap- propriate, including any experts. (3) A pre-hearing meeting may be chaired by a member of the hearings panel or by a person approved by the chairperson of the panel. (4) After the pre-hearing meeting, but not later than 5 working days before the hearing to which the pre-hearing meeting re-
28 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 223
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 3
lates, the chairperson of the pre-hearing meeting must provide a report on the pre-hearing meeting to— (a) the hearings panel; and (b) the persons who attended the pre-hearing meeting. (5) The report prepared under subclause (4)— (a) must set out— (i) the issues that were agreed; and (ii) the issues that remain outstanding; and (b) may set out— (i) the nature of the evidence that the parties are to call at the hearing: (ii) the order in which the parties are to call evidence at the hearing: (iii) a proposed timetable for the hearing; but (c) must not, without a person’s consent, include any ma- terial that the person communicated or made available at the meeting on a without prejudice basis. (6) If a submitter is required to attend a meeting under subclause (1), but fails to do so without reasonable excuse, the hearings panel may decline to consider the person’s submission. (7) A submitter referred to in subclause (6) has no rights of appeal under this order, but may object under clause 18 of this order.
4 Conduct of hearings (1) Not fewer than 3 members of the hearings panel must be pre- sent at each hearing. (2) The hearings panel must, except as expressly provided other- wise by this order, regulate its own proceedings in the manner it thinks fit. (3) In carrying out its functions and exercising its powers, the hearings panel must— (a) hold hearings in public unless permitted otherwise by— (i) clause 12 of this schedule (which relates to the protection of sensitive information); or (ii) section 48 of the Local Government Official In- formation and Meetings Act 1987, as that Act ap- plies under clause 24 of this order; and (b) fix a place, date, and time for a hearing; and
29 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 224
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 3 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(c) give not less than 10 working days’ notice of the place, date, and time for a hearing to— (i) the council; and (ii) any person who lodged a submission on the proposal by the closing date for submissions or whose submission is accepted by the chairper- son of the hearings panel under clause 5 of this schedule and has requested to be heard (and who has not subsequently withdrawn the request); and (iii) every requiring authority or heritage protection authority that has a requirement included in the proposal; and (d) establish a procedure for a hearing that— (i) is appropriate and fair in the circumstances; and (ii) avoids unnecessary formality; and (iii) recognises tikanga Māori where appropriate; and (e) receive evidence written or spoken in Māori, in which case the Maori Language Act 1987 applies as if the hear- ing were legal proceedings before a tribunal named in Schedule 1 of that Act. (4) The hearings panel (or the chairperson if no members have been appointed under clause 8(2)(b) of this order) may deter- mine the following matters: (a) matters that are to be given priority over other matters in conducting a hearing on a proposal: (b) the time within which procedural steps relating to a pro- posal are to be taken: (c) the time within which the hearing of submissions on a proposal must be conducted and completed: (d) the time within which the panel must make a decision on a proposal. (5) However, the discretion of the hearings panel under subclause (4) is subject to the obligations— (a) specified under any terms of reference provided tothe hearings panel; and (b) set out in clause 12 of this order. (6) The hearings panel may—
30 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 225
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 3
(a) permit a party to question any other party or witness; and (b) permit cross-examination; and (c) if it considers that there is likely to be excessive repe- tition, limit the circumstances in which parties having the same interest in a matter may speak or call evidence in support. (7) Before the hearings panel exercises its power under clauses 6 and 7 of this schedule, it must consider whether the scale and significance of the hearing makes the exercise of thepower appropriate. (8) The hearings panel must keep a full record of every hearing and any other proceeding it conducts. (9) Sections 19, 20, and 23 to 25 of the Inquiries Act 2013 apply to a hearing conducted by the hearings panel.
5 Compliance with time limits (1) The chairperson of the hearings panel may— (a) extend, or waive compliance with, any time limits spe- cified by or under this order, except in relation tothe time limit specified in clause 12(2) of this order; and (b) accept submissions received after the relevant closing date notified under clause 5 or 7 of Schedule 1. (2) In making a decision under subclause (1), the chairperson must take into account— (a) the interests of any person who, in the chairperson’s opinion, may be directly affected by a waiver; and (b) the need to ensure that there is an adequate assessment of the effects anticipated from the implementation of the proposal; and (c) the stage of the hearing when the hearings panel is pro- vided with the submissions. (3) A decision of the chairperson under this clause is final and there is no right of objection or appeal against it.
6 Directions as to evidence (1) The hearings panel may direct a submitter or the council to provide briefs of evidence, including the evidence of any ex-
31 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 226
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 3 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
perts, to the panel at least 10 working days before the hearing to which the evidence relates. (2) The submitter or council must provide the briefs by the date specified by the hearings panel.
7 Procedural directions and requests (1) Before or in the course of a hearing, the hearings panel may— (a) direct the order of business of the hearing, including the order in which submissions and evidence are presented: (b) direct that submissions and evidence be recorded, taken as read, or limited to matters in dispute: (c) direct the council or a submitter, when presenting a sub- mission or evidence, to present it within a time limit: (d) request a submitter to provide further information: (e) direct that the whole, or a part of, a submission be struck out if the panel considers that— (i) the whole submission, or the part, is frivolous, is vexatious, or discloses no reasonable or relevant case; or (ii) it would otherwise be an abuse of the hearing process to allow the whole submission, or the part, to be taken further. (2) At a hearing, the hearings panel may direct a submitter not to present— (a) the whole or any part of a submission, if all or part of it is irrelevant or not in dispute; or (b) any part of a submission that does not relate to that part of the proposal being dealt with at the hearing. (3) If the hearings panel gives a direction under subclause (1)(e), it must record its reasons for the direction.
8 Hearings panel may commission reports (1) At any reasonable time before or during a hearing, the hearings panel may require the council, or may commission a consultant or other person, to prepare a report on— (a) any submissions: (b) any matters arising from the hearing: (c) any other matter that it considers necessary for the pur- pose of the decision to be made by the panel.
32 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 227
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 3
(2) A report does not need to repeat material from a submission, but may adopt the whole or any part of the assessment by ref- erence to the relevant parts of the submission. (3) The hearings panel may request and receive, from any person who makes a report under this clause, any information and advice that is relevant and reasonably necessary for the panel to make its decisions under clause 12 of this order.
9 Conference of experts (1) The hearings panel may, at any time before or during a hearing, direct that a conference of experts be held to— (a) clarify a matter or an issue relating to a proposal; or (b) facilitate resolution of a matter or an issue relating to the proposal. (2) A conference may be facilitated by a member of the hearings panel or by a person appointed by the panel. (3) The facilitator of a conference must, if the hearings panel so directs, prepare a written report on the conference and provide it to— (a) the hearings panel; and (b) the persons who attended the conference. (4) A report prepared under subclause (3) must not, without a per- son’s consent, include any information that the person com- municated or made available at the conference on a without prejudice basis.
10 Alternative dispute resolution (1) The hearings panel may, at any time before or during a hearing, direct the persons listed in subclause (2) to mediation or any other alternative dispute resolution process if— (a) the panel considers that it is— (i) appropriate to do so; and (ii) likely to resolve issues between the parties that relate to the proposal; and (b) each person has consented (other than the council, which must participate if directed to do so by the chair- person of the hearings panel). (2) The persons are—
33 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 228
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 3 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(a) any submitters; and (b) the council; and (c) any other person that the hearings panel considers ap- propriate. (3) The hearings panel must appoint the mediator or person facili- tating the mediation or other process (the mediator). (4) The mediator must report the outcome of the dispute resolution process to the hearings panel. (5) In reporting the outcome under subclause (4), the mediator must not, without a person’s consent, include information that the person communicated or made available at the mediation or other process on a without prejudice basis.
11 Availability of evidence and reports (1) The hearings panel must direct the council to make available for inspection on its Internet site and at its offices— (a) any information received by the panel during a hearing, including information provided under clause 1(1)(d) or 7(1)(d) of this schedule; and (b) any report provided to the panel under clause 3(4), 8, 9(3), or 10(4) of this schedule. (2) The council must give notice to all relevant submitters when it makes the documents referred to in subclause (1) publicly available.
12 Protection of sensitive information (1) The hearings panel may, on its own motion or on the applica- tion of a submitter, make an order described in subclause (2) if it is satisfied that the order is necessary to avoid— (a) serious offence to tikanga Māori or to avoid the disclos- ure of the location of wāhi tapu; or (b) the disclosure of a trade secret or unreasonable preju- dice to the commercial position of the person who sup- plied, or is the subject of, the information. (2) An order may— (a) require the public to be excluded from the whole or a part of a hearing at which the information is likely to be referred to:
34 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 229
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 3
(b) prohibit or restrict the publication or communication of any information supplied to the hearings panel, or ob- tained by it, in the course of any proceedings, whether or not the information may be material to the proposal. (3) Before making an order under subclause (1), the hearings panel must be satisfied that, in the circumstances of the particular case, the importance of avoiding the offence, dis- closure, or prejudice outweighs the public interest in making that information available. (4) An order made under subclause (2)(a) is deemed to be a reso- lution made under section 48(3) to (5) of the Local Govern- ment Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (5) An order made under subclause (2)(b) may,— (a) in relation to a matter described in subclause (1)(a), take effect from the commencement of the proceedings to which it relates and for an indefinite period or until a date that the hearings panel considers appropriate in the circumstances: (b) in relation to a matter described in subclause (1)(b), take effect from the commencement of the proceeding to which it relates, but ceases to apply after the conclu- sion of those proceedings. (6) On the date that the order ceases to have effect under subclause (5)(b), the provisions of the Local Government Official Infor- mation and Meetings Act 1987 apply in relation to information that was the subject of the order.
Reporting and notifying 13 Reports on decisions (1) Every report of the hearings panel must— (a) set out the decision or draft decision of the panel; and (b) provide reasons for the decision, including the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions on a proposal; and (c) identify the parts (if any) of the existing district plans that a proposal replaces. (2) The report may group the submissions according to— (a) the provisions of the proposal to which they relate; or
35 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 230
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 3 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
(b) the matters to which they relate. (3) The hearings panel is not required to address each submission individually.
14 Draft and final reports on decisions relating to requirements (1) As soon as practicable after making a draft decision on a re- quirement under clause 12 of this order, the hearings panel must— (a) prepare and produce a draft report; and (b) serve a copy of the draft report on the council. (2) The council must serve a copy of the draft report on the persons listed in subclause (3). (3) The persons who must be served under subclause (2) are— (a) the Ministers; and (b) the relevant requiring authority or heritage protection authority; and (c) any person who made a submission under Schedule 1 on the relevant requirement. (4) Those persons and the council may provide comments on any minor or technical aspects of the report to the council not later than 20 working days after the date of the invitation. (5) Comments on minor or technical aspects of the report— (a) may only include comments on minor errors in the re- port, on the wording of provisions in the proposal, or identification of omissions from the report (for example, the report does not address a certain issue); but (b) must not include comments on the hearing panel’s de- cision or its reasons for the decision. (6) The council must provide comments received under subclause (4) to the hearings panel not later than 5 working days after the date specified under subclause (4). (7) As soon as practicable after the hearings panel has received any comments under subclause (4), the panel must consider those comments, make its final decision, and produce a final report.
36 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 231
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 3
15 Public notice and service of decisions (1) As soon as practicable after the hearings panel has made a decision on a proposal under clause 12(1)(b)(i) of this order or a final decision under clause 12(1)(b)(ii) of this order, itmust serve the council with a copy of the decision. (2) Not later than 5 working days after the council receives a de- cision from the hearings panel under subclause (1), it must— (a) give public notice of the decision; and (b) serve a copy of the public notice of a decision on any requirement on— (i) the relevant requiring authority or heritage pro- tection authority; and (ii) the owners and occupiers of land to which a re- quirement applies; and (c) serve a copy of the public notice on every person who made a submission on the relevant proposal. (3) The notice required by subclause (2)(a) must— (a) identify the persons with a right to appeal against the decision; and (b) state the date by which appeals may be lodged. (4) The council must also— (a) make a copy of the decision available at all its offices, and all public libraries in the Christchurch district; and (b) include with the copy of the public notice served under subclause (2)(a) a statement of the places where a copy of the decision is available; and (c) send or provide, on request, a copy of the decision within 3 working days after the request is received.
16 Minor corrections (1) The hearings panel may, at any time, issue an amendment to a decision to correct a minor mistake or defect in a decision of the panel. (2) This power includes the power to amend or correct a proposal, provided that the amendment or correction is made before the proposal becomes operative in accordance with clause 16 of this order.
37 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 232
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 4 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
Schedule 4 cls 3, 6, 14 Statement of expectations
The expectations of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Minister for the Environment are that the replacement district plan— (a) clearly articulates how decisions about resource use and values will be made, which must be in a manner consis- tent with an intention to reduce significantly (compared with the existing district plans)— (i) reliance on resource consent processes; and (ii) the number, extent, and prescriptiveness of development controls and design standards in the rules, in order to encourage innovation and choice; and (iii) the requirements for notification and written ap- proval: (b) contains objectives and policies that clearly state the outcomes that are intended for the Christchurch district: (c) provides for the effective functioning of the urban en- vironment of the Christchurch district, reflecting the changes resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes, in- cluding changes to population, land suitability, infras- tructure, and transport: (d) facilitates an increase in the supply of housing, includ- ing by— (i) confirming the immediate residential intensifica- tion changes included in the Land Use Recovery Plan; and (ii) ensuring that the district plan has capacity to ac- commodate up to 23 700 additional dwellings by 2028 (as compared with the number of house- holds in the 2012 post-earthquake period); and (iii) addressing further intensification opportunities, in line with the Land Use Recovery Plan prin- ciple of supporting Key Activity Centres and the Central City; and
38 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 233
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 4
(iv) having regard to constraints on environmental and infrastructure capacity, particularly with re- gard to natural hazards; and (v) providing for a wide range of housing types and locations: (e) ensures sufficient and suitable development capacity and land for commercial, industrial, and residential ac- tivities: (f) provides for a range of temporary and construction ac- tivities as permitted activities, recognising the tempor- ary and localised nature of the effects of those activities: (g) contains, as appropriate, transitional provisions for the future of temporary activities established under the Canterbury Earthquake (Resource Management Per- mitted Activities) Order 2011 after that order expires: (h) sets a clear direction on the use and development of land for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards: (i) uses clear, concise language and is easy to use.
39 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 234
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Schedule 5 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
Schedule 5 cl 5 of Schedule 1 Form Form Public notice of proposal 1 The Christchurch City Council has prepared the following proposal to replace some of the provisions of the operative Christchurch City District Plan and the Banks Peninsula District Plan (the proposal): [Describe the proposal, including which parts (if any) of the existing district plans are intended to be replaced by the pro- posal.] 2 The proposal may be inspected or purchased at [place]. Please contact [name of person handling queries and contact tele- phone number] if you have any questions about the proposal. 3 The following persons may make a submission on the pro- posal: (a) the Christchurch City Council; and (b) any other person unless that person could gain an ad- vantage in trade competition through the submission, in which case the person may make a submission only if the person is directly affected by an effect of the pro- posal that— (i) adversely affects the environment; and (ii) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. 4 To lodge a submission, send a written or an electronic sub- mission to the Christchurch City Council at [provide both an address for service for written submissions and an email ad- dress for service for electronic submissions]. The submission must state whether or not you wish to be heard on your sub- mission. 5 Submissions close on [closing date, which must be 30 working days after publication of this notice]. 6 The process for public participation in the consideration of the proposal under the Act is as follows: (a) after the closing date for submissions, Christchurch City Council will publish all submissions and give public
40 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 235
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Schedule 5
Form—continued
notice of the availability of the submissions and where the submissions can be inspected; and (b) there must be an opportunity for the following persons to make a further submission in support of, or in oppos- ition to, the submissions already made: (i) any person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; and (ii) any person who has an interest in the proposal greater than the general public has; and (iii) the Minister for the Environment and the Minis- ter for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; and (iv) the Christchurch City Council; and (c) a hearing must be held; and (d) the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery will appoint a hear- ings panel to hold a hearing and make decisions on sub- missions to the proposal; and (e) the following persons have the right to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the hearings panel but only on a question of law: (i) a person who made a submission on a provision or matter that is the subject of the appeal; and (ii) the Minister for the Environment and the Minis- ter for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery; and (iii) the Christchurch City Council; and (iv) in the case of a decision on a designation or her- itage order, the relevant requiring authority or heritage protection authority and owners and oc- cupiers of land that are directly affected by the decision.
Date: Signature: (Signature on behalf of Christchurch City Council)
41 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 236
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Explanatory note Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
Form—continued Contact details Physical address for service of Christchurch Council: Email address for service of Christchurch Council: Telephone: Fax: Contact person: [name and designation, if applicable]
Martin Bell, for Clerk of the Executive Council.
Explanatory note This note is not part of the order, but is intended to indicate its general effect. This order comes into force on the day after the date on which the order is made and remains in force until the expiry of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. The order modifies the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) to provide a streamlined process for the review of the existing Christchurch district plans (the Christchurch City Plan and the Banks Peninsula District Plan) and for the preparation of a compre- hensive replacement district plan for the Christchurch district. The council must review the existing district plans and prepare 1 or more proposals for the replacement district plan. The proposals must be publicly notified, and any person may makea submission on a notified proposal. A hearings panel, appointed by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, in consultation with the Christchurch City Council, will conduct a hearing into any submissions and decide whether to make any changes to a proposal. The hearings panel’s decisions can be appealed to the High Court, but only on points of law. Subject to any appeals, a proposal as amended by the hearings panel must be made operative as a district plan under the RMA.
42 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 237
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Explanatory note
The modifications to the RMA made by this order do not affect the text of the RMA, but require that Act to be read as if it had been amended in the manner indicated by this order. Clauses 1, 2, and 3 are the Title, Commencement, and Interpretation clauses respectively. The Interpretation clause contains definitions of key terms, including the terms Christchurch district, the area covered by the order, existing district plans, and replacement district plan. Clause 4 specifies the ways in which the application of theRMA is modified for the purposes of the order; clause 5 provides for the application of the RMA to the functions and powers carried out and exercised under this order unless modified by the order.
Review and replacement of existing district plans Clause 6 requires the council to review the existing district plans and develop proposals for the replacement district plan, identifying the parts of the existing district plans that are to be replaced. In under- taking these functions, the council must have particular regard to the statement of expectations (Schedule 4). The first of the new propos- als must be notified within 37 working days of the order coming into force (clause 6(4)(a)). Clause 6(5) validates any functions under- taken under subclause (1) before the order comes into force, provided subclause (2) has been complied with (see clause 3(2) of Schedule 1) and all other proposals required for the replacement plan must be notified in time for their final approval by 9 March 2016. Clause 7 provides for the application of Schedule 1.
Hearings panel Clauses 8 to 11 make provision for the appointment, functions and powers of the hearings panel, including the chairperson, the Hon- ourable Sir John Hansen, and provide for the application of Schedule 2. The panel must complete all its obligations not later than 9 March 2016.
Jurisdiction of hearings panel Clauses 12 to 14 provide for hearings to be held and for the decision- making process of the hearings panel, including having particular regard to the statement of expectations.
43 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 238
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Explanatory note Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 2014/228
How effect to be given to decisions of hearings panel Clauses 15 to 17 provide for the approval of decisions of the hearings panel, and how these decisions become operative.
Objections and appeals Clause 18 provides a right of objection in relation to certain deci- sions of the hearings panel and clause 19 sets out the rights of appeal. These are limited to a right of appeal on questions of law to the High Court for the Ministers, the council, and submitters (in relation to the matter of the submission only).
Requests for changes to existing district plans or replacement district plan Clauses 20 to 22 relate to requests for changes or withdrawal of a request.
Administrative matter Clause 23 provides a power for the council to recover costs incurred in carrying out its functions under the order.
Application of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Clause 24 applies the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, with the necessary modifications, to the hearings panel as if it were a board of inquiry conducting a hearing under the RMA.
Schedules Schedule 1 sets out the process to be followed in reviewing the exist- ing district plans and preparing the replacement district plan, includ- ing the public notification of a proposal, and the submission and hear- ing process by the hearings panel. Schedule 2 provides further detail on the appointment of members of the hearings panel, funding of the panel, and a limitation on the liability of its members. The powers of the chairperson include the
44 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 2 TO CLAUSE 19 239
Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch 2014/228 Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 Explanatory note power to split the hearings panel for the purpose of concurrent hear- ings, including pre-hearings. Schedule 3 sets out further provisions relating to the functions and powers of the hearings panel. Schedule 4 is the statement of expectations of the Minister for Can- terbury Earthquake Recovery and the Minister for the Environment in respect of the replacement district plan. The statement is a manda- tory relevant consideration; decision makers under clauses 6 and 14 of this order must have particular regard to it. Schedule 5 provides the form to be used under clause 5 of Schedule 1.
Issued under the authority of the Legislation Act 2012. Date of notification in Gazette: 10 July 2014. This order is administered by the Ministry for the Environment.
12
Wellington, New Zealand: Published under the authority of the New Zealand Government—2014
45 240 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 19 241
Christchurch Replacement District Plan Hearings Panel
Hon Sir John Hansen (Chair) Hon Sir John Hansen is a retired Judge of the High Court of New Zealand. He was appointed as a Judge of the High Court in 1995 and retired from the Bench in 2008. In 2008 Sir John was made a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, for services to the judiciary. He is Chairman of the Red Cross Earthquake Appeal Commission and of the Legal Services Agency Board. Sir John was the Chair of the Board of Inquiry for the MacKays Crossing to Peka Peka Expressway Proposal in 2012, and is the Convenor of the Canterbury Earthquake Review Panel, established under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011.
Environment Judge John Hassan Judge John Hassan was appointed as an Environment Judge in 2013 and is based in Christchurch. Judge Hassan was a partner in Chapman Tripp specialising in resource management and environmental law. He was previously in-house solicitor for the Ministry of Works and Development (1985-88) and the Ministry for the Environment (1988-91), where he was principal legal adviser during the development of the Resource Management Act. In 2009 he was appointed as a panel member by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee to audit and advise on the drafting of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2009 and he was a reference group member advising the Environment Minister on reform proposals in 2011. As well as law reform, he has represented government agencies, industry, local government and community groups before Councils, the Environment Court, Boards of Inquiry and the High Court in relation to major infrastructure works, plan changes and consent and appeal hearings. He is the founding co-author of Brookers Resource Management.
Ms Sarah Dawson Ms Sarah Dawson has worked in planning / resource management since 1977, primarily as a consultant to clients including local, regional and central government; energy, roading, waste management and other infrastructure agencies / companies; primary industry (irrigation, aquaculture and mining/quarrying); land development companies; and private individuals. Ms Dawson has extensive experience in District and Regional policy and plan preparation, evaluation and implementation, as well as with the consenting process. This ranges from providing strategic planning advice, undertaking scoping, constraints and alternatives investigations, policy and rule drafting, to assessing the environmental and planning feasibility of proposals.
Ms Jane Huria Ms Jane Huria is the Director of HSR Governance a consultancy based in Christchurch that provides services in relation to strategy, project management, organisation development and governance. Ms Huria has broad-based commercial experience including law, insurance, market research and the financial markets. Directorships in the electricity, technology, business development, education, insurance, property development, agribusiness, seafood marketing, and sport and recreation sectors have resulted in many years of governance and organisation development experience. Ms Huria is Ngai Tahu and affiliates to Ngai Tuahuriri. She is a Fellow of the New Zealand COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 19 242
Institute of Directors, and, in addition to her work consulting with and serving on boards, Ms Huria has written and delivers public and tailored governance training for the Institute. Ms Huria also undertakes corporate governance assignments internationally for the Washington-based Global Corporate Governance Forum (part funded by the World Bank). Ms Huria has previously worked in the field of governance throughout the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth Association for Corporate Governance (funded by the Commonwealth Secretariat).
Dr Phil Mitchell Dr Phil Mitchell is a Director (and the founder) of the environmental consulting practice Mitchell Partnerships Limited. He has 30 years’ experience of providing strategic environmental advice to both the private and public sectors, and has an in-depth knowledge of New Zealand’s environmental legislation and its implementation. He specialises in the strategic planning and management of consent acquisition for significant development projects, and is currently advising many of the country’s leading enterprises. Dr Mitchell is also an experienced and skilled expert witness and has acted as a hearings commissioner and hearings chair on numerous occasions. He is a skilled facilitator who has considerable experience in establishing and managing consultation processes aimed at eliminating conflict and developing constructive working relationships. He has been a member of two of the Government’s Resource Management Act Technical Advisory Groups, the more recent of which was to recommend amendments to sections 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act. COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 19 245
17,987
public Ex Ex entrance 4,573 4,976
1,460 Ex D21 D20 Main hearing room 90 N 13 13 W E
S 13,047 office Meeting entrance Ex Ex security D22 2nd hearing room door 98 m²
N N W E W E Meeting S S garden Panel chair office 14 m²
2,800 13 m²
Secretariat Office 8,496 Ex D01 D02 192 m² Kitchen 23 m²
D03 D19
security door security door D12 D18 security door security security door door D17 D23 D09 Ex D04 1,601 D11 Panel retiring Ex N Panel office Ex D10 D13 D14 D15 D16 45 m² W E Cleaners
139 m² D06 7,777 S D05 ex.acc.wc lobby ex.acc.wc
Meeting (CCC) First aid bay Meeting 6,167 D07 Meeting staff wc Ex Ex 22 m² First aid room 21 m² 31 m² A 16 m² 4,450 lobby
staff wc ex. male ex. female D08
90 1,230 90 2,038 45
19,092 1,204 2,201 5,004 7,000 9,266 3,713 5,243 7,432
90 3,358 45 PROPOSED FIT OUT PLAN Scale 1 : 100 @ A2 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BEFORE STARTING WORK. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. OFF THESE DO NOT WORK. SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONSCONTRACTOR THE BEFORE STARTING
Licensed Building Practitioner Design License 2 , BP111763
Sheet # Revision : Date: 14/10/2014 38 colombo street, christchurch PROPOSED FITOUT Designed By: P. Dunbar ph 331 6026 fax 9606023 348 MANCHESTER STREET, Floor Plan 1 : 200 6 CHRISTCHURCH Drawn By: A. Austin [email protected] Reviewed By: COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 TO CLAUSE 19 246
RECEPTION
T2 MSDB D21 D20
MEETING T2 MSB RECEPTION T1 MSB Ø250
T1 MSDB Ø250 Ex
ATRIUM STAFF/AMENITIES
D01 D02 TENANCY 2 TENANCY 1 3600 CEILING D03 2500 CEILING D19 Ex
D12 D18 D17 D23 D09 D04 D11
D10 D13 D14 D15 D16 Ø250 Ø200 D05 D06 D07 A D08
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN Scale 1 : 100 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BEFORE STARTING WORK. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. OFF THESE DO NOT WORK. SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONSCONTRACTOR THE BEFORE STARTING
Licensed Building Practitioner Design License 2 , BP111763
Sheet # Revision : Date: 14/10/2014 38 colombo street, christchurch PROPOSED FITOUT Designed By: P. Dunbar ph 331 6026 fax 9606023 348 MANCHESTER STREET, Reflected Ceiling Plan 7 CHRISTCHURCH Drawn By: A. Austin [email protected] Reviewed By: COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 6 TO CLAUSE 19 247
Project: DP Hearings Panel Office Establishment Project - Estimates CAPEX
TOTALS 357,938.68
Audio Visual Equipment Audio and video equipment, cabling, installation and maintenance Redd Accoustics 112,230.09
Video Conference Equipment Equipment, freight, installation and video conference establishment. Asnet Technologies 24,961.51 Licencing and maintenance VMR Service ($250/month charged quarterly in advance)
Infrastructure (Computer) Setup and Decommissioning Data centre services, setup of computer services (laptop and desktop Concepts Ltd 76,240.00 setup, email, document management etc) Panels/LCD Screens Panels/screens for main and 2nd hearing room and installation Spark Digital 17,170.08
Laptops and PC's (Purchase) Laptops (incl docking stations, keyboard and mouse) Desktops (incl Dell Computers 19,273.00 mouse and keyboard), Monitors Printers and Scanners No setup or purchase cost, cost per printed page only. CCC 0.00 Electronic Whiteboards Printing mobile whiteboards Office Max 6,296.00 Network and cabling costs Purchase and installation of network cables Spark Digital 41,875.00 Fibre Fibre and Installation cost Spark Digital 793.00 Telephony (Handset purchase) Purchase and installation of handsets 6,300.00 Transcription Services Estimate only from Christine Website Services To be provided by ?? IM&CT resources 52,800.00 248 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 7 TO CLAUSE 19 249
City Care Ltd, 46 Birmingham Drive, PO Box 7669, Christchurch, New Zealand Phone 03 941 7200 Fax 03 941 7202 GST Number 66-507-408
City Care Estimate: 6777.01
Client Details Name: Christchurch City Council Contact: Markus Benter-Lynch PO Box 237 Christchurch Mail Centre
Address: CHRISTCHURCH 8140
Telephone: Attention: Email: [email protected] Date estimate printed: 14th October 2014
Contract Details CCL Number: 57111063 Contract Name: CCC DC Hearing Building - Office fitout Job Location: Christchurch Building (BU): PRO_0044_BLDG
City Care Details
Name: Gary Brawley
Telephone: 027 205 3807
Email: [email protected]
City Care has pleasure in submitting the following estimate:
Item Description Quantity Unit Rate $ Total $ No. Office fitout 1 Engineering services from Powel Fenwick for HVAC design 1.00 LS 3,038.75 3,038.75
2 Partition construction- Excludes glass infill panels. 1.00 LS 151,064.13 151,064.13
3 Decoration. 1.00 LS 26,741.00 26,741.00
4 HVAC Realignment 1.00 LS 69,104.49 69,104.49
5 Reinstatement of roof / wall penetrations after HVAC installations. Includes framing up and flashings 1.00 LS 3,646.50 3,646.50 for two 600x600 duct openings in the atrium walls. Requires Mobil scaffolds.
6 Reinstate ceiling after HVAC 1.00 LS 12,155.00 12,155.00
7 Fire alarm system realignment 1.00 LS 8,508.50 8,508.50
8 Emergency lighting 1.00 LS 18,232.50 18,232.50
9 Lighting relocation electrical installation. 1.00 LS 22,010.50 22,010.50
10 Plumbing installation 1.00 LS 11,294.43 11,294.43
14 1227729 Council Report - Update of DPR Report 2014-10-01 - Attachment 7 - City Care Estimate 6777.01(2).DOC Page COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 7 TO CLAUSE 19 250
City Care Ltd, 46 Birmingham Drive, PO Box 7669, Christchurch, New Zealand Phone 03 941 7200 Fax 03 941 7202 GST Number 66-507-408
Item Description Quantity Unit Rate $ Total $ No. 11 Ablutions flooring installation. Existing and new.+ 1.00 LS 7,293.00 7,293.00
12 Ablutions reinstatement after plumbing 1.00 LS 2,431.00 2,431.00
13 Reinstating walls holes after removal of HVAC control units. 1.00 LS 486.20 486.20
14 Creation of one Plinth and associated Handrails for the adjudicators tables in the hearing rooms. 1.00 LS 3,646.50 3,646.50
15 Cleaning-Contractor Clean after contractors have finished (hourly rate) includes cleaning materials at 100.00 HOUR 48.16 4,816.00 $5/ hour
16 P&G - 5% 1.00 LS 17,223.43 17,223.43
17 Contingency - Provisional sum 1.00 PS 50,000.00 50,000.00
Total Price $411,691.93 GST $61,753.79 Total Price inc GST $473,445.72
Standard Conditions: • All rates exclude GST • The above estimate is valid for 30 days. It is based upon City Care’s standard Terms & Conditions; a copy is available on request. • Projects will be programmed for execution and completion within a mutually agreed timeframe following acceptance of the estimate. • Rates assume works are carried out in normal works hours without penal labour rates. • No Allowance for Resource, Buildings Consents, Consultants, and insurances, as and if they prove to be necessary. • This is a measure and value estimate that should be read in conjunction with marked plans and identifying photos. • No allowance for removal of furniture and fixtures that may prove necessary. •.Labour rates include vehicle. • Estimating is based on knowledge of NZS3604 style construction and assistance with engineer. • Our prices are based on current material prices. In the event that the price consumable items increases before the contract period starts, we would need compensation for the increased costs. • No allowance made for traffic management or construction signs. • No allowance made for geogrid/textile. • For Fencing items: the price is based upon the assumption that the holes to be dug will only need to be 600mm deep with the posts being installed 400mm deep. We have not allowed for difficult ground conditions that a posthole borer will be required.
Project Specific Conditions:
Acceptance: If you would like to accept this Estimate, please provide a PO reference to CCL.
14 1227729 Council Report - Update of DPR Report 2014-10-01 - Attachment 7 - City Care Estimate 6777.01(2).DOC Page COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 8 TO CLAUSE 19 251
348 Manchester Street FURNITURE SCHEDULE
Room Purpose Schedule of Items Main Hearing Room 96 x stacking chairs 5 x Team Air chair (without arms)* Define desking system with Oyster Linea top to form continuous benches. 1200 x 800 per person for Panel Bench with modesty screen and small upstand of 100 mm & cable management. 800 x 700 per person for participant’s benches, front 2 benches to have modesty panel & cable management. 1200 x 800 staff bench with modesty screen & cable management. 1800 x 800 witness desk (W) with modesty screen & cable management. 6 x 2839423 tambour 6 x data drawer for tambour * Panel to choose individual chairs Hearing Room 2 22 x stacking chairs 9 x Team Air chairs (without arms) Define desking system with Oyster Linea top to form continuous benches. 1200 x 800 per person for Panel with modesty screen & small upstand of 100 mm & cable management. 1200 x 800 staff bench with modesty screen & cable management 1800 x 800 witness desk (W) with COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 8 TO CLAUSE 19 252
modesty screen & cable management Retiring Room Meeting table with six chairs 2 x two seater sofa 2 x armchair 1 x coffee table 1 x serving table 1 x small fridge for under serving table Resource Room Bespoke bench units by City Care First Aid Room Single bed 2 x arm chair Small rectangular table 1 x chair Panel Chair Office 1 x 2000 x 800 desk with cable management 1 x Team Air chair 1 x small round table (900 dia) 2 x meeting chairs Panel Office 8 x 1800 x 800 desks 8 x 1200 x 800 desks to act as returns 8 x 900 mm caddy 8 x Team Air chair 2 x small round table (900 dia) 2 x large round table (1200 dia) 12 x meeting tables 4 x 2839431 tambour 8 x 2839423 tambour 1 x arm chair Secretariat Office 10 x 2000 x 800 desk 10 x Team Air chair 10 x 900 mm caddy 2 x large round table 4 x 2839431 tambour 10 x 2839423 tambour 2 x arm chair COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 8 TO CLAUSE 19 253
Meeting Room 1 Meeting table with 8 chairs Meeting Room 2 Meeting table with 8 chairs Meeting Room 3 Meeting table with 4 chairs Meeting Room 4 Meeting table/s with 14 chairs Meeting Room 5 Meeting table with 8 chairs Meeting Room 6 Meeting table with 8 chairs Kitchen Joinery by City Care Saeco coffee machine (leased) Staff Entrance 2 x arm chairs Miscellaneous 4 x coat racks
254 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 9 TO CLAUSE 19 255
Cost Estimate for Soft Fit Out, Concept Design, Security and Other Minor Items
Architect Concept Design - Athfield $ 5,000 Security, Access $ 26,931 Security, Cameras (CCTV) $ 15,816 Appliances (fridge, coffee machine) $ 2,000 Crockery & Cutlery $ 1,000 Initial Stock (coffee, tea, toilet paper etc) $ 1,000 Total $ 51,747 256 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 10 TO CLAUSE 19 257
Terms of Reference
Hearings Panel for the Christchurch Replacement District Plan
8 September 2014
COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 10 TO CLAUSE 19 258
Hearings Panel for the Christchurch Replacement District Plan
1. Order in Council
1.1 These terms of reference are to be read in conjunction with the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 (the Order). In the event of any conflict between these Terms of Reference and the Order, the Order prevails.
2. Establishment of a hearings panel
2.1 The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Minister for the Environment pursuant to the Order establish a hearings panel (the panel) to hold hearings and make decisions on proposals that will comprise the replacement Christchurch District Plan.
2.2 It is intended that the panel will comprise of six members, including the already appointed Chairperson the Hon Sir John Hansen. The remainder of the panel will be appointed as soon as possible. These Terms of Reference will be provided to and apply to all members of the panel once appointed.
3. Matters of priority
3.1 Pursuant to clause 9(2)(a) of the Order, the following have been identified as the matters of priority for first decisions by 28 February 2015: (a) the Strategic Directions proposal; (b) temporary activities related to earthquake recovery, such as house lifting activities; (c) provisions for repair and rebuilding of multi-unit residential complexes; (d) rezoning for exemplar housing areas under Action 8 of the Land Use Recovery Plan that are publicly notified in the first draft proposals.
3.2 Pursuant to clause 9(2)(b) of the Order, the following matters are also to be given priority over other matters but a decision need not be made by 28 February 2015: (a) the Natural Hazards proposal; (b) the Residential proposal; (c) designations; (d) the Commercial proposal; (e) any other discrete matter identified by the panel resulting from the submissions process that is an impediment to recovery.
Terms of Reference – Hearings Panel for the Christchurch Replacement District Plan 8 September 2014 Page 2 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 10 TO CLAUSE 19 259
3.3 In considering matters identified in 3.1 and 3.2, the panel should interpret those priority matters to also include any consequential amendments to related provisions as they relate to the matters identified, such as maps and definitions.
3.4 Pursuant to clause 9(2)(b) of the Order, the panel shall consider the scheduling of all proposals related to the achievement of Action 24 (viii) of the Land Use Recovery Plan and an integrated approach to land uses located near Christchurch airport.
4. Procedural matters
4.1 The panel must determine its own procedures for hearing submissions and deliberating on proposals for the replacement district plan. This includes determining procedural matters including the design, timing and sequencing of the pre-hearings and hearings processes.
4.2 The panel, in determining the procedural matters, will consider the appropriate use of expert conferencing, alternative dispute resolution and pre-hearings ahead of the hearings.
5. Procedures for managing conflicts of interest
5.1 The panel will determine its own procedures for the conduct of the panel including the management of conflicts of interest throughout the hearings process.
6. Support for the hearings panel
6.1 Support for the panel will be provided by an Independent Secretariat.
6.2 The Independent Secretariat will work with the Christchurch City Council to develop a Service Level Agreement to confirm the expectations of each party (e.g. in respect of addressing any disputes or queries pertaining to the costs or resource requirements of the panel).
7. Costs and administration
7.1 The Christchurch City Council is responsible for all costs incurred by the panel, as set out in schedule 2 clause 4 of the Order.
Terms of Reference – Hearings Panel for the Christchurch Replacement District Plan 8 September 2014 Page 3 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 10 TO CLAUSE 19 260
8. Amendment to the Terms of Reference
8.1 The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and Minister for the Environment may, after consulting Christchurch City Council, amend the Terms of Reference for the panel, including the date by which decisions on priority matters are to be made.
Terms of Reference – Hearings Panel for the Christchurch Replacement District Plan 8 September 2014 Page 4 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014 ATTACHMENT 11 TO CLAUSE 19 261
Estimate of Operating Expenses (Opex) for the DPR Hearings Panel
Aside from the line item “Rent”, which is based on the actual lease cost, the costs shown in the following table are estimates only.
Rent $ 654,063 Outgoings $ 88,096 Panel salaries tbc Panel expenses $ 119,000 Secretariat staff salaries tbc Transcription $ 512,000 Care Taker $ 72,138 IM&CT decommission $ 24,000 IM&CT support $ 156,994 Total $ 1,626,290
262 263 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
20. NOTICES OF MOTION
21. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Attached.
264 265
THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2014
COUNCIL
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.
Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7. Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)
This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:
266 267 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED
3. CONFIRMATION OF Refer to previous Public Excluded reason in the agendas for these MINUTES - COUNCIL meetings. MEETING OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2014, 2 OCTOBER 2014 AND 9 OCTOBER 2014
22. REPORT OF THE AUDIT AND ASSET ENGINEERING UPDATE Upon completion of the RISK MANAGEMENT works COMMITTEE MEETING OF Enable Council to carry out commercial activities 7(2)(h) Because withholding is necessary to 23 SEPTEMBER 2014 without prejudice or disadvantage enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
QUARTERLY PROCUREMENT REPORT – QUARTER 4 – At the expiry of the 2013/14 agreement
Would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the 7(2)(b)(ii) Releasing the information would be likely commercial position of the supplier to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the supplier Enable Council to carry out commercial activities 7(2)(h) without prejudice or disadvantage Withholding the information is necessary to enable the Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.
Enable Council to carry on negotiations without 7(2)(i) Withholding the information is necessary to prejudice or disadvantage enable Council to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage
INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITIES STATUS AS AT 3 years 4 SEPTEMBER 2014
Prevent improper advantage 7(2) (j) Prevent disclosure or use of information for improper gain or advantage APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL’S INSURANCE BROKER 6 years
Commercial sensitivity 7(2)(h) Withholding the information is necessary to enable the Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. 268 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
ITEM GENERAL SUBJECT OF SUBCLAUSE & REASON UNDER ACT SECTION PLAIN ENGLISH REASON WHEN REPORT CAN BE NO. EACH MATTER TO BE RELEASED CONSIDERED DISCUSSION ON CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 2014 DRAFT 7(2)(b)(ii) Financial statements are still draft and Financial Statements become FINANCIAL STATEMENTS subject to change public prior to adoption by the Council Commercial position
23. REPORT OF THE RICCARTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT HUB SUPERSTOP AND ENVIRONMENTAL WAITING LOUNGE OPTIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OF 23 SEPTEMBER 2014 Protection of privacy of natural person 7(2)(a) Confidential commercial negotiation Never or upon obtaining lessor’s consent Trade secret 7(2)(b)(i)
24. CHRISTCHURCH CITY Commercial Position 7(2)(b)(ii) Financial statements are still draft and Financial statements become COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT subject to change by the Committee public after this meeting and prior FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 to adoption by Council JUNE 2014
25. ANNUAL REPORT 2014 - Prejudice commercial position 7(2)(b)(ii) Contains information that could 2019 CHANGES FROM DRAFT prejudice the Council’s position in FINANCIAL STATEMENTS future negotiations AND SIGN OFF PROCESS
26. METROPOLITAN SPORTS 7 (2) (h) Commercial activities Proposed November 2015 FACILITY SCOPE Subject matter included in a confidential report to Cabinet 27. DUDLEY CREEK POST To enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, s7(2)(i) Council is currently in negotiations with After negotiations with potential EARTHQUAKE without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including other funding partners. Releasing the funding partners are concluded to REMEDIATION OPTION commercial and industrial negotiations) report could prejudice those negotiations. the satisfaction of Council. RECOMMENDATION 269 COUNCIL 23. 10. 2014
Chairperson’s Recommendation: That the foregoing motion be adopted.
Note
Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:
“(4) Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):
(a) Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and (b) Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”