THAT ELIJAH- CHRIST BRANHAM HAS DIED, then who is THIS ELIJAH-THE LEADER that will go in the rapture with the bride, without dying?
We believe that god raised the Great Prophet Branham with the spirit and power of Elijah. He delivered the children of god from the denominational bondage, as the Prophet Moses had delivered the people of Israel from the Egyptian bondage. And it is in the great plan of Redemption of God that Christ Branham had to shed His blood and die as the Genuine Atonement at this end time!
Now who is this Elijah that has been raised at this end time to be THE LEADER to lead the bride and go along with her in the rapture?
We will be looking for that great one to rise. He might come in my day; he might come in the younger day. I dont know, he might be right among us now, we cant tell. The Holy Spirit is here to lead us till that time. Then when THIS LEADER will take us over he will still be anointed of the Holy Ghost; THE ELIJAH will, of course, that will come. But he will be THE LEADER that will turn the hearts of the children back to the Fathers message. - The Laodicean church age (288)
Christ Branham cannot be THIS LEADER, as he had not turned the hearts of the children back to the hearts of the Fathers.
this mighty Elijah that will send to us, when makes himself known like Elijah did, the church was ready to be delivered just when he came up there and said, we will prove who is God Elijah delivered the church. ELIJAH DID NOT HAVE TO DIE, HE WAS TRANSLATED AND WAS TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, a type of the church at the end of his time, the church will go in the Rapture, without going through the shadows of death it will be the Rapture! I believe the great Elijah, the great one that is to come, will be anointed Elijah that is prophesied for the last day. Amen! I think he will be when he comes. THE ANGEL or THE MESSENGER to the church in the last days, a rejected, degraded people - The laodecian church age (104, 105)
Elijah represented the dead saints I mean Moses, and being resurrected. Elijah represented the translated by a Pillar. Moses was first, and then Elijah. Elijah was to be the Messenger of the last day. THAT WITH HIM and HIS GROUP would come THE RAPTURE. I mean, Moses brought in the resurrection, and Elijah brought in the Raptured group. - Revelation chap-IV-pt-1 (181)
The Lord has been keeping this Elijah in India, for more than 20 years, revealing mysteries of the Seven Thunders now the Bride has possessed the FULLNESS OF GOD, and she has been restored to CHRISTHOOD, and she is ready for Rapture.
God is waiting on me and you! The church is waiting on me and you. Adoption time. When God can pour into us HIS FULLNESS, HIS POWER, HIS RESURRECTION. Thats when Church and Christ become so close together till Christ becomes visible among us and raises the dead, and we go in the Rapture. What the Holy Ghost was given for (14, 15)
Now, this is the adoption time. The FULLNESS is over. And now, the Leader and the Bride are passing into the next phase THE POWER OF GOD. Very, very soon the Bride will emerge out as the Mighty Army of the Living God to shake the heaven and the earth.
When the fire falls from heaven at my command, then the world will know that the Lord has been keeping his Elijah in Vellore, Tamilnadu, India. Amen and Amen!
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.
A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.
Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.
The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 21 June 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 21 June 2017.
The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 7 July 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 7 July 2017.
The Health and Safety Committee held a meeting on 30 June 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Health and Safety Committee meeting held 30 June 2017.
The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 29 June 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 29 June 2017.
The Finance and Performance Committee considered the report on the review of the rates postponement scheme.
An additional proposal was tabled at the meeting by Councillor Manji. The key differences from the staff recommendations were to allow for universal access to the rates postponement scheme for superannuitants in owner-occupied homes, and access for other owner-occupiers who can demonstrate significant financial hardship. An alteration was also made to clarify that the Policy should be reviewed before each future Long Term Plan.
a. There is universal access (no asset or income test) for all superannuitants in owner-occupied homes, and access for other owner-occupiers who can demonstrate significant financial hardship.
b. 100% of rates may be postponed, provided that the total postponed value shall not exceed 20% of the most recent Rating Valuation.
d. Application must include evidence of adequate financial and legal advice (like a bank loan application), to minimise the risk of future recovery being successfully challenged.
e. Understanding of compound interest and the impact on home equity must be re-confirmed each year (staff will include a standard renewal form with first instalment rates invoices, as is currently done for the Rebate scheme).
1.1 This report considers the appropriateness of the current Rates Postponement Scheme and recommends that the current scheme should not be adjusted.
1.2 This report responds to a request from the Council expressing concern that the current scheme’s low level of uptake may indicate that the intended recipients are not getting the intended benefits.
2.1 The decision in this report is of a low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined by the relatively low number of people potentially affected and the expected low cost to other ratepayers of all options presented.
2.1.2 No community engagement has been conducted. Operational adjustments to the scheme may be achievable without consultation, but changes to Policy wording would require consultation through an annual planning process.
4.2.1 Option 1 – No change to the current scheme, on the grounds that it provides adequate access for those in significant need, and that its low uptake is driven by a lack of underlying demand and the availability of alternative sources of cash. (preferred option) Note – support increased public awareness.
4.2.2 Option 2 - Adjust the current scheme by making the qualifying criteria more formulaic – in effect, a universal system where the level of entitlement is abated depending on the applicant’s income. This is similar to the government’s Rebate scheme and Hamilton City Council’s Postponement scheme, and may help to increase uptake (depending on the generosity of the abatement formula).
4.2.3 Option 3 - Expand the current scheme by eliminating all income and asset thresholds – effectively making it on-demand, although minimum home equity and independent advice requirements should be retained. This is similar to the approach taken by Auckland City Council, and could significantly increase uptake.
4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages: The advantages and disadvantages of each option are described in sections 6-8 below.
5.1.1 Rebate – This is a government scheme to support pensioners, where some rates are effectively paid by the government.
5.1.2 Remissions – These are council-approved discounts, which are effectively paid for by all other ratepayers. They may be on-going (such as discounts to community benefit organisations) or temporary (such as earthquake and flooding remissions).
5.1.3 Postponement – This is where rates liabilities still accrue, but the ratepayer does not need to pay them immediately and no late payment penalties are added. Postponement is effectively a loan from the Council to the ratepayer, secured by the ratepayer’s equity in their property and funded by Council borrowing (the on-going cost of which is mostly recouped by adding an interest charge each year to the amount postponed).
5.2 Council’s current Rates Postponement Policy is intended primarily but not exclusively for pensioners, and states that:
Up to 100% of rates may be postponed for a period determined by the Council where the ratepayer is experiencing financial hardship.
5.3 The Policy has historically had a very low level of uptake – there is currently only one postponement in place (down from five in 2013), and there has been only one new application over the past year. Councillors have expressed concern that this low uptake may reflect a lack of public awareness of the Policy and/or a practical difficulty in applying.
5.4.1 Any rates that are postponed and therefore not collected must be borrowed for. A Postponement Scheme with a very high level of uptake would therefore increase Council’s financial risk, and could undermine its ability to achieve the investment goals set out in the long-term Financial Strategy.
5.4.2 In practice, however, this risk appears to be very low – even Auckland’s effectively “on demand” scheme has to date not increased uptake sufficiently to have a material impact on the council’s financial position.
5.5.1 Rates postponement is explicitly aimed at relatively wealthy households – at one extreme, the poorest households are typically not ratepayers; at the other, rates tends to place greatest pressure on fixed incomes for those living in more expensive homes.
5.5.2 Nevertheless, the scheme’s cost to other ratepayers is minimal. This report has therefore not considered options to narrow the current qualification criteria (such as only providing postponement where the applicant also has bank debt, or where the relatively low value of the home makes down-sizing a less practical alternative).
5.6.1 The scheme’s low uptake may be due in part to the alternative sources of funding available to potential recipients, including bank debt (particularly reverse mortgage products, which target the same ratepayer group as the postponement scheme), relatives (especially future estate beneficiaries), and down-sizing. Potential recipients may also have a generational aversion to borrowing.
5.6.2 Although this consideration does not imply that the scheme should be discontinued (there are likely to be some ratepayers for whom these other sources of funding are unavailable), it does suggest that low uptake is driven by lack of demand not lack of access, and that significant loosening of current financial criteria is not required.
5.7 The Government’s Rates Rebate scheme is a useful comparison, because of its similar basic aim of providing rates support to pensioners on fixed incomes.
5.8 The government’s approach is to treat the Rebate as a universal entitlement (all that is required is that the applicant is over 65, owns the property, and lives there as their primary residence on 1 July each year), where the maximum benefit is limited (currently to $610) and the amount actually provided is based on a formula:
5.8.1 The amount of Rebate is abated as household income rises (so higher-income households do not qualify for anything).
5.8.2 The speed of this abatement is adjusted in proportion to the amount of rates payable (so a household paying more rates may get more than a household with similar income but lower rates).
5.8.3 In any event, a Rebate only applies above a minimum threshold (i.e. everyone must pay at least some rates).
5.9 The system is relatively complex in that the formula is difficult to describe and very few recipients are able to understand how their actual benefit is calculated. Nevertheless, its universality and strict formula approach makes it in some ways more useful than the judgement-based approach inevitable in any scheme based on un-defined “hardship”.
5.10 The policies of Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton, Tauranga, and Dunedin have been reviewed. These are considered the most relevant because, together with Christchurch, they represent the six largest urban centres and more than half of the country’s population.
5.11 Wellington, Hamilton, and Dunedin provide schemes which are broadly similar to ours, with a focus on support for financial hardship, a charge on land, and an annual administration and interest charge (although this is optional in Dunedin). Differences include:
5.11.1 Wellington and Dunedin emphasise “extreme” financial hardship, although it is unlikely that their qualification thresholds are more stringent than ours in practice.
5.11.2 Hamilton addresses just “normal” financial hardship, with “extreme” hardship qualifying for a Remission. Qualification and amount provided under either policy is relatively complex, calculated by formula based on the government’s Rate Rebate formula plus annual rates or CPI increase adjustments. Unlike the Rebate scheme, Hamilton also applies an asset threshold ($17,947 excluding house, car, and normal chattels).
5.11.3 Dunedin’s is not primarily aimed at pensioners, and emphasises changes in personal circumstances as a driver.
5.12 Auckland has adopted a far broader scheme, which is virtually on-demand with no income or asset testing (although a minimum level of owner’s equity in the home is required, for security purposes). An annual administration fee is added, but no interest charge, resulting in significant risk of perverse incentives.
5.12.1 This more generous approach was initially driven by the desire to provide relief in those areas most affected by the super-city amalgamation. An additional push occurred in 2015/16, aimed at delinquent accounts – rates staff would actively contact delinquent ratepayers to offer postponement.
5.12.2 These initiatives were apparently well received. Interestingly, however, the level of uptake is still relatively low, albeit higher than the virtually zero update of the previous, less generous scheme – as at November 2016, postponements were applied to 203 properties, amounting to a total cumulative postponement of $2.3 million.
5.13 Tauranga has adopted an opposite approach, with no Postponement for financial hardship from its 2012 Long Term Plan (although there is still some postponement available for re-zoned farmland that’s still being used as a farm).
5.13.1 This approach has been adopted as a result of the increasing availability of equity release products that homeowners with significant home equity can access if they’re in genuine need, combined with a perception that the Council should not be in the business of providing economic assistance to relatively wealthy ratepayers.
5.13.2 Tauranga also believes that the costs and risks of postponement schemes are higher than commonly perceived – in particular, the need to demonstrate an acceptable level of independent financial advice to all recipients, the need to register charges over affected titles in LINZ, on-going record-keeping and audit requirements, and the risk that at least a portion of postponed amounts may be non-collectable in future (particularly for amounts postponed for a long time, or where there are significant interest and administration charges applied).
6.1.1 Qualification based on demonstrable financial hardship – in practice, financial data demonstrating an income level low enough to make rates payments difficult, plus an absence of cash deposits or similar easily-realisable financial assets.
6.1.3 An annual interest charge added to the rates account, based on Council’s own average cost of borrowing.
6.3 The advantage of this option is simplicity, in that there is no change to current processes. There is an implicit assumption that the scheme’s current low uptake is driven by low demand rather than lack of public awareness and/or difficulty in the application process – adequate public awareness may be supported by:
6.3.1 Continuing to highlight the scheme in the annual Guide to Rates brochure included with all first instalment invoices in July;
6.3.2 Ensuring that the scheme is described on a specific page on our public website (alongside other rates-related pages), including a downloadable Application Form; and
6.3.3 Ensuring that rates and call centre staff consider the potential for Postponement where overdue rates accounts appear to be caused by financial hardship.
6.4 The key disadvantage of this option is that it does not make the current scheme either more generous or more straightforward to apply for – if these are considered significant issues, then this option is not satisfactory. However, it should be noted that any scheme based on financial hardship will require the disclosure of relatively intrusive personal information – current requirements are consistent with normal banking practice.
7.1 Design the scheme along the same lines as government’s Rebate scheme, although with a more straightforward formula based only on household income (not the amount of rates payable). Under this approach:
7.1.1 Support should only be given where there is a minimum level of owner’s equity in the property (say, 75% of the current Rating Valuation), to ensure full future recovery of postponed amounts.
7.1.2 Some postponement may be provided at relatively high levels of household income, with the amount available decreasing in a formulaic way as income increases (i.e. to make the scheme more generous than currently, as well as being formula-driven).
7.1.3 Postponed amounts will be funded through Council borrowing, with on-going interest and administrative costs recovered through an annual Postponement Fee.
7.1.4 Re-application should be required each year, to ensure that all postponements are adequately monitored and remain appropriate.
7.2 The Objective of this Policy is to assist low-income residential ratepayers who want to defer the payment of rates by using the equity in their homes.
7.3.1 The applicant must be the legal owner, and the property must be their primary place of residence. All postponed amounts and associated fees will become due and payable as soon as this ceases to be the case.
7.3.3 All ratepayers must pay at least $700 per year (including any amount effectively paid through the government Rebate scheme).
7.3.4 For rates charges in excess of this amount, the ratepayer must pay 5 cents for every dollar of household income in excess of $30,000 (e.g. a household with a total income of $40,000 must pay the first $500 of rates in excess of the $700 minimum amount).
7.3.5 This calculation will be based on total household income as shown in the most recent year’s Statement of Earnings from IRD (which the applicant must provide).
7.3.6 No postponement will be granted if the total amount of household liability (including previous Postponed amounts, mortgage loans, and personal loans, including credit cards) exceeds 75% of the property’s most recent Rating Valuation. The applicant will be required to provide bank statements confirming the amount of debt outstanding at the time of application.
7.3.8 The applicant must provide evidence that they have sought independent financial advice enabling them to understand the liability they are incurring and its potential impact on their future equity in their home.
7.3.9 A charge securing Council’s interests will be registered on the property’s Certificate of Title. The cost of this shall be charged to the applicant’s Rates account in addition to the annual Postponement Fee described below.
7.3.10 The ratepayer must re-apply for the Postponement to be continued into the following rating year. Applications must be received by 31 August (postponements will be back-dated to the 1 July start of the rating year where necessary), and must include a current Certificate of Insurance for the property.
7.3.11 A Postponement Fee will be charged to the applicant’s Rates account at the time the application is approved. This fee is intended to cover Council’s administrative and interest costs, and is set at 6% of the amount being postponed in that rating year (including any rates and Postponement Fees carried forward from previous years).
7.3.12 Applications must state briefly in writing why they have not sought alternative funding arrangements – specifically, taking out a personal loan, downsizing to a less expensive house, using savings or other assets, and seeking family assistance.
7.3.13 If the ratepayer does not re-apply on time or if they no longer qualify, then all previous amounts postponed (including Postponement Fees) shall become due and payable. The ratepayer may contact Council’s rates staff if a tailored payment arrangement is required.
7.3.14 Ratepayers may pay Postponed amounts in full or in part at any time, but no adjustments will be made to any Postponement Fees already charged to the rates account.
7.4 This option has minimal financial implications for Council, as the costs of the scheme are expected to be funded from borrowing and serviced by charging those ratepayers receiving the postponement.
7.5 The updated policy wording would require consultation, most straightforwardly through an Annual Planning process.
7.6 There is a risk that the annual Postponement Fees and/or rates amounts that have been postponed for a long time may be successfully challenged as unenforceable by a future court decision. This risk has not been tested, but is considered low as the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 specifically permits Councils to add administration and interest amounts to the rates account to cover the costs of such schemes (section 88).
7.7 This option could be implemented relatively quickly from the start of any rating year (1 July), through an annual planning process. A pro forma Application Form, plus adequate operational process documents and management tools would need to be developed for use by the rates transactions team.
7.8 The administrative burden per application would be rather more than the current scheme’s, which relies on subjective staff judgement for qualification.
7.9.2 Uptake – more generous financial thresholds and removal of emphasis on pensioners may increase the scheme’s attractiveness and uptake.
7.10.1 Risk that the scheme may be used as simply a cheap source of funding by ratepayers (especially given that we can only charge an annual Postponement Fee sufficient to cover our costs, and this may be less than the cost of bank debt).
7.10.2 Risk that future collection of postponed amounts may be challenged in court by future ratepayers.
7.10.3 Risk that uptake remains minimal, given still-significant application requirements and the availability of other sources of funding – qualification still requires a significant disclosure of personal financial information, although no more than would be required for similar bank lending.
8.1 This option expands the current scheme by eliminating all financial qualification criteria (except for essential equity and independent advice requirements). The rationale for this approach is that all financial criteria are inherently arbitrary, so it is simpler to reach all the people you want by providing open access rather than trying to envisage all types of circumstances.
8.2 The potential for significant scheme growth under this option increases the importance of setting Postponement Fees at a level sufficient to cover all costs, although the experience to date at Auckland Council is that such open access will not result in unacceptably large numbers of new applicants.
8.3 The Objective of this Policy is to assist residential ratepayers who want to defer the payment of rates by using the equity in their homes.
8.4.1 The applicant must be the legal owner, and the property must be their primary place of residence. All postponed amounts and associated fees will become due and payable as soon as this ceases to be the case.
8.4.2 No postponement will be granted if the total amount of household liability (including previous Postponed amounts, mortgage loans, and personal loans, including credit cards) exceeds 75% of the property’s most recent Rating Valuation. The applicant will be required to provide bank statements confirming the amount of debt outstanding at the time of application.
8.4.4 The applicant must provide evidence that they have sought independent financial advice enabling them to understand the liability they are incurring and its potential impact on their future equity in their home.
8.4.5 A charge securing Council’s interests will be registered on the property’s Certificate of Title. The cost of this shall be charged to the applicant’s Rates account in addition to the annual Postponement Fee described below.
8.4.6 The ratepayer must re-apply for the Postponement to be continued into the following rating year. Applications must be received by 31 August (postponements will be back-dated to the 1 July start of the rating year where necessary), and must include a current Certificate of Insurance for the property.
8.4.7 A Postponement Fee will be charged to the applicant’s Rates account at the time the application is approved. This fee is intended to cover Council’s administrative and interest costs, and is set at 6% of the amount being postponed in that rating year (including any rates and Postponement Fees carried forward from previous years).
8.4.8 Applications must state briefly in writing why they have not sought alternative funding arrangements – specifically, taking out a personal loan, downsizing to a less expensive house, using savings or other assets, and seeking family assistance.
8.4.9 If the ratepayer does not re-apply on time or if they no longer qualify, then all previous amounts postponed (including Postponement Fees) shall become due and payable. The ratepayer may contact Council’s rates staff if a tailored payment arrangement is required.
8.4.10 Ratepayers may pay Postponed amounts in full or in part at any time, but no adjustments will be made to any Postponement Fees already charged to the rates account.
8.5 This option has minimal financial implications for Council, as the costs of the scheme are expected to be funded from borrowing and serviced by charging the ratepayers receiving the postponement.
8.6 The updated policy wording would require consultation, most straightforwardly through an Annual Planning process.
8.7 There is a risk that a very high level of uptake may have a material impact on Council’s own cash position (if the amount postponed becomes a material proportion of total rates income). However, this risk is considered small based on Auckland City Council’s experience in establishing a similar scheme. On-going monitoring would be required, with the Scheme amended in future if necessary.
8.8 There is a risk that the annual Postponement Fees and/or rates amounts that have been postponed for a long time may be successfully challenged as unenforceable by a future court decision. This risk has not been tested, but is considered low as the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 specifically permits Councils to add administration and interest amounts to the rates account to cover the costs of such schemes (section 88).
8.9 This option could be implemented relatively quickly from the start of any rating year (1 July), through an annual planning process. A pro forma Application Form, plus adequate operational process documents and management tools would need to be developed for use by the rates transactions team.
8.10 The administrative burden per application would be similar to the current scheme, but overall administration cost would probably rise due to increasing volumes and monitoring requirements.
8.11.1 Simplicity & Transparency – the virtually “on demand” qualification criteria are significantly more straightforward than either of the other Options presented.
8.11.2 Uptake – the elimination of income and asset thresholds and removal of emphasis on pensioners should significantly increase the uptake of the scheme.
8.12.1 Risk that the scheme may be used as simply a cheap source of funding by ratepayers (especially given that we can only charge an annual Postponement Fee sufficient to cover our costs, and this may be less than the cost of bank debt).
8.12.2 Risk that uptake is so significant that a material proportion of rates income is no longer collected, threatening Council’s own financial position.
8.12.3 Risk that future collection of postponed amounts may be challenged in court by future ratepayers.
8.12.4 Risk that the scheme becomes perceived as inappropriate, given the easy access that all qualifying ratepayers are likely to have to similar bank lending products.
(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.
The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 5 July 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 5 July 2017.
The Social and Community Development Committee held a meeting on 19 June 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social and Community Development Committee meeting held 19 June 2017.
The Social and Community Development Committee held a meeting on 5 July 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social and Community Development Committee meeting held 5 July 2017.
1. The Committee discussed and debated the Living Wage report; however, when the Committee voted on the resolutions the vote was tied and the Committee are therefore not recommending an option to the Council and Council should consider the original recommendations in the report.
2. The Committee suggested that staff should brief all Councillors on this report prior to it being considered at a Council meeting.
3. Staff advised the Committee that the report will be considered in public and that the staff report will be amended to remove the confidential information contained in the report.
a. Considers, and recommends to Council, an option for adopting the Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.
b. Approves that the report to be submitted to Council will be in the open public Council session and will therefore not include commercially sensitive information (especially the CCHL appendix)
Due to a tied vote, the Committee are not making a recommendation to Council and the Council should consider the original options contained in the report:
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to consider and recommend to Council an option for adopting the Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.
1.2 At the August 2016 meeting of the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee it was resolved that the Committee recommends to the incoming Council that consideration be given to moving towards the "Living Wage" rate (excluding Vbase), working within the existing budget for wage and salary increases. Staff were requested to prepare a report that takes into account a range of options, together with costings, for onwards submission to the incoming Council.
1.3 This report is being provided to fulfil the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee resolution.
2.1 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined by the level of public interest and the potential cost of the options.
4.1 This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025) under Level of Service 13.0.13 Human Resources Activity Management Plan as it potentially introduces a new and materially important remuneration consideration (that was not part of the 2015 Activity Management Plan).
4.4 The Living Wage campaign was launched in 2012 by Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand with the aim of reducing inequality and poverty in society by lifting wages of the lowest paid. The Living Wage is defined as ‘the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life’.[1] The Living Wage is currently set at $19.80 per hour compared to the minimum wage rate of $15.75 legislated by the Government. The Living Wage rate will increase to $20.20 per hour from 1 July 2017.
4.5 Based on data from January 2017, there are 470 staff (excluding approximately 600 Vbase staff but accounting for seasonal summer staff) paid less than $19.80 per hour, representing 16.5% of the total staff of 2840 in the analysis. Of those staff earning less than the Living Wage, 44% are employed as casuals (mostly employed in seasonal roles in the Sport and Recreation Unit), while 22% are employed in permanent no fixed hours/seasonal or fixed term roles. 34% are full time or part time permanent staff. Only 16 staff earning less than $19.80 are permanent full time employees.
4.6 The majority of staff paid below the Living Wage are employed as lifeguards, swim instructors and customer service assistants in the Recreation and Sport Unit. Typically those who are paid less than the Living Wage are younger staff in their twenties and late teens (67%) and staff who have worked at Council less than two years (63%).
4.7 This report outlines three options for adopting a Living Wage policy taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications. Option 1 is to adopt the Living Wage for all direct Council employees (excluding Vbase) at the rate of $20.20 which would cost a minimum of $775,000 annually. The second option is to adopt a Living Wage policy based on a stepped approach similar to that taken by Wellington City Council who currently pay $18.63 per hour based on the original Living Wage rate of $18.40 with an annual adjustment taking CPI into consideration. This option is estimated to cost $285,000 annually. Both these options exclude Vbase staff recognising that Vbase will again become a standalone organisation. The third option is that Council decides not to adopt the Living Wage at the current time given our current and future financial constraints and the uncertain productivity benefits, but we make a commitment to increasing the wages of the lowest paid staff through regular collective bargaining and remuneration adjustment strategies.
4.8 One of the major considerations of adopting the Living Wage is the ongoing future costs. The current estimates are based on current staffing levels but don't take into consideration future market increases, additional hours, relatively adjustments, other entitlements and future increases to the Living Wage rate and therefore it is not possible to forecast the full future costs of adopting the Living Wage.
4.9 Depending on the preferred option and the funding model, there is a risk, depending on future market movements that the costs of maintaining the Living Wage - and at the same time meeting the market movements for all employees - becomes financially unsustainable. This risk is greatest for option 1 (as it has the greatest financial impact). If this risk were to eventuate it would impact on the attraction and retention of staff, particularly in those professions where there is a skill shortage and high demand. If by adopting the Living Wage now, Council is unable to maintain market relativity for the remainder of staff and pay people what they are worth, then there is a potential risk that Council is unable to attract and retain a capable and high performing workforce.
4.10 It is recommended that Council consider and decide upon one of the three options to adopt the Living Wage taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.
5.1 The Living Wage campaign was launched in 2012 by Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand with the aim of reducing inequality and poverty in society by lifting wages of the lowest paid. The Movement includes around 200 community/secular, union and faith-based groups. It proposed in 2012 that employers be encouraged to ‘opt in’ if they were able and willing to implement the Living Wage policy of $18.40 per hour for employees. There are now around 70 employers listed as accredited Living Wage employers across New Zealand.[2]
5.2 The Living Wage is defined as ‘the income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life’.[3] The groups considered that a Living Wage for all households is ‘a necessary and important step in the reduction of poverty in New Zealand’. The original Living Wage rate of $18.40 was set through independent research by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit and was based on a wage required by a family of two adults and two children[4]. The household is assumed to have two income earners, one working full time and the other half-time. The methodology used doesn’t take account of the personal circumstances of a worker including living arrangements, regional variations and skill set. Since its initial calculation, the Living Wage has increased to its current rate of $19.80 per hour and will increase to $20.20 on 1st July 2017. In comparison, the minimum wage rate provided for in legislation is $15.75 per hour.
5.3 The Council first considered whether to adopt the Living Wage for Council staff in February 2014 where Council resolved that a feasibility study be conducted examining the implications of implementing the Living Wage. A confidential feasibility study of adopting the Living Wage was presented to the December 2014 meeting of the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Subcommittee. This report outlined the arguments for and against the Living Wage and examined the financial costs for Council to adopt the Living Wage for all Council staff as well as Council controlled organisations and contractors. The report examined the domestic and international experience and research of adopting the Living Wage. The report also discussed the organisational data on turnover and engagement in terms of improved productivity versus financial cost.
5.4 Two further confidential reports were presented to the Chief Executive and Employment Matters Subcommittee in May and August 2015 which provided further analysis of the considerations and impact of adopting the Living Wage for Council employees, excluding Vbase staff, recognising that Vbase will again become a standalone organisation. The papers also proposed a set of guiding principles for remuneration as the basis of a remuneration policy that is equitable across the organisation. The resolution from the latter meeting was that the Council continue to work towards Accredited Employer Status rather than formally adopt the Living Wage at that time and staff report back in 2016 with updated data.
5.5 In August 2016, staff reported back on progress to increase the pay rates of the lowest paid staff in the organisation. This report outlined that good progress has been made in reducing the number of employees paid less than the Living Wage rate through intentional and targeted strategies. In the year from August 2015 to August 2016, the number of Council employees (excluding Vbase staff) paid less than the 2015 Living Wage rate of $19.25 reduced by 32% from 481 to 328 employees. Taking into account that the Living Wage rate increased to $19.80 in 2016, the number of the staff paid less than the current Living Wage was 375, a reduction from 18.7% of total staff in 2015 to 14.1% of current total staff included in the analysis. The decision from this meeting was that staff prepare a report outlining options for a future Living Wage policy to be considered by the incoming Council.
5.6 Arguments in favour of introducing the Living Wage largely focus on the opportunity to improve economic prosperity and improve the quality of life of communities. Advocates argue that business benefits such as staff retention and brand recognition also serve as incentives for organisations to adopt the Living Wage. The evidence from literature is mixed[5]. There is evidence of both positive and negative effects of its implementation.
5.7 The criteria for an Accredited Living Wage Employer requires that all directly employed staff and all indirectly paid workers employed by contractors on a regular and ongoing basis are on the current Living Wage rate. The likely mechanism for achieving this latter aspect would be the adoption of procurement practices that require successful contractors to pay their employees a Living Wage. This could most realistically only be achieved at the time contracts are being renewed (or otherwise significantly renegotiated). The costs of requiring indirectly paid workers (i.e. all contractors and sub-contractors to Council) are likely to be significant and are likely to be borne by the Council via increased cost of contracts for service. We have not attempted to model the cost of adopting the Living Wage for indirectly employed staff.
5.8 However, in 2013 the Council asked CCHL to report back on the feasibility of applying a Living Wage requirement to the CCHL group of companies. This report was completed and sent to Council in February 2014. The report recommended against adoption of the Living Wage. At that time, based on the information available from some subsidiaries, the total impact within the CCHL group was identified as $7.2 million of additional costs including maintaining relativity and the cost of requiring sub-contractors to adopt the Living Wage, with by far the biggest impact being in respect to City Care.
5.9 CCHL updated this report in November 2016 with current information from their subsidiaries, outlining the financial impact on the CCHL group. This report concludes that in view of the complexities which would be created in the commercial relationships and the impact on competitiveness for CCHL subsidiaries, CCHL would not recommend to apply the Living Wage concept to Council CCTO’s. The report states that if the Living Wage is applied to companies in the group which are competing in the marketplace then these companies will be uncompetitive and the returns from the companies will be affected so long as the competitors are not obliged to use the same wage regime. The report also makes the point that several of the companies have noted that a high percentage of the employees earning less than the Living Wage are trainees or apprentices. The companies put considerable time into the training of these staff and there could be a tendency away from taking on trainees if the employment rates are increased. Many of the staff employed at City Care who earn less than the Living Wage have been employed within the last 12 months and are receiving ongoing on-job training, suggesting that ‘’through our training efforts, the majority of staff move beyond the Living Wage, by virtue of their increased productivity, in a relatively short time”.
5.10 Amongst Councils, to date, we understand that Wellington City Council and Wellington Regional council have adopted Living Wage policies. Wellington City Council initially introduced the original Living Wage rate of $18.40 for direct employees and have increased this annually to the current rate of $18.63. Last year, Wellington City Council extended this to selected contractors however neither the Wellington City Council or Wellington Regional Council are accredited Living Wage employers. However, Wellington City Council councillors voted to support the official Living Wage rate in the draft annual plan and will seek to obtain Living Wage accreditation within the three year electoral term.[6]
5.11 Auckland City Council have recently voted to introduce the Living Wage policy which will be phased in with all staff to be paid at least $18 an hour from September, increasing each year till 2019. Lower Hutt City Council are also considering options for implementing a Living Wage policy. There is limited information on organisations in Christchurch who have adopted the Living Wage. However, two other large local employers, the University of Canterbury and Canterbury District Health Board have explicitly declined to adopt the Living Wage. The Chamber of Commerce are opposed to the Living Wage.
5.12 The Government’s preferred approach is to keep increasing the minimum wage over time to protect the real incomes of low-paid workers, while minimising job losses. The Government maintains that it has no plans to increase the minimum wage to Living Wage levels, citing the support it already provides in the form of interest-free student loans, the accommodation supplement or allowances, various health and tax packages e.g. Working for Families.
5.13 The Treasury released a report to the Minister of Finance in 2014 on the Living Wage proposal based on an analysis of the Household Economic Survey.[7] This report concluded that the Living Wage proposal is an ineffective way to help families with low incomes because many low income earners are people below the age of 30 who are single or are couples without children. The report concluded that the Living Wage is likely to have negative economic impacts on employment and inflation and the overall impact of poverty levels is likely to be small, but it would represent a change of focus from supporting families with children to supporting young, single people. However, advocates of the Living Wage are critical of the Treasury report saying it is based on a number of unfounded assumptions and is seriously flawed.[8]
5.15 Based on personnel figures from January 2017, there are 470 employees (excluding Vbase)[9] paid less than the Living Wage rate of $19.80. This is an increase of 95 staff compared to August 2016 and reflects the increase in casual and seasonal staff (i.e. a timing / seasonal difference); Lifeguards, Swim Education Instructors and Parks Field workers employed over the summer period. 36% of employees paid less than the Living Wage are paid between $17.00 - $18.00 with 30% paid between $19.00 - $18.00 per hour and 21% between $19.80 and $19.00 per hour.
5.16 Of those staff earning less than the Living Wage, the majority (44%) are employed as casuals and 22% are employed in permanent no fixed hours/seasonal or fixed term roles. Council has no staff on zero hour contracts. 34% are full time or part time permanent staff while only 16 staff earning less than $19.80 are permanent full time employees. The majority of staff paid below the Living Wage are employed as lifeguards, swim instructors and customer service assistants.
5.17 The Treasury report noted that those who would benefit most under a Living Wage policy are workers without dependents including teenagers and workers in their twenties. While Council does not hold information on whether staff have dependents or not, our analysis shows that the majority of staff paid less than the Living Wage are typically younger employees with less than two years tenure at Council. Two thirds of staff paid below the Living Wage are in their twenties or younger and 63% have worked at Council less than two years. 27% of staff are under the age of twenty and 29% are between 20-24 years of age. Nearly half (46%) have been at Council for less than a year and 17% are in their second year of employment at Council. Only 24% of staff earning less than the Living Wage have been employed at Council for longer than three years.
5.18 Another consideration in adopting the Living Wage at Council is the complexity of the employment environment given the number of different collectives and agreements and the various employment provisions within all these agreements. The Council currently has staff employed on eight agreements with five unions, as well as those employed on individual employment agreements. Given the number of agreements, there are a wide range of terms and conditions which need to be taken into consideration in implementing a remuneration strategy to ensure an equitable outcome. This means that a Living Wage policy would need to take into consideration the varying agreement provisions such as leave entitlements, overtime and other service allowances which will impact on the overall remuneration package.
6.1 Option 1 is that Council adopt the Living Wage rate of $20.20 for all staff paid below this rate based upon an agreed set of criteria being met such as staff having attained a competency to work unsupervised.
6.2 The adoption of the Living Wage rate of $20.20 for all direct Council staff (excluding Vbase) is calculated at a minimum cost of $775,000 annually. This estimated cost is a minimum due to the high number of casual and seasonal staff who may work extra hours over and above the hours used for the calculations. The costs also exclude kiwi saver, overtime, penal rates and any other allowances affected by pay increases.
6.3 One of the major considerations of adopting the Living Wage is the ongoing future costs. The current estimates are based on current staffing levels but don't take into consideration future market increases, additional hours, other entitlements and future increases to the Living Wage rate and therefore it is not possible to forecast the full future costs of adopting the Living Wage. However, given that the majority of staff below the Living Wage work in Recreation and Sports, as new pool facilities open, there would be an increase to the operating costs over and above what has been forecasted to pay these employees the Living Wage.
6.4 In the past few years, the market movement for wages/salary rates has been relatively stable with increases around 2% - although some very recent commentary based on the latest inflation figures, is starting to suggest a period of higher inflation / wage growth.
6.5 The risk of adopting the Living Wage based on the current financial and market data, is that the future costs of maintaining the Living Wage and meeting the market movement for all staff, becomes financially unsustainable (and Council is therefore required to provide additional funding to avoid the risk eventuating). If this risk is not addressed and does eventuate, then it will impact the attraction and retention of staff, particularly in those professions where there is a skill shortage, high demand, or where Council is materially falling behind the market movement. This would in turn impact on future collective and individual agreement negotiations, potentially increasing the risk of industrial action and/or future remuneration increases above the rate of CPI to make up for lost relativity to the market.
6.6 The cost of adopting the Living Wage at $20.20 is estimated at $775k annually. This is currently not funded on an ongoing basis within the existing salary/wages budget.
6.7 The Council is not able to afford the Living Wage under option 1, without any overall increase to salary budgets.
6.8 Under option 1, and assuming settlement of other Collective and Individual Employment Agreements roughly consistent with recent market movements, it is likely that the Council will need to fund approximately an additional $400-500k per annum (i.e. the existing budgets can absorb approximately $300-$400k of further cost). This would be less in the FY17/18 depending on implementation timeframes. Future increases may also be required depending on Living Wage movements (which have historically been slightly higher than CPI at 2.5%) and other market movements.
6.9 There is also the consideration that were Council to adopt the Living Wage this could impact on external labour market movements. For example, if the Council was to pay staff well above the industry market, this could impact on commercial operators in the same industry, as they won't be able to match Council wages, potentially putting jobs at risk. This risk is especially relevant in sectors where the Council has a significant market share such as recreation and sport, and can therefore heavily influence the viability of smaller market players.
6.10 The decision to adopt the Living Wage and base remuneration on a set rate irrespective of performance, competence, job role and responsibilities, or market data may also impact on employee's perceptions of how they are valued (especially for those employees paid just above the Living Wage threshold). In the case where there are no relativity adjustments between existing roles and between levels, this may also create tension in the medium and long-term with staff feeling that the experience/knowledge required and additional responsibilities of their roles are not recognised. This is more of a consideration the higher the living wage rate is set. This, in turn, could lead to increased turnover and difficulty recruiting to fill those positions.
6.11 There is also the broader consideration with regards to the relative roles of central government and local government. Central government has responsibility for establishing national settings around minimum wages and other related social policies and financial support mechanisms. The consideration for local government is what role it plays in addressing the objectives behind the Living Wage and whether this type of policy should sit at a macro, national level or with local government.
7.1 Option 2 is that Council decides to adopt a Living Wage policy based on a stepped approach for example at a rate of $18.63 per hour as Wellington Council has done (which is based on the original Living Wage rate of $18.40 plus an annual adjustment). Similarly with Option 1, this would be based upon an agreed set of criteria being met such as staff having attained a competency to work unsupervised. The adoption of the Living Wage rate of $18.63 for all direct Council staff (excluding Vbase) is estimated at a minimum of $285,000 annually excluding kiwi saver, overtime, penal rates and any other allowances affected by pay increases.
7.2 This approach recognises a commitment to raise the wages of the lowest paid but also takes into account what is affordable and other factors related to relativity both internally and externally with the market.
7.3 This approach would raise the wages of 310 employees which represents two thirds of those paid below the Living Wage as well as providing flexibility to adopt a remuneration strategy that takes into account performance, competencies and market information. Regardless of whether Council sets a rate of $18.63 or $19.80, Council would not meet the criteria to be an accredited Living Wage employer as it has not applied the rate to Vbase staff who are directly employed by Council or contractors (including CCHL and all external indirectly employed staff).
7.4 Option 2 would represent a reduced risk in terms of affordability as compared to option 1. Over the short to medium term – and subject to no unusual remuneration circumstances – Council could absorb the additional cost of $285,000 (increasing annually) incurred through partially adopting the Living Wage.
7.5 There would still be increased risk of relativity differences and difficulty in meeting the market movement for all employees, however, on balance, these are considered manageable. If this situation changes, and for example, industrial action occurs due to the inability to meet reasonable market movements, then we would of course give Council options on additional funding at future budget rounds (Annual or Long Term Plans).
8.1 The third option is that Council decides not to adopt the Living Wage at the current time given its current and future financial constraints and the uncertain productivity benefits, but makes a commitment to increasing the wages of the lowest paid staff. The benefits of this approach are it provides a fair and consistent methodology for setting remuneration in partnership with unions (via collective agreements), and supports a strategy to attract and retain an engaged and productive workforce. It provides a stepped approach to increasing the lower wages based on competencies, performance and market rates through future collective bargaining and remuneration adjustment strategies, however, may not achieve the outcomes sought to raise the wages of the lowest paid staff as quickly as Options 1 or 2.
· High risk that Council cannot maintain market rates for all staff leading to a failure to attracting and retaining highly skilled, top performing staff
· Judicial challenge that paying the living wage is not the most effective way to provide a service under the LGA.
· Some risk that increasing costs reduces budget to maintain market rates for all staff leading to a risk of not attracting and retaining highly skilled, top performing staff
· No additional opex is currently required as it is proposed to fund this cost from within existing baselines.
· Maintains a consistent approach for all staff irrespective of where staff are employed in Council.
9.1 Section 10, clause (b) of the Local Government says the purpose of local government is to “…meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.” In making a decision regarding the introduction of a Living Wage policy the Council would need to demonstrate that this change in the way it delivers services is the most cost-effective for households and businesses. This may take the form of better staff engagement and morale, greater expertise, greater organisational commitment, all of which lead to greater productivity.
9.2 It has been argued that the LGA 2002 is a barrier to adopting the living wage as it may contradict section 10(b) in that paying staff who currently receive less than the living wage more than the market rate would not be “cost effective”. However, a legal opinion provided to the Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Group by Dr Matthew Palmer[10] concludes it is not a barrier and bases his opinion on material that explains the economic justification of a living wage in terms of associated productivity gains and that pursuing such a policy would be consistent with the purpose of local government.
9.3 As noted earlier, the estimated cost of Option 1 is $775k p/a. This is currently not funded within the existing salary/wages budget and some additional funding (of $400k-$500k p/a) would need to come via a rates increase to fund this on an ongoing basis. The remainder of the funding could be absorbed within existing budgets through a tightening of remuneration budgets / future Collective and Individual Employment settlements. The impact of part funding this from within the current salary/wages budget at a level of $300-$400k would still reduce the budget for other wage groups, impacting on our ability to maintain parity with the market which is likely to have an adverse impact on attracting and retaining quality staff.
9.4 Option 2 is estimated to cost $285k annually, which based on the market movements in the past two years, would have a lesser impact on the overall salary/wages budget, and on balance, is considered more affordable. If this option was implemented there would still be a reduction in the overall budget available for other collective and individual employment agreement increases (i.e. we may fall behind overall market movements). While this would be manageable within existing budgets for the short to medium term (i.e. no rates impact from implementation), over the long term, employees would generally expect the Council to maintain parity with market movements. Additional future funding may therefore be required for Option 2 in future years.
9.5 The other consideration when applying the Living Wage is relativity, both between existing roles who are currently on different pay rates and between supervisory levels. In the event that the wages of the lowest paid staff are increased to the Living Wage, other wage groups such as the one up team leader or other roles within a unit may need to be scaled upwards to maintain internal relativity. Any further cost needed to retain relativity is difficult to determine, and would be subject to negotiation and agreement with the unions. However, the higher the rate adopted, the greater the impact is on relativity implications.
9.6 If the decision was made to adopt the Living Wage (either in part or full), this would need to be negotiated into future collective agreements or agreed to in a variation to current agreements. The majority of union staff are covered by the City Services Agreement which expires 30 September 2017. A factor for consideration in union negotiations will be how adopting the Living Wage impacts on the relativities between roles under coverage of the unions.
9.7 If Options 1 or 2 are adopted, the next step would be to develop an implementation plan with an effective target date for implementation of 31 October 2017. Under either Options 1 or 2, the rate would be based upon an agreed set of criteria being met such as staff having attained a competency to work unsupervised with the rate set around the midpoint of the band.
9.8 If options 1 or 2 are adopted, it is proposed that staff would report back to a committee of Council on progress towards giving effect to this by 30 November 2017 (therefore taking into account the upcoming City Services collective agreement negotiation).
It is recommended that Council consider the options to adopt the Living Wage taking into account both the financial and non-financial implications.
1. Note the work proposed for the Council to lead and expedite the regeneration planning for the earthquake related damage at South New Brighton.
2. Request staff to report back to the Committee in September 2017 with an update including reference to potential planning processes for the area south of Bridge Street.
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to note the recommended process for Council leading and expediting regeneration planning for earthquake related damage to the area of South New Brighton. The report also provides an update on related work programmes in the area to provide context for the South New Brighton work.
1.2 This report is being provided to fulfil the Council Annual Plan 2017-18 resolution CAPL/2017/00022 requesting a report back on a proposed approach for the Council to lead and expedite the regeneration planning for earthquake related damage to the area of South New Brighton.
2.1 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined as this decision does not bind the Council to any specific course of action. The level of impact on people, property and infrastructure in the area affected by the decision is medium as it will assist in resolving earthquake land damage issues for residents in this area.
4.2 The Council will lead a project to resolve the earthquake related damage issues for the identified area in South New Brighton. This will involve:
4.3 Consultation and engagement will be undertaken at various stages. This will also rely on engagement led by Regenerate Christchurch for a regeneration strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton.
4.4 It is proposed that the project will be undertaken as part of the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy, a collaborative venture with Regenerate Christchurch. Regenerate Christchurch propose that the regeneration strategy will focus on the short, medium and long term response to adaptation for the effects of climate change and sea level rise, alongside the social and economic needs of the community.
5.1 On 20 June 2017 the Council resolved (CAPL/2017/00022) three actions for Southshore and South New Brighton based around estuary edge protection and regeneration planning. This report responds to the third action.
5.2 The third action requested a report back by 30 August 2017 on a proposed approach for the Council to lead and expedite the regeneration planning for earthquake related damage to the area of South New Brighton. This report:
5.2.1 provides an update on the background context to clarify how a Council led and expedited regeneration planning work programme may fit in with other related work programmes; and
5.3 The first action of the resolution directed that a report be provided back to the Council by 30 August 2017 on the OCEL Consultants Ltd’s proposal for estuary edge protection at Southshore. The report is to include feasibility of the proposal, options and statutory mechanisms to allow estuary edge protection. It is noted that an internal project team is being set up to respond to this, led by the Land Drainage Recovery Programme team.
5.4 The second action of the resolution requested Regenerate Christchurch to review their proposed timeframes for Southshore regeneration planning.
5.5 This report refers to the part of South New Brighton generally defined by the area extending west from Estuary Road where it intersects with Jervois Street and Beatty Street. The area is shown in the figure below.
5.6 This is the area of interest that will form the basis of the project area for considering earthquake land damage in South New Brighton. The focus will be on the residential properties in the area.
5.7 The South New Brighton area is low lying and is vulnerable to natural hazards including river and tidal flooding, liquefaction and coastal erosion.
5.8 This part of South New Brighton sustained considerable land damage including significant global settlement, as well as changes to land through seismic movement and liquefaction, and lateral spreading, as a result of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES). The area did not meet the criteria to be zoned red by the Crown, unlike other parts of the river corridor to the north and estuary edge to the south (Southshore).
5.9 The vertical land movement associated with the CES increased flooding vulnerability. The high groundwater is an existing issue, which has been exacerbated by the CES.
5.10 Following the earthquakes, temporary stop banks were installed – running north from Bridge Street, along the very edge of the Avon River. The stop banks reduce risk to the area from fluvial and tidal flooding. The temporary stop banks were constructed with an anticipated lifespan of 20 years. Short-term improvements are needing to be undertaken to reduce risks of stop bank failure.
5.11 As a result of the vertical changes to the land (global settlement) due to the CES compared with the pre-2010 land, the area is already, and will continue to be, more vulnerable to high groundwater levels, and higher potential for flooding and liquefaction. This continues to create on-going issues for the residents in the area.
5.12 The South New Brighton area is one part of the extensive coastal areas in the district that is susceptible to coastal hazards and the impacts of climate change (particularly with respect to sea level rise). These issues are future orientated and are in addition to the legacy earthquake related issues which are about resolving detrimental land change in response to the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.
5.13 The Coastal Futures project is a separate programme of work and extensive community participation and engagement around the adaptive management responses to coastal hazards and the impacts of climate change on coastal settlements and infrastructure across the district. The goal is to explore, establish and co-design pathways for adaptation and mitigation with the local and wider community to be better prepared for the effects of coastal hazards and climate change.
5.14 That project will include the use of scenarios for future changes to the coast and coastal settlements. Whilst providing an overall approach for responding to coastal hazards and climate change, the outcomes from the project will recognise that one size does not fit all in terms of local values and responses. The South New Brighton community along with all other coastal communities of the district will be involved in this engagement.
5.15 The Coastal Futures project will, in due course, inform any changes necessary to the Christchurch District Plan. The coastal hazard provisions were removed from the Christchurch Replacement District Plan process through an amended Order in Council. The Order in Council states that a review of existing coastal hazard provisions will commence as soon as is reasonably practicable. Any amendments necessary to the district plan will proceed under one of the plan change processes of the Resource Management Act.
5.16 The coastal futures project will also inform the 30 year infrastructure strategy and in particular the long term river and tidal flood management approach for the coastal settlements across the district.
5.17 The Coastal Futures project was initiated in December 2016 but has not progressed as it has been on hold awaiting the updated coastal hazards assessment report.
5.18 Regenerate Christchurch is in the process of initiating a project for development of a regeneration strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton, incorporating the Southshore Residential Red Zone. The area includes all of South New Brighton and Southshore, essentially picking up where the Otakaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan ends (at Withells reserve), including the estuary edge.
5.19.2 Identify options (over the short, medium and long term) for the Southshore and South New Brighton communities to adapt to environmental aspects of the heightened risk of seismic activity over the next few decades and the effects of climate change and sea level rise. This will involve scenario planning and development of a strategy for regeneration and adaptation.
5.20 That process provides for co-ordinated and collaborative engagement on the wider issues for Southshore and South New Brighton. This includes addressing the overlapping issues of coastal hazards, future use of the Residential Red Zone, loss of social and community connection and amenity. These issues would be considered alongside adaptation for the effects of climate change and sea level rise. The shared understanding of the issues has been informed by community engagement undertaken by Regenerate Christchurch.
5.21 While Council is a statutory partner under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act (GCRA), it is proposed that for this regeneration strategy project the Council will take a more active role in a joint venture with Regenerate Christchurch. The intention is that the Council will lead the earthquake land damage issues for South New Brighton. Regenerate Christchurch will lead the community engagement process and the regeneration strategy. The community engagement process will inform both work streams, along with targeted engagement on specific issues where appropriate.
5.22 The proposed timeframes for the project 10-12 months, with the final regeneration strategy likely to be completed mid-2018. The regeneration strategy is not a statutory document. Regeneration plans may be developed as a result of the strategy.
5.23 The development of the regeneration strategy by Regenerate Christchurch would focus on the matters addressed in the ‘Coastal Futures project’ for the Southshore and South New Brighton area.
5.24 It needs to be noted that managing land use in relation to risks from natural hazards, including coastal hazards and the effects of climate change, is a legislative functional responsibility of the Council. The Coastal Futures project was developed to enable the Council to perform its functions. If Regenerate Christchurch are to lead a regeneration strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton as a ‘pilot’ for the wider coastal futures project, it will likely have implications on the proposed Coastal Futures workstream, as explained below.
5.25 Staff consider that the wider Coastal Futures project would possibly need to be deferred until the proposed regeneration strategy was complete, or significantly advanced. The rationale for this is that the risks of running two processes in parallel that address similar issues would result in duplication and potential confusion among stakeholders and the public. It would also be difficult to resource the two projects simultaneously. If Coastal Futures, and a subsequent coastal hazards plan change, is deferred this would need to be considered against the obligation under the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 that as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of clause 5A of the OIC the CCC must commence a review of the existing coastal hazard provisions under schedule 1 of the RMA ((cl.5A(2)(d) of the OIC.
5.26 As discussed above, the Council will lead and expedite the regeneration planning for earthquake related land damage to the area of South New Brighton. Also, the Council will work with Regenerate Christchurch to review their proposed timeframes for regeneration planning for Southshore, with the view to bringing these forward, as per the Council resolution. A further report will be provided on this matter.
5.27 The following steps will be undertaken for the earthquake related land damage matters, as shown in Figure 1. The steps focus on ensuring a robust process to firstly identify the most vulnerable areas.
The Strategic Capability Committee held a meeting on 7 July 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategic Capability Committee meeting held 7 July 2017.
The Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee held a meeting on 29 June 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.
That the Council receives the Minutes from Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee meeting held 29 June 2017.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to ask Council to consider the reasonably practicable options available for achieving the Remediation Option in relation to the post-earthquake flood mitigation works within the Knights Drain and Aranui area adopted by the Council on 12 November 2015, and to determine which option is to be proceeded with.
1.2 This report follows from the 12 November 2015 Council report: Knights Drain Concept Design. Council resolved on the 12 November 2015 to progress the preferred option (remediation) to detailed design. Since that report SCIRT was engaged to progress the design and construction of the Stage 1 pump station and rising main works. These works have now been enacted but did not include the necessary upstream storage works required. This report presents options for the Council to consider to provide the necessary storage upstream of the pump station along with options to improve water quality of discharges to the Avon River / Ōtākaro that require low or infrequent maintenance.
1.3 The Stage 2 works proposed in Wainoni Park and described in the 12 November 2015 Report are progressing within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) and are not discussed in this report.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined by considering that the implications of not undertaking flood remediation in the Knights Drain and Aranui catchments could have negative social impacts on the local community. There continues to be community interest in post-earthquake flooding issues, and Knights Drain is one of the city's lowest areas (relative to the tide). The overall programme is significant and has wide ranging impacts across the city. The Knights Drain project is one of the projects being delivered on a fast-track programme within the LDRP. As a result the community engagement on the proposed ponds was undertaken in parallel with the SCIRT pump station works to speed project delivery.
2.1.2 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment. Engagement with directly affected landowners has been undertaken along with public consultation on the options considered, including the preferred option.
1. Having considered the assessment of options and alternative sites, and the views and preferences of interested and affected persons identified by way of the consultation process outlined in this report:
a. Approves and adopts ‘Option A – Storage Pond and Treatment Pond or Wetland’ as described in this report to achieve the Remediation Option in relation to the post-earthquake flood mitigation works within the Knights Drain and Aranui area adopted by the Council on 12 November 2015 (“the Project”), and
b. Approves and adopts ‘Location Option 1 – Adjacent to Knights Drain’ described in this report and the land as is shown highlighted in red in Figure 2 contained in this report as the location for the Project (“the Land”).
c. Council accepts financial responsibility for the Project and funding for the purchase of the Land and the construction and commissioning of the Project is provided in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.
4. Delegates authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to purchase the Land for the Project and dispose of any land necessary to facilitate the project or that becomes surplus, and in doing so to negotiate and enter into any such agreements with all parties on such terms and conditions as he shall consider expedient or necessary.
4.2 The options assessment is presented in two stages. The first stage identifies the preferred type of intervention (i.e. the public work) to meet the Council’s objective to deliver the remediation option adopted by the Council by its resolution of 12 December 2015. The second stage identifies the preferred location for the public work. The following feasible options are considered in this report for the purposes of identifying the preferred public work:
4.3 In terms of identifying the type of intervention or public work required to meet the Council’s objective, Option A has been identified by staff as the preferred option. It provides the greatest certainty of benefit, highest resilience and the lowest maintenance. It is also the preferred option in Councils design guidance.
4.4 The second stage of the assessment is necessarily based on an assumption that the Council decides to construct a Storage Pond and Treatment Pond or Wetland (the preferred Option A mentioned above) and considers the preferred location of that public work. The options to be considered are:
4.6 In terms of identifying the location of the public work to meet the Council’s objective, ‘Location Option 1 – Adjacent to Knights Drain’ has been identified by staff as the preferred option. This option involves the purchase of approximately 13 properties within the triangle of land between Knights Drain, Pages Road and Anzac Drive. A storage pond and upgrades to the existing wetland, would then be built to provide significantly increased storage and provide water quality, recreational and landscape benefits.
4.7 Overall Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of the Storage Pond and Treatment Pond or Wetland Adjacent to Knights Drain (preferred option) are provided below:
· Significant reduction in overall risk profile to a wide range of hazards within the catchment (as discussed in paragraph 4.9 below)
· Wider water quality and hazard reduction benefits than current approved concept (pump station and small pond)
4.8 The budget required to deliver the preferred option is estimated at $12.8 million (including a 15% contingency). The costs are broken down as follows:
4.9 This option presents a more resilient and sustainable long term option as it reduces the risk of flooding and reduces the potential impacts to the 13 properties of a range of current and future hazards: groundwater flooding, coastal inundation, liquefaction, earthquake induced land damage and tsunami.
5.1 Options for flood remediation in the Knights Drain and Aranui area were reported to Council on 12 November 2015. This report presented repair, remediation and enhancement options. It was resolved at that meeting to progress the remediation option to detailed design. The remediation option was split into Stage 1 and Stage 2:
5.1.1 Stage 1: Construction of a replacement pump station near to Anzac Drive (complete) and decommissioning of the existing PS204, remediation of the existing Knights Drain stormwater basin, and modifications to Knights Drain.
5.1.2 Stage 2: Construction of detention storage within Wainoni Park (not the subject of this report).
5.2 Pre-earthquake and post-earthquake floor levels estimated to be at risk from pluvial flooding within the catchment were earlier reported and are replicated in Table 1. The effect of the proposed mitigation works (Stage 1 and Stage 2) on at risk floor levels are also shown in Table 1.
5.3 The Stage 1 properties are a small subset of the numbers provided in Table 1. There is only one property that has not been demolished since the earthquakes, estimated to be at risk of floor level flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event. As part of recent investigations 56 properties are estimated to be at risk of foundation / underfloor flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event in the stage 1 area, including the one property at risk of floor level flooding.
5.4 Daily tidal flooding would occur if there were no infrastructure to protect the area and this is not consistent with current land use (residential housing). Continued residential occupation of the land necessitates protection against the tide in order to make the area habitable. There are 54 homes with floor levels estimated and/or surveyed within 100 mm of the 10% AEP tide level and a total of 58 homes with floor levels estimated and/or surveyed within 100 mm of the 2% AEP tide level. These numbers could significantly increase with sea level rise as a result of climate change.
5.5 The risk of inundation from the tide is currently managed by the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stopbanks. The state of the stopbanks was discussed in a report to ITE on 5 May 2016 and they are currently undergoing work to improve their resilience and longevity.
5.6 Stormwater pumping was identified as the preferred option and the preferred location of the pump station was back from the edge of the Avon River / Ōtākaro, to remove it from future lateral spread effects and to permit possible future realignment of the stopbanks (with the intention of increasing resilience and reducing the cost of the stopbanks and pump station). Until the final alignment of the stopbanks has been decided (governed by Residential Red Zone (RRZ) future use decisions) it is advantageous to locate new infrastructure as far away from the river as possible.
5.7 Following the 12 November 2015 meeting SCIRT was instructed to progress design and construction of the new pump station, rising main and stormwater basin upgrades. In progressing the design and construction they identified two key issues:
· Cost: The work at that time identified higher projected cost for delivery of the proposed Stage 1 works being a pump station, rising main and stormwater basin. The estimated costs rose from approximately $7 million +/- 30% to approximately $11 million +/- 30%
· Basin form: More detailed topographic and groundwater data have shown that a wetland upstream of the proposed pump station on existing Council owned land alone will not yield the desired storage volumes. If no additional land is available a wet pond will be required in place of the existing wetland and this is unlikely to achieve a significant water quality benefit if it were to operate in isolation
5.8 The increased estimated costs for the project provided an opportunity to review alternative options that could meet the project and programme objectives and deliver better value for the community. As a result Council instructed SCIRT to construct the pump station and rising main only and proceeded to investigate options for storage upstream of the pump station which are the subject of this report. The construction of the pump station is now complete at a cost of $4.8 million.
5.9 An investigation was undertaken by Aurecon that developed options to improve both water quality and water quantity objectives (Attachment A). 13 water quantity and 14 water quality options are evaluated qualitatively in the Aurecon report. As discussed in the Aurecon report attached, these options were then combined into eight location options that met both objectives. The Aurecon report evaluates these eight options using a multi criteria assessment (MCA) that included subject matter specialists and representatives from the options investigation team. This report was made publically available during the consultation period.
5.10 This Council report describes this process in two parts. Identification of the preferred type of work and the identification of the preferred location of the work. However, the full 8 options are evaluated in the attached Aurecon report regardless of type, to give greatest certainty to Council that the types of work that are not preferred in the first part of the evaluation would not yield the final preferred option.
5.11 There are three types of works that could be enacted to achieve Council’s objective to significantly improve flood attenuation storage upstream of the new pump station and provide water quality enhancement while requiring low or infrequent maintenance:
5.12 Options that have open space provide a much wider range in benefits for the community. Landscape, recreational, cultural and ecological benefits can all be obtained through use of options that provide ponds or wetlands. Ponds and wetlands have been installed and operated across the city for a long time with relatively well understood benefits. With suitable bank reinforcement they are relatively resilient as they are easy to repair following an earthquake.
5.13 Rain gardens can provide landscape and streetscape benefits but have reduced ecological and recreational benefits and more challenging maintenance due to their distributed nature. The effectiveness of rain gardens can also be impacted by poor maintenance leading to reduced soakage rates. Given the engineered nature of rain gardens in urban areas they can be less resilient than a pond in an earthquake event.
5.14 Filtration devices provide water quality benefits alone and are promoted in areas where other options are not feasible or cost effective. Filtration devices can also have significant maintenance costs and are in this location, less resilient in comparison to the other options, i.e. they are most difficult to modify following an event, require the greatest hydraulic head and are typically concrete structures that are subject to buoyancy effects. Council is currently constructing a large device within the Bell’s Creek catchment on Richardson Terrace. This device has been installed as a pilot to help understand construction and ongoing maintenance costs, which need to be better understood in the local Christchurch environment.
5.15 The Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan Blueprint (which supports Council’s application for the global stormwater discharge consent for the catchment) identifies a treatment toolbox which includes all the above options for water quality treatment. The blueprint prioritises and ranks a wide range of treatment options based upon a number of values supported. The following rankings were provided for the water quality options that are considered feasible in this project:
· Filtration Devices ranked eleventh (least preferred of options presented in this report for this particular circumstance)
5.16 Other highly ranked options from in the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan Blueprint were not considered feasible or discounted in the attached Aurecon report (Attachment A).
5.17 This assessment is consistent with the Council’s Surface Water Strategy 2009 – 2039 and Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide. These two documents provide the guiding framework for implementation of stormwater management across the city.
5.18 The Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide also provides guidance on suitable approaches to managing water quantity. Again, open space options with storage are preferred above pumped options as they support multiple values. In the Knights Drain catchment a pump station is required as the land is below high tide level, however options that include storage upstream would be more consistent with Council guidance and best practice.
5.19 The criteria used to assess options in both parts of the assessment are: resilience, water quality outcome, non-drainage values, operations and maintenance, constructability / ease of implementation and disruption. The above list is provided in order of importance within the assessment. The water quantity benefits of each option, now and in the future, were assessed within the resilience criteria. The average score for options by type is provided in Table 2 below:
5.20 The findings are similar to the ranking provided in the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan Blueprint and other Council guidance document. Option A – Storage Pond and Treatment Pond or Wetland is recommended to Council as the proposed public work as it will best meet the project objectives. This option also provides the greatest certainty of benefit, highest resilience and the lowest maintenance. It is also the preferred option in Councils design guidance.
5.22 These options are described fully in the options sections below. The Location Options are assessed using the same criteria as is applied to the type of public work. A fifth option: Do Nothing is also described in the sections below to provide Council a full range of possible options. However, the do nothing option was not evaluated through the MCA process as it does not meet the project objectives.
5.23 Cost was evaluated separately and plotted against MCA score (Figure 1). This helps to indicate options that are good ‘value for money’. Cost was also included explicitly in the MCA assessment in a sensitivity test to help understand if a different approach would provide similar outcomes. The sensitivity test showed little change to the ranking of options with the same option preferred in both assessments. The costs shown in this plot and the attached Aurecon report differ from the budgets quoted in this Council report as they do not include the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main costs or the overall project contingency.
5.24 The preferred option identified during the MCA (‘Option 1: Storage/treatment in triangular area’ in the attached Aurecon report) is included in this report as the preferred option. This option is to significantly increase the size of the existing stormwater basin and repair the existing wetland. This option had the highest non-price score and was found to be of highest value for Council as it:
5.25 Delivery of this option requires the purchase of approximately 13 properties adjacent to Knights Drain. Purchase of these properties better addresses the wider range of hazards faced by this part of our community than the option resolved by Council on 12 November 2015.
5.26 Location Option 3 was identified as next favourable and is to construct a basin and wet pond / wetland within the RRZ (described within the attached Aurecon report as ‘Option 3: Storage/treatment in the Red Zone’). This option also had high non-price scoring and is estimated to be at a similar but lower cost. However this option was assessed as having lower resilience due to the proximity to the Avon River / Ōtākaro. Delivery of this option would require access to the RRZ, which at this stage is highly uncertain.
5.27 Location Option 2 and Location Option 4 have significantly higher cost than Location Options 1 and 3. They are not preferred as they are less efficient hydraulically and require works on likely contaminated land. Options 2, 3 and 4 have similar non-price scores.
5.28 Council’s strategic planning framework for the current Long Term Plan seeks to achieve community outcomes for Christchurch. Delivery of improved water quality and flood risk reduction help work towards meeting a number of community outcomes:
· Statutory obligations are met by the Council: delivering water quality improvements will aid Council in meeting its obligations and targets for stormwater discharge
· Urban areas are well designed and meet the needs of the community: in applying a 6-values approach to stormwater management Council meets a higher number of needs for the community, including landscape, recreational, cultural and drainage needs
· People participate in a wide range of recreational activities: options that include water quality enhancement utilising open space (e.g. the preferred option) increase opportunities recreational activities such as walking and also provides a small area where the public can access a place of natural interest
· Communities are safe: Risks from natural hazards including earthquakes, flooding and tsunami are minimised with the preferred option
· Christchurch’s unique landscapes and indigenous biodiversity are protected and enhanced: open space options can provide new habitat for indigenous water bird species, potentially including threatened species such as black cormorant, little cormorants, Australasian bittern, and marsh crake. Fresh water wetland plant communities are acutely threatened and this proposal presents an opportunity to provide and extend existing wetland habitat that is currently at risk of multiple threats
· Water quality and quantity are protected and restored: Water quality in the Avon River / Ōtākaro will be improved with the preferred option
· The community values natural resources and uses them sustainably: Options with open water and wetland components provides for a potential source of mahinga kai such as medicinal plants, cultural resource (harakeke for weaving) and celebration and transfer of traditional knowledge
· Christchurch’s infrastructure supports sustainable economic growth: Enacting flood mitigation will reduce flood risk and the consequential loss of production. This also extends to the mitigation of other natural hazard for the occupants of the properties within the footprint of the preferred option
5.29 In addition to the benefits of the proposed public work (the preferred option), the properties within the area between Knights Drain, Anzac Drive and Pages Road are exposed to many of the natural hazards that can be expected in the eastern suburbs flat land areas including: earthquakes and liquefaction, fluvial and pluvial flooding, coastal inundation, and tsunami. For this area there are also potential man-made hazards such as contaminated groundwater from adjoining historic landfills.
5.30 This area has been significantly impacted by the 2010 - 2016 Canterbury Earthquakes ('the earthquakes'). The recent earthquake series is responsible for significant global land settlement with survey data showing a measureable 'land drop' associated with each large event – ‘global’ settlement has been measured in excess of 0.5 m in some areas. The low lying properties adjacent to the existing drain are now approximately 0.5 m to 1 m below green zone properties immediately adjacent to the RRZ in South New Brighton and Southshore.
5.31 As global settlement (and ground surface deformation) has been a significant feature associated with each earthquake event, a similar effect can be expected in future events, such as, another significant aftershock or the rupture of any large regional fault, such as, the Alpine or Hope Faults.
5.32 Global settlement has significantly altered the hazard profile of the properties immediately adjacent to the drain. This area highlights how individual hazards can cascade: major earthquake shaking triggers an immediate ground response which then causes cascading hazards like liquefaction, lateral spreading, ground subsidence and increased flooding/ inundation vulnerability.
5.33 Groundwater levels are likely to rise with sea levels. The impact of sea level rise on groundwater levels is not currently accurately quantified and could have a significant impact on this area. The existing pump station and stormwater network could be used to control groundwater and this is likely to require pumping increasing quantities of groundwater.
5.34 There is considerable risk to any existing or future built development. If a LIM were requested for one of these properties it could contain approximately eight (8) different flood notes, and notes relating to earthquake related land damage, vulnerability to liquefaction, coastal erosion, uncontrolled filling and waterway setbacks. A building consent application has resulted in a hazard notice being placed on the title of the only recently constructed dwelling in the area of interest.
5.35 Future land damage could result in further increases in flood, tsunami and liquefaction vulnerability.
5.36 Only the preferred option will significantly reduce these risks to the community as the other options do not include works on areas that are currently occupied.
6.1 The Storage Pond and Treatment Pond or Wetland Adjacent to Knights Drain Option is located in a triangle of land bounded by Knights Drain, Pages Road and ANZAC Drive (Figure 2) and includes:
· Construction of a low bund in front of approximately three properties along Pages Road to protect low lying floor levels
6.2 To provide the required stormwater storage and water quality treatment the area will need to be dug out by approximately one and a half to two metres to form two ponds. Flow will be diverted into the ponds via a new connection from Knights Drain. The water will travel through the ponds where the sediment and some of the contaminants can settle out and back to Knights Drain upstream of the pump station.
6.3 The existing timber lined Knights Drain will be realigned further away from the existing properties and remain connected to provide an overflow path to the pump station in extreme events when the capacity of the ponds has been exceeded. Both ponds will remain wet at all times as the base will be below the groundwater table. The banks of the ponds will be stabilised to prevent any increase in lateral spreading risk to the neighbouring properties. The existing Knights Wetland at the north of the site will be retained and enhanced. It is desirable to connect the wetland to the ponds to provide additional water quality benefits. Options to achieve this will be explored through the detailed design.
6.4 The proposed landscape concept for the scheme incorporates native coastal forest and floodplain plants surrounding the ponds to provide shading, support birdlife and reflect and enhance the surrounding environment. The space will be accessible to the public with a footpath and viewing platform where the public can observe the wetland and birdlife from. Some tree removals will be required to enact the works. A landscape plan for the proposed work was developed to inform public consultation (Figure 3).
· It is located at an existing low point in the catchment and adjacent to the Knights Drain, Knights Wetland and the new pump station
· Groundwater is very shallow in this location and the existing soil is poorly drained, so the location is suitable for construction of ponds
· There are existing residential properties in this location that are likely to be flooded in extreme rainfall events. The preferred option removes the residents from this risk. Approximately 20 of the estimated number of properties with the risk of foundation / underfloor flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event will be benefited by this option
· There are no known contamination sites in this location, but there are known contamination sites in other locations which would make an option in those locations more costly and more difficult to construct
· Improved landscape, drainage and ecological outcomes, particularly with a wet pond, in comparison to the other options
· A pond in the proposed location keeps all stormwater assets in one location, adjacent to the existing Knights Drain and Pump Station. This reduces operations and maintenance requirements
· Provides a resilient long term outcome for remaining low-lying properties that will be impacted negatively by sea level rise
6.6 An assessment of the water quality benefits has been undertaken. A continuous simulation water quality computer model of the proposed works was developed to quantify the potential range in water quality benefits. Estimates have been established of the mean annual load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) that may be discharged from the Knights Drain catchment both before and after the construction of the proposed stormwater facility. TSS has been used in the analysis as an indication of the removal of other contaminants.
6.7 The modelling showed that the likely range in percentage reduction in TSS removal with the preferred option is between approximately 60% and 85%. Use of the existing wetland is important in achieving higher contaminant removal rates. The total residual annual sediment load could be as low as 0.6 m3/year following the completion of the works compared to an estimated inflow of up to 3.9 m3/year. This is consistent with the treatment achieved by stormwater treatment devices typically installed in Christchurch. Options for further water quality enhancement will be explored during the detailed design and could include devices such as floating treatment wetlands.
Figure 3 Indicative landscape plan for Location Option 1 (preferred option) (included within Attachment 2)
· 5 are owned by Council – one is 'currently occupied' with a water supply pump station (proposed for decommissioning) and the remaining sections are vacant. The lots are held for the following purposes:
· 1-7 Charles Gallagher Place - Currently held in Social Housing portfolio. Also includes water supply pump station
· 8 are privately owned developed residential sections, of which 1 has on it a house that has recently been constructed.
6.9 Designating this land as a reserve and using it for land drainage purposes would resolve the multiple hazards that are present with the current residential land uses.
6.10 The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report. Community engagement is consistent with this level of significance.
6.11 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Improvements in discharge water quality are consistent with feedback received on the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan and the Iwi Management Plan.
6.12 Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Thursday 18 May 2017 to Wednesday 7 June 2017.
6.13 The consultation leaflet was delivered to 95 properties, 33 absentee landowners and 155 key stakeholders (Attachment 2). A drop in session was held on site and was attended by approximately 14 local residents where the project team was able to answer questions and discuss the project further. The consultation leaflet discussed the plans for the preferred option but also identified the range of options that had been considered and attached a link to the Aurecon report.
6.14 One on one meetings were held with affected property owners in August 2016 to get an understanding of each individual situation. Following further investigations, another round of meetings was held in April/May 2017 with these property owners (prior to community engagement), to discuss the proposal and how this will affect them and to ensure they had a full understanding of the project, engagement and Council approval process, and also how they can be involved.
6.15 During the course of the engagement, Council received 16 submissions with the following results:
6.16.1 Link into Farnborough Reserve: A footbridge over the drain was removed as part of the construction of the new pump station. This bridge promoted pedestrian and cycle access from ANZAC Drive to privately owned land at the end of Brightstone Crescent (number 32 Brightstone Crescent). The bridge was not reinstated as it promoted public access over privately owned land.
6.16.2 Maintenance of the area when built: Questions were raised about the maintenance of the original wetland area with overgrown vegetation and gross pollutants. The proposed option will act as a gross pollutant trap, particularly the sediment fore bay. Ongoing maintenance will be required to provide a pleasant visual appearance to the basin.
6.16.3 Maintain the shared path on Anzac Drive: The existing shared path width will be maintained as a minimum with the proposed works. Opportunities to widen the footpath along Pages Road into a shared path will also be explored during detailed design.
6.16.4 Support for the proposal and the reduction in flood risk: Submissions in support of the proposal are welcomed.
6.16.5 Impact on existing homeowners: Concerns were raised in writing and during the drop in session by occupants and adjoining landowners about the potential impacts on property owners. The ability for existing landowners to afford properties in other areas was a key point of concern. These concerns were not expressed by the landowners themselves in the written submissions. Four written submissions were received from landowners, all of which supported the proposed works. There were no written submissions from land owners in opposition to the works. However, verbally, one owner has expressed a desire to remain in their property.
6.16.6 Concern regarding midges/mosquitos: Given the proximity to the waste water treatment plant oxidation ponds there were concerns raised about midges and mosquitos. Urban midge swarms are more commonly associated with wastewater ponds, which have much higher nutrient and organic loadings than stormwater ponds. This is confirmed by the experience of the stormwater operations team. Ways to reduce the risk of midge and mosquitos will be considered during detailed design.
6.17 A letter has been sent to all submitters advising the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Council meeting, and how they can speak to their submission if they wish. Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback received, decision making process and Council report.
6.18 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Construction of a water quality feature would be consistent with the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan and the Surface Water Strategy 2009-2039.
6.19 Cost of Implementation - The cost for this option has been estimated based at the concept design stage at $12.8 million including a 15% contingency and the $4.8 million spent on the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main. This assumes:
· Properties can be purchased at 2016 rateable values. This is estimated to be approximately $2.5 million. Market valuations will be required to support negotiations or application of statutory powers and the valuation is likely to differ from the 2016 valuation. An allowance of $3.5 million has been included for budgetary purposes
6.20 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The ongoing maintenance costs for the larger stormwater facility will be higher than the current expenditure. These are expected to be very minor in comparison to the construction costs.
6.21 Funding source – The Land Drainage Recovery Programme has approximately $150 million assigned in the LTP for use in the 2015/16 to 2018/19 financial years, and this is one of the high priority projects identified to use that funding. There is approximately $11 million in funding allocated to the project in FY16, 17 and 18 for Stage 1. This has funded the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main works at a cost of $4.8 million. Based upon current cost estimates additional funding of $1.8 million from the programme budget for the ponds will be required to complete the project. There is sufficient FY18 budget to fund the FY18 works including property purchase. The FY19 budget shortfall will be met through reprioritising projects within the LDRP programme.
6.22 Resource consents for the works will be required under the Resource Management Act 1991. Council holds a number of existing consents for enacting utility works. These consents may be applicable. The extent of consents required will be clarified during detailed design.
6.23 Access to private property and property purchase will be required to enact the works. Use of the provisions of the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, the Land Drainage Act 1908 or other Acts may be required to facilitate the works and the notification process within these Acts may need to be started in parallel with property negotiations. Compulsory purchase utilising the Public Works Act may be required and this will be reported on following engagement with the affected landowners (if that is in fact required).
6.24 Other consents, such as tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.
6.25 There are delivery risks associated with the proposed option, particularly around property acquisition. Risks associated with property purchase can be somewhat mitigated through use of statutory powers (if required). The need for application of these powers will be assessed following initial negotiations with affected landowners. There are financial and programme risks with implementing the Public Works Act. However utilising compulsory acquisition powers may be required to enact the works. Further land title investigations may vary the reported number of properties required for acquisition within the bounded area.
6.26 Construction costs could vary from the current cost estimates. Costs will be re-estimated with greater certainty as the design progresses. Property purchase costs can only be confirmed with market valuations following engagement with landowners.
6.27 Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage. Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified. Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.
6.29 Implementation timeframe – This is one of the highest priority projects to address post-earthquake flood issues within Christchurch. Therefore it is being fast-tracked by the Land Drainage Recovery Programme. This option may take up to 24 months more to complete. Delivery of this option is highly dependent on completion of property purchases, the timing of which are inherently uncertain.
· A significant reduction in overall risk profile to a wide range of hazards within the catchment. Provides the most resilient option to address future climate change effects
· Increased water quality benefits with the removal of approximately 60% to 85% of total suspended sediment
· Dropping predicted flood levels and extents in the estimated 2% AEP rainfall event below that estimated with the existing situation
· Provides buffer storage to optimise pump station operation and reduce ongoing maintenance of the pumps
· Protecting approximately 60 houses with floor levels estimated to be within 100 mm of the predicted 20% AEP tide level. These houses are protected by the existing pump station and will be protected by the proposed pond. Eight of these houses would be purchased to enact this work
· Reducing the risk for approximately 20 of the estimated remaining 56 houses at risk of underfloor flooding predicted in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event since the earthquakes. Prior to the earthquakes the number of houses at risk of underfloor / foundation flooding is estimated at 15
· Reducing the risk of floor level flooding for the only property predicted at risk post-earthquake in the estimated 2% AEP rainfall event that has not been demolished since the earthquakes
· Improved landscape, drainage and ecological outcomes, particularly with a wet pond, in comparison to the other options.
· The ability to provide a facility that may be able to utilise the existing wetland for water quality benefit
7.1 This option is similar to the preferred option except that the proposed stormwater storage / treatment facility would be constructed on the open space to the north-east of the new pump station at 40 Farnborough Street and 32 Brightstone Crescent (Figure 5). This would be more challenging to construct than the preferred option as much of the land is identified as a HAIL site (land contamination) and is at an elevated level above the drain. This land is currently privately owned.
7.2 This option would intercept a greater catchment than the preferred option, giving rise to a larger basin / pond. This pond would be particularly deep in order to have an invert about the level of the existing drain and adjoining properties. This depth leads to increased bank stability requirement to mitigate increases in lateral spread risk to adjoining properties. In order to mitigate this risk significant ground stabilisation and therefore cost would be incurred.
7.3 Given the position of the proposed works relative to the new pump station some works to the existing pump station and/or forebay may be required.
7.4 The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report. Community engagement is consistent with this level of significance.
7.5 The significance score is similar to the preferred option as property transactions would be required to enact the works.
7.6 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.
7.7 Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Thursday 18 May 2017 to Wednesday 7 June 2017. This option was noted in the consultation document. The Aurecon report provides greater detail on the option and this report was referenced in the consultation document and made available during the consultation period.
7.8 Questions were raised during the drop in session about options that utilise the open space occupied by these two properties. Questions from drop in attendees were responded to directly by staff. No written submissions were received that referenced utilising this land.
7.9 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Construction of a water quality feature would be consistent with the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan and the Surface Water Strategy 2009-2039. It also delivers to the community outcomes described in the LTP, but to a lesser degree than the preferred option with regards to community safety and a prosperous economy.
7.10 Cost of Implementation - The cost for this option has been estimated based at the concept design stage at over $15.8 million including a 15% contingency and the $4.8 million spent on the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main. This assumes:
· Disposal of fill within the Christchurch City environs can be achieved for non-contaminated materials (e.g. used or stockpiled for stopbank construction) and that contaminated land would have to be disposed of at the Kate Valley Landfill
· Properties can be purchased at 2016 rateable values. This is estimated to be approximately $600,000. Market valuations will be required to support negotiations or application of statutory powers and the valuation is likely to differ from the 2016 valuation. An allowance of $650,000 has been included for budgetary purposes
7.11 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The ongoing maintenance costs for the larger stormwater facility will be higher than the current expenditure. These are expected to be very minor in comparison to the construction costs.
7.12 Funding source – Based upon current cost estimates additional funding of $4.8 million from the programme budget for the storage / treatment facility will be required to complete the project. There is sufficient FY18 budget to fund the FY18 works including property purchase. The FY19 budget shortfall will be met through reprioritising projects within the LDRP programme.
7.13 Resource consents for the works will be required under the Resource Management Act 1991. Council holds a number of existing consents for enacting utility works. These consents may be applicable. The extent of consents required will be clarified during detailed design.
7.14 Access to private property and property purchase will be required to enact the works. Use of the provisions of the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, the Land Drainage Act 1908 or other Acts may be required to facilitate the works and the notification process within these Acts may need to be started in parallel with property negotiations. Compulsory purchase utilising the Public Works Act may be required and this will be reported on following engagement with the affected landowners (if required).
7.15 Other consents, such as tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.
7.16 As with the preferred option there are delivery risks associated with property acquisition necessary to enact the works. This can be somewhat mitigated through use of statutory powers of compulsory acquisition within the Public Works Act.
7.17 Construction costs could vary from the current cost estimates. Costs will be re-estimated with greater certainty as the design progresses. Property purchase costs can only be confirmed with market valuations following engagement with landowners.
7.19 Implementation timeframe – Delivery of this option is highly dependent on completion of property purchases, the timing of which are inherently uncertain.
· Dropping predicted flood levels and extents in the estimated 2% AEP rainfall event below that estimated with the existing situation for Knights Drain and Farnborough Street area
· Protecting approximately 60 houses with floor levels estimated to be within 100 mm of the predicted 20% AEP tide level. These houses are protected by the existing pump station and will be protected by the proposed pond
· Improved landscape, drainage and ecological outcomes, particularly with a wet pond, in comparison to options 3 and 4 as the proposed works could tie with the existing wetland area
· Lesser flood reduction and resilience than the preferred option as the existing residential developed land would remain occupied
· Significantly deeper excavation than the preferred option with increased geotechnical risks and costs of mitigation
8.1 This option is similar to the preferred option except that the proposed stormwater storage / treatment facility would be constructed on the RRZ to the east of ANZAC Drive (Figure 6). This would utilise the new stormwater culvert constructed beneath ANZAC Drive to convey flows to the RRZ but would be more challenging hydraulically than the preferred option. Sufficient land to construct both a water quantity and quality facility would be required. This land is currently owned by the Crown and is currently the subject to a Regeneration Plan process.
8.2 There is significant uncertainty in both the short term and long term with gaining access to the land required to enact this option as the land is subject to a separate planning process controlled by parties other than the Council. LINZ are the land managers for the Crown owned red zone land and will entertain temporary use. However permanent uses, particularly for significant areas of land as required for this project, must be considered through the Regeneration Plan process which will not be concluded until December 2018 at the earliest. In any event, the outcome of the Regeneration Plan process is unknown and unpredictable from the Council's perspective as the final decision is in the hands of the Minister. There is no certainty that any or sufficient land would be available to stormwater purposes in this particular area through this process. Delaying the construction of this option until the Regeneration Plan is approved would result in similar short term outcomes as Option 5 - Do Nothing, which results in prolonged exposure to natural hazards, inefficient pump station operation and poor stormwater quality discharges to the Avon River / Ōtākaro.
8.3 The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report. Community engagement is consistent with this level of significance.
8.4 The significance score is similar to the preferred option as property transactions would still be required to enact the works, albeit a transaction with the Crown.
8.5 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.
8.6 Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Thursday 18 May 2017 to Wednesday 7 June 2017. This option was noted in the consultation document. The Aurecon report provides greater detail on the option and this report was referenced in the consultation document and made available during the consultation period.
8.7 Questions were raised during the drop in session about options that utilise the RRZ. Two of the written submissions referenced the option of utilising the RRZ. One of the submissions was in opposition to the preferred option and suggested the RRZ as a suitable alternative. The other submission was in support of the proposal but with concerns relating to the potential to utilise the RRZ to lessen the impact on the existing land owners.
8.8 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Construction of a water quality feature would be consistent with the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan and the Surface Water Strategy 2009-2039. It also delivers to the community outcomes described in the LTP, but to a lesser degree than the preferred option with regards to community safety and a prosperous economy.
8.9 However, it is unknown if this option will be consistent with the impending Ōtākaro / Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. Council will have to give effect to the Regeneration Plan within the District Plan and an inconsistency could result that may necessitate abandoning the proposal.
8.10 Cost of Implementation - The cost for this option has been estimated based at the concept design stage at approximately $12 million including a 15% contingency and the $4.8 million spent on the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main. This assumes:
· RRZ land can be purchased from private land owners and the Crown at typical 2016 rateable land values. An allowance of $1 million has been included for budgetary purposes.
8.11 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The ongoing maintenance costs for the larger stormwater facility will be higher than the current expenditure. These are expected to be very minor in comparison to the construction costs.
8.12 Funding source – The Land Drainage Recovery Programme has approximately $150 million assigned in the LTP for use in the 2015/16 to 2018/19 financial years, and this is one of the high priority projects identified to use that funding. There is approximately $11 million in funding allocated to the project in FY16, 17 and 18 for Stage 1. This has funded the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main works at a cost of $4.8 million. Based upon current cost estimates additional funding of $1 million from the programme budget for the storage / treatment facility will be required to complete the project. There is sufficient FY18 budget to fund the FY18 works including property purchase. The FY19 budget shortfall will be met through reprioritising projects within the LDRP programme.
8.13 Resource consents for the works will be required under the Resource Management Act 1991. Council holds a number of existing consents for enacting utility works. These consents may be applicable. The extent of consents required will be clarified during detailed design.
8.14 This option would require property transactions between the Crown and Council in order to obtain right to access the land. Given that the Crown cannot be compelled to sell land utilising the Public Works Act 1981 or the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951 they would need to be treated on a willing buyer – willing seller basis. The timing of any property transaction is likely to be subject to the approval of and consistency with the Ōtākaro / Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. This risk can be reduced through ongoing engagement with Regenerate Christchurch, however, it cannot be eliminated.
8.15 Any proposed works on the eastern side of ANZAC drive could impede future options for realignment of the Avon River / Ōtākaro stopbanks. This could impact on the design and costs of these, unapproved, potential, future works.
8.16 Construction costs could vary from the current cost estimates. Costs will be re-estimated with greater certainty as the design progresses. Property purchase costs can only be confirmed in negotiation with the Crown.
8.18 Implementation timeframe – Delivery of this option is completely dependent on gaining access to the RRZ land, the timing and availability of which is inherently uncertain.
· Protecting approximately 60 houses with floor levels estimated to be within 100 mm of the predicted 20% AEP tide level. These houses are protected by the existing pump station and will be protected by the proposed wetland
· Stormwater assets constructed to protect the upstream properties would be separated by ANZAC Drive, reducing the overall resilience
· Requires land purchase from the Crown with a highly uncertain timeline and no certainty of available
9.1 This option is similar to the preferred option except that the proposed stormwater storage / treatment facility would be constructed in Bexley Park (Figure 7). This would be more challenging to construct than the preferred option as the land is a historic landfill site, is at an elevated level above the drain and further away from the pump station. Given the limited capacity of the drainage network between Bexley Park and the new pump station this option may be less effective at optimising the pump station operation.
9.3 The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report. Community engagement is consistent with this level of significance.
9.4 The significance score lower than other options as the works can be undertaken on public property.
9.5 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.
9.6 Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Thursday 18 May 2017 to Wednesday 7 June 2017. This option was noted in the consultation document. The Aurecon report provides greater detail on the option and this report was referenced in the consultation document and made available during the consultation period.
9.7 Questions were raised during the drop in session about options that utilise Bexley Park. Questions from drop in attendees were responded to directly by staff. No written submissions were received that referenced utilising this land.
9.8 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. Construction of a water quality feature would be consistent with the Avon River / Ōtākaro Stormwater Management Plan and the Surface Water Strategy 2009-2039. It also delivers to the community outcomes described in the LTP, but to a lesser degree than the preferred option with regards to community safety and a prosperous economy.
9.9 Cost of Implementation - The cost for this option has been estimated based at the concept design stage at over $16.8 million including a 20% contingency and the $4.8 million spent on the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main. This assumes:
9.10 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The ongoing maintenance costs for the larger stormwater facility will be higher than the current expenditure. These are expected to be very minor in comparison to the construction costs.
9.11 Funding source – Based upon current cost estimates additional funding of $5.8 million from the programme budget for the storage / treatment facility will be required to complete the project. There is sufficient FY18 budget to fund the FY18 works including property purchase. The FY19 budget shortfall will be met through reprioritising projects within the LDRP programme.
9.12 Resource consents for the works will be required under the Resource Management Act 1991. Council holds a number of existing consents for enacting utility works. These consents may be applicable. The extent of consents required will be clarified during detailed design.
9.13 Bexley Park is a local park and is not held under the Reserves Act. Construction of a new pond/basin would not be consistent with the park masterplan. Any decision to discontinue the use of Bexley Park for recreational purposes in whole or in part would require the Council to consider the views and preferences of interested or affected persons. If those views and preferences are not currently known, then any proposal may need to consulted upon.
9.14 Other consents, such as tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.
9.15 Construction costs could vary from the current cost estimates. Costs will be re-estimated with greater certainty as the design progresses. This is particularly the case given the potential for escalation in costs relating to disposal of contaminated material.
· Dropping predicted flood levels and extents in the estimated 2% AEP rainfall event below that estimated with the existing situation for Knights Drain
· Less effective at optimising the pump station operation due to limitations in network capacity between the storage site and the pump station
· It is inconsistent with the current Bexley Park Masterplan and is likely to require further consultation
· Highest cost of any option including a high cost risk. Significantly higher costs and cost risk than the preferred option
10.1 Given the current projected increases in cost, one option is to do nothing. However, halting the project would not address risks with a range of hazards that would be mitigated in the preferred option. Operation of the new pump station would be less optimal than desired and there would be ongoing discharges of contaminated stormwater to the Avon River / Ōtākaro.
10.2 The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report. The community has not been explicitly consulted on this option, however, feedback forms used as part of the consultation did allow for comments to be provided.
10.3 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Māori, their culture and traditions.
10.4 The Mayoral Flood Taskforce 2014 noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.
10.5 Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Thursday 18 May 2017 to Wednesday 7 June 2017. This option was not described in the consultation document. There was significantly more submissions in support of the preferred option than against. This would indicate a general community desire to enact works.
10.6 A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board was held prior to the November 2015 Council Meeting to better understand community views and preferences in this area. This option was not favoured by the Community Board.
10.8.1 Inconsistency - It does not address the Activity and Level of Service identified in Section 4.1 of this report.
10.9 Cost of Implementation – No additional capital costs beyond the $4.8 million spent on the SCIRT delivered pump station and rising main.
10.10 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Maintenance costs for this option would increase due to increased wear on the pump station due to operational inefficiencies.
10.12 Halting the project may not be a popular decision with the community, and as this would be a 'change of mind' by the Council from its November 2015 decision, there may be a greater risk of a judicial review challenge to this decision.
10.13 A communication and consultation risk is present with this option as it was not favoured in feedback from the consultation.
· That it does not reduce the risk for the estimated 20 houses at risk of underfloor flooding that would be benefited by the preferred option predicted in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event since the earthquakes. This option does not provide any benefit to those remaining at risk of underfloor / foundation flooding
· Immediate flood risk reduction benefits (beyond what was achieved with the construction of the new pump station) would not be delivered if the project were delayed or halted
· That residents would suffer ongoing tangible and intangible damages in areas significantly affected by the earthquakes
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the Draft Cranford Regeneration Plan (Plan) to be submitted to Regenerate Christchurch in accordance with Section 35(1) (c) (ii) of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (GCRA). The Council approved an Outline for investigating the content of the Plan at its meeting on 15 December 2016. The Draft Plan is appended as Attachment 1.
21 June 2016, as part of its Annual Plan decisions. The Council requested the Chief Executive to report on the possible rezoning of land on the western side of Cranford Street to residential.
2.1 The decision in this report is of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the impact of the proposed land use change on those people affected; and the level of community interest already apparent for the proposal.
2.2 The matter is significant not only to a small group of people particularly affected (landowners) but also to a wider community that may have an interest in the decision to be made. There are also potentially significant issues concerning Ngāi Tahu.
4.1 This report is a step in the process for developing a Regeneration Plan under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (GCRA). The GCRA sets out the process that must be followed. The Christchurch City Council prepared an Outline for investigating a Regeneration Plan for:
· Enabling urban residential development at the edges of the Cranford Basin stormwater management facility which is integrated with the surrounding urban environment and proposed infrastructure works, as well as considering appropriate zones for the remaining parts of Cranford Basin;
· Implementing a waterway and pedestrian and cycle connection network, including integration with adjoining residential areas, stormwater management areas and the proposed Northern Arterial Extension; and
4.2 The Council has undertaken investigations into the land use options for the rural area outside of the Cranford Basin stormwater management facility, and developed a draft Regeneration Plan (‘draft Plan’) in accordance with the Outline, which was notified for written comments on
30 March 2017. The investigations are detailed in the Supporting Document: Background information & planning assessment found at Attachment 4.
4.3 The investigations evaluated four land use options: rural, commercial, industrial; and residential. These investigations, which included high level economic assessments, concluded that both the purpose of the GCRA and the overall policy direction for urban development in the District Plan, would be most appropriately achieved through a residential zoning over part of the area (some 38 hectares) with the remainder left as Rural Urban Fringe. Further evaluation of residential zoning options concluded that a mix of residential densities and housing typologies would best reflect both the varying and challenging geotechnical conditions in the proposed residential area, and the opportunities afforded by the area’s location close to a Key Activity Centre, public transport routes and social infrastructure.
4.4 Written comments have been considered, and the views of the statutory partners under Section 29 of the Act (Environment Canterbury, Regenerate Christchurch, Ōtākaro, Te Rūnanga’s Ngāi Tahu and DPMC) have also been considered. The views received on the draft Plan sent to the Parties on 2 February were attached to the Council Supplementary Agenda for the 23 March meeting. Those matters raised were considered in the Draft Plan as notified on 30 March and no further written feedback was received from those Parties in response to that Draft Plan. There have been on-going discussions with the Parties since 30 March particularly with Regenerate Christchurch and Te Rūnanga Ngāi Tūāhuriri. Further information has been provided to both Parties but two matters have not been fully resolved (refer to paragraph 4.10 and 4.11 below).
4.5 The Council’s statutory obligations as proponent under Section 35(1) (a) of the ('GCRA’) is to consider the comments and other input provided under Section 34; finalise the Plan, making any changes it thinks appropriate (Section 35(b)); and submit the draft Plan to Regenerate Christchurch for review (Section35 (c) (ii)). Section 34 is the part of the GCRA where the proponent invites public comment. It must also submit a concise statement of views of the Parties received as part of developing the Draft. This concise statement and other input provided under Section 34. These statements are attached as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.
4.6 The report has been informed by views of the parties required to be sought under Section 29 of the GCRA; feedback from the public on the draft Plan, assessments contained in the Supporting Document, and expert technical reports. The process under Section 35 (considering comments and other input) has been an iterative one because, as a result of the comments and feedback from the Parties, some matters arose that warranted further investigation and an opportunity for further input from people who had made written comment.
4.7 The main matters that were raised through feedback opposing the development were around traffic, flooding and unsuitable ground conditions. The community feedback has reinforced the need to put an upper limit on the scale of development to minimize the effects of traffic on the local network, and impose stringent geotechnical assessments both before land is zoned, and at the subdivision stage. There have been other changes, noted below, that have been made to the draft Plan as a result of engagement.
4.8 On balance, officers consider that the investigations undertaken as part of preparing the draft Plan, and through engagement, demonstrate that residential development is not only feasible, but will deliver regeneration outcomes that benefit the City and greater Christchurch.
4.9 However, further geotechnical and hydrogeological work will need to be done before subdivision. Officers also consider that the land drainage system can cope with all but the most extreme storm events, and other infrastructure such as schools, water supply and wastewater has the capacity to service the amount of development provided for. Transport assessments indicate that with the proposed limit on development, there will still be a gradual but noticeable effect on the local road network as housing becomes established, but not to the levels that will result in the need to reclassify roads.
4.10 Some issues raised in feedback on the draft Plan have not been able to be fully satisfied in the draft Plan, including:
· The protection sought by Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu of the cultural values of Waikākāriki / Horseshoe Lake from the effects of stormwater discharges. This is dealt with in the draft Plan as a supporting commitment to continue to work with Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu to investigate alternative stormwater discharge locations ;
· Concerns from local residents regarding the potential for adverse amenity effects from increased traffic on local roads. The draft Plan acknowledges that there will be a need in the future for the Council to consider whether traffic calming will be required on some roads;
· Concern expressed by Regeneration Christchurch that the draft Plan does not sufficiently require expedited regeneration outcomes for the Cranford area within specific timeframe. However, following an analysis of options, officers consider that there would be several complications for the District Plan if the Regeneration Plan required development to occur by a certain date, and promotes the use of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with landowners as the most appropriate method of addressing this risk. Officers have discussed these concerns with staff at Regenerate Christchurch;
· Concerns expressed by some landowners as to the workability and implementation efficiency of some of the rules in the draft Plan, in particular the joint subdivision and land use application and ‘exemplar’ development requirements. The Council has processes in place that address these matters, but it will need developer collaboration and support to make the exemplars work;
· Opinions expressed by local residents that there is no need to develop this land for housing at the moment, and that it should remain in rural use and / or as wetland. The Supporting Document behind the draft Plan addresses this issue (Section 6).
4.11 Of the above issues, the first and third, have not been completely resolved: the protection sought by Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu of the cultural values of Waikākāriki / Horseshoe Lake from the effects of stormwater discharges; and concerns expressed by Regeneration Christchurch that the draft Plan may not deliver expedited regeneration outcomes. To address these remaining concerns, further work has been undertaken, and two additional supporting commitments have been included in the draft Plan. We have, and will continue to engage with Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Regenerate Christchurch.
5.1 The appropriateness of enabling urban residential development at the edges of the Cranford area has been investigated and various land use options have been assessed identifying a preferred option. The technical analysis undertaken confirms that the main site specific constraints that have impeded urban development in parts of the draft Plan area can now be lifted, or in the case of geotechnical matters are better understood. The confirmation of the delineation of the Cranford Basin stormwater management area through the designation has determined the potential area where urban residential development can be considered – outside of the stormwater management area.
5.2 The proposal (preferred option) has been developed in accordance with the Outline approved by the Minister on 23 December 2016 in terms of its intent, scope, congruence with the GCRA’s purpose, and process. Although the time taken has been longer than indicated in the Outline, this remains ‘in accordance with’ the Outline because the timeframe set out in the Outline was indicative and ‘may be subject to change’.
5.3 The proposal as amended following feedback will achieve the purpose of the GCRA because it will enable landowners to convert, subdivide and rebuild inefficiently used, isolated and economically unviable former agricultural land around the fringes of parts of Cranford Basin for residential purposes. This will be done in a manner that is integrated with the proposed multi-purpose stormwater facility and transport projects. Appropriate land use zoning will result in the regeneration, renewal and development of this area through improving the environmental, economic, social, and cultural wellbeing of the local community, and revitalisation and improvement including enhancement of public open space.
5.4 The investigations have led to development of a draft Regeneration Plan that gives effect to regional and district planning land use frameworks. Appropriately managed urban residential development will not only implement these frameworks, but will complement the future establishment of a nearby multi-purpose wetland that will promote the social, cultural and environmental well-being of local communities and Christchurch generally. These will have downstream economic benefits for the local community including through support for local businesses and social infrastructure.
5.5 In order to facilitate urban residential development in parts of the draft Plan area, amendments are necessary to the CPRS and the CDP. The successful implementation of the Plan will, however, also depend on on-going engagement with the local community and a commitment by both the Council and community groups to the long term vision of the Cranford Basin stormwater management area.
5.6 An Engagement Plan was prepared in accordance with Section 4.4 of the Outline approved by the Minister on 23 December 2016. The process was led by Ann Campbell, Senior Consultation Leader, Christchurch City Council. The draft Plan was notified for public comment on 30 March 2017 with feedback closing on 2 May 2017. The following steps were taken:
5.6.1 The Draft Plan, a Supporting Document, and technical reports used to inform the Draft Plan were made available on the Council’s website on 30 March, the day of notification. Further updates were added to the website following the analysis of feedback.
5.6.2 Supplementary reports were prepared in response to matters raised in the feedback and drop-in sessions, and made available at the time when the Council notified people who had made written comments on how the issues raised in feedback were addressed. These reports were needed in order to provide additional information to the Council and public on specific matters that were raised in the feedback in order to finalise the Plan, including any changes. Two drop in sessions were held, both in the Paparoa Street School hall, which is well located in terms of accessibility for those residents most affected.
5.6.3 Meetings were held with senior staff at Papanui Primary School, Papanui High School and Paparoa Primary School. Meetings were also held with staff at pre-School (Kidsfirst) Rutland Street and Northlands / Kiwi Properties. There was ongoing liaison with landowners whose land was being proposed for housing.
5.7 A number of meetings and correspondence occurred with the parties listed in Section 29 of the GCRA: Environment Canterbury, Regenerate Christchurch, Ōtākaro, Te Rūnanga’s Ngāi Tahu and DPMC. With regard to Te Rūnanga, a hui was held on 4 May 2017 at Tuahiwi with representatives of Te Rūnanga Ngāi Tūāhuriri. A concise summary of views of the provided under Section 33 of the Act is attached as Attachment 2.
5.8 As a result of this engagement with Section 29 parties the following previously expressed concerns were either completely or largely resolved.
5.8.1 Matters of concern to Environment Canterbury regarding hazards, contaminated land, hydrogeology, details of proposed amendments to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the subdivision consenting process. These have been accepted in the revised Plan.
5.8.2 Ōtākaro Limited raised concerns on the potential effects of the proposed Cranford development on the Central City East Frame. Following further research and explanation over the likely timing of development at Cranford, Ōtākaro Limited did not pursue this matter further.
5.8.3 Regenerate Christchurch sought, among other things (see Attachment 2) the incorporation of ‘exemplar housing’ provisions in the Plan, and a rules or other methods that may cancel or defer the zoning if significant progress towards getting the development underway hasn’t progressed by a certain time. The latter has not been included in the draft Plan, but a supporting commitment for Council entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with landowners has been inserted to increase the likelihood of development being initiated in a timely fashion. Exemplar Housing provisions have been incorporated into the provisions.
5.8.4 Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is opposed to stormwater from the Cranford development discharging into Horseshoe Lake. The specific concern is that there should be a principle of net cultural improvement arising from the development and Te Rūnanga is of the view that the Plan fails to do this because it doesn’t provide for the wellbeing of Ngāi Tahu and its relationship with Horseshoe Lake. Ngāi Tahu supports a proposal by Council officers to divert stormwater from Wakakariiki / Horseshoe Lake and has indicated a commitment to continue discussions with Council to promote this option.
5.8.5 Ngāi Tahu is aware that the Regeneration Plan for the Ōtākaro / Avon River Corridor is being prepared and no decisions can be made at this time. However the regeneration plan process provides the opportunity for Christchurch City Council, Ngāi Tahu and Te Tūāhuriri Rūnanga to work through this process together to achieve the net cultural improvement. However, correspondence from Ngāi Tahu falls short of removing their opposition to the Cranford Regeneration Plan.
5.9 There were 121 written comments received in response to the notified draft Plan. Of these, 64 respondents were in general support, 45 respondents did not generally support the proposal and 12 respondents provided comments only. It should be noted that a considerable amount of support received appeared to just relate to the proposed wetland. A small number of the 121 submissions arrived late (or were sent late) and these were considered along with the others. The Council offered an opportunity to the submitters to speak to the Council officers (chaired by an independent expert) but this opportunity was not pursued by anyone other than some of the landowners, who have been subsequently contacted separately. A concise summary of the comments received as a result of public notification is attached at Attachment 3.
6.1 As noted above, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu either does not support, or is opposed to the development because the stormwater will discharge, via the Dudley Creek Diversion, into Waikākāriki / Horseshoe Lake. This opposition to the development led to preliminary investigations into possible alternatives to discharging stormwater into Horseshoe Lake. Council officers are still working with their counterparts at Regenerate Christchurch to investigate whether a new outfall can be constructed in a cost effective manner as part of planning for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. However, there is no formal commitment by the Council as yet to pursue any particular option through the Long Term Plan, but the Regeneration Plan includes a supporting commitment to continue to work with Ngāi Tahu and Regenerate Christchurch to investigate an alternative outfall in the general vicinity of Horseshoe Lake.
6.2 Although there were several comments calling for the proposed housing area to be left as rural and used for market gardening, the evidence is sufficiently compelling that the remaining land around the Cranford Basin is not viable for rural use. The investigations revealed that the land not required for flood management purposes should be used for housing, with the Cranford
Basin / wetlands as a centrepiece. The site is well located for residential development compared to other existing and potential housing areas, and this location should be taken advantage of.
6.3 The Council has a range of policy objectives in the CDP with regards to the provision of housing. The long term policy direction for the future growth of Christchurch is to reduce the amount of development going into areas at the edge of the urban area and consolidate and intensify growth within the existing urban area (for example Objectives 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 in the CPRS and Objective 3.3.7 in the CDP). An important part of these objectives is to encourage development near key centres such as Northlands / Papanui, as well as the central city and older inner suburbs. The area being proposed for housing is consistent with these objectives. Provided environmental effects can be managed the area is very well suited for housing.
6.4 The transport effects of the proposed development were of concern to the surrounding community, particularly effects on amenity, parking and safety (including for school children). These effects have been considered in the Integrated Transport Assessment which makes 11 recommendations for inclusion into the narrative of the North East Papanui Outline Development Plan (‘ODP’ to be inserted as Appendix 8.10.31 into the CDP if the draft Regeneration Plan is approved).
6.5 The Plan’s approach to deal with these effects is threefold: by ensuring that the development is ‘porous’ i.e. providing several options for entering and leaving the development area; by careful internal road design that includes traffic calming features; and placing a limit on the maximum number of house units (and by implication generation of vehicle trips). As well as limiting effects on the local road network it will provide additional choice and convenience. Several projects already underway in the area have been factored into traffic assessments. As part of public transport and cycleway provision, treatments to the Grassmere Street / Main North Road intersection are currently being explored as part of the public transport corridor improvements along Main North Road. The Northern arterial is under construction and programmed to be operational around 2021.
6.6 Several respondents raised matters of a detailed nature around the positioning, design and provision of cycle ways and pedestrian linkages. The ODP provides the framework for the provision of cycle ways and pedestrian linkages throughout the development area and integration into the strategic cycleway network. Those matters that have been raised will be either dealt with at the subdivision stage or through other expenditure programs. The ODP includes a rule that limits the number of vehicle crossings along the Papanui Parallel Cycleway as a means of reducing risks to cyclists.
6.7 Concerns have been raised regarding specific sites where there are existing or potential parking issues such as Grassmere / Grants Road, and Paparoa Street School. The proposed development will provide for its own parking needs, and separate actions are needed to address the concerns. For example, a school travel plan could be developed, with Council assistance, to manage parking and other traffic matters to ensure that children continue to have a safe route to school, and deal with congestion in the vicinity of the school.
6.8 A major concern raised in the comments is the problem of exiting from Grassmere Street onto Main North Road. Modelling suggests that the signalised Grassmere Street / Main North Road offers wider network advantages but impacts on public transport journey times along Main North Road. Treatments to the Grassmere Street / Main North Road intersection are currently being explored as part of the bus corridor improvements along Main North Road. These include a fully signalised arrangement as well as a restricted movement arrangement. However, the fact that no final decision has been made on the method of traffic management is not a reason to hold up the rezoning. Sufficient work has been undertaken to satisfy the Council that a solution is available to deal with the gradual increase of traffic from the development.
6.9 Even before the Canterbury Earthquakes the effects of liquefaction had become better understood and geotechnical assessments and foundation design given more attention than previously had been the case. The learnings from the Canterbury Earthquakes have brought these matters in to even more focus.
6.10 Several geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations into the feasibility of housing have been carried out for Cranford and these have found that the potential intensity of suitable development in this area varies markedly across the proposed development area. The conclusions from the geotechnical investigations are that housing is feasible in this location, but the density of development will vary and development costs will be higher. There is one area on the Outline Development Plan which requires a minimum density of 30 households per hectare, and geotechnical investigations have confirmed that the geotechnical conditions of this sub area will not be a constraint to achieving this density.
6.11 Building on organic rich soils including peat is technically challenging. It is however standard engineering practice and the effects, primarily those of settlement, can be designed against, likewise for liquefiable sediments. Piles are one potential solution to building on this type of ground. Others include surcharging the ground to consolidate the organic rich sediments. However, costs are likely to be higher than standard foundation design. The building code clearly requires structures to not pose a risk to occupants, including risks to property and occupants from natural hazards and poor ground conditions.
6.12 Detailed engineering design is not required at the rezoning stage. Should the land be rezoned a considerable amount of additional and more detailed technical assessments and design work will be required to meet the requirements of the District Plan, including those proposed within the East Papanui Outline Development Plan narrative. This includes a hydrogeological plan for the entire development area, before the granting of subdivision consent, to ensure effects on subsurface water disturbance can be internalized and mitigated or avoided. Further geotechnical work for foundation design is needed at the building consent stage.
6.13 Parts of the Grasmere and Case land, like extensive areas of Christchurch are identified as a Flood Management Area in the District Plan. This does not restrict development but does require new housing to meet minimum floor level standards. A portion of the Case / Crozier block is also identified as a Flood Ponding Management Area, which acts as a significant constraint on development. However, during construction of the Cranford Basin Stormwater detention area, allowance has been made for the future filling of this land. The Cranford Basin storage function has also been planned to allow for the existing catchment and the Northern Arterial Extension and provision for flood relief for Flockton Basin. Capacity is adequate to ensure that the Basin will not spill onto the surrounding land in a 50 year average recurrence interval storm, taking into account estimates for climate change rainfall increase. Basin capacity thus includes a substantial safety margin which could accommodate a larger storm or other eventualities such as future planning changes.
6.14 The area proposed to be rezoned for residential use is elevated above the 50 year average recurrence interval flood level, which is the national and local standard for protecting against inundation. The area in and around the Cranford Basin has a high water table which fluctuates from year to year. Lawns and gardens can be wetter in this area compared to other parts of the City, but this does not present a flood risk or health hazard provided houses are adequately designed to cope with this.
6.15 Inadequate capacity in the wastewater system was one of the main reasons development hasn’t happened in the Cranford area to date. The main problem was groundwater infiltrating the wastewater system during wet weather conditions. However, substantial work on the wastewater network has been done by the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) which includes increasing the capacity of the Northern Relief sewer. Stormwater effects from the proposed new residential development will be contained within the development.
6.16 The proposed ‘smart’ pressure sewer system for Cranford enables the Council to remotely monitor and control the pump on each property using ‘OneBox’ technology. This includes storm mode, which prevents pumps from pumping during a storm when the network is already at capacity, so that there would be no discharge to the Northern Relief from Cranford during a storm. This means that growth in Cranford can be accommodated.
6.17 Issues raised included implications for the Shearer Reserves, the need for more sports fields, and a desire to retain some of the existing trees. There are no plans to build on existing parks, such as Shearer Park and Rutland Reserve. These two parks, in addition to a new proposed Neighbourhood park, are proposed to be incorporated into the Regeneration plan for future and adjacent residents to use. Shared cycle / pedestrian paths (on drainage land) will also be provided between parks, streets and adjacent areas. The wetland reserve, once developed will provide for an extensive range of active and passive recreation opportunities, along with its other biodiversity and stormwater functions.
6.18 Comments received on trees sought one of three things: retention of the existing poplars next to the Rutland Reserve; planting oaks and other deciduous species as a landmark feature; and planting of indigenous vegetation. The poplars are not identified as having any special significance in the District Plan and are therefore not protected by any rules. There are however assessment matters in the Residential New Neighbourhood (RNN )subdivision provisions which may assist in the trees’ retention at the subdivision consent stage (refer to 8.8.9.1 Integration, context and place making).
6.19 There are sufficient community facilities in the local area to support the proposed new housing area.
6.20 There were a range of land use-related matters raised through the comments. One of these matters concerned retaining the soils for market gardening, and this was discussed above. Other submissions included whether there is a need for more housing, loss of rural outlook and effects on schools.
6.21 At a City wide scale there is no evidence of a shortage of housing land in either Greenfields areas or within the existing urban area. However this area is well located, compared to other existing and potential housing areas and should be taken advantage of by the market. The total number of houses being proposed is not significant in terms of the overall quantum of housing that is required to meet future needs. As stated 6.3 above in the Council has a range of objectives with regards to the provision of housing and the area being proposed for housing is consistent with these objectives.
6.22 The scale of development being proposed does not preclude other development in other parts of the City including the Central City and residential red zone. The Council regards getting people living in the Central City as a priority but the people attracted to there are likely to be looking for a different environment and lifestyle that that being offered in the Cranford area.
There are other parts of Christchurch which are less constrained but these areas are generally further towards the Airport, have other constraints e.g. near the coast, or on the Port Hills or beyond the City boundaries.
6.23 Houses that adjoin the proposed housing area could, over time, lose their current rural outlook due to a change in zoning. This is not an unusual situation and will happen where private landowners (or the Council) can successfully argue a case for edge -of- town urban expansion. It is only where land is in public ownership for a park or has some other protection status that there is some guarantee that it will never be built on (although there are probably instances where a reserve status can be uplifted). The property enjoying the rural amenity could experience a fall in value if that rural land use changes.
6.24 Property owners should not expect owners of those rural properties, for which there is a sound case for development, to forego benefits to provide amenity and sustain land values of others. Consideration can be given to ways of softening the effects of this change, e.g. by limiting dwelling heights. The draft Plan proposes that an 8m height restriction apply in the proposed RNN on the Case / Crozier site which will prevent the potential worst case scenario of an 11m multi-unit dwelling being built on the rear boundary of Frome Place properties adjoining the RNN Zone. The existing driveway from Cranford Street will provide a buffer and the ODP has been amended to keep this access / egress driveway in its current position.
6.25 A matter that has come to the attention of officers through a late submission is the potential ‘reverse sensitivity effects of new residential development on the Top 10 Holiday Park. There are rules in the District Plan that require the Holiday Park to internalise its effects (e.g. light spill and noise) but this may not always be possible. Therefore the draft Plan requires consideration to be given at the subdivision and land use consenting stage to how ‘reverse sensitivity’ effects can be managed.
6.26 The zone rules that apply to the proposed residential areas are those contained in the RNN Zone. This zone is tailored to providing a mix of low and medium residential density development in greenfield neighbourhoods in accordance with the CDP and CPRS. A net minimum density (averaged over the Outline development plan) of at least 15 households per hectare is also required. The zone allows for a wide range of residential house types and section sizes to provide for a wide spectrum of household sizes and affordable housing. These areas are intended to achieve higher overall residential densities than traditionally achieved in suburban developments. (Officers accept that development costs for the proposed area will make affordable housing difficult to achieve).
6.27 One of the issues for the zone is that, because it requires a minimum density, there is some difficulty in calculating the exact number of households that could be established. This is important for assessment of traffic effects and effects on other infrastructure. Thus for the Grassmere block, theoretically, the minimum yield would be a minimum of 495 (33 hectares at 15 households per hectare) but depending on how much medium density is provided (at a minimum density of 30 households per hectare) the potential yield could be more than that.
6.28 A further complicating factor in the Grassmere block is that around half the land is identified as being ‘constrained’ on the Outline Development Plan. This land is not required to reach the minimum 15 households per hectare, but it could exceed this over some parts, but be significantly less in others.
6.29 The way the Regeneration Plan deals with this issue is by putting a limit on the number of households. It needs to do this to ensure effects on the local road network can be managed and appropriately manage the risk of development affecting the delicate sub surface ground conditions.
6.30 The intent of the cap is to strike a balance between being consistent with the policy of encouraging residential development near the KAC, minimising effects on the local road network and ground conditions, and making efficient use of the land. The 370 figure in the notified Draft Plan for the Grassmere block was derived from very conservative assumptions around yields and these have been reviewed. The potential yield from the ODP is closer to 530 applying the net density definition to its full potential, which includes a 5 hectare Residential Medium Density overlay at a minimum of 30 households per hectare. In view of the traffic modelling, the Integrated Transport Assessment, and local concerns around traffic safety and congestion, officers consider that a) a cap is necessary because there is no upper limit under the RNN zone and the minimum potential of around 530 could result in adverse traffic effects on Grants Road; and b) the cap should be in the general vicinity of the 370 as notified.
6.31 For the Case / Crozier properties the draft Plan zoned the land Residential Suburban Transitional Zone (Living 2 in the previous City Plan). The intent was to enable the development of a range of housing types in line with Goals 1 and 2 in the Plan. However this zone does not easily integrate with the Outline Development Plan rules so it has been decided to zone this land RNN as well. This raises the same issues about not being able to predict final yields so a limit has been placed on this land as well. The limit is sixty which should meet the minimum of 15 households per hectare required by the Zone while at the same time ensuring that this small site is not over developed. The site is constrained by the access restrictions from Cranford Street, the lack of access options generally, and (until filled) the Flood Ponding Management Area. This enables the density to be less if the detailed subdivision planning determines that this would be the best outcome. A blanket 8m height limit has been imposed to reduce the effects of the new development on existing neighbours.
6.32 Regeneration Christchurch commented that, in order to justify the use of the GCRA, ‘exemplar’ housing standards must be included in the draft Plan. The subdivision and land use rules package requires an assessment on whether the development is exemplary, including whether it:
ii. Results in ‘Lifemark 3’ as a minimum standard for residential buildings or is of a proven equivalent;
iii. Results in ‘Homestar 6’ as a minimum standard for residential buildings or is of a proven equivalent;
iv. Demonstrates diversity in building and unit typology as well as providing for affordable housing;
6.33 In order to be able to enforce these standards, both subdivision and land use are Restricted Discretionary Activities (RDA) for the Grassmere Block, meaning resource consent can be declined for either. For the Crozier Road Block subdivision and land use are Controlled Activities with the above design quality matters listed as matters that will be considered as part of granting consent.
6.34 One of the reasons for using the GCRA is to expedite the potential for development in order to maintain a choice and supply of housing in this part of Christchurch. In using this legislation the Council as proponent has taken all practical steps to ensure development starts quickly. The aim is to get part of the Grassmere block and all of the Case Crozier land developed before the GCRA ceases to exist in 2021.
6.35 Numerous alternatives have been considered for encouraging landowners to expedite development. The preferred method is to prepare a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and landowners recording an understanding over the timeframes of development, which has been reasonably successful in the Prestons’ development.
7.1 The Council would decide not to submit the Plan for review by Regenerate Christchurch for whatever reason, for example, not being satisfied with the content of the draft Plan.
7.2 The level of significance of this option is high because of the community interest already apparent, the effort and cost that has gone into the project, and possible risks and costs to Council from the decision being challenged.
7.4 This option would be consistent with the current position of Ngāi Tahu which is to oppose the draft Plan until an alternative to Horseshoe Lake for the discharge stormwater is made available.
7.5 This option would be supported by those who provided comments opposing the draft Plan, particularly those who expressed concerns about the suitability of the land for development, and effects of traffic on the local road network. It would not be supported by the landowners whose land is proposed to be rezoned, or the submissions in support of the draft plan.
7.6 This option would be inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies insofar as the overall policy direction for urban development is concerned (e.g. Objective 3.3.7 in the District Plan).
7.7 As the development is privately funded the financial implications of not proceeding would be neutral.
7.8 Whilst Section 35(1) of the GCRA states that the Council must finalise and submit the draft Plan for Regenerate Christchurch to review, this must be subject to the Proponent (Council) first deciding whether to proceed with the Regeneration Plan. This is particularly the case here as the Outline stated that the proponent was to ‘investigate’ the feasibility of residential development.
7.9 This draft plan is the first example of a proposed plan change using the GCRA. It would likely create some concern for future application of the Act if the first opportunity for application of the Act did not proceed as planned. This perceptual and reputation risk would be difficult to mitigate, but in-and-of itself, is not a reason to proceed – simply, as issue to note.
7.11 There would be lost opportunity to provide housing in this area until potentially 2025 or later.
7.12 The advantages of this option are largely environmental. The land and subsoil would remain undisturbed, neighbours would continue to have a rural outlook and the local road network would in the long term have potentially slightly less traffic.
7.13 The disadvantages of this option include a missed opportunity for Council to realise the advantages stated in the assessments around regeneration, environmental enhancement, more efficient use of land, provision of additional houses and greater connectivity through the regeneration plan area.
8.1 The Council could hold the draft plan over for a specified time if for example it wanted additional engagement with Ngāi Tahu or further information to be provided.
8.2 The level of significance of this option is high because of the risk of the Plan being delayed and the then unmet expectations of stakeholders and strategic partners. Delays to the submission process would likely begin to compound with the general election process and the issues around Ministerial decision making during this and the immediate post-election period.
8.3 There could be further engagement requirements depending on the reason for delaying submitting the draft Plan.
8.4 This option could be consistent with the views expressed by Ngāi Tahu concerning their commitment to holding further discussions with the Council on finding alternatives to the Horseshoe Lake stormwater outfall. However there is no guarantee that Ngāi Tahu would formally remove its opposition to the draft Plan.
8.5 Any further delays could raise questions as to whether the draft Plan is in accordance with the timetable set out in the Outline.
7.12 Implementation timeframe – The length of the delay could extend beyond that intended depending on what the reason for the delay was.
7.13 There are no advantages of this option unless there is certainty that progress would be made with formal notice from Ngāi Tahu that it is no longer opposed to the draft Plan.
Delays could mean that the draft Plan wouldn’t be considered by Regenerate Christchurch until early 2018 which reduces the benefits of using the GRCRA and risks challenges on the basis that the draft Plan is not in accordance with the timeframes set out in the Outline.
9.1 Officers consider that the draft Plan can be submitted to Regenerate Christchurch. It has been subject to a thorough and robust technical assessment which has been peer reviewed. Community engagement has been undertaken in accordance with the Council’s Engagement Policy, and in a manner set out in the Outline.
9.2 There are two matters that have yet to be formally agreed with the parties listed in Section 29 of the GCRA: whether Ngäi Tahu is willing to withdraw its opposition to the draft Plan on the basis of the supporting commitment to investigate options for an alternative stormwater outfall for Waikākāriki / Horseshoe Lake; and whether Regenerate Christchurch is satisfied that an MOU is the best instrument for encouraging expeditious development. The GCRA does not require agreement of all (or any) parties to any proposal and officials do not consider these two matters insurmountable in terms of future actions.
9.3 With regard to Ngäi Tahu’s position, the Council would be submitting the Plan to Regenerate Christchurch without the expressed support of its Treaty partner. However, officers consider that the additional houses being proposed would have a negligible additional effect on the quality of water entering Horseshoe Lake, and the Regeneration Plan will provide a net cultural gain because of the overall water quality improvements provided by both the Cranford Basin and first flush treatment to be provided as part of the development.
9.4 Regenerate Christchurch has the option of amending the Plan and / or advising the Minister of its position, both in respect to the position of Ngäi Tahu, and its own views on the MOU. In considering whether to approve the Plan, the Minister must have regard to Regenerate Christchurch’s report.
9.5 Officers consider that, having considered the alternatives for resolving these two issues, the supporting commitments in the draft Plan provide the most practicable way forward, and that submitting the draft Plan to Regenerate Christchurch should not be delayed any further.
10.1 If the Council adopts the recommendation then the draft Plan will be submitted to Regenerate Christchurch for review. Regenerate Christchurch must submit the Draft Plan to the Minister, with a recommendation on whether or not the Minister should approve it. Regenerate Christchurch may amend the draft Plan but if it wants to make any material amendment it must seek the views of the parties listed in Section 29 of the GCRA, and any other parties it considers appropriate. The decision on whether to approve or decline the Draft Plan is then made by the Minister.
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the attached submission in support of the proposed third land on the Waimakariri Bridge.
1. Approve the attached submission in support of the proposed variation to the Regional Land Transport Plan (Attachment A)
3.1 The New Zealand Transport Agency is seeking agreement from the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee to vary the Regional Land Transport Plan to include the proposed improvement to the Waimakariri Bridge. The estimated cost of this proposal is approximately $20 million dollars provided the southbound lane is constructed at the same time as the Northern Arterial project currently under construction.
3.2 The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee has resolved to notify for public submissions a proposal of the New Zealand Transport Agency to build a third southbound lane on the Waimakariri Bridge. Submissions close on the 13th of July 2017.
3.3 At an ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council on the 9th of March 2017 resolution CNCL/2017/00068 was passed stating that Council:
· Adopts a position that Council supports the third southbound lane being added to the bridge only if it is prioritised for the sole use of public transport and/or high occupancy vehicles.
3.4 At a meeting of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee on the 07th of April, it was resolved that the committee:
· Support the construction of a 3rd southbound motorway lane across the Waimakariri Bridge and a separated cycleway.
· Support the provision for a High Occupancy Vehicle lane between Tram Road and QEII Drive to be potentially used by a combination of T2 vehicles, buses and freight.
· Note that the construction can be included as part of the Northern Arterial project delivered through the Christchurch Northern Corridor Alliance.
· Note that a multi-modal solution is proposed that will improve travel time reliability and safety and provide improved travel choices for higher occupancy vehicle use, public transport and cycling.
· Note that there will be additional related financial implications for other partners should the matter proceed, including park and ride facilities, changes to public transport services and supporting cycle facilities in Waimakariri District.
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an updated recommendation to Councillors on the matter of decision making for resource consent applications.
1.2 This matter was first considered by the Regulations and Consents Committee on 16 July 2015 and subsequently the Council on 13 and 27 August 2015.
1.3 The report was left to lie on the table at the 27 August meeting and a further report on whether the Council could develop a policy with respect to notification was requested. That report went to the Regulations and Consents Committee on 17 December 2015 and subsequently the Council on 28 January 2016.
1.4 The report was left to lie on the table at the 28 January 2016 Council meeting and a workshop was requested which was held in February 2016. It was then decided at the workshop a further workshop was needed.
1.5 This was held on 11 July 2016. The outcome of that workshop was for staff to review the original recommendations from the 28 January 2016 report.
1.6 Further briefings were held on the 7 March 2017, 2 May 2017 and 4 July 2017 and this report reflects final discussions with the Council.
1.7 The original report which was left to lie on the table in August 2015 is Attachment A, and the report which was considered by the Regulation and Consents Committee in December 2015 is Attachment B. The reports provide the background material necessary to understand the recommendations in this report.
2.1 The recommendation in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined as low because it concerns administrative functions related to processing resource consent applications that largely reflect current practice.
a. That Hearings Panels be used to make the notification and substantive decisions for resource consent applications where there is a high degree of complexity (Staff are to prepare a practice note for internal guidance).
b. That when Hearings Panels are used, the Hearings Panel shall comprise of an independent and experienced commissioner with Resource Management Act qualified elected members.
c. That every three years an independent audit be carried out, by a suitably qualified and experienced resource management practitioner, that examines a representative sample of decisions made on 20 resource consents applications in the context of the requirements under the Resource Management Act. The results of the audit are to be reported to Regulatory Performance Committee as soon as practicable following the report being received, with the first audit being reported back to Committee no later than 30 June 2020.
d. That following an independent audit (no later than three months after the finalised audit being received), the key points (including an appended full copy of the audit) are included in a monthly report to the Regulatory Performance Committee.
e. That a list of applications of high significance or interest be included in the monthly report to the Regulatory Performance Committee. Also, that applications considered by staff to be of interest to elected members be circulated as soon as practicable following receipt of a complete application to be applicable Community Board for their information.
f. That resource consents senior staff visit each Community Board, at least once every elected community board term or upon request, to gain feedback on issues arising from the processing of resource consent applications.
· This report reflects decisions and feedback from previous Council meetings, workshops and briefings. Therefore, the set of recommendations above reflect this. Other options were canvassed in previous reports which are appended to this report.
· The use of qualified elected members and an independent commissioner on hearings panels making decisions on resource consent applications.
· A process to ensure the quality, consistency and efficiency of resource consent decision making in the context of the requirements under the Resource Management Act.
5.1 This matter was originally brought to Council as part of the action plan responding to the Ministry for the Environment review of resource consenting functions. One of the recommendations in that review was:
5.2 “In our view the resource management delegations are in need of a thorough review, with a direction to provide delegation, within formal policy and statutory process, the lowest competent level possible within the resource consents team in order to provide efficiency of process and to maintain quality and consistency of decisions. We believe that the staff’s skill and confidence in making such decisions can be enhanced if they have the clear authority and the confidence and support of senior management and councillors. We recommend the practice of using a list of ‘potentially controversial’ application types should be reviewed and the delegations manual amended”
5.3.1 The Resource Management Act continues to be reformed to streamline and simplify the resource consents application process.
5.3.2 The Replacement District Plan has included an objective which encourages reduced notification and transaction costs, and rules in the Replacement Plan implement that objective.
5.3.3 Resource consent decisions are quasi-judicial decisions which require legal tests to be applied based on the facts of the application in question.
5.3.4 A review of the best practice indicated a delegation to the Chief Executive who then delegates to appropriate staff.
5.3.5 That a Council policy guiding notification is inappropriate unless the policy is in the District Plan.
5.4 The matter culminated with a recommendation from the Regulation and Consents Committee to delegate decision making to staff subject to a set of recommendations put forward by the Chairperson of that Committee, Cr East. These are set out below:
5.4.1 That Hearings Panels are not used for making the notification decision (Section 95) on resource consent applications.
5.4.2 That Hearings Panels continue to be used to make the substantive decision (Section 104) on resource consent applications where a hearing is required.
5.4.3 That a further report which reviews resource consents decision making is brought to the Council in approximately two years’ time and no later than 1 July 2017.
5.4.4 That an independent audit be carried out bi-annually that examines a representative sample of decisions made on 20 resource consent applications in the context of the requirements under the Resource Management Act. The results of the audit is to be reported to Council as soon as practicable following the report being received, with the first audit being reported back to Council no later than 1 July 2017.
5.4.5 That a list of applications be sent weekly to the applicable Community Board once the new Connect software has been deployed for Resource Consents and all applications be sent to the Regulations and Consents Committee.
5.4.6 That resource consents senior staff visit each Community Board at least annually to gain feedback on issues arising from the processing of resource consent applications.
5.4.7 That the applications considered by staff to be of interest to elected members be circulated as soon as practicable following receipt of a complete application to the applicable Community Board for their information.
5.5 The recommendations in 5.4 are now superseded by the amended recommendations in this report. These recommendation are a result of further briefings with the Council.
5.6 This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.
5.9 Cost of Implementation – There is no new expenditure required. All staff time is included in planned operational overhead budgets.
5.10 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There will be additional costs associated with an independent audit.
5.12 The recommendation has been reviewed by the Council’s Resource Management Act Solicitor. The matters contained in the recommendation are consistent with the requirements of the Resource Management Act.
5.13 Any risks are mitigated by ensuring qualified persons make decisions on resource consent applications and that an audit is being carried out every term to ensure decisions are being made in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Management Act.
5.14 Implementation dependencies – A potential impediment to using members on hearing panels is the currently low number of people who has completed the “Making Good Decisions” training.
1.1 This report seeks Council approval of the draft Strategic Framework detailed in Attachment A and for that framework to be used as the strategic foundation of the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28.
1. Approves the proposed Strategic Framework to be used as the strategic foundation of the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28.
2. Notes that community engagement on the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 (including the Strategic Framework) will commence shortly, and will be visibly led out starting with a Mayoral document in approximately August / September 2017.
3. Notes that staff are preparing a work programme that will implement the Council’s Strategic Priorities and which will be presented to the Council.
3.1 The Council has worked with the Executive Leadership Team, community board chairs and staff to prepare a new strategic framework to be used as the strategic foundation for work programme planning for the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28. The framework clearly articulates the Council’s intended direction over the coming three years and beyond. It does not seek to replicate programmes of core work – such as road repairs, or infrastructure rebuilds – that are part of Council’s core day to day business.
· Council vision statement – conveys the essence of Christchurch and links with the Christchurch Story narrative.
· Community outcomes – statements of how we want the city to be. The community outcomes have been reviewed resulting in a more streamlined set of 16 statements – down from the previous 64. This will enable a more flexible approach to identifying linkages between community outcomes and work programme levels of service to be developed and promote more tailored approaches to monitoring progress.
· Strategic priorities – the Council has identified the areas of Council business where a focus on improvement and/ or transformational change is sought. These are not exclusively the most important aspects of the Council’s business and the organisation will still be required to complete all its usual functions.
· Targeted strategies – the Council has approved a number of strategies that provide detailed plans for change. These support achievement of community outcomes and strategic priorities to varying degrees. Further work will be undertaken to better align the suite of strategies with the community outcomes and strategic priorities.
3.3 The strategic framework includes a set of guiding principles that the Council identified and used to inform its preparation of the framework. The Councils intends to apply these principles to its direction setting and decision making processes over the current triennium.
3.4 The strategic framework has been refined following requests made at the Strategic Capability Committee meeting where it was first proposed. Specifically the changes have been:
· Addition of a whaka toki to highlight the relationship between the Council and the papatipu runanga with mana whenua within the district
· Addition of the community outcome “21st century garden city we are all proud to live in” under the Liveable City outcomes group
· Inclusion of the Council’s Multicultural Policy and Housing Policy as examples of the planning documents used by the Council to provide direction to giving effect to community outcomes and strategic priorities.
3.5 By agreeing to the strategic framework to guide the preparation of the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28, and be included as a draft framework in that Plan, the Council is providing the opportunity for community engagement about what the strategic direction for Christchurch and the Council should be.
3.6 The Mayor’s office is developing a ‘leading statement’ to promote strong community engagement on the draft Long Term Plan. This is expected to be available in approximately August/September and will outline the critical issues and choices we face as a city, and the intergenerational implications of these choices. This is an important document to ensure that the public understand the state of the city, our current challenges and opportunities, and the decisions that we need to make during the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan period.
3.7 To support Council and the Mayor, the Executive Leadership Team has formed a ‘Strategic Alignment Steering Group’ to oversee implementation of the strategic priorities and community outcomes. The steering group will ensure the strategic priorities are given appropriate focus and support within the organisation; look beyond business as usual responses; and promote the change being sought.
3.8 The following is the expected timeline from Council agreement to use the strategic framework (post 2017 Annual Plan approval which occurred in June 2017) as the foundation of the Long term Plan 2018-28 through to adoption of a final framework and Plan.
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy 2017.
2.1 The decisions in this report are of low to medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined by analysis using the Council’s significance assessment template.
2. Note that ChristchurchNZ will be undertaking an update/refresh of the Christchurch Economic Strategy in approximately 12 months and that this will specifically consider emerging issues such as effective stewardship of water as a resource, and better targeting groups of citizens who are not in education, employment or training.
3. Agrees that the Strategic Capability Committee receives progress reports on implementation of the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy.
4. Notes that Council officers will work with ChristchurchNZ to establish an appropriate senior officials steering group to oversee the implementation of the Strategy.
· The Strategy gives effect to the views and aspirations of the range of stakeholders who engaged in the Strategy review process.
· The Strategy provides a clear work programme to coordinate and focus the efforts of a range of key organisations to assist economic development in Christchurch.
· The Strategy provides ChristchurchNZ with a clear work programme within its economic development functions and with opportunities to enhance integration through its legacy arms working collaboratively to deliver Strategy actions.
· There are costs associated with ChristchurchNZ, the Council and other stakeholder organisations delivering the actions identified in the Strategy.
5.1 A prosperous economy improves the economic wellbeing of residents through jobs and business opportunities and contributes to the development of the social and public amenities that make Christchurch an attractive place to live.
5.2 The first Christchurch Economic Development Strategy (the Strategy) was launched in 2013 to identify the city’s long term growth goals and priorities to 2031 that would contribute to Christchurch having a stronger economy and better quality of life.
5.3 The Strategy is prepared and monitored by ChristchurchNZ (previously CDC), in support of the Council’s community outcomes framework and in particular the outcomes associated with a prosperous economy. ChristchurchNZ will also coordinate the implementation of Strategy actions which will be undertaken by a range of organisations operating in the economic development arena in Christchurch, including the Council.
5.4 Strategy development and implementation is collaborative, with over 20 partners across the private and government sectors. At its outset the Strategy encompassed over 70 economic development projects with a combined value of over $8.2 billion to our local economy over 15 years.
5.5 The timing of the Strategy review has enabled the Council’s emerging strategic priorities to be incorporated, providing strong links to the Council’s high level direction settings.
5.6 A background paper on the Christchurch economy and a review of progress against the current strategy were prepared to provide baseline information and inform participants in the strategy review process. These documents are available on the ChristchurchNZ website at: http://www.cdc.org.nz/what-we-do/economic-strategy/.
5.7 Four thematic workshops were held involving representatives of Christchurch’s business community, local government, education and research institutions and other stakeholders. The workshops provided opportunities for key stakeholders to understand the wider local economy and to put forward their thoughts regarding future direction and priorities. The findings of these workshops have strongly influenced the reviewed Strategy document. Supporting documents associated with these workshops are available from the ChristchurchNZ website.
5.8 The review has taken longer to complete than originally planned due to the need for the Strategy to effectively align with the direction of the newly formed ChristchurchNZ organisation. Launching the reviewed strategy during the transitional stage of the forming of ChristchurchNZ provides valuable direction and momentum, in tandem with the Christchurch Visitor Strategy adopted by the Council in 2016.
5.9 The action plan is in two parts – 5 Big Game Changers (a range of initiatives intended to have a transformational impact on our local economy) and Keeping the City Competitive (actions that maintain and/or build on what we do well in the economic sector).
5.10 There are 80 projects included in the action plan, some of which are already underway, some are planned and budgeted and some are aspirational (not yet planned or budgeted).
5.11 The Council is the lead agency or co-lead agency for 33 of the projects in the action plan. Some of the projects are existing, or planned and budgeted. There are, however, some new initiatives which the Council will need to consider through its Long Term Plan preparation process.
5.12 ChristchurchNZ’s coordination and oversight functions will be undertaken by their in-house Programme Management Office (PMO). The PMO will have two key roles in implementation:
· Monitor and report to Council and other stakeholders on delivery progress of the whole economic development programme. PMO progress reports provide a view of all economic development projects, their status and interdependencies and progress against strategic priorities.
· Facilitate dialogue and action with city leaders where opportunities, challenges and trends require action.
5.13 With the Strategy having a large number of partner organisations and a large number of projects, staff have already commenced planning for an implementation steering group to monitor progress and facilitate project progression. This steering group will meet quarterly and include ChristchurchNZ (3 representatives), Council (2 representatives) and the other key stakeholders (3 representatives), giving 8 members in total.
5.14 The steering group will ensure stakeholders have quarterly progress reports and that opportunities to improve project delivery are identified and put in place.
5.15 The Council has been allocated actions to lead or co-lead implementation with other key agencies and will be involved in other actions being led by other key agencies.
5.16 Some of the actions allocated to Council are business as usual or projects already agreed by the Council. Any new actions will be prioritised and scoped before being proposed to the Council in the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan work programmes.
5.17 Formal reporting to the Council on progress made in Strategy implementation is recommended to be through the Strategic Capability Committee (as it is monitoring progress against the strategy as opposed to monitoring organisational progress).
5.18 It is also recommended that ChristchurchNZ provides progress information to the Council’s Head of Strategic Policy and that this be included in the annual Strategy Progress Update Report to that committee.
5.19 The Board of ChristchurchNZ may require additional reporting if they consider that appropriate.
5.21 The Council requested ChristchurchNZ to provide a briefing on the strategy, which was held on 4 July 2017. The briefing enabled all councillors (particularly those who had not previously had an opportunity) to have the strategy document and action plan explained to them and the opportunity to have questions raised.
5.22 ChristchurchNZ has undertaken to include questions raised about the strategy document in the next review, likely to be within the next one to two years. This will provide an opportunity for ChristchurchNZ to align its strategic direction with the Council’s emerging strategic priorities.
6.1 The Council approves the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy as being complete for implementation.
6.2 The level of significance of this option is low which is consistent with section 2 of this report.
6.3 Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met through the stakeholder engagement process detailed above.
6.5 The key stakeholders involved in the Strategy review are specifically affected by this option due to their ability to contribute to implementation. Their views have been captured through the key stakeholder engagement process.
6.7 Cost of Implementation will depend on the Council-funded initiatives the Council includes in its work programme and budget.
6.8 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The Council provides ChristchurchNZ with an annual operating grant each year. A significant portion of this funding is likely to be required to undertake the functions associated with implementing Strategy.
6.12 Risk – investment is lost through strategy projects not being completed. This will result in lost economic opportunities.
6.12.1 Treatment: Council should be as clear as possible at the earliest opportunity as to what it will and won’t fund and/ or undertake.
6.13 Implementation dependencies - some projects included in the action plan require collaboration with other agencies.
· The Strategy provides a clear work programme to coordinate and focus the efforts of a range of key organisations to assist economic development in Christchurch
· The Strategy provides ChristchurchNZ with a clear work programme in its economic development function and with opportunities to enhance integration through its legacy arms working collaboratively to deliver Strategy actions.
7.2 The level of significance of this option is medium, consistent with section 2 of this report. The increased significance of this option relates to:
· The Strategy is intended to provide ChristchurchNZ with clear direction in terms of its economic development work programme. If the Strategy is not updated there will be a delay in the new organisation giving effect to its purpose
· the reputational risk associated with not following through on the time, effort and ideas contributed by the stakeholders involved in the review process.
7.5 Key stakeholders are specifically affected by this option due to their commitment to the review process. Their views are unknown at this time regarding this option. If the Council wishes to pursue this option their views could be sought and reported back.
7.6.2 Reason for inconsistency – level of service specifically requires the Strategy to be reviewed.
7.6.3 Amendment necessary – provide explanation and rationale of the decision not to deliver on the level of service in the Annual Report 2017.
7.11 ChristchurchNZ, and more broadly the City of Christchurch, have no overarching direction to our economic development work programme.
7.12 Risk - inefficiencies caused by lack of direction. This will result in reduced value for money for the community and poorer outcomes for the city through missed economic opportunities.
· Does not provide economic development future direction for the city (not doing this will cost in the long run).
· Doesn’t provide a framework for key organisations to work collaboratively to achieve economic development goals for the city.
· Option 1 – For the Council to approve the dedication of the road in conjunction with the Developer continuing the process to remove the covenant from the Developer’s land, (including Lots 601 and 613) pursuant to an application to the Court under the Property Law Act.
· Option 2 – For the Council to take no action and allow the Developer to continue with its application to the Court pursuant to the Property Law Act for the removal of the covenant instrument from Lots 601 and 613 through the Court.
· As part of the Variations, the Developer would agree to the commercial and residential safety audit works being designed and approved.
· The Council would not dedicate the road until all the safety works are carried out to comply fully prior to a Section 224 (c) Certificate being issued for that stage of the subdivision.
· A Deed of Indemnity will protect the Council from all actions proceedings and claims in relation to the Council accepting the dedication of Lots 601 and 613 as road.
· The Council would be required to rely on the indemnity from the Developer in respect of any consequences of the redundant land covenant remaining or any other legal challenges.
· The Council takes the initiative rather than the Developer through the Court to remove the covenant from the underlying land through the Property Law Act.
· Has changed the engineering plans for the residential area and the scheme plans for the commercial area in the manner agreed by the three traffic experts to ensure that the issues in the road safety audit are addressed and rectified.
· Directs that before the roads in the commercial area vest in the Council, there must be a variation of the commercial area consent that provides that there can be no commercial development until the agreed road design changes are built.
· A Variation has been received by the Council and the road plans are being altered to comply with all the safety audit requirements.
· Dedication of Lots 601 and 613 is proposed for the Council’s consideration as the underlying land covenant instrument registered against Lots 601 and 613 means that the road cannot vest under the RMA, and the Developer has not been able to obtain the required surrender from some of the landowners, which would allow the vesting.
· The covenant on Lots 601 and Lot 613 on LT 448725 is also on the balance of the Developer’s land and precludes dwellings that are not private residential, temporary dwellings and caravans, and building materials such as polite and fibrolite. There are also building design controls and any building work to be completed in twelve months. Also, the Covenantor must keep all trees trimmed and must not use their land for certain farming activities such as pig farming. The covenant does not restrict the use of the land as road.
· Under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Council may declare by way of dedication, a private road (intended for use by the public) or right-of-way to be a public road. Although Lots 601 and 613 are not currently open for public use, the view of our legal advisor is that the roadway fits squarely within the definition of private road in that it is intended by the Developer that Lots 601 and 613 be utilised by the public.
· If the Council accepts the dedication process, the dedication would be approved but not enacted until all the road safety features had been physically built and approved.
· The Developer and a suitable guarantor, will enter into a Deed of Indemnity with the Council and in a form provided by the Council’s solicitors, indemnifying the Council in respect of any consequences of the redundant land covenant remaining on Lots 601 and 613, and protecting the Council from all actions, proceedings and claims.
· The Developer would still proceed under the Property Law Act and through the Court to remove the redundant covenants from the underlying land (including Lots 601 and 613). This could take some time.
· The perception by the other landowners who have an interest in the land that the Council is using an unusual step to dedicate the road.
· There are no other disadvantages provided the Developer still proceeds with the Variation and relating safety improvements.
I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.
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):
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:
To enable CCHL to take the necessary measures to give effect to the Council's decision and communicate it to the candidate.
Commercial sensivity around tendered prices and publication of the information will prejudice the commercial position of the Respondent and the subsequent project contracts.
[4] Report of an investigation into defining a Living Wage for New Zealand, Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit December 2012.df
[5] A Literature Review on the Effects of Living Wage Policies published by Auckland Council August 2013.