This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.

Christchurch City Council






Committee: Councillor Carole Evans (Chairman), The Mayor, Ms Vicki Buck, Councillors Oscar Alpers, Anna Crighton, Newton Dodge, Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast, Charles Manning and Barbara Stewart.


Principal Adviser Committee Secretary
John Dryden Warren Brixton
Telephone: 371-1652 Telephone: 371-1439
Fax: 371-1789 Fax: 371-1786








In conjunction with the report on Proposed Variation No 34, included in the Environmental Services Unit Section

Common Ground Association have requested speaking rights to make a presentation to the Committee on this Variation.

The Association has been working closely with the Council's Property Unit in consultation with the community on the design of the site.



Officer responsible Author
Waste Manager Christine Byrch
Corporate Plan Output: Solid Waste

The purpose of this report is to provide the key learning points from the attendance of the Commercial Waste Minimisation Officer at the European Roundtable on Cleaner Production in Oslo, 1 to 3 November; visits to local authorities in the United Kingdom and Denmark; and visits with other organisations promoting cleaner production to business and industry.


The purpose of the study tour was to benefit from the experience of recognised world leaders with respect to implementing cleaner production and improving environmental performance within local government organisations, and promoting and implementing cleaner production for businesses in general. The study tour was funded by a grant from the Bertelsmann Study Award, with additional funds from the Waste Management Unit and the Environmental Policy and Planning Unit.

The four major objectives of the study tour were:

  1. To investigate how other Councils are implementing cleaner production and improving environmental performance within their own organisations.

  2. To investigate how other local government organisations promote cleaner production to businesses including how programmes are structured and run to benefit a variety of sector groups.

  3. To promote Christchurch City Council initiatives both with implementing cleaner production / environmental management in house and promoting and assisting businesses to implement cleaner production.

  4. To study national / central government initiatives for promoting cleaner production.


1. To Investigate How Other Councils are Implementing Cleaner Production and Improving Environmental Performance Within Their Own Organisations.

There is a commitment amongst local authorities in the United Kingdom to improve their own environmental performance as they require business and industry to do. The main reasons cited for this are to get their own house in order as an example to other organisations, and that this is the most valuable contribution that they can make to sustainable development and to implement the Agenda 21 principles. (Agenda 21 is the plan of action agreed to at the Earth Summit in Rio, 1992, to address global issues. It is a blue print on how to make development socially, environmentally and economically sustainable).

Councils are aware of a need to integrate environmental issues/sustainability into all of their operations and to be able to demonstrate that this is the case.

Environmental Management Systems

Environmental management systems are the main means by which local authorities are improving their environmental performance. The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) specification is preferred over the International Standards Organisation specification (ISO14000) because it provides public transparency through an environmental statement and requires corporate commitment.

So far three local authorities (London Borough of Sutton, Hereford City Council, and Stratford on Avon District Council) have achieved registration under EMAS and two Councils (Nottingham City Council and Leeds City Council) have operational units certified to ISO 14001. Of all local authorities, 7% (472 in total) have formally committed themselves to achieving recognition under one of these standards. A further 72 councils have formally committed resources to and are currently implementing an environmental management system but are yet to make a decision on whether they will seek verification or certification.

The Local Government Management Board (LGMB) has a key role in this. The role of this board is to help local authorities and other publicly funded organisations to serve communities better, focussing particularly on issues to do with personnel, management and governance. In April 1995 a European Union regulation allowed local authorities to be accredited under the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme.

LGMB set up a Help-Desk to promote EMAS to local authorities and has since published a series of guides (updated based on experience) and case studies and runs seminars to assist local authorities to implement this scheme. At this stage accreditation is voluntary.

EMAS paperwork comprises:


It takes around eight months from start to finish to prepare one Unit for certification. Some Councils certified one Unit at a time while others did all units at once. London Borough of Sutton, (170,000 residents and 2,000 staff excluding schools) started in 1995 and plan to have all units registered by 2000. Smaller councils (eg Stratford on Avon with around 350 staff) took 2 to 2[Omega] years to get all units certified.

Environmental Responsibilities

Councils with a certified Eco Management and Audit Scheme generally have one officer responsible for coordination within the Council. At Sutton, this is a full time position, whereas at Stratford on Avon this is a half time position. There is also an EMAS team within each Unit.

Environmental initiatives are coordinated by a staff team of representatives from all Units. Where there is no EMAS coordinator things seem to happen a little slower, but sustainability and environmental considerations are still included in every day work.

An inter-Unit approach to environmental management is very important. A lack of cooperation between Units was seen as a barrier by Councils. EMAS was beneficial in changing this.

Most Councils had at least one staff group responsible for environmental initiatives and awareness raising, and an elected members group.

Staff awareness

Raising staff awareness and involvement is a key to the success of all environmental programmes. Staff training and newsletters are tools for doing this.

Staff training at Worcester City Council is an example of a successful programme. All elected members and staff attended a 1[Omega] hour training programme to raise awareness of environmental issues and how their day to day activities affect the environment.

Similarly, all staff at Stratford on Avon District Council attend a one hour training session given by the Environmental Coordinator every 2 years to review to 40 key staff provided by a consultant.

Another example is the County of Sorstrom where enforcement officers attended the equivalent of a University diploma course in environmental management so as to be able to work pro actively in a consultative capacity with the industries they regulate.

Environmental Audit

Lancashire County Council has carried out 2 audits as part of a program to improve the County's environment through sustainable development. This is an ongoing program. An environmental audit was carried out in 1991 and this is repeated 3 yearly to determine progress. The audits are published and also the findings of the second audit are summarised in a video. The video is very good.

Purchasing policy

Most Councils in the United Kingdom have or are working on an environmental purchasing policy. These cover such things as cleaning chemicals, contracts, energy saving, timber, vehicles and plant etc. They are more an information booklet of things to consider when purchasing. London Borough of Sutton has stated that after a certain date, goods and services will only be purchased from suppliers with a verified environmental management system.

Key Learning Points and Actions

The value of a formal environmental management system is that it commits Local Authorities to improving environmental performance; coordinates initiatives across the organisation; and provides a framework against which to report environmental performance / management initiatives.

The following appear to be essential elements for successful environmental management within a Local Authority :

  1. a clear vision of what is to be achieved
  2. a work plan (objectives, targets, actions, indicators) for putting policy into practice
  3. a coordinated approach to environmental management through a staff group that works across Units and breaks down inter Unit barriers
  4. in depth training for key staff regarding environmental management system, how it works and the benefits
  5. training for all staff to raise awareness of environmental issues, sustainability and Local Agenda 21 and the impact of our day to day work on environmental aspects
  6. a purchasing policy that promotes sustainability
  7. training that focuses on ways in which staff can incorporate pollution prevention into their policy, permitting, compliance and enforcement activities and encourages staff to take ownership for their actions.

Putting this into practice

The Waste Management Unit has initiated the following to put these elements into practice:

developing a cleaner production / environmental management system program as a model and then expanding this to all other Council Units. A consultant is to be employed to assist with this in 1998 The Council will benefit from the consultants experience with other such programmes for large organisations.

  1. continue working with Inventory Unit to develop a process for purchasing that promotes sustainability eg policy, guidelines

    and recommends the following:

  2. discuss with the Environmental Liaison Group whether this group would fulfil the staff group role (see point 3 above) this is to be discussed at the next Group meeting. (The Environmental Liaison Group is an inter unit staff group that meets every 6 to 8 weeks to discuss environmental issues).

  3. training for all staff and elected members regarding environmental issues and the proposed cleaner production / environmental management system and the anticipated outcomes from this. Training would be developed as part of this proposed overall program by the Waste Management Unit, the consultant and the Environmental Liaison Group.

  4. following the training, focus on ways in which staff can incorporate pollution prevention into policy, permitting, compliance and enforcement activities and a consultative approach to regulation.

Waste Management Unit has copies of:

2. To Investigate How Other Local Government Organisations Promote Cleaner Production to Businesses Including How Programmes are Structured and Run to Benefit a Variety of Sector Groups.

Cleaner Production in Europe

There are many organisations promoting cleaner production in Europe including local government, central government, research institutes, Universities, network groups etc. Considerable funding is provided by the European Union. There is also a programme whereby donor countries (West Europe) give money to start but not sustain cleaner production programmes in Eastern European countries. In Europe there is considerable legislation and many regulations relating to waste and recycling.

In the United Kingdom, many cleaner production projects are run by consultants and funded from landfill taxes. Most demonstration projects are funded from a variety of sources.

How to sustain cleaner production initiatives and how to move from supply driven (eg programmes initiated by local government) to demand driven (ie programmes demanded by industry) cleaner production appears to be a world wide problem. The United Nations Environment Programme is presently studying what makes a programme sustainable, the Council has contributed to this study.

Learning points (proposed action in italics):

  1. In England, the Department of the Environment, Trade and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry promotes cleaner production through a very successful programme, Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. A key to success is targeting industries that:

    * have major environmental issues to be solved
    * have potential for significant benefit
    * have well established industry organisations.

    The Council can learn from this experience. In future, these factors will be taken into account when planning industry seminars and demonstration projects.

  2. Is the Council the right organisation to be promoting cleaner production? There is some evidence that in Europe Councils are not trusted by industry and that it is better for the Council to promote cleaner production through other organisations or to set up a cleaner production unit at arms length.

    Market research is to be commissioned by the Waste Management Unit to investigate this in the local context.

  3. The Council's regulatory framework and pricing schedules must be such that they support and sustain cleaner production.

    The Waste Management Unit is funding students from the Resource Management course, Lincoln University, to investigate this as a group research project during the first half of 1998 Results will be presented in July 1998.

  4. There needs to be cooperation between regulatory bodies (environmental, health and safety etc) to integrate as much information as possible for small to medium sized enterprises so that collectively there are fewer demands on their time. Future project.

  5. Make a shift from supply driven to demand driven cleaner production thereby ensuring the sustainability of these programmes and making them an integral part of economic development at enterprise and all government levels.

    Publishing success stories from the Target Zero project will be the basis for doing this.

  6. Ensure that all Council officers are singing the same tune so far as sustainable practices and cleaner production are concerned. This will require more cooperation between Units and staff training or awareness raising.

    This will be investigated by Nos 1 & 2 above and developed through internal environmental awareness staff training.

  7. In Denmark, enforcement officers are in constant dialogue with the companies they regulate and are moving towards a more consultative role. All company information (eg consents held, consent conditions) is held on a single GIS database.

  8. Christchurch organisations eg Canterbury Development Corporation, Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority, Department of Health, should work together more closely. This will would ensure that each organisation is aware of the others initiatives in Christchurch. Training could be provided so that all organisations have an overview of the other's work and can give direction as to where to source assistance. A combined folder of information could be developed and given out to businesses to facilitate this.

    This has been initiated through the Target Zero project by meeting with environmental, University and industry representatives to discuss how best to work together. A second meeting is planned during February.

3. To promote Christchurch City Council initiatives both with implementing cleaner production/ environmental management in house and promoting and assisting businesses to implement cleaner production.

The Commercial Waste Minimisation Officer was one of three New Zealand delegates at the European Roundtable on Cleaner Production, distinguished as being furthermost from home. All three are involved with the Target Zero cleaner production project. Lesley Stone, University of Auckland, presented a paper regarding her work with training Target Zero participants.

Contacts made during the study tour were interested in Christchurch City Council initiatives in particular Target Zero, Garden City Composting and the Waste Exchange Service.

4. To study national / central government initiatives for promoting cleaner production.

European Union:

In Norway:

In Denmark:

In the United Kingdom:

Recommendation: That this information be received.
Chairman's Recommendation:
  1. That a report be sought on the implementation of the initiatives contained in the report.

  2. That the Director of Operations report on the relative environmental management standards that should be implemented for the city.




Officer responsible Author
Water Services Manager Allan Watson
Corporate Plan Output: Information and Advice

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Councillors on a number of water use issues.



City-wide installation of meters was completed in 1997 and it has always been an objective of the Council to use the meter readings pro-actively as a water conservation tool. Two procedures are being used, though not very effectively at the moment for reasons set out below.

The first requires the meter reader to place a card in the letterbox when annual consumption is found to be more than twice the average annual household consumption. This card alerts the householder to the possibility of leaks and advises on how to detect them. The layout of the card is shown below.






At the present time this card is being placed in all letterboxes but with the consumption information box* left blank since we do not yet have reliable annual consumption figures.

The second uses the second instalment of the rate demand to advise all domestic ratepayers of their consumption and compares it with the household average. The current wording reflects the fact that we do not yet have reliable annual consumption figures.

Water consumption figures are shown for information purposes only. No value is shown if there is no meter installed, there is no water supply to the property or the meter has yet to be read. Because of the rescheduling of meter readings the consumption could be for a period greater or less than 12 months. Future readings are proposed to be at 12 month intervals.

Currently residential ratepayers pay for water consumed as part of their rates. A charging policy which would base payment for water on the amount consumed has been considered but the Council has resolved not to introduce such a policy during this term of Council. The average residential consumption is about 286m3 per annum.

Obviously these procedures are not working properly yet and Councillors have questioned the reasons for this.


Between 1992 and 1997 metered properties increased from around 40,000 to 105,000. The number of meter readers was increased from four to five and a software package (ITRON) purchased to allow meter reading to become a computer-based activity.

A start was made on reading the new meters in 1995 but we have experienced a series of difficulties in arriving at an electronically-based meter reading programme that consistently delivers reliable results. We are there now but the difficulties have meant that we have not been able to supply to the householder a true annual consumption (which requires two reliable readings spaced a year apart).

At the outset the meter reading procedure depended on three software systems:


The ITRON package is designed specifically for meter reading. It is accessed by Water Services staff using networked PCs and is used to download the particular reading round information onto a hand-held data logger that the meter reader takes into the field. For each property, in sequence, the hand-held provides notes to the meter reader about location, allows entry of the new reading and indicates if the new reading implies very high or very low or negative consumption.

(b) AS400

At the other end of the procedure the Funds Accounting Unit operates a database that allows it to charge for water (commercial) or maintain consumption figures (domestic). This is located on its AS400 computer and comprises a record of the meter, address and reading history linked to the Rates database. This allows invoicing for water consumption (commercial). Clearly it is necessary to daily update the AS400 record by downloading information from the hand-helds containing the day's readings.

(c) VAX

Initially the Water Services Unit was advised to achieve this by interposing a third software package located on the VAX computer cluster. The idea was that the VAX would act as a go-between for the AS400 and ITRON systems receiving, sorting, and down-loading information from both.

This operation proved error-ridden and after trying for many months to make it work we abandoned the VAX intermediary and established direct connection between ITRON and the AS400. The change has proved successful but has required an intense effort by Funds Accounting computer consultant Moira Howell to bring the two systems together. From June 1997 we were receiving reliable second round readings for domestic consumers. However previous difficulties meant these were not spaced 12 months apart. Through 1998 we will progress to a situation where reliable second-round readings spaced close to 12 months will allow provision of good consumption advice.


It is intended to continue to use both the above methods to advise consumers on their consumption and during the coming year this advice will become significantly more effective as the reliability and spacing of readings settles into the required pattern.


Weekly distribution to the media of consumption figures has been successful in keeping in water usage behaviour to the fore. Media response has been excellent with frequent requests for information and interviews directed at both staff and Councillors.

After a rapid increase in consumption during the December hot spell the city has been fortunate to have a series of south-west changes that have cooled the atmosphere and occasionally provided rain. Consumption for January at the time of writing has been high on occasions but has been reasonably close to the five-year average.

5-year Average January 1998 to 25th
Average 569 605
Consumption (litres per head per day)

The City Council's reticulation system has not been unduly stressed by the consumption and I have not believed it necessary to use delegated powers to impose restrictions. The message has been that we still have a long way to go this summer and the option of restrictions must be held open. When considering whether or not restrictions are warranted I have borne in mind three reasons why the Council would wish to move to restrict consumption and they are:

  1. Its own reticulation is being stressed by the consumption leading to pressure reduction and water quality problems,

  2. Consumption is significantly above long-term averages for a sustained period. (A suggested criteria is 20% above the five-year average for a 10-day period.) or

  3. The Regional Council is advising that aquifer levels are causing concern and that a control on consumption is advisable.

None of these has been occurring so far this summer. Up-to-date consumption figures will be reported to the meeting and Councillors will have an opportunity to consider the question of restrictions.



Councillors will be aware that for a number of years the city has been looking to the Regional Council to complete the management plans that will provide a long term view of Christchurch-West Melton groundwater management and provide the context within which the city can do its own long term asset planning. This work seemed to be moving to fruition in 1991 with the preparation of the draft Christchurch-West Melton Groundwater Management Plan but the work has since been moved into the Water Chapter of the Natural Resources Regional Plan and seems destined to await a prolonged plan preparation and approval process before it will provide the context and rules that the city seeks.

The problem for the Council is not just one of planning. Public cooperation in conserving water and being prepared to invest in water re-use strategies depends on being able to provide residents with an understandable long term picture of what is required to ensure a sustainable supply into the foreseeable future. The public will respond if they can see and have confidence that their actions support that future. They also expect that the Council will be playing its part in water conservation through active leak detection and efficient use. At the moment that strategic context is lacking. Water becomes an issue as we enter a dry spell and the Council exhorts people to conserve it, but its pleas lack strategic context. Frequently asked questions undermine Council credibility because understandable answers are not given to questions like:

Answers to some of these questions require complex technical investigations only some of which have been completed. Others imply options that need to be considered through a public consultation process. But the work needs to be prioritised and co-ordinated and involve staff from both councils since each has a significant though different interest in the issues.


Rather than wait for the production of Regional Council plans the Water Services Unit has initiated a proposal that would see the two councils cooperating in the preparation of a water strategy document for the Christchurch area. The intention is to prepare a scoping report that will be presented to the joint CRC/CCC councillor meeting recommending the joint work. Given that committee's approval in principle the matter would then be referred to the separate councils for consideration. The water strategy work would proceed in parallel with Regional Council plan preparation but without duplication of effort. It would inform plan preparation and contain guidelines that would eventually find their place in Regional and City plan policies and rules. This procedure has already been successfully used in the preparation of flood plain management plans for the Heathcote, Avon and Styx Rivers. At the time of writing the Unit has written to the Regional Council seeking support for this process.


Approaches have been made by a private interest keen to see established in Christchurch a demonstration home that would feature the full range of water saving and water re-use facilities and devices (retention of stormwater, re-use of grey water, minimum use devices, drought-resistant planting and water-efficient garden practice etc). It is possible that the home could also include on-property treatment of sewerage allowing garden irrigation of treated effluent. Under the current suggestion the City Council would not be required to provide capital towards house construction but would be involved in supporting the project, on-going monitoring of water consumption and promotion of the concept to the public. At this stage the Water Services Unit is seeking approval in principal from the committee to further this proposal with details including initial or on-going expenditure commitments to be brought back for approval at a later date.

  1. That the information be received.

  2. That approval in principle be given to supporting the establishment of a demonstration home containing water-saving and water re-use facilities and practices.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the officer's recommendation be approved.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Policy and Planning Manager and
Water Services Manager
Robert Watts, Planning Manager
Jenny Ridgen, Environmental Resources Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Environment, Conservation and Open Space

The Draft Heathcote Floodplain Management Strategy has been jointly prepared by officers of the Christchurch City Council and Canterbury Regional Council. It now is presented to the Committee for support in principle and for it to recommend that the strategy be made available to the community and other stakeholders in the Heathcote River catchment for 'comment'. This outcome is also being sought from the equivalent Committee of the Canterbury Regional Council.

The draft strategy was presented to the Joint Christchurch City Council/Canterbury Regional Council Committee in December 1997. The Joint Committee supported the strategy in principle and considered that it should be made available for public comment.

The Draft Heathcote River Floodplain Management Strategy is a non statutory document prepared to provide a management overview of potential flood damage issues associated with the Heathcote River floodplain. The two Councils jointly embarked on its preparation with the release of an 'issues and options' public discussion document in 1993. Following this, the computer based modelling of flood events under various land use scenarios has been advanced and an economic assessment of many of the possible floodplain management measures undertaken, along with other work.

The draft strategy has taken an integrated catchment management approach. It examines both the present flood damage issues as well as those that are predicted as a result of further development within the catchment (this includes development in the upper part of the catchment as signalled in Policy 6.3.16 of the Proposed Christchurch City Plan). Implementation of the strategy is mainly reliant on the City Council acting through its annual plan, asset management plans and city plan.

Due to the strategy's non statutory nature, there is no formal public consultation process legally required prior to its adoption. As part of the implementation of the final strategy, some of its individual measures will be subject to further formal public consultation. Therefore, it is prudent that the public be provided with the opportunity to make 'comment' on the draft strategy prior to it being recommended to each Council for adoption. It is proposed that, in outline, this would be achieved by preparing and distributing a summary pamphlet to the affected households within the catchment, public meetings (organised through the Community Boards) and inviting written comment. This would occur in the February/March/April 1998 period.

Attached to this report is the Executive Summary which contains the basis of the draft strategy, and two key maps illustrating it. Copies of the draft strategy will be distributed to members at the meeting.

Recommendation: The Draft Heathcote River Floodplain Management Strategy be supported in principle and be made available for public comment.
Chairman's Recommendation: In conjunction with making the Strategy Document available for public comment, appropriate Community Boards be asked to organise public meetings to allow public submission to be made through the Community Boards.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Gabrielle Tasman
Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Services - Consents and Applications

The purpose of this report is to seek delegated authority to sign documents authorising the cancellation of bonds and covenants used in the administration of the City Plan.


A working group of Planners and legal advisers has been working on ways of improving procedures and drafting new forms for bonds and covenants where these are required by the City Plan or resource consent conditions. The aim was to ensure consistency and efficiency in the use of these legal instruments and where possible to reduce costs for applicants.

Bonds and covenants are sometimes required to be registered on a Certificate of Title because of either a provision of the City Plan or a resource consent condition. Common use of such legal instruments occurs, for example, with family flats, relocatable buildings and elderly persons housing.


When a bond or covenant is required to be registered on a Certificate of Title only the registered proprietor needs to sign the document, not the Council. However Council staff ensure registration is carried out and also provide a condition that the resource consent does not take effect until the bond/covenant is registered. However, once the condition which the bond or covenant is there to protect has been fulfilled (eg, the family flat may have been removed), the Council's consent is then necessary to cancel the bond/covenant. The authority for this is contained within Sections 108 and 109 of the Resource Management Act.

Once a request is made to the Council for cancellation of a bond or covenant an inspection will be made by an Enforcement Officer who would need to confirm that the provisions of the bond or covenant have been completed and that it is now appropriate for the bond or covenant to be released. In order to reduce the cost to the applicant (who would otherwise have to pay a $60 Council sealing fee) and for efficiency of administration, delegated authority is sought for the cancellation of bonds/covenant document to be signed by the Environmental Services Unit Manager, and a number of senior officers.

Recommendation: That pursuant to Section 34(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council delegate to the Environmental Services Manager and to Team Leader Planning Administration, Team Leader Subdivisions and Area Development Officers, the authority to sign cancellation of bond and cancellation of covenant documents to release these instruments where registered under Sections 108 and 109 of the Resource Management Act.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the Committee support the bond cancellation delegation authority being granted.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Ken Lawn
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of the likelihood of an overexpenditure in the City Plan output, and in the Resource Consent output of the Environmental Services Unit.

Because of the shortening of the time period to hear submissions to the City Plan so that decisions will be released before October 1998, we have had to employ additional consultants to cope with the workload to produce reports and prepare decisions. The hearing process has also resulted in additional work, for example in the field of residential standards in Living 3 and 4 zones, which has meant the use of more staff resources and consultants than expected.

It is therefore likely that the City Plan output will be significantly overspent to the order of $150,000 - $200,000, in the 1997/98 financial year. I have assumed that the objective of issuing decisions prior to October 1998 has outweighed the objective of coming within budget for the financial year.

Another area where we are considerably overspent is in using Commissioners for resource consent hearings. With a budget of $10,000 for the year, we have this year spent nearly $30,000 after six months. We seem to have had more applications which the Council has had some involvement in which has led us to need to use commissioners. Also, with the City Plan hearings it has been more difficult to get Councillors for hearings panels. This expenditure code could be overspent by up to $50,000 for the year.

It is unlikely that these areas of overspending will be compensated by underexpenditure in other areas of the Environmental Services budget. Indeed, a slow down in development in the City has meant that income is slightly down on previous years, and we are reasonably nervous about the next six months.

Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the likely overexpenditure of the City Plan output, for the use of Commissioners.
Chairman's Recommendation: Likely overexpenditure in the use of Commissioners in the City Plan output be approved.




Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Bob Nixon
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council that it initiate a variation to the City Plan to alter the rules relating to protected buildings, places and objects.

This variation is proposed to be initiated because of issues that have arisen with regard to the Cathedral Square Redevelopment, although the variation will relate to all listed heritage places, buildings and objects.

The Resource Management Act provides for a range of resource consent applications, including prohibited, non-complying, discretionary, and controlled. Within the category of discretionary activities, a district plan can choose whether the discretionary activity relates to the whole activity, or whether the council limits its discretion over that activity to certain matters.

Under Clauses 1.3.1 and 1.3.2, the alteration or removal of Group 1 and Group 2 buildings is a discretionary activity, whereas for Group 3 and 4 buildings, alterations or removal is a controlled activity, "with the exercise of the Council's discretion limited to matters concerning the design, appearance and setting of the building".

The intention of the rules relating to the alteration and removal of heritage buildings (and additional buildings on sites containing heritage items) was to focus assessment on effects relating to the heritage values of the listed item, and not other matters. Legal advice has indicated that by having the alteration or removal of buildings a discretionary activity as a whole (as it currently is for Group 1 and 2 items), matters unrelated to heritage (eg. traffic generation, activities within buildings) could also be raised. These are either duplicated through other rules, and/or could be potentially onerous on the owners of listed items. As an example, if alterations were undertaken to a heritage building to enable its protection (such as changing its use) the proposal could be subject to scrutiny through the required resource consent in terms of matters unrelated to the effects on its heritage values.

Accordingly, Variation 31 proposes to make the alteration or removal of heritage items, and additional buildings on sites containing heritage items in Groups 1 and 2, a development standard. The exercise of the Council's discretion on resource consents will therefore be limited to matters concerning the heritage values of the listed item which have been defined. For consistency, the wording heritage values will also be applied to Group 3 and 4 listed items instead of "design, appearance and setting". This also better accords with Policy 4.3.1 in the City Plan. In addition, it is proposed to alter the wording relating to the Council's discretion from "of the building" to "of the protected building, place or object". This will result in the wording being consistent in terms of the Council's discretion for Group 1-4 heritage items. It will also result in the Council's limited discretion being exercised over objects and places, as well as buildings, which the listings contain.

The Council's legal advice is that once this variation is notified, it will have legal effect, and will replace the provisions of the Proposed Plan as notified. Any applicant wishing to carry out alterations to a Group 1 or 2 heritage building, place or object, from the date of notification of the variation, will be able to rely on the variation rather than the Plan as notified. This means that when the Council considers any such application it will be limited to matters concerning the heritage values of the protected building, place or object.

Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 5 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council initiate proposed Variation Number 31 to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan.
Chairman's Recommendation: Proposed Variation Number 31 to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan be discussed.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Services Manager Irene Clarke
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

The purpose of this report is to propose eleven variations to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan. These variations cover minor amendments, to correct inconsistencies and errors in the City Plan, and amend some rules which have been impractical to administer. The variations also include a proposal to rezone a site relating to the Council's Hornby Housing Project. An additional variation is also proposed to alter the rules relating to protected buildings, places and objects and the exercise of the Council's discretion. This is Variation Number 31 and is proposed in a separate report to this meeting. The nature of the eleven variations is summarised below.

Variation Number 23 adds the Youth Education Centre to the list of schools in Part 7.3 of Volume 3 of the Plan. The site has an existing zoning of Cultural 3. The zone rules applicable to activities other than education on school sites is amended for three other schools on that list to ensure the most appropriate rules are applicable.

Variation Number 24 corrects the legal description for the Transpower designation on Waterloo Road. The amendment will ensure that all of the designated area (as shown on the Planning Map) is included in the list of designations in Part 12 of Volume 3 of the Plan.

Variation Number 25 corrects the Planning Maps to reflect the withdrawal of the "Railway Purposes" designation on three separate sites in the City.

Variation Number 26 alters the formatting of the standard "Lines and support structures" in Part 9.4 (Utilities) of Volume 3 of the Plan. This will clarify that the exceptions listed apply to all of subclauses (a) to (d).

Variation Number 27 inserts a new subclause into Clause 8.4.3, Extent of Special Purpose (Road) Zone. The new subclause will clarify the zoning which is adopted when a legal road is stopped.

Variation Number 29 amends two Transit NZ road widening designations on Russley Road. These designations have already been altered in the Transitional Plan and the road works have been completed. This Variation will update the roading designation maps in Part 12 of Volume 3 of the Plan.

Variation Number 30 amends Planning Map 32A to show a symbol for road works on Westminster Street and therefore ensure the Planning Map is consistent with the list of roading designations and detailed maps in Part 12 of Volume 3 of the Plan.

Variation Number 32 amends the standard for residential coherence in living zones to clarify the intention of the rule that there will be no more than a total of two non-residential activities on front sites in a residential block.

Variation Number 33 amends the term "building density" to "residential site density" in the definition of Net area. Building density is not a term used in the rules and has made the definition unclear as to its application.

Variation Number 34 rezones land at 2 Goulding Avenue, Hornby from Open Space 1 to Living 2. This rezoning will allow for the development of a 1.8930 ha site for Council housing as recommended in the Housing Needs Study 1996. This study was adopted by the Council in December 1996. Development of the site for residential and community activities was provided for in the Transitional Plan (Paparua Section) but this was not carried forward into the Proposed Plan. The Living 2 zoning will be consistent with the living zoning in the vicinity. The Property Unit have prepared a specific design for the site in association with the Hornby community which includes the erection of 55 units to cater for particular housing needs as identified in the Housing Needs Study 1996. This Variation will only proceed to be notified if the special meeting of the Community Services Committee in February resolves to adopt the specific design for the site.

Variation Number 35 raises the Residential coherence standard in living zones from a Community standard to a Critical standard, and raises the Scale of activity standard from a Development standard to a Community standard. Both of these standards relate to non-residential activities in living zones. The Variation reflects the importance of these standards in maintaining residential amenity and coherence, and the potential for significant adverse effects over a wider area than indicated by the level of each of the standards in the Plan as notified. The Variation will provide the Council wider scope for assessing activities which do not comply with these standards.

Copies of the variations and assessments are appended.

Recommendation: That pursuant to Clause 5 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council initiate proposed Variation Numbers 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 35 to the Christchurch City Proposed District Plan.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the officer's recommendation be approved.




Officer responsible Author
Environmental Policy & Planning Manager Terence Moody
Principal Environmental Health Officer
Corporate Plan Output: Environmental Health Policy Vol II P.7.2.Text.12

The purpose of this report is to put forward the areas where a prohibition on skateboarding should be applied with recommended conditions as to the extent of the prohibitions.


The results of enquiries made of Community Boards and the Central City Committee are summarised below for the information of Councillors

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, while supportive of the bylaw agreed that there were no public areas within the Riccarton and/or Wigram wards that could be included into the bylaw for prohibiting this activity. The Board concluded that the skateboard users should be encouraged to use on-park facilities, eg Wycola Park, and might consider the use of project funds to develop more on-park facilities such as at Kyle Park and the Rollerdrome. Through the youth worker, to be based in Hornby, it was also suggested that a meeting be held with skateboard groups to discuss current 'issues' and locations for new facilities.

The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolved that New Brighton Mall be included on the list of sites that is being compiled for the purpose of consulting with youth but it should go through this process before it is made an area prohibiting skateboarding under the bylaw.

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board have advised they are seeking further information from businesses in Woolston and Sumner, from whom petitions have been received, on the extent of their concerns before making any recommendation.

The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board have recommended that a prohibition on skateboarding be placed on the footways and parking areas at Bishopdale Mall and on that portion of Papanui Road between Office Road and Aikmans Road on the west side and St Albans Street and Mansfield Avenue on the east side.

The Central City Committee resolved that a joint meeting of the Environmental Committee and Central City Committee be held to hear submissions and to consider the banning of skateboards in the following areas.

Colombo Street (Lichfield Street to Kilmore Street)
Rolleston Avenue (outside the Museum)
City Mall
Cathedral Square
Worcester Boulevard
Victoria Square


The following comments were made as part of the report to the Committee at its meeting on the 13 November 1997 and are repeated here for completeness.

From the discussions that have been held with representatives of skateboarding supporters, including some skateboarders and those in the industry, it is clear that since its opening the Victoria Square Amphitheatre has become a major venue for the activity of skateboarding, both from the point of view of its design and from the lack of any similar venue in the central city. This group does not see that this activity causes significant problems, despite what is seen as an over reaction in the media regarding the activity. They do appreciate that there are some persons who skateboard who can be irresponsible but do not consider these to be a significant number amongst the largely responsible majority who take part in the activity. They do see the need for further provision to be made for the activity in the central area of Christchurch as this is a place where young people wish to meet with their friends and peers. It is a growing sport and is tied with an increased amount of business associated with it.

Other central city areas are less well used, tiled surfaces are not evidently the surface of choice for skateboarding in general terms, but some central city pedestrian areas are used for movement through the city. In general these are used just for that purpose and in the main there appears to be little creation of problems, although even the limited numbers of such persons travelling through can create a reaction from some persons as to a perception of possible danger. In terms of safety the use of roadways for such travel on skateboards is considered unsafe due to the high motor vehicle traffic flows on many central city streets and other roadways.

There could be significant problems involved in the enforcement of any prohibitions, not least in the provision of resources for this action. For this purpose it is considered that the selection of areas to which prohibitions are to apply need to be considered on the basis of applying the prohibition only to the times at which the problems are perceived to be significant. For those areas where the problem is perceived to be related to high pedestrian flows during day-time or where pedestrian space has been limited by other activities protruding onto pedestrian spaces, for example in the City Mall or Worcester Boulevard outside the Arts Centre, it may be that the prohibition should apply during daylight or shopping hours only. In the case of areas in which weekend activities create higher pedestrian numbers, as opposed to lower numbers during the working week the prohibition could be applied at weekends only.

In terms of numbers of skateboarders undertaking sporting activities, as opposed to merely travelling on skateboards, the major public space used (at least in the central city area) appears to be the Victoria Square Amphitheatre. If a prohibition is placed on this area it would seem to be sensible that some other central, as opposed to suburban, site should be available for these skateboarders to undertake the activities. If the proposed skateboard park at Washington Reserve is either delayed or not implemented it is considered that some other provision should be introduced at the time a prohibition is placed on Victoria Square.

The area in front of the Museum in Rolleston Avenue can create some problems from possible damage to the bases of statues for example, and possible conflict with pedestrians (although the cycle-way in that area could have a similar possible conflict perception).

Worcester Boulevard has heavy pedestrian use, particularly at weekends when the Arts Centre market is operated in the section from Montreal Street to Rolleston Avenue. A prohibition on this area could be considered for that period in that area. The area of Worcester Boulevard by the Worcester Street Bridge and the Scott Stature has been complained about, particularly in relation to damage to steps outside the Tourist Centre. A prohibition on this area could be considered also.

In the case of City Mall the High Street section (from Hereford Street to High Street/Cashel Street corner) is used for skateboarders to travel through to the eastern areas of the central city and even this activity seems to be limited, at least during the daylight hours. While there have been approaches made as to problems occurring in the other parts of the City Mall observation, at least during shopping hours during the week, have not revealed significant numbers of skateboarders in that area. If there are problems they are likely to occur when larger numbers of pedestrians are present and this is more likely during shopping hours.

A similar situation may exist in the Colombo Street area of the central city to that in City Mall. There is little evidence of significant skateboarding activities along the stretch from Lichfield to Kilmore Streets, although some young persons with skateboards have been seen in the area of the "fast food" outlets between City Mall and Hereford Street on a few occasions. The area of major bus stops on the south east side of City Mall, by the Arthur Barnett store is notable for the lack of pedestrian space and could be considered an area to which a prohibition could be applied.

Currently Cathedral Square seems to be relatively free of skateboarding activities, although some does evidently occur on some of the stepped areas. Other activities do take place there, such as the commercial stalls and from time to time functions, which tend to limit the clear space for such activities. It is not known what effect the proposed changes to the Square will have on pedestrian flows in the area, or the amounts of useable clear space.

In the case of Bishopdale Mall it is understood some areas are under private ownership and a plan should be provided to clearly define the public areas to which the prohibition should apply.

In the case of the Papanui Road areas there is no evidence of such activities taking place and causing any problems. Personal examination of this area has never revealed such activities occurring in the area.

Following a meeting with a number of representatives of skateboarders the following comments were received about each of the areas mentioned.

Cathedral Square

Due to the ample space, and no evidence of problems caused by skateboarders, there is no need for a ban. Maybe a small zone where users could walk through without skateboarders going past would be appropriate.

Worcester Boulevard

No evidence to support this area having any bans whatsoever. It could be an ideal 'skate zone' for skaters to use due to lack of traffic, although cobblestones are a bit preventative.

Colombo Street

Likewise with Worcester Blvd, except for Hereford - Lichfield St on both sides. Colombo Street is overcrowded with many things, not just skateboarders, although a ban on 'riding fast' or speed restrictions at certain times of the day may be appropriate.

Victoria Square

See attached letter from Rev. Dr David Brommel. Location and design are the reasons most skateboarders use it. Evidence from two long and frequent users of the Square who are not skateboarders support skating in the area. (Dr Brommel and the busker). The busker has said safety will become even more of an issue with no skateboarders around.

Rolleston Avenue

A ban on skateboarding on the Statue would seem sufficient.


Not enough information to know whether it is founded for a complete ban or not.


Same as Sumner

The group also made the following suggestions

  1. Council and Skateboarders to jointly sponsor and distribute pamphlet to skateboarders and inline skaters relating to use of inner city, safety, and responsibilities.
  2. Council to fund research into skateboarding and inline skating in Christchurch.
  3. Council to examine and support alternative inner city venues for short - medium term use.
  4. Council to support and promote at least (1) major skating event per year.


There is evidence that skateboarding can be both damaging to the fixtures and fittings in public spaces and a potential hazard and nuisance to other users of these spaces.

The work done to the surrounds of the raised grassed area in front of the Centra Hotel in Cashel St has been successful in discouraging skateboarders from riding the edges and creating noise and damage. It seems appropriate therefore to examine the areas such as the bases of statues that this sort of physical treatment may be sufficient to effectively remove skateboarders without the need for enforcing a bylaw. The statue in front of the Museum on Rolleston St may be a good example for this approach. There is also evidence that the grooved tiles placed at the corners of the streets in the Central City also discourages skateboard riding. In this way the design of public spaces is a critical factor in whether or not skateboarders are likely to pose a problem to other users.

At this stage it is proposed that a ban on skateboarding only be applied to Victoria Square until such times as evidence for any further bans becomes clearer.

  1. That initially the Council resolve to prohibit skateboarding in the area of Victoria Square as defined on the attached map, subject prohibition to come into force once the Washington Reserve Skatepark is operational for street skateboarding activities.

  2. That the Council provide support for the preparation of a skateboarding pamphlet and for a major skating event in the city.

  3. That the design of public spaces and objects take into account the possible effects of skateboarding.
Chairman's Recommendation:
  1. That the officer's recommendations be approved.

  2. That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board be asked to provide the Principal Environmental Health Officer with details of the area within the Sumner Village Business Precinct, where the Business Association had sought the skateboarding ban.




Officer responsible Author
Environmental Policy and Planning Manager John Dryden, Environmental Policy and Planning Manager
Corporate Plan Output: Various

The purpose of this report is to keep members of the Committee informed on current issues currently being actioned for their general interest and information.


The draft Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) dated September 1995 sets out the goals and priorities for the Department of Conservation's management of the conservancy for the next ten years. The purpose of the CMS is to provide general policies and objectives for the integrated management of natural and historic resources, including any species managed by the Department, and for recreation, tourism and other conservancy purposes.

Submissions on the document were discussed by the Environmental Committee prior to the closing date of 1 March 1996. These submissions were then presented to a Department of Conservation hearings panel in May 1996. The CMS has now been revised, taking into account the submissions and public consultation. The Council was notified in December 1997 of the Department's response to its submissions.

In general the Department's responses were favourable, although no major changes have been made to the document. The Department recognised the Council's desire to be closely involved in matters where joint initiatives could be effective eg when dealing with Fish Passage Regulations and provision of habitat for the Canterbury Mudfish.

The Department's response does show a reluctance to expand on its role of advocate and take a stronger role in co-ordinating conservation initiatives beyond their core management functions; for example, providing practical guidance in the management of land beyond the conservation estate. This appears to be, at least in part, due to a lack of resources and in their responses the point is made that "funding levels are a government decision".

Overall the encouragement of the Council to adopt a more integrated management approach was received favourably with it being noted that in particular, more emphasis will be placed on landscape issues.


The Ministry for the Environment has recently prepared draft guidelines for stream flows and values. The purpose of the guidelines was to provide a way of objectively establishing the flow requirements needed to sustain identified instream values. Comments have been made on the document as follows:

Need to more clearly identify potential users.

Feel the guidelines have a wider focus than just flow. Would like to see them adopted as a best practice manual.

Need to recognise links between factors contributing to instream values.

Consider that effect of land use should be discussed with respect to water management. Need more emphasis on links between stream ecology, hydrology, landscape, etc.

Need more on smaller rivers, including urban rivers, with examples of management

Request more emphasis on how landscape and ecological values affect people.

Rarity of landscape has been overlooked in guidelines.

Suggest cross referencing to other relevant documents, also suggest a glossary.

Feel guidelines could be more user friendly, with inclusion of diagrams and illustrations, more headings and highlighting specific points.

Suggest production of a practical users manual.

General text suggestions.

Following analysis of the submissions, a lack of technical information in some areas and a need for further guidance on setting Instream Management Objectives, were the two main areas identified as requiring further work. The guidelines are currently being edited and prepared for publication and should be available in a few months time.


Submissions have recently been made at hearings on two publicly notified resource consent applications to the Canterbury Regional Council.

The first of these concerns is an application by G F Timperley and Sons to discharge treated piggery and dairy effluent on to their property at Coutts Island. The submission concerns the planting of riparian strips along tributaries of the South Branch (Otukaikino) which run through the property as a means of providing an effective buffer to present run-off from entering the waterways an detrimentally affecting water quality. A submission was also made about odour from the discharge detrimentally affecting amenity values at the Groynes picnic area.

The second resource consent application on which a submission has been made is an application to excavate a pond into groundwater to be used for a jetsprint racing course at Coutts Island. The City Council submission requests that consideration be given to imposing a condition requiring a sealed and bunded area for the refuelling of boats in order to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination by petroleum product.

The appeal lodged against the decision of the Canterbury Regional Council grating consent to PPCS Ltd to discharge contaminants to the Waimakariri River has been resolved out of the Environment Court by way of a negotiated settlement. The City Council and PPCS have entered an agreement, in the form of a Deed of Settlement, to continue to consult with each other over the best disposal option for the chromium content of the discharge and to undertake to regularly review this position. This enables the parties to take advantage of any improvements that may be made to the sewage system infrastructure in the Belfast area and in the treatment works at Bromley.


Over the five years to 1996, Census figures show an increase in employment within Christchurch of 22,500 to a total of 143,000.

Employment located within the Central City stayed reasonably constant at 33,500, compared to 1991. However, as a share of the total jobs in the City, the Central City declined from 27% in 1991 to 23% in 1996.

The Census confirms that over the period, the location of most new employment was in the suburbs.


The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the process of the Public Transport Strategy being jointly undertaken by the City and Regional Councils.

Early in 1997 the Joint Committee of the two Councils decided to set up a Public Transport Sub-Committee to deal with issues arising from the public transport system in the City. A strategy was to be developed in order to plan for the future of public transport around the city, to plan for greater transport sustainability, to help direct future land uses, and to fit into the wider transport network. During 1997, a public survey, focus groups and a Community Advisory Group were used to look at the existing system and the ideal future system and to develop a vision, goals, objectives and possible actions for the strategy.

The data gathered was developed into a draft public discussion document which was discussed by a joint workshop of Councillors from both Councils and then approved by the Joint Committee in December 1997. This draft has now been finalised into a discussion document which was distributed during the week of 19-23 January 1998. The document contains a feedback form which is required to be returned by 27 February 1998. Copies of the discussion document were sent to Service Centres, Libraries, Schools, Residential and Community Associations, Councillors, Community Boards, local MPs, interest groups, and interested individuals.

A technical document has also been prepared to support the discussion document. This contains the information gathered from the public survey and focus groups, the data provided to the Community Advisory Group, background information to the strategy and associated statistics. This document is available on request from the Regional Council.

In conjunction with the release of the discussion document to the public, there is a series of advertising to promote the process. Media releases have been produced for all the main newspapers, 30 second advertisements will screen on TV channels 1, 2, and 3 during early February, the backs of some buses will carry large posters, and A4 posters have been distributed around the city.

Public meetings will be held during the second and third weeks of February to enable public discussion and to gather informal responses to the directions contained in the discussion document. There will also be presentations to the Community Boards during the first week of February and to other interested groups such as the Chamber of Commerce.

After the public submissions have been returned, the information gathered will be analysed and then incorporated into a report for the Joint Committee of the two Councils. From this a Strategy document will be prepared to guide the direction of a public transport system in the future for consideration by the two Councils. The outcomes of the strategy will also be used to prepare the Regional Council's Public Transport Plan, which is to be developed during 1998. It is also likely that there will be implications for the City Council in terms of infrastructure changes and improvements.


Isobel Stout, Environmental Health Officer with the Environmental Policy and Planning Unit, has been elected to the position of National President of the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Health.

The Institute represents all Environmental Health professionals in New Zealand, was incorporated in 1920 and is a founding member of the International Federation of Environmental Health.


This year's Planning Institute Conference is being held in Dunedin on 18-21 March. The general theme concerns the Resource Management Act and its implication and administration over the past six years. The Conference agenda will be tabled.

It would be appropriate for one or two members of the Environmental Committee to attend the Conference.


It was proposed that the meeting with the Waimakariri District Council in June 1997 should be followed up with a further six monthly meeting to be hosted by the Christchurch City Council.

Arrangements are in hand for this meeting to take place on possibly 24 or 26 February 1998.

The last meeting dealt with issues of the City Plan and Waimakariri District Plan, the Waimakariri River Floodplain, urban growth and transport and roading issues.

Recommendation: For information.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the information be received.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Policy and Planning Manager Stuart Woods, Senior Transportation Planner
Corporate Plan Output: Transport Policy Advice

The purpose of this report is to present for information a submission made to the Ministry of Transport on their consultation document 'Vehicle Fleet Emissions Control Strategy - Stage 1'. The document is relatively technical in content and is some 200 pages long. Submissions were due on 16 January 1998. The submission is attached.

This document was previously brought to the Committee's attention, through a monthly update report by the Environmental Policy and Planning Manager to the 13 November 1997 meeting.

The purpose of the strategy is to determine the directions for policy to control the impact of vehicle emissions on local air quality. Stage one of the strategy (this document) deals with carbon monoxide emissions from vehicles. The stage 2 section, to be available for public consultation in mid-1998, will deal with particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons, and review the inter-relationships with policies proposed in stage 1.

The strategy will provide an input to the National Land Transport Strategy and addresses an area of needed research identified in the Land Transport Pricing Study.

The document makes a number of pragmatic policy recommendations, with an underlying principle of minimising (economic) disruption to the vehicle fleet whilst seeking to achieve certain improvements.

Recommendation: For information.
Chairman's Recommendation: That a report be prepared for the Environmental Committee detailing the testing procedures to be applied in monitoring the Council's own vehicle fleet.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Policy and Planning Manager Jenny May Planner (Heritage)
Corporate Plan Output: City Design and Heritage Policy Advice

The purpose of this report is to provide current information to the committee relating to listed heritage buildings which are under threat of demolition or alteration or where their future is uncertain.


Generally the status of heritage buildings can be grouped into six areas:

  1. listed buildings which continue to be used and where there is no current threat;

  2. listed buildings previously under threat where a new or continued use has been achieved;

  3. those buildings which are not currently under threat but the owners have sought assistance from the Council by the way of grants, advice, historical information or have involved heritage staff through the consent process;

  4. buildings which are under threat where the Council is actively offering assistance (within our current policy), to avoid possible demolition;

  5. buildings where formal notice of demolition has been given and where the likely outcome will be to proceed to a hearing even where some Council assistance has been offered;

  6. those listed buildings where notice of demolition has been given, but because of their classification level of heritage importance, which includes social/historical significance, contribution to the streetscape, group significance, and technological and archaeological importance, major active Council involvement is desirable.


(a) Listed buildings previously under threat where a new or continued use has been achieved:

Eliza's Manor House, 82 Bealey Avenue, Group 2

Eliza's has now been sold and the new owners are continuing the bed and breakfast use. It has been recently painted and ongoing maintenance is in progress.

A and P Showgrounds Treasurer's Buildings, Group 3

The A and P Showgrounds Treasurer's Buildings has been relocated to the new A and P Association in Curletts Road and subsequently refurbished. A Council Heritage Incentives Grant was given to assist with the relocation of this building.

Dwelling, 3 Heathfield Avenue, Fendalton, Group 4

Application for subdivision received December 1995. Application for demolition May 1996. Negotiations have been on-going. In 1997 the owner decided to sell site with a view to retaining the dwelling. Discussions were had with a number of interested purchasers and it is our understanding that the dwelling has recently been sold and will be used as a family home.

Deanery, Bealey Avenue, Group 2

Application for demolition of this building was received in May 1996, and extensive negotiations for retention of the building took place with the owner. As a result the original development proposals to develop the Deanery site and adjoining site as a motel complex was subsequently not pursued. Negotiations continued resulting in the subdivision of the major portion of the western side of the Deanery property for a motel development which allowed for a successful sale and purchase of the Deanery as a family home thus retaining the building.

Clarendon Towers, Worcester Street, Group 4

Application to change the original facade retained as a part of the 1986 redevelopment, was heard in March 1997. The alterations sought were approved and are nearing completion. The heritage planners consider that the effect of these alterations on the facade have destroyed a major section of the architectural aesthetic and therefore the integrity of the original architectural composition.

Mother Hubbards, Armagh Street, Group 3

Application to move this building to Redcliffs was approved in January 1997 and the building is now being restored on its new site.

(b) Those buildings which are not under threat but the owners have sought assistance from the Council by the way of grants, advice, historical information or have involved heritage staff through the consent process:

Peterborough Centre (ex Training College), Peterborough Street, Group 3

Hearings relating to the alteration of this building were heard in April 1997 and consent for the conversion of the Peterborough Centre into a boutique hotel was granted in May 1997. However the owners have since sold the building and a proposal to convert it into apartments is being explored by the new owners.

Assembly of God/Former Odeon Theatre, Tuam Street, Group 2

Late December 1997, the Pastor of the Church advised staff that his congregation is considering moving out of the Tuam Street building which the Church may wish to sell. Contact by council heritage staff is being maintained with the church.

Ex National Insurance Co, 118 Hereford Street, Group 3

This has now been upgraded (including structural strengthening and fire safety) with a new retail use at ground floor level. A heritage retention incentive grant was given to assist with the work.

Other Buildings

Staff have also been (and in most cases continue to be), involved with issues relating to restoration, refurbishment, structural strengthening and fire safety and egress with the following buildings:

(c) Buildings which are under threat where the Council is actively offering assistance (within our current policy), to avoid possible demolition:

'Orari', Gloucester Street, Group 3

Demolition of this dwelling was notified in October 1994 and various meetings, and regular discussion with owners were held. A photographic record was completed in 1995 and the owner had the right to proceed with demolition, however this was not actioned by the owner. As the right to demolish was not enacted within a two year period as outlined in Clause 73.4 of Part 12 of the CCC Transitional District Scheme, the owner now has to apply for a Resource Consent under the provisions of the proposed City Plan. We understand alternative uses for the building are being considered.

Octagonal Units, Jubilee Hospital, Jubilee Street, Group 3

This building was notified for demolition in February 1996 and the hearing took place in April 1997. The Council's decision was to defer demolition for a further 12 months to provide for interested parties to further explore conservation options.

Council staff have been liaising with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and the Christchurch Heritage Trust in an effort to find a new use for the building. None has been found to date and it is anticipated that the owner will apply for consent to demolish the units in April this year.

Wave House (ex Trade Union Centre), Gloucester Street, Group 3

This building was notified for demolition in February 1997 and the hearing was held in July 1997. Consent was granted for demolition but the owners have now decided to sell the building which is currently on the market

Sunnyside Hospital, 1 Lincoln Road, Group 2

No change since last report - most buildings vacant, future uncertain.

Woolstore (ex New Zealand Loan and Mercantile), 116 Durham Street South, Group 2

This building forms part of the former Levenes and Rialto Theatre/warehouse complex. Discussion for structural strengthening and options for reuse are on-going although no contact has occurred over the past 6 months.

Ex Sargood Son and Ewan Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Group 3

The building is on the market and its future is uncertain - there has been no change since the last report.

(d) Buildings where formal notice of demolition has been given and where the likely outcome will be to proceed to a hearing even where some Council assistance has been offered:

Wesley Lodge/Eventide Home, 138-148 Park Terrace, Group 3

The owners wish to demolish the buildings and redevelop the site - the future for these buildings remains uncertain.

Samoan Congregational Church, 343 Colombo Street, Group 2

The church has accepted a conditional offer from a developer who has applied for consent to demolish. The hearing application is to be held in February (1998) and has attracted over 85 submissions in opposition.

(e) Those listed buildings where notice of demolition has been given, but because of their level of heritage importance, which includes social/historical significance, contribution to the streetscape, group significance, technological and archaeological importance, major active Council involvement is desirable:

Star/Lyttelton Times Buildings, Cathedral Square/Gloucester Street, Group 1, Group 2; Warners Hotel, Cathedral Square, Group 2

Consent for demolition was applied for in December 1996 and is proposed to be heard in February 1998.

A Project Team and Sub Committee are negotiating with the owners as to the future of these buildings, including the retention of facades and commercial development opportunities in association with adjoining sites.

Coachman Inn (ex Dominion Hotel), Gloucester Street, Group 2

Proposed demolition of this was notified in June 1995 and certificate of compliance was issued under the old City Plan for demolition and an application was received to extend this certificate. In July 1997 an application for a Heritage Order was made by the Council and the hearing took place in December. The decision of the hearing has yet to be made public. The owner has also applied to the Environment Court against the application.

Arthur Barnett Building (ex Beaths), Colombo Street, Group 3

Demolition of this building was notified in April 1995 and certificate of compliance has been extended to expire in March 1999. Contact is being maintained with the owners, but it is expected to be some months before matters develop any further.


King Edward Barracks Drill Hall, Cashel Street, Group 2

Savoy Theatre, Cathedral Square, Group 4

A & P Showgrounds Industry Building, Lincoln Road, Group 3

Hurst and Drake, High Street, Group 4


In addition to the above, during the past two months heritage staff have been heavily involved in preparing evidence for the City Plan heritage and character groups hearings and recently for the hearings involving the Coachman Hotel, Gloucester Street, Warners, Star/Lyttelton Times buildings Gloucester Street and Cathedral Square, Samoan Congregational Church, Colombo Street.


Since the last report to the Environmental Committee, heritage staff have been involved in the 1997 Hoyts Heritage Week. This year the event was moved from May to October to allow us to make the most of the warmer weather. A report has been prepared, including all press releases and a photographic record, of the event.


Staff were involved during 1997 in assisting with the establishment of the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board Heritage Awards scheme; a scheme initiated by the Board to recognise community initiatives taken to preserve the particular built or constructed character and heritage of the Hagley Ferrymead area. The inaugural presentation of the Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board Heritage Awards, was held during Heritage Week at an evening function in the Linwood Community Arts Centre (the former Linwood Volunteer Library). The Awards were presented by the Community Board Chairperson Councillor. Anna Crighton who had originally initiated the scheme.

Recommendation: That the information be received.
Chairman's Recommendation: For information.



Officer responsible Author
Environmental Policy and Planning Manager Ivan Thomson, Senior Planner, Planning Policy
Corporate Plan Output: Plans and Policy Statements

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for amendments to the terms of reference of the Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee.

The Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee was established in October 1996 with an initial brief of preparing a preferred long term growth option for the area in and around Christchurch. The Committee comprises elected members from the City Council, Banks Peninsula, Selwyn, Waimakariri and Hurunui Districts, and the Regional Council. The Committee has since met twice, the last meeting being in September 1997.

During 1997 legal questions were raised by the City Council regarding possible threats posed by the long term growth project to the review of the Proposed City Plan. The City Council requested that there be no public consultation until decisions on the Plan were notified and that the Joint Committee meet only twice a year. Members of the City Plan Hearings Panel met in October 1997 and sought that an amendment be made to the Terms of Reference to limit the role of the Joint Committee to preparing options, rather than preferred strategy.

The proposal was considered by the Joint Office Working Party in November 1997 and a number of proposed amendments were made to the Terms of Reference along the lines requested. Changes have been made to the Mission Statement and Objectives shifting the focus of the work towards development alternative strategies and postponing community consultation to after the decisions of the City Plan are publicly notified and appeal dates have closed.

The proposed amendments, which have been sent to all member Councils, are attached showing the original wording that has been struck out and highlighting the proposed new wording. It is intended that a meeting of the Joint Committee be convened in March to adopt the new Terms of Reference.

Recommendation: That the amendments to the Terms of Reference of the Urban Development Strategy Joint Standing Committee be adopted.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the officer's recommendation be approved.



Officer responsible Author
Parks Manager Kelvin McMillan, Parks Planner (Policy)
Corporate Plan Output: Parks Plans and Policy Statements and New Assets - Reserve Purchases

The purpose of this report is to respond to a request by Wai-Ora Trust for the city's support for purchase of Gibraltar Farm on the Port Hills by Selwyn District Council for a reserve.


Wai-Ora Trust has an agreement to purchase 192 hectares of land at the head of the Otahuna Valley on the Port Hills. The agreement has been extended until 27 February 1998 when a deposit is due subject to satisfactory finance being raised. The Selwyn District Council are interested in purchasing the land, subject to further investigations on the proposed management concept and the support, in principle, of the Regional and City Councils.


The property is situated on the southern Port Hills in Selwyn District approximately 3.5km from the city boundary.

Gibraltar Farm contains two high value bush remnants including part of an old growth forest. Purchase of this property for native forest protection and restoration will be of enormous long term benefit to the forest ecosystems and birds of the Port Hills Ecological District.

The landscape, scenic and recreational benefit will be high because the project area is situated adjacent to the Summit Road one of Canterbury's premiere recreational and tourist routes.

The original 192ha purchase option included a block of 75 ha of pine forest adjoining the Summit Road. This has now been excluded from the purchase leaving the area to be purchased by Selwyn of 117ha.

Wai-Ora Trust now seek the City Council's support for this purchase by way of:

(a) An expression of support in principle to Selwyn District Council to proceed with the purchase.
(b) Management support by the City toward the running of the Park.


Gibraltar Farm is situated at the wetter end (Sugarloaf / Hoon Hay to Coopers Knob) of the Port Hills. This area is the best in the Christchurch area for the protection and enhancement of large expanses of native forest because:

Two important Council reserves, Ahuriri and Coopers Knob, are situated within 1.5 km of Gibraltar Farm. The northern end of Coopers Knob Scenic Reserve is within a few hundred metres of the top of Gibraltar Farm. The privately owned (purchased 1997) conservation area of Prendergasts Bush (part of the Coopers Knob bush complex) is situated in the next valley. The Crater Rim Walkway runs parallel to the Summit Road on the uphill side of the farm.

Purchase of this property will make restoration of a relatively continuous tract of native forest in this area of the Port Hills a much more realistic future planning option. A future forest of 200 to 500ha is a practical and realistic option for this area of the Port Hills based around the existing Christchurch City Council managed reserves Prendergasts' Bush and Gibraltar Farm. Other nearby forest remnants could be included as funds allow in the future.

This will have recreation and scenic benefits for visitors to this area of the Summit Road Corridor.


The primary aim in the purchase of the Gibraltar Farm would be to protect and restore an area of ecologically sustainable and aesthetically attractive native forest area on the Port Hills.

The property's 117ha contains two native forest remnants situated in gullies, Otahuna (5ha) and Block VI (30ha), with grassed spur between them. Large areas of gorse, and kanuka patches, are situated on the north and south margins of the bush blocks. This landscape pattern is largely a result of the impact of logging and burning followed by 150 years of management for agricultural purposes. The property is situated in the Port Hills Ecological District.

The two bush patches are both highly graded botanically on the 1992 survey of Banks Peninsula indigenous remnants. On an A-E scale Otahuna Bush is A graded and Bush Block VI a B+.

The property extends from approximately the 180m contour in a gully up to the 460m contour at the Summit Road encompassing the majority of the upper portion of the upper Otahuna and Block VI Bush block.

An adjoining landowner owns a strip of pasture land about 150m wide between the main bush block and the adjoining Gibraltar Rock.

The main purchase objectives are to:

The majority of users of this park will come from Christchurch City.


The property would be owned by Selwyn District Council. It is envisaged that a management committee would be established with representatives from Canterbury Regional Council, Christchurch City Council, Land Care, Department of Conservation, Wai-ora Trust, Forest and Bird and a private landscape architect. At a community level, the 'Addington Bush Society' network, are very interested in participating in restoration work to complement their urban based work.


1. Fencing 10,000
2. Animal control (goats, possums, rabbits) 10,000
3. Interpretation (tracks, signs, PR) 5,000
4. Boundary control (keeping gorse away from boundaries) 5,000
5. Planting (mainly a totara sponsorship concept) 5,000
6. Management/Administration 5,000

Any major developments such as the 'sustainable totara forest concept or an educational day shelter, would be funded by grants and sponsorships.

Wai-ora Trust consider the City Council's participation in the project as very important. It could include:

  1. Representation on the management team.
  2. Staff time eg Port Hills Ranger's experience and management input.
  3. Public relations contribution to promotional materials for education, recreation and the value of linking other areas along the Port Hills.
  4. Financial contribution to the annual management of the area (refer to draft budget).


The importance to the City of areas adjacent to the Summit Road can be gauged by the areas popularity with the public with 210,000 non tour vehicle borne visitors estimated to use the western Port Hills each year. Seventy seven percent of these visitors come from Christchurch City.

The Regional Council has already indicated its support of the project and its willingness to contribute resources to its management.

The Regional Council considers that the property has regional importance in respect of its biodiversity and potential educational value to future generations of school children in learning the concepts of sustainable management.

The Forest Heritage Fund have agreed to contribute funds towards the purchase with the best native forest areas being set up as Scenic Reserves.

Land Care are very interested in the land being secured for community and scientific purposes and are proposing to set up field trials on the property to help define best practices for restoration of indigenous habitat and establishing potentially commercial indigenous species.


Port Hills Parks by their nature tend to provide greater benefit (ecological, recreation, scenic, landscape) than their immediate locality might suggest. For this reason there is widespread community and institutional co-operation in this potential purchase ie:

By supporting this purchase the City Council can make a significant contribution toward sustainable management of a high value scenic and natural heritage area, as well as increasing recreation, employment, training and education opportunities in an area popular with many Christchurch residents.

  1. That the purchase of Gibraltar Farm for a park by Selwyn District Council be supported.

  2. That the concept of City Council representation on a proposed management team be supported.

  3. That the Parks Unit enter into discussions with Selwyn District Council in respect to providing assistance with supervision and maintenance of the Park and report back to the Parks and Recreation Committee.
Chairman's Recommendation: For information.


This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
© Christchurch City Council, Christchurch, New Zealand | Contact the Council