Get involved

The council plans to restrict housing in some areas of the city because they are poorly serviced by the lack of current high frequency public transport routes. Some areas solely designated with this qualifying matter such as in Casebrook and Styx are close to rail corridors, existing commercial areas and are serviced by low frequency routes. In the future, these areas could see a boost in service by more buses on current routes or introduction of a commuter rail service.

The council is required by law to allow residential buildings of at least 6 storeys within a 1.2km radius of commercial centres such as malls and the city centre. The council plan to enable this, while also allowing up to 10 storeys for residential buildings closer to the city centre. This would enable a wider range of dense housing development options. It would also allow more people to live close to services and amenities.

[S]upport[s] the Tree Canopy Cover rules and Financial Contributions to restore our tree canopy. Trees are important in reducing emissions, providing shade and temperature control in the summer, alongside the other wide range of economic, health and social effects.

The council will require 20% of new residential developments to be covered by trees, or otherwise pay a financial contribution to help the council plant more trees on public land. Christchurch has an appallingly low tree canopy cover rate of 13% compared to Auckland (18%) and Wellington (30%). Trees have a wide range of environmental, health, social and economic benefits and are important for the future of our city.

[S]upport[s] the Tree Canopy Cover rules and Financial Contributions to restore our tree canopy. Trees are important in reducing emissions, providing shade and temperature control in the summer, alongside the other wide range of economic, health and social effects.

The council will require 20% of new residential developments to be covered by trees, or otherwise pay a financial contribution to help the council plant more trees on public land. Christchurch has an appallingly low tree canopy cover rate of 13% compared to Auckland (18%) and Wellington (30%). Trees have a wide range of environmental, health, social and economic benefits and are important for the future of our city.

[O]ppose[s] the Low Public Transport Accessibility Area Qualifying Matter as I believe that the public transport layout and network will need changes to prepare and accommodate future growth. We should not define future growth in Christchurch based on these routes. This would also artificially limit future housing in our city.

The council plans to restrict housing in some areas of the city because they are poorly serviced by the lack of current high frequency public transport routes. Some areas solely designated with this qualifying matter such as in Casebrook and Styx are close to rail corridors, existing commercial areas and are serviced by low frequency routes. In the future, these areas could see a boost in service by more buses on current routes or introduction of a commuter rail service.

[O]ppose[s] the Sunlight Access Qualifying Matter. There are many cities in the Northern Hemisphere that are further away from the equator and have a higher level of housing intensification than Christchurch. With a mix of medium and high density housing, these cities are considered some of the most livable cities in the world. This qualifying matter would restrict medium density housing height and size in such a way that would create a less efficient usage of land and limit future housing.

There are many cities in the world that have high density and are further from the equator than Christchurch. Cities such as Vienna, Copenhagen, Toronto, Geneva, and Calgary are consistently ranked some of the most livable cities in the world. This qualifying matter would reduce the maximum height and size of medium residential buildings below what is legally required. This qualifying matter has been developed with the expressed purpose of protecting and increasing property values rather than increasing the amount of affordable housing for people.

[O]ppose[s] the Sunlight Access Qualifying Matter. There are many cities in the Northern Hemisphere that are further away from the equator and have a higher level of housing intensification than Christchurch. With a mix of medium and high density housing, these cities are considered some of the most livable cities in the world. This qualifying matter would restrict medium density housing height and size in such a way that would create a less efficient usage of land and limit future housing.

There are many cities in the world that have high density and are further from the equator than Christchurch. Cities such as Vienna, Copenhagen, Toronto, Geneva, and Calgary are consistently ranked some of the most livable cities in the world. This qualifying matter would reduce the maximum height and size of medium residential buildings below what is legally required. This qualifying matter has been developed with the expressed purpose of protecting and increasing property values rather than increasing the amount of affordable housing for people.

Bike Lock-ups in the central city - feedback based on the Experience of residents at Worcester Terraces - 48 unit dwelling

- Bike lockup is underutilised as many residents have lost confidence in them due to frequent break-ins and bike theft

-If residents felt they were safe there still probably wouldn't be enough space

-There have been multiple bike thefts even though the gates are locked and coded

The proposed plan delivers on higher population densities, mixed land use, efficient use of transport corridors and social and economic diversity – all aimed to manage urban growth. However, urban intensification planning and design control measures that maintain and promote the character of the existing residential environment do not appear in this revised plan. This omission will cause the loss of the character of Perry Street - a place unique and distinctive. Has the identity of the “character” of the street and the structural morphology been studied? The notion of “character” must come into the centre of the debate. 

The proposed urban intensification of Paparoa Street and Perry Street, Papanui must come under criticism because of its lack of planning provision for character sustainability and sense of place

App 13.2.6.1 and App 13.2.6.2

The poorly conceived application of recession plane concepts has the potential to result in shockingly bad outcomes, and will result in (in many cases), complete loss of sunlight into dwellings and gardens. This will have hugely detrimental impacts on mental health in Christchurch, and will result in the complete loss of the ability of many inhabitants to grow vegetable and fruit gardens in Christchurch’s climate. 

The complete lack of proper provision to mitigate against privacy effects is disgraceful. 

Affordability: Increasing housing density, both in the city centre and suburbs, would increase the overall housing stock. Reduced housing supply is one of the main drivers of housing unaffordability[1]. This is a major issue in New Zealand, where housing construction rates have been declining since the building boom of the 1960s and 70s[2]. This has coincided with an explosion in house prices across the country, which have increased 425% over the past 20 years[3]. Christchurch is not immune to these issues. While its housing cost to household income ratio of 6.9 in Q2 2022 was lower than other major centres[4] this is still well above 5 which is when a market is considered ‘severely unaffordable’[5]. Christchurch also has the second highest rent to income ratio amongst all major centres in Aotearoa[6].

Restrictive zoning laws, which force people to build low-density houses, artificially slow down the supply of homes. This lack of supply leads to price increases[7]. There is clear demand in Christchurch for denser housing, as evidenced by the boom in townhouse construction, so CCC should take advantage of this as a means of improving housing affordability.

Sustainability: Denser housing leads to decreased household emissions[8]. Road transport emissions are the single biggest factor in Christchurch’s overall emissions profile, and so the council has made a decrease in transport emissions a key part of their emissions reduction plan[9]. Building denser housing, close to key public transport routes, would help to achieve this reduction. With people living closer to employment, services, and amenities, they are more likely to use public or active transport. This would also have health and wellbeing benefits: active transport use can improve physical health, while reduced commutes would mean that people can spend more time socialising, exercising, and partaking in hobbies.

Community: Urban density is associated with improved safety and increased economic vibrancy. Increased number and diversity of people means that streets and amenities are used throughout the day, rather than just in distinct time periods. This increases the demand and resources for amenities as well as increases the safety of our streets and neighbourhoods, with more people being out and about. This array of people is also associated with increased community cohesion due to regular interactions in shared spaces.

Relevant clause: 14.6.2.2.b (Clause that dictates that recession planes still apply on parts of buildings above 12 m).

Remove recession planes for taller buildings in HRZ, while maintaining height limits which was intention of NPS-UD.

My wife and i do not support the proposed plan 14 designation of HDRS for our property at 8 Allister Avenue, Merivale. 

1. There is no valid reason why we are not the same designation as our neighbours' properties of MDRS on the other side of Allister Avenue . The only reason must be because any designation of HDRS closer to the Merivale Mall complex is too difficult to work out and Allister Avenue is being used as a easy way out of the planners ' problem. 
2. Properties situated north of Leinster Road have always been designated as Res 1 or Living 1. This prime residential zoning distinction should be maintained. 
3. High rise apartment buildings will diminish the prospect of reducing global warming. Concrete will replace grass and trees. Refer to Simon Upton's recent paper on this topic. 
4. All day parking on one side of Allister Avenue and the presence of many vehicles and young children at peak school times would be factors decreasing the viability of access for owners and for motorists using the Avenue as a short cut route and increasing the chances of accidents . 
5. Our property has a land area of 1503 m2. A 32 metre high apartment building would unreasonably add to congestion and lack of safety , Allister Avenue not being a full width road .Services would have to be considerably upgraded .Neighbours 'properties would be adversely affected by shading unless a ""qualifying matter ""applied .Even an apartment building of up to 14 metres would adversely affect the viability of the Avenue and the enjoyment of the area by its property owners.

SSRA encourage the CCC to consider the cost of regulation to ALL parties:

• The costs of regulating if property owners will manage the risk anyway.
• There are costs when regulating too hastily, or over-regulation. First, it does not allow gradual adaption which may be less costly to achieve. Second, early regulation may deprive owners of the ability to enjoy the full use of their property in the interim.  
• The costs of regulating when there is significant uncertainty. When the risk is both uncertain and beyond the life of most built structures, regulation runs the risk of unnecessarily imposing costs on the community.

SSRA believe that the Southshore experience [with the Residential Unit Overlay] is one that you can learn from. The interaction between parts of the plan were not consistent in objective and purpose. Parts of the plan for the same aspect had opposing objectives. This bought planning and consenting for the area to a standstill. When the RUO was not functioning as intended in Southshore, the wellbeing level of the residents were so concerning it was raised at council level. Several residents were financially affected, and their health was of concern to their friends and families. This is what happens when a community is inappropriately overregulated too soon. Communities are smothered.  

My 612m2 section comes under MRZ and Tsunami Management area.

I support the proposal of MRZ, however, I strongly oppose proposal of including part of my section to tsunami management area. My section is already raised from the street when compared to the section opposite to mine. However tsunami management area is not covered in the opposite section but part of my section is! By dividing my section to tsunami management area and MRZ, i wont be able to develop the section. I would like to have my section reviewed in regards to qualifying matters - Tsunami Management area.

The council plans to restrict housing in some areas of the city because they are poorly serviced by the lack of current high frequency public transport routes. Some areas solely designated with this qualifying matter such as in Casebrook and Styx are close to rail corridors, existing commercial areas and are serviced by low frequency routes. In the future, these areas could see a boost in service by more buses on current routes or introduction of a commuter rail service.

The council is required by law to allow residential buildings of at least 6 storeys within a 1.2km radius of commercial centres such as malls and the city centre. The council plan to enable this, while also allowing up to 10 storeys for residential buildings closer to the city centre. This would enable a wider range of dense housing development options. It would also allow more people to live close to services and amenities.

3.3.8 Objective - Urban growth, form and design

viii.

Recognises the contribution of accessibility and connectivity to creating well-functioning, sustainable places

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

6 1A – Qualifying Matters

City Spine Transport Corridor

Low Public Transport Accessibility Area

Provides for the future provision of MRT corridors in association with other desired low carbon transport modes including walking and cycling, public transactions and public space amenity that can’t be achieved effectively within a 20m corridor width.

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

6 1A – Qualifying Matters

Sunlight Access

Recognises the difference in latitude of the city to that of more northern cities and the importance of sunlight access within a cooler southern climate. In effect aligns with northern New Zealand cities’ sunlight access. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVILABLE]

8.2.6.1 Policy – Contribution to tree canopy cover

This objective and these policies seek to address climate change and environmental imperatives, mitigating the impacts of urban development which are being increasing observed in storm events throughout Aotearoa and the world. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

8.2.6 Objective – Urban tree canopy cover

This objective and these policies seek to address climate change and environmental imperatives, mitigating the impacts of urban development which are being increasing observed in storm events throughout Aotearoa and the world. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

14.2.5.1 Policy - Neighbourhood character, amenity and safety

For the reasons set out in the s32. All of these policy matters relate to the assurance of a well-functioning urban environment. As building scale, height and density is increased so too are the potential adverse impacts on users of public space and private development, and on the natural environment.

Key urban design matters are addressed that create more comfortable, walkable, safe environments, with consideration given to reducing the impacts of climate change through the policy direction. 

The specificity of the policies provides direction and ultimately ensures a balance between certainty, and more qualitative aspects that are key to creating high quality urban environments that people want to live in, and they thrive in.

Fundamental matters such as storage and servicing are not only important to ensuring a functional living environment, but can be a key detractor when managed badly from ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE] 

14.2.5.3 Policy – Quality large scale developments

For the reasons set out in the s32. All of these policy matters relate to the assurance of a well-functioning urban environment. As building scale, height and density is increased so too are the potential adverse impacts on users of public space and private development, and on the natural environment.

Key urban design matters are addressed that create more comfortable, walkable, safe environments, with consideration given to reducing the impacts of climate change through the policy direction. 

The specificity of the policies provides direction and ultimately ensures a balance between certainty, and more qualitative aspects that are key to creating high quality urban environments that people want to live in, and they thrive in.

Fundamental matters such as storage and servicing are not only important to ensuring a functional living environment, but can be a key detractor when managed badly from ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

14.2.5.5 Policy – Assessment of wind effects

For the reasons set out in the s32. All of these policy matters relate to the assurance of a well-functioning urban environment. As building scale, height and density is increased so too are the potential adverse impacts on users of public space and private development, and on the natural environment.

Key urban design matters are addressed that create more comfortable, walkable, safe environments, with consideration given to reducing the impacts of climate change through the policy direction. 

The specificity of the policies provides direction and ultimately ensures a balance between certainty, and more qualitative aspects that are key to creating high quality urban environments that people want to live in, and they thrive in.

Fundamental matters such as storage and servicing are not only important to ensuring a functional living environment, but can be a key detractor when managed badly from ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

14.6 Rules — High Density Residential Central City Zone

The proposed provisions are appropriate and necessary to achieve a well-functioning urban environment, with activity status and thresholds for assessment appropriate to the activities outlined, particularly where they impact upon public space environments.

The balance provided between the certainty of standards and qualitative assessment  is appropriate to achieving a well-functioning urban environment including high quality urban design, creating safer, more walkable environments, and promoting climate change initiatives including the provision of tree canopy and landscaping. The move to promote a perimeter block form is notable in achieving a balance between support of the public space environment, functionality and amenity for residents, and contributing to the city’s open space.

[FULL ATTCHEMENT AVAILABLE]

15.2.2.2 Policy – Mixed use areas outside the central city

There are mixed use areas in convenient locations to the central city including Sydenham and Philipstown that could contribute to a more sustainable development approach, with the appropriate infrastructure provision, and by limiting activities that will result in increased transport emissions.

[FULL ATTAHCMENT AVAILABLE]

15.2.4.1 Policy – Scale and form of development

Supports urban form, city making, identity and high quality urban design

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

15.12 Rules — Commercial Central City Mixed Use Zone

Provides greater consistency in respect to design outcomes for the central city

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

15.2.4.2 Policy – Design of new development

Supports urban form, city making, identity and high quality urban design

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

15.2.4 Objective - Urban form, scale and design outcomes

Provides the strategic intent that supports the direction for a desirable city form that addresses climate change imperatives. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

This objective and these policies seek to address climate change and environmental imperatives, mitigating the impacts of urban development which are being increasing observed in storm events throughout Aotearoa and the world.

Consolidates residential development into locations where there is effective multi modal transport choice, and supports a critical mass of activity rather than creating a detrimental dispersal effect.

This objective and these policies seek to address climate change and environmental imperatives, mitigating the impacts of urban development which are being increasing observed in storm events throughout Aotearoa and the world.

For the reasons set out in the s32. All of these policy matters relate to the assurance of a well-functioning urban environment. As building scale, height and density is increased so too are the potential adverse impacts on users of public space and private development, and on the natural environment.

Key urban design matters are addressed that create more comfortable, walkable, safe environments, with consideration given to reducing the impacts of climate change through the policy direction. 

The specificity of the policies provides direction and ultimately ensures a balance between certainty, and more qualitative aspects that are key to creating high quality urban environments that people want to live in, and they thrive in.

Fundamental matters such as storage and servicing are not only important to ensuring a functional living environment, but can be a key detractor when managed badly from ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. 

For the reasons set out in the s32. All of these policy matters relate to the assurance of a well-functioning urban environment. As building scale, height and density is increased so too are the potential adverse impacts on users of public space and private development, and on the natural environment.

Key urban design matters are addressed that create more comfortable, walkable, safe environments, with consideration given to reducing the impacts of climate change through the policy direction. 

The specificity of the policies provides direction and ultimately ensures a balance between certainty, and more qualitative aspects that are key to creating high quality urban environments that people want to live in, and they thrive in.

Fundamental matters such as storage and servicing are not only important to ensuring a functional living environment, but can be a key detractor when managed badly from ensuring a safe and comfortable environment.

For the reasons set out in the s32. All of these policy matters relate to the assurance of a well-functioning urban environment. As building scale, height and density is increased so too are the potential adverse impacts on users of public space and private development, and on the natural environment.

Key urban design matters are addressed that create more comfortable, walkable, safe environments, with consideration given to reducing the impacts of climate change through the policy direction. 

The specificity of the policies provides direction and ultimately ensures a balance between certainty, and more qualitative aspects that are key to creating high quality urban environments that people want to live in, and they thrive in.

Fundamental matters such as storage and servicing are not only important to ensuring a functional living environment, but can be a key detractor when managed badly from ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. 

The proposed provisions are appropriate and necessary to achieve a well-functioning urban environment, with activity status and thresholds for assessment appropriate to the activities outlined, particularly where they impact upon public space environments.

We fully support making sunlight access a qualifying matter so that recession planes can be adjusted to allow Christchurch developments under the MDRS to have the same amount of sunlight access as Auckland developments. 

[FULL ATTACHMENT AVAILABLE]

The submitter strongly supports all the proposed Qualifying Matters, but in particular those matters listed under Matters of National Importance (RMAs.6), including historic heritage; Public Open Space Areas; Residential Heritage Areas and Residential Character Areas; Sunlight Access; Riccarton Bush Interface; and the Otakaro Avon River Corridor. 

Although their concerns as a group relate primarily to heritage, we consider that many of the other qualifying matters such as the Tsunami Management Areas and Vacuum Sewer Wastewater Constraint and Low Public Transport Accessibility Areas are sensible qualifying matters which will help to protect quite large areas of the city from the random high density developments that will have adverse consequences in the longer term, and will also help to maintain their existing character.

The submitter strongly supports all the proposed Qualifying Matters, but in particular those matters listed under Matters of National Importance (RMAs.6), including historic heritage; Public Open Space Areas; Residential Heritage Areas and Residential Character Areas; Sunlight Access; Riccarton Bush Interface; and the Otakaro Avon River Corridor. 

Although their concerns as a group relate primarily to heritage, we consider that many of the other qualifying matters such as the Tsunami Management Areas and Vacuum Sewer Wastewater Constraint and Low Public Transport Accessibility Areas are sensible qualifying matters which will help to protect quite large areas of the city from the random high density developments that will have adverse consequences in the longer term, and will also help to maintain their existing character.

The submitter strongly supports all the proposed Qualifying Matters, but in particular those matters listed under Matters of National Importance (RMAs.6), including historic heritage; Public Open Space Areas; Residential Heritage Areas and Residential Character Areas; Sunlight Access; Riccarton Bush Interface; and the Otakaro Avon River Corridor. 

Although their concerns as a group relate primarily to heritage, we consider that many of the other qualifying matters such as the Tsunami Management Areas and Vacuum Sewer Wastewater Constraint and Low Public Transport Accessibility Areas are sensible qualifying matters which will help to protect quite large areas of the city from the random high density developments that will have adverse consequences in the longer term, and will also help to maintain their existing character.

Offsetting trees removed for intensification by planting on Council land will never fully compensate for the loss of tree cover and consequent loss of amenity in the areas affected by intensification. Even where sufficient trees are planted to meet the canopy rules, it will be years before a young tree can provide the environmental benefits and the amenity for people that mature trees provide. In fact,

The submitter has some concerns that the financial contribution provision may prove to be a bit of a double edged sword. It would be unfortunate if a well-meaning provision was used to provide an easy out for developers to pay up rather than seek to protect existing trees through clever design. Removal of matures trees needs to be seen as a last resort. There is a need for the Council to work much more closely with developers to overcome the clean-slate mindset which seems to prevail at present and the financial contribution need to be set at a level sufficient to discourage this clean-slate approach.

The submitter acknowledges that it is sensible and appropriate to concentrate the highest density in the central city. However, they have concerns about the heights in the central city zone. The submitter believes there is a need for a more graduated height around the boundaries in respect of Hagley Park, Cranmer Square and Latimer Square. 

- The proposed heights would allow 90 metres to the west of Latimer Square and 32 metres around Cranmer Square and to the east of Latimer Square. 

- The proposed heights would allow 32 metres along Park Terrace adjoining Hagley Park. 

The submitter acknowledges that it is sensible and appropriate to concentrate the highest density in the central city. However, they have concerns about the heights in the central city zone and high density zone. The submitter believes there is a need for a more graduated height around the boundaries in respect of Hagley Park, Cranmer Square and Latimer Square. 

- The proposed heights would allow 90 metres to the west of Latimer Square and 32 metres around Cranmer Square and to the east of Latimer Square. 

- The proposed heights would allow 32 metres along Park Terrace adjoining Hagley Park.

Seeks amendments to ensure that existing stormwater infrastructure is competent for [high density accommodation development].

I live in an area that is affected by high density accommodation development. I am sorry to loose my privacy; productive flower and vegie garden; shelter from winds; sun; suburban beehives; grassy green sink for water and carbon dioxide. My sanctuary. I accept this for the greater vision and good.

Problems I can see. -Stormwater infrastructure. The current stormwaterinfrastructure barely manages and this dense infill building is happening without this being addressed. We flood readily and easily with any rain -Our road continually has burst/ leaking pipes and sumps. Is our infrastructure competent for this""progress""? Has the Christchurch City Council divested itself of it's responsibilities too quickly? 

I live in an area that is affected by high density accommodation development. I am sorry to loose my privacy; productive flower and vegie garden; shelter from winds; sun; suburban beehives; grassy green sink for water and carbon dioxide. My sanctuary. I accept this for the greater vision and good.

Problems I can see. -Stormwater infrastructure. The current stormwaterinfrastructure barely manages and this dense infill building is happening without this being addressed. We flood readily and easily with any rain -Our road continually has burst/ leaking pipes and sumps. Is our infrastructure competent for this""progress""? Has the Christchurch City Council divested itself of it's responsibilities too quickly? 

The council plans to restrict housing in some areas of the city because they are poorly serviced by the lack of current high frequency public transport routes. Some areas solely designated with this qualifying matter such as in Casebrook and Styx are close to rail corridors, existing commercial areas and are serviced by low frequency routes. In the future, these areas could see a boost in service by more buses on current routes or introduction of a commuter rail service.

The council is required by law to allow residential buildings of at least 6 storeys within a 1.2km radius of commercial centres such as malls and the city centre. The council plan to enable this, while also allowing up to 10 storeys for residential buildings closer to the city centre. This would enable a wider range of dense housing development options. It would also allow more people to live close to services and amenities.

I oppose the Low Public Transport Accessibility Area Qualifying Matter as I believe that the public transport layout and network will need changes to prepare and accommodate future growth. We should not define future growth in Christchurch based on these routes. This would also artificially limit future housing in our city. 

[Regarding the Sunlight Access Qualifying Matter] seek[s] that the council drop this qualifying matter. 

I oppose the Sunlight Access Qualifying Matter. There are many cities in the Northern Hemisphere that are further away from the equator and have a higher level of housing intensification than Christchurch. With a mix of medium and high density housing, these cities are considered some of the most livable cities in the world. This qualifying matter would restrict medium density housing height and size in such a way that would create a less efficient usage of land and limit future housing.

The council is required by law to allow residential buildings of at least 6 storeys within a 1.2km radius of commercial centres such as malls and the city centre. The council plan to enable this, while also allowing up to 10 storeys for residential buildings closer to the city centre. This would enable a wider range of dense housing development options. It would also allow more people to live close to services and amenities.

The council will require 20% of new residential developments to be covered by trees, or otherwise pay a financial contribution to help the council plant more trees on public land. Christchurch has an appallingly low tree canopy cover rate of 13% compared to Auckland (18%) and Wellington (30%). Trees have a wide range of environmental, health, social and economic benefits and are important for the future of our city.

I support the Tree Canopy Cover rules and Financial Contributions to restore our tree canopy. Trees are important in reducing emissions, providing shade and temperature control in the summer, alongside the other wide range of economic, health and social effects.

The council will require 20% of new residential developments to be covered by trees, or otherwise pay a financial contribution to help the council plant more trees on public land. Christchurch has an appallingly low tree canopy cover rate of 13% compared to Auckland (18%) and Wellington (30%). Trees have a wide range of environmental, health, social and economic benefits and are important for the future of our city.

I support the Tree Canopy Cover rules and Financial Contributions to restore our tree canopy. Trees are important in reducing emissions, providing shade and temperature control in the summer, alongside the other wide range of economic, health and social effects.