!. Our site is located across the road from the Southern portion of the Awatea Business Zone

 (a) Maintain road setback rule 16.6.4.2.1

 (b)Maintain Special interface Area IAW Appendix 16.8.10i as identified in the ODP plan.

 (c) Noise rule 6.1.5.2.1 Table 1(m) currently states 50db between the hours of 2200-0700 if a dwelling existed prior to the plan change being operative. With this being the case for our site then to avoid any confusion to the rule align the site rule with 6.1.5.2.1 Table 1(a)  

(a) Maintain road setback rule 16.6.4.2.1

 Amend noise rule 6.1.5.2.1 Table 1(a) to align with the site rather than whether the dwelling existed prior to the plan change being operative. 

NTPs opposite the PC14 Planning Maps and decision sought. Please see the detailed submission attached.

NTPs opposite the PC14 Planning Maps and decision sought. Please see the detailed submission attached.

The site is located within the Residential New Neighbourhood Zone (“RNNZ”) under the Operative Christchurch District Plan (“Operative Plan”). Other undeveloped properties located within the RNNZ under the Operative Plan have been rezoned to FUZ under PC14. However, the site was rezoned MDRZ under PC14, rather than FUZ. Therefore, NTP oppose the MDRZ of the site. It is prudent to note that NTP undertake greenfield subdivisions and sell vacant allotments to be developed by the prospective purchaser. NTP do not generally build residential units. The inconsistent zoning approach towards the site significantly impacts the future development of this property and density. For example, the MDRZ requires a minimum allotment size of 400m2, whereas the FUZ requires a minimum net site area of 400m2 for corner sites, and for all other sites a minimum net site area of 300m2 except that 20% of allotments in the subdivision may be 180m²-299m² in size. NTP have invested in the design and future layout for this part of the site which cannot be developed until such time as the lease with the current tenant expires. Based on the notified zoning, the site would be developed into less residential allotments than that enabled by the current RNNZ and FUZ. Consequentially, the notified zoning of 35 Steadman does not foster increasing housing supply and, therefore, seems to be contrary to a key objective of the RMAA. Zoning the site FUZ, as similar properties were, would foster increasing housing supply which is intended by the RMAA. For the reasons noted above, the MDRZ applied to the site, as notified by PC14, is contrary to the RRDEA and the Development Scheme. The Government approved the Development Scheme for the site and the RNNZ at the time. Christchurch City Council was also provided pre-approval of the Development Scheme ahead of Government consideration. Consequentially, the MDRZ applied to the site may result in NTP needing to compensate the Crown if a minimum of 180 affordable houses cannot be provided within Karamū. Additionally, when compared to the FUZ and its minimum allotment size standards, the MDRZ and its minimum allotment size standard do not best facilitate the expeditious residential development of the site.

Chester Street East is a very vibrant, friendly, tree-lined street with a great sense of community. This community also includes Dawson Street and is centred around Chesterfields Park. This is one community and should be continued to be treated like one. Excluding the eastern end of Chester Street East from the proposed Residential Heritage Area threatens the community spirit of the area and has the potential to create severance between the differently treated areas. Treating the areas the same would embrace the uniqueness and special character of the whole street and avoid potential issues in the future such as parking and excessive traffic volumes which would negatively impact the heritage area too.

Chester Street East and Dawson Street are a great example how inner-city living can be done well by having an engaging, safe and caring community which should be the goal for inner-city living. Creating a division and treating the neighbourhood differently will surely cause friction which should not be the desired intention for inner-city living. The Chester/Dawson area is a beautiful and tranquil place with a beating heart that is Chesterfields that allows for a pleasant way of living between the hustle and bustle of the inner city and a real sense of community and belonging. 

I therefore ask within this submission that the Christchurch City Council reaffirms the amendment passed at the meeting dated 13 September 2022 that includes the whole of Chester Street East (until Fitzgerald Avenue) and Dawson Street to be part of the special heritage area. 

Chester Street East is a very vibrant, friendly, tree-lined street with a great sense of community. This community also includes Dawson Street and is centred around Chesterfields Park. This is one community and should be continued to be treated like one. Excluding the eastern end of Chester Street East from the proposed Residential Heritage Area threatens the community spirit of the area and has the potential to create severance between the differently treated areas. Treating the areas the same would embrace the uniqueness and special character of the whole street and avoid potential issues in the future such as parking and excessive traffic volumes which would negatively impact the heritage area too.

Chester Street East and Dawson Street are a great example how inner-city living can be done well by having an engaging, safe and caring community which should be the goal for inner-city living. Creating a division and treating the neighbourhood differently will surely cause friction which should not be the desired intention for inner-city living. The Chester/Dawson area is a beautiful and tranquil place with a beating heart that is Chesterfields that allows for a pleasant way of living between the hustle and bustle of the inner city and a real sense of community and belonging. 

I therefore ask within this submission that the Christchurch City Council reaffirms the amendment passed at the meeting dated 13 September 2022 that includes the whole of Chester Street East (until Fitzgerald Avenue) and Dawson Street to be part of the special heritage area. 

We strongly support the positive intention of The Christchurch City Council to preserve and enhance areas of special heritage and character whilst encouraging increased inner-city living. Over a period of half a century, The Christchurch City Council has, in creative partnership with local residents in Chester Street East and Dawson Street, established a unique, treelined, densely-populated, inner-city residential area. Not including the whole street would severely threaten the nature of the street and its cohesion.

Above: The green line includes the area proposed by the residents of Chester Street East to be recognised as a special heritage area in our city, with Chesterfields Park located at its heart. This was moved as an amendment by Councillor Jake McLellan on 13 September 2022 and passed by The Christchurch City Council. After passing this amendment, the Council voted against implementing the Government’s intensification policy in which this amendment was contained.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Chester Street East is as wide a street as its neighbouring Kilmore Street (and other inner-city streets). But from the 1980s, the Christchurch City Council began a visionary narrowing and beautification of this street (in the Western half – Madras to Barbadoes Streets – with 2 road humps, 2 curves, and a splitter island; in the Eastern half – Barbadoes Street to Fitzgerald Avenue – with 5 road humps and build-outs as pinch points). Powerlines were removed. Trees were planted on the footpaths on both sides of the street. Dawson Street was included in the beautification by the addition of permanent planter features.

Historically, this area is in the planned city park which was to have gone all the way around the central city. It retains this park-like feel. In the quakes, some trees were lost at the NorthEast corner, and it is our understanding that the intention is that they be replaced – the plots for each of these trees still exist, awaiting replanting, in the footpath.

From the mid 19th Century, cottages and other dwellings were established in this area. Dwellings have continued to be built up to the present. The street was bookended in the West by the grand houses starting at 86 Chester Street East. At the East, the Fitzgerald Avenue end, the bookend was, until the quakes, the Crighton Cobbers Youth & Community Club buildings (connected to Ward’s Brewery). We look forward to a building on this North-East corner which connects to this history in the manner that Flow Wellbeing Centre (229 Fitzgerald Avenue) has shown is possible. Already, as part of acknowledging the full street’s special character, in the Eastern quarter of the street, there is the wonderful refurbishment of the 7 historic units at 173 Chester Street East which sit adjacent to an 1880s cottage, and so on. In the 2010s, The Christchurch City Council was again visionary in developing the Chesterfields Community Garden (160 Chester St East). This garden now forms the heart of the street and its strong sense of community.

The Christchurch City Council recognised the whole street as the Chester East neighbourhood (https://ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/central-city-christchurch/livehere/our-central-neighbourhoods/chester-east-neighbourhood). The special character of this whole street is of a 1980s inner-city-renewal, traffic- calmed, tree-lined street. There were plans to apply such renewal to other inner-city streets also – they were never implemented. As such, individual dwellings, from the second half of the 19th Century through to the present day, can be seen to be defining and contributory dwellings. There is no other street like this in the inner city, within the boundary of the four avenues. Dawson Street shares in this described sense of this neighbourhood; it is to be noted that all the trees on Dawson Street are on private property. The distinguishing character of Dawson Street is in reflecting the sense of the integrity of Chester Street East.

3. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT The Christchurch City Council meeting of 13 September, 2022, passed the amendment to extend the Chester St East/Dawson St heritage area to include all properties with a Chester St East address but then the Council voted against the Plan as a whole in which this amendment occurred. This leaves the nature of Chester Street East in the current consultation process. We seek that the amendment that was passed by The Council in 2022 be included in the final Plan currently being consulted about.

Arguments against including the whole of the street include a percentage-of-historicdwelling-calculation system that counts the seven historic units at 173 only as “one” building, and states that “because it has been partly rebuilt, its heritage values are compromised” (by such non-Christchurch logic the Cathedral in the Square, and in fact every building in Christchurch, has its heritage value compromised). The consultant did not realise that historically these units were mixed-use commercial and residential, claiming that they are simply “a non-residential building converted to residential use”. Since the Council’s September 2022 decision, which left our street in limbo, in the Eastern quarter of Chester Street East being discussed, two dwellings over 100 years old have been demolished, and two further dwellings over 100 years old are intended to be demolished. So, the calculating system has become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the percentage of older dwellings is dropping because the high threshold was not reached by underestimating both the numbers and the historical nature of the dwellings currently there.

Excluding the Eastern quarter of Chester Street East from the proposed Residential Heritage Area threatens the cohesion of the area, relegates Chesterfields to the edge of the community rather than being its heart, disconnects this area from its natural relationship with Fitzgerald Avenue and the neighbouring Englefield/Avonville RHA. Separating the nature of the Eastern quarter of Chester Street East from the rest of the street threatens to undermine the uniqueness of the whole street with issues of excess traffic flow, parking, and other problems.

Formal acknowledgment, in the manner we have advocated, of the special character of the whole of Chester Street East would have it as connecting Te Papa Ōtākaro/Avon River Park and City Promenade on its West end with the tree-lined Fitzgerald Avenue on its East end, and from there into the Red Zone in the North and associating it with the next Residential Heritage Area beginning at Elm Grove and going through into Beverley Park. Such a recognition of Chester Street East as a whole by The Christchurch City Council continues the visionary planning of the Council in 2022, previous years and decades, and builds on the passion of and partnership with the local residents, and continues the encouragement of the residents and owners in this partnership of enhancing the special character and also the green nature of this part of our City.

This submission is not about discouraging inner city living – quite the opposite: the neighbourhood of the whole of Chester Street East and Dawson Street, centring on Chesterfields (rather than seeing that park as being on the edge of the neighbourhood) is an excellent example of the benefits and sense of community of inner city living. The City Council’s decision to include the whole of Chester Street East in preserving and enhancing areas of special heritage and character will leave a legacy for current and future generations to flourish in our city.

POINTS TO SUPPORT INCLUSION OF Numbers 230 -250 Kilmore St and 362 Barbadoes St.

1. The close proximity of these dwellings to a site of great importance to Ngai Tahu, the kainga of Otautahi. All references to the location of the kainga nohoanga place it at the junction of the now-disappeared Frees Creek and the Otakaro, or St Mary’s Creek and the Otakaro. This identifies its site to be near Kilmore St close to the present-day Christchurch Fire Station. Archaeological values may arise from the area on Kilmore St that we believe should be included due to its proximity of Otautahi.

2. In 1858 the parcel of land bounded by Kilmore Street, Barbadoes St, Chester St East and Fitzgerald Ave was offered for sale by the provincial government. This block included Town Reserve 170, on which Dawson St was subsequently developed. By 1862 when CE Fooks mapped the city Dawson St was already well developed as too was the section of Kilmore St from Dawson to Barbadoes St. Chester St East development followed in the subsequent decades. The block in question would appear to contain at least 4 dwellings that were built prior to 1862 as per the below map.

3. The craftsmanship of the dwellings that front onto Kilmore St in this important historical block are very good examples of the period in which they were built. There are a number of houses that are equivalent to, or perhaps better examples of the periods they represent, than the defining houses identified on Chester St East. Of the 8 houses that have frontages onto Kilmore St , at least 5 of them belong to the same period of construction. These houses are bookended by 250 Kilmore St and 362 Barbadoes St which are competent examples of their periods.

We are very supportive of the protection of historically significant areas of Christchurch. The earthquakes have erased so much that it is important to proactively identify areas that can be kept as intact as possible to keep that history alive for future generations. The Chester St/Dawson Lane RHA is of particular value because of its potential archeological richness and its capturing of many architectural eras. 

We strongly support the positive intention of The Christchurch City Council to preserve and enhance areas of special heritage and character whilst encouraging increased inner-city living. Over a period of half a century, The Christchurch City Council has, in creative partnership with local residents in Chester Street East and Dawson Street, established a unique, treelined, densely-populated, inner-city residential area. Not including the whole street would severely threaten the nature of the street and its cohesion.

Above: The green line includes the area proposed by the residents of Chester Street East to be recognised as a special heritage area in our city, with Chesterfields Park located at its heart. This was moved as an amendment by Councillor Jake McLellan on 13 September 2022 and passed by The Christchurch City Council. After passing this amendment, the Council voted against implementing the Government’s intensification policy in which this amendment was contained.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Chester Street East is as wide a street as its neighbouring Kilmore Street (and other inner-city streets). But from the 1980s, the Christchurch City Council began a visionary narrowing and beautification of this street (in the Western half – Madras to Barbadoes Streets – with 2 road humps, 2 curves, and a splitter island; in the Eastern half – Barbadoes Street to Fitzgerald Avenue – with 5 road humps and build-outs as pinch points). Powerlines were removed. Trees were planted on the footpaths on both sides of the street. Dawson Street was included in the beautification by the addition of permanent planter features.

Historically, this area is in the planned city park which was to have gone all the way around the central city. It retains this park-like feel. In the quakes, some trees were lost at the NorthEast corner, and it is our understanding that the intention is that they be replaced – the plots for each of these trees still exist, awaiting replanting, in the footpath.

From the mid 19th Century, cottages and other dwellings were established in this area. Dwellings have continued to be built up to the present. The street was bookended in the West by the grand houses starting at 86 Chester Street East. At the East, the Fitzgerald Avenue end, the bookend was, until the quakes, the Crighton Cobbers Youth & Community Club buildings (connected to Ward’s Brewery). We look forward to a building on this North-East corner which connects to this history in the manner that Flow Wellbeing Centre (229 Fitzgerald Avenue) has shown is possible. Already, as part of acknowledging the full street’s special character, in the Eastern quarter of the street, there is the wonderful refurbishment of the 7 historic units at 173 Chester Street East which sit adjacent to an 1880s cottage, and so on. In the 2010s, The Christchurch City Council was again visionary in developing the Chesterfields Community Garden (160 Chester St East). This garden now forms the heart of the street and its strong sense of community.

The Christchurch City Council recognised the whole street as the Chester East neighbourhood (https://ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/central-city-christchurch/livehere/our-central-neighbourhoods/chester-east-neighbourhood). The special character of this whole street is of a 1980s inner-city-renewal, traffic- calmed, tree-lined street. There were plans to apply such renewal to other inner-city streets also – they were never implemented. As such, individual dwellings, from the second half of the 19th Century through to the present day, can be seen to be defining and contributory dwellings. There is no other street like this in the inner city, within the boundary of the four avenues. Dawson Street shares in this described sense of this neighbourhood; it is to be noted that all the trees on Dawson Street are on private property. The distinguishing character of Dawson Street is in reflecting the sense of the integrity of Chester Street East.

3. ONGOING DEVELOPMENT The Christchurch City Council meeting of 13 September, 2022, passed the amendment to extend the Chester St East/Dawson St heritage area to include all properties with a Chester St East address but then the Council voted against the Plan as a whole in which this amendment occurred. This leaves the nature of Chester Street East in the current consultation process. We seek that the amendment that was passed by The Council in 2022 be included in the final Plan currently being consulted about.

Arguments against including the whole of the street include a percentage-of-historicdwelling-calculation system that counts the seven historic units at 173 only as “one” building, and states that “because it has been partly rebuilt, its heritage values are compromised” (by such non-Christchurch logic the Cathedral in the Square, and in fact every building in Christchurch, has its heritage value compromised). The consultant did not realise that historically these units were mixed-use commercial and residential, claiming that they are simply “a non-residential building converted to residential use”. Since the Council’s September 2022 decision, which left our street in limbo, in the Eastern quarter of Chester Street East being discussed, two dwellings over 100 years old have been demolished, and two further dwellings over 100 years old are intended to be demolished. So, the calculating system has become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the percentage of older dwellings is dropping because the high threshold was not reached by underestimating both the numbers and the historical nature of the dwellings currently there.

Excluding the Eastern quarter of Chester Street East from the proposed Residential Heritage Area threatens the cohesion of the area, relegates Chesterfields to the edge of the community rather than being its heart, disconnects this area from its natural relationship with Fitzgerald Avenue and the neighbouring Englefield/Avonville RHA. Separating the nature of the Eastern quarter of Chester Street East from the rest of the street threatens to undermine the uniqueness of the whole street with issues of excess traffic flow, parking, and other problems.

Formal acknowledgment, in the manner we have advocated, of the special character of the whole of Chester Street East would have it as connecting Te Papa Ōtākaro/Avon River Park and City Promenade on its West end with the tree-lined Fitzgerald Avenue on its East end, and from there into the Red Zone in the North and associating it with the next Residential Heritage Area beginning at Elm Grove and going through into Beverley Park. Such a recognition of Chester Street East as a whole by The Christchurch City Council continues the visionary planning of the Council in 2022, previous years and decades, and builds on the passion of and partnership with the local residents, and continues the encouragement of the residents and owners in this partnership of enhancing the special character and also the green nature of this part of our City.

This submission is not about discouraging inner city living – quite the opposite: the neighbourhood of the whole of Chester Street East and Dawson Street, centring on Chesterfields (rather than seeing that park as being on the edge of the neighbourhood) is an excellent example of the benefits and sense of community of inner city living. The City Council’s decision to include the whole of Chester Street East in preserving and enhancing areas of special heritage and character will leave a legacy for current and future generations to flourish in our city.

POINTS TO SUPPORT INCLUSION OF Numbers 230 -250 Kilmore St and 362 Barbadoes St.

1. The close proximity of these dwellings to a site of great importance to Ngai Tahu, the kainga of Otautahi. All references to the location of the kainga nohoanga place it at the junction of the now-disappeared Frees Creek and the Otakaro, or St Mary’s Creek and the Otakaro. This identifies its site to be near Kilmore St close to the present-day Christchurch Fire Station. Archaeological values may arise from the area on Kilmore St that we believe should be included due to its proximity of Otautahi.

2. In 1858 the parcel of land bounded by Kilmore Street, Barbadoes St, Chester St East and Fitzgerald Ave was offered for sale by the provincial government. This block included Town Reserve 170, on which Dawson St was subsequently developed. By 1862 when CE Fooks mapped the city Dawson St was already well developed as too was the section of Kilmore St from Dawson to Barbadoes St. Chester St East development followed in the subsequent decades. The block in question would appear to contain at least 4 dwellings that were built prior to 1862 as per the below map.

3. The craftsmanship of the dwellings that front onto Kilmore St in this important historical block are very good examples of the period in which they were built. There are a number of houses that are equivalent to, or perhaps better examples of the periods they represent, than the defining houses identified on Chester St East. Of the 8 houses that have frontages onto Kilmore St , at least 5 of them belong to the same period of construction. These houses are bookended by 250 Kilmore St and 362 Barbadoes St which are competent examples of their periods.

We are very supportive of the protection of historically significant areas of Christchurch. The earthquakes have erased so much that it is important to proactively identify areas that can be kept as intact as possible to keep that history alive for future generations. The Chester St/Dawson Lane RHA is of particular value because of its potential archeological richness and its capturing of many architectural eras. 

POINTS TO SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF DISCRETION and AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

1. By only requiring a potential developer to develop a contextual design which subjectively balances each of the bulk and location attributes, form and materials to respond to the adjoining RHA and limit visual impact on it, we believe, does not give the owners of the properties that share a boundary the necessary assurance that the protection of the heritage setting of their houses will be safe guarded.

2. Although the shared boundary properties will be subject to a restricted discretionary activity consent .. it will only be in regards to a limited number of matters of discretion. The effect of the proposed building on the heritage values of the sites and the whether the building would visually dominate sites within the RHA are very vague and open to interpretation by the council consent planners and heritage specialists.

3. To focus primarily on the visual impact on the properties in the RHA we believe is too narrow. A high density development on the North boundary of many of these sites could lead to permanent shade zones resulting in the significant compromise to the defining properties and their settings that the RHA seeks to protect. In addition to shade zones it would be important to consider other effects such as the possibility of wind tunnels, the impact on the water table if significant below ground work is required , the impact of traffic intensity and parking etc.

4. We strongly request that the process requires affected property owners who share a boundary with any development proposal requiring a resource consent within the buffer zone to be consulted. The proposed restricted discretionary activity consent means that developers are not constrained by bulk and location rules. This flexibility means that it is important that all parties are able to be heard in relation to any proposed development …. not just the developer talking exclusively to council planning and heritage staff.

We are very supportive of the protection of historically significant areas of Christchurch. The earthquakes have erased so much that it is important to proactively identify areas that can be kept as intact as possible to keep that history alive for future generations. The Chester St/Dawson Lane RHA is of particular value because of its potential archeological richness and its capturing of many architectural eras.

This matter of discretion includes very detailed assessments of impacts on building heritage fabric and values. However, it is the wider Delete 9.6.3.4. residential heritage area that is identified as being worthy of protection, not each individual building – they are not individually listed. The matters of discretion should therefore be targeted to the impact on the values of the wider residential heritage area, not the values of the defining or contributory buildings per se. As such, clauses such as: the retention and integration of existing building fabric, form and appearance and heritage values (viii); the methodologies used in undertaking the works including temporary protection measures (ix); the heritage values of the building (x); and whether heritage NZ has been consulted (d) are not relevant. 

Delete Rule 9.3.4.1.3 RD6 entirely or if Residential Heritage Areas remain included in the proposed plan, include a more appropriate and targeted rule within a residential heritage area such as that set out below, or similar changes which have the same effect of targeting the rule:

RD6 a. In a Residential Heritage Area

i. new buildings greater than 30m2 in area; or

ii. the addition of a second storey to defining or contributory buildings; or

iii. the alteration of defining or contributory external building fabric by more than 35%.

The proposed rule appears to make any new buildings and alterations to any building exteriors (whether it is to the defining building or to another building on the site, such as a garage) restricted discretionary activities (noting the exclusions in clause c. It is not clear if the rule is restricted only to the dwellings themselves, or if it covers all buildings on the site.

I note the dwellings themselves are not listed, and neither are the settings, so it seems onerous that a new building (which could include a 7m2 garden shed) requires resource consent (unless located to the rear of the dwelling and less than 5m in height).

Any alterations to any building exteriors, which could include minor works such as installing a cat door to the defining building or a side door on a detached garage, would appear to require resource consent. This is onerous and has the practical effect of listing the dwelling and any other existing buildings, and also listing the setting. This is excessive as the dwelling itself is not a listed heritage item and neither are any other existing buildings on the site.

Assuming these are captured, installing a cat door to the main dwelling or a side door to a garage will have no impact on the residential heritage area which has been identified on the basis of a consistent dwelling style (bungalow) and building period (interwar). Alterations would have to be significant before the identified values of the St Albans Residential Heritage Area could be undermined. This rule is therefore inefficient. It is noted that RD6 is similar to RD 1 for alterations to buildings, yet RD1 is appropriate as the rule applies to listed heritage buildings which have specific identified heritage fabric, whereas buildings in a residential heritage area are not individually listed because of their heritage fabric but rather the contribution they make to the wider heritage area. It is not appropriate to have the same alterations rule applying to non-listed buildings in a residential heritage area. 

• These multi story buildings will block essential sunlight/light to existing homes
• Less privacy for older houses as 2 to 4 storey buildings will overlook their property
• More noise as more people living in intensive housing
• Roads are busy already and will be a nightmare with large amounts of people living in these apartment blocks
• Parking on the street will be a nightmare with huge increase of people in the area not to mention noise of these cars
• St James Ave is a war memorial street with Anzac March on this street
• Peoples huge investment they have made buying homes will drop and the area will turn into slums
• There is huge amount of new housing around christchurch. New huge subdivisions are all around so there is no shortage of houses. Why pull down perfectly good houses to build these monstrosities.
• Is this just a rate grabbing rote for the council?
• Both streets have character mostly single level homes. Four storey buildings will deter from the history and heritage of this family area.

• These multi story buildings will block essential sunlight/light to existing homes
• Less privacy for older houses as 2 to 4 storey buildings will overlook their property
• More noise as more people living in intensive housing
• Roads are busy already and will be a nightmare with large amounts of people living in these apartment blocks
• Parking on the street will be a nightmare with huge increase of people in the area not to mention noise of these cars
• St James Ave is a war memorial street with Anzac March on this street
• Peoples huge investment they have made buying homes will drop and the area will turn into slums
• There is huge amount of new housing around christchurch. New huge subdivisions are all around so there is no shortage of houses. Why pull down perfectly good houses to build these monstrosities.
• Is this just a rate grabbing rote for the council?
• Both streets have character mostly single level homes. Four storey buildings will deter from the history and heritage of this family area.

• These multi story buildings will block essential sunlight/light to existing homes
• Less privacy for older houses as 2 to 4 storey buildings will overlook their property
• More noise as more people living in intensive housing
• Roads are busy already and will be a nightmare with large amounts of people living in these apartment blocks
• Parking on the street will be a nightmare with huge increase of people in the area not to mention noise of these cars
• St James Ave is a war memorial street with Anzac March on this street
• Peoples huge investment they have made buying homes will drop and the area will turn into slums
• There is huge amount of new housing around christchurch. New huge subdivisions are all around so there is no shortage of houses. Why pull down perfectly good houses to build these monstrosities.
• Is this just a rate grabbing rote for the council?
• Both streets have character mostly single level homes. Four storey buildings will deter from the history and heritage of this family area.

The area in which changes are sought are:

1. The area East of Dorset Street to Fitzgerald Avenue.

2. The properties located on Kilmore Street that abound the heritage area of Chester Street East, eg., the North boundaries of 129, 131 and 133 Chester Street.

Extend the Chester Street East/Dawson Street Residential Heritage Area to include the properties in Chester Street East to the east of Dorset Street [Dawson Street] as far as Fitzgerald Avenue, and the properties bordering 129, 131 and 133 Chester Street East to the north [240-246 Kilmore Street].

The submitter seeks that the following areas be added to the Chester St heritage area:

1. The area East of Dorset Street to Fitzgerald Avenue.

2. The properties located on Kilmore Street that abound the heritage area of Chester Street East, eg., the North boundaries of 129, 131 and 133 Chester Street

Beverley St has been considered a street with houses of architectural significance and designated SAM until this time.

The street remains unique and significant with many houses designed by Cecil Wood or Heathcote Helmore, pre eminent and leading architects of their time. Following the earthquakes Christchurch has lost many beautiful homes some designed by these architects and I believe we should cherish and protect what is left.

Sadly, some houses in the street have been lost as a result of post earthquake assessments but rebuilds have been architecturally designed and in sympathy with the old and existing homes. 

I believe this better reflects the uniqueness of the architecture of homes in this street and honours and cherishes the legacy left by at least two of Christchurch's foremost architects.

Beverley St has been considered a street with houses of architectural significance and designated SAM until this time.

The street remains unique and significant with many houses designed by Cecil Wood or Heathcote Helmore, pre eminent and leading architects of their time. Following the earthquakes Christchurch has lost many beautiful homes some designed by these architects and I believe we should cherish and protect what is left.

Sadly, some houses in the street have been lost as a result of post earthquake assessments but rebuilds have been architecturally designed and in sympathy with the old and existing homes. 

I believe this better reflects the uniqueness of the architecture of homes in this street and honours and cherishes the legacy left by at least two of Christchurch's foremost architects.  

Beverley St has been considered a street with houses of architectural significance and designated SAM until this time.

The street remains unique and significant with many houses designed by Cecil Wood or Heathcote Helmore, pre eminent and leading architects of their time. Following the earthquakes Christchurch has lost many beautiful homes some designed by these architects and I believe we should cherish and protect what is left.

Sadly, some houses in the street have been lost as a result of post earthquake assessments but rebuilds have been architecturally designed and in sympathy with the old and existing homes.

The submitter believes this better reflects the uniqueness of the architecture of homes in this street and honours and cherishes the legacy left by at least two of Christchurch's foremost architects.  

Beverley St has been considered a street with houses of architectural significance and designated SAM until this time.

The street remains unique and significant with many houses designed by Cecil Wood or Heathcote Helmore, pre eminent and leading architects of their time. Following the earthquakes Christchurch has lost many beautiful homes some designed by these architects and Council should cherish and protect what is left.

Sadly, some houses in the street have been lost as a result of post earthquake assessments but rebuilds have been architecturally designed and in sympathy with the old and existing homes. 

I am generally in favour of reducing designated heritage areas. I am generally in favour of limiting designated heritage areas to those that genuinely possess a consistent style of built environment that is unique to that area, when considering other protected areas.

Cultural heritage in our build environment is important, but in the past heritage designations have been overused and weighted in favour of heritage at the expense of the well-functioning of the city and the living experience of its residents.

Heritage designations have been used cynically by land owners to artificially inflate the price of land for their own economic benefit at the expense of those who are less well off financially; this is inexcusable and the council needs to keep a close eye on this phenomenon going forward, and consider it in their changes to heritage plans.

I am generally in favour of limiting designated heritage areas to those that genuinely possess a consistent style of built environment that is unique to that area, when considering other protected areas.

Cultural heritage in our build [built] environment is important, but in the past heritage designations have been overused and weighted in favour of heritage at the expense of the well-functioning of the city and the living experience of its residents.

Heritage designations have been used cynically by land owners to artificially inflate the price of land for their own economic benefit at the expense of those who are less well off financially; this is inexcusable and the council needs to keep a close eye on this phenomenon going forward, and consider it in their changes to heritage plans. 

The council should officially recognise the perverse economic incentive of some (though certainly not all) who campaign for heritage designation and require that this be considered when future changes are made to heritage designations.

My submission is that I am generally in favour of reducing designated heritage areas. I am generally in favour of limiting designated heritage areas to those that genuinely possess a consistent style of built environment that is unique to that area, when considering other protected areas.

Cultural heritage in our build [built] environment is important, but in the past heritage designations have been overused and weighted in favour of heritage at the expense of the well-functioning of the city and the living experience of its residents. Heritage designations have been used cynically by land owners to artificially inflate the price of land for their own economic benefit at the expense of those who are less well off financially; this is inexcusable and the council needs to keep a close eye on this phenomenon going forward, and consider it in their changes to heritage plans. 

The council should officially recognise the perverse economic incentive of some (though certainly not all) who campaign for heritage designation and require that this be considered when future changes are made to heritage designations.

My submission is that I am generally in favour of reducing designated heritage areas. I am generally in favour of limiting designated heritage areas to those that genuinely possess a consistent style of built environment that is unique to that area, when considering other protected areas.

Cultural heritage in our build [built] environment is important, but in the past heritage designations have been overused and weighted in favour of heritage at the expense of the well-functioning of the city and the living experience of its residents. Heritage designations have been used cynically by land owners to artificially inflate the price of land for their own economic benefit at the expense of those who are less well off financially; this is inexcusable and the council needs to keep a close eye on this phenomenon going forward, and consider it in their changes to heritage plans. 

The council should officially recognise the perverse economic incentive of some (though certainly not all) who campaign for heritage designation and require that this be considered when future changes are made to heritage designations.

The submitter is in favour of reducing designated heritage areas to those that genuinely possess a consistent style of built environment that is unique to that area, when considering other protected areas.

Cultural heritage in our build [built] environment is important, but in the past heritage designations have been overused and weighted in favour of heritage at the expense of the well-functioning of the city and the living experience of its residents. Heritage designations have been used cynically by landowners to artificially inflate the price of land for their own economic benefit at the expense of those who are less well off financially. Council needs to keep a close eye on this phenomenon going forward and consider it in their changes to heritage plans. 

Beverley Street - Heritage removal or amendment to higher zoned density.

Beverley Street to retain its Heritage Zoning.

Traffic Impact Study for safety of residents.

I strongly oppose as a homeowner on Beverley Street, St Albans, the proposal to remove the heritage zoning classification. There are many original heritage homes on Beverley Street and the newer homes that were built after the earthquake all conformed to an architectural style in keeping with the heritage street requirements. It would be detrimental to the community and residents if the heritage zoning was removed.

There are other practical considerations that the council has failed to take into account in the proposal to remove the heritage restrictions on Beverley Street. Adjoining and parallel streets (Webb Street / Devonport Lane) that are zoned for higher density, multiple townhouse developments have been built and have either minimal or no car parking. There is on Devonport Lane a development of 18 multi-bedroom units under construction with no parking. Beverley Street is a narrow street and from Monday to Friday is already over parking capacity due to proximity to shopping areas. Any removal of the heritage zoning of Beverley Street must be assessed in conjunction with an independent traffic impact report or study. Therefore we request that for any decision to remove the heritage requirements or change the zoning of Beverley Street to higher density the council undertake a traffic impact study to ensure the safety of residents and the impacts of the heritage removal.

The JG & JL Hardie Family Trust (the Trust) is the owner of the property at 48 Rata Street, Riccarton, Christchurch. Riccarton bush abuts two sides of the property. The property is rectangular in shape, and one of those sides is obviously much longer and I refer to that is the south side. The other side is shorter in length and is at the back of the property and I refer to this as the west side.

In 2010 – 11 the Council promulgated plan change 44 which sought to bring about setback controls on the Trust property relating to those parts which abutted Riccarton Bush. Those controls sort a 10 m setback restricting development on the property, but the 10 m setback was measured from a predator proof fence situated 4 m inside the Bush property. Thus the setback on the Trust property was 6 m. It was opposed by the Trust, and expert evidence was called to say that the controls were not warranted.
Those controls were predicated upon a desire to protect a particularly important tree in the Bush area, that being the kahikatea tree. That is because the roots of that tree extend outwards from the trunk or than other trees. The Trust expert identified existing kahikatea trees inside the bush and gave evidence that none of those trees could be affected by any development on the Trust property. Number close to the boundary of the property. Nevertheless, the hearing Commissioner Mr Lawn asked if the Trust is a compromise would accept the setback on the shorter West side of the property, and the Trust agreed in conjunction with the submitter the Riccarton Bush Trust, on the understanding that there would be no controls on the south side. That was referred to in the decision of the Commissioner and became embedded in the rule which allowed the setback.

The Council has now proposed a completely different basis of determining a setback based on a distance calculated based on the diameter of all trees in the bush. This is opposed. It is unworkable. It appears to apply to all trees are not just the kahikatea tree. It would require all trees in the bush to be measured on a continuing basis because of a change in trunk diameter. The Trust would accept a continuation of the rule that existed in the Plan prior to the introduction of the proposed new rule, and if that is not done by agreement, it opposes all restrictions on the boundary of its property. The Trust is agreeable to acting in good faith to uphold its agreement made during PC 44, despite the fact that it called expert evidence to say that no controls were necessary in relation to its property.

This submission makes no reference to the proposed new rule because it cannot be readily found. It incorporates it by reference to the submission which outlines the nature of the problem and its proposed solution(s)

I live on a narrow extension of a cul-de-sac.   Five homes face onto this access.    Your map indicates that my area is medium density residential zone.    There are at present no unused building sites but in the present circumstances there is always a possibility of a developer entering the area and activating the provisions of the medium density zone.       

The potential outcome of this would be 15 houses of three storeys.   That could potentially mean the presence of 30 motor vehicles.    On my narrow accessway parking for those would be inadequate so spill over onto the more open part of the street.   Traffic and access and manoeuvrability would be at the least difficult and the likelihood of friction between residents is likely to be high.     Furthermore, access for emergency vehicles could be impossible with the potential for loss of property or lives.

Bluebell Lane is also inside a “Tsunami Management Area” It is irresponsible to allow infill housing in that same zone thus allowing new homes to be built in the path of a tsunami.  

The potential danger to existing homeowners could be exacerbated if increased housing density is allowed in a tsunami management area. Bluebell Lane and other Woolston residents must depend on council to protect our homes and communities from floods and tsunami.

[Retain new and modified Qualifying Matters] 

 I am grateful that Christchurch City Council is considering new and modified ‘qualifying matters’ which could prompt the need for resource consents for new housing in specific areas.  

[Concern about future slums and the dominance of rental housing in formerly owner-occupied neighbourhoods]

 I urge Council to act before it is too late to stop multiple houses being crammed onto small sections in working class suburbs. .....

I suspect that few builders or landlords of multi storied co-joined units have ever lived in such places themselves. Hearing neighbours using their toilets through shared walls adjoining bedroom walls can be challenging. 

These multiple units are surrounded by impermeable surfaces which are likely to contribute to increased surface flooding which will not prevent new homes from being flooded, even on higher foundations. 

Council has an obligation to clearly identify any flooding vulnerability to existing homes; and to mitigate the possibility of surrounding new homes on higher foundations and less permeable surrounding land channelling floodwater into lower lying areas. 

What existing residents need is much better drainage, less crammed in housing and more permeable surfaces if we are not to slip under future floodwaters. Existing home owners cannot do anything about their land having slumped but it would be a grave injustice if our homes were to be flooded because greater housing density contributed to water flooding into lower lying houses.

The signature shopping trolleys are abandoned around the neighbourhood, electric scooters block footpaths and the creek alongside the cemetery and park contains assorted rubbish; bottles, cans, packets and various paraphernalia among the grasses.

The shopping trolleys began to appear in Woolston in 2022, it is now common to see half a dozen daily on McKenzie Ave and the same number on Hopkins Street. Smith Street attracts even more. The electric scooters too are regularly left on our narrow footpaths for unsuspecting older residents to trip on. I have been walking the parks and rivers of Woolston, Waltham, Sydenham and Beckenham for over 30 years and am recently witnessing a huge increase in rubbish in and around the river and in parks. 

The signature shopping trolleys are abandoned around the neighbourhood, electric scooters block footpaths and the creek alongside the cemetery and park contains assorted rubbish; bottles, cans, packets and various paraphernalia among the grasses.

The shopping trolleys began to appear in Woolston in 2022, it is now common to see half a dozen daily on McKenzie Ave and the same number on Hopkins Street. Smith Street attracts even more. The electric scooters too are regularly left on our narrow footpaths for unsuspecting older residents to trip on. I have been walking the parks and rivers of Woolston, Waltham, Sydenham and Beckenham for over 30 years and am recently witnessing a huge increase in rubbish in and around the river and in parks. 

Nothing in Council’s proposal will protect existing homes from increased stormwater run-off from multiple housing units being built on surrounding properties. 

Several single home sites are under development in Woolston at present and all but one (52 McKenzie Ave) are being replaced by four or five individual units. Your proposals to manage flooding by raising housing floor levels do not stand up to scrutiny; five new houses will undoubtedly contribute more stormwater pressure on existing systems than the original one home surrounded by permeable land. 

Development taking place in Woolston in late 2022 and early 2023 contain multiple units, up to five homes per section (six in one Smith Street development) on land originally consented for one residential dwelling. These multiple units are surrounded by impermeable surfaces which are likely to contribute to increased surface flooding which will not prevent new homes from being flooded, even on higher foundations.

. What existing residents need is much better drainage, less crammed in housing and more permeable surfaces if we are not to slip under future floodwaters. Existing home owners cannot do anything about their land having slumped but it would be a grave injustice if our homes were to be flooded because greater housing density contributed to water flooding into lower lying houses. 

Nothing in Council’s proposal will protect existing homes from increased stormwater run-off from multiple housing units being built on surrounding properties. 

Several single home sites are under development in Woolston at present and all but one (52 McKenzie Ave) are being replaced by four or five individual units. Your proposals to manage flooding by raising housing floor levels do not stand up to scrutiny; five new houses will undoubtedly contribute more stormwater pressure on existing systems than the original one home surrounded by permeable land. 

Development taking place in Woolston in late 2022 and early 2023 contain multiple units, up to five homes per section (six in one Smith Street development) on land originally consented for one residential dwelling. These multiple units are surrounded by impermeable surfaces which are likely to contribute to increased surface flooding which will not prevent new homes from being flooded, even on higher foundations.

. What existing residents need is much better drainage, less crammed in housing and more permeable surfaces if we are not to slip under future floodwaters. Existing home owners cannot do anything about their land having slumped but it would be a grave injustice if our homes were to be flooded because greater housing density contributed to water flooding into lower lying houses. 

As Christchurch city continues to grow, housing intensification is essential for creating a sustainable environment. The research shows that intensifying the housing supply in a city can reduce costs for both the government and residents. It can also create a stronger sense of community, encourage walkability, and promote sustainability. With our governments smart housing intensification solutions, we help Christchurch city become more livable, vibrant, and affordable for all!

I oppose the sunlight access qualifying matter that is part of Christchurch Councils proposed plan as it is delaying new construction to the new standards within our city for such an extended long period which impacts our economy and our desire for a vibrant new Christchurch city.

With the qualifying matter proposed by Christchurch council, the height restrictions would not majorly differ from the existing limits on residential building heights currently imposed on the city, andnbsp;particularly in our city fringe suburbs such as St Albans, Sydenhmam Edgeware and Addington, where site widths are typicallly less than the 15m 'common dimension' assumed in the Section 32 Sunlight report. Therefore not achieving the outcomes intended by the government housing intensification legislation.

The sunlight access qualifying matter will delay new construction to the new standards within our city for such an extended long period, which impacts our economy and our desire for a vibrant new Christchurch city.

The height restrictions would not majorly differ from the existing limits on residential building heights currently imposed on the city; particularly in our city fringe suburbs such as St Albans, Sydenhmam Edgeware and Addington, where site widths are typicallly less than the 15m 'common dimension' assumed in the Section 32 Sunlight report. Therefore not achieving the outcomes intended by the government housing intensification legislation.

Notify all residents of a street regarding any new house development that is outside the norm.

Proposals affect well being of existing residents by loss of privacy, sunlight and overcrowding 

Notify all residents of a street regarding any new house development that is outside the norm.

Less restrictive recession plane rules to enable the increased density intended by the Government

Prioritise and make an early determination on the recession plan qualifying matter

As Christchurch’s population increases, housing intensification is essential for creatng a sustainable and liveable city. Research shows that intensifying the housing supply in a city can create a stronger sense of community, encourage alternative transport modes (such as walking, cycling and public transport), and promotes sustainability through efficiency of resources. Increasing the number of people living close to existing commercial and community centres is essential to prevent urban sprawl and to ensure adequate housing is available and affordable.

While I support the intent of the Plan Change 14, being to increase the density of housing, I disagree with the proposed sunlight access qualifying matter. The recession plane rules proposed will not have a material impact as they are only slightly less restrictive that the rules under the current District Plan. The case study assumed in the Section 32 Sunlight report states that 15m is a common site width in the city. This is not the case in city fringe suburbs such as St Albans, Sydenham and Addington, where site widths are typically narrow and therefore the additional height required to increase density cannot be achieved. The propose recession plan rule will therefore not enable the outcomes intended by the government housing intensification legislation.

The process to date has also been very unclear and lengthy, resulting in significant cost to those wanting to develop and protracting the programme of residential building the city by years. I request that the Independent Hearings Panel make an early determination on the recession plane qualifying matter given the Council’s stance has removed the intent of the MDRS having immediate legal effect and to provide certainty to those that have been blindsided by the u-turn and have plans that are compliant with the MDRS ready (or already) lodged for building consent.

Less restrictive recession plane rules to enable the increased density intended by the Government

As Christchurch’s population increases, housing intensification is essential for creatng a sustainable and liveable city. Research shows that intensifying the housing supply in a city can create a stronger sense of community, encourage alternative transport modes (such as walking, cycling and public transport), and promotes sustainability through efficiency of resources. Increasing the number of people living close to existing commercial and community centres is essential to prevent urban sprawl and to ensure adequate housing is available and affordable.

While I support the intent of the Plan Change 14, being to increase the density of housing, I disagree with the proposed sunlight access qualifying matter. The recession plane rules proposed will not have a material impact as they are only slightly less restrictive that the rules under the current District Plan. The case study assumed in the Section 32 Sunlight report states that 15m is a common site width in the city. This is not the case in city fringe suburbs such as St Albans, Sydenham and Addington, where site widths are typically narrow and therefore the additional height required to increase density cannot be achieved. The propose recession plan rule will therefore not enable the outcomes intended by the government housing intensification legislation.

The process to date has also been very unclear and lengthy, resulting in significant cost to those wanting to develop and protracting the programme of residential building the city by years. I request that the Independent Hearings Panel make an early determination on the recession plane qualifying matter given the Council’s stance has removed the intent of the MDRS having immediate legal effect and to provide certainty to those that have been blindsided by the u-turn and have plans that are compliant with the MDRS ready (or already) lodged for building consent.

As Christchurch’s population increases, housing intensification is essential for creatng a sustainable and liveable city. Research shows that intensifying the housing supply in a city can create a stronger sense of community, encourage alternative transport modes (such as walking, cycling and public transport), and promotes sustainability through efficiency of resources. Increasing the number of people living close to existing commercial and community centres is essential to prevent urban sprawl and to ensure adequate housing is available and affordable.

While I support the intent of the Plan Change 14, being to increase the density of housing, I disagree with the proposed sunlight access qualifying matter. The recession plane rules proposed will not have a material impact as they are only slightly less restrictive that the rules under the current District Plan. The case study assumed in the Section 32 Sunlight report states that 15m is a common site width in the city. This is not the case in city fringe suburbs such as St Albans, Sydenham and Addington, where site widths are typically narrow and therefore the additional height required to increase density cannot be achieved. The propose recession plan rule will therefore not enable the outcomes intended by the government housing intensification legislation.

The process to date has also been very unclear and lengthy, resulting in significant cost to those wanting to develop and protracting the programme of residential building the city by years. I request that the Independent Hearings Panel make an early determination on the recession plane qualifying matter given the Council’s stance has removed the intent of the MDRS having immediate legal effect and to provide certainty to those that have been blindsided by the u-turn and have plans that are compliant with the MDRS ready (or already) lodged for building consent.

As Christchurch’s population increases, housing intensification is essential for creatng a sustainable and liveable city. Research shows that intensifying the housing supply in a city can create a stronger sense of community, encourage alternative transport modes (such as walking, cycling and public transport), and promotes sustainability through efficiency of resources. Increasing the number of people living close to existing commercial and community centres is essential to prevent urban sprawl and to ensure adequate housing is available and affordable.

While I support the intent of the Plan Change 14, being to increase the density of housing, I disagree with the proposed sunlight access qualifying matter. The recession plane rules proposed will not have a material impact as they are only slightly less restrictive that the rules under the current District Plan. The case study assumed in the Section 32 Sunlight report states that 15m is a common site width in the city. This is not the case in city fringe suburbs such as St Albans, Sydenham and Addington, where site widths are typically narrow and therefore the additional height required to increase density cannot be achieved. The propose recession plan rule will therefore not enable the outcomes intended by the government housing intensification legislation.

The process to date has also been very unclear and lengthy, resulting in significant cost to those wanting to develop and protracting the programme of residential building the city by years. I request that the Independent Hearings Panel make an early determination on the recession plane qualifying matter given the Council’s stance has removed the intent of the MDRS having immediate legal effect and to provide certainty to those that have been blindsided by the u-turn and have plans that are compliant with the MDRS ready (or already) lodged for building consent.

Do not zone Cashmere View Street or surrounds as High Density Residential Zone. Providing for housing typologies that provide for families.

Cashmere View street is very close to Cashmere High School and as such is very much in demand for families with several children to be in zone for their future schooling. High density housing is not conjusive to these larger family groupings.

Do not zone Cashmere View Street or surrounds as High Density Residential Zone. Providing for housing typologies that provide for families.

Cashmere View street is very close to Cashmere High School and as such is very much in demand for families with several children to be in zone for their future schooling. High density housing is not conjusive to these larger family groupings.

that resource consent should be required before ANY development can proceed on Plan Change 13/14

my area/house should be a suburban character area;

on Plan Change 13/14

my area/house should be a suburban character area;

I o [O]ppose any changes that allow for higher buildings to be built in residential areas than currently exist, this includes any changes to the recession plane which lessen the amount of sunlight a property receives.

If the proposed changes go through I will lose sunlight coming into my living area and other rooms if developers build to the new height maximums. Many others face the same kind of problem. The loss of sunlight would be a major blow to my mental health and happiness. The proposed changes are not needed in Christchurch and would be a blow to the cities livability.

My submission is that no changes are allowed that may lessen the amount of sunlight that any property (house and land) currently receives.

I o [O]ppose any changes that allow for higher buildings to be built in residential areas than currently exist, this includes any changes to the recession plane which lessen the amount of sunlight a property receives.

If the proposed changes go through I will lose sunlight coming into my living area and other rooms if developers build to the new height maximums. Many others face the same kind of problem. The loss of sunlight would be a major blow to my mental health and happiness. The proposed changes are not needed in Christchurch and would be a blow to the cities livability.

My submission is that no changes are allowed that may lessen the amount of sunlight that any property (house and land) currently receives.

I o [O]ppose any changes that allow for higher buildings to be built in residential areas than currently exist, this includes any changes to the recession plane which lessen the amount of sunlight a property receives.

If the proposed changes go through I will lose sunlight coming into my living area and other rooms if developers build to the new height maximums. Many others face the same kind of problem. The loss of sunlight would be a major blow to my mental health and happiness. The proposed changes are not needed in Christchurch and would be a blow to the cities livability.

My submission is that no changes are allowed that may lessen the amount of sunlight that any property (house and land) currently receives.

I o [O]ppose any changes that allow for higher buildings to be built in residential areas than currently exist, this includes any changes to the recession plane which lessen the amount of sunlight a property receives.

If the proposed changes go through I will lose sunlight coming into my living area and other rooms if developers build to the new height maximums. Many others face the same kind of problem. The loss of sunlight would be a major blow to my mental health and happiness. The proposed changes are not needed in Christchurch and would be a blow to the cities livability.

My submission is that no changes are allowed that may lessen the amount of sunlight that any property (house and land) currently receives.

As the owner of 6/173 Chester Street East it is clear that the consultant who provided
his/her recommendation is completely mistaken in that the argument against including
the whole of the street used a percentage-of-historic-dwelling calculation system that
counted the seven historic units at 1 73 only as 'one' building. In fact they are and have
always been each under separate title. Astonishingly the consultant states that
'because it has been partly rebuilt, its heritage values are compromised'. On the basis
of this logic then such buildings as the Cathedral in the square [of which I was Dean
from 2002 to 2012] clearly has its heritage value compromised!!

The consultant clearly did not realise that historically [and currently] these units were
mixed-use commercial and residential from their construction. It is simply wrong to
state that they are simply 'a non-residential building converted to residential use.'
This incorrect analysis has resulted in the belief that the high standard required by the
legislation has not been reached in our street. In fact this is because of the
underestimation of both the numbers and the historical nature of the buildings. This
result of this mistaken analysis is that already two buildings over 100 years old have
already been demolished. It is my view that this should not be allowed to continue.

I respectfully ask the City Council to include the whole of Chester Street East in
preserving and enhancing areas of special heritage and character and so leave a legacy
for current and future generations.

As the owner of 6/173 Chester Street East it is clear that the consultant who provided
his/her recommendation is completely mistaken in that the argument against including
the whole of the street used a percentage-of-historic-dwelling calculation system that
counted the seven historic units at 1 73 only as 'one' building. In fact they are and have
always been each under separate title. Astonishingly the consultant states that
'because it has been partly rebuilt, its heritage values are compromised'. On the basis
of this logic then such buildings as the Cathedral in the square [of which I was Dean
from 2002 to 2012] clearly has its heritage value compromised!!

The consultant clearly did not realise that historically [and currently] these units were
mixed-use commercial and residential from their construction. It is simply wrong to
state that they are simply 'a non-residential building converted to residential use.'
This incorrect analysis has resulted in the belief that the high standard required by the
legislation has not been reached in our street. In fact this is because of the
underestimation of both the numbers and the historical nature of the buildings. This
result of this mistaken analysis is that already two buildings over 100 years old have
already been demolished. It is my view that this should not be allowed to continue.

I respectfully ask the City Council to include the whole of Chester Street East in
preserving and enhancing areas of special heritage and character and so leave a legacy
for current and future generations.

That the Schedule of Significant and Other Trees, currently included in the District Plan, becomes a Qualifying Matter.

That the Sunlight Access Qualifying Matter is further changed to allow sunlight to go lower in the winter months. The CCC's changes are good but they don't stop ground floors losing sunlight for five months a year, which is extremely unfair and unnecessary in Christchurch

I would support a system such as that suggested by Dr. Susan Krumdieck. In Singapore they would knock down a whole block (paying fire-sale prices) and rebuild with flair. 

Developers, however, have too much incentive to squeeze as many houses as possible on one site. If you look around Christchurch we have shoddy infill and badly cited housing. I also note that 30% of developments have faults (inconsistent with previous plan). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTrj2f9t3So&t=2028s.

There seems to be a prioritising of openness (immigration) and a deprioritising of livability as for the less well, off as though it is a luxury we cannot afford. In 1936 Michael Joseph Savage stated: “We have visions of a new age, an age where all people will have beauty as well as space and convenience in and about their homes”. The people holding up signs saying "More Houses" appear to also favour Open Borders as a philosophy. The "brain drain" of nurses etc to Australia might also reflect the perceived reality of declining urban form.

In the 1990's I was living in (nearby) Acacia Avenue and had a family with a 2 year old from Japan stay. When they got back to Osaka and unlocked the apartment the two year old cried. She missed the lawn; the space; the beauty. A young Japanese replied with a sweeping gesture what he would do if he had a lot of money: "this". I have heard talk of Paris, Barcelona, "most livable city" [for highly paid transnationals] but the evidence is clear that people value amenities like sunlight and space and small cities (<250,000).

That the area of Cashmere View St, Fairview St and nearby Ashgrove Tce be made a suburban character area.

The resource consent be required before ANY development can proceed.

We live in an area with well maintained character housing, large front set backs, beautifully maintained gardens and minimal front fencing.  This is a special area of neighborhood honoring the original 'garden city' culture of Christchurch. 

We have all strived to maintain the original character following our EQC repairs to maintain the old character of Christchurch.

This area also provides a lovely transition from the beautiful near by green space of the Heathcote Opawo River.

To allow the proposed medium density residential zone in this area would be a loss to our neighborhood and the local area.

That the area of Cashmere View St, Fairview St and nearby Ashgrove Tce be made a suburban character area. 

That resource consent be required before ANY development can proceed.

We live in an area with well maintained character housing, large front set backs, beautifully maintained gardens and minimal front fencing.  This is a special area of neighborhood honoring the original 'garden city' culture of Christchurch. 

We have all strived to maintain the original character following our EQC repairs to maintain the old character of Christchurch.

This area also provides a lovely transition from the beautiful near by green space of the Heathcote Opawo River.

To allow the proposed medium density residential zone in this area would be a loss to our neighborhood and the local area.

We live in an area with well maintained character housing, large front set backs, beautifully maintained gardens and minimal front fencing.  This is a special area of neighborhood honoring the original 'garden city' culture of Christchurch. 

We have all strived to maintain the original character following our EQC repairs to maintain the old character of Christchurch.

This area also provides a lovely transition from the beautiful near by green space of the Heathcote Opawo River.

To allow the proposed medium density residential zone in this area would be a loss to our neighborhood and the local area.

Please make sure that wind+winter conditions are also taken into consideration along with changes in sea level which you are taking into consideration.

I oppose change to height limits. Wind tunnels occur between taller buildings as happens on Colombo Street between the library and TePai. As Christchurch experiences strong winds and is flat, it could create dangerous situations if there are tall buildings on both side of street.

I oppose having buildings 90 m tall. Even with appropriate foundations they would still sway terrifying people on the higher floors. Also, the taller the building the more difficult it would be to escape if there was a fire. Also, with increased shading, there is likely to be for ice on paths for longer in winter.

Opposes having buildings 90m tall. 

Make sure that wind and winter conditions are taken into consideration when considering building height controls.

Opposes change to height limits and having buildings 90m tall.

Wind tunnels occur between taller buildings as happens on Colombo Street between the library and Te Pai. As Christchurch experiences strong winds and is flat, it could create dangerous situations if there are tall buildings on both side of street.

Even with appropriate foundations they would still sway terrifying people on the higher floors. Also, the taller the building the more difficult it would be to escape if there was a fire. Also, with increased shading, there is likely to be for ice on paths for longer in winter.

Opposes change to height limits and having buildings 90m tall.

Wind tunnels occur between taller buildings as happens on Colombo Street between the library and Te Pai. As Christchurch experiences strong winds and is flat, it could create dangerous situations if there are tall buildings on both side of street.

Even with appropriate foundations they would still sway terrifying people on the higher floors. Also, the taller the building the more difficult it would be to escape if there was a fire. Also, with increased shading, there is likely to be for ice on paths for longer in winter.

Opposes change to height limits and having buildings 90m tall.

Wind tunnels occur between taller buildings as happens on Colombo Street between the library and Te Pai. As Christchurch experiences strong winds and is flat, it could create dangerous situations if there are tall buildings on both side of street.

Even with appropriate foundations they would still sway terrifying people on the higher floors. Also, the taller the building the more difficult it would be to escape if there was a fire. Also, with increased shading, there is likely to be for ice on paths for longer in winter.

Opposes change to height limits and having buildings 90m tall.

Wind tunnels occur between taller buildings as happens on Colombo Street between the library and TePai. As Christchurch experiences strong winds and is flat, it could create dangerous situations if there are tall buildings on both side of street.

Even with appropriate foundations they would still sway terrifying people on the higher floors. Also, the taller the building the more difficult it would be to escape if there was a fire. Also, with increased shading, there is likely to be for ice on paths for longer in winter.

Wind tunnels occur between taller buildings as happens on Colombo Street between the library and TePai. As Christchurch experiences strong winds and is flat, it could create dangerous situations if there are tall buildings on both side of street.

That the area of Cashmere View St be designated as a suburban character area.

That resource consent should be required before ANY development can proceed.

Whilst I support Medium density residential zones, to limit urban sprawl, however feel that not all areas of Christchurch urban area should be zoned this way.

We are some distance from shops and business and adjacent to the beautiful green space of the Heathcote Opawaho River.

Our street is characterised by a number of original well maintained character houses, with large well maintained gardens, large front set backs and a number of unfenced front boundaries.  The character of this area should be preserved to maintain the original 'Garden City' development of Christchurch and provide a transition between the green outdoor space of the river  and hills towards the denser housing near the city. 

Whilst I support Medium density residential zones, to limit urban sprawl, however feel that not all areas of Christchurch urban area should be zoned this way.

We are some distance from shops and business and adjacent to the beautiful green space of the Heathcote Opawaho River.

Our street is characterised by a number of original well maintained character houses, with large well maintained gardens, large front set backs and a number of unfenced front boundaries.  The character of this area should be preserved to maintain the original 'Garden City' development of Christchurch and provide a transition between the green outdoor space of the river  and hills towards the denser housing near the city. 

1. Change the current Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone at the eastern end of Rugby Street to the new Medium Density Residential (MRZ) zone, rather than the proposed change to the new High Density Residential (HRZ) zone.

2. Retain an 11m height limit for this new Medium Density Residential (MRZ) zone, as per the limit in the current RMD zone.

We strongly object to the proposed residential development height limit of 14m in the proposed High Density Residential Zones. 

We believe that this plan will have a negative impact on our community in several ways: 

1) Shading - the increased height of the buildings will result in significant shading and loss of sun heating for surrounding properties. This will have a detrimental effect on the liveability of the area and negatively impact the quality of life for residents. 

2) Parking and Wastewater Capacity 

- we are concerned that there is not enough consideration being given to the provision of adequate car parking for residents of such high density developments. 

- we are concerned that there has been insufficient in-depth analysis and stress testing of the waste water system capacity in the Merivale area to cope with the level of additional residential development that would be possible under the proposed High Density Residential Zone.

3) Character and Aesthetics

- four-story buildings are not inline with the character of the Merivale community. This will result in a negative visual impact on the area and detract from the community's overall aesthetic. 

We strongly object to the proposed residential development height limit of 14m in the proposed High Density Residential Zones. 

We believe that this plan will have a negative impact on our community in several ways: 

1) Shading - the increased height of the buildings will result in significant shading and loss of sun heating for surrounding properties. This will have a detrimental effect on the liveability of the area and negatively impact the quality of life for residents. 

2) Parking and Wastewater Capacity 

- we are concerned that there is not enough consideration being given to the provision of adequate car parking for residents of such high density developments. 

- we are concerned that there has been insufficient in-depth analysis and stress testing of the waste water system capacity in the Merivale area to cope with the level of additional residential development that would be possible under the proposed High Density Residential Zone.

3) Character and Aesthetics

- four-story buildings are not inline with the character of the Merivale community. This will result in a negative visual impact on the area and detract from the community's overall aesthetic. 

The classification of Blair Avenue in Papanui as a High Density Residential Zone be rescinded, and re-classified as Medium Density.

Blair Avenue and similarly limited dead-end streets in Papanui are incorrectly zoned as High Density Residential.

See attachment for detailed reasons: esp. traffic, trees, flooding, visual character.