Get involved

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

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

• The process by which the community has been consulted with has caused a general lack of understanding within the community. The documentation provided to the general public has contained numerous misleading and incorrect statements, which have resulted in a vast proportion of the community not able to understand the implications of the changes proposed.
• The proposal to increase density in certain parts of the city reflects a misguided and incorrect assumption that there is a need for the level of density proposed, when in fact there is sufficient land zoned for density increase already given the changes already made post earthquake.  
• The proposed change has failed to take account of the nature of the existing residential environments. The complete failure of the plan change to assess effects on the residents of Christchurch is incomprehensible.  The proposal reflects a failure to understand how density should be correctly increased across a city
• There appears to be a failure to fully understand the implications of the change on the current zoning, and a lack of an assessment of how the proposal will affect existing housing stock
• The incomplete assessment carried out by the Council has resulted in proposed changes that will destroy the very character of Christchurch.
• The changes proposed do not reflect the wishes of the community and the lack of meaningful consultation is entirely undemocratic.
• The proposed changes must be rejected, as they do not reflect the community’s need, nor do they properly balance the environmental, economic and social factors as required within the statutory framework. 

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.

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;

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.

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.

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]eek[s] that the council retains the tree canopy requirement and contributions plan.  

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.  

[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 submitter argues that the notified wording has the potential to refine / limit the intensification provisions of the Enabling Housing Act.andnbsp;andnbsp;

Conversely, we believe that the proposed new Mixed Use zone at Sydenham/Waltham (100ha) provides significant intensification enablement as required by Policy 3(c)(ii). In so doing, however, the Council must not disregard the wider objectives of the NPS-UD including to ensure that urban development achieves a well-functioning urban environment (Objective 1 and Policy 1 of the NPSUD).

The requirement to achieve a high standard of on-site residential amenity is important in the specific context of the Mixed Use Zones, which as former / existing industrial zones, are industrial in character and have poor existing neighbourhood amenity. We support recognition in the policy framework that there is a need to provide for good on-site amenity (including green space and trees), in recognition that for the short to medium term, there will be a lack of amenity in the wider neighbourhood to support residential intensification objectives.

Retirement Villages by their nature typically have a high standard of onsite amenity so should have little difficulty achieving this objective. This cannot be said for all regular housing development such that this policy objective is appropriate as notified and should be retained.

1. I wish to join submission number 50982

2. Ask CCC to consider making Allister Avenue a one way street running east to west. Leaving present parking as is.There is no room for a two way road even if one side was banned from car parking.

3. All right hand turns from Leinster Road+ Allister Ave + Heaton street are stopped. The major build ups in all streets is a serious worry.

4.Students in this area I can count in minutes, over 100 at peak times, something will go wrong soon. There are 6 schools in the immediate area then add Christchurch Girls and Boys High School to this.

5.A perfect solution would be to block Allister Ave off at the Leinster Road end but imagine that is dreaming. I understand that about 1920 it was blocked to public access. Worth consideration when peoples safety is involved.

6.I can be contacted at anytime but I am out of NZ from 12th May until 3 June,2023.

A W N-M

Support with submission 50982 (neighbour)

SAME FAMILY RESIDENT SINCE 1925

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

Ultimately, the purpose of a heritage plan should be to preserve genuinely significant and beautiful architecture to provide ongoing amenity for the citizens of Christchurch. This *has* to be balanced against the fact that every restriction placed on development within the city boundaries is an impediment to a competitive urban land market in Christchurch, with clear and significant flow-on effects for housing affordability (which happens to be upstream of basically the entirety of individual, household, and community wellbeing). This is beside the fact that so much of what has been labelled 'heritage' in the past has promptly been left to degrade and fall into disrepair, interfering with the entire purpose of having heritage restrictions in the first place. It's not preserving beauty. It's preserving history for its own sake, and ignoring the needs of our present citizenry and our future generations.

Frankly, heritage regulation should be accompanied by some sort of guarantee that a building or area of significance will actually receive the requisite funding to keep it in a good condition. Until the day that becomes a more explicit aspect of the heritage regulation framework itself —and until Christchurch's heritage regulation is reformed to better target the underlying purpose of beautiful, high-amenity areas for the public's benefit—I strongly urge the council to add only the most critical sites to the schedule of Christchurch's heritage buildings. And otherwise get on with the task of making Christchurch an affordable, attractive place to live. You'd do far better by focusing your efforts on incentivising *new* beautiful developments than by holding on to the past.

I am 25 years old. I grew up in Christchurch—it's my home, it's where my family and my community are, and it's a place I'd love to be able to settle in. Policies like this Proposed Heritage Plan Change (PC13) are going to have a significant impact on whether that becomes a reality.

Broadly, I support the intent of these provisions. I can see the argument for preserving cemeteries and publicly-used bridges. But baches at Taylor's Mistake? The old Canterbury Terminating Building Society building? And... just a house at 9 Ford Road? Adding a building to the schedule just because a famous person happened to live there once is a great way to ossify half of your city's prime real estate. This just reveals a lack of intent or focus to the change.

Ultimately, the purpose of a heritage plan should be to preserve genuinely significant and beautiful architecture to provide ongoing amenity for the citizens of Christchurch. This *has* to be balanced against the fact that every restriction placed on development within the city boundaries is an impediment to a competitive urban land market in Christchurch, with clear and significant flow-on effects for housing affordability (which happens to be upstream of basically the entirety of individual, household, and community wellbeing). This is beside the fact that so much of what has been labelled 'heritage' in the past has promptly been left to degrade and fall into disrepair, interfering with the entire purpose of having heritage restrictions in the first place. It's not preserving beauty. It's preserving history for its own sake, and ignoring the needs of our present citizenry and our future generations.

Frankly, heritage regulation should be accompanied by some sort of guarantee that a building or area of significance will actually receive the requisite funding to keep it in a good condition. Until the day that becomes a more explicit aspect of the heritage regulation framework itself —and until Christchurch's heritage regulation is reformed to better target the underlying purpose of beautiful, high-amenity areas for the public's benefit—I strongly urge the council to add only the most critical sites to the schedule of Christchurch's heritage buildings. And otherwise get on with the task of making Christchurch an affordable, attractive place to live. You'd do far better by focusing your efforts on incentivising *new* beautiful developments than by holding on to the past.

The Council enable 6-10 storey residential buildings near commercial centres

I simply wish to register broad support for the planned areas of intensification and to register the desire that additional development should only occur in areas where excellent public transport is available. My primary concern is that without effective management of traffic at the planning stage, we will simply end up with a massive congestion problem.

It should be possible to reach a large, recreation facility, a major shopping centre, the airport, the beach and the city centre in a single bus journey, and all other parts of the city in no more than one hour at peak times from all areas of intensification. Without such a guarantee, intensification will result in additional congestion with little benefit.

I simply wish to register broad support for the planned areas of intensification and to register the desire that additional development should only occur in areas where excellent public transport is available. My primary concern is that without effective management of traffic at the planning stage, we will simply end up with a massive congestion problem.

It should be possible to reach a large, recreation facility, a major shopping centre, the airport, the beach and the city centre in a single bus journey, and all other parts of the city in no more than one hour at peak times from all areas of intensification. Without such a guarantee, intensification will result in additional congestion with little benefit.

I submit the area known as the Kauri Cluster should not be reformulated as existing in disjoint parts but retained as  intended by the CCC remodelling in 2006 and all areas referred to in WSP's Putaringamotu Riccarton Bush Heritage  Landscape Review (recommended for inclusion in the RBIA) should be limited to 2-storeys and remain Residential 
Suburban density. 

For myself this would imply the south side of Rata Street remain as currently zones – Residential Suburban 

Amenity, liveability, community, well-being, should all feature as do what affects or even destroys them. 

HEALTH AND WELLBEING INCLUDING EFFECTS OF 6-STOREY BUILDINGS

High density residential intensification needs to be where it is most appropriate, in the CBD and, to a lesser extent inside the four avenues. Again, communities should be consulted before recommendations for intensification are made, to ensure such intensification occurs where communities are willing and welcoming.

Multi-storey residential developments in the suburbs are dehumanizing and unhealthy. They separate people from each other and the outside environment. They greatly reduce socialisation in communities including the number of encounters on the street or over the back fence. 

The effects of multi-storey residential developments on mental health have been researched and documented. They keep children and the elderly from getting exercise. They encourage people to stay at home and flick on the TV, depriving residents (especially children) of physical play and peer activity. 

We can look forward to big boxes with little outdoor space. At 1 metre from the boundary, dwellings can be 2 storeys, and further into the site up to 3 storeys, (11m plus 1m for a pitched roof). 

A cost-benefit analysis carried out by PwC for the Government puts a price tag on changes to sunlight and views under the housing intensification bill, which allows new homes of three-storeys to be built almost up to the fence-line. Many planners are panning it.

A pricing tool called Icarus invented by the Sense Partners of Wellington has been used for the first time to put a price on the impact of more shade and less view. The lower combined estimated cost is $650 million nationwide, and the higher is $1.3 billion, with the price of lost sun slightly higher than for lost views.

This represents tens of thousands of dollars lost from the market value of each house affected. However, the impact on people's lives from the lack of sunshine is even worse. It is described as an impending "disaster

In terms of well-being, a term beloved by this Government, there is plenty of discussion on the site Smart Cities Dive.

So it is pertinent to ask “what is meant by Liveability?”

Liveability describes the frame conditions of a decent life for all inhabitants of cities, regions and communities including their physical and mental wellbeing. Liveability is based on the principle of sustainability and smart and thus is sensitive to nature and the protection of its resource. The special focus to improve Liveability is to take all dimensions that are relevant to Liveability into account: the physical, the social and the cultural. We start from our global perspective but are most sensitive about the specifics and characteristics of the local situation. A local approach is crucial for Liveability. This ill-conceived, poorly drafted Government plan simply does not address this at all. In fact it is the antithesis of the concept of liveability

Research from overseas, along with trends observed in New Zealand, indicate a change in peoples attitude to living as a result of the age of Covid. It has been very evident that highly intensified cities are simply incubators for the spread of a virus. Covid is not done yet and scientists have said the human race will be faced with future pandemics especially if the jungles are continued to be encroached on. One only has to look at New York and Auckland for example to see what overcrowding does. As a result there is a world-wide movement to move out of cities for a healthier lifestyle. Working from home has become the norm so people are saying “why not work from a healthier, less expensive environment with no commuting hassles.” (Smart Cities Dive articles). So why force excessive over-intensification on Christchurch and on the Riccarton Bush – Kilmarnock Residents’ Association (RBK) in particular. 

Below are 7 reasons why high-rises kill liveability

1. High-rises separate people from the street

According to Gehl, a city is best viewed at eye-level. Sure the views from a high-rise can be stunning, but you aren't able to see people in a way that allows for connection. Because it's not as easy as walking out your front door, people who live on the high floors of a high-rise are less likely to leave their houses. This separates people from the outdoors, the city and from other people. "What high-rise does is separate large numbers of people from the street, so we end up with a city that is detached from street life, we end up with a city that is based on enclaves and gated communities," says urban planning expert Michael Buxton. And Gehl maintains that "meaningful contact with ground level events is possible only from the first few floors in a multi-story building. Between the third and fourth floor, a marked decrease in the ability to have contact with the ground level can be observed. Another threshold exists between the fifth and sixth floors. Anything and anyone above the fifth floor is definitely out of touch with ground level events."

2. High-rise scale is not the human scale

When you walk through a high-rise neighbourhood, you lose sight of the human-scale in high-rise neighbourhoods. 600x90 horizontal banner.

3. High-rises radically reduce chance encounters and propinquity

Because high-rises tend to separate people from the street and each other, they greatly reduce the number of chance encounters that happen, which are crucial to the liveliness of a city and to creating social capital. And because people are cooped up in tall buildings, they are less likely to experience propinquity, a concept introduced to me by architect and urban designer, Kevin Kellogg. Propinquity is "one of the main factors leading to interpersonal attraction. It refers to the physical or psychological proximity between people. Propinquity can mean physical proximity, a kinship between people, or a similarity in nature between things," according to Wikipedia. Propinquity happens in public spaces – on the street, in parks, public transportation and city squares. High-rises diminish people's participation in public spaces and therefore diminish propinquity. Living in a high -rise creates a very finite and encapsulated world in and of itself. The high -rise becomes your world, especially those which include a restaurant, market, gym and other amenities. You never have to go outside or encounter other people. Plus, this phenomenon creates the opposite effect of public spaces. It ensures that people mostly interface with others of the same socioeconomic strata. High -rises literally create silos, both physical, social and psychological.

4. High -rises are vertical sprawl

How could high -rises possibly be sprawl as they take up so little actual land? Sprawl is when something is built inefficiently and takes up too much space. With high -rises, they take up too much vertical space for something (in this case dense housing) that could be achieved with much less height. isolation and is often devoid of people on the streets, high -rises offer up the same problems, but just from a vertical perspective. Plus, not unlike the vast swaths of suburban tract homes that are built during an economic bubble that often end up empty, high -rise bubbles can be just as unrealistic.

5. High -rises=gentrification and inequality;

Low/Midrises= resiliency and affordability According to Suzanne H. Crowhurst Lennard, co -founder and director of the Making Cities Liv eable International Council, "the construction industry is a powerful engine for fueling economic development. Tall buildings offer increased profits for developers. However, the higher a building rises, the more expensive is the construction. Thus, the tallest buildings tend to be luxury units, often for global investors. Tall buildings inflate the price of adjacent land, thus making the protection of historic buildings and affordable housing less achievable. In this way, they increase inequality." On the other hand, says Making Cities Liv eable, "small footprint shops and apartments in a fine textured urban fabric yield smaller profits, spread out among many individuals and businesses in the community. Over centuries, this human scale urban fabric has proved to be adaptable to changing political and economic times, making the community resilient, and durable. The City of Paris, with buildings no taller than 100', supports continuous retail along the street, making every neighbourhood walkable."

6. Are High Rises Even Green?

High -rise buildings are built largely of steel and concrete and are less sustainable than low rise and mi d -rise buildings built largely of wood; steel and concrete produce a lot of GHG. Wood traps it. Concrete is 10 times more GHG -intensive than wood.

7. High Rises are not good for your health

This assertion may sound laughable to some, but the effects of th e high -rise on mental health have been researched and documented. Psychologist Daniel Cappon writes in the Canadian Journal of Public Health that high -rises keep children and the elderly from getting the exercise the extra effort it takes to get outside encourages them to stay at home and flip on the TV. High -rises, he says, also deprive people and especially children of "neighbourhood peers and activities." And he believes that the level of alienation and isolation, things that have been proven to negatively impact health and even shorten people's lives, increase with the height of the building. In conclusion,

I'll quote Cappon at length: "What is there to say? We must have the incontrovertible evidence and the mechanism whereby the high-rise leads to the low fall of urban humanity. Meanwhile, we must not go on blindly building these vertical coffins for the premature death of our civilization. What shall we do instead while we are wanting to learn the ultimate facts? We can satisfy the economy needs for high density per land acre, which of itself is not likely to produce ill health, while restricting height and redistributing spaces in terraced, human-scale fashion, supporting social confluence and relationships or, at least, not impeding the nurturing of precious human resources." 

If one researches into the issues of intensification on sites such as “Smart Cities Dive” then one will find plenty of data. I give one such quote: 

The high-rise is not the only answer to density. In fact, it may be a very unsuitable solution that undermines the character, liveability, social fabric and even the public health of a city. 

My comment on the prospect of 6-storey buildings along Riccarton High Street.

Why would anybody suggest allowing 6-storey buildings along this narrow stretch of road, creating a wind tunnel effect with little sunshine resulting in a cold gloomy environment such as exists in parts of the CBD – a most uninviting environment.

[T]he Sunlight Qualifying Matter should be more conservative than proposed 

I strongly support the argument made in the RBK submission [188] for a sunlight qualifying matter putting limits on building heights, recession planes and set-backs to preserve residents’ access to sunlight. Refer to the comments in ITEM 1 [point 851.12] regarding well-being.

[A]ll areas referred to in WSP's Putaringamotu Riccarton Bush Heritage Landscape Review [known as the Kauri Cluster]  (recommended for inclusion in the RBIA) should be limited to 2-storeys and remain Residential Suburban density.  

That specifically the area remain as currently zoned: Residential Suburban. Specifically in my case that the south side of Rata Street not be rezoned Medium Density

There is a comprehensive coverage regarding this issue in the submission from RBK [submission 188] under this topic. 

Medium Density allowa 3 x 2-storey on sections with the added effect of excessive unrestricted on-street vehicle parking and the destruction of the beautiful Rata trees.

I submit there is nothing to be gained by changing the current zoning. Those who have moved into the south side of Rata Street and built new homes in good faith, moved families and older people into the area, and in doing so intensified the dwelling density, should not suddenly have their worlds upturned by the overturning of the decisions made by the IHP in 2015 after lengthy comprehensive deliberation. The functionality of Riccarton Bush/House would be severely inhibited by decisions that would allow excessive long-term on-street parking. This would certainly include the successful and popular Farmers’ Market held on Saturday mornings where the local streets currently provide room for clients to find parking. Covering sites with concrete would impact the significant and welcome bird life that interacts with the Riccarton Bush/House and grounds.

This is discussed further in section 9.

[In terms of the RBK area, parking is already a problem and the more the area is intensified with limited off-street parking the congestion on the streets will grow. Having the Kauri Cluster choked with parked vehicles on a continual basis is hardly conducive the well-being and general liveability of the area.]

[Seek] the walking distances to Riccarton centre boundaries (which we understand the legislation states defines the extent of high density 6-storey residential zones) be reconsidered based, not on distance, but on time taken to walk to key amenities in the centre zone.

The centre of Riccarton should be taken as the CCC Community Centre in Clarence Street.

TREES and CLIMATE CHANGE

High density intensification in the suburbs destroys mature trees and gardens. It threatens any chance we have of retaining our garden city status or becoming a National Park City.

Housing developments should be constructed with the natural character and/or heritage of the surrounding areas in mind. The natural environment should be paramount and that means retaining established trees as integral components of new developments - rather than allowing sites to be cleared of all vegetation. 

A Climate and Ecological Emergency was declared by the Christchurch City Council in May 2019, and our Government declared a Climate Emergency for New Zealand as a whole in December 2020. 

Compelling international studies and research indicates that there are significant and substantial benefits in retaining and increasing tree canopy coverage in residential neighbourhoods. These include the mental health and wellbeing of residents, economic prosperity, and the obvious environmental benefits. Trees also strip emissions from the atmosphere, reducing storm-water run-off, and preventing urban heat islands from developing. 

Christchurch has the lowest percentage of tree canopy coverage of any major city in New Zealand. There needs to be far more investment and spending to swiftly turn that around if the City Council is truly committed to battle climate change and for Christchurch to become a National Park City. That is not achieved by allowing trees to be cut down. The focus needs to be on planting more trees as well as (not instead of) retaining existing trees; and on all land, not just in parks owned by the Council.

Christchurch City Council along with Canterbury’s nine District Councils and the Regional Council (ECan) recently launched the www.itstimecanterbury.co.nz website. The website speaks to the things many of us are well aware of:

• That trees and plants are the lungs of the planet - that they strip harmful global warming gases from the atmosphere and convert them into oxygen
• That New Zealand native trees store more carbon than exotic species and require less water to grow
• That there is a need to reverse the damage that’s been done to the natural environment and the ecological systems in our city and region on both private and public land in order to reduce global warming gasses and to improve the health of habitats, waterways and ecosystems.
• That global warming and climate change is real, that it’s already impacting our city, that it will bring more extreme conditions, and that it is going to impact our lives and the lives of children today and into the future.

Why then is the City Council not doing more to protect the taonga of existing trees that have stood for generations breathing life into Ōtautahi Christchurch? Why not support plan changes that prevent avaricious property developers from continuing the practice of clear-felling properties of those precious trees, instead of doing the opposite with Plan Change 14? 

The suggested workaround ‘solution’; allowing developers to pay for the right to fell established trees has no merit. It is a solution dreamed up by an economist who figures funding the planting of six saplings on public land far away is a fair trade for the loss of a 100 year old Totara. That's not any kind of compensation. Anyone can plant new trees. That’s not the challenge. The real challenge is keeping them alive AND healthy and when it comes to following through on that, the developers are nowhere to be seen.

Are Council staff aware of the extensive overseas research on cities that shows that for a city to be sustainable the green canopy should be above 40%. This is a minimum and yet the so called garden city is already below this. A disgrace for a Council that invoked a climate emergency.

Let us look towards a green, sustainable city that is not covered in concrete. There are plenty of articles containing work on green, sustainable development and the development of “sponge” cities. The effects of climate change on Auckland and the north must surely be a wakeup to think of these issues together with the effects of excessive intensification on infrastructure. 

References: Time running out to save Christchurch's trees from housing intensification: Tina Law05:00, Mar 05 2022

Urban greening can reduce impact of global heating in cities, finds study.

Nature-based solutionsʼ like trees and rain gardens can be cost-effective climate adaptations, advocates say.

Fight or adapt to climate change? Itʼs a false trade-off for cities, climate experts say Projects that reduce planet-warming emissions and those that protect communities and infrastructure are both worth pursuing, said panelists at last weekʼs Cities Climate Action Summit. Published April 24, 2023 Ysabelle Kempe

GEOTECHNICAL 

All our area is either TC2 or TC3, yet, in making these planning changes, there appears to have been no consideration of the geotechnical strength of land across Christchurch. This is of grave concern. It appears people in high places have short memories. Policy-makers appear to have forgotten what occurred in our city in 2010 and 2011.

Hundreds died and tens of thousands were forced to evacuate their homes because they were built on poor land with inadequate foundations. The fact there appears to have been no consideration, in making these changes, of the geotechnical strength of Christchurch land is seriously worrying, especially given the issues post-quake surrounding multi-unit and high-rise developments. Given the findings of the programme regarding the parlous state of high rise complexes across the motu why would Christchurch people trust developers to deliver safe buildings. The nearly new Statistics Department building in Wellington came within an ace of collapsing on the staff (who managed to get out safely).

Much of this city is built on a swamp (including much of the lower Riccarton area where we live) so it makes no sense to enable high rise intensification in vulnerable areas when we all know the main divide is going to rupture.

After the events it was decided Christchurch should be a low rise city. What happened to that proposition?

Recently published articles in the media by geoscientists suggest future earthquakes will be more intense. The Alpine fault fracture is overdue. EQC research papers state the risk level resulting from an earthquake rises with intensification. Christchurch has suffered clusters of quakes recently, a bunch of level 3s and a bunch of level 4 Friday 21 April 2023.

A 4.0 magnitude quake struck 10 km north-east of Christchurch about 2.20am. The quake came at a depth of nine kilometres, causing moderate shaking, according to GeoNet.

It was followed by a second, 3.6 magnitude quake 10 km north-east of Christchurch at 7.31am. The light earthquake came at a depth of 10 km.

A third, 4.3 magnitude quake 10 km north-east of Christchurch followed nine minutes later, at 7.37am.

The moderate quake had a depth of eight kilometres. There were around 15,764 'felt reports', most of whom reported weak to light shaking, GeoNet said 

References: National Seismic Hazard Model Te Tauira Matapae Pūmate Rū i Aotearoa

Historic Earthquakes

The Earthquake Hazard in Christchurch – A Detailed Evaluation for EQC

Establish a planned Putaingamotu-Riccarton Precinct as a new qualifying matter. 

In the absence of a properly assessed plan for intensification and development in Riccarton, the entire area represented by the Riccarton Bush Kilmarnock Residents' Association (RBK) should be designated a Qualifying Matter, with current zonings maintained as agreed in the Christchurch Replacement District Plan Review of 2015, pending a comprehensive planning review I strongly support the argument in item 12 of the same heading in the RBK presentation [submission 188].

A strong argument for this proposal is that this area is a community, it is also a character/heritage area. 

Community

It would be difficult to ignore the effect a community has on its area. Community values help define the character of an area. The area given by the Riccarton Bush – Kilmarnock Residents’ Association (refer its submission) to the north of Riccarton Road and including the Riccarton House and Bush, has predominantly owner occupied properties many with long standing residents. It is a diverse community of different age groups, encompassing older retired residents and families of various ages. As the CCC planners discovered at the previous attempt to change the zoning when a large number of residents attended the planning meeting in the Chateau, there is a strong sense of community. The anger at these current proposals was also evident at a recent meeting attended by residents of all ages. Residents know one another, stop to talk whilst walking in the area, and look out for one another. The residents are also proud of their area and look after their properties and the CCC areas such as the grass berms and planting. Indeed residents have won garden awards. Also the residents recognise the need to protect Riccarton Bush.

This Riccarton Bush surrounding area encompasses a wide variety of buildings with old character homes (some dating from the 1920s) both single and two storey, new architect designed homes, smaller units, town houses, and revamped older homes. The materials used in construction vary from traditional wooden weatherboard to brick and modern materials. Older character homes have distinctive brick chimneys and slate roofs whilst newer homes have modern profile colour steel. Basically there is a diverse mixture of old and new, well-spaced buildings, contributing to a general positive ambience. The land occupancy varies. There are larger sections, medium sections and small sections. Infill has occurred over time replacing older buildings with multiple new buildings. However there have been new family homes built on bigger sites. The currant Residential Suburban (formerly Living 1) zoning has controlled the nature of the infill thus contributing to the essential character of this area. However the density of dwellings/apartments has considerable increased over the years. The result has been so far a balanced increase in keeping with the area.

There has been an influx of people of all ages including families who sought to live in the area precisely for the reasons given. Yes it is close to commercial and educational facilities as well as green space. The area boasts a very useful cycle route from the University, through the Riccarton House grounds, along Matai Street, and hence through Hagley park to the city centre area. This gives access to a significant number of educational sites, heritage sites, Hagley Park, and the central city area. At least one cycleway success story that will be set back if this intensification goes through.

Character and Residential Heritage Areas.

Character arguments largely revolve around the historical significance of what was a large part of Christchurch's founding Riccarton Borough, and the remaining character gems in the area. Our last remnant stand of swamp dwelling kahikatea, Pūtaringamotu is the Māori name for the area now known as Dean’s Bush. Maori of Ngai Tūāhuriri, a sub-tribe of Ngāi Tahu, occupied the land which became part of the Deans family farm in the 1800s. The area was named Riccarton after the area the Deans came from in Scotland. Beginning in the 1880s the Deans began to sell the Riccarton property. The naming of the streets in the area was designed to showcase the Maori names of trees in keeping with the history of the area. For example Rata Street appears on a 1912 map and in street directories in 1914. One resident is listed. 

The City Council went to considerable effort in 2007 ( Consultation Letter April 2007) to reconstruct the streets to make the area known as the Kauri Cluster a community based area acknowledging amenity. In doing so the Council reinforced the street names by planting Kauri, Rata and Rimu trees on the newly established grass berms. These trees are now of good size and the Rata trees have been in full bloom. I would be criminal if the fine landscaping carried out was destroyed. The area is a popular community amenity for walkers, cyclists, and indeed tourists as well as home for an established Farmers’ market in the grounds of Riccarton House on Saturday mornings.

The wider area is tree-filled. Home to the many varieties of birds that connect with the Bush area. It contains numerous examples of quality character pre-war housing as well as a number of significant sites including Mona Vale, Britten Stables, original Riccarton Estate farm buildings, two war memorials, Christchurch Boys High School and, of course, the iconic and unique Avon River and Riccarton House and the last remaining area of original native Bush.

There are a number of studies on Neighbourhood Character (refs: Moonee Valley Character Study 2012, City of Moonee Valley, Victoria, Australia; Higham Ferrers Neighbourhood Plan - Preserving our Past and Enhancing our Future, September 2014; Higham Ferrers, East Northamptonshire, England. (http://www.highamferrersneighbourhoodplan.org.uk)) are two that have drawn extensively on other studies.

Of special interest is Chapter 3 in the Moonee Valley Report, WHAT IS A NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER ( Appendix A). The basis of the Moonee Valley Report was the definition: "Neighbourhood character is the qualitative interplay of built form, vegetation and topographic characteristics, in both the private and public domains that make one place different from another".

Access to open space is often considered an essential part of an area's character.

The differentiation between different types of character areas is not simply a question of architectural style or era of development and certainly not dictated by a set of absolute rules. Neighbourhood character is also founded on the siting and building form of the area, and the way that the buildings interact with and relate to the landscape. These factors should be the basis for the application of neighbourhood character policies. Neighbourhood character is not about the imposition of design styles. Rather it should be about recognising the distinctive characteristics of different urban forms and their relationship to topography and vegetation. Getting this right is the best way of maintaining and enhancing the sense of place of the municipalities’ residential areas. Neighbourhood character descriptions and evaluations should focus on the preferred character.

The City Council invited and encouraged residents in 2015 to submit the area for the newly created Category 2 Character Area. On the basis of this encouragement considerable effort was made in a comprehensive submission. This was turned down.

At each time, our community strongly disagreed with the consultant's opinion. We still do. A methodology for assessing character and heritage should be a methodology the community can agree on. Character and heritage is not about ticking boxes. It is very much in the eye of the beholder and community views should always be given considerable weight. It is time for Christchurch planners to look elsewhere in the world for what constitutes character in the 21st century and is worth maintaining for the future. Will our grandchildren ask why the old photographs show an area that no longer exists because of draconian, not to say blinkered, planning.

The draconian and poorly planned development to the south of the Westfield Mall should give the panel food for thought as to what happens when unbridled development is allowed.

Yes, RBK area needs to be designated a Qualifying Matter. Because of its significance to Christchurch, it needs protection. Riccarton is an historic part of Christchurch. The area is tree-filled. It contains numerous examples of quality character pre-war housing as well as a number of significant sites including Mona Vale, Britten Stables, original Riccarton Estate farm buildings, two war memorials, Christchurch Boys High School and, of course, the iconic and unique Avon River and Riccarton House and Bush. Leave these residential zones as they are.

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.

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]eek[s] that the council retains the tree canopy requirement and contributions plan.  

[S]eek[s] that the council retains the tree canopy requirement and contributions plan.  

[Retain HRZ provisions that] enable 6 to 10 storeys for residential buildings near commercial centres. 

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.

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.

[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.

An effective means of compensating property owners deemed to be of heritage value for the additional expenses incurred in maintenance and any loss of value as a result of the designation.

For clarity, I do not own and do not intend to own property in any affected area. I have however seen the negative effects of such policies in the UK and know the difficulties they create for reasonable development. It is common to see heritage buildings fall into disrepair because they are too expensive to maintain and cannot be demolished. Such is the price of expecting the owner to do all the work of preserving a property for all. If Council thinks a property, tree or an area is of sufficient value to warrant protection for the benefit of all, the being for the benefit of all, the burden of cost should fall on all, not the few and Council should be prepared to fund proper management of the areas so that the amenity of living therein is not diminished.

An effective means whereby any property within a heritage area may be developed, within reasonable limits defined by the area, the cost of assessment to be borne by Council; and

- A clear definition of what constitutes the particular 'heritage' character of each area, so that it is easy to determine how any proposed development might meet such character standards - Lyttelton for example should not permit buildings to obstruct views of the water from the first floor or above of other properties. Standards need to be clear and if not clear, should not be imposed at all.

- A date not more than 30 years hence whereby the heritage status of an area and the rules governing it should be reviewed or otherwise automatically removed; and

- An effective means of compensating property owners deemed to be of heritage value for the additional expenses incurred in maintenance and any loss of value as a result of the designation

The matter of the preservation of heritage is complex. It both preserves the character of the areas included and stifles future development, effectively condemning the area therein to stagnation. Whilst we do not want to see wholesale destruction of the cityscape, neither do we need to have parts of it preserved as they are imagined to have been for all time. Ultimately the fear of the future is not a reason to retain all parts of the past. In assigning heritage status, there needs to be a good means whereby appropriate development can occur, without undue constraint, and in not assigning heritage status, the Effects On The Environment of otherwise apparently unconstrained development must also be considered. Heritage is seen as 'a good thing' but tends to be illdefined and very subjective, and whilst recognising the value in preserving a few outstanding examples of architecture, wholesale refusal to change is also foolish. For clarity, I do not own and do not intend to own property in any affected area. I have however seen the negative effects of such policies in the UK and know the difficulties they create for reasonable development. It is common to see heritage buildings fall into disrepair because they are too expensive to maintain and cannot be demolished. Such is the price of expecting the owner to do all the work of preserving a property for all. If Council thinks a property, tree or an area is of sufficient value to warrant protection for the benefit of all, the being for the benefit of all, the burden of cost should fall on all, not the few and Council should be prepared to fund proper management of the areas so that the amenity of living therein is not diminished. 

Provision:General commentary Decision Sought: - An effective means whereby any property within a heritage area may be developed, within reasonable limits defined by the area, the cost of assessment to be borne by Council; and - A clear definition of what constitutes the particular 'heritage' character of each area, so that it is easy to determine how any proposed development might meet such character standards - Lyttelton for example should not permit buildings to obstruct views of the water from the first floor or above of other properties. Standards need to be clear and if not clear, should not be imposed at all. - A date not more than 30 years hence whereby the heritage status of an area and the rules governing it should be reviewed or otherwise automatically removed; and - An effective means of compensating property owners deemed to be of heritage value for the additional expenses incurred in maintenance and any loss of value as a result of the designation.

The matter of the preservation of heritage is complex. It both preserves the character of the areas included and stifles future development, effectively condemning the area therein to stagnation. Whilst we do not want to see wholesale destruction of the cityscape, neither do we need to have parts of it preserved as they are imagined to have been for all time. Ultimately the fear of the future is not a reason to retain all parts of the past. In assigning heritage status, there needs to be a good means whereby appropriate development can occur, without undue constraint, and in not assigning heritage status, the Effects On The Environment of otherwise apparently unconstrained development must also be considered. Heritage is seen as 'a good thing' but tends to be illdefined and very subjective, and whilst recognising the value in preserving a few outstanding examples of architecture, wholesale refusal to change is also foolish. For clarity, I do not own and do not intend to own property in any affected area. I have however seen the negative effects of such policies in the UK and know the difficulties they create for reasonable development. It is common to see heritage buildings fall into disrepair because they are too expensive to maintain and cannot be demolished. Such is the price of expecting the owner to do all the work of preserving a property for all. If Council thinks a property, tree or an area is of sufficient value to warrant protection for the benefit of all, the being for the benefit of all, the burden of cost should fall on all, not the few and Council should be prepared to fund proper management of the areas so that the amenity of living therein is not diminished

The RVA oppose the relief sought in this submission point as it seeks to impose a financial/regulatory obstacle to new housing developments, which will inevitably result in fewer developments, and less housing being available. The relief sought is therefore inconsistent with the Enabling Housing Act and the NPS-UD.

In addition, the relief sought would not constitute a ‘qualifying matter’ under the Enabling Housing Act and is therefore outside the scope of the plan change.

The RVA considers the Healthy Streets Approach may not be appropriate for retirement villages as:

- Retirement villages are different to typical residential developments (for example internal street networks are often not publicly accessible for safety reasons); and

- Active modes / public transport is a less relevant consideration for retirement villages (given their functional and operational needs, and due to the age and frequency of mobility constraints amongst retirement village residents.

Disallow submission point.  The RVA oppose the relief sought in this submission point as it is inconsistent with the Enabling Housing Act and the NPS-UD, and has the potential to slow down the provision of housing in response to demand.

Furthermore, the RVA’s primary submission contains specific matters of discretion to appropriately manage any external effects from retirement villages, and applications will generally be supported by urban design assessment. Accordingly, mandatory urban design panels (or similar) are unnecessary and may not provide for the unique functional and operational needs of retirement villages.