Dudley Character Area

Interestingly this Dudley Character Area in Richmond, is in part thanks to Richard Seddon & “prominent local architects”: Hurst Segar, Cecil Wood, Barlow and England creating architectural designed social housing.
Richard Seddon, concerned at the number of homeless and substandard conditions, decided that the the State should play a larger part in housing. Seddon came from England and had seen for himself good quality council housing available to low income families.
This Character Area is an important part of Richmond’s identity/heritage & should be protected, especially after so many buildings were lost after the earthquakes.

Richmond Housing History
“My last article (November 2008) said that State housing was introduced in 1936. I should have said it was re-introduced in 1936. In 1905 the government introduced the Workers Dwelling Act which would allow for the purchasing of land and the construction of affordable homes for workers at what was to be modest rents.
34 designs were selected from 130 submitted by architects throughout New Zealand. Some of these homes were built in poorly selected locations away from public transport and at rents beyond the reach of many. A second act passed in 1910 increased the cost limits further still.
Richard Seddon, concerned at the number of homeless and substandard conditions, decided that the State should play a larger part in housing. Seddon came from England and had seen for himself good quality council housing available to low income families.
These homes could be leased with the right of renewal or could be purchased outright with the proviso that upon the death of the owner, ownership would return to the State. Seddon said it would give relief from profit hungry landlords, however, many workers with a bring home pay of three pounds per week, found the rents of up to 15 shillings a week beyond them.
When this early experiment was finished, over 640 homes had been built throughout the country. In Christchurch, some of these homes were designed by some prominent local architects including Hurst Segar, Cecil Wood, Barlow and England.
Three pockets of these homes were built in Christchurch in 1918 to 1920, one being in Chancellor Street. This small group of homes run between Julius Terrace and Shirley Road. They are still standing. Over the years some have rented and some altered beyond recognition but recent years have seen a turn around with new owners restoring and putting back the lost character and charm. Of the three pockets of these homes built in Christchurch, little remains of the other two, so Chancellor Street is unique in the fact that they are all still there and are in good hands.
It would be interesting to know how many of these original 640 homes still exist throughout the country. Following this initial building programme nothing happened until 1934 when 600 homes were built, then the following year the newly elected Labour government decided to make State rental housing available to everyone.
State architects produced a variety of plans and private builders could contract to build them but the standard was so high not everyone wanted to.”
(Chancellor Street Today by Alan Williamson, Richmond Community News, February 2009)
https://www.aveburyhouse.co.nz/uploads/4/7/2/0/47203855/rcn-066-february-2009.pdf

Christchurch Suburban Character Area Assessments (2015)
“Character Areas 10 and 10a are located to the north-east of the Christchurch central city, south of Shirley Road and west of the Avon River in the suburb of Richmond. Character Area 10 covers a large residential area – comprising most of Warden, Guild, Dudley, Slater, Petrie and Chrystal Streets, most of Stapletons Road, all of Randall, Nicholls Street and Averill Streets and all of Poulton Avenue. Character Area 10a comprises Dudley Street and is contained within the boundaries of Character Area 10.
Character Area 10 has been identified as a Character Area due to the consistent style and era of dwellings (primarily consisting of single-storey wooden villas and Californian-style bungalows of the 1920s – 1940s), which have a strong relationship to the street, consistently generous street setbacks, low to moderate level fencing, mature boundary vegetation and grass berms.
Character Area 10 has been significantly impacted by the September 2010 and February 2011 earthquakes, with a number of dwellings either damaged or demolished.
Common architectural elements of the existing housing include pitched roofs, both hipped and gabled, corrugated iron or tiled roofing, timber weatherboard walls and occasionally areas of shingle within the gables. Most of the dwellings contain at least one large timber bay window facing the street.
There are a few more recent building additions within these Character Areas – but these are generally in keeping with the existing scale and form and are for the most part, sympathetic in style.
Character Area 10 has approximately 86% of sites that are classified as either primary or contributory and Character Area 10a has approximately 91% of sites that are classified as primary or contributory.
The approximate street-by-street breakdown of the percentage of primary/contributory buildings is as follows: Warden Street 82%, Chancellor Street 92%, Guild Street 100%, Averill Street 84%, Poulton Avenue 93%, Dudley Street 91%, Randall Street 93%, Nicholls Street 82%, Chrystal Street 64%, Slater Street 95%, Stapletons Road 88%, Petrie Street 84%.
It is recommended that Character Area 10 (Slater/Poulton) is retained with a change in boundary to remove a few properties at the very northern end of Slater Road (see the Site Classification and Boundary Map, Appendix 5), and remove Chystal Street and Poulton Avenue, to consolidate and strengthen the Character Area boundaries. It is recommended that Character Area 10a (Dudley), is not retained as a separate Character Area, but rather is incorporated into Character Area 10 in its entirety.
It is considered that the key elements that embody the character of Character Areas 10 and 10a – that should be retained and protected in the future, include:
– Building height: generally single storey.
– Building scale: generally moderate-scale, individual bungalows and villas. – Building and roof form: simple to more complex forms with projections, porches and verandas and hip and gable roofs.
– Architectural detailing: including materials, bay and bow windows, shingle gable ends, weatherboard cladding.
– Setback from street: generally 7-9m.
– Low- moderate fencing: 1 to 1.5m.
– Visual connectivity between dwellings and the street: through low or no fencing and exclusion of garaging, placement of windows and dwelling entrances and sympathetic on-site landscaping.
– Landscape: boundary vegetation and specimen tree planting, more substantive planting on stream edges.
The ‘primary’ site classification relates to the style/era and materials used in the built form, the compact scale of development, the consistent street setback, the presence of boundary vegetation, low-scale fencing and the visual relationship between the dwellings and the street.
The ‘contributory’ site classification represents those properties that support the defining character, but are not considered to be primary in nature – either because the dwelling is new (but sympathetic in design), or due to modifications to the original built form, inconsistencies in planting, setback or boundary treatment.
A ‘neutral’ site classification has been assigned to those properties that neither establish nor detract from the defining character values of the Character Area.
An ‘intrusive’ site classification has been assigned to those properties that do not embody and detract from the defining character values of the Character Area – due to an obvious change in building style, scale, or materials, a change in setback from or relationship to the street, or a change in boundary or landscaping treatment.”
(Pages 40-45: 7 Character Areas 10 & 10a: Slater/Poulton & Dudley Assessment, Page 113: 19 Summary Table, Page 123: Appendix 5 – Character Areas 10 and 10a: Site Classification and Boundary Map)
http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/TheCouncil/policiesreportsstrategies/districtplanning/districtplanreview/dpr_residential_appendix20.pdf

CCC Character Area Dudley Design Guide (2019)
“Dudley is identified in the Christchurch District Plan as a Character Area. It has qualities that make it distinctive and appealing resulting in an attractive and memorable area. The distinctiveness is created through the combination of the character of houses and their surroundings. The purpose of the Character Area is to ensure the special qualities are identified, retained or enhanced, when people choose to make changes to or redevelop their property.
Dudley has city-wide significance as an intact residential neighbourhood, strong landscape features, consistent house sizes and styles.
– Generally an intact original subdivision with generous section sizes and a general spaciousness.
– Consistency in building age and style. The original subdivision was comprehensively developed as a result of the construction of the St Albans Park and North Beach tram routes. Many of the original houses date from the early 20th century and are single-storey wooden villas and bungalows.
– The size, form and scale of houses, the roof profile and location of houses on sections are generally consistent along streets.
– Architectural detailing that contributes to a richness in house design and consistency is established through the location, scale and proportion of windows and entrances.
– Street and block layout: While there was damage to the area as a result of the Canterbury Earthquakes, the original subdivision of Dudley is relatively intact. The majority of sections across the area have not been further subdivided, retaining large sections with mature trees that sets up a regular spacing and pattern of houses, fencing and front gardens along the street.
– Landscape and natural features: Dudley Creek is a defining feature and important open space for this Character Area. Extensive recent work along the banks of the waterways in Dudley have opened up spaces that contribute to the amenity and value of the area for the community and residents. A feature of Dudley is how existing sections engage with the waterways. Houses face Dudley Creek and tributaries, vegetation is low but extensive and bridges, both vehicle and pedestrian, span the creek creating a strong visual and physical connection. Redevelopment of sections that are located adjacent to the creek should continue to embrace it as a defining feature of the area’s landscape.
– Balance of house and garden size: A feature of Dudley is the consistent balance between house and garden size. The area has a general spaciousness when viewed from the street with modest house footprints, generous separation between houses and gardens that contain substantial vegetation.
– House setbacks and orientation: Houses within Dudley are located with consistent setbacks along streets and orientated to face the street. New houses should reaffirm this building edge, which contributes to the engaging pedestrian environment within the Character Area.
– Street boundaries: Original houses in Dudley contained low or no fencing on the street boundary, and this openness remains today. Low or no fences allow good visual connection between houses and streets contributing to a sense of neighbourliness and promotes safety. However, the erection of high fencing along the street more recently in Dudley restricts visual connection to houses undermining the quality of the street environment. Redevelopment of existing sections should aim to achieve an openness along streets.
– Access parking and garaging: Original houses in Dudley contained vehicle parking to the side or rear of houses. However more recent development has resulted in vehicle garaging and parking in front gardens. This significantly undermines the character of the area by creating blank walls (from garages), resulting in the removal of front yard vegetation and by reducing the visibility of houses from the street.
– Scale and form: The height of a house and its size are key factors in determining what impact the building will have on its immediate surroundings within the Character Area. This includes how it is perceived from the street and by neighbours, and how successfully it fits with the character of the neighbourhood. Houses in Dudley are generally single storey, stand alone buildings with modest footprints and low-pitched hip and gable roofs.
– Architectural detailing: Architectural detailing is often one of the most noticeable expressions of a Character Area. Details are eye-catching and the style or age of houses can be recognised from them. Houses in Dudley have a range of architectural detailing including weatherboard cladding and corrugated iron roofing, bay and box windows, and occasional shingle detailing on gable ends. A variety of detailed entry features, verandas and porches which are consistent with the 20th century villas and bungalows are also features of the character area.”
https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consents-and-Licences/resource-consents/Forms/Character-Areas/Dudley-Design-Guide-2019.pdf

CCC Shirley Community Reserve Feedback

https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/252

Do you support the landscape plan for the Shirley Community Reserve pump track and multi-use concrete table?: No
Do you have any comments on the plan?: I do support Shannon’s request for a permanent pump track to be located within MacFarlane Park, which is why I got involved and emailed the Papanui-Innes Community Board.
I do not support the landscape plan or the proposed temporary “modular” pump track being purchased/installed on 10 Shirley Road.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/proposed-pump-track-for-shirley/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/papanui-innes-skate-facilities/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-shirley-community-reserve-consultation/

Petition: Shirley Primary School students asked for a skate park in MacFarlane Park, not Richmond. Shirley residents have been asking the Papanui-Innes Board since 2001 for this facility, and up until now their requests have been ignored.
After the Board’s decision to accept the Council report, the student who presented the petition was quoted in the local newspaper: “temporary [modular] pump track is not the option he wants”.

Consultation: This consultation does not address the issue: that Shirley will still have no local skate facilities, for local children who are unable to travel outside of their neighbourhood. (1)
The consultation info asks two leading questions for a desired outcome, and doesn’t include any info regarding the actual location (Shirley Community Reserve = 10 Shirley Road, former Shirley Community Centre), costs, or noise/safety issues, so residents can make an informed decision.

Location: Shirley Community Reserve is in Richmond. The reserve does not have toilets. The closest toilets are at Jebson Street, by the flying fox at MacFarlane Park South Playground. This location is also where I suggested a permanent track could be made by adapting the path that goes around the flying fox. It is also the location of the Shirley Community Garden, and the main thoroughfare for Shirley children walking to and from Shirley Primary School. (2)

Type of Track: “Project Brief: Tracks can be permanent or modular design. In this case a modular design is preferred allowing for future relocation.” (3)
The Board has the opportunity to finally provide Shirley children with a permanent skate facility in their local MacFarlane Park, but the original Council report was based on a “modular” pump track design only.
“A location near Jebson Street beside the flying fox, toilets and Shirley Community Gardens was also considered, however, this has a separation of 25m between residents and the [modular] pump track. Further noise information would be required if this site was preferred over the site near Emmett Street.” (4)

Noise Issues: “The Environmental Health team have recommended that Council engage an independent noise engineer to test a modular pump track at Burwood and use readings to suggest a suitable distance [40m] between the proposed [modular] pump track and residents to ensure compliance with the District Plan.” (3)
I accept that the proposed “modular” pump track cannot be located in MacFarlane Park, Shirley, due to the above noise issues/setback required, relating to the 11 modular track section joins.
But a permanent track is basically a very bumpy asphalt footpath and wouldn’t have the same restrictions/setback requirements. Noise from the flying fox hasn’t been an issue, so why would there be a problem with noise from a permanent track?

Safety Issues: “Motorists running red lights on a signalised pedestrian crossing Shirley Rd [between Shirley Community Reserve and Shirley Primary School] have posed a major threat to pupils.” (5)
The Board has been aware of safety issues with the lights/crossing on Shirley Road since 2017, when I emailed my concerns/suggestions (which included delaying the pedestrian crossing signal change phase).
Local children in Shirley know there is an “invisible boundary line”, they are free to play unsupervised, as long as they don’t cross the major roads and stay within MacFarlane Park.
The proposed pump track will be mainly used after school and on the weekends, when the crossing lights (red light runners) from Shirley Primary to 10 Shirley Road, will not be supervised by a teacher.
If the proposed location is approved by the Board, Shirley children will be forced to cross a busy main road, Shirley Road, with known safety issues.

Environmental Issues: “[Christchurch City Council] have declared climate change emergencies and pledged to take urgent action to reduce their carbon emissions.” (6)
The Board is considering purchasing a “modular” pump track which is imported from overseas. The local businesses that created the #detour Gap Filler project on Manchester Street, could create a permanent skate track in MacFarlane Park, less expensive and less carbon emissions.

Shirley Community: “An east Christchurch suburb overlooked since the earthquakes is close to breaking point, community leaders say. Papanui-Innes Community Board chairwoman Ali Jones told a council submissions hearing on Monday Shirley was in dire need of new community facilities, but had been largely left out of the Christchurch City Council’s draft 10-year budget. “Our ward has been forgotten in many ways, particularly the Shirley area – an area that is in the east but not in the east we hear so much about.” “The community is close to breaking point. They need a place to meet, to gather, to mend.” (7) 30th April 2018

Papanui-Innes Community Board Plan 2017-2019:
“Strong Communities | Board Priorities: (for the next two years) Develop a ten year plan for the area at 10 Shirley Road for community use. The plan will be considered in the Long Term Plan. The rebuild of a community centre on the land at 10 Shirley Road is designed and commenced.
Strong Communities | We will measure our success by: Development of a ten year plan for the area at 10 Shirley Road and consideration in the Long Term Plan. This may include, among other items, a children’s playground, community gardens and a community centre. A community board community working party commencing to work with technical staff to design and begin the rebuild of a community facility at 10 Shirley Road.
Prosperous economy | Board Priorities: (for the next two years) Successful rebuild of the 10 Shirley Road.
Prosperous economy | We will measure our success by: Commencement of the rebuild of the 10 Shirley Road Community Centre.” (8)

As a community we need to ask ourselves whether we want temporary facilities as part of our children’s childhood memories?
Or whether we should be investing in building permanent facilities? Facilities that enliven our community, and rise up a sense of identity and well-being through the memories created, when our children connect with our community spaces.

Links:
(1) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0303/S00015/new-skate-facility-planned-for-mcfarlane-park.htm
(2) MacFarlane Park South Playground https://goo.gl/maps/gGXTAKXf5hmvJrwy7
(3) 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund Application Decision Matrix: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/03/CNCL_20190328_AGN_3367_AT.htm#PDF3_Attachment_22966_2
(4) Modular Pump Track Shirley Report: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/12/PICB_20181207_AGN_2446_AT.htm
(5) https://www.star.kiwi/2017/08/red-light-runners-thwarted-by-signal-phase-change/
(6) https://www.ccc.govt.nz/news-and-events/newsline/show/3614
(7) https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/103484014/christchurch-suburb-overlooked-since-the-earthquakes-community-leaders-say
(8) https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Community-Boards/Plans/Papanui-Innes-Community-Board-Plan.pdf

Where would you prefer the multi-use table to be located?: Other location (please describe below)
Comments – Please be as specific as possible: There has been much debate online and in the local papers questioning the cost and safety issues (concrete table near playground, wayward ping pong balls near a busy main road) of this proposed multi-use table.
Since these debates, a wooden picnic table has been anonymously placed in the Shirley Community Reserve.
The seating/picnic table that the resident original asked the Board for, has been kindly donated by someone in our community.
There is no need to purchase this concrete multi-use table and concrete seating.

CCC Shirley Community Reserve Consultation

Below are some key points regarding the CCC Shirley Community Reserve Consultation (modular pump track and multi-purpose concrete table/seating, 10 Shirley Road, Richmond, former Shirley Community Centre site).
Children’s Petition:
– Thirty Shirley Primary School students signed/presented a petition to the Papanui-Innes Community Board to ask for a skate park in MacFarlane Park, Shirley. (August 2018)
– After the Board’s decision, the student who presented the petition was quoted in the local newspaper: “temporary [modular] pump track is not the option he wants”. (December 2018)
Council Report:
– “Project Brief: Tracks can be permanent or modular design. In this case a modular design is preferred allowing for future relocation.” (see ‘Funding’ Decision Matrix link below)
– Only a Modular track option was considered. A Permanent track option was not considered.
– “A location near Jebson Street beside the flying fox, toilets and Shirley Community Gardens was also considered, however, this has a separation of 25m between residents and the pump track. Further noise information would be required if this site was preferred over the site near Emmett Street.”
– “There is currently no funding available in the 2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan.”
– “There is a risk that if the Community Board decide to do nothing that the [Shirley] community will continue to demand this type of facility.”
Funding:
– Council staff recommended a 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan bid for funding.
– The Board “request that the Parks Team explore alternative funding to action the project within the financial year.”
– 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund Application, Decision Matrix: https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/03/CNCL_20190328_AGN_3367_AT.htm#PDF3_Attachment_22966_2
Proposed Location:
– Shirley Community Reserve, is at 10 Shirley Road, Richmond, the site of the former Shirley Community Centre.
– The reserve does not have toilets. The closest toilets are at Jebson Street, https://goo.gl/maps/gGXTAKXf5hmvJrwy7, by the flying fox at MacFarlane Park South Playground.
– The Council/Board/staff are currently discussing future plans for the 10 Shirley Road site.
– The “Richmond Community Needs Analysis” has been received by the Board.
– The “Community Facilities Network Plan” has been received by the Council Committee, and is currently in ‘Public Excluded Items’.
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/06/SOC_20190612_MIN_3838_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_23695
Noise Issues:
– The Environmental Health team have recommended that Council engage an independent noise engineer to test a modular pump track at Burwood and use readings to suggest a suitable distance [40m] between the proposed [modular] pump track and residents to ensure compliance with the District Plan.
– The Modular pump track cannot be located in MacFarlane Park, Shirley, due to the above noise issues, relating to the 11 modular track section joins.
Safety Issues:
– “Motorists running red lights on a signalised pedestrian crossing Shirley Rd [between Shirley Community Reserve and Shirley Primary School] have posed a major threat to pupils.”
– The Board have been aware of safety issues with the lights/crossing on Shirley Road since 2017, when I emailed my concerns/suggestions (which included delaying the pedestrian crossing signal change phase).
Proposed Track:
– $81,000 Quadragon Modular Pump Track (48m track, 20.7m long, 10.3m wide, track width approx 1.2m)
– $1,050 Noise test of existing pump track at the corner of Brooker Avenue and New Brighton Road, Burwood (to ensure pump track proposed at Shirley Community Reserve complies with the noise standards of the District Plan)
– $5,000 Development of concept plan for community engagement and project management fees
– $200 per annum required for two years (monthly cleaning, maintenance and inspection)
– The pump track is imported from overseas, so exchange rates may result in an increase in cost.
– The expected life span of the modular pump track is 10 years.
– $16,400 for site works [same cost to relocate track to the next site], which includes temporary fencing, excavating 50mm of top surface, installing timber edging and peg’s, supply of geo-textile and compacted GAP20 (fine gravel). This is for an area of 209m2.
Proposed Table:
– Cost: $5,000 for concrete multi-purpose table. Extra cost for concrete seating/benches.
– “A resident from the Richmond area spoke to the Community Board regarding concerns over the condition of the 10 Shirley Road site. The resident felt the site was overgrown and untidy and that there was a lack of seating in the area.”
– John Stringer and Mike Davidson (Innes Ward) requested that their vote against the decision [to purchase a concrete multipurpose table] be recorded.
– There has been much debate online and in the local papers questioning the cost and safety issues (concrete table near playground, wayward ping pong balls near a busy main road).
– A table tennis table needs approx 2 metres behind each end of the table, and 1 metre each side of the table, to be able to play table tennis.
– Since the debate, a wooden picnic table has been anonymously placed in the Shirley Community Reserve.
– The seating/picnic table that the resident original asked the Board for, has been kindly donated by someone in our community.
Shirley Residents:
– Shirley Primary School students asked for a skate park in MacFarlane Park. Shirley residents have been asking the Board since 2001, and they still have no local skate facilities, for local children unable to travel outside of their neighbourhood.
– If the proposed location is approved by the Board, Shirley children will be forced to cross a busy main road, Shirley Road, with known safety issues.
– ‘Shirley Needs Analysis (2001)’, recommended the development of skateboard facilities in MacFarlane Park.
– In response to requests from Shirley residents, a skate path is being planned for MacFarlane Park next to the flying fox on Jebson St. (2003)
– “Other parks were also considered but are outside of the community focus area and would not cater for local children unable to travel outside of their [Shirley] neighbourhood.” (2004)
– ‘Shirley MacFarlane Park Community Concept Plan (2005-2008), recommended the development of skateboard facilities in MacFarlane Park.
– “Shannon’s question was ‘Do you want a Scooter, Skate and Bike Park for Shirley? We want to ask the Christchurch City Council if we can put one in at MacFarlane Park.’” (2018)
– I contacted the design/construction business involved with the Gap Filler #detour pump track on Manchester Street. A ballpark figure for a permanent track/path around the flying fox in MacFarlane Park/Jebson Street: “for the $71,000 for the modular pump track you will get a pretty good asphalt pump track, potentially up to 140 square metres worth maybe even more depending on how complex of a design you are looking at”.
Richmond Residents:
– There are noise issues related to this modular pump track design, see ‘Noise Issues’ above.
– The proposed pump track/multi purpose table location, is very visible from Shirley Road, and could attract anti-social behaviour into this area, especially at night.
– This is not a permanent facility. This is a temporary facility, to activate the 10 Shirley Road site, and then it will be relocated to another suburb.
– If you look at the Landscape Plan (on the left hand side), at the back of the Shirley Community Reserve, there are already existing ‘permanent asphalt’ paths running along in front of Dudley Creek.
St Albans Residents:
– Staff have received requests from youth previously around extending the [St Albans] skate park, including a request from youth in 2014 and a request in March 2017 for an extension of the [St Albans] skate park to include building a skate bowl.
– A group of 16 children from St Albans School presented their design ideas for a planned extension to the St Albans skate park to Council staff members who were invited to attend a meeting at the school. (May 2019)
– Community suggestions will soon be sent to the skate park designer. We hope to hold public consultation on a draft plan [St Albans Skate Park Extension] by November [2019].
Papanui Ward Residents:
– Community leaders are pushing for more facilities for young people in the Christchurch suburb of Papanui. ‘Both Papanui and Redwood are missing a good outdoor youth recreational facility and potentially we may need to look at two facilities in the Papanui ward.’ (2017)
– Sites in the Papanui Ward have been identified for a skate park but it could be up to 12 years before anyone gets to use it.
– No money was available for the project in the council budget, but the community board planned to lobby to get money included in the council’s 10-year budget, the Long Term Plan, to be considered next year [2018].

For more background information/research links/timeline:
http://riseuprichmond.nz/proposed-pump-track-for-shirley/
http://riseuprichmond.nz/papanui-innes-skate-facilities/

Here is the link to the “Have Your Say” CCC Shirley Community Reserve Consultation:
https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/252
Here is the link to the landscape plan for the Shirley Community Reserve pump track and multi-use concrete table:
https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Images/Consultation/2019/06-June/Shirley-Pump-Track/Plans.pdf
Q. Do you support the landscape plan for the Shirley Community Reserve pump track and multi-use concrete table?
A. Yes, No, Do you have any comments on the plan?
Q. Where would you prefer the multi-use table to be located?
A. Location A, Location B, Other location (please describe below), Comments – Please be as specific as possible

Open for feedback: 1st July 2019 – 29th July 2019

58 Perth Street Lane Name

Last week I read the report before the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for the “Proposed Road Names” for 58 Perth Street.
“1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider and approve the proposed road names arising from local subdivisions.
1.2 This report is staff generated resulting from naming request received from the subdivision developers.
1.3 This report relates to the following subdivisions at 58 Perth Street and 19 Forth Street.”
(https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/LCHB_20190701_AGN_3340_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_23501)

Below is the email I sent to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for the Board meeting, on Monday 1 July 2019:
“9. Proposed Road Names – Various Subdivisions
3.12 The preferred name followed by alternative names follows:
– Laurenson Lane: The owner of this property was Linda May Laurenson, who lived on the site for over 30 years. This owner was a well-known long term resident of Richmond and the applicant would like to acknowledge this by naming the right of way after her (or at least put her name forward as one option).
– Bingsland Lane: Richmond was originally known as Bingsland and that time contained working-class houses, small shops and artisan’s workshops.”
Last year I spent time researching and creating ideas to develop Richmond (http://riseuprichmond.nz).
I support the above name suggestions, as they represent a part of Richmond’s identity & history, which we have lost so much of after the earthquakes.
These names tell a story. They give the new development an identity & connect the new people moving into these homes to the stories of this community.
“4. Memories – Nga Maharatanga
Before the earthquakes, many communities called the Regeneration Area home. Some families had lived there for generations, forging strong local bonds and enjoying a high quality of life.
Sense of place was strong, and residents drew their identity from their connections to the river, parks, estuary and sea.
Countless memories were made in the schools, parks and homes in the area. While the face of the land has changed immeasurably, these stories will always be treasured.”
(http://riseuprichmond.nz/draft-oarc-regeneration-plan-tell-our-stories/)
“…into the future to ensure the stories remain connected to the place, and then the people remain connected to the place.”
Dr Christine Whybrew from Heritage New Zealand
(https://engage.regeneratechristchurch.nz/what-needs-does-christchurch-have-that-could-be-met-by-the-otakaro-avon-river-corridor/videos/3540)
“– the stories of the Richmond, its demolished heritage places and archaeological features/records are incorporated in landscape development and rebuild plans. Heritage New Zealand can supply further information and content to support this recommendation”
(http://www.regeneratechristchurch.nz/assets/Uploads/Heritage-Assessment-for-the-Residential-Red-Zone-Richmond.pdf)
“Richmond used to be called Bingsland, and before that was called the Church Land. Mr C.B. Fooks, once Secretary of the Land Board, held long leases of a very large block and resided there. It afterwards passed to one BING, a Hungarian, and was spoken of as Bing’s land, hence BINGSLAND.”
(http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/digitised/burke/Burke50.asp)
“Mr Morice Bing sometime of Marshlands, was a native of Hungary, and arrived in Australia in 1852. He followed various callings for eight years in New South Wales, whence he came to Christchurch. Sheep grazing and wool-classing engaged his attention for three years, and he then took up 200 acres of land from the Church Property Trustees. He used this land as a cattle run for a number of years, and then sub-let it in small areas. He bought land north of the river Avon, near the Stanmore Road, and sub-divided it into building areas, ranging from a quarter of an acre to one acre. These sections sold readily, and one of the first suburban districts adjacent to Christchurch was formed out of them, and was for many years known as Bingsland.”
(http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Cyc03Cycl-t1-body1-d3-d64-d4.html)
By using either of the above names, the Board would be linking the history of Richmond to the new homes & the new people who will now make Richmond their home.
Links:
http://riseuprichmond.nz/richmond-history/
http://riseuprichmond.nz/richmond-village/
http://riseuprichmond.nz/ideas/

Below are the Minutes relating to the Board’s decision:
Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes: Monday 1 July 2019
(https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/LCHB_20190701_MIN_3340_AT.PDF
– “5. Deputations by Appointment
(https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/LCHB_20190701_MIN_3340_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_24112)
Part B
5.1 Proposed Road Names – Various Subdivisions
Hayley Guglietta and Greg Partridge, representing the Richmond Residents’ and Business Association, spoke to the Board regarding the naming of the right of way at 58 Perth Street, stating the significance of Bingsland to the area and wanting the name to be in a more prominent position and for Council/Developers to consult with the community on road/right of way naming.
5. 2 Proposed Road Names – Various Subdivisions (Clause 9 of these minutes refers)
Don Gould, local resident, gave a presentation to the Board regarding the naming of the right of way at 58 Perth Street, raising concerns around delaying residents from moving into their new homes. Mr Gould agreed with the Richmond Residents’ and Business Association’s position on community consultation in relation to road naming.”
– “9. Proposed Road Names – Various Subdivisions
(https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/07/LCHB_20190701_MIN_3340_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_23501)
Board Comment
1. Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report. The Board took into consideration the deputations from Hayley Guglietta and Greg Partridge (Clause 5.1 of these minutes refers), and Don Gould (Clause 5.2 of these minutes refers).
Staff Recommendations
That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board: Approve the following new road names:
1. 58 Perth Street (RMA/2019/482): Laurenson Lane.
Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00074 Part C
That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:
1. Approves the following new road name:
1a. 58 Perth Street (RMA/2019/482): Bings Lane.
2. Requests staff advice on the possibility of naming another area within Richmond such as a park, and report back to the Board.
3. Requests staff discuss with the Board the Land Information New Zealand requirements and implications of naming lanes/right of ways on brown fields subdivisions.
Carried: Alexandra Davids/Sara Templeton
– Jake McLellan and Deon Swiggs voted against the resolution, and requested their votes be recorded.”

I’m glad the Board made the decision to approve ‘Bings Lane’, as the new lane name for 58 Perth Street, Richmond.
It is fitting that Morice Bing, one of the first property developers in this area, who bought one piece of land and subdivided it, will be connected to one of the latest property developers in Richmond, Williams Corporation Limited.
As I said in my email “the Board would be linking the history of Richmond to the new homes & the new people who will now make Richmond their home.”
“2. Requests staff advice on the possibility of naming another area within Richmond such as a park, and report back to the Board.”
As Morice Bing “bought land north of the river Avon, near the Stanmore Road”, why not as part of Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, set aside a green space at the entrance to Richmond (corner of River Road & Stanmore Road) and call it ‘Bingsland Reserve’?
This could be the start of a ‘Richmond Heritage Trail’ to connect with my
‘River Road Park’ (http://riseuprichmond.nz/river-road-park/) & ‘Dudley Creek Trail’ (http://riseuprichmond.nz/dudley-creek/) ideas.
Richmond is a great location to call home for those working in the CBD, and with the need for more new housing options, it makes sense for the residential areas of Richmond (south of North Avon Road) to be zoned Residential Medium Density Zone.
“The Residential Medium Density Zone is located close to the central city and around other larger commercial centres across the city. The zone provides for townhouses, terraced housing, apartment buildings and encourages comprehensive development of multiple adjacent sites. Smaller and shared outdoor living spaces are acceptable within this zone. Zone standards and assessment matters manage the amenity, quality and function of new residential developments within this zone.”
(https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/PropertySearch/PropertySearchContainer.html?feature=DistrictPlanIndex&featureId=32)
I’m sure the home owners will be happy to hear they will now be one step closer to receiving the keys to their new house at 58 Perth Street.
Welcome to Richmond.

Red Zone Futures: Visitor Attractions

Regenerate Christchurch – Land Use Assessment Report – Visitor Attractions

Overview
– to create land uses within the Area that encourage and facilitate visitor attractions for the benefit of Christchurch residents and Christchurch’s tourism industry by attracting visitors from outside Christchurch. 

Existing Attractions in Christchurch
– Christchurch Adventure Park
– Christchurch Botanic Gardens
– Christchurch Gondola
– International Antarctic Centre
– Ko Tāne Village at Willowbank
– Orana Wildlife Park
– Transitional Cathedral

Strategic Context
The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 establishes Regenerate Christchurch’s purpose to “support a vibrant, thriving Christchurch that has economic, social, and lifestyle opportunities for residents, businesses, visitors, investors and developers”.

Our Shared Ōtākaro Avon River Vision
The river is part of us and we are part of the river.
It is a living part of our city.
A place of history and culture
where people gather, play, and celebrate together.
A place of learning and discovery
where traditional knowledge, science and technology meet.
A place for ideas and innovation
where we create new ways of living and connecting.
OUR VISION IS FOR THE RIVER TO CONNECT US TOGETHER –
with each other, with nature and with new possibilities.

For Christchurch
– Support safe, strong and healthy communities that are well-connected with each other and with the wider city.
– Provide opportunities for enhanced community participation, recreation and leisure.
– Create a restored native habitat with good quality water so there is an abundant source of mahinga kai, birdlife and native species.
– Create opportunities for sustainable economic activity and connections that enhance our wellbeing and prosperity now and into the future.
For New Zealand
– Develop the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area as a destination that attracts a wide range of domestic and international visitors.
– Establish a world-leading living laboratory, where we learn, experiment and research; testing and creating new ideas and ways of living.
– Demonstrate how to adapt to the challenges and opportunities presented by natural hazards, climate change and a river’s floodplain.

Investment Drivers
1. Christchurch lacks attractions that operate through the shoulder and winter seasons. Also, there are few attractions with flexible and/or late night opening hours.
2. Christchurch falls behind other NZ cities in benefitting from tourism due to reduced visitation and length of stay.
3. A lack of activities in east Christchurch for visiting family and friends of residents has resulted in less visitation from other parts of Christchurch and Canterbury.

Benefits
– Attractions bring people back into east Christchurch and help create linkages between surrounding neighbourhoods and communities.
– Christchurch is known as a desirable city for local, national and international visitors.
– There are local economic growth and employment opportunities.
– The attraction contributes to the regeneration of the Area.

Risks
– The proposed attractions do not generate increased visitation to Christchurch and/or the regeneration of Christchurch.
– The proposed attractions do not align with the Christchurch visitor strategy or the design plan for the Area.
– The attraction becomes an island in east Christchurch and is not integrated into the community or creates gentrification or displacement in east Christchurch.
– No developers or operators can be found for the proposed attractions.

Potential Options
The options are intended to provide context to the development of a long list of land use options only, and should not be interpreted as attractions to be included in the Area.
– Themed Space: represents Christchurch’s history or culture, eg. a maze which incorporates aspects of Christchurch’s cultural heritage, earthquake events and natural environment through sculptures, murals etc.
– Playground: The Margaret Mahy Family Playground has been a huge success and there may be an opportunity to create another playground with a similar theme for east Christchurch residents. This could begin a theme for Christchurch as a playground capital.
– Observatory/Dark Skypark: Use the absence of light pollution in the Area to build an observatory and supporting infrastructure. The observatory at the Arts Centre was popular among locals and also offered a place for educational research.
The Townsend Observatory in the Arts Centre was badly damaged during the 2011 earthquakes. The historic Townsend telescope could be recommissioned in the Area subject to discussions with the Christchurch Arts Centre.
The Area could feature an observatory that catered for visitors and complemented the Mt John Observatory in Tekapo.
Likewise, a Dark Sky approach to the area could build on New Zealand’s reputation for low light pollution.
– Eco-attractions: Create an eco-attraction, to build on Christchurch’s international reputation as a garden city. Christchurch holds a number of botanical and garden events each year.
– Cultural Experience: Create a cultural experience that reflects the history of Christchurch and/or New Zealand. Christchurch currently lacks the type of major cultural experience which is present in other major centres.
The Area offers an opportunity to tell Christchurch’s story and incorporate the Ōtākaro Avon River, which is an important part of Christchurch’s history.
The Tamaki Village, Rotorua, is an interactive Māori cultural experience in Rotorua that gives visitors aview into Māori history,art forms, rituals and traditions.
– Golf Course: New Zealand is known as a golf mecca and Clearwater has been a major success in Christchurch from both an attraction and real estate perspective.
An additional premium course would be preferable as Christchurch does not have a shortage of green fee or standard club courses.
– Theme Park: Create a theme park-based attraction. Rainbow’s End is currently the only major theme park in New Zealand and there is an opportunity to investigate whether there is demand for another theme park attraction.
– Action Sports Facility/Grounds: Construct a sports facility that would attract spectators and/or competitorsin addition to participants. Christchurch is well known as a destination for a range of sports and attracts visitors and competitors both nationally and internationally.
There is an opportunity to further investigate the feasibility of alternative use sporting facilities/grounds in the Area.
– Flatwater Facility: A flatwater facility could provide a base for a number of water sports that attract national and international spectators and add to Christchurch’s current sport facility portfolio.
– Festival Water Sports Course: A festival-style short water sports course for events and competitions between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road and linking further downstream that attracts small and unique events for a wide range of water sports.
– Whitewater Sports Hub: Construct a whitewater sports hub that could be used as an attraction as well as for sporting events and education, eg a surf park, white water park, wakeboard park etc. An action water sports facility could provide a base for a number of water sports that attract national and international spectators and add to Christchurch’s current sport facility portfolio.
– Gondola: Construct a gondola that provides a transportation option between the central city and New Brighton. It would have a number of stops along the routes to allow access to different parts of the Corridor and to provide a car-free transport option.
– Art/Sculpture Park: Develop an art/sculpture park that uses the landscape of the Area to display different pieces of outdoor art. Complementary to many other ideas for the Area.
– Eco-sanctuary: Develop an eco-sanctuary for Christchurch to build on the success of existing eco-sanctuaries in Dunedin, Wellington and across New Zealand.
It could be developed to encourage both ecological restoration and education while incorporating other visitor attraction ideas to enhance the offering.
The eco-sanctuary could also be focused around certain themes, eg a butterfly habitat.

“It is recommended that the ability to allow for a wide range of attraction ideas that have the potential to succeed in the Area is included in the long list of land use options.
It is clear that the success of attractions in the Area would be closely linked to the successful regeneration of the Area overall and the creation of a unique and attractive place with appropriate supporting infrastructure that provides investors with the confidence to investigate opportunities in detail.
In particular, the following key points should be considered in any decision around including attractions in the Area:
– Any opportunities presented for attractions need to ensure alignment with the investment objectives and critical success factors established in this report.
– There needs to be a balance of attractions that cater for local residents and international visitors.
– Given the need for greater focus on Christchurch’s tourism sector, priority should be given to assessing and progressing any visitor attraction opportunities that are presented if visitor attraction areas are included in the Plan.
– If visitor attraction areas are included in the long list of land use options, there needs to be a focus on creating “clusters” that are supported by an effective and efficient multi-modal transport network connecting the central city and New Brighton.”