Findings from engagement on 10 possible combinations of land uses

On Friday 6 October 2017 Regenerate Christchurch published for feedback 10 possible combinations of land uses for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area. We also invited feedback on all the information we’d considered, including technical reports, surveys and studies.

This engagement was an opportunity to ‘check in’.

The four-week feedback period ran until Monday 6 November 2017 and during that time Regenerate Christchurch received comments from 1,882 individuals and groups.

Key findings

During the engagement period Regenerate Christchurch received clusters of responses that were very similar, or near identical, in content, which suggests they represented an organised response. This has resulted in some themes and ideas featuring prominently.

  • Ecological restoration received the most support (48.6% - 906 comments) with many respondents acknowledging the importance of this Area for improving environmental outcomes, and the associated benefits of that for the city, and for residents’ wellbeing. Horseshoe Lake and Bexley were two areas that were specifically mentioned as having high ecological importance – Bexley for its salt marsh (247 comments – 13.2% of all respondents) and Horseshoe Lake for the opportunity to manage stormwater and mitigate flooding via wetlands (207 comments - 11.1% of all respondents).

  • The sub-theme (idea) ‘2.2km out-of-river lake’ was the next most frequently mentioned, with 787 comments (42.2% of all respondents) – 87.4% (688) were in support and 12.6% (99) were not.

  • Residential development was mentioned by 36.7% of all respondents (685 comments). However, unlike ecological restoration, where all comments were in support, feedback on residential was split – 342 respondents were in support, while 343 were not. It was also clear from comments that any proposed housing in the Area would need to be different from what had been there before. The golf course landswap, which was identified as a sub-theme of residential, received 463 comments with 89.8% (416) against the proposal.

  • Recreation and recreational activities were mentioned by 33.1% of respondents (617 comments). As mentioned, sub-themes of recreation received significant feedback - 36.9% of all respondents (688) favoured the 2.2 km out-of-river lake, while 23.7% of all respondents (442) favoured the 2.2km in-river lake.


Themes
Total
Breakdown: positive/negative
Ecological restoration
48.6%
(906 comments)
All positive
Residential development
36.7%
(685 comments)
Positive: 49.9% (342 comments)
Negative: 50.1% (343 comments)
Recreation
33.1%
(617 comments)
All positive
Note: feedback on recreation subthemes (ideas) was positive and negative
Visitor attractions
31.5%
(587 comments)
Positive: 96.3% (565 comments)
Negative: 3.7% (22 comments)
Productive land uses
23.7%
(442 comments)
Positive: 86.9% (384 comments)
Negative: 13.1% (58 comments)
Process
15.3%
(285 comments)
Positive: 50.5% (144 comments)
Negative: 49.5% (141 comments)

Read more detail about the findings below.


How we will use these findings

All feedback has been considered and a refined shortlist of land use options has been developed. Read more about the process.

This shortlist was derived from the 10 combinations of land uses that were published in October 2017.


On Friday 6 October 2017 Regenerate Christchurch published for feedback 10 possible combinations of land uses for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area. We also invited feedback on all the information we’d considered, including technical reports, surveys and studies.

This engagement was an opportunity to ‘check in’.

The four-week feedback period ran until Monday 6 November 2017 and during that time Regenerate Christchurch received comments from 1,882 individuals and groups.

Key findings

During the engagement period Regenerate Christchurch received clusters of responses that were very similar, or near identical, in content, which suggests they represented an organised response. This has resulted in some themes and ideas featuring prominently.

  • Ecological restoration received the most support (48.6% - 906 comments) with many respondents acknowledging the importance of this Area for improving environmental outcomes, and the associated benefits of that for the city, and for residents’ wellbeing. Horseshoe Lake and Bexley were two areas that were specifically mentioned as having high ecological importance – Bexley for its salt marsh (247 comments – 13.2% of all respondents) and Horseshoe Lake for the opportunity to manage stormwater and mitigate flooding via wetlands (207 comments - 11.1% of all respondents).

  • The sub-theme (idea) ‘2.2km out-of-river lake’ was the next most frequently mentioned, with 787 comments (42.2% of all respondents) – 87.4% (688) were in support and 12.6% (99) were not.

  • Residential development was mentioned by 36.7% of all respondents (685 comments). However, unlike ecological restoration, where all comments were in support, feedback on residential was split – 342 respondents were in support, while 343 were not. It was also clear from comments that any proposed housing in the Area would need to be different from what had been there before. The golf course landswap, which was identified as a sub-theme of residential, received 463 comments with 89.8% (416) against the proposal.

  • Recreation and recreational activities were mentioned by 33.1% of respondents (617 comments). As mentioned, sub-themes of recreation received significant feedback - 36.9% of all respondents (688) favoured the 2.2 km out-of-river lake, while 23.7% of all respondents (442) favoured the 2.2km in-river lake.


Themes
Total
Breakdown: positive/negative
Ecological restoration
48.6%
(906 comments)
All positive
Residential development
36.7%
(685 comments)
Positive: 49.9% (342 comments)
Negative: 50.1% (343 comments)
Recreation
33.1%
(617 comments)
All positive
Note: feedback on recreation subthemes (ideas) was positive and negative
Visitor attractions
31.5%
(587 comments)
Positive: 96.3% (565 comments)
Negative: 3.7% (22 comments)
Productive land uses
23.7%
(442 comments)
Positive: 86.9% (384 comments)
Negative: 13.1% (58 comments)
Process
15.3%
(285 comments)
Positive: 50.5% (144 comments)
Negative: 49.5% (141 comments)

Read more detail about the findings below.


How we will use these findings

All feedback has been considered and a refined shortlist of land use options has been developed. Read more about the process.

This shortlist was derived from the 10 combinations of land uses that were published in October 2017.