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.
-
Background and methodology
Information on how the engagement was promoted, the questions asked, the ways people could provide feedback and the methodology we used to analyse the feedback received. Read more about the background and methodology
-
Ecological restoration - findings
In all the engagement Regenerate Christchurch has done to date, ecological restoration is consistently highlighted as one of, if not the most important consideration for the area.
It was one of the top themes to emerge from the community engagement in March-May 2017 when we conducted research to understand the needs of Christchurch communities and seek ideas for how the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor could meet these needs. It also underpins the vision and objectives for the area.
During this engagement, ecological restoration received the most comments and support – 48.6% (906). Read more about the engagement findings on ecological restorations
-
Residential development - findings
The potential to reintroduce residential development in the Area was another idea that received significant feedback – 36.7% of all respondents commented (685). Opinion was literally split, with 49.9% (342) in support, 50.1% (343) not in support. Read more about the engagement findings on residential development
-
Recreation - findings
Recreation and recreational activities were identified as important by 32.9% of all respondents (617), with 42.8% (264) of them indicating a specific preference for ecologically-appropriate recreation.
Within this theme, there were several sub-themes (ideas such as flatwater facilities) that received strong support. Read more about the engagement findings on recreation
-
Visitor attractions - findings
31.5% of all respondents (587) provided comments on visitor attractions, with the vast majority in support, particularly of ecologically and locally focused attractions. Eco sanctuaries and predator-free areas were mentioned specifically. However, feedback on large scale, ticketed attractions was more divided. Read more about the engagement findings on visitor attractions
-
Productive land uses - findings
Of the 23.7% (442) of respondents who provided feedback on productive land uses, 86.9% (384) were in support, though that support often came with conditions. Having an ecological focus was the most frequently mentioned condition. Those not in support highlighted concerns with farming (especially dairy) and with private or commercial ownership of the land. Read more about the engagement findings on productive land uses
-
Process - findings
As mentioned, this engagement was primarily an opportunity to test both the process to get to this point and the information underpinning the process. However, the numbers of respondents who specifically mentioned the process and/or information were relatively low.
Only 15.3% of comments (285) mentioned the process Regenerate Christchurch has taken to get to this point, or the information considered. Of those 285 comments, it was almost evenly split between positive and negative (144 positive, 141 negative), with seven of those respondents providing both positive and negative comments on different aspects of the process, information or engagement. Read more about the engagement findings on our process
Documents
-
Spreadsheet of feedback on 10 possible combinations of land uses - redacted (3.9 MB) (pdf)
-
Hard copy feedback nos. 1395 -1415 (6.9 MB) (pdf)
-
Hard copy feedback nos. 1416 -1425 (15.2 MB) (pdf)
-
Hard copy feedback nos. 1681 - 1739 (9.73 MB) (pdf)
-
Hard copy feedback nos. 1740 - 1793 (9.64 MB) (pdf)
-
Hard copy feedback nos. 1794 - 1849 (8.78 MB) (pdf)
-
Hard copy feedback nos. 1850 - 1862 plus additionals (9.19 MB) (pdf)
-
Media release - Feedback shows strong support for ecological restoration and recreation (451 KB) (pdf)
