Residential development - findings

This image shows a tiny house, popularly considered an innovative and sustainable option for future residential accommodation globally.

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. Those that identified as having previously lived in the area were most often not supportive of future residential development.

Those that did support residential development mostly put conditions on that support – for example, any future housing would need to be innovative, sustainable, able to adapt to sea level rise and/or be limited in quantity, so as not to impact negatively on ecological restoration. The option for ex-residents to have the first right of refusal to buy property in the area was also frequently mentioned by those supporting residential. Tiny houses were identified as a popular model of housing for the area.

“Residential zoning seems incredibly risky and I wouldn’t support those options that had any residential zoning proposed.”

“If residential is allowed then it must be affordable, super eco friendly and resilient to flooding, earthquakes, sea level rise.”


Land swap

The proposed land swap, creating residential development on Rāwhiti and Avondale golf courses and a new golf course in Bexley, received 463 comments, with 89.8% (416) not in support. This included 212 feedback forms organised by the New Brighton community that were specifically against the Rāwhiti golf course land swap. Respondents were very concerned about the loss of a local asset (and monarch butterfly habitat), and increasing the numbers of houses in a tsunami risk area, where the local primary schools are already struggling to accommodate their existing rolls.

People who identified as neighbours of Avondale golf course were also not supportive of the land swap, citing the perceived loss of amenity value if the landswap went ahead.

An additional 13.4% (247) of all respondents did not specifically oppose the landswap, but did mention the importance of retaining the Bexley saltmarsh and were against using the area for a golf course.

While individual support for the land swap was very low, there was some support from agencies and community groups (for example ChristchurchNZ, Canterbury DHB and Eastern Vision) who recognised that the land swap (or concept of a land swap) could bring wider social and economic benefits for local communities.

“I don't think housing should be put back in the red zone. I don't think there should be a land swap with the golf courses.”


See all findings from engagement on 10 possible combinations of land uses.

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. Those that identified as having previously lived in the area were most often not supportive of future residential development.

Those that did support residential development mostly put conditions on that support – for example, any future housing would need to be innovative, sustainable, able to adapt to sea level rise and/or be limited in quantity, so as not to impact negatively on ecological restoration. The option for ex-residents to have the first right of refusal to buy property in the area was also frequently mentioned by those supporting residential. Tiny houses were identified as a popular model of housing for the area.

“Residential zoning seems incredibly risky and I wouldn’t support those options that had any residential zoning proposed.”

“If residential is allowed then it must be affordable, super eco friendly and resilient to flooding, earthquakes, sea level rise.”


Land swap

The proposed land swap, creating residential development on Rāwhiti and Avondale golf courses and a new golf course in Bexley, received 463 comments, with 89.8% (416) not in support. This included 212 feedback forms organised by the New Brighton community that were specifically against the Rāwhiti golf course land swap. Respondents were very concerned about the loss of a local asset (and monarch butterfly habitat), and increasing the numbers of houses in a tsunami risk area, where the local primary schools are already struggling to accommodate their existing rolls.

People who identified as neighbours of Avondale golf course were also not supportive of the land swap, citing the perceived loss of amenity value if the landswap went ahead.

An additional 13.4% (247) of all respondents did not specifically oppose the landswap, but did mention the importance of retaining the Bexley saltmarsh and were against using the area for a golf course.

While individual support for the land swap was very low, there was some support from agencies and community groups (for example ChristchurchNZ, Canterbury DHB and Eastern Vision) who recognised that the land swap (or concept of a land swap) could bring wider social and economic benefits for local communities.

“I don't think housing should be put back in the red zone. I don't think there should be a land swap with the golf courses.”


See all findings from engagement on 10 possible combinations of land uses.