Council Agenda - Have Your Say

We’re on the Web! www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Agendas/

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SEPARATELY CIRCULATED ATTACHMENTS

THURSDAY 3 AND FRIDAY 4 OCTOBER 2013

9.30AM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES, 53 HEREFORD STREET

We’re on the Web! www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Agendas/

AGENDA - OPEN

SEPARATELY CIRCULATED ATTACHMENTS - INDEX ITEM NO.

DESCRIPTION

23. ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 5 SEPTEMBER 2013

24. ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE:

MEETING OF 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 27. ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY, RECREATION AND

CULTURE COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2013

28. ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL

COMMITTEE: MEETING OF 6 SEPTEMBER 2013

6 August 2013 Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority Private Bag 32 001 Featherston Street Wellington 6146 Attention: Mr B Holmes Christchurch City Council District Licensing Agency Annual Report to the Alcohol Licensing and Regulatory Authority for Period Ending 30 June 2013 1. Christchurch City Council District Licensing Agency Overview Agency Structure and Personnel Changes The Liquor Licensing team consists of the names below; there have been three changes in the last 12 months. Fiona Proudfoot Team Leader Ph: 03 941 5064 Martin Ferguson Senior Inspector Ph: 03 941 8956 Paul Spang Inspector Ph: 03 941 8826 Vacancy Inspector Ph: 03 941 8909 Jenn Davison Part‐time Inspector Ph: 03 941 8828 Natashia Lafituanai Technical Assistant Ph: 03 941 8827 Maria White Technical Assistant Ph: 03 941 8821 Gina Moore ` Technical Assistant Ph: 03 941 8068 Fax number: 03 941 5033 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ccc.govt.nz/liquor Paul Rogers retired as Team Leader at the end of April 2013 with Fiona Proudfoot being appointed from Inspector to the Team Leader position on 10 June 2013. Jenn Davison has continued to support the activities of the Liquor Licensing team two days a week. Michele Vincent resigned from Technical Assistant in March 2013, and Gina Moore was subsequently appointed to this position in May 2013. A recruitment process is currently ongoing to fill the full time Inspector vacancy created when Fiona Proudfoot took up the Team Leader position. Sale of Liquor Act 1989 Staff Training The Inspectors and the Liquor Licensing Team Leader attended the New Zealand Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors Conference in September 2012. Paul Spang is a member of the NZILLI Executive Committee. Martin Ferguson and Fiona Proudfoot completed the National Certificate Compliance and Regulatory Control (Local Government Enforcement) Liquor Licensing (Level 4). All three fulltime Inspectors now hold the national qualification, making Christchurch one of only a handful of DLAs where all Inspectors are qualified.

1

ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 2 PLANNING COMMITTEE 20. 9. 2013 101

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ccc.govt.nz/liquor

Agency Business Increases or Decreases The Agency continues to see a number of brand new premises with new operators resulting from rebuilding and reopening of areas of the Central City. Agency Meetings of Hearings The Agency Officer panel appointed under the delegated authority meets every Wednesday to consider all unopposed applications. In the 2012/13 financial year the Agency Officer Panel met 50 times. The DLA Hearing Panel has heard no matters during the last financial year. Agency Trends or Issues The number of Special Licence applications continues to be high. This reflects the loss of function venues across the City and is representative of a significant number of events being held on Club premises for non members. Building demolitions have continued over the past year contributing to the perception of noise and disorder problems within certain localities. The Victoria Street precinct has continued to see growth of licensed premises in direct conflict to the wishes of the local residents association. However, the number of licensed premises operating under temporary accommodation permits, as per RMA Order in Council provisions, has declined. New premises applications are trending towards permanent structures and premises locations, established where necessary through the Resource Consent processes in line with City Plan requirements. 2. Agency Initiatives Controlled Purchase Operations There were six Controlled Purchase Operations (CPO) carried out during the year, resulting in 64 premises being visited. Three CPO’s were conducted utilising minors. Seven premises sold to a minor in breach of the Act resulting in those premises being referred to the Authority. The typical recommended suspension periods were for Off licences: 24 hour closure and 30 day suspension of the Manager’s Certificate; On‐Licences: 2‐3 days suspension of the licence and 30 day suspension of the Manager’s Certificate. Following advice, education and an advisory warning letter that Clubs would be tested, Christchurch DLA undertook its first CPO’s targeted directly at the operation of Club premises. Two Club CPO’s were conducted with 13 premises visited. Of those premises 5 sold liquor to persons who were not Club members, guests or affiliates, thereby breaching the Act. Those premises were referred to the Authority with the typical sanctions being a 24 hour suspension of the Club licence and 14 day suspension of the Club Managers Certificate. A further CPO was conducted for premises selling spirits in vessels greater than 500ml. One premises sold in breach of the Act and was issued with a warning letter.

2


Wider Environmental Considerations in Managing Licensed Premises Paul Spang, with assistance from ACC, has developed a Licenced Premises Audit Form, which also incorporates Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Audits are conducted on those premises that have been identified as having risk factors. A trial audit was undertaken for a new operator taking over established premises, resulting in a number of key suggestions to improve the operation of the premises. Current City‐wide Alcohol Accord Martin Ferguson is working with the hospitality industry and a number of other partners to establish a city‐wide alcohol accord. Prior to February 2011 Christchurch had an effective city centre alcohol accord, which included a voluntary one‐way door restriction. The new city wide accord is to be driven within each suburban area by the hospitality industry and support a series of minimum standards which licensees must sign up to in order to become an accord member. 3. Sale of Liquor Policy The Christchurch City Council has a current Alcohol Policy, which was last reviewed in 2004. Following the introduction of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 Christchurch City Council has begun the development of a Local Alcohol Policy as permitted under this legislation. Council had indicated they wish to progress policy development as far as practicably possible under the legislation prior to the local body elections in October 2013. Christchurch City Council completed public consultation of the draft Local Alcohol Policy document at the end of June 2013. Public Hearings were scheduled for July 2013. A total of 4,060 submissions were received, with 1,053 submissions received through the Council’s Have Your Say process, 1,929 submissions based on Hospitality NZ’s facebook survey and 1,078 submissions based on the “ChCh Late” facebook petition. Of the submissions received 161 were from groups and organisations, including many statutory bodies, community and neighbourhood organisations. 4. Enforcement and Inspections Liquor related Bylaws Christchurch has the Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw which came into force on 1 July 2009. There are currently twelve permanent Alcohol Ban Areas, the most recent areas came into force on 9 September 2012 in Papanui and Merivale. A temporary ban was instigated covering the University Orientation week in February 2013. Summary of Inspections undertaken of Licenced Premises Inspection notes are recorded by all members of the Tri Agency Group within the shared website. There are now over 3000 monitoring/inspection notes on the shared website.

3


5. Liaison with other agency groups The Christchurch DLA, NZ Police, and Community and Public Health have maintained a close working relationship as the Tri‐Agency Group. This includes weekly meetings, controlled purchase operations and inter‐agency monitoring teams. The Tri‐Agency Group continues to use the Licensed Premises Risk Matrix. This is maintained by the Liquor Licensing Team and is shared electronically with the other agency groups, via a shared workspace. It is kept up‐to‐date in a collaborative manner. All licensed premises are now on the website and there are over 3000 monitoring notes. The Police are using this as their database to store their visits to licensed premises. The relationship and co‐operation between the three agencies is strong. The Christchurch DLA has also had regular contact with the Department of Internal Affairs, ACC, Health Promotion Agency, Hospitality Standard Institute, and Hotel Association of NZ. 6. Any other matter the Agency might wish to draw to the attention of the Authority Christchurch DLA staff are engaged in planning for the implementation of the new District Licensing Committee. A cross‐Council steering group has been established to ensure the necessary processes are in place with effect from 18 December 2013. To support the new activities Christchurch DLA, staff are involved in an IT system upgrade. With the proposed new fee structure, Christchurch City Council is concerned that there will likely be a four year period before this Council’s licensing system becomes fully fee funded. In the interim Christchurch will continue to subsidise the activities of the licensed premises through rate‐payer contributions. 7. Statistical information Please see attached Fiona Proudfoot Team Leader Liquor Licensing Inspections & Enforcement On Behalf of Christchurch City Council District Licensing Agency

4


5

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT LICENSING AGENCIES ANNUAL RETURN FOR YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2012

“*” Notes: The difference between applications received and those determined is caused by some applications being received which have yet to be determined having been received close to the end of the reporting period. The other reason is there are a number of mainly inner city premises who have chosen to pay a “holding renewal” to keep their licence live whilst awaiting the opening of the city centre and outcomes relating to the rebuild/damage to their building. This means their licence is unable to be determined until we are in a position to inspect their rebuilt/repaired building.

Category Number of applications received

Number of applications determined

Number of new licensed premises

DLA revenue (gross)

On‐licence New/renewal/variation 267 252* 109 $199886.40

Off‐licence new/renewal/variation 102 87* 31 $69008.40

Club licence new/renewal/variation 53 87^ 4 $69008.40

GM certificate new/renewal 1675 1547 n/a $208690.30

CM certificate new/renewal 84 75 n/a $10117.50

Subtotal to LLA 2181 2048 144 $556711.00

Special Licence 1512 1496 n/a $96343.20

Temporary Authority 96 78+ n/a $10522.20

Total 3789 3622 144 $663576.40

“^” Notes: The difference between applications received and those determined relate to the renewal period for Club licences being spread, for the majority, over the June/July period. A number of applications were lodged pre‐July 2012 but determined after 1 July 2012.

“+” Notes: The difference between applications received and those determined results from the issue of Temporary Authorities (without the requirement for an application fee), for those premises who have their substantive licence application opposed and are awaiting a public hearing.


Location of Draft Plan Changes 17 and 42 Sites


New Brighton Water Park

Facility Review

August 2013


• ADELAIDE

2a Mellor Street, West Beach, South Australia 5024 Phone: +61 (0) 8 8235 0925 Fax: +61 (0) 8 8353 1067 Email: [email protected]

• BRISBANE PO Box 713, Mount Gravatt, Queensland 4122 Phone: +61 (0) 416 235 235 Email: [email protected]

• MELBOURNE

level2/181 Fitzroy Street St Kilda, Victoria 3182 Phone:+61 (0) 3 8623 2840 Fax: +61 (0) 3 9681-3158 Email: victoria@sglgrou p.net

• OCEAN GROVE

PO Box 173, Ocean Grove, Victoria 3226 Phone: +61 (0) 417 536 198 Fax: +61 (0) 3 5255 4717 Email: [email protected]

• PERTH

19 Clayton Street, East Fremantle, Western Australia 6158 Phone:+61 (0) 407 901 636 Email: [email protected]

• SYDNEY

1 /273 Alfred Street Nth, North Sydney, New South Wales 2060

Phone:+61 (0) .417 536 198 Email: [email protected]

www.sglgroup.net

O•

ffAicUeCs

Kal

LsAo

NinD • CHRISTCHURCH • WELLINGTON


Page i New Brighton Water Park Review (NZ 03.2013) - 20 August 2013

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 1.1.2

Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme ............................................................................... 1 Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme and a New Brighton Waterpark ..................... 2

1.2 PROJECT ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ...................................................................................... 2

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT .......................................................................................................... 3

1.4 PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3

1.4.4

1.4.5

New Brighton Population and Community Overview ..................................................... 4 Population and Household Forecasts ................................................................................. 5

Christchurch Population ........................................................................................................ 6 Canterbury Region ................................................................................................................. 7

Tourism Visits to Christchurch and Canterbury Region .................................................... 7

1.5 POPULATION CHANGES RELEVANT TO AQUATIC FACILITIES PROVISION ......................... 8

2 CURRENT AND FUTURE CHRISTCHURCH AQUATIC FACILITY PROVISION ................................. 11

2.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 KEY ACTIONS COMPLETED FROM THE AQUATIC FACILITY PLAN 2006 ............................ 11

2.2.1 2.2.2

Summary of Aquatic Facility Attendances 2006 to 2010 .............................................. 12 Earthquake Impacts on Council Aquatic Facilities ........................................................ 13

2.3 DESKTOP REVIEW OF AQUATIC FACILITY PLAN JUNE 2012 ............................................... 14

2.3.1

2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5

2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8

2.3.9

Central City ............................................................................................................................ 14 North East................................................................................................................................ 15

South West .............................................................................................................................. 15 East........................................................................................................................................... 16 Wharenui – Waltham – Lyttleton ........................................................................................ 16

Outdoor Pool Partnerships................................................................................................... 16 Existing Council Aquatic Facilities ...................................................................................... 17 Other Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 17

Summary of Key Actions ...................................................................................................... 17

2.4 CURRENT COUNCIL AQUATIC FACILITY NETWORK ............................................................ 18

2.4.1 2.4.2

2.4.3 2.4.4

2.4.5

Jellie Park ................................................................................................................................ 18 Graham Condon Sports and Recreation Centre........................................................... 19

Pioneer .................................................................................................................................... 19 Other Council Swimming Pools .......................................................................................... 20

Current and Proposed Aquatic Facilities ......................................................................... 20

2.5 FUTURE AQUATIC FACILITY POPULATION CATCHMENT ESTIMATES .................................. 21

2.6 NEW ER & S CENTRE PROJECTED CATCHMENT POPULATION............................................ 25

3 NEW BRIGHTON WATER PARK PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................. 26

3.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 NEW BRIGHTON WATERPARK PROPOSAL ........................................................................... 26

3.2.1 3.2.2

Projected Waterpark Capital Budget Estimate .............................................................. 29 Proposed Waterpark Operations ....................................................................................... 29

3.3 ALTERNATE MASTER PLAN PROJECT .................................................................................... 30

4 SUCCESSFUL WATER PARKS AND AQUATIC WATER PLAY FACILITIES ....................................... 32

4.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................... 32

4.2 WATERPARKS AND WATER PLAY INDUSTRY TRENDS........................................................... 32

4.2.1 USA Water Parks Review ...................................................................................................... 33

4.2.1.1 Types of Water Parks ........................................................................................................ 33


Page ii New Brighton Water Park Review (NZ 03.2013) - 20 August 2013

4.2.1.2 Developers and Owners of USA Water Parks Overview............................................ 34 4.2.1.3 Location of USA Waterparks ........................................................................................... 35

4.2.1.4 Top Ten USA Waterparks.................................................................................................. 36

4.2.2 4.2.3

4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 4.2.9

4.2.10 4.2.11

4.2.12

Asian Waterpark Development Trends ............................................................................. 36 New Zealand and Australian Waterpark and Water Play Facility Trends .................. 37

Early Waterslide Development ........................................................................................... 37 Multiple Slides and Covered Flumes ................................................................................. 38 The Waterpark Phase ........................................................................................................... 38 Splash Pads and Water Play Equipment .......................................................................... 39 The Adventure Water Ride Phase...................................................................................... 39 Examples of Australian and New Zealand Waterparks and Water play Facilities ... 40

Linking Waterpark Facilities with Aquatic Leisure Centres ........................................ 44 Aquatic Leisure Centres with Waterpark Facilities Trends ......................................... 48 Summary of Waterpark and Water Play Facilities Review ........................................ 48

5 EVALUATION OF FACILITY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS.................................................................. 51

5.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 51

5.2 WATERPARK CONCEPT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 51

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5

5.2.6

Review of Capital Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 52 Review of Operational Usage and Operating Results .................................................. 53 Other Potential Business Improvement Initiatives ........................................................... 55 Size and Scope of Facilities to Complement other Area Aquatic Development.... 56 Other Proposed Features .................................................................................................... 57

Likely Private Investment in Water Park or Associated Facilities .................................. 58

5.3 FACILITY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS REVIEW......................................................................... 59

5.3.1 5.3.2

Future Development Options Summary ........................................................................... 65 Future Development Options Overview........................................................................... 66

D I R E C T O R Y O F T A B L E S Table 1.1 New Brighton Population/Households Future Forecasts 2012 to 2031 ............................ 5 Table 1.2 Predicted Demographic Change and Aquatic Facility Impacts.................................... 9 Table 2.1 Christchurch CC Aquatic Plan 2006 Actions Summary.................................................. 11 Table 2.2 Annual Visitations to CCC Aquatic, Recreation and Sports Facilities 2006 to 2010.... 13 Table 2.3 Condition of CCC Aquatic Facilities July 2013................................................................ 13 Table 2.4 Future CCC Main Aquatic Facilities Summary ................................................................ 21 Table 2.5 Projected Population Primary Catchment Zone for the Proposed ER&S Centre ......... 25

Table 3.1 Waterpark Proposal Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate ................................................. 29 Table 4.1 USA Waterparks Inventory by Category/Owner ............................................................. 35 Table 4.2 USA Waterparks Inventory by Category and Regional Location.................................. 35 Table 4.3 Top Ten USA Waterparks 2010 and 2011 .......................................................................... 36 Table 4.4 Top Ten Asian Waterparks 2010 and 2011 ....................................................................... 37 Table 4.5 Overview of Waterparks and Water Play Areas NZ and Aus. ........................................ 41

Table 4.6 Sample of Indoor Aquatic Waterslide/Water Play Areas NZ and Aus. ......................... 45 Table 5.1 Summary of Major Water Features Capital Expenditure ................................................ 56 Table 5.2 Potential Development Options Review .......................................................................... 60 Table 5.3 Potential Development Options Review Summary ......................................................... 65

A P P E N D I X

APPENDIX ONE: WATERPARK REFERENCES LIST NOTE: FRONT COVER PHOTO SUPPLIED BY WHITEWATER WEST


Page 1 New Brighton Water Park Review (NZ 05.2013) - 20 August 2013

1 B A C K G R O U N D A N D P R O J E C T A R E A

1.1 INTRODUCTION Christchurch City Council decided in April 2012 to add New Brighton Centre to the Council’s Suburban Centres Programme (SCP). The SCP was established after the February 2011 earthquakes to support recovery of suburban commercial centres. The program now consists of eight master plans and case management for all earthquake damaged centres.

Council approved the draft master plan for the New Brighton Centre in December 2012. Whilst previous master plans usually address pre-existing issues the New Brighton area had experienced substantial decline in recent years despite the investment in a new pier and library on the foreshore. The large business zone in the area reflects 1970’s retail and

commercial development so the master plan so reduction in the size of the centre, along with a variety of Council, landowner and initiatives to revitalise the centre is recommended.

At present the full extent of earthquake damage is unknown therefore the draft master plan indicates the potential for a significant “new look” centre. It indicates the relocation of a small supermarket site away from the beachfront to enable supermarket expansion and a more appropriate use for this prime location.

The master plan shows an “entertainment hub” on the site as a potential leisure orientated development (e.g. cinema, skate park etc.) should there be sufficient interest from the development community. The master plan does not indicate a change in zoning for the site at the moment.

Local consultation on the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan commenced in late 2012. At the same time two-community board members for the New Brighton area promoted a concept for a “metropolitan aquatic theme park (“Waterpark”) to be located on the site shown in the Draft Plan for an Entertainment Hub.

Local consultation was completed on the draft plan and the majority of submissions received (Waterpark website received over 20,000 submissions in support of the concept) supported the Waterpark concept. This appears based on the intent to provide a significant ‘wow’

factor to entice visitors back to New Brighton and so provide a catalyst for local area and retail revitalisation.

A second alternate proposal has also been received that identifies key locations around New Brighton that could be developed as “leisure/aquatic attractions” with the aim of revitalising New Brighton including a hot salt-water pools facility on the foreshore.

The significant community interest in the project was noted and the Centre Master Plan will have some difficulty progressing further without some clarity over the size, nature and any major attraction in the centre. It has therefore commissioned this report to assist in reviewing the Waterpark project alongside other development options, and providing more detailed

information so these options can be considered in terms of their interface with the Christchurch City Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme.

1.1.1 Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme An Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme has been developed that links current operational

aquatic centres with new facilities that are aimed to replace damaged and closed facilities whilst also taking into account changed population distribution and where new facilities should be located.



In line with this programme it is planned to construct a metropolitan aquatic facility in the central city area as well as a new community pool known as the Eastern Recreation and Sports Facility (E, R & S Facility) somewhere to the East of the City. The location and exact scope of the E, R & S Facility has not as yet been decided however a notional budget of $30.5M has been provided by Council plus a further $6.5M for water attractions (waterslides /

aqua play area) provided by the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Trust fund. It is anticipated at this stage that the E, R & S will include 3 indoor sports courts, a 25-metre pool, a 33 metre pool and leisure features such as a water slide/aqua play area and toddlers area. This facility has been classified as a local/suburban facility.

A summary of the Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme is listed in section 2.2 of this report

and covers an overview of existing and planned aquatic facilities.

1.1.2 Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme and a New Brighton Waterpark This report has also been commissioned to look at the feasibility of the New Brighton Waterpark concept in relation to the distribution of aquatic facilities across the city. The Waterpark is clearly seen by many as an opportunity to create a ‘wow’ factor to revitalise New Brighton and the opportunity to link to sea, swimming and leisure activities that could fit

with the image of the suburb. The earthquake has also seen the closure of some aquatic facilities including QEII, which was the closest aquatic facility for people living in the eastern area of the city.

The Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme recognises the significant loss of water related facilities in the east of the city. The ER &S Facility is planned to meet this need and a final site

and configuration of facility components is still need to be determined. As part of this local area debate there had also been some community support for relocating the planned Metro Sports Facility from the City centre to the east area.

This was considered and Council has reconfirmed that this is not an option as it is developing the Metro Sports Facility to cater for the city’s wider population as well as major event and exhibition use. This requires a central city location to ensure best access for people across the City, as well as visitors to the area.

1.2 PROJECT ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED This report has been completed to address the following specific areas of review and analysis:

1. The location and scale of the Waterpark concept in New Brighton with respect to

relevant Council-approved criteria.

2. The ‘right size’ of any private or publicly funded aquatic facility within New Brighton,

considering all relevant information including the wider aquatic network, catchments, and other relevant economic and social factors.

3. Implications, including community participation, legacy value and financial viability,

of having two metropolitan sized aquatic facilities in the City should both the Metro Sports Facility and the Waterpark establish with a full complement of slides, wave

pools etc. as currently proposed.



4. Impact/effect of the New Brighton Water Park and other development options listed below on the planned Metropolitan Sports Centre and on Central City revitalisation.

5. Evaluation of the Water Park and other development options listed below, in terms of

their establishment and maintenance costs, including build costs, land purchase,

patronage and viability. This should also take into account potential location in a coastal environment and any relevant geotechnical constraints.

6. Feedback on the information supplied by the proponents of the New Brighton Water

park

7. Evaluate the development options listed below, assessing their economic feasibility and relative strengths and weaknesses in relation to the wider aquatic network;

The development options to be evaluated included:

• A Waterpark in New Brighton that incorporates a Council ER &S Facility (including other

non aquatic areas such as indoor sport courts, health and fitness areas etc.).

• A New Brighton Waterpark, additional to the Council ER & S Facility located elsewhere in the East of the City.

• A Council ER &S Facility (with on new Waterpark in the area) located either:

� In New Brighton: or � Elsewhere in the East of the City

• A blend of locations and facilities – for example:

� A boutique salt water pool in New Brighton to complement an ER&S facility

elsewhere � All aquatic entertainment elements in New Brighton and a reduced

scale/fitness orientated ER&S Facility elsewhere.

• Any other aquatic development options considered by the consultant to be appropriate

for further consideration.

1.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT The report has been completed in a four-week timeframe to assist with reviewing all known and available aspects of the Waterpark concept in association with Councils Aquatic Facilities Rebuild Programme and the known current and future Eastern area population trends.

The report has been prepared as an “opportunity review” taking into account all known factors whilst also considering likely impacts based on industry trends and experience for such specialist developments. The project timeframe has not allowed for detailed consultation with the Waterpark proponents other than initial contact to allow them to explain the concept and ideas. It has also restricted any testing of community interest or demand for

any of the concepts under review. The report has therefore also aimed to minimise the use of technical language and be easily

understood so it forms a recommended way forward for Council. The recommendations in this opportunity report once reviewed should also then be subject to more detailed feasibility, design and business planning plus detailed site reviews to enable final assessment.



1.4 PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW New Brighton is a coastal suburb of Christchurch, New Zealand, about 8 kilometres to the east of the city centre. Its residential catchment extends from Waimairi Beach to the north and to

South New Brighton (The Spit) to the south. This catchment also encompass land to the west of the Avon River, much of which is now located within the residential red zone. The New Brighton area covers approximately 2.7891 km².

New Brighton’s location close to the sea and Avon River corridor makes a strong contribution to the character and appeal of the suburb. New Brighton is a lower socio economic area, with a range of demographic diversity along lines of age, gender and ethnicity.

New Brighton serves as a key recreation destination for the Greater Christchurch region as well as providing extensive recreation opportunities to meet local needs. Many people are drawn to live in the New Brighton area because of the natural environment and recreation opportunities that it offers. In addition to surfing, swimming, walking, and fishing from the Pier, some recreational activities make use of the prevailing easterly wind.

Figure 1New Brighton

New Brighton

1.4.1 New Brighton Population and Community Overview

This section identifies some of the relevant population, economic and social characteristics of the New Brighton area and compares them to the Christchurch City averages.

• Within the identified catchment, there is currently an estimated population base of over

16,000 and comprising around 7,000 households, giving an average household size of 2.3 (rounded). This is slightly lower than the Christchurch City average of 2.5. The catchment represents around 4% of all households in Christchurch City.

• The catchment has a significantly lower average annual household income compared to

the wider city average ($57,100 vs. $67,600).



• The lower average annual household income also correlates with the proportion of white-

collar workers within the catchment, where 64% of workers in the catchment are in white collar employment, compared to 70% in the wider city. ‘White Collar’ employment in general has slightly higher remunerations than ‘blue collar’ employment helping fuel this differential.

• The New Brighton Catchment also has a higher proportion of single households and single

parent families compared to the Christchurch City average (29% and 14% vs. 25% and 12% respectively). Smaller family sizes can also attribute to lower average household incomes as there is a lower probability of there being multiple income earners per

household.

1.4.2 Population and Household Forecasts

The household and population forecasts used for this report have been based on projections provided within the New Brighton Economic Assessment Report undertaken by Property Economics October 2012. CCC/CERA1. Table 1.1 displays the population and household growth projections in the identified catchment.

Table 1.1 New Brighton Population/Households Future Forecasts 2012 to 2031

Category

2012

2016

2021

2026

2031

Population

16,065

16,086

15,931

16,001

16,153

Households

6,967

7,124

7,148

7,288

7,396

Household Size

2.31

2.26

2.23

2.20

2,18

Population Growth (p.a.)

0.07%

-0.19%

0.09%

0.19%

Household Growth (p.a.)

0.55%

0.07%

0.39%

0.29%

The identified catchment has a current population base of approximately 16,060 people residing in around 7,000 households. This is projected to increase to around 16,150 people and 7,400 households over the forecast period to 2031.

This represents a stagnant population base and household growth of only around 8%. This equates to an average growth rate of only around 22 ‘new’ households per annum, excluding rebuilds as a result of the earthquakes.

Comparatively, households in the wider Christchurch City area are forecast to grow by 26% over the same period, which suggests the catchment is projected to grow at a rate less than a third of that of the wider Christchurch market over the assessed period. This is not surprising given the level of residential displacement and ‘red zone’ land in/around the catchment.

Table 1.1 data also indicates that the number of households is increasing at a faster rate than the population due to a projected fall in the person per dwelling ratio over the forecast period. This is not isolated to the study area, but a trend projected to occur across the whole

1 Scenario 2: Quick Recovery – Christchurch Growth Model 2012: UDS Scenarios



country due to an aging population, smaller families and a higher proportion of ‘split’ or single parent households.

This is most evident during the 2016 - 2021 periods where there is household growth due to falling person per household levels, however population within the catchment decreases until

2026 where household growth is forecast to outstrip the limited number of dwellings with fewer residents.

1.4.3 Christchurch Population Before the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes, Christchurch city's population was approximately 376,700 and was growing. In the four-year period ended 30 June 2010, the city's population grew at an average annual rate of 1.0%, with population gains from both natural increase (2,200 per year on average) and net migration gain (more arrivals than departures) of 1,600 per year on average.

The latest population estimates indicate that Christchurch city's population decreased by 4,600 (1.2%) in the June 2012 year to approximately 363,200. This population decrease was due to a net migration loss of 6,000, partly offset by a natural increase of 1,400.

In the previous June year, Christchurch city's population decreased by 8,900 (2.4%) due to a net migration loss of 10,600, partly offset by a natural increase of 1,600. Therefore, in the two- year period ended 30 June 2012, the city's population declined by 13,500 (3.6%) due to a net migration loss of 16,600, partly offset by a natural increase of 3,100.

Between 30 June 2010 and 2012, the population aged 0–19 years in Christchurch city decreased by 9,300 (9.6%), while the population aged 35–49 years decreased by 5,700 (7.0%). This indicates a net outflow of children and their parents over this period. A decrease of 2,900 people aged 15–19 years reflects fewer young adults moving to Christchurch to

study. Within the younger adult population, however, there were some interesting contrasts. The male population aged 20–34 years increased by 500 over the two-year period, while the corresponding female population decreased by 1,700. This reflects a net inflow of young



male workers. Over the two-year period, the population aged 50 years and over (50+) grew slightly, up 2,700 (2.3%). This was due to people moving into this age group from younger ages, but it also indicates that people aged 50+ were less likely to leave Christchurch over this period.

1.4.4 Canterbury Region Water park facilities and major aquatic facilities, depending on the facilities, components and attractions provided, attract a far wider catchment than a local or suburban aquatic and leisure centre. It is therefore essential to understand the wider catchment opportunities that a water park facility in New Brighton may attract.

Christchurch falls within the Canterbury region, which also includes the territorial authorities of Kaikoura, Hurunui, Selwyn, Waimakariri, Ashburton, Mackenzie, Timaru, Waimate and Waitaki. The current population of the region is approximately 558,800 people.

The population of the earthquake-affected Canterbury region was estimated to have decreased by 1,800 people (0.3%) in the June 2012 year.

This compares with a decrease of 5,000 (0.9%) in the June 2011 year.

Excluding Christchurch, the remainder of the Canterbury region grew 2,800 (1.4%) in the June 2012 year. This compares with an increase of 4,000 (2.1%) in the June 2011 year.

Figure 2: Canterbury Region

1.4.5 Tourism Visits to Christchurch and Canterbury Region

A review of tourism visits to the Christchurch and Canterbury region has been completed to ascertain the potential visitor market to an aquatic/water park facility. The review indicates the following guest nights in 2012.

• Total guest nights 2,830,980 • International guest nights 1,115,307 • Domestic guest 1,715,673 • Average length of stay 1.98 nights

The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes have significantly impacted the numbers of visitors to the region. The graph on the next page indicates the decrease in visitors over the last 3 years.



20

07

2

00

8

20

08

2

00

8

20

09

2

00

9

20

09

2

01

0

20

10

2

01

0

20

11

2

01

1

20

11

2

01

2

20

12

2

01

2

2,500,000

Guest Nights 2012

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

Total All Visitor Guest Nights

International Guest Nights

Domestic Guest Nights

0

•

1.5 POPULATION CHANGES RELEVANT TO AQUATIC FACILITIES PROVISION Demographic change within Greater Christchurch has and will continue to occur as a result of the earthquakes and changes now in land use.

Anticipated changes include the effect of red zones (no build areas) and changed land classifications. Changes are expected to the uptake of new sections and the overall growth of the city.

The Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 was informed by the demographic assumptions of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007 and these assumptions have changed as a result of the quakes.

This section of the Review aims to summarise identified demographic changes that are relevant to the provision of aquatic facilities throughout the city.

The primary source of information is the Greater Christchurch Housing Scenarios 2011 to 2041 study commissioned by the UDS partners to inform their planning processes. Under the Greater Christchurch Household Scenarios model a “quick recovery” scenario is recommended for informing planning exercises and this sees:

� An initial population loss of 2.5% for Christchurch City. � Slow growth until 2016.

� Stronger recovery over 2016 to 2021. � A medium to high growth trend after 2021 matching the pre-earthquake growth trend but

lagging by about seven years.

Table 1.2 details the predicted demographic change, the effect on the provision of aquatic facilities and how this effect may be mitigated.



Table 1.2 Predicted Demographic Change and Aquatic Facility Impacts

Predicted demographic change Effect on provision of Aquatic facilities

Possible Mitigation of Impact

Red zones Evacuation of red zones possibly lowering the population in the eastern area: � People will evacuate the red zones

� Surveys indicate 81% of eastern red zone evacuees intend to remain in Christchurch, of these 31% intend to remain in the east2

� There will be a non-urban area dividing north and south east

People moving out of areas more severely affected by the quake, especially the eastern suburbs, potentially lowering the density of population in the eastern area. � A large new sub-division with 2,700 sections is opening on

Preston’s Road � 1069 of red zone households that have settled with CERA

have settled in Christchurch the preference being the north and east3

� Local aquatic facility capacity lost due to the

quakes needs to be replaced

� Better use of existing providers’ facilities warranted

� Need to cater to the Preston’s Road growth in time

� Provide an aquatic facility in the north east to cater to local area and community needs

� Provide an aquatic facility in the centre of the city

� Support the operation of the Sumner community pool

� Explore partnerships with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and local communities on community use of selected school pools

� Continue collaboration with Aquagym on school swimming and swim education

� Sustain the temporary pools if feasible as a transition to new facilities

New sub-divisions in the north and south west Predicted demographic change Effect on provision of

Aquatic facilities Possible mitigation

The development of new sub-divisions and occupation of existing new sub-divisions is accelerating. This development is focused on the north and south west of Christchurch4: A large new sub-division with 2,700 sections is opening on Preston’s Road

� 2244 new sections were zoned pre-quake in Aidanfield, Westmorland and Marsham

� 9115 new sections are included in a plan change made operative since the quake at Preston’s Road, Belfast Park, Wigram Skies, Awatea and Halswell West

� 2100 sections have a plan change lodged at Highfield and Belfast

� 9651 sections exist on green field sites signalled for rezoning at East Belfast, Upper Styx, South Marsham Sparks road, Cashmere Fields, Henderson’s Basin, and Halswell

� The location of new sub-divisions is primarily in: � North east: Preston’s Road � North: Belfast, Belfast Park, East Belfast, Upper

Styx, Highfield

� West: Marsham, South Marsham � South west: Wigram Skies, Awatea, Aidanfield,

Sparks Road, Halswell West, SW Halswell, SE Halswell, South Halswell, Henderson’s, Westmorland

This review assumes that accelerated development of new subdivisions will occur primarily in the north from Preston’s to Upper Styx and the south west from Wigram to South Halswell

� Local aquatic facility capacity lost due to the quakes needs to be replaced

in the north east � Need to cater

to the Preston’s Road growth in time

� The Graham Condon centre caters to the growth in the north

� New facilities can cater to growth in the south west for 5 to 9 years

� Provide an aquatic facility in the north east to cater to local area and community needs

� Develop children’s aquatic recreational facilities at Jellie Park

� Support existing provision at Belfast, Jellie Park, Pioneer, Graham Condon, Templeton, Pioneer, Halswell and Kings

� Assist in the evaluation of the future of the indoor pool at Canterbury Christian College (Aidanfield, in the South West)

� Conduct a review in five years time on the need for an aquatic facility in the west/south-west

� Note the development of the Rolleston Aquatic Centre and the Canterbury Swim School Aquatic Centre

� Offer to review the condition of the Canterbury Christian College Pool

� Land provision for an aquatic facility in the west/south-west should be made in planning processes now

2 Based on Red Zone Intentions Survey 2011

3 Location of households who have settled with CERA/purchased within Christchurch City 2012.

4 The location of new-subdivisions is illustrated on the map of aquatic facilities in section 2.4.5 of this report.


Page 10

New Brighton Water Park Review (NZ 05.2013) - 20 August 2013

Forecast growth of Christchurch against the forecast in the UDS Predicted demographic change Effect on provision of

Aquatic facilities Possible mitigation

The overall growth of Christchurch slows limiting the need for increased provision of aquatic facilities � Under the Greater Christchurch Household Scenarios a

“quick recovery” scenario is recommended being:5

o An initial population loss of 2.5% for CC o Slow growth until 2016 o Stronger recovery over 2016 to 2021 o A medium to high growth trend after 2021

matching the pre-earthquake growth trend but

lagging by about seven years

An initial population loss and by 2021 Christchurch’s growth trend will remain consistently 7 yrs. behind pre-quake forecasts

� A delay on building aquatic facilities in response to the cities growth in the south west is justified for between 5 and

9 years or until

further information is available

� Conduct a review in five years time on the need for an aquatic facility in the west/south-west

� Land provision for an aquatic facility in the west/south-west should be made in planning processes now

Target Populations for Aquatic Facilities Demographic changes for populations specifically targeted by Council may differ from demographic changes to the total population � Population mapping exercises for under 15’s and over

65’s in 2011 and 2031 under two scenarios confirm that changes for these target populations align with changes to the general population6

� Population mapping indicates that there is a greater

need to cater for under 15’s in 2011 than 2031 � Population mapping also shows the significant growth on

the over 65’s by 2031

� Needs of under

15’s and over 65’s are catered in the design of aquatic facilities with assumptions based on the total population will serve these target groups.

Aquatic facilities need to cater to the education, health, sport, recreation and excitement needs of under 15’s and over 65’s

5 Based on quick recovery scenario. 6 Population data based on Scenario 2: Quick Recovery – Christchurch Growth Model 2012: UDS Scenarios.


Page 11


2 C U R R E N T A N D F U T U R E C H R I S T C H U R C H A Q U A T I C F A C I L I T Y P R O V I S I O N

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In June 2006 the Christchurch City Council adopted the Aquatic Facilities Plan, a city-wide plan informing Council’s role in the provision of aquatic facilities over a period of 30 years7. At this time Council provided for a five year desktop review of the plan in order to maintain the relevance of the Plan against demographic and societal changes over time.

The draft five year review was completed in February 2011 but its relevance was superseded by the effects of the February and June earthquakes of 2011. As a result in June 2011 Council requested a review of the Aquatic Facilities Plan and the findings of this review were reported back to Council in June 2012.

This report found that the nature and condition of Council’s existing aquatic facilities and the demographic predictions of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007

informed the Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006.

The earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 extensively damaged Council’s network of aquatic facilities as well as producing demographic change not anticipated by the Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 or the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007.

This section of the report covers Council’s current proposed aquatic facility planning to contribute to the city’s recovery for these service areas. As a result Council is currently making changes to its network of aquatic facilities and the way it works with other facility and program providers.

2.2 KEY ACTIONS COMPLETED FROM THE AQUATIC FACILITY PLAN 2006

The following table provides a summary of key actions that had been undertaken prior to the earthquakes, based on the 2006 Aquatic Facility Plan.

Table 2.1 Christchurch CC Aquatic Plan 2006 Actions Summary

2006 Plan Recommendation Implementation/Key Actions Close Papanui outdoor pool Completed 2006 Close Sockburn Pool and

Recreation Centre Completed 2009, centre has reopened as a highly successful

Canterbury Squash Centre with third party support Close Edgeware Pool Completed 2007 Redevelop Jellie Park Completed 2008 Build Graham Condon Completed 2011 Build a Pioneer LTS pool Completed 2012 Close Belfast Pool became Keep

Improved Belfast pool open. With Council and third party support the pool has been redeveloped under a highly successful school, community and Council partnership so this pool was kept open.

Review Templeton Pool Season extended in 2009/2010 Close Woolston Pool Completed 2009

7

The Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 is available at Council’s website www.ccc.govt.nz


Page 12


2006 Plan Recommendation Implementation/Key Actions Review condition of Wharenui

Pool Completed in 2009, all asset actions complete, currently undergoing a second review due to quake damage

Review location of south western pool

Completed in early 2010, preference for Hornby but a close call with Wigram

Advocate for bus routes to pools Completed in 2008 and ongoing, pools successfully on bus routes Trial free bus services to pools Completed, trialled in 2007/2008 with the closure of Jellie Park,

services not used Support the operation of selected school pools

Ongoing, numerous schools supported in a number of ways that best match their needs and the services of Council

Encourage third parties to contribute to aquatic facilities

Ongoing, larger examples include QEII slides, three specialist pools at QEII, Graham Condon

Establish a fund for school pool repair

Ongoing, optimum value is to supply spare plant and equipment, provide expertise, encourage use of existing Council funding opportunity and connect schools to third party funders

Partner with WSNZ, Skills Active and Royal Life to deliver swim education to schools

Ongoing, the Kiwiswim programme will provide over 80,000 lessons in 20128

Targeted assistance with school transport costs

Ongoing, CCC has secured funding to cover the transport costs of low docile schools accessing swim education and bulk purchased a 50% discount on many of the historical transport charges9

Discounts for low docile schools to access swim education

Ongoing, partnerships with Sport Canterbury Swimming NZ and WSNZ have eliminated transport costs and substantially reduced tuition costs10

Provide incentives to use outdoor pools

Ongoing, transport, swim education, event and marketing initiatives funded through partnerships with third parties11

The review of the above information is required to understand the wider network of aquatic facilities and how the existing facilities will impact on the future direction of aquatic facilities in New Brighton and the wider east.

In reviewing these actions it should be noted that: The redevelopment of Jellie Park resulted in the removal of the outdoor children’s pool and a dramatic intensification in the use of indoor shallow water for swim education. This has resulted in a lack of recreational facilities for children and is now the only “gap” in Jellie Park being a first class local aquatic centre.

In order to meet community need children’s aquaplay facilities need to be installed. At a minimum this should be an outdoor pool to replace the pool lost in the redevelopment and provide a safe shallow pool. Ideally children’s facilities should be able to operate year round.

2.2.1 Summary of Aquatic Facility Attendances 2006 to 2010

The following table summarises the combined visitations to Councils aquatic, recreation and sport facilities between 2006 and 2010 (pre quakes).

8 The Kiwiswim programme is a recognised national programme 9 As per the Kiwiswim programme 10 As per the Kiwiswim programme 11

As per the Kiwiswim programme


Page 13


Table 2.2 Annual Visitations to CCC Aquatic, Recreation and Sports Facilities 2006 to 2010

Year Total Visitation at Council’s Recreation and Sports Centres

Comment

2006/2007 4,162,009 2007/2008 3,992,172 Jellie Park closed for redevelopment 2008/2009 4,289,623 Jellie park re opens 2009/2010 4,702,736

2.2.2 Earthquake Impacts on Council Aquatic Facilities

The earthquakes of September 2010 and February, June and December 2011 had a dramatic effect on the ability of Council’s range of aquatic facilities to effectively deliver the levels of services they were built for12. Table 2.3 below summarises Council aquatic facilities known issues and updates their condition and anticipated operational lifespan as at July 2013.

Table 2.3 Condition of CCC Aquatic Facilities July 2013

Facility Map Key13

Projected Lifespan

Condition/Status on 1st July 2013

QEII 1 None Closed and now demolished Centennial 2 None Closed and damage exceeds insured value. Considered unrealistic to repair so

demolition to occur. Please refer to map in section 2.4.5 of this report. Pioneer 3 Over 20

years Open. DEE assessment completed, damage assessment in progress, moderate building, pool and mechanical repairs expected

Jellie Park 4 Over 20

years Open. DEE assessment, damage assessment in progress, substantial and lengthy

building, pool and mechanical repairs expected Graham

Condon 5 Over 20

years Open. Structurally and mechanically in good shape, minor repairs needed

Halswell 6 Over 20 years

Open: DEE assessment completed. Structurally and mechanically in good shape. Some repairs completed on plant room, additional permanent works required on plant room and swimming club as repairs are temporary in nature

Wharenui 7 Unclear Pool Open: Pool building 35 – 40 % NBS and considered vulnerable. Pool plant in working order. Stadium Closed: 11% NBS Damage assessment underway to determine scope and cost of repair and strengthening

Waltham 8 Unclear Closed: DEE assessment completed. Damage assessment complete, the site is repairable however low insured values will rely on council input of money to repair/reinstate

Lyttelton 9 Unclear Closed: DEE assessment completed. Options report and community working group examining options to rebuild/replace. Extensive damage, retaining wall split, buildings damaged and the facility appears to be slumping downhill

Governors

Bay 10 Over 10

years Open: Pool tank is intact, buildings are structurally damaged and securely stabilised and need replacement. DEE assessment completed and damage assessment 90% complete

Belfast 11 Over 20 years

Open: Structurally and mechanically in good shape. DEE assessment completed.

Templeton 12 Over 20 years

Open: Structurally and mechanically in good shape, minor repairs needed. DEE

assessment completed. Sumner S Over 20

years Open: Structurally and mechanically in good shape, minor repairs needed. DEE

assessment not completed as at 18th July 2013

12 Strategic outcomes are detailed in Activity 7.0: Recreation and Sports Services in Council’s 2009/2019 LTCCP

13 A map of aquatic facilities are included in section 2.4.5 of this report.


Page 14


2.3 DESKTOP REVIEW OF AQUATIC FACILITY PLAN JUNE 2012 This section of the report provides a summary of the Christchurch City Council’s internal review of 2006 Aquatic Facility Plan. It should be noted that this section is a summary of

updated planning documents and does not include recommendations from this studies review conducted by SGL. Any content added by SGL has been aimed at adding greater specific detail and is listed in italics.

The planning documents reviewed indicate Council’s Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 had been successfully implemented over the period 2006 to 2010 and this resulted in increasing participation, improved customer satisfaction, greater access to swim education and best practice asset management.

The earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 extensively damaged Council’s network of aquatic facilities and has now produced demographic change not anticipated by the Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006.

As a result of the facility damage and demographic change Council needed to make changes to its network of aquatic facilities and the way it works with other providers.

The following overview lists the known opportunities for Council’s aquatic facility planning to contribute to the city’s recovery and is summarised by precinct or area as follows.

2.3.1 Central City The plan supports a large central city aquatic centre as part of the Metro Sports Facility envisaged under the CCP and the Draft Annual Plan 2012/2013 conditional on it being at the optimum location14, good alignment with the transport network, correct components and appropriate timing. This is aimed to:

� Accrue the benefits from Christchurch’s major sports facility (replacing QEII) to the city

centre as part of the redevelopment and revitalisation, and

� Optimise the benefits for recreation and sport, one of Christchurch’s distinctive strengths, by linking major wet, dry and green facilities together in the city centre (replacing QEII hub).

The Metro Sport Centre project should begin in 2013 and contain the following components:

1. Aquatic Areas:

� Swim education pools ---- so our kids grow up swimming not drowning � Movement, therapy and multi sensory pools ---- for those with different needs, to support a

burgeoning health precinct and an aging population � High performance 50 metre and deep water pools ---- to drive participation in aquatic

sports, fitness and health and attract the best events and support health and sports

research

� Mix of leisure pools and features ---- to encourage visitors to stay in Christchurch for one

extra day and give our locals the best in the country, for example:

o Themed spa pools o Rapid river, wave or themed pool o Sauna, steam and therapy rooms/pools

14 The location is represented on the facilities map as a “M” in section 2.4.5 of this report


Page 15


o Terrifying slides and a major aquatic themed attraction integrated into the facility

design o Children’s interactive aquaplay

� Spaces for business ---- medical, sport science, retail, hospitality, sport administration, to grow a centre of excellence

� Spaces for a fitness gym, group exercise, coaching, meeting and instruction � Event hosting facilities to FINA standard and up to 1,000 competitors and 3,000 spectators.

2. Indoor Sport

� Up to 8 indoor sport courts

� Major spectator seating to accommodate franchise sports team events, national

championships and special events. � Multiple change facilities to meet team and community use. � Event competitors entry areas

� Large storage spaces.

2.3.2 North East A recreation and sports centre containing indoor pools, a gym and group exercise facilities should be built in the north east of the city primarily to cater to the current and future needs of northern and eastern area communities15. It will also provide an opportunity to engage in aquatic sports.

Aquatic facilities should include shallow and deep lane pools, children’s aquatic leisure facilities, swim education pool, spa, sauna and steam rooms. The optimum location needs detailed site analysis but the preferred area exists north of the Avon, east of Marshlands Road

and West of Bower Avenue16. The facility should form the centre of a vibrant sporting hub.

2.3.3 South West Under the Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 an indoor aquatic facility was recommended for the

west south/west. It was scheduled for the period 2014 to 2018 in the 2009/2019 LTCCP. The preferred location was Hornby. The need for this facility is not as immediate as in 2006. This is because:

� The population growth that justified it being scheduled between 2014 and 2018 is lagging

about seven years behind. � Community need has been alleviated by the:

� Opening of the Kings Swim School in Sockburn, � Opening of a dedicated LTS pool at Pioneer, � Development of the Rolleston Aquatic Centre opening in 2013

� Canterbury Swim Centre opening a 25m lane pool and a learn to swim pool in Hornby17.

The need and timing for a west south/west facility should be reviewed in 2017 if the growth patterns meet expectation and community need is not accommodated by the alternatives being developed. Care should be taken not to raise community expectation by making a binding commitment at this stage however land provision for an aquatic facility in the

15

Population data based on Scenario 2: Quick Recovery – Christchurch Growth Model 2012: UDS Scenarios. 16

The location is represented on the facilities map as a “N/E” in section 2.4.5 of this report 17

Population data based on Scenario 2: Quick Recovery – Christchurch Growth Model 2012: UDS Scenarios


Page 16


west/south-west should be made in planning processes now as the need will arise it is just a question of when.

2.3.4 East Under the Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 an indoor aquatic facility was recommended for the east of the city if Aquagym was not to be retained. It was scheduled for the period 2016 to

2019 in the 2009/2019 LTCCP. Aquagym is being retained and has been fully repaired post quake.

Aquagym have developed plans for a second pool. The opportunity exists to work with the MOE and community groups to save school pools and open them to community use through three way partnerships. This has worked well in Belfast.

Potential options include Opawa (indoor pool), Bromley and possibly New Brighton. Such a partnership could save school pools and provide cost-effective community access to pools at a very local level. If a large aquatic centre is developed in the central city along with an

aquatic facility in the north east as proposed in this review, Aquagym is retained and school- community partnerships are supported, this review concludes that another indoor pool in the East is not needed.

Update to the June 2012 Desktop Review: Due to the closure of QEII and the loss of aquatic facilities for local users, Council has indicated they wish to provide a level of service in the North East to cater for this loss. The Metro Centre will cater for major international and national events and cater for the rejuvenation of the central city and provide major aquatic and

leisure facilities for the entire city.

2.3.5 Wharenui – Waltham – Lyttleton The Wharenui pool building is rated 35 to 40% new building standard (NBS) and is therefore considered vulnerable. The stadium is closed as it is below 34% NBS with the extent of damage rendering the practicality of repair unclear.

Wharenui is an old facility coming to the end of its useful economic life. The community need currently delivered from Wharenui should be accommodated in the central city aquatic facility and Council’s facilities rebuild process should be followed to establish practicality of repair and useful economic life. Council’s facilities rebuild process should be followed to establish practicality of repair and useful economic life of Waltham and Lyttelton outdoor pools.

2.3.6 Outdoor Pool Partnerships Council should formalise support for the operation of the Sumner Pool as a level of service in the long-term plan. Support is best channelled through asset maintenance and utilities in

return for community access to the facility over summer18. This will provide certainty of operation, good asset management and create a better platform for the community to leverage third party support.

Council has developed a benchmark partnership with the MOE (Belfast school) and the community (Belfast Community Network) over the operation of Belfast Pool. Each party has a strategic and financial interest in success.

18

The location is represented on the facilities map as a “S” in section 2.4.5


Page 17


Opportunities exist to establish similar partnerships that will keep community and MOE pools open primarily in communities outside close proximity to other aquatic facilities. The opportunity exists to partner with the MOE and community to maintain and open Opawa19

and Bromley20 school pools to the community. Using the Belfast model as a foundation existing school pools can be kept open and viable

and communities can have access to outdoor pools in their neighbourhood. Bromley School is outside and located within close proximity to existing pools. If Waltham is not viable to repair the case to support Opawa becomes more compelling. Council has provided advice, pool plant and equipment to keep the indoor pool at Canterbury Christian College open. Provisional results of an engineering inspection indicate this option may be again open to Council.

Council should review options to assist Canterbury Christian College in keeping their pool open and finalise any proposals through the 2013/2022 LTP process.

The viability of a similar proposition in New Brighton will be influenced by Council’s decisions on the north east aquatic facility and its location. If Council chooses to build a recreation and sports centre to the west of the preferred location area then the need for an outdoor pool in New Brighton is more compelling.

2.3.7 Existing Council Aquatic Facilities Current levels of service should be retained at Council Aquatic and Sport and Recreation Facilities at Pioneer, Jellie Park, Graham Condon, Halswell, Templeton, Belfast and Governors Bay.

Children’s aqua play facilities should be installed at Jellie Park in order to meet community need by replacing the children’s pool lost in the re development and provide a safe, entertaining, interactive shallow pool. Ideally children’s facilities should be able to operate year round.

2.3.8 Other Facilities Ongoing collaboration with neighbouring TLA’s and other providers of aquatic facilities is now resulting in the establishment of a more efficient network of aquatic facilities and better access to swim education. This should continue.

Council’s role in the Kiwiswim programme aimed at removing the barriers for primary school participation in swim education should be formalised into a level of service through the

2012/2021 long term plan process (80,000 subsidised swim lessons will be provided in 2012), with the majority of the cost met by third party stakeholders. Ideally this should be through a reprioritisation of existing resources.

2.3.9 Summary of Key Actions The earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have extensively damaged Council’s network of aquatic facilities and will produce demographic change not anticipated by the Aquatic Facilities Plan 2006 or the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007.

19 The location is represented on the facilities map as a “O” in section 2.4.5

20 The location is represented on the facilities map as a “B” in section 2.4.5


Page 18


As a result Council is making changes to its network of aquatic facilities and the way it works with other providers. The key directions that will be used for this project to guide us on facility placement and operations include:

� Retain current levels of service at Pioneer, Jellie Park, Graham Condon, Halswell,

Templeton, Belfast and Governors Bay pools � Build a central city aquatic facility as part of a Metro Sports Facility � Build an aquatic facility in the north east of Christchurch � Build a children’s pool at Jellie Park � Formalise Council support for the operation of the Sumner Pool as a level of service

� Explore the opportunity to partner with the MOE and the community to open targeted

school pools to the community � Formalise Council’s role in the Kiwiswim programme as a level of service � Follow Council’s facilities rebuild process to establish the practicality of repair and useful

economic life of Wharenui, Waltham and Lyttelton pools � Conduct a review in 2017 on the need for an aquatic facility in the west/south-west

� Identify a site for an aquatic facility in the west/south-west ideally as part of a wider community facility planning exercise

2.4 CURRENT COUNCIL AQUATIC FACILITY NETWORK The following information summarises the current Christchurch City Council main aquatic facilities still operating.

2.4.1 Jellie Park

Located at 295 Ilam Road, Burnside Christchurch, Jellie Park offers a full range of facilities including:

• Indoor pool complex including spa pool, sauna & steam room • Fitness suite & studio • Outdoor pool & hydroslides • Outdoor family picnic area • Free public WiFi access • Recreation programmes and fitness classes

• SwimSmart aquatic programmes • Learn to swim and swim squads

Key business and operational trends include:

• Catchment Population within 5k radius: 136,048 • Annual visits: 907,678 • Fees per visits (income divided by no of visits): $3.60 • Secondary Spend per visit: $0.01


Page 19


2.4.2 Graham Condon Sports and Recreation Centre Located off 3 Sisson Drive, Papanui Christchurch. The Graham Condon Sports and Recreation Centre offer a full range of programmes and activities:

• Learn to swim classes - from water babies to adults • Lane swimming

• Fitness centre • Group exercise & Aqua classes

The new complex features:

• A new eight-lane, ramped 25-metre indoor swimming pool

• A ramped spa pool • A ramped learners' pool • A separate toddlers' pool with wet deck and water toys • An indoor sports hall • A new fitness centre

The Sports Hall and existing Papanui High School Sports Hall are used by Papanui High School during school hours, but are available to community groups to hire evenings and weekends.

The new Sports Hall (Sports Hall 1) is marked for Basketball, Netball and has three volleyball courts. The existing Sports Hall (Sports Hall 2) is marked for Basketball and four Badminton courts. Key business and operational trends include:

• Catchment Population within 5k radius: 134,949 • Annual visits: 522,330 • Fees per visits: $2.43 • Secondary Spend per visit: $0.01

2.4.3 Pioneer

Pioneer is located off 75 Lyttelton Street, Somerfield and offers a wide variety of facilities including:

• Indoor 25m lane pool • Wave pool including lazy river & bubble pits • Spa, sauna & steam room • Fitness centre & spin studio • Indoor stadium, recreation programmes and fitness classes • SwimSmart aquatic programmes

Other services include the Pioneer Early Learning Centre, Southern Centre multi-sensory experience, Plunge Café, Physio South, Canterbury Volleyball, stadium court hire and meeting room hire. Key business and operational trends include:

• Catchment Population within 5k radius: 99,914 • Annual visits: 1,120,770 • Fees per visits: $2.69 • Secondary Spend per visit: $0.01


Page 20


2.4.4 Other Council Swimming Pools

The desktop review of the Aquatic Plan proposes that the following local Council swimming pools remain open including:

• Halswell: Over 20 years old and structurally and mechanically operational. • Templeton: Over 20 years old and structurally and mechanically operational.

• Belfast: Over 20 years old and structurally and mechanically operational.

• Governors Bay: Over 10 years old and pool tank is intact but buildings are structurally

damaged and need replacement.

2.4.5

Current and Proposed Aquatic Facilities

The following diagram highlights the current and proposed aquatic facilities, red zones and planned new sub-divisions.

The map facility code is as follows:

Map Code Facility Status Map Code Facility Status

1 QEII Closed 13 Kaiapoi Pool Open 2. Centennial Closed 14 Rollerston Pool Under construction 3. Pioneer Open 15 Aquagym Open 4. Jellie Park Open 16 Kings Sockburn Open 5. Graham Condon Open 17 Canterbury Swim School Under construction 6 Halswell Closed 18 Canterbury Christian Pool Closed 7. Wharenui Closed M Metro Sports Centre Planned 8. Waltham Closed N/E North East Pool Planned 9. Lyttleton Closed B Bromley School Pool To be confirmed 10 Governors Bay Open 0 Opawa School Pool To be confirmed 11 Belfast Open S Sumner Pool To be confirmed 12 Templeton Open

Note: Red font indicates facility currently closed


Page 21


2.5 FUTURE AQUATIC FACILITY POPULATION CATCHMENT ESTIMATES

Based on the latest aquatic facility planning decisions SGL has noted as part of their assessment factors that two of the previously available (pre earthquake) high visit aquatic facilities will not reopen. These are:

• QEII – Travis Road New Brighton – 1,806,948 visits (2010 data) serving a catchment

population within 5Kms of 74,866 people.

• Centennial – Armagh Street Central Christchurch – 340,403 visits (2010 data) serving a

catchment population within 5kms of 160,393 people.

Closure of these 2 main aquatic facilities will see a loss of more than 2.240M visits (previously recorded visiting these centres) and this indicates the first main future aquatic facility service priority will be to develop new replacement facilities as well as encourage greater use of current aquatic facilities. Section 2.4 of this report highlights current and likely future CCC aquatic facility planning and the Christchurch City Council Aquatic Facilities Network (and

likely population areas that are estimated to be serviced by these facilities) are summarised in the following table.

Table 2.4 Future CCC Main Aquatic Facilities Summary

Facility/Suburb Estimated Annual Visits

2012/13 Estimated Primary

Catchment Population within 5kms/(10kms)

Visits Per Primary

Catchment Zone

Population

Other information

CURRENT MAIN COUNCIL AQUATIC FACILITIES

Jellie Park – Burnside 907,678 136,048 6.7 visits/population

• Proposed future development of children’s aqua play.

Graham Condon – Papanui

522,330 134,949 3.9 visits/population

• Closest current facility catchment to new eastern centre

Pioneer – Somerfield 1,120,770 99,914 11.1 visits/population

• Closest southern area centre to the new eastern centre.

TOTAL CURRENT AQUATIC FACILITIES

2,550,778 visits/year 370,911# 6.9 visits/population

PROPOSED NEW AQUATIC FACILITIES

Metro Sports Centre – (To be located off Balfour Terrace Central Christchurch).

Based on 6.9 visits/population

1.218M (5km radius) 594,000 up to 10km radius) visits which would see a total of up to 1,813M visits based on proposed major facility components, central location and larger drawing user catchment

Estimated 176,629 (0km to 5 km) Estimated 169,723 (5kms to 10Kms) Total 0 to 10kms = 346,352 total population

6.9

visits/population 0Kms to 5Kms

=1.218M

3.5

visits/population 5Kms to 10Kms

=594,000

• Based on Melbourne (MSAC) and Adelaide (SASSC) main city facilities primary catchment can increase to 10kms.

North East Pool – Eastern Recreation & Sports Centre – (Location to be decided)

Subject to final components and location likely to be in the order of 530,000 to 650,000 visits based on other facility trends and catchments

77,431

(See suburbs Table 2.5 page 24 for estimated 5km area radius).

6.9 visits/population

• Population catchment will depend on final location of facility.

• Final components will determine key catchment visits.

TOTAL NEW AQUATIC FACILITIES

1.748M visits to 2.463M visits 346,352# 6.9 visits/population

Note: # Some population areas cross over.


Page 22


Based on the average visitation assumptions of 6.9 visits per population then the estimated attendances for the proposed two new facilities (subject to final components and location) and take up by primary catchments (0 to 5km radius) and secondary catchments (5km to 10km) they are likely to be in the range of:

• Metro Sport Centre: estimated between 1.218M to $1.823M annual visits.

• Eastern Sport and Recreation Centre: estimated between 530,000 to 650,000 annual visits.

The following graphics on the next two pages highlights the likely primary 5km catchment

zones (Blue Circles) for each of the CCC main aquatic facilities (including the Metro Sport Centre). The maps do not locate the proposed ER & S Centre at this stage as no decision has

been made on location. It is clear from viewing the primary catchment areas of all existing operational aquatic

facilities with the proposed new Metro Sports Centre that there is still a significant facility gap in the north-east area of Christchurch City.

We have also noted on the maps the estimated extra 5km to 10km secondary user catchment zone (Listed in the Red Circle) for the Metro Sport Centre (as highlighted in table 2.4 on the previous page).

This clearly shows with a larger catchment zone that this facility will attract some of the north east area residents to use this centre based on the usages trends in other areas that see major facilities with a broad range of activity areas and centrally located, able to attract larger user catchments than district and local facilities.

The red circle clearly indicates that the new Metro Sports Centre primary and secondary user catchments will cover the total Christchurch City Council area. The future strategy of a range of local aquatic facilities supported by the city wide Metro Sports Centre is supported by SGL and the catchment analysis indicates under such a strategy that there is still capacity for a new local/district centre in the north east area.



Christchurch City Council Main Aquatic Facilities 5Km and 10Km Population Catchment Radius


Page 24 New Brighton Water Park Review (NZ 05.2013)- 20 August 2013

SGL

Le*gend

Selected CCC Facility

c::::J 5km Buffer

c::::J 1Okm Buffer

0 2.000 -----==-a kilometres



2.6 NEW ER & S CENTRE PROJECTED CATCHMENT POPULATION

The study findings indicate there is a significant gap in current and future aquatic facility provision with the closure of both QE11 and Centennial Pool.

The provision of a new city wide aquatic and leisure facility in a new central location (Metro Sport Centre) is estimated to service a large number of these lost visits with an estimated primary catchment zone of (0 to 5km) of just under 176,000 people and a secondary catchment zone (5km to 10kms) of 170,000 people.

People living in the primary catchment zone of the new Metro Sport Centre are expected to visit the centre on average 6.9 visits/year whilst people living in the secondary catchment zone are expected to have a lower visitation rate of around 3.5 visits/year. Based on these

assumptions (developed from average visitation trends at all Council aquatic facilities pre the earthquake) then the combined area visitation results for the new facility are expected to be in the order of 1.8M to 1.850M visits/year.

If this new centre is developed and links to the existing aquatic leisure centres then the major future facility provision gap is in the north-east area where there is a significant population with no local/district facility to use.

The following table provides an overview of the suburban areas and associated population estimates likely to form the primary catchment zone (5kms) for the proposed new Eastern Sport and Recreation Centre (ER&S Centre) subject to its final location in the north east area.

Table 2.5 Projected Population Primary Catchment Zone for the Proposed ER&S Centre

Suburb 2013 Estimated Population

Suburb 2013 Estimated Population

South Brighton 2,746 Linwood East 2,063 New Brighton 2,625 Linwood North 2,922 Rawhitti 4,020 Chisnall 2,848 North Beach 5,056 Avonside 1,856 Waimairi Beach 2,837 Dallington 1,984 Parklands 5,169 Burwood 775 Travis Wetlands 4,765 Shirley East 3,724 Travis 2,078 Marshland 4,658 Avondale 2,706 Shirley West 3,842 Aranui 4,407 Woolston West 3,606 Bexley 2,584 Ferry Mead 3,235 Bromley 3,340 Woolston South 2,585 Subtotal Population 42,333 Subtotal Population 35,089 Total Catchment Population 77,431 Note: Population estimates based on 2013 estimates for resident population projections by Mesh block for Greater Christchurch (CCC Monitoring and Research Team 2nd March 2012).

The review indicates there are 24 suburbs/part suburbs located within an approximate 5km radius of the east coast of the city. Based on the estimated 2013 population by suburb the total likely ER and S Centre primary catchment population is estimated at 77,431 people.



3 N E W B R I G H T O N W A T E R P A R K P R O J E C T O V E R V I E W

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The following section provides a summary of the two proposals put forward to Christchurch City Council for the development of aquatic facilities in response to the New Brighton Master Plan. Please note that this section summarises the proposals and detailed assessment is undertaken for these two options plus a range of other aquatic development options (required to be reviewed as part of the project brief) in section 5 of this report.

3.2 NEW BRIGHTON WATERPARK PROPOSAL

As part of the Christchurch revitalisation and Major Facilities Rebuild Programme the Christchurch City Council provided a funding allocation of approximately $37M for the design and construction of an Eastern Recreation and Sports Centre in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch. This was made up of an allocation of $30.5M for the base facilities and $6.5M for water play and waterslides (based on contribution approved from the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Trust Fund).

Two members of the Burwood Pegasus Community Board believed that the proposed facility should assist with revitalising the commercial centre of New Brighton. To achieve this the

facility needed to be more than a “community “ leisure centre and more in line with an aquatic/waterpark. A broad concept was then developed using a cut and paste option from LHT (A design company) and promoted as the option for a water park in New Brighton.

The two members approached Sport and Venues NZ Ltd to assist with designing an aquatic centre/waterpark that would achieve the identified objectives. A broad concept was

developed that included the base community aquatic facilities utilising a lightweight structure to enclose them from the elements. The construction savings proposed by utilising this light-weight structure were then allocated to fund a range of waterpark features plus also propose some commercial investment for additional waterpark features.

A basic concept drawing was forwarded and from this the project team have identified the proposed aquatic/waterpark building looks to cover an area of approximately 120m x 90m plus buffer zones which totals between 11,000m² and 12,000m² excluding car parking, plant rooms and service areas. The indoor facility was originally designed with a “fairground look”. The facility components based on the schematic drawing include the following indoor areas:

• 25m x 25m indoor pool • 1x learn to swim pool 25m x 12.5m and 1 x rise and fall floor pool 25m x 12.5m • Outdoor spas

• Gymnasium • Foyer/Reception/Café • Change rooms

The waterpark components include 3 to 4 signature water play rides including:

• A double flowrider static wave • 175OTB Aquaplay.

• Super Bowl • Rattler • Boomerango

• River lagoon and beach



--$-sGL

The following indicative layout plan details the proposed main building area and the tension

membrane product originally proposed was changed to include a covering structure

constructed from polycarbonate material with part retractable roof and a glass retractable

front wall, potentially facing the Pacific Ocean (if a suitable coastal site was available).

[}

I " I

OPt:NNI?t:.Wif(t:.l?PN?K ?1XUC7tJI(t:.- NZ H/JN ru>n;7.0 :>



The following photographs have been supplied by SGL and Whitewater West to provide a visual guide to some of the main water park feature rides proposed:

Boomerango and Speed Bowl Kalahari Resort Wisconsin Dells USA (Photo SGL 1999)

Double Flowrider

Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre (Photo SGL 2011) Double Flowrider

Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre (Photo SGL 2011)

Indoor 1750 Whitewater West Play Structure (Photo Whitewater West)

Outdoor 1750 Whitewater West Play Structure (Photo Whitewater West)



3.2.1 Projected Waterpark Capital Budget Estimate

The proposal identified a capital expenditure estimate for the facility of $34.7M based on the following components plus a further $3M for a double flowrider (possibly funded from commercial operator).

Table 3.1 Waterpark Proposal Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate

Component Estimated Cost Sprung Building structure and indoor pools $10.0M Gym, change, entry $1.8M Water Park $8.4M Retractable roof and walls $10.0M Outdoor Spas $3.0M Landscaping $1.5M Total Estimated Cost (excluding flowrider) $34.7M Double flowrider (3rd party) $3.0M Note: Allowances not identified for land acquisition, car parking, access roads, plant rooms, and services connection, professional fees

SGL has reviewed the preliminary schematic documents submitted on the water park and its associated capital budget. The documentation and plans are very limited in detail and are certainly not developed enough for detailed assessment.

It does provide a broad concept and order of cost that we have reviewed against current industry rates and we note that the capital costs detailed in the table above are significantly understated when the total development cost is considered. We have documented and summarised these issues in greater detail section 5.2 of this report.

3.2.2 Proposed Waterpark Operations

The proposal indicates that the facility is expected to attract 900,000 visits per annum with the anticipated income per annum estimated at $7.4M based on:

• 600,000 customers paying $10/visit - $6.000M • 300,000 customers paying $3/visit - $1.200M • Rental $0.200M

Total Income $7.400M

The anticipated operating expenditure for the facility is $3.3M, which would return an anticipated operating surplus of $4.2M.

The proposal offers no documentation as to the assumptions for attendances and what is the customer make up of Christchurch City Council residents, regional and interisland visitors and international visitors.

Contact with the project proponents who have indicated they have not done any detailed

user catchment research or modelling and have developed catchment numbers based on waterparks they have seen on overseas visits. They have also indicated that a larger number of people who used to visit QE11 for leisure and fun water activities may be attracted to this facility. SGL has reviewed the proposed attendance data and assess this against city wide aquatic facility attendances and the various options proposed for consideration in section 5.2 and 5.3 of this report.



3.3 ALTERNATE MASTER PLAN PROJECT The New Brighton Business and Landowners Association (NBBLA) using funding from Eastern Vision engaged architects Align and Pivnice Ltd to develop an alternate master plan for the New Brighton area.

This is a very preliminary stage document and provides an alternative to a single, ‘blockbuster’ Waterpark concept through proposing instead a ‘Village in a Waterpark’.

This idea reflects the position of the New Brighton commercial centre between the sea and the river, and suggests a range of smaller additional facilities in close proximity to the centre.

These might include:

• A coastal pathway and boardwalk. • A white water facility

• A saltwater lap pool and leisure pools, located on the foreshore between the surf

club and whale pool. These facilities are intended to complement the proposed Eastern Recreation and Sporting (ER & S Centre) Facility, which may be built elsewhere.

The identified vision for the proposed facility was to create the following:

A product that on terms of appeal to its target market, sets itself above similar offerings and

provides a perfect way for visitors to unwind, relax and rejuvenate. The primary targets for the facility is international and domestic visitors to and within New Zealand. The secondary market is residents to New Brighton and Christchurch and any day visitors to Christchurch.

The proposal includes the development of a single storey facility that will house the pool reception, waiting area, retail, male/female and family change rooms and amenities and the administration area.

It would potentially include the redevelopment of the existing surf club buildings.

It includes three saltwater pools with a temperature range of 38-40 degrees along with the main pool buildings.

The pools will range in size from 36m² to 58m². These pools are proposed as relocatable facilities that could be moved elsewhere in the future if desired, either as part of the proposed waterpark concept or in the Water Park/ER&S Centre combined facility.

The schematic layout plan is listed on the following page.



The anticipated cost for the project was estimated to be in the range of $3M to $4M depending on the final components and linkage with existing facilities.

At this stage the aquatic options are concepts only and the proponents have indicated that no feasibility work has been undertaken to identify final sites, detailed layout plans or operational income and expenditure estimates.

The proposal identifies the need for more detailed work to be undertaken to determine the feasibility of the options presented and this would allow for detailed operating and capital cost budgets to be developed.



4 SUCCESS FU L WATER P A R K S A N D A Q U A T I C W A T E R P L A Y F A C I L I T I E S

4.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW This section provides an overview on the development of waterparks and water play facilities to assist in identifying key trends that could impact on the range of developments assessed in section 5 of the report.

The operation of aquatic centres and swimming pools is a substantial industry throughout New Zealand and Australia. The industry attracts large numbers of visitors to a significant

number of facilities dispersed locally as well as facilities of larger size and strategically placed locations to service district, sub regional and regional locations.

Christchurch City Council is one of the country’s leading local government areas in the provision and operation of aquatic facilities. Pre the earthquake period in 2010 Councils aquatic services involved some 11 facilities that combined attracted more than 4.7m visits.

Based on an estimated area population for the city of 376,700 people this saw an aquatic facilities visitation rate of 12.4 visits per head of population. This result is one of the highest visits per head of population to aquatic facilities noted in our 25 years industry experience and sets the starting point for understanding the potential and capacity to now consider demand for new aquatic type facilities.

Section 2.5 of this report summarises the current and proposed new aquatic leisure facilities that are again estimated to take visitation levels back up to 4.7M to 5M annual visits following closure of a number of facilities.

4.2 WATERPARKS AND WATER PLAY INDUSTRY TRENDS The water park and water play facilities trend commenced around the late 1970s when traditional UK and USA swimming facilities started to add leisure and free form pools for fun and recreation to the traditional lap swimming and diving pools most facilities offered.

What has become known as “The LEISURISATION” of traditional swimming pools worked well in large population areas and by the mid 1980s there were many examples of indoor and outdoor leisure and wave pools, waterslides and the emergence of water play equipment that then lead to water play structures.

The World Waterpark Association website indicates “from a water park perspective that the first major water park is reputed to be Wet ‘n Wild which opened in Orlando Florida in 1977”. The operator of this park was the founder of Sea World who took the successful amusement park concept he developed in 1964 and added it to a water facilities theme in a warm climate area.

Other parks began springing up around the USA and huge, concrete slide structures were the norm back then. The industry became more focused in 1981 when the World Waterpark Association was formed. They brought together the wave pool from Europe, the leisure river and speed slide from the Asia-Pacific region of the world and the waterslide from California— among other innovations—to create what is known today as the waterpark industry.



Today, waterparks are being built all over the world. They come in a multitude of shapes and sizes, from small aquatics centres that have a few waterpark features—such as a waterslide or leisure river—to city-owned facilities that rival some of today’s major parks, as well as indoor waterpark hotels/resorts.

The proposed waterpark for New Brighton for example would be regarded in the lower level standard facilities at less than 10,000m² development (see section 5.2 for assessment).

A growing number of other industries are also joining in the waterpark trend. Hotels, campgrounds, ski resorts, cruise ships and amusement parks are now also where you will find water play and water fun as they provide a significant point of attraction and point of difference when people choose places to visit or stay.

The majority of development of such facilities has occurred in warmer climate areas with large population catchments close to major highways, airports, major accommodation options and main transport routes. Where water parks have been developed indoors it has been for climatic conditions to minimise cold weather and wind impacts to users. These centres usually are much smaller developments and also have to meet the higher operating costs of heating the indoor areas.

The industry trends indicate limited water park and water play development has occurred in New Zealand and Australia and this is primarily noted due to the low population catchments and colder climatic conditions in these countries. From a commercial investment point of view they present higher development risk compared to the continually expanding Northern Hemisphere and Asian market places that have high temperatures all year and large population areas.

To assist the project in identifying key development, viability and operational trends we have looked at available industry data in the largest development market being the USA and the fastest growing market, which is Asia and then also looked at known industry trends for New Zealand and Australia.

4.2.1 USA Water Parks Review The latest “Hotel and Leisure Advisors (HL & A)” Survey conducted in 2012 indicated for example there were 796 waterparks in the USA with 16 of these opening in 2012 and a further 21 under construction and due to open in 2013. The World Waterpark Association (WWA) has estimated there were approx. 85 million visits to waterparks in 2012, which was up 3 million visits (2011) and 6 million visits (2010).

4.2.1.1 Types of Water Parks

Both the World Waterpark Association and HL & A have attempted to try and categorise water parks into facility categories and these notionally include:

• Indoor Waterpark Resort: Is a lodging establishment containing an aquatic facility with a

minimum of 10,000 square feet (929m²) of indoor waterpark space inclusive of slides, rides, rivers, pools and tubes. It can be further categorised by either having accommodation attached (see next listing) which would be seen as a Hotel Indoor Waterpark Resort or close by to accommodation so bookings are linked.

• Indoor Water Park Destination Resort: is a lodging (accommodation) hotel that also

contains an aquatic facility with a minimum of 10,000 square feet. (929m²) to 30,000 square feet+ (2797m²+) of indoor waterpark space such as slides, rivers, pools and tubes.



Some resorts may not have accommodation onsite but are linked to an accommodation outlet i.e. SeaWorld Resort Gold Coast. An example of an indoor waterpark destination resort is the Kalahari Centre, photographed below:

Kalahari Centre Indoor/Outdoor Waterpark Resort Wisconsin Dells USA

• Outdoor Waterpark Resort: is a lodging establishment containing outdoor aquatic facilities

with at least three or more waterpark elements such as slides, water play, splash-pads,

lazy rivers or wave pools. These facilities will normally be used by hotel guests and normally are located in warmer climates or also have indoor facilities for winter, autumn and spring use.

Kalahari Centre Indoor/Outdoor Waterpark Resort Wisconsin Dells USA

• Standalone Indoor Waterpark: is an aquatic facility with a minimum of 10,000 square feet

(929m²) of indoor waterpark space not established to a lodging establishment.

• Standalone Outdoor Waterpark: is an aquatic facility containing outdoor aquatic facilities

with at least three or more waterpark elements such as slides, water play, splash-pads, lazy rivers or wave pools.

4.2.1.2 Developers and Owners of USA Water Parks Overview

Based on the facility classification definitions listed in section 4.2.1.1 the following table on the next page indicates the ownership of USA Waterparks in 2012.



Table 4.1 USA Waterparks Inventory by Category/Owner

Type of Waterpark

Municipal Owner

Private Company Owner

Franchise Owner

Independent Owner

Total

Outdoor Water Park

307 254 0 0 561

Indoor Waterpark

43 5 0 0 48

Indoor Water Park Resort

0 0 47 85 132

Indoor/Outdoor Water Park Resorts

0 0 19 36 55

Total

350

259

66

121

796

Source: Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC, April 2013.

The review indicates that from the 796 waterparks in the survey that 561 (70%) were outdoor waterparks followed by 132 (16.5%) being Indoor Waterpark Resorts whilst 55 (7%) were Indoor/Outdoor Waterpark Resorts and 48 (6.5%) were indoor waterparks.

Research indicates that the greatest numbers of waterparks are outdoors due to the large

amount of site areas required for the specialist activity areas and equipment plus the high cost to develop overhead shelter structures and need to heat internally the air and water within these structures.

These results also indicate that 609 (76.5%) Waterparks were not linked to accommodation outlets whilst 187 (23.5%) were. A total of 350 waterpark facilities were developed and owned by municipal authorities with the majority of these being outdoor waterparks linked to indoor swimming facilities.

The larger resort facilities were developed more by private, franchise and independent owners and more than 187 of these were linked to accommodation developments with an estimated 6,727 rooms (average 350 rooms/resort)

4.2.1.3 Location of USA Waterparks

The waterparks were located in areas where there was significant high monthly average temperatures with the majority of outdoor waterparks being in areas that recorded 25 Celsius or greater. The provision of waterparks by type/area of development is detailed as follows.

Table 4.2 USA Waterparks Inventory by Category and Regional Location

Type of Waterpark Northeast Region

Midwest Region

South Region

West Region

Total

Outdoor Water Park 64 199 203 95 561

Indoor Waterpark 1 22 10 15 48 Indoor Water Park Resort

13 100 10 9 132

Indoor/Outdoor Water Park Resorts

3 12 25 15 55

Total 81 333 248 129 796

Source: Hotel & Leisure Advisors, LLC, April 2013.



The review of USA 2012 waterpark locations saw the majority of the waterparks located in the warmer southern region (333 facilities/42% of all facilities) and Midwest region (248 facilities/31% of all facilities). These two regions saw 402 outdoor waterparks located within these two areas.

Industry sources indicate that a main key to successful waterparks is choosing locations that encourage people to use water regularly and the industry uses as a development guide a guaranteed temperature of 25 degrees or greater, as a key success factor (to allow people to say for long hours near or in water).

This has lead to the industry trend of indicating that areas that have temperatures lower than the 25 degrees Celsius need to locate main waterpark activities indoors. This is a critical success factor when considering the viability of a waterpark in Christchurch as a review of average mean temperatures per month indicates this is not achievable in the Christchurch area and therefore any waterpark facility will need to be indoors as well as able to meet the constraints of being roofed and extra operating costs to heat the water and pool hall air.

Locating waterparks with accommodation outlets and/or in high visitation tourist resorts with significant accommodation supply is a key to reducing the business risk as it opens up the market catchment to not only local people but also people staying and visiting the area and having a higher daily spend in the area.

4.2.1.4 Top Ten USA Waterparks

The top ten waterparks in the USA in 2011 as identified by the TEA 2011 Theme Index Global

Attractions Attendance Report are listed in table 4.3 on the next page.

Table 4.3 Top Ten USA Waterparks 2010 and 2011

Park/Location 2011

Attendance 2010

Attendance 1. Typhon Lagoon at Disney World – Orlando, Florida 2,058,000 2,038,000 2. Blizzard Beach at Disney World – Orlando Florida 1,891,000 1,872,000 3. Aquatica – Orlando Florida 1,500,000 1,500,000 4. Wet and Wild - Orlando Florida 1,223,000 1,223,000 5. Schlitterbahn – New Braunfels Texas 980,000 960,000 6. Water Country USA – Williamsburg Virginia 723,000 784,000 7. Adventure Island – Tampa Florida 644,000 626,000 8. Noahs Ark – Wisconsin Dells Wisconsin 643,000 637,000 9. Hyland Hills Water World – Denver Colorado 559,000 545,000 10. Schlitterbahn - Galveston Texas 535,000 530,000 Source: 2011 Theme Index – Global Attractions Attendance Report - TEA.

The next 11 to 20 most used facilities ranged from a high of 500,000 visits in 2011 at Six Flags White Water Georgia to 367,000 visits at Water Country New Hampshire.

4.2.2 Asian Waterpark Development Trends

The Asian Attractions industry is noted as the fastest growing industry region and the majority of development due to their high population areas, improved economic results and significant investment in integrated resort development.

Due to many Asian countries located in high daily temperature areas the development of

water related attractions is the key theme for many parks.



In 2011 there were 105.1 million attending theme and amusement parks in Asia according to the Global Attractions Attendance Report 2011 (published by Themed Entertainment Association (TEA) and the Economics Practice at AECOM.

This report also listed the top 10 Waterparks in Asia and these are summarised in table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Top Ten Asian Waterparks 2010 and 2011

Park/Location 2011

Attendance 2010

Attendance 1. Chimelong Waterpark - Guangzhou China 1,900,000 1,700,000 2. Ocean Park Water Adventure - Jakarta Indonesia 1,730,000 1,700,000 3. Ocean World – Gangwon-Do, South Korea 1,726,000 1,376,000 4. Caribbean Bay- Gyeonggi – Do, South Korea 1,497,000 1,736,000 5. Wet and Wild - Gold Coast Australia 1,200,000 1,100,000 6. Sunway Lagoon – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1,040,000 1,000,000 7. Alantis Water Adventure – Jakarta Indonesia 950,000 850,000 8. The Jungle Water Adventure – Bogor, West Java Indonesia 871,000 875,000 9. Summerland - Tokyo Japan 850,000 925,000 10. Water Kingdom – Mumbai India 800,000 760,000 Source: 2011 Theme Index – Global Attractions Attendance Report - TEA.

The top 10 Asian waterparks have higher annual attendances than USA Waterparks due to higher density of population and more consistent higher temperatures, which attract users all year round.

4.2.3 New Zealand and Australian Waterpark and Water Play Facility Trends

Due to low population density and lower Southern Hemisphere temperatures the water park industry in New Zealand and Australia is very undeveloped with limited facilities and locations. There are no major waterparks in New Zealand and only one destination waterpark in Australia (Wet and Wild Gold Coast) though Wet and Wild Western Sydney ($120M investment park) is now under construction and due to open in 2014.

Wet and Wild Gold Coast is the 5th most used waterpark in the Asian region with 1.2m annual visits. It is located on approximately a 20,000m² waterpark site with adjoining 15,000m² of car parking. This sees an area of approximately 35,000m² or 3.5 hectares. Annual attendances range from 2,000 a day in the colder months to 10,000/day on hottest days.

This section of the report provides a summary of SGL’s historical overview of waterpark and water play development created from a range of projects) to assist in considering the viability

and suitability of the New Brighton Waterpark.

The New Zealand and Australian waterpark industry from our companies 25 years industry experience has started at small investment developments mainly with waterslide and water play installations with the majority of these being located at local council facilities or public

parks.

The Industry has gone through a number of development phases and trends with the first stages starting with a range of commercial developers and some Councils installing waterslides and some limited play equipment in the 1970s and 1980s.

4.2.4 Early Waterslide Development

The first waterslides were usually open-air outdoor single slides made for individual riders. The slide was either entered from a tower or from a raised in-ground mound.



The rider was aided in their ride by running water, which was pumped to the top of the slide and propelled by gravity to a plunge pool below. Most dropped into a plunge pool.

The early slide designs saw the rider exit the slide above the waterline and drop into the plunge pool. Over the years and by the 1980s most slide plunge pools had the slide

protruding into the water so the rider was slowed by the back flow of water as it fell from the slide into the plunge pool.

In the 1970s and 1980s there was a significant development of single waterslides at a large number of local council aquatic centres. The majority of these were outdoor and open flumed. In New Zealand these included many local swimming pools that had slides at places such as Invercargill, Dunedin, Christchurch and Blenheim. Waterslides were also developed in a number of North Island pools from Wellington, Taupo, Rotorua, Tauranga, Hamilton, and Auckland.

The industry also saw a number of commercial operators develop water slides at a privately owned sites (where there were no pools). Due to the high numbers of people being

attracted to this new thrill ride many commercial operators did commercially very well out of such developments through to mid 1990s.

4.2.5 Multiple Slides and Covered Flumes

The next stage of industry development saw the option to develop multiple slide rides of different size, height, speed and skill off the one tower. As speed and adventure became important to users the covered flume was introduced to allow riders to move around the slide at high speed. The covered in flume allowed manufacturers to develop slides at much higher angles,

creating greater speed and change in direction. The covered in flumes also allowed development of thrill rides such as “The black hole” as well as introducing lighting and sound effects.

By the late 1980s many single slide operations had ceased, as users became bored with the one slide configuration. Many commercial operators sold out of their business or sold slides to Councils and Aquatic Centres as the aged infrastructure needed replacing.

4.2.6 The Waterpark Phase

The need to keep people amused for longer time lead to the evolution of the waterpark or

theme leisure water area. In the 1980s there was an explosion of new facilities (particularly in the USA and Europe where there were large populations).

Aquatic Centres started to add leisure water as part of their water areas and this also saw the development of the first indoor waterslides.

Australia for example due to its broad population spread only saw limited development of Waterparks. Wet n Wild at the Gold Coast and Water Theme Parks in Perth and Adelaide (long summers and hot weather) were developed in the 1980s. There were also smaller waterparks developed along the east coast at many holiday destinations.

In the 1980s a range of theme parks such Sea World (Gold Coast), Wonderland (Sydney) and Dream World (Gold Coast) added waterpark components to attract people to stay longer in their parks.



4.2.7 Splash Pads and Water Play Equipment In the late 1980s and 1990s there was significant demand to take static water areas into a more water playground theme. This saw a number of wave pools built as part of multi- purpose leisure centres as well as the introduction of:

− Rapid Rivers − Waterslides − Water play equipment − Food and beverage services pool side − Waterslides

Most facilities developed in the 1990s saw designers build free form pools and then add somewhat ad hoc basic play equipment and sprays. This approach has now been superseded by play and water splash parks that maximise play and fun and then add water zones appropriate to the size and scale of development and user.

4.2.8 The Adventure Water Ride Phase In the 1980s and 1990s there was a major increase in different ranges of waterslide products

and design. The open and closed individual rider slides were improved for speed and thrill. Over time, a number of new products were also developed with more efficient and different size rider flumes that allowed different ride experiences for inflatables, multi-person tubes and multi-person rafts.

To enable higher speeds to run these rides tower height was increased from the standard 8 to 10 metres to 12 metres and some even went to 15 metres high. The flumes were increased in diameter from 800 mm (individual rider width) to 1200 mm for inflatables and 1322 mm for

multi-person inflatables and rafts. The extra width and height in the slides allowed designers to introduce high speed and high-banked radius turns therefore increasing variation in rides.

In the 1990s and through the 2000s these changes lead to truly a diverse mix of thrill and adventure rides where people can ride together in rafts and inflatables. Today many derivatives of the original waterslide concept have evolved to now include:

• Whirlpool tubs: Riders in rafts/inflatables can go from slides to swirling whirlpools and then back into slides.

• Wave/Flow riders: Riders can use small surfboards to ride a shallow wave and then be

shot out into a slide to a lazy river.

• Speed slides: Multiple steep slides side by side that allow riders to race each other.

• Adventure rides: Specialist rides such as

� MasterBlaster: Rollercoaster inflatable ride that uses water and conveyor belts to speed participants up and down a wet rollercoaster.

� Tornado: Inflatable ride that sees multi-person inflatable drop 90 degrees into a closed waterslide and then come out into a large cylinder that shoots riders around 240 degrees and then out to a plunge pool.

� Speed Bowl: Individual and inflatable waterslide that sees riders emerge from a waterslide into a large speed bowl. Riders slide around the bowl and eventually drop through a central hole to a plunge pool.

� Cyclone Racer: Covered in multi flume that twists around each other and allow riders to race each other through 240 degrees use of the flume (in a black hole so riders do not know where they are).



With the advent of now more than 1,000 waterparks throughout the world there are new ride products being developed all the time. As parks compete against each other for business there is ongoing retrofitting of rides and slides happening every major season.

4.2.9 Examples of Australian and New Zealand Waterparks and Water play Facilities

SGL have completed an industry research review on current or planned Waterparks and signature Water Play facilities in New Zealand and Australia. This has included web-based searches plus collection of data from a range of SGL offices that have competed project commissions on relevant facilities and developments.

The review indicates there are a limited number of Waterparks and Water Play facilities in

either country with 17 in total and 5 such facilities (all outdoors) located in New Zealand and 12 facilities in Australia (all but one outdoors). The facilities unless located in hot climate areas

(Queensland or Western Australia) are all seasonal facilities mainly open November to April each year. The review indicated the main facilities were located as follows:

New Zealand

• Waiwera Infinity Thermal Spa Resort, Auckland

• Aquatic Park Parakai Springs, Auckland

• Waterworld, Hamilton

• Splash Planet, Hastings (located adjoining to an indoor pool)

• Hanmer Springs Thermal Resort, Hanmer Springs

Australia

Australian Capital Territory

• Big Splash (waterpark), Canberra

New South Wales

• Jamberoo Action Park in Jamberoo

• Wet'n'Wild Sydney

South Australia

• The Beachouse in Adelaide

Queensland

• Wet'n'Wild Water World on the Gold Coast

• WhiteWater World on the Gold Coast

• Sugarworld Cairns

• Wetside Water Park in Hervey Bay

Western Australia

• Adventure World in Perth

• The Great Escape in Perth

Victoria

• Adventure Park in Geelong

• Funfields Whittlesea



It should be noted that limited information is available on usage, operational and development costs of the varied waterpark and water play facilities, mainly due to the commercial nature of these developments and public information not available on usage and business results.

We have also added to the water park review an overview of the latest indoor water play and waterslide facilities recently constructed in Australia and New Zealand that have been linked to aquatic facilities.

The facility review is listed in two sections. In Table 4.5 we list a sample of waterparks and water play facilities and in Table 4.6 we list a range of local authority waterslide and water play development examples linked to aquatic facilities that SGL has been involved with over the past 2 to 3 years.

Table 4.5 Overview of Waterparks and Water Play Areas NZ and Aus.

Facility/Location Photo/Layouts Park/Facility Features

Wet and Wild – Gold Coast Queensland Australia

(Photo and Data from: Wet and Wild Gold Coast Website)

Wet and Wild Gold Coast is the 5th most used waterpark in the Asian region with 1.2m visits/yr.

It is located on the Gold Coast in Queensland Australia on approximately a 20,000m² waterpark site with adjoining 15,000m² of car parking.

This sees a development land area take up of approximately 35,000m² or 3.5 hectares.

Annual attendances range from 2,000 a day in the colder months to 10,000/day on hottest days.

The park is open all year round 10 am to sunset (closing times vary) and average entry fees are:

• Day pass: $59.99 • Annual Pass: $99.99 • Three Park Pass: $109.99

Wet and Wild Sydney Prospect New South Wales

(Photo and Data from: Wet and Wild Sydney Website)

The latest waterpark in Australia is timed to open in December 2013 and will include 42 major slides and attractions.

The park is being developed by Village Roadshow and is expected to see the creation of more than 300 full and part time jobs during the construction and ongoing operation of the Park

The website indicates it will record more than a $500 million turnover contribution to Western Sydney economy in first 10 years of operations.

The park is located on a 25-hectare (62-acre) in Prospect, New South Wales and will have a variety of attractions including two wave pools, two lazy rivers, a children's Aqua Play area.

There will be several slide towers featuring WhiteWater West water slides including two Aqua Loops, a Boomerango, duelling Master Blasters, a Super Bowl, an Abyss, a six-lane Wizard, two family raft rides, and a collection of inline tube slides.




Adventure Park Wallington Victoria

Open November to Easter each year.

(Photo and Data from: Adventure Park Website and Brochures)

Park opened in 1995 and in 2006/07 had a $10M

upgrade with new features including:

� River Torrent Lazy River with inner tube ride is just under 300m in length

� Tiny Tots Splash Zone with interactive water play with waterfalls, mini waterslides etc.

� Six Lane Aqua Racer with speeds of up to 40kph and sensors to time and rank riders,

� Bonitos Bay Water play area, a themed Caribbean Pirate Adventure,

� Rapid rider Water Slide with 110 metres in 20 seconds and a 2 metre plunge at end,

� Tunnel of Terror Waterslide with a 120 metre. pitch black ride on an inflatable raft

� Jumping Jets with over 30 fountain jets.

� Other attractions are Kids rides with a Carousel, Electric Cars, Trains and Moon Bikes: and family rides including go karts, aqua bikes, canoes, paddle boats, mini golf.

Currently local residents account for 8% of visits and

92% out of the Geelong area. The Beach House Glenelg South Australia

(Photos and Data from: The Beach House Website and Brochures)

Private ownership by Taplin Group and management under 40 year lease to the Rimington Group.

Components include:

� Three fully enclosed and heated waterslides – two body and one raft - with rides up to 130 metres at 90 litres a second,

� Ferris wheel, carousel, dodgem cars, bumper boats, minigolf, a train, play castle, arcade games and cafe

There is no entry cost and all rides and games are accessed via a ”Fun Card” system with the card being purchased for $2 and kept by the user. The Card is then charged with purchased credits depending on the rides, games and packages purchased.

At $1 a credit, costs include waterslides ($3), bumper boats ($6.50), minigolf ($9.50) dodgem cars ($6.50), play castle ($9.50). Time cards may be purchased for 2 hours of unlimited rides slides and games. For example Kids Card costs $20 for play castle, train, carousel and any 5 games, and Slides Card costs $35 for water slides, bumper boats, dodgem cars, minigolf, arcade games and prizes games.

Big Splash Water Park Canberra ACT Australia

Open November to March.

(Photos and Data from: Website and Brochures)

Privately owned and managed. Components include:

� 5 heated pools

� 9 waterslides (two from a high tower, two short and fast and one for small children, inflatables)

� Jumping Castle � Restaurant kiosk, child play areas

Payment is made for either water park entry for slides + swim + inflatables or for swim only.




Big Splash Waterpark (Continued)

Waterpark entry for slides, swim, and inflatables – Adult and child $25 a day; 3 pm to 5 pm $17 a day, and Splash Island from 3 years old (height limit) $10 a day.

Swim only or Entry – Adults $8, Children (U2 years free) $6, Aged pensioners $4,

Season Passes (November to March swim only) - single $250, Family of 3 $440. Per extra person $25.

Hanmer Springs Thermal Resort Hanmer Springs South Island New Zealand


The Thermal Pools and Spa resort now attracts over 600,000 annual visits and has a range of pools:

� Twelve open-air thermal pools, � Three sulphur pools and � Six private indoor thermal pools, as well as a

sauna/steam room.

The new freshwater, heated swimming pool has “resort style” walk-in beach access and a “Lazy River”.

The popular family activity area of water slides, water toys and picnic area has been enhanced with the addition of the Aqua Play Area and Super Bowl.

The pools range in temperature from 28 to 42° Celsius

The Hanmer Springs geothermal water is drawn from a bore adjacent to the reserve complex, providing natural water of the highest quality.

There is also a Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools & Spa experience where visitors can also enjoy a range of massage and beauty treatments from the trained professionals at The Spa. These include Swiss and sports massage, detoxifying body wraps and aromatic facials.

The charges to visit the pools are $20 for an adult, $13 seniors and $10 for a child. Daily passes are $25 for an adult, $18 for a senior and $13 for a child

Splash Planet

Hastings North Island New Zealand

Open November to April 10 am to 6 pm

(Photos and Data from Website and Brochures)

Splash Planet Hastings has indoor pools, outdoor

water park features and dry amusement rides. The park is open November to April and is privately

managed. Waterpark facilities include:

� Masterblaster � Sky castle screamer � Sky tunnel � Super cruiser � Never ending river

� Bumper boats � Double dipper � Pirate fortress water play (under 8) � Pirate run water play (8 to 16 years)

� Kayaks

The facility also has indoor heated pools and toddlers pools. Prices are adult $28 and child $18 and a local area child resident access card entry is $14




Parakai Springs Parakai North Island New Zealand

Open all year round 10 am to 9 pm


Large indoor and outdoor pools and two thrilling hydro-slides have been the main attractions for many years.

BBQ and picnic areas are situated throughout the park and options for hiring marquees for groups is also available. Now extensively redeveloped into an active water recreation centre. Facilities include.

• Large outdoor thermal pool heated to 32°C

• Gentle slope beach area for small children

• Large indoor thermal pool heated to 40°C

• Two waterslides one long and the other longer!

• Private thermal spa pools

Prices are adults $20, child $10 and toddler $5.

The review of a sample of waterparks in Australia and New Zealand indicate the majority

of waterparks are seasonal outdoor parks with limited appeal due to aged and out of date rides and attractions. Excluding Wet and Wild in the Gold Coast, which is the 5th most visited waterpark in the Asian area and number one waterpark in the Oceania region at 1.2M visits, the majority of other parks were developed in the 1980s and 1990s. The review of these parks (excluding Wet and Wild) indicates due to seasonal weather conditions the majority are open 4 to 6 months of the year. Average entry fees range from $10 to $40/day and the parks have a number of common zones being:

• Feature/signature waterslides some using inflatables but also basic body waterslides • Water play areas with splash pads or shallow pools with some offer more than one play

area so they can separate these for under 10 years and 10 to 16 years. • Lazy rivers using floatation aids • Dry attractions/rides with some also linking in amusement and arcade type activities

• Picnic and parkland areas • Food and beverage on site and linked to merchandise retail zones • Amenities and change facilities and large areas of onsite parking

As the facilities were outdoors and seasonal the majority were developed on large land holdings (2 to 5 hectares) so they could have a lot of people visit on the days they were open. To attract a lot of people they also needed a large supply of car parking with extra

land adjoining for overload car parking. Discussion with waterpark management and owners indicated that the majority of customers came on hot days (25 degrees plus) and usually came in family groups and stayed most of the day at the facility. This enabled them to not only receive revenue from gate entry but also raise revenue from food/beverage sales, shelter and table hire and retail merchandising.

Most operators indicated it was difficult to fund major waterparks due to the seasonal nature of the business and most were developing their parks overtime by introducing a new ride each season. The most common trend in the industry in warmer climate areas was the introduction of waterpark features to traditional amusement or theme parks such as the Gold Coast where both Dreamworld and Sea World have developed specialist water park features

4.2.10 Linking Waterpark Facilities with Aquatic Leisure Centres

The following table highlights a range of aquatic facilities that have added significant waterslides/water play areas to aquatic leisure facilities. These facilities can be benchmarked for comparison with aquatic facilities that have incorporated significant leisure water.



Table 4.6 Sample of Indoor Aquatic Waterslide/Water Play Areas NZ and Aus.

Facility/Location Facility Features Geelong LeisureLink Waurn Ponds Geelong Vic Australia

Built 2 years ago the $31M replacement aquatic facility has been well received. Key features include:

• Has now in-excess of 900,000 annual visits and more than 10,000 members across

health and fitness, LTS and multi-visit passes. • Gym – state-of-the-art gym with extensive floor space and a wide range of cardio

and strength equipment. • Group exercise rooms – three areas that house Les Mills, freestyle, cycle and mind-

body classes. • Wellness centre – home to Corio Bay Health Group.

• Café – featuring a large seated area overlooking water areas. • Change rooms – separate wet and dry areas plus family and unisex accessible

rooms. • Main pool - an 8-lane 50m pool with ramp access which can be divided into two

25m pools. • Program pool – multi use warm water pool with ramp access. • Learners’ pool – designed for Learn to swim classes and recreation.

• Toddlers’ pool • Spa and sauna

The attached indoor waterpark (tension membrane fabric) includes:

• Cannon Ball Slide – a high-energy tube ride with an exhilarating drop, giant bowl

spins and an exciting transition into the slide pool.

• The Black Hole – a fully enclosed slide that shoots you into a spiral of pitch black tubes where you twist, turn and drop until the final splashdown.

• Adventure Playground – includes slides, water cannons, spinning water wheel and a large overhead tipping bucket allowing kids to splash, climb and be entertained for hours.

• Splash Pad - featuring fountains and water spray equipment where children can play safely on rubber mat flooring in zero depth water.

The centre is now recording a much higher spend per visit ($6 to $7) due to the new waterslides and water play areas plus major health club. Management indicates these facilities have also contributed to major increases in food and beverage sales and retail sales as people are staying at the centre longer.

Casey RACE – Cranbourne Vic Aust. Developed and owned by the City of Casey the new Casey RACE incorporates:

• Indoor $40M centre open 2 years • Indoor 51.5m pool with moveable boom

• Separate warm water pool and learn to swim pools • 900mm² gym and 500m² dray activities rooms • $9M indoor leisure area that includes slides, water play and integrated leisure

pools • School change and group entry

• Well located café The centre services a population of 60,000 people and attracted 580,000 visits in year 1 and 750,000 visits in year 2. Peak price charge covers use of all waterpark features and this is set at an extra fee on normal entry charges of $1.00 for children and $1.50 for adults per visit.

Peak times are 4 pm to 9 pm weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday and public Holidays. The extra charge guarantees that all waterslides and water play features are available to use at no extra cost except for the peak surcharge.

Management estimates 75% of customers visit the centre in peak times and this saw an estimated return of $350,000 to $400,000 in year one in extra revenue using this two time zone entry fee.



Facility/Location Facility Features

Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre is located in East Bentleigh, Victoria, Australia

GESAC is one of the two latest major indoor aquatic leisure facilities built at a cost of $45m in Melbourne and includes indoor and outdoor aquatic facilities plus indoor health and fitness and indoor sport court facilities.

The centre has been open less than a year and has got more than 10,000 members and most programs at capacity.

The centre was developed at an outdoor pool site (East Bentleigh Swimming Pool and already has had to add extra car parking and service areas due to high use.

A feature of the centre is its leisure water with water play zone, interactive water jets

and slides and indoor warm water program pools.

WaterMarc – Greensborough Vic Australia WaterMarc is the latest community aquatic leisure centre built in Melbourne at a capital cost of $45M and is part of a regional shopping centre redevelopment in Greensborough in the City of Banyule.

It is positioned as the Northern Metropolitan Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre and has a mix of competition, recreation, leisure, health and fitness, wellness and social facilities. Annual attendances are estimated at around $1M visits year one

The centre has very good examples of well designed warm water program pools, health and fitness centre, wellness and indoor adventure water play and water slides

The centre is well serviced by underground car parking and lifts. It also presents a very

good example of self-service food and beverage areas linked to wet/dry lounges.



Facility/Location Facility Features Caroline Bay Trust Aoraki Aquatic Leisure Centre

Timaru Caroline Bay Trust Aoraki Centre is an indoor heated aquatic centre in Timaru featuring: • Main Pool, 25m x 25m - 1.4m to 3.4m deep, 27.8°C (10 lanes). • Programme Pool, 17m x 12m - 1.2m x 1.8m deep, 32°C. Variable depth pool.

Includes wheelchair access and hydrotherapy area. • Leisure Pool with Splash Deck and Beach Access, 32°C. • Toddlers Pool, 33°C. • Outdoor 50m Pool (8 lanes). Seasonal pool closed in winter.

• Chillax Area - Steam, Sauna and Spa, 38°C. • Children’s Water Playground with slides, water jets and buckets. • Rapid River • Bubble Pit

• Bombing Tower (3m high) - subject to pool space availability

• Springboard (1m high) - subject to pool space availability • Hoist and ramp access to some pools • Spacious private family change rooms

• Disabled change facilities • Large modern change rooms • Lift access to gym

Todd Energy Aquatic Centre – New Plymouth North Island New Zealand

The Todd Energy Aquatic Centre is an indoor and outdoor swimming pool and complex centrally located in New Plymouth. Adjacent to the Coastal Walkway, with access off Tisch Avenue.

The centre was redeveloped and now includes the following indoor water areas:

• Main pool: Wave machine, water features, eight lanes, tarzan rope and

inflatable toys. Temperature 28 degrees. Depth 0.0 - 2.1m, length 25m. • Spa pool: Temperature 37 degrees.

• Tots pool: Bubbles feature and slide. Temperature 32 degrees. Depth 0.3-0.5m • Hydroslides: Two slides (one turboslide and one family slide). Entry and exit is

within the indoor complex being. o Turbo slide: Users must be over eight years of age and be 120

centimetres or taller and not weigh more than 105 kilograms.

o Family slide: Children five to seven must ride with a caregiver over the age of 16. Children over the age of eight can ride the family slide unaccompanied.

• Outdoor main pool: Seven lanes. Length 50m. Depth 1.1–1.4m. Open Labour Weekend until mid April.

• Outdoor learners pool: Depth 0.8m. • Outdoor tots pool: Depth 0.3m. • Dive pool: Depth 3.9m. Two diving boards 1m and 3m high.



4.2.11 Aquatic Leisure Centres with Waterpark Facilities Trends The review of the sample facilities with significant leisure water features clearly shows that the inclusion of waterslides and water play facilities that are provided in many cases indoors at community aquatic leisure centres are working well and directly contributing to:

• Increased visitations with larger numbers of people attending with families and friends. • Keep people at the centres longer due to the entertainment and social facilities offered.

• Increasing numbers of people purchasing food and beverage and retail services as they are staying longer and looking to use such offers.

• Allowing higher entry fees to be charged.

• Increasing the annual fees per visit from those seen at a traditional aquatic leisure centre. • Generating more revenue to help fund the increased operating costs of adding water

play and waterslides to such facilities. • Allowing centres to market themselves to a broader interest market than just the health

and fitness and lap swimming markets.

The majority of centres with new waterslides and water play areas were recording fees per visit of between $6.50/visit and $8.00/visit. This is compared to say previous years operations at Christchurch City Council Aquatic facilities that on average recorded low entry fees per visit of between $1.19/visit (QEII 2010 CERM) and $3.60/visit (Jellie Park 2011 CERM).

Secondary spend was also significant at $1.00/visit to $1.26/visit compared again to results at Christchurch City Council Aquatic Centres of between $0.01/visit (Pioneer Recreation and Sports Centre 2011 CERM) and $0.33/visit (QEII 2010 CERM). These trends clearly support the addition of waterslides and water play areas plus improved food and beverage and retail services at traditional aquatic leisure centres as a means of improving both the services provided and assisting with improving the sustainability of the facilities. 4.2.12 Summary of Waterpark and Water Play Facilities Review The review of standalone waterparks and water play facilities linked to aquatic facilities review completed for this study indicates that though waterparks and water play areas are recording very high visitations and facility development throughout the world, such development is much slower and at lower scales of development currently in New Zealand and Australia.

For example the World Waterpark Association estimates there are around 1,420 waterparks located around the world with approx. 800 in the USA and followed then by the high growth areas of Asia with more than 200 water parks.

Currently there are only 17 waterparks located in the Oceania Region with Australia having 12 waterparks and New Zealand 5 waterparks.

Lower population density, lower average monthly temperatures and higher salary rates are highlighted as the main contributing factors to lower waterpark development in these two counties. The top ten waterparks in the USA and Asia regions attract between 700,000 and 2M visits a

year and to achieve these visitation results there needs to be a significant local/regional population (between 500,000 and 5M) surrounding the facility as well as high tourist/visitor numbers coming regularly to the region (1M to 3M+ annual visits).



The benchmarking of the most used waterparks in the USA and Asia indicate that visitors from the local region make up 25% to 40% of users and are drawn from people living within 0km to 100kms. More importantly most parks estimate at least 65% to 80% of their visitation numbers come from tourists visiting the area on an annual basis.

Visitation numbers are higher at waterparks that are located in hot temperature areas and the industry viability rule we have seen quoted requires more than 100 plus days of daily temperature at 25 degrees Celsius or greater to ensure maximum attendances for water based activities. This can obviously be changed if facilities are located indoors.

The fastest growing segments of the waterpark industry according to the World Waterpark

Association are Municipal owned swimming centres developing waterslides and water play zones at swimming pools and indoor waterparks being attached to hotels or resorts.

Both these trends are evident in Australia with significant development of indoor water play and waterslides at a large range of new facilities as well as retrofitted at a number of aged aquatic facilities.

Specific development trends identified from the review in relation to successful waterslide and waterpark development includes:

• Providing enough activity areas (large site) to develop clear activity zones to cater for

preschool, primary school, secondary school, young adults and parent age ranges so people of different ages, interests, skills and abilities can all attend and have fun in the water.

• Ensuring a mix of lazy/slow rides and attractions located close to family fun and play areas

and adventure/thrill rides located near deeper water areas such as wave pools or flow riders etc.

• Setting up a slide area with multiple slides off towers with a different range of launch

platforms that allow for more rider throughout, variation in rides off setting boarder through

repetition (single ride slides). This also would see multiple slides exiting off the one tower to also allow staff supervision costs to be shared by more riders.

• Mix of different width flumes allows for individual riders, inflatables and raft rides. They can

all still exit from a central tower but encourage different types of riders to use the facility.

• Need to ensure adequate area on towers for access, inflatables storage and queuing

areas for riders.

• Dropping riders into concourse flumes (not plunge pools) speeds up riders exit from the ride as well as improving rider safety by slowing down from fast rides.

• Use of inflatable rides reduces the skill level required of riders as the inflatable takes most of the ride pressure and the rider hangs on. This means more people can use the ride and level of fitness and body type are less important.



• Linking slides and rides to lazy rivers enables greater rider capacity as more people can

use then come out into the rivers in inflatables and drift round the river after the ride before exiting the river to ride again.

• Ensuring adequate parking to allow people to come and park most of the day so they stay as long as possible at the site.

• Ensuring that there are adequate change areas, food and beverage and retail zones for the number of daily visitors.

• Have an ongoing upgrade program as rides age and new rides evolve need to update

the keep interest and repeat visits.



5 E V A L U A T I O N O F F A C I L I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T O P T I O N S

5.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the report looks at analysing and evaluating the various aquatic, waterpark, water play, hot salt pool and associated leisure and entertainment development options that have been presented or nominated by interested parties.

Our review of the various development ideas and submissions also indicate a number of other common themes are blended through them including:

• Development aims to build off the coastal features and easterly location of the area.

• Building off the historical theme of leisure, fun, entertainment and shopping at coastal

areas that have been a feature of people “getting away to relax and enjoy these areas”.

• Provide not only just replacement facilities for those damaged by earthquake activity but also to provide a mix of “state of the art” activity components that will attract large numbers of new visitors to the area.

• Linking together the themes of water, fun and relaxation to guide facility development.

We need to note that after assessing each of the development proposals that most fit into the category of “good ideas” and are not detailed enough or have got refined

development proposals that can at this stage undergo feasibility and viability review.

We do not see this as a negative but rather as an adequate starting point to many of the most successful community development projects born out of the significant environmental impacts such as the earthquake damage has brought to this area.

This section covers:

• An assessment of the Waterpark Concept and key issues relevant to the local and district

area, City of Christchurch, Canterbury Region and beyond.

• Consideration of the right size of development for any funded (private or public) aquatic

and leisure based facility within New Brighton taking into account the likely wider aquatic network, catchments, proposed other aquatic development (i.e. New Metro Centre) and other relevant economic and social factors.

• Evaluation of the Water Park and other development options in terms of their

establishment and maintenance costs, including build costs, land purchase, patronage and viability.

The analysis and evaluation findings have then been used to form the base strategies for recommended future development options.

5.2 WATERPARK CONCEPT ASSESSMENT The proposed waterpark concept links together a local/district proposed list of standard indoor aquatic facilities (competition/leisure and education water areas) with high attractor water based rides and play experiences.



In considering the viability of this proposed development it needs to be noted that the plans are very undeveloped and conceptual and are not of a standard to be able to judge final development area. They also lack detail on critical areas such as services, car parking, plant rooms, landscape buffer zones and development costs such as professional fees, licence and permit fees etc.

We note from the proponents documents and general concept that they have put forward that it is an early idea and not a detailed development concept. From the proposal there are a number of development themes that we can comment on being:

• All facilities will need to be indoors which allows 365 days use a year in any climatic

conditions. Key industry trends indicate waterpark use decreases considerably if area temperatures are less than 25 degrees Celsius so indoor facilities are essential in the proposed location (as average monthly temperatures do not reach these levels). This will add to development and operational costs.

• The proposal puts forward using new technology and light weight/low cost roofing

structures to minimise overhead building structure costs and redirect funds for more water activity areas and rides to attract more users. We are aware of such building products

and structures in North America and European waterpark installation but we are uncertain to the cost savings and energy impacts this type of structure delivers in a Southern Hemisphere location where freight costs, construction costs and services costs differ.

• The design of opening up parts of the facilities for outdoor experience on days where this

will enhance user experience (hot/humid days) whilst also protecting users from the easterly winds the area regularly experiences is a positive design experience but the cost of these enhancements and impacts on energy costs are not known.

• The proposal appears to provide activity areas for the majority of user markets being:

� Recreation/leisure/fun/: usually 40% to 60% of facility user markets � Competition/fitness: usually 25% to 30% of facility user markets � Education/Learn to swim: usually 10% to 20% of facility user markets. � Social/Entertainment: usually 10% to 20% of facility user markets

� Therapy/health: New emerging market as people age usually 10% to 15% of facility user market.

• The proposal also offers other revenue generating activities to help subsidise the high cost

of water facilities including health and fitness facilities, upgraded food and beverage and

retail services.

5.2.1 Review of Capital Cost Estimates The estimated capital cost in the project proposal of $34.7M in our industry experience is

significantly understated when a likely total project cost is considered. The proposal has a significant number of building, site, services and development costs not covered in the documentation and a lack of scale development plan makes it difficult to relate some of the missing costs to a reasonable allowance. Our review highlights the following areas that will require adding to the capital cost estimates:

• No site costs for clearing of site, demolition of existing structures or earth works etc. (this is

understandable as no site chosen but need to have an allowance for these activities. Based on the size of development we think this needs to be in the order of $1M to $1.5M.



• Development has assumed light weight structures but need to check these against

relevant new building codes in the Christchurch area and as well as advise on the energy efficiency and impact on services required to heat these internal areas. Not able to estimate the cost impacts of this structure as a traditional building development would be in the order of $4,000 to $5,000m².

• No site car parking, access roads and associated service costs covered in the project

budget. Industry trends indicate a critical success factor for such facilities is car parking so based on a 900,000 estimated attendance this would see a 2,000 to 3,000 person a day visitation target and therefore a 500 to 600 car park minimum requirement with special event overload parking options close by for use on busy days. This could cost between $1.5M and $2.5M subject to land levels and soil conditions and final layout design.

• No allowances for bringing services to the site or connection of services to the site and

facilities. We understand a site has not been chosen but there is need for an allowance for these works. Based on the size development we would estimate $500,000 to $600,000 would need to be reserved for this activity (subject to final development).

• There are no allowances for plant rooms and service areas and provision of adequate

services such as filtration, pumps, generators, heat exchangers etc. cannot be assessed. Based on say plant areas of 500m² we estimate for plant rooms that there needs to be an allowance of $1.200M to $1.250M.

• There are no project management or design and engineering fees allowances. Based on

a construction project of say $35M there needs to be an allowance of between 12% and 15% for these services, which would be in the order of $4.2M to $5.250M.

• As the design is only at a very preliminary conceptual stage there needs to be allowances

for design and construction contingencies, as a lot of items will change as detailed design and construction occurs. Based on a $35M project cost and a 5% allowance for design and 5% allowance for construction the estimated extra contingency allowance should be in the order of $3.5M.

• There are no fittings, fixtures and Equipment Allowances (FF and E), which can be in the

order of 1.5% and 2.5% of capital costs. Based on a $35M project this would see an estimated extra cost of $525,000 to $875,000.

The review of the estimated capital cost of development of the New Brighton Waterpark Proposal at $34.7M is significantly understated when the above missing capital cost and project fees are considered. Based on these estimated allowances for these missing costs the extra capital costs, subject to site and development requirements are likely to be in the order $12.425M to $15,475M.

When these costs are added to the estimated $34.7M capital cost this would see the development likely to be in the order of $47M to $50M and excludes any land acquisition costs.

5.2.2 Review of Operational Usage and Operating Results The proposal has a one page usage and operating model summary that has no detail on user or business assumptions. Normally such development proposals would be backed up by a detailed feasibility study and detailed business plan.



We understand this is a very preliminary concept proposal but based on the projections listed in the proposal we note the following review issues:

1. Usage

• The proposal indicates the new waterpark facilities are estimated to attract 900,000 visits a

year. This would see an average visitation of 2,500 visits per day or maybe a low use range of 2,000 visits/day and a high use of 3,000 visits/day.

• This is significant number of visitors to any facility in Christchurch and there are no assumptions or justification as to how these visitation numbers are determined.

• Achieving these visitation numbers from an industry trend perspective would place the

New Brighton Waterpark for example as greater than the 6th busiest waterpark in the USA and the eighth busiest waterpark in Asia. This is extremely unlikely for the facilities and area of development proposed.

• The catchment analysis for a new aquatic leisure facility in the north-east region of the city (see section 2.5) indicated around 80,000 people live in the primary catchment zone

of the centre. Based on an average of 6.9 visits/population the community aquatic facilities we would expect to see a facility visitation rate of between 530,000 and 650,000 annual visits.

• If significant water park features are added to this community facility we would expect to see a 20% to 30% increase (based on aquatic leisure centres business trends in table 4.6) to say 106,000 to 195,000 extra visits. This would see the new centre likely to attract between 640,000 and 850,000.

2. Revenue

• The proposal indicates the 900,000 visits are expected to generate 600,000 visits @ $10/visit

and 300,000 visits @ $3.00/visit which would generate $7.400M in annual operating revenue. They have also indicated a lease fee rental of $200,000 (not nominated where it comes from).

• The projected per head spend of $3.00/visit and $10.00/visit is significantly high compared to the current per head spend achieved at current Council aquatic facilities being between $2.69/visit at Pioneer through to $3.60/visit at Jellie Park.

• Industry trend indicate where waterslides and water play equipment is added to traditional aquatic facilities that the per head spend for entry fees can increase by $1.00 to $1.50/visit.

• Retail and food and beverage spend is currently very low at Council centres but this area is usually impacted by the inclusion of waterslides and water play areas with people coming in larger family and friends groups and staying longer. This can see a much

higher secondary spend at these types of centres. • Based on these trends we would assume that the likely per head spend for a combined

aquatic facility and waterpark would be in the order of: � Spend per visit say $5.00/visit to $5.50/visit � Secondary spend of $1.00/visit to $1.25/visit � Combined spend per visit would be in the order of $6.00/visit. To $6.75 visit.

• Based on annual attendances of say 650,000 to 800,000 then the likely annual revenue range would be in the order of say $3.900M to $5.400M.

• This indicates the estimated revenue for the New Brighton Waterpark when compared against industry spend trends is likely to be significantly overstated.



3. Operating Expenditure

• The proposal indicates operating expenditure for year one would be $3.3M. • This was made up of staffing (28 EFT positions) at $1.4M and operating costs of $1.9M.

• The operating cost estimate is not detailed enough for us to try and work through a likely operating cost for similar facilities but when compared to such facilities it appears significantly understated.

4. Summary of New Brighton Waterpark Business Projections Review

The review findings indicate:

• Projected usage is likely to be high and based on industry trends and catchment analysis

the likely visitation numbers are more likely to be in the 650,000 to 850,000 range (if all facilities are built at the one site).

• Annual revenue estimates projected are also high and the projected annual revenue at

$7.400M is more likely to be in the range of $3.900M to $5.400M.

• There is not enough detail to assess the operating expenditure estimates but industry

trends indicate that the addition of water park features adds significant operating expenditure for more staffing and energy and maintenance costs.

Based on these findings and principally due to the lack of detail we would have to assess the usage and business projections are likely to be overstated in usage and revenue and understated in operating expenditure.

We would recommend if the development is to be considered further then it has a detailed feasibility study and business plan prepared so these matters can be developed based on recognisable and justifiable trends and assumptions.

5.2.3 Other Potential Business Improvement Initiatives The only area that is a ‘known expanding activity market’ the proposal does not address in

our industry experience is in the lack of high yield water area such as hot pools (could be salt water) and wellness/spa facilities such as treatment and therapy rooms.

SGL has been involved in redevelopment and rejuvenation of a range of aged aquatic facilities that have introduced such new activity areas (Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools and Mount Maunganui Hot Pools) and these have been successful in attracting significant more users whilst also providing more profitable activities.

A future combined facility that incorporates all of the proposed features, on a high profile site in the East precinct has significant chance of receiving high use and attracting high revenue generating users as it will become the one stop shop for a large range of activities under the one roof.

If such a development can be located within the retail and commercial zone close to coastal foreshore areas then this will further enhance the attractiveness of the facility and activity offers especially if it can be linked into the landscape of the coastal area.



5.2.4 Size and Scope of Facilities to Complement other Area Aquatic Development

Though the base concept of a joint aquatic facility with waterpark features meets key industry success factors, in our opinion the projected likely size and scope of New Brighton or East Precinct development does need more detailed review due to the proposed new Metro Centre being developed more centrally to the City’s population.

The Metro Centre is planned to become the new regional facility for not only Christchurch but also for the Canterbury Region and South Island. It is planned to replace the QEII facilities especially for main aquatic competition, training and events.

Prior to closure the QEII annual Centre for Environmental Recreation Management (CERM)

results indicated in 2010 it attracted annual visitations of in excess of 1.8M visits.

Development of the Metro Centre should be based on it attracting significant usage from the former QEII facility area catchments and therefore the local North East Precinct facility replacement planned (E, R & S Centre) needs to offer more lower scale activities for a user catchment in the order of say 500,000 to 650,000 annual visits within the cost range of $30.5M.

The addition of $6.5M to the E,R & S Centre capital cost for waterslides and water play facilities will be a significant attractor and should help increase user visits to 650,000+ visits. The catchment analysis data in section 2.5 indicates that the Metro Sports Centre can still operate to its potential even with an upgraded E,R and S Centre as it can draw across the whole city catchment.

To put this amount of water play and water slide funding in context the allowance of $6.5m will see the centre being allocated the highest leisure and water play budget features of any Council operated facility across New Zealand and Australia.

Recent regional aquatic facility developments SGL has been involved with throughout both countries and their estimated spend on water play, waterslide and entertainment features confirms this as follows in the following table:

Table 5.1

Summary of Major Water Features Capital Expenditure

Facility Water Play and Water Slide Features Estimated Capital Budget for These items

Caroline Bay Trust Aoraki Centre

New Zealand • Indoor dual hydro slides and tower

• Indoor water play structure and splash pad (TD 250) • Indoor rapid river

$2M ($NZD)

Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre – Melbourne Australia

• Dual flow rider and new surf retail area. $2.5M ($AUD)

Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic

Centre – East Bentleigh, Australia • Indoor dual water slides and tower • Indoor water play structure and splash pad (TD 250) • Indoor toddlers interactive water play area

$3.2M ($AUD)

WaterMarc – Greensborough

Australia • Indoor dual water slides with inflatables and tower • Indoor water play structure and splash pad (TD 850)

• Indoor toddlers interactive water play area with interactive sprays and jets.

$2.9M ($AUD)

Casey RACE – Cranbourne

Australia • Indoor dual water slides with one slide for inflatables

and one speed bowl and tower • Indoor water play equipment and splash pad.

• Indoor toddlers interactive water play area with interactive sprays and jets.

$4.0M ($AUD)

LeisureLink - Geelong Australia • Indoor dual water slides with inflatables and tower

• Indoor water play structure and splash pad (TD 850) • Indoor toddlers interactive water play area with

$4.0M ($AUD)



Facility Water Play and Water Slide Features Estimated Capital Budget for These items

interactive sprays and jets.

• Tension membrane fabric roof area

Frankston Regional Aquatic Centre – Frankston Australia

• Indoor dual water slides with inflatables and tower • Indoor water play structure and splash pad (TD 850) • Indoor toddlers interactive water play area

$3.9M ($AUD) Tendered and under

construction

Each facility budget figure nominated will also have allowances for facility services, building structure etc. The key issues for the proposed New Brighton facility is that the $6.5M allowance will enable the purchase of significant water play and waterslide features.

The $30.5M allowance for base facilities should see a 5,000 to 5,500m² development funded (based on industry average allowance of $5,000m²) subject to final site chosen, the cost of construction and service connections required on this site.

The allowance of $6.5m for water play and water slides based on an allowance of say $4M for water slide items would allow the balance of $2.5M to fund a building area of 500m² for water play based on traditional building structures.

Further investigation of the proposed light-weight structure is supported. If this type of structure is suitable it will allow for an increase in activity area capital budgets that will cater for more people compared with more expensive building structure that do not attract

additional people.

5.2.5 Other Proposed Features

The proposed allowance of $3M for outdoor spas requires a more detailed review. If a

suitable site can be developed close to a coastal location then the opportunity to develop New Zealand’s third salt water spa area (only one in the South Island) is a significant opportunity.

Currently the high use Mount Maunganui Hot Salt Water Pools in the North Island are the country’s main salt water bathing experience, in purpose built facilities. This facility managed by a CCO under direction of Tauranga City Council regularly attracts 250,000 to 300,000 annual visits and records annual operating surpluses of in excess of $500,000 to $750,000.

The Ocean Blue Spa in Napier is the other main salt-water chlorinated facility in New Zealand we are aware of but as, it is operated by a commercial management company, we are not certain of usage or business outcomes. The St Clair Salt Water Pools at Dunedin are only operated as a standard swimming pool and do not offer hot salt pool soaking.

Key success factors for such a facility will be the cost of piping and heating the salt water to the pools and the cost of water discharge. If the site is a significant distance from the saltwater source (greater than 0.5km) this could make it unviable, as the costs to construct piping and pumping would increase significantly.

If the heating source were also from a traditional method and not geothermal then annual operating costs would increase significantly.

In our opinion the outdoor spas would be better placed at a combined centre in New Brighton or the East Precinct as they have a stronger synergy and link to an outdoor coastal experience than being provided at the Metro Centre.



If the spas can be developed at a coastal site in association with other facilities then we also

recommend that a Wellness Centre be considered. Such a centre would add considerable profitable activities that work well with signature spas. SGL has been involved with the successful Hanmer Springs Wellness and Spa Centre as well as feasibility reviews on wellness facilities in Rotorua, Mount Maunganui Hot Salt Water Pools, Queenstown and Dunedin in New Zealand and also at Moree in New South Wales.

The development of an iconic coastal spa and wellness centre linked to aquatic facilities and water play and waterslides would provide a significant point of difference for this centre. It would also present an excellent marketing opportunity to link with Hanmer Springs to package services to tourists who may be interested in visiting both centres.

5.2.6 Likely Private Investment in Water Park or Associated Facilities Our project review supports the best opportunity is to package all proposed facilities at the one site in the north east area. The new Metro Sport Centre will become the city wide facility attracting visits across a 10 kilometre catchment radius but this still leaves a significant gap for a district facility in the north east.

The project brief also asks the consultant team to comment on the likelihood of a private investor developing say a water park or hot pool facilities. In our industry experience usually the high cost of operating public aquatic facilities on land that cannot be owned is seen as a major obstacle to attracting private investment to such projects.

The addition of commercial activities such as health and fitness, waterslides and water play, spas and wellness facilities all assist in attracting higher yield customers, which in turn assist with reducing operating losses and can also contribute to operating profits. If a private investor was encouraged to set up a facility in the area they will look to developing the most commercial activities and steer away from any high loss operations such as large water pools and competition facilities.

We would support the development of all proposed facilities at the best aquatic leisure centre site in the north east.

Splitting up the profitable activities to a different centre to attract a commercial investment

option say in the New Brighton Town Centre is not recommended as there is no guarantee such a development will be attractive whilst it is likely the split in users will impact on the viability of both options.

There may be some opportunities as proposed (suggested dual flow rider funded by others) to attract commercial investment for some features of the development but we would

recommend they be reviewed as part of a combined development and not a split site operation.

The combined regional population and tourism visitation numbers are not expected to be sufficient enough to attract a developer to invest in waterpark facilities. With only 17 waterparks located throughout Oceania and only 5 of these in New Zealand it is very unlikely that Christchurch and the Canterbury region with low regional population (compared to what water park developers are looking for) and low average daily temperatures would attract a major water park investor.



5.3 FACILITY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS REVIEW The following provides a summary of each of the development options identified within the project brief or developed during the review process. The nine (9) options that have been analysed include:

• Option 1: No Waterpark and ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East. • Option 2: Waterpark Combined with the ER&S Facility in New Brighton • Option 3: Waterpark only in New Brighton and ER&S Facility located elsewhere • Option 4: Council ER&S Facility only in New Brighton • Option 5: “Full” Village in a Waterpark

• Option 6: Boutique Salt Water Pool in New Brighton to complement ER&S Facility elsewhere.

• Option 7: All Aquatic Entertainment elements in New Brighton and a reduced scale/fitness orientated ER&S Facility elsewhere.

• Option 8: Scaled down “Village” option • Option 9: ER&S Facility plus Boutique Salt Water Pool and Day Spa in a Coastal

Location in the East The options have been assessed against the following key issues:

• Likely site/development area take up

• Likely capital cost range • Catchments and visitation ranges • Impact on proposed aquatic network

• Other comments It should be noted when reviewing the data contained in the table that the range of development options do not have detailed feasibility or business plans completed and no sites and final development or capital costs are confirmed.

This has therefore required SGL to make a range of general assumptions that have been developed to compare the various options.

This information therefore should be used as a guide to determine best range of options for then recommended detailed design, site reviews, capital costs, feasibility and business planning. Following completion of this work more detailed development option analysis can occur.


170


Table 5.2 Potential Development Options Review

Option Name Description Estimated Area Take up Capital Cost Range Likely Catchment / Visitations

Impact on Proposed Aquatic Network

Other comments

Option 1:

No Waterpark, ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East

Option includes: Development of the ER&S located elsewhere in the north including: • 25m lap pool • 33m lap pool • learn to swim pool • Leisure facility spa,

aqua play and hydro slides.

• Multi purpose Group fitness room.

• Indoor sport courts x

(3)

• ER& S building area between 6,500m² and 7,500m²

• Car park and outdoor areas and landscape buffer say 12,000m²

• Total development area say 20,000m² to 22,000m²

• Estimated capital cost allowance $37.000M subject to final site development and

acquisition costs

• Likely primary catchment (0kms to 5kms) population is 77,431 people.

• Likely centre visitations range 530,000 to 650,000 based on 6.9/visits to 8.3/visits (CCC primary catchment visit aver.).

• Allowance for extra visits due to $6.5m of

waterslides and water play so high user catchment = 780,000 to 900,000 visits

• Provides the northeast area with replacement facility for a range of former

QE11 aquatic facility users.

• Complements the new Metro Sports Centre that becomes the City Wide Major Aquatic and Leisure Facility.

• Detailed catchment

analysis needs to be completed once final site chosen.

• Final site will impact on final capital cost.

• To attract maximum users need to locate facility off main road or high profile location preferably close to a shopping centre or major commercial zone.

Option 2:

Waterpark combined with ER&S Facility, in New Brighton

Option includes:

• 25m x 25m formal pool

• 1 learn to swim pool

25m x 12.5m • 1 learn to swim pool

with moveable floor 25m x 12.5m

• Gymnasium • Group fitness room • Foyer/reception • Café

• Change rooms

• Housed in Sprung Instant Structure

Water park features including: • Double flow rider’

• Super bowl variant • Rattler

• Waterpark and ER&S

building area between 11,000m² and 12,000m²

• Car park and outdoor areas and landscape buffer say 14,000m² to 18,000m²


• Estimated capital cost by proponents was $34.7M but SGL estimate based on full development costs likely to be $47M to $50M subject to final site development and acquisition costs

• Likely primary catchment (0kms to 5kms) population is 77,431 people @

6.9visits/person = 530,000 to 650,000.

• Secondary catchment for waterpark from

5kms to 15kms is approximately 268,921 people.@ 1 to /2 visits = 270,000 to 540,000.

• Regional and tourist

visits say 50,000/year • Likely waterpark and

ER&S visitations range from 800,000 to 1,190,000 visits/yr.

• Provides the northeast area with replacement facility for a range of former QE11 aquatic facility users.

• Potential accessibility

issues for new growth areas.

• Waterpark will need

to draw large secondary catchment area plus tourists so be a direct competitor facility for the leisure components planned for the new Metro Sports Centre

• Shared management costs at one site.

• Share marketing costs at one site.

• Shared infrastructure and services at one site

• High yield components will assist the financial sustainability of the centre.

• Potential to return annual operating surplus (before depreciation and cost of capital).

• Higher spend per user

compared to other options identified





Other comments

• Boomerango

• River/Lagoon/beach entry

• Aqua play 1750TB

• Outdoor spas • Housed in a

retractable roof “Open Air” Structure.

Option 3: Waterpark only in New Brighton, and ER&S Facility located elsewhere

Option includes: ER&S facility located elsewhere in the east. • 25m lap pool • 33m lap pool • learn to swim pool • Leisure facility spa,



• Indoor sports courts

(3). Water park in New Brighton including: • Double flow rider’ • Super bowl variant • Rattler • Boomerango

• River/Lagoon/beach entry

• Aqua play 1750TB • Outdoor spas • Housed in a

retractable roof “Open Air” Structure.

• $6.5M for water

features moves to Water Park.

• Waterpark area between 6,000m² and 7,000m²

• Waterpark Car park and

outdoor areas and landscape buffer say 14,000m² to 18,000m²

• Total waterpark

development area say 20,000m² to 25,000m² .

• ER&S building area between 5,000m² and 6,000m²

• Car park and outdoor

areas and landscape buffer say 10,000m²

• Total ER&S development area say 16,000m²

• Combined 2 facility development area required approx. 36,000m² to 41,000m² .

• Estimated capital cost of the waterpark say $22M to $25M subject to development and acquisition costs.

• Estimated cost for the ER&S Facility is $30.5M.

• Combined two facility

development cost around $53M to $56M

• Likely waterpark primary catchment (0kms to 5kms) population is 77,431 people @ 3 visits/person =232,000.

• Secondary catchment for waterpark from 5kms to 15kms is approximately 268,921 people.@ 0.5 to 1 visit = 130,000 to 270,000.

• Regional and tourist visits say 50,000/year

• Likely waterpark visitations range from 410,000 to 550,000 visits.

• ER&S Facility visits say

77,431 people in primary catchment zone x 6 visits/year = 460,000 to 500,000.

• Combined 2 facility

visits estimated at 870,000 visits to

1,050,000 visits.


• Waterpark will need to draw large secondary catchment area plus tourists so be a direct competitor facility for the leisure components planned for the new

Metro Sports Centre.

• Double up on management costs at 2 separate sites.

• High capital cost

item with split development.

• Splitting high yield facility components will decrease visitations and the level of revenue to both facilities impacting on the financial viability of the Centre.

• The lack of

“attractor” facilities at the E, R and facility will result in Council subsidising the operations.

• Lower spend per visit at ER&S Facility.





Other comments

Option 4: Council ER&S Facility only, in New Brighton

Option includes:

ER&S facility located in New Brighton. • 25m lap pool • 33m lap pool

• learn to swim pool • Leisure facility spa,


• Multi purpose Group

fitness room. • Indoor sports courts

(3).

• No water park

• ER& S building area between 6,500m² and 7,500m²


• Total development area

say 20,000m²

• Estimated capital cost allowance $37.000M subject to final site development and acquisition costs

• Likely primary catchment (0kms to 5kms) population is

77,431 people. • Likely centre visitations

range 530,000 to 650,000 based on

6.9/visits (CCC primary catchment visitation average).

• Extra water features

expected to add between 250,000 and 350,000 visits.

• Total annual visits

780,000 to 900,000.

• Provides the northeast area with replacement facility for a range of former QE11 aquatic facility

users. • Complements the

new Metro Sports Centre that becomes the City Wide major Aquatic and Leisure Facility

• Helps revitalise New Brighton area if suitable site can be found.

• Note catchment

assumptions are the same wherever located in 5 km catchment zone due to lack of competing centre and away from Metro Sports 10 km catchment zone

• Further refinement

required as part of detailed site analysis.

Option 5: Full ‘Village in a Waterpark’

Option includes:

Village in a Water Park” concept including a number of smaller scale aquatic facilities distributed around the edge of the centre and complementing the existing seas and river attractions including: • Boardwalks/coastal

promenade

• Outdoor pools – salt water hot pool.

• Mixed use buildings &

beach front interaction

• Shopping markets • River rides

• Fun park • White water course

• No details except for visual drawings and

concept photos so not able to identify area take up until concept id

further developed and areas allocated per development.

• No details provided and not able to

estimate cost until development scope is conformed.

• No details provided to allow an assessment.

• Split facilities goes against current

industry trends of clustering and connecting

community aquatic and leisure facilities to improve use and viability

• Option is to broad a concept to allow

comparative assessment at this stage.

• Likely to be one of the least viable options as splitting development funds across a range of projects and requiring people to move between facilities for different interests

.





Other comments

Option 6: Boutique salt water pool in New Brighton, to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere

Option includes: ER&S facility located elsewhere in the east. • 25m lap pool • 33m lap pool • learn to swim pool • Leisure facility spa,


• Multi purpose Group


(3).

• Boutique salt water

hot pools located on the New Brighton foreshore adjacent to the surf club

• ER&S facility located in another location.

• Boutique saltwater pools with change and reception etc. based on

drawing say 1,000m² development plus car parking and access of say 3,000m² so say 4,000m² for total development.

• Possibly linked to Surf Club

• Estimated capital cost say $4.5M to $5M including site development costs

• Specialist facility for locals and visitors to the area.

• Based on Mount

Maunganui Hot Pools attract say 180,000 to 200,000 visits year

• Minimal impact on ER&S facility and Metro Sports Centre as specialist facility

• High cost of management and reception for low usage facility.

• Need to consider

allied business such as food and beverage and retail areas.

• Development of day

spa and wellness centre also adds improved commercial returns as link well to salt water pools

• Coastal location will

have environmental and resource consent issues to resolve.

Option 7: All aquatic entertainment elements in New Brighton, and a reduced scale/fitness oriented ER&S Facility elsewhere

This option includes:

Water park in New Brighton as per option 3.

Salt water hot pools in New Brighton.

ER&S facility with dry components only including: • Multi purpose Group


(3).

• ER&S facility located in another location and only providing dry activity areas.

• Boutique saltwater pools with change and reception etc. linked to aquatic entertainment areas say 9,000m² development plus car parking and access of say 10,000m² so say 19,000m² to 20,000m² for total development.

• ER&S Facility say 3,500m² plus car parking 10,000m² = 13,500m²

• Total combined area =

• Estimated capital cost of the waterpark say $22M to $25M subject to development and acquisition costs.


• Estimated capital cost of hot slat water pools is $4.5M

• Combined facilities development cost around $44M to $48M

• Likely waterpark primary catchment (0kms to 5kms) population is 77,431

people @ 3 visits/person =232,000.

• Secondary catchment for waterpark from

5kms to 15kms is approximately 268,921 people.@ 0.5 to 1 visit = 130,000 to 270,000.

• Regional and tourist

visits say 50,000/year. • Likely hot salt water

pools 180,000 to 200,000

• Likely waterpark and

• Waterpark would be direct competitor the Metro Sport Centre leisure and water

play facilities.





Other comments

33,500m² + salt water pools visitations range from 590,000 to 750,000

visits. • ER&S Facility visits say

dry only at 40% of use = 280,000 to 350,000

• Combined 2 facility visits estimated at 870,000 visits to 1,050,000 visits.

Option 8: Scaled down ‘Village’ Option

This option includes: Smaller “village’ option 5 and includes funding a number of smaller scale

aquatic attractions adjoining New Brighton commercial core.

• Same as option 5 • Overall costs however would be unknown at this stage.

• Not able to be estimated

N/A • Likely to be one of the least viable option as splitting development funds

across projects requiring users to move between facilities.

Option 9: ER&S Plus Hot Salt Pools and Day Spa on Coastal Location Site

Option includes:

ER&S facility located on a coastal site. • 25m lap pool

• 33m Learn to swim

pool. • 33m Moveable floor

pool

• Leisure facility spa, aqua play and hydro slides.


• Indoor sports courts

(3). • Boutique salt water

hot pools • Day Spa and

Wellness Centre

• ER& S building area

between 6,500m² and 7,500m²

• Hot saltwater pools

1,200m² and day spa and wellness centre 1,000m² so total development 2,200m²



• Estimated ER&S

capital cost allowance $37.000M subject to final site development and acquisition costs.

• Hot saltwater pools $4.5M and Day Spa/Wellness Centre say $3.5M so total cost $8M.

• Combined development site costs say $45M

• Likely primary

catchment (0kms to 5kms) population is 77,431 people.

• Likely centre visitations

range 650,000 to 720,000 based on 8.3 to 9.3/visits (CCC primary catchment average).

• Salt water pools visits 180,000 to 200,000.

• Day spa/wellness visits

say 10,000/year • Total annual visits

970,000 to 1.110M

visits/year.

• Provides the

northeast area with replacement facility for a range of former

QE11 aquatic facility users.

• Complements the new Metro Sports

Centre that becomes the City Wide major Aquatic and Leisure Facility

• SGL proposed option

if aim is to develop a coastal aquatic leisure centre that will

also attract visitors to the area


176


5.3.1 Future Development Options Summary

The following table summarises the key assessment reviews for each of the 9 facility options.

Table 5.3 Potential Development Options Review Summary

Option Name Estimated Area Take up

Capital Cost Range Likely Catchment/ Visitations


Option 1: No Waterpark, ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East

• Total development area say 20,000m²

• Estimated capital cost allowance $37.000M subject to final site

development and acquisition costs


790,000 to 900,000 • Provides the northeast area

with replacement facility for a range of former QE11 aquatic facility users.

• Complements the new Metro Sports Centre that becomes the City Wide major Aquatic and Leisure Facility

Option 2: Waterpark combined with ER&S Facility, in New Brighton


• Estimated capital cost was $34.7M but SGL estimate based on full development costs likely to be $47M to $50M subject to final site development and acquisition costs

• Likely waterpark and ER&S visitations range from 800,000 to 1,190,000 visits/yr.


• Waterpark will be a direct

competitor facility for the leisure components planned for the new Metro Sports Centre.

Option 3: Waterpark only in New Brighton, and ER&S Facility located elsewhere

• Total waterpark area, 20,000m² to 25,000m² .

• Total ER&S area say 16,000m²

• Combined 2 facility area 36,000m² to

41,000m² .

• Estimated capital

cost of waterpark say $22M to $25M.


• Combined two facility cost around $53M to $56M

• Likely waterpark visitations from 410,000 to 550,000

visits. • ER&S Facility visits

say 460,000 to 500,000.

• Combined 2 facility

visits 870,000 visits to

1,050,000 visits.

• Provides the northeast area with replacement facility for a range of former QE11 aquatic

facility users. • Waterpark draws large

secondary catchment area + tourists so direct competitor facility for Metro Sports Centre.

Option 4: Council ER&S Facility only, in New Brighton

• Total development area say 20,000m²

• Estimated capital cost allowance $37.000M subject to final site development and acquisition costs


780,000 to 900,000. • Provides the northeast area

with replacement facility for a range of former QE11 aquatic facility users.


Option 5: Full ‘Village in a

Waterpark’

• No able to be assessed.

• No details provided

and not able to estimate cost until development scope is confirmed.

• No details provided

to allow an assessment.

• Split facilities goes against

current industry trends of clustering and connecting community aquatic and leisure facilities

Option 6: Boutique salt water pool in New Brighton, ER&S Facility elsewhere

• Development plus car parking and access of say 3,000m² to 4,000m²

• Estimated capital cost say $4.5M to $5M including site development costs

• Specialist facility for locals and visitors to the area.

• Attract say 180,000 to 200,000 visits year

• Minimal impact on ER&S facility and Metro Sports Centre as specialist facility

Option 7: All aquatic entertainment elements in New Brighton, and a reduced scale/fitness oriented ER&S Facility elsewhere

• Say 19,000m² to

20,000m² for total development.

• ER&S Facility say

3,500m² plus car parking 10,000m² = 13,500m²

• Total combined

area = 33,500m² +

• Estimated capital

cost of waterpark say $22M to $25M

• Estimated cost ER&S

Facility $17.5M. • Estimated cost of salt

water pools $4.5M

• Combined facilities development cost around $44M to $48M

• Combined 2 facility visits estimated at 870,000 visits to 1,050,000 visits.

• Likely North East area residents have to travel to Metro Sports Centre for swimming activities.

• Waterpark would be direct

competitor the Metro Sport Centre leisure and water play facilities.



Option Name Estimated Area Take up

Capital Cost Range Likely Catchment/ Visitations


Option 8: Scaled down ‘Village’ Option

• Same as option 5 • Not able to be determined as final options need to be confirmed

• Not able to be estimated

• Not recommended as splits users

Option 9:

ER&S Plus Hot Salt Pools and Day Spa on Coastal Location Site


• Combined development site costs say $45M


970,000 to 1.110M visits/year.



5.3.2 Future Development Options Overview

The project brief required a range of questions and issues to be investigated and reported on. It needs to be clearly noted that the proposals that have been investigated are very limited in scope and detail and do not have any feasibility, design, adequate site/development requirements, accurate capital costs or any business plans and financial modelling that can be assessed by our normal business review standards.

We note that the review is being conducted to try and identify the best future facility development options but the lack of detail has made it difficult to clearly separate the options that were required to be analysed.

To help us with some relevant benchmarks and industry trends that were used in the facility option assessment listed in table 5.2 we have:

• Reviewed previous CCC Aquatic facilities usage, user catchment analysis, revenue trends

and operating performance (see sections 2.2 to 2.4). • Reviewed the earthquake impacts on previous aquatic leisure facility provision and also

the demographic catchments post the earthquake (see sections 1.4 and 2.3).

• Reviewed CCC future aquatic facility provision plans to familiarise ourselves with the proposed Metro Sport Centre and the Eastern Recreation and Sport Centre (ER & S Centre) – (see section 2.4.5).

• Reviewed a range of World Water Parks Association North American, Asian and Oceania Regional Water Park Trends (see section 4.2).

• Reviewed major New Zealand and Australian Aquatic facilities that have developed

significant water play and waterslide development at traditional aquatic facilities (see

section 4.2.10)

This studies research finding has lead to confirming that with the operation of current open Council aquatic leisure facilities combined with development of the planned Metro Sport Centre will still be a gap in aquatic facility provision in the northeast of the city. These

suburban areas (see table 2.6) are estimated to house approximately 80,000 residents and confirm there is capacity clearly for also the planned northeast district centre (The planned ER&S facility) plus the Metro Sport Centre.

The catchment analysis map (listed on the following page) highlights that the northeast area through to the east coast area of New Brighton etc. falls within the secondary catchment

(red circle) of the planned Metro Sport Centre and no other current Christchurch City Council Aquatic Centre primary catchment covers these suburban areas.



These findings have allowed us to confirm the proposed development strategy of the new Metro Sport Centre in association with the ER&S Facility will provide the best option replacement facilities for the closed down QE11 and Centennial Pool) to enable the pre- quake high aquatic facility attendances of 4.7M recorded across the CCC Aquatic facility network to be reinstated.

The inclusion of significant water play, waterslides and leisure water features at both of the planned centres is strongly recommended as industry trends clearly indicate the largest

market of aquatic users visit centres for recreation/fun/leisure/entertainment and socialisation. Locating such facilities at the one site with fitness and competition, learn to swim and warm water program pools plus health and fitness and indoor sport facilities provides opportunities to maximise attraction to all main user markets.

Placing such facilities at different locations throughout the area reduces the centres usage and viability and doubles up on management and operation costs.

The idea proposed of a waterpark in the New Brighton area certainly has merit but the low population base of the Christchurch area (in relation to the high populations needed to make waterparks viable) plus low average monthly temperatures (compared to the most used waterparks) would indicate this is a concept that the commercial investment world would not support. Development of the Metro Sport Centre and a major waterpark also in

the Christchurch City area is not supported as both facilities will complete directly against each other as they require large population catchment zones.

The study’s findings indicate that the addition of $6.5m for water play and waterslides at the ER&S Facility will provide a significant budget for leading edge indoor water slide/ride and water play features and that the many outcomes proposed by the waterpark project proponents will be able to be achieved at the ER&S facility.



The aquatic facility catchment analysis indicates such a development could be located near the coast and this could help theme the centre plus also consider the addition of high revenue earning and significant visitor/tourist facilities such as hot salt water pools, day spas and wellness facilities.

The difficult issue is finding an adequate development site of between 20,000m² and 25,000m² to house such a major facility development.

Based on the study’s findings SGL recommends the following strategy directions:

• That Council develop a combined facility that includes the components of the ER&S

Facility, major leisure/water features/attractor and also a coastal location salt water pools and wellness centre (subject to site attractiveness and capacity).

• The facility should aim to attract approximately 970,000 to 1.100M+ visits (local and

regional/interisland and international) per annum and final components should complement the proposed facilities, services and programs at the new Metro Sport Centre whilst also creating a coastal visit centre point of difference.

• A notional area of 20,000m² to 25,000m² should be allowed for the proposed development

of the facility and associated car parking, landscape buffer zones and future extension zones with a clear priority to locate if possible within close proximity to an easily accessible main roads, retail and commercial areas.

• If Council wishes to use this development to also revitalise a coastal retail zone this should

be part of the site selection criteria. • That Council complete detailed feasibility and develop a final component brief to

determine the size and priority facility components as a means of assessing potential capital and operating costs of such a development.

• As part of this feasibility site visits should be made to industry leading New Zealand and

Australian aquatic leisure facilities with major waterslide and water play areas as

highlighted in table 4.6 of this report) to ensure the lessons learnt from their design, best high user attractor components and operational issues be identified.

• That Council undertake detailed site assessments of the available site options to identify a

preferred site or sites for more detailed assessment. • That the New Brighton Water Park proponents be congratulated and thanked for their work

on raising community awareness on this issue and they be kept informed and consulted on the facility development as it progress through these planning and development phases.


APP1-1 CCC - New Brighton Water Park Review Final Draft Report 20-08-2013.docx (Job No) - 20 August 2013

A P P E N D I X O N E W A T E R P A R K I N D U S T R Y R E F E R E N C E S The following key documents have been used in relation to reviews of waterpark trends:

• 2011 Theme Index – Global Attractions Attendance Report – TEA/AECOM Economics

copyright 2012.

• Worldwide Waterpark Association – Waterpark Industry General Facts 2012 – copied from

website – www.waterparks.org

• Waterpark Resorts Supply and Demand 2013 Update – David J Sengree - Hotel and Leisure Advisors LLC – Paper presented 14th January 2013.

• Range of waterpark websites as acknowledged table 4.5.


Suburban centres - New Brighton - SGS Economics and Planning FINAL report - 2013-08-19.DOCX

New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark Economic advice – FINAL REPORT Christchurch City Council

August 2013


Suburban centres - New Brighton - SGS Economics and Planning FINAL report - 2013-08-19.DOCX

This report has been prepared for Christchurch City Council. SGS

Economics and Planning has taken all due care in the preparation of this

report. However, SGS and its associated consultants are not liable to

any person or entity for any damage or loss that has occurred, or may

occur, in relation to that person or entity taking or not taking action in

respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to

herein.

SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd

ACN 007 437 729

www.sgsep.com.au

Offices in Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney


New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 The changing fortunes of New Brighton 1

1.2 SGS’s brief 3

2 THE CURRENT ROLE OF NEW BRIGHTON 5

2.1 The Property Economics report 5

2.2 Competitive positioning of New Brighton 7

2.3 Longer term function and role for New Brighton 8

3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AQUATIC LEISURE 11

3.1 Types of aquatic leisure facilities 11

3.2 Locating the New Brighton options on the continuum 13

3.3 Performance and impacts 14

Performance 14

Economic benefits 20

3.4 Implications for potential aquatic centre at New Brighton 25

4 REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR AQUATIC FACILITIES 28

4.1 Proposed Council investment in aquatic facilities 28

Plans for re-investment 28

4.2 Inter-regional and international tourism development 31

4.3 Concluding remarks 32

5 OPTIONS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON NEW BRIGHTON 34

5.1 Options 34

Attributes for a Successful Waterfront Village 36

5.2 Option evaluation 37

Estimated spillover potential 37

Evaluation criteria 37

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46


New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark ii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. EMPLOYME NT IN NE W BRIGHTON 6

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 NEW BRIGHTON CATCHMENT RETAIL EXPEN DITURE FOREC ASTS ($M PA)

TABLE 2. AQUATIC FACIL ITY H IERARCHY 11 TABLE 3. PERFORMAN CE OF AQUATIC CEN TRES IN NE W ZEAL AN D 16 TABLE 4. PERFORMAN CE AN D ECONOMIC SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF AQUATIC

CEN TRES IN AUSTRALIA: CERM BEN CHMARK IN DICATOR DATA 18 TABLE 5. AQUATIC FACIL ITY PROXIES USE D TO APPROXIMATE SECONDARY SPEN D

TABLE 6. PROXY ECONOMIC SPILLOVE R E XPEN DITURE IN SYDNE Y AND N SW 20 TABLE 7. CERM BEN CHMARK DATA: CHRISTCHURCH FACIL IT IES 22 TABLE 8. AVERAGE SPEN D PER VIS ITOR DURIN G EVE NT HOSTE D AT WE YE RHAE USE R

KIN G COUN TY AQUATIC CEN TRE (WKC AC) 24 TABLE 10. PL AN S FOR RE- INVESTMENT IN AQUATIC FACIL IT IES 28 TABLE 11. COUN CIL’S IDEN TIFIE D ABIL ITY TO AT TRACT NATIONAL EVE NTS IN

AQUATIC SPORTS 29 TABLE 12 SELECTE D ACTIVIT IES OF DOMESTIC & IN TE RNATIONAL TOURISTS TO

CAN TE RBURY (AUGUST 2007) 31 TABLE 12. DESCRIPTION S OF OPTIONS OF PROVIS ION OF AQUATIC FACIL ITIES 33 TABLE 13 AT TRIBU TES OF WATE RFRON T VILL AGES 35 TABLE 14. INSE RT TABLE HEADIN G 39 TABLE 15. RAN KIN G OF OPTION S AGAIN ST EVALUATION CRITE RIA 41


New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark iii


New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark iv

INTRODUCTION


New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark v


New Brighton Master Plan / Waterpark 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Overview

This section explains the purpose of this report. It recaps the history of the New Brighton Master Plan

and Waterpark initiatives before outlining the brief of work given to SGS

1.1 The changing fortunes of New Brighton

New Brighton is one of nine Key Activity Centres (KACs) distributed across Christchurch City. While most

of these centres service a region wide or sub-regional trade area, New Brighton currently performs a

neighbourhood focussed role.

This was not always so. New Brighton was one of the first centres in New Zealand freed to trade on

weekends. For many years it drew domestic trade from across the region as well as from out of town

tourists. New Brighton carved out a role as a shopping ‘destination’ and the centre’s retail offer and

floorspace grew commensurately.

With the general freeing up of shop trading hours, shifts in retail business models (‘category killers’ and

the like) and changing shopping behaviours flowing from labour market deregulation, the trading

fortunes of New Brighton took a sharp downward turn. Today the centre is demonstrably over-sized for

its trade area. Around $8 in every $10 of retail spending generated within the New Brighton district flows

out to other centres in the metropolitan region.1 There is clear evidence of under-trading in the high

vacancy rates, poor shop upkeep and presentation and general lack of vitality and footfall in the mall.

Significant investments in community infrastructure, including the construction of a new library and new

promenade pier on the foreshore, have failed to arrest this decline in the trading performance of New

Brighton.

New Brighton’s trading issues have been exacerbated by the earthquakes. Significant parts of the

centre’s core catchment have been red zoned. The Central Brighton School, which generates some traffic

into the Centre, is slated to close as part of a merger strategy. Meanwhile, revitalisation and re-invention

of the retail offer of the Central City will inevitably pose strong competition for all regional centres,

including New Brighton, as the central city is intended to regain a primary role in the centre hierarchy

(Christchurch Council Plan 2013).

Against this background, commercial land owners and the general community in New Brighton have

seized the opportunity offered by the post quake reconstruction effort to press for a major repositioning

of the centre with a view to securing an expanded and robust trading base. A key community initiative

has been promulgation of the Waterpark concept. This envisages a major water sports and leisure

facility embedded within a re-framed New Brighton shopping centre. The Waterpark aims to reinstate

New Brighton as a pre-eminent leisure destination for Canterburians and tourists alike, bringing new

spending to the area and providing the impetus and confidence for current traders to re-energise their

own businesses.

1 Property Economics Report (2012).



In a variation on this theme, the New Brighton Business & Landowners Association is promoting the

concept of a ‘village in the waterpark’ (referred to in this report as the ‘Village option’). This envisages a

range of distributed attractions and urban design measures designed to make the most of New

Brighton’s seaside location, as distinct from promoting a single ‘blockbuster’ facility to draw more

customers to the centre.

Some of the proposed attractions are potentially transitional in nature (specifically the concept of salt

water lap pool and leisure pools between the surf club and the whale pool) and able to be moved to

another location in time, if desired.

Running alongside these community and investor driven campaigns have been the Christchurch City

Council’s own planning processes. These include land use rationalisation, infrastructure upgrades and

urban design measures as documented in the Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan and the

preparation of investment strategies for aquatic facilities across the City as a whole. These investment

strategies include construction of a regional level aquatic sports and leisure asset in central Christchurch

and the provision of a community level aquatic centre to service the eastern metro region (known as the

Eastern Recreation and Sports (ER&S) Facility).

The aspirations of the New Brighton community and landowners need to be reflected in the Master Plan

in a way that is practical, logical in the context of the bigger regional picture and effective in terms of

genuinely boosting the trading prospects of the centre.

Against this background, SGS’s brief identifies a range of development options for New Brighton, with

reference to the Waterpark concept and variations on this theme:

− A Waterpark in New Brighton that incorporates a Council ER&S Facility (noting that an ER&S Facility

would include other non-aquatic facilities such as fitness centre, basketball courts, etcetera);

− A New Brighton Waterpark, additional to a Council ER&S Facility located elsewhere in the East of the

City;

− A Council ER&S Facility only (i.e. no New Brighton Waterpark), located either:

o In New Brighton; or

o Elsewhere in the East of the City

− A blend of locations and facilities – for example:

o A boutique salt water pool in New Brighton to complement an ER&S Facility elsewhere;

o All aquatic entertainment elements in New Brighton, and a reduced scale / fitness oriented

ER&S Facility elsewhere.

During the course of the study, and aside from the seven different options mentioned in the brief

(including the ‘Village in the Waterpark’ option discussed above), two other options were considered by

Christchurch City Council and the SGL Consulting Group (who were engaged separately by Council to

evaluate the economic feasibility of the options). These options were:

− An 'ER&S Facility plus' (i.e. adding coastal salt water pools and wellness centre within the proposed

ER&S facility at one coastal location).

− A scaled back 'Village' option which involves the ER&S Facility 'landing' wherever is most logical to

serve the needs of the East and redirecting some of the $6.5 million Earthquake Appeal Fund towards

supporting smaller scale aquatic attractions in New Brighton. This is a smaller scale version of full

‘Village option’.

That is, in total, nine options were put forward on the table for consideration.



1.2 SGS’s brief

SGS was commissioned by the Christchurch City Council to prepare report which:

1. Identifies the current and longer term function and role of New Brighton Centre in the context of a

post earthquake Christchurch, the city’s wider planning environment and community aims for a

revitalised centre and suburb.

2. Discusses the potential for an aquatic facility of varying scales (i.e. assessing the list of

development options above) to provide a catalyst for revitalisation of the New Brighton

commercial centre and its likely subsequent implications for its long term role and function.

3. Discusses the impact/effect of the New Brighton Waterpark and other development options

(above) on the planned Metropolitan Sports Centre and central city revitalisation.

4. Discusses the potential for an aquatic facility of varying scales (i.e. assessing the list of

development options above) to meet the Council’s Community Outcomes.

5. Identifies the ‘right size’ of any private or publicly funded aquatic facility within New Brighton and

the potential or otherwise for multiplier effects to revitalise the centre commensurate to its long

term function, in light of demand levels and origin, employment and other relevant

information. In particular this should address the proposed water theme park and its potential

benefits, as well as any alternative aquatic developments including but not restricted to those

development options identified above.

6. Identifies the key interventions for New Brighton that will support its sustainable contribution, as

a key suburban centre, to the eastern communities of Christchurch, focussing on but not

necessarily limited to, provision of aquatic facilities.



CURRENT ROLE OF

NEW BRIGHTON



2 THE CURRENT ROLE OF NEW BRIGHTON

Overview

This section reviews the trade area and retail performance of the New Brighton centre. Based on desk

top research it identifies the centre’s principal strengths and weaknesses.

2.1 The Property Economics report

Presently, the New Brighton centre primarily performs a convenience and supermarket type function

(with some recreational / tourism retailing given its unique beachside location), along with some core

commercial and community services.

New Brighton’s historical position as the first centre in New Zealand to trade on Saturdays / Sundays

resulted in the centre being developed for a market well beyond its current trade catchment. Over a fifth

of stores in New Brighton (22 stores or around 21% of GFA) are currently vacant with the quality of the

stores compounding the ‘vacancy’ problem. This lack of retail quality is a major factor contributing to the

high level of retail escape expenditure from the centre amounting to 81 per cent.

Unsurprisingly, retail employment in the New Brighton centre continued on a downward trend since the

turn of the century up until 2011, falling from ~340 to ~2902. This fall in retail employment was also

accompanied by a marginal fall in commercial-related employment in the centre over the same

timeframe.

Whilst retail trends in the New Brighton centre itself reflect the trends of the host region (retail

employment in the catchment of New Brighton Centre also fell over this timeframe), retail employment

in Christchurch as a whole grew quite rapidly over this timeframe.

There was a turnaround evident though in retail related employment just before the earthquakes (refer

Figure 1).

2 Property Economics, New Brighton Economic Assessment, 2012



FIGURE 1 . EMPLOYME NT IN NE W BRIGHTON

337 340

302

271280

294 288

225

288

230

258

289

742

716

692

636

667

762746

622

695

609 615636

0

200

400

600

800

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Em

plo

ym

en

t

Employment Retail Employment Total

Source: SGS Economics & Planning analysis based on Property Economics, New Brighton Economic

Assessment, 2012

M.E Spatial prepared the ‘Urban Growth Analysis for Land Use Recovery Plan’ for the Christchurch

Earthquake Recovery authority in February 2013. The report presents an assessment of possible growth

outcomes for greater Christchurch. The report notes that growth in activity (business units and

employment) was evident across the centres network and business areas generally over the 2000 to

2010 period. Only 3 centres showed a decline (including Hornby as a consequence of the loss of major

transport sector activity, and New Brighton in the face of strong competition).

The New Brighton Draft Masterplan3 also identifies the current weaknesses of New Brighton which are

affecting its functioning and overall economic performance. These include:

− A lack of identity or ‘point of difference’;

− Long, monotonous blocks of building;

− The poor relationship and connections between buildings and public spaces / car parking areas;

− A lack of an integrated transport interchange;

− Weak connectivity between the centre and the river, sea and parks; and

− Concerns regarding safety and vandalism.

Future prospects for the centre (if it continues to function in its current capacity) remain bleak too as

evidenced by the following yardsticks:

− The centre’s current retail catchment represents around 4% of all households in Christchurch City.

Expectation is that this catchment is expected to grow at a rate less than a third of that anticipated for

the wider Christchurch market over the 2012 to 2031 period, thereby resulting in a shrinking market

share for the New Brighton trade area over time4.

3 Christchurch City Council, Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan, 2012

4 Property Economics, New Brighton Economic Assessment, 2012



− The Property Economics Economic Assessment of the New Brighton area considers anything ‘higher

order’ to be commercially unrealistic and aspirational rather than practical given the retail offer in the

surrounding centres.

Property Economics estimated projected retail turnover in the indicative core catchment for the New

Brighton Centre. These turnover values (shown in the table below) represent the sales that stores within

the catchment could potentially achieve given what the market can potentially sustain. Of particular

relevance to proposed aquatic facilities in the centre is estimated spending on recreational goods and

food in this core catchment.

TAB LE 1 NEW B RIGHTON CATCHMENT RETAIL EXPENDITURE FOREC ASTS ($M PA)

2012 2016 2021 2026 2031 CAGR %

2012 – 31

p.a.

Food retailing $68 $71 $74 $77 $81 0.9%

Recreational goods retailing $7 $7 $7 $8 $8 0.7%

Aggregated food & recreational good retailing $75 $78 $81 $85 $89 0.9%

TOTAL RETAILING $155 $162 $168 $178 $188 1.0%

Total retailing LESS aggregated food & recreational retailing $80 $84 $87 $93 $99 n/a

Source: Property Economics, New Brighton Economic Assessment, 2012

Notes: CAGR stands for compounded annual growth rate

Whilst the estimated food retailing and recreational goods retailing turnover is expected to grow

modestly, it is evident that expectations are for these two elements to grow below par compared to total

retailing turnover. The difference between the anticipated total retailing turnover and the consolidated

food and recreational goods retailing turnover increases over time.

Indeed, the analysis indicates that the commercial centre of New Brighton is too large and should be

significantly reduced in size.

2.2 Competitive positioning of New Brighton

Against these weaknesses, the Property Economics report identifies two points of strength for New

Brighton’s retail trade sector, these being:

− the potential for ‘upside’ and improved store productivity ($/sqm) within New Brighton centres is

considerable.

− the recreational goods retailing sector had the highest level of retail retention at 45% despite New

Brighton only having a few local surf shops classified in this sector.

The report recommended that any additional facilities / activities should be located in or around the

New Brighton centre to maximise synergy between the land uses and New Brighton centre’s relatively

central location.

Additionally, the presence of other non-commercial activity located within the catchment of the centre,

including the New Brighton Catholic School, Golf Course and Library, should be acknowledged in

repositioning the centre.

The New Brighton Draft Master Plan5 identifies a number of ‘points of differences’ which could be

focused upon to give New Brighton a competitive position in the wider catchment. These included:

5 Christchurch City Council, Draft New Brighton Centre Master Plan, 2012



− The beach and pier;

− Good quality cafes;

− Good services in the form of a post shop and banks;

− The natural environment, sea, sand dunes and river;

− Street furniture – the ‘surf board seating’; and

− A strong, passionate and enthused local community.

The Master Plan introduces the ‘big picture’ themes that lead through to the specific actions. These

themes address the main issues of the centre and include:

− Consolidation of the Centre through rezoning of land;

− Enhancing the flow of pedestrian and cycle routes to, through and around the centre;

− Development of precincts, entertainment, retail / commerce and residential while encouraging mixed

use activities; and

− Reinforcing the river to sea link through the centre and connections to recreation spaces.

The plan notes that given its coastal positioning and relatively flat natural environment New Brighton is

reliant on the built form to provide a sense of enclosure, and to define and shape the centre. It proposes

to consolidate the centre toward the sea front and to rezone commercial land to the west of the centre

for higher density residential activity, potentially including traveller’s accommodation, which might help

expand the current catchment of the centre.

The Draft Master Plan also includes a plan for residential development which aims to:

− Help offset the loss of residential catchment to the ‘red zone’;

− Provide vibrant residential accommodation close to the heart of the centre;

− Provide a range of accommodation types, including affordable accommodation, elderly housing,

travellers accommodation and higher density housing; and

− Cater for existing residents, but also attract new people to New Brighton.

2.3 Longer term function and role for New Brighton

On the basis of its desktop review of the evidence, SGS concludes that New Brighton’s future lies in a

scaled back, community focussed retail role, coupled with a regional tourism oriented function. The

former is a natural outworking of the centre’s constrained catchment and the development of the

district retailing network over the past two decades.

‘Rolling back the clock’ to New Brighton’s hey-day as a regional shopping destination is in our view,

impractical.

Having said that, New Brighton has a degree of cache, as a seaside destination, which with care and

insight, can be leveraged to provide the centre with an expanded role and trading base.

The key intervention required in New Brighton is to reposition its 'brand' as a seaside village offering an

array of entertainment, hospitality and retail leisure opportunities to complement its local service

functions.

As explained in this report, this is likely to involve a number of distributed investments in New Brighton

to:



− Improve the compactness and appeal of its retail core

− Introduce some new leisure attractions including but not limited to small scale aqua play facilities, fair

grounds and enhanced promenades

− Improve the perceived safety of the centre's public domain through better street lighting , passive

surveillance and the like

− Foster the development of an 'eat street or precinct' with strong pedestrian or visual connections to

the sea.

To support these investments, a fresh marketing campaign for New Brighton is required. This should

include a 'place making' program aimed at enlivening the centre during weekends and evenings in

particular.

Our recommended strategy for New Brighton, focussed on repositioning the centre as a seaside leisure

and hospitality attraction primarily for a regional clientele, would largely complement the tourism

development strategy for central Christchurch. In this sense, the proposed investments in New Brighton

should support economic development in the commercial core of New Brighton, and scale back the

commercial area where considered feasible by existing retail and commercial strategies. Once the

commercial core is revitalised, the benefits will automatically flow on to the periphery of the town

centre. In other words, it is important that any aquatic facilities are located in, or, in close proximity to

the commercial core of New Brighton. If the facilities are located away from the core, the spillover

benefits may not be optimised.



ECONOMIC IMPACTS

OF AQUATIC LEISURE



3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AQUATIC LEISURE

Overview

This section sets out a typology of water based leisure facilities ranging from local pools to major tourist

attractions. Each category of facility is profiled in terms of catchment, visitor numbers, patron spend and

known spillover effects within the facility or on the host neighbourhood.

3.1 Types of aquatic leisure facilities

After examining the available literature, we note that there is a hierarchy in the type of aquatic facilities

from smaller ones that may only contain a single 25 metre outdoor pool through to larger facilities that

include a variety of specialised pools used for different purposes, other water and non-water recreation

activities as well as a range of retail facilities.

The aquatic facilities at the smaller end of the spectrum may serve a local community, such as a grouping

of suburbs. In contrast, the larger and more specialised facilities can cater to the needs of a large

metropolitan area right through to national and international tourists.

Using a range of sources from Australia and New Zealand, SGS has categorised the various types of

aquatic leisure facilities into the following hierarchy:

− Local or community aquatic centres;

− District/ sub-regional aquatic centres;

− Regional / metropolitan aquatic centres; and

− Tourism-oriented aquatic facilities.

Aside from these, there are rural aquatic centres too which have a catchment population of under

15,000. However, these are not analysed for the purposes of this report considering the high magnitude

of visitation to existing and now closed aquatic facilities in Christchurch.

Larger facilities with a greater catchment population are able to support a greater range of amenities,

components and programming options.

These aquatic facility types are part of a continuum; consequently, there may not necessarily be a clear-

cut distinction between, for example, a large community aquatic centre and a smaller district aquatic

centre (or a large sub-regional aquatic centre and a smaller regional aquatic centre). Similarly, larger

metropolitan facilities may also contain features typically found in tourist-oriented facilities.

It is also worth noting perhaps that tourism-oriented facilities can be a single ‘blockbuster’ entity, such

as a ‘Wet & Wild’ park, or indeed an array of aquatic and seaside themed attractions distributed through

such facilities.

The table below outlines the distinguishing characteristics of each of these facility types, followed by a

brief description of the different categories.



TAB LE 2 . AQUATIC FACIL ITY H IERARCHY

Local community

aquatic centre

District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre

Regional /

metropolitan aquatic

centre

Tourism-oriented

aquatic facilities

Catchment

(populatio

n)*

20,000-50,000 50,000-100,000 300,000-500,000 500,000 and above

Catchment

(area)

Multi-suburb (5km) District to

metropolitan wide

(20km)

Metropolitan and

statewide

State to national

Example

facilities

• 25m indoor or

outdoor heated pool

of 6-8 lanes

Some larger facilities

will ALSO have:

• Small fitness gym

• Warm water program

pool

• Small water play area

• 1 – 2 consulting

suites

• Meeting rooms

• Café and social area

• 25m and/or 50m

indoor pool of 8-10

lanes

• 25m or 50m outdoor

lap pool

• Warm water program

pool 25m

• Spa pools

• Sauna

• Outdoor lawn, shade

and picnic areas

• Indoor and outdoor

water play areas

• Fitness gym 500sqm+

• 2-3 meeting, club,

activity rooms

• Café

• Retail area(s),

professional suites,

partner facilities

• Same as District/sub-

regional level PLUS:

• Two 50m

competition level

pools

• Diving facilities

• Club/association

rooms/offices

• Specialist coaching

• Fine dining, café,

social areas

• Unique elements i.e.

wave pool/standing

wave

• Elite sports- national

and international

standards

• Distinct leisure focus

on relaxation or rides

• State and National

tourist markets

Site

requireme

nts

Built footprint

5,000-7,000 sqm

Site area

1-2 Ha

Built footprint

7,000-12,000 sqm

Site area

1.5-3 Ha

Built footprint

12,000-15,000 sqm

Site area

2-5 Ha

Larger stand-alone

facilities may require a

built footprint of

between 25,000 and

30,000 sqm

*catchment population suggested here are in the context of New Zealand facilities. In Australia, the

catchment population of facilities and visitation tend to be smaller. Rural aquatic facilities with a

catchment population of under 15,000 are not shown here. It is also worth noting that tourism-

oriented facilities can be a single ‘blockbuster’ entity, such as a ‘Wet & Wild’ park, or indeed an array

of aquatic and seaside themed attractions distributed through such facilities.

Local community aquatic centre

This type of aquatic facility can just be based on a single 25 metre lap pool for smaller regional

communities or a small collection of metropolitan suburbs. These facilities typically service the

immediate surrounding locality and cater to local swimming needs.

(The larger end of the community pool spectrum, which service larger regional towns and centres within

metropolitan regions, may include a number of pools as well as limited ancillary facilities.)

Examples of such facilities in New Zealand include those in Fielding, Kaiapoi, Tokoroa and Dannevirke.



District / sub-regional aquatic centre

District or sub-regional aquatic centres are typically the flagship offering of municipalities. They offer a

range of aquatic and non-aquatic facilities, such as specialised recreational water facilities including spas,

saunas, steam rooms, water playgrounds, as well as gyms and retail facilities.

They draw from a larger catchment than a local community level facility.

Additionally, the greater range of facilities on offer also draws a more diverse range of user groups, such

as specialised sporting groups. Major facilities are also typically of a higher standard.

Examples of district / sub-regional facilities in Christchurch would include Jellie Park, Centennial, Pioneer

and Graham Condon.

Regional / metropolitan venues for aquatic sports and leisure

These centres cater to a larger catchment and greater variety of users than district or sub-regional

aquatic centres. They cater to large metropolitan populations and events as well as larger, hallmark

events such as national swimming and diving competitions.

The purpose of community through to metropolitan aquatic centres is to function as exercise and

recreation facilities that cater to local through to regional needs.

The now closed QE II in Christchurch (and the proposed Metro Sports Centre) and Mt Albert in Auckland

are examples of regional / metropolitan aquatic centres.

Tourism-oriented aquatic facilities

Tourist-oriented facilities serve a different and much broader catchment than other types of aquatic

facilities examined above.

In contrast to community and metropolitan aquatic centres, tourist-oriented facilities are marketed to

serve leisure and recreation needs that are more explicitly related to relaxation and/or thrill-seeking.

They can attract tourists nationally and even internationally.

Clear examples of such facilities are the ‘Sea World’, ‘Wet and Wild’ and ‘Dream World’ on the Gold

Coast in Australia.

In Australia, tourist-oriented aquatic facilities are generally focussed on thrill-seeking and are

characterised by waterparks for juvenile audiences. In New Zealand by contrast, the focus is more on

relaxation typified by facilities with hot pools / spas catering to an adult market. Of course both types of

facilities exist in New Zealand and Australia and there are tourist facilities that cater to both relaxation

and thrill-seeking market elements.

3.2 Locating the New Brighton options on the continuum

SGS’s interpretation of the Waterpark and other options for aquatic facilities in New Brighton is

illustrated in the following diagram.



Community

aquatic centre

District

aquatic centre

Regional

aquatic centre

Tourism-

oriented

facilities

(stand-alone)

Waterpark

(with or

without ER&S

facility) and

boutique salt

water pools

Metro sports

centre

Tourism-

oriented

facilities

(others)

‘Village’

option

ER&S

ER&S plus

The ‘Village in a Waterpark” concept is driven by the quality of the urban experience in New Brighton

rather than aquatic facilities per se. thus it lies largely outside this continuum. Nevertheless, it has

greatest alignment with the ‘tourism oriented’ end of the spectrum.

3.3 Performance and impacts

Aquatic centres promote visitation to the host area and consequently provide direct economic benefits

to the local communities due to the secondary or associated spend of these visitors in the host area. A

review of the literature has been completed, canvassing the economic spillover effects of aquatic

facilities on local activity centres.

The extent of economic spillover benefits of an aquatic centre depends on not just the number of

visitors, but importantly, the variety of tourist attractions on offer on- and off-site, i.e. cafes, restaurants,

shops and the like. The catchment of the centre in turn is determined by the size and available facilities

on offer at the centre.

This section profiles the catchment of different types of aquatic facilities in the hierarchy examined in

this report. It subsequently discusses their economic spillover effects.

The performance and spillover of aquatic centres is examined using examples from New Zealand,

Australia as well as other international case studies.

Performance

Before examining evidence on performance from these case studies, two caveats are in order:

− It is important to note that there are many factors that influence the patronage of a facility. These

include the demographic composition of the catchment, size of the community (smaller areas have

higher swims per head), competitor facilities and activities, promotion, entry charges, overall quality

of provision, accessibility, features provided and even staff attitudes. 6

− It is also important to point out that there is some variation with the benchmarks used by various

studies from different jurisdictions. The benchmarks used in the Australian studies are based on a

catchment of five kilometres, while some New Zealand case studies use a catchment radius of 15

kilometres and others use district population to be the catchment. This, perhaps, explains the

difference in benchmarks between Australian and New Zealand case studies examined below.

6 Regional Aquatic and Recreation Centre Facility: Business Plan Review, Prepared for the City of Cockburn (WA), Davis Langdon, April 2013



Examples from New Zealand

The data for key centres in Christchurch (some of which have been closed since the 2011 earthquakes)

compared with other examined facilities from New Zealand is indicated in Table 3.

These data indicate a strong variation in the catchment multiple of different types of facilities. The

catchment multiple measures the total visits per year compared to the local catchment population of the

facility. The Centennial Leisure Centre for instance, catered to a local catchment (multiple of 2.1),

compared to the Queen Elizabeth II Park, which catered to a much wider market and clearly attracted

visitors from the greater region and beyond (multiple of 24.1).

The diversity in catchment multiple of different facilities is also on display from other examples.

An aquatic facilities study undertaken for Hastings District Council indicates that the average pool usage

per head of resident population in New Zealand is around six to eight per annum for modern indoor

aquatic facilities.7 Although the current usage in the Hastings District is somewhat lower, at an average

swims per resident of 2.83 reflecting the lack of indoor pool capacity.

Similarly, a feasibility study for a proposed aquatic centre at Paraparaumu in the Kapiti Coast region

indicates that the proposed facility8 would attract at least 6 swims per head9.

Notwithstanding the range of benchmarks mentioned, the Kapiti feasibility study suggests that, based on

a large body of evidence from around the world and in NZ, patrons will not travel to facilities on a regular

basis if that entails a trip of more than 15 minutes.10

Examples from Australia

The usage per capita in Australia resembles those indicated for New Zealand.

Research on visits per capita at facilities throughout regional Victoria found the range to be 6.8 and 10.3

visits per capita.11 Research also estimated that a new indoor aquatic facility in Torquay would achieve an

average of 9 visits per capita per annum .12

In contrast, the average per capita usage for centres in WA was 5 visits per annum. Although, there is

strong variation with the average visits per head of population within WA, ranging from between 4.36 in

Metropolitan Perth to 9.84 in regional areas.13

The most comprehensive data on performance standards for Australia is available from the University of

South Australia Centre for Tourism and Leisure Management, which publishes annual performance

indicator benchmarks of various Australian Public Sport, Leisure & Aquatic Centres, referred to as the

CERM Performance Indicators Project. Data is collected from Council owned Aquatic and Leisure Centres

across Australia. The CERM publication provides working indicators on participation, revenue,

expenditure and labour costs.

CERM has a number of Performance Indicator (PI) groupings, from one to seven. Groups five to seven

are related to various types and sizes of aquatic centres, as follows:

− Group 5

7 Aquatic Facilities Strategy: Consultation Draft, Hastings District Council, November 2010

8 First stage to include 25m lap pool, learners pool, toddlers pool, café, spa pool and sauna, hydroslide. Stage 2 to include Olympic pool, second

hydroslide, 500 seats 9 Kapiti Coast Aquatic Centre – Updated Feasibility, LHT Design, February 2010

10 Kapiti Coast Aquatic Centre – Updated Feasibility, LHT Design, February 2010

11 Surf Coast Shire: Indoor Aquatic Centre Feasibility Study, Sport and Leisure Solutions, November 2009

12 Facilities proposed include indoor 25 metre pool with 8 lanes, leisure / beginner pool, 500 sqm gym, 200 sqm fitness room, health consulting suite,

café, crèche 13

Regional Aquatic and Recreation Centre Facility: Business Plan Review, Prepared for the City of Cockburn (WA), Davis Langdon, April 2013



− Outdoor wet centre (i.e. outdoor pool/s only)

− Dry centre with outdoor pool/s

− Group 6

− Indoor wet centre with outdoor pool/s

− Indoor wet & dry centre with outdoor pools

− Group 7

− Indoor wet centre (i.e. indoor pool/s only)

− Indoor wet and dry centre (i.e. indoor pool/s, plus hall/gym)

The 2011/2012 benchmarks include data from 344 centres across Australia. The visitation data is

presented in terms of ‘visits per square metre’. The catchment is based on an estimation of the

population living within a five kilometre radius of the centre.

Table 4 indicates the key headline data for each of the different aquatic centre types. In terms of

visitation, the larger centres with more facility offerings attracted the highest visitation numbers overall.

Similarly, per square metre visitation was higher for the larger facilities. The Group 7 benchmark (89) was

higher than Group 6 (72), which was in turn considerably higher than the Group 5 benchmark (32).14

The catchment multiple indicates that the larger facilities draw from a wider catchment.

14

2012 CERM PI: Operational Management Benchmarks for Australian Public Sport, Leisure & Aquatic Centres, Centre for Tourism and Leisure

Management, UniSA, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2012



TAB LE 3 . PERFORMANCE OF AQUATIC CENTRES IN NE W ZEAL AND

Catchment Entry price*

Facility Typology Description Christchurch:

Within 5km

Christchurch:

Based on

CERM;

Other NZ:

Within 15km

Annual visits Catchment

multiple

Other NZ:

Various

Christchurch

Queen Elizabeth II Park

(2010) (now closed)

Metropolitan /

regional aquatic

centre

n.a. 74,886 1,806,948 24.1 $1.91

Centennial Leisure

Centre (2010) (now

closed)


aquatic centre n.a. 160,393 340,403 2.1 n.a.

Graham Condon (2011) District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre

25m indoor pool + gym + spa + sport hall + toddlers pool + learn to swim classes

+ fitness centre + aqua classes + learners' pool + indoor sports hall + free public

wi-fi access + sports hall with basketball, netball and volleyball courts.

134,949 522,330 3.9 $2.43

Jellie Park (2011) District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre

2 X 25m indoor pool + 50m outdoor pool + gym + hydroslides + dive pool + spa,

sauna and steam room + learning pool + toddlers pool + fitness suite & studio + outdoor family picnic area + free public wi-fi access + recreation programmes

and fitness classes + aquatic programmes + learn to swim and swim squads.

136,048 907,678 6.7 $3.60

Pioneer Recreation and

Sports Centre (2011)


aquatic centre

25m indoor pool + leisure pool gym + spa + sport hall + spa, sauna and steam

room + toddlers pool + fitness centre + free public wi-fi access + recreation

programmes and fitness classes + aquatic programmes.

99,914 (also

draws on the

Selwyn District

Catchment)

1,120,770 11.2 $2.69

Other New Zealand

Feilding Community aquatic

centre outdoor 50m pool + indoor 25m + LTP pool 13,600 91,000 6.7 $3.60

Kaiapoi Community aquatic

centre indoor 25m + LTP pool + hydrotherapy 14,000 116,000 8.3 $5.10

Tokoroa Community aquatic

centre indoor 25m + LTP + spas 14,400 105,000 7.3 n.a.

Waipukurau & Waipawa Community aquatic

centre indoor 25m + LTP 5,800 60,000 10.3 n.a.

Dannevirke Community aquatic

centre indoor 25m + LTP 5,400 4,800 8.9 $3.70

Timaru District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre indoor 25m + LTP + hydroslide + gym 26,800 96,000 5 $5.00

Ashburton Community aquatic

centre indoor 25m + LTP 15,600 84,500 5.4 $5.00

AC Baths, Taupo Tourist-oriented

aquatic centre

25m outdoor + 25m indoor + large indoor/outdoor leisure pool + LTP + 9

private mineral pools + sauna + steam + 2 hydroslides 22,557 240,000 10.7 $6.50

MAC, Alexandra District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre

25m 6 lane + learners and toddlers pool + spas + hydrotherapy + outdoor 25

pool 4,400 72,000 10.6 $4.50

GORE Community aquatic

centre indoor 25m + LTP + spa + attached indoor ice rink 10,000 66,000 6.7 $4.50

Invercargill Splash Palace Tourist-oriented

aquatic centre indoor 50m pool + LTP pool + large leisure pool + spa pool + hydroslide 50,000 311,000 6.2 $5.20

Te Awamutu District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre

indoor 25m pool + LTP + hydrotherapy + spa pool + hydroslide + attached sports

hall/gym 12,000 85,000 7.1 $4.00

Rotorua District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre

50m outdoor pool + LTP pool + 25m indoor swimming pool + 4 spa pools + Lazy

River + Splash pad + Gym 54,594 330,000 $2.33

New Plymouth Aquatic

Centre


aquatic centre

25m indoor pool + gym + spa pool + sauna and steam room + café +l earners

pool + dive pool 45,000 $4.50

Waterworld, Hamilton District/ sub-regional

aquatic centre 25 m pool + 15 m learners pool + toddlers splash pool + gym/clubroom facilities n.a. 62,329 $6.00

Mt Albert Aquatic

Centre, Auckland


aquatic centre

Heated Indoor 25m Competition Pool + Wave Pool + Lazy River + Spa + Sauna +

Steam Room n.a. n.a. n.a. $8.10



Source: LHT Design, 2010; Various websites, 2013; Christchurch City Council

Note: *entry prices at Christchurch facilities are averaged across all fees (i.e. standard price of entry for an adult is $5 per head). LTP = Learners and Toddlers Pool



TAB LE 4 . PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC SPILLOVER EFFECTS OF AQUATIC CENTRES IN AUSTRALIA: CERM BE NCHMARK INDICATOR DATA

Group 5 Group 6 Group 7

Outdoor pools Indoor & outdoor pools Indoor pools

< 1,500 m

1,500-

2,499 m 2,500 m Average < 3,000 m

3,000-

5,999 m 6,000 m Average < 3,000 m

3,000-

5,999 m 6,000 m Average

Total visits per year 24,783 60,964 142,550 60,964 109,446 312,160 577,401 312,160 186,866 441,522 628,188 401,839

Catchment population

(within 5km radius) 10,054 57,097 40,000 25,600 18,450 45,000 105,000 46,888 31,500 67,100 61,380 60,000

Catchment multiple 1.8 0.7 4.3 2.1 4.6 6.8 6.9 5.7 3.9 8.2 11.5 7.2

Fees per visit $4.38 $2.59 $5.05 $4.24 $5.59 $5.50 $6.50 $5.80 $6.79 $5.55 $4.70 $5.56

Secondary spend per visit $1.02 $0.63 $0.71 $0.83 $0.64 $0.62 $0.29 $0.59 $0.37 $0.44 $0.35 $0.40

Source: CERM, 2012.


208


Economic benefits

For the most part, the literature documents the economic spillover effects of larger metropolitan /

regional aquatic centres.

Examples from Australia

Data on secondary spend within the facility and on the host neighbourhood is compiled using a variety

of sources, including, the CERM Performance Benchmark data, as well as proxy spending data accessed

from Tourism Research Australia (TRA).

The need to use TRA data arises because the CERM database provides information on secondary spend

only within the facility and not off-site, and that too, only for mid-range and large aquatic centres. There

is little evidence of the economic spillover effects of different types of facilities on the host

neighbourhood, or indeed the secondary spend of those visiting the relatively small and large tourist-

oriented facilities.

The TRA data in turn provides data on spending activity of those undertaking several different types of

activities, some of them are good proxy indicators for the type of aquatic facilities examined in this

report.

Using CERM Performance Benchmark data, and referring to the three groupings of facilities mentioned

above (i.e. Group 5 through to Group 7), it can be shown that receipts per metre increase with the size of

the facility and increased facility offerings. However, the fee per visit is not highest for the largest facility,

but instead, for Group 6 types of facilities examined by CERM (refer Table 4 above).

Interestingly, the secondary spend per visit (the amount spent in-facility on food or equipment for

example) was lower for the larger facilities. This may suggest that visitors have budget constraints when

visiting aquatic centres and that due to the higher fees of the larger centres, are left with little residual

money to spend elsewhere. Indeed, the fees per visit was found to be higher for the larger facilities, but

receipts per visit was found to be quite uniform across the different types of facilities.

As pointed out above though, there is limited information on economic spillover effects or secondary

spend for relatively small facilities or tourist-oriented facilities. Importantly, this lack of available

expenditure information can be partially overcome by identifying comparable and substitutable

experiences as proxy data. In this case, data from similar experiences has been obtained from the TRA

database.

This database provides information on expenditure, by activity, region, year and trip purpose, and was

made available by the TRA on request by SGS for the Sydney region and the rest of NSW for the year

ending March 2013.15 The expenditure items identified are those that will have the most relevance to

secondary spending in New Brighton centre, i.e. ‘Takeaway and restaurant meals’ and ‘Shopping, gifts

and souvenirs.’ A range of proxy activities have been used for the different types of aquatic facilities

examined in this report. These are displayed in Table 5.

15

The Sydney and NSW regions were identified as good proxy location as they are seaside locations and receive a high number of

tourists, including international tourists. In this sense they are comparable to New Brighton.



TAB LE 5 . AQUATIC FACIL ITY PROXIES USE D TO APPROXIMATE SECONDARY SPEN D

Examined facility type Activity of visitors used as a proxy for examined facility type

Local community pool Exercise gym or swimming at a local pool river or creek

District/ sub-regional aquatic centre Exercise gym or swimming at a local pool river or creek

Regional / metropolitan aquatic centre Go to the beach (including swimming)

Tourism-oriented aquatic facilities (single

entity)

Visit a health spa AND Visit amusement or theme parks


(distributed facilities)

Go to the beach (including swimming)

Source: SGS, 2013.

The proxy activity chosen for the community pool and district aquatic centre (‘Exercise gym or swimming

at a local pool river or creek’) appeared to have a suitable fit with the types of activities at a community

pool and district aquatic centres.

Choosing a proxy for the metropolitan facility was difficult, because its usage is related to all types of

experiences from casual recreational use through to major events. The ‘go to the beach’ proxy was

chosen as it was the type of casual activity that is higher order than going to a gym or local pool and the

expenditure was higher reflecting the higher receipts at larger aquatic centres.

Lastly, three different proxies were chosen for different types of tourist-oriented facilities. Both of the

proxies chosen for a single entity tourism oriented facility reflect the two distinct types of aquatic centre

tourism, i.e. the thrill-seeking market (which might be more relevant for the ‘Waterpark’ concept being

promulgated) and rest and relaxation market. In turn, the ‘go to the beach’ proxy was chosen to

represent spending at tourism oriented centres with facilities distributed through it, as their usage is

related to all types of experiences from casual recreational use through to major events.

Table 6 displays the proxy daily spend data on food and shopping for each type of facility.

The expenditure data has been converted to New Zealand dollars.

TAB LE 6 . PROXY ECONOMIC SPILLOVE R E XPEN DITURE IN SYDNE Y AND N SW

Total spending per day

per visit (converted in NZ

Dollars)

Examined facility type Chosen proxy activity Sydney Other NSW

Community pool and District/ sub-

regional aquatic centre

Exercise gym or swimming at a local

pool river or creek

$49 $48

Regional / metropolitan aquatic centre

and tourism-oriented centre (distributed

facilities) Go to the beach (including swimming) $71 $57


(single entity) Visit amusements or theme parks $96 $79


(single entity) Visit a health spa (2003 onwards) n.a. $114

Source: Tourism Research Australia, 2013

Note: Converted into $NZ. Australian average health spa spend data has been applied for Sydney due

to data unavailability.



For stand-alone tourist facilities, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of this secondary spend

would be captured off-site, given that many of these facilities can be located on large sites away from

activity centres and are typically self-contained in terms of retail offering.

It is also worth pointing out that spending patterns in the host neighbourhood of suggested facilities will

emulate those reflected in the proxy measures shown here, only when the host neighbourhood indeed

provides appropriate spending opportunities for patrons visiting such facilities.

Examples from New Zealand

When compared with Australian leisure facilities, those in New Zealand charge a much lower fee per

visit.

The comparatively lower entry fee does not, however, lead to comparatively higher secondary spending

by visitors (within facility) in New Zealand. The secondary spend per visitor is, interestingly, relatively low

compared to the Australian CERM benchmarks. Whilst Australian visitors spent between 7% and 20% of

total entry fee on secondary purchases, New Zealand visitors spent merely 0.3% (and only in one

instance 17%) of total entry fee on secondary spending at corresponding facilities.

Collectively the economic spillover expenditure from Australia and New Zealand seem to suggest these

findings:

− The available possibilities of spending at facilities on-site or off-site dictate spending behaviour by

patrons. Those facilities where opportunities to spend on other items are limited do not have high

secondary spend associated with them.

− Visitors act within a budget constraint; if the entry fee is increased, then they will spend relatively less

on other purchases constituting the secondary spend.

− Whilst remaining within a budget constraint, visitors are also perhaps mindful of the relative

expenditures on primary and secondary spending activities at the destination. Spending on secondary

purchases is kept at a minimum in relation to the cost of the primary activity, which is

swimming/recreation.


212


TAB LE 7 . CERM BENCHMARK DATA: CHRISTCHURCH FACIL IT IES

Queen Elizabeth II Park

(2010) (now closed)

Centennial Leisure

Centre (2010) (now

closed) Graham Condon (2011) Jellie Park (2011)

Pioneer Recreation and

Sports Centre (2011)

Visits per square metre 218 163 132 175 179

Total visits per year 1,806,948 340,403 522,330 907,678 1,120,770

Catchment population (within 5km radius) 74,886 160,393 134,949 136,048 99,914

Catchment multiple 24 2 4 7 11

Fees per visit $1.9 n.a. $2.4 $3.6 $2.7

Secondary spend per visit $0.33 $0.15 $0.01 $0.01

Receipts per metre $487 $583

Source: CERM, 2012.


214


Examples from non-Australasian jurisdictions

The following three international aquatic centre case studies have been examined for economic spillover

effects:

− National Aquatic Centre, Dublin

− Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Centre, USA

− Family Water Park & Aquatic Centre (Splash), Georgia, USA

These studies provide perhaps the best estimate of economic spillover on the host neighbourhood.

National Aquatic Centre, Dublin

The National Aquatic Centre in Dublin includes an international standard 50 metre swimming pool (the

only publicly available 50m pool in Ireland) and diving pool, a fitness centre, café and seating for up to

2,500 spectators. The centre has hosted a range of local, national and international events.

A recent study by URS calculated the per capita economic spillover (spending off-site) for day trip visitors

to the facility16. The expenditure does not include spending from people in the immediate locality, as this

is not considered net additional spend. The results indicate that those using the aquatic centre spent

between 25 and 30 Euros in the host locality (with the exception of members, whose spend was low by

comparison):

− Participants and spectators of local and regional events – 25 euros ($NZ 39)

− Aquazone visitors – 29 euros ($NZ 45)

− Public usage – 25 euros ($NZ 3917)

In terms of multipliers, the URS study indicated that, given the above evidence and the location of

suppliers, multipliers are 1.2 at a local level, 1.6 regionally and 1.8 nationally. In other words, spending at

the centre supports further spending and supplies in the local area by a factor of 1.2.

Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Centre, USA18

The Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Centre (WKCAC) is a 2,500 seat facility with an international

standard 50 metre swimming pool, diving pool and recreation pool. Evidence was collected on the

amount of expenditure arising from events. The research found that the average secondary spend per

visitor for an event (back in 2002) was as shown in the table overleaf.

Indexed to 2013 dollars, the spend equates to around $NZ 17 for local visitors, $NZ 40 for intrastate

visitors and $NZ 65 for interstate visitors.

16

Economic Impact of the National Aquatic Centre & Morton Stadium, URS, May 2012 17

NZ equivalent expenditure has been derived by comparing average incomes. 18

An Economic Impact Study of the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Centre, University of Washington, June 2002



TAB LE 8 . AVERAGE SPEN D PER VIS ITOR DURIN G EVE NT HOSTE D AT WE YE RHAE USE R

KIN G COUN TY AQUATIC CEN TRE (WKC AC)

Items purchased

Local

visitors

Intrastate

visitors

Interstate

visitors

Food and beverages before or after visit $9.5 $21.8 $37.0

Recreation or entertainment before or after visit $1.2 $4.4 $4.0

Other souvenirs and gifts $1.3 $2.1 $4.8

Total $11.9 $28.3 $45.8

Source: University of Washington, 2002.

Note: NZ equivalent expenditure has been derived by comparing average incomes.

Splash in the Boro Water Park & Aquatic Centre (Splash), USA19

Splash in the Boro is an aquatic centre located in Georgia, USA. The park has a number of water features

including a 25 metre lane pool, hydrotherapy pool, leisure pools and a Lazy River pool. The average

visitor spending per day was calculated to be $US 50 ($NZ 62); although this includes travel and other

costs so the actual secondary spend is likely to be lower.

An average multiplier of 1.4 was estimated to apply to the local economy from an initial spending

generated at the facility.

3.4 Implications for potential aquatic centre at New Brighton

In terms of visitation, the larger centres with more facility offerings attract the highest visitation numbers

overall. Similarly, per square metre visitation was higher for the larger facilities.

In terms of economic spillover spending, the literature demonstrates the following:

− Local community aquatic centre and district/ sub-regional aquatic centre: Research suggests that day

visitors indulging in similar activities as those provided by local aquatic centres could spend up to

approximately $NZ 50 per day on food and shopping off-site (refer Table 6 above).

− Regional/metropolitan aquatic centre: According to research, day visitors indulging in similar activities

as those provided by metropolitan aquatic centres could spend between $NZ 57 and $NZ 71 per day

on food and shopping (refer Table 6 above).

Visitors at similar aquatic centres at international locations have been known to spend between $NZ

12 (local users) and $NZ 45 (interstate users) (refer Table 8 above).

The amount of spend captured by a nearby centre would depend on the extent of the retail offering at

the aquatic facility compared to the nearby activity centre, the overall amount and type of food and

retail available at the activity centre, as well as proximity and ease of accessibility to that centre.

− Tourism-oriented aquatic facilities: Should proxy data be relied upon, day visitors are likely to spend

between $NZ 57 and $NZ 114 per day on food and shopping when visiting these type of aquatic

facilities (refer Table 6 above).

For stand-alone tourist facilities, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of this secondary spend

would be captured off-site, given that many of these facilities can be located on large sites away from

activity centres and are typically self-contained in terms of retail offering.

19

Splash in the Boro Family Water Park & Aquatic Centre, An Economic Impact Study, Bureau of Business Research and Economic Development, 2009



Where such tourist oriented facilities are distributed in a ‘village’, the opportunity for secondary

spend to be captured in the centre hosting the ‘village’ is rather high.

Therefore, it is clear from the literature that the economic spillover effects from larger facilities and

tourist-oriented facilities is higher than the lower order aquatic centres. These effects are likely to be

replicated in New Brighton, depending on the type of facility that is chosen for the area.



REGIONAL STRATEGY

FOR AQUATIC

FACILITIES



4 REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR AQUATIC FACILITIES

Overview

This section summarises Christchurch City Council’s overarching strategy for the distribution of new and

refurbished aquatic facilities across the metropolitan region. It also addresses the Council’s broader

tourism development plan and the part which aquatic facilities might play in this.

4.1 Proposed Council investment in aquatic facilities

Several major aquatic facilities were damaged by the earthquakes and were consequently closed; the

larger ones of these included the Queen Elizabeth II Park and the Centennial Leisure Centre. Some

smaller facilities which have also closed include Waltham and Lyttelton outdoor summer pools. The

distribution of current major facilities is shown in Table 3 above. It is evident that only district/sub-

regional centres are presently available in Christchurch.

Plans for re-investment

Christchurch City Council remains highly supportive of sports events in the City and region through direct

sponsorship and support of sports events as well as through the provision, management and

maintenance of many event facilities.

Indeed, Christchurch City Council’s Community Outcomes 2006 to 2012 Strategy enlists nine outcomes of

importance for the well-being of the city, and which form the people’s vision for the city. These include:

− A safe city

− A city of people who value and protect the natural environment

− A well governed city

− A prosperous city

− A healthy city

− A city for recreation, fun and creativity

− A city for lifelong learning

− An attractive and well-designed city

Of relevance among these for the provision of new aquatic facilities in the city is the one italicised in the

list above, i.e. ‘a city for recreation, fun and creativity’.

Council's level of support in this area is also documented in the Three Year Plan (2013-16). Specifically it

states that the Council has agreed to rebuild or repair several sporting facilities. It plans to build new

facilities including the Central City Metropolitan Sports Facility and the Eastern Aquatic Facility (ER&S).



TAB LE 9 . PL AN S FOR RE- INVESTMENT IN AQUATIC FACIL IT IES

Proposed facility Facility type Proposed facilities Justification Constraints

Central City

Metropolitan Sports

facility

Metropolitan

aquatic centre

− Netball,

basketball,

volleyball and

capability for

badminton, table

tennis and

gymnastics

− A separate indoor

aquatic centre with

50m 10 lane pool

for swimming,

water polo, canoe

polo and other

aquatic sports

− Leisure attractions

such as water slides,

aqua play and

leisure pools

− No such facility

presently exists

− Will be able to

accommodate

multiple sports

events and user

purposes (from

recreational to

elite)

− Will promote

tourism visitation to

Christchurch

None identified

Eastern Aquatic

Facility

Sub-regional

aquatic centre

Will include

aquatics and indoor

activities

Will provide for loss

of provision in the

eastern area that

was previously QE II

and also for the

expected growth in

the north east of of

the City

None identified

The Metro Sports Centre has been identified in the Central City Plan as a key anchor project to support

revitalisation of the Central City. It will be important than any aquatic leisure facilities established

elsewhere in the city support an integrated network and distribution that reflects customer catchments

and does not result in direct competition between similar facilities. The current anticipated leisure

attractions at the Metro Sports Centre incorporate a mix of leisure pools and features, including: themed

spa pools; rapid river, wave or themed pool; sauna, steam and therapy rooms/pools; ‘Terrifying slides’

and a major aquatic themed attraction integrated into the facility design; and children’s interactive

aquaplay.

As pointed out by the National Facilities Strategy for Aquatic Sports (May 2013), the City of Christchurch

does not presently have aquatic facilities to host national or international events. The table below lists

the future potential of the city to host national aquatic sports events, assuming new facilities are built. It

identifies that the possibility to attract such sports to Christchurch remains relatively high. It needs to be

acknowledged though that some of these events are not held frequently. Consequently, the rationale to

build these facilities should extend beyond attracting national events.

The Strategy listed the potential for any new investments in aquatic sports facilities to attract

international events as being low.



TAB LE 10. COUN CIL’S IDEN TIFIE D ABIL ITY TO AT TRACT NATIONAL EVE NTS IN

AQUATIC SPORTS

Main national event Ability to attract

national event

Considerations

NZ Swimming National

Championships

Medium Likely to attract this event once every 4-5 years

NZ Diving National Championships Medium Likely to attract this event but low number of

events per year

NZ Synchro National

Championships

Medium Likely to attract this event but low number of

events per year

NZ Waterpolo National

Championships – National League

Finals

High Likely to attract this event but low number of

events per year

Paralympics NZ – Swimming PNZ

Nationals

High Likely to attract this event once every 4-5 years

Source: National Facilities Strategy for Aquatic Sports (May 2013)

Importantly, The Strategy makes the following observations and recommendations in regard to the

provision of aquatic facilities in Christchurch:

− Observations

o Presently there are 18 more standard sized pools in New Zealand than required. There are

generally enough pools in New Zealand for the scale of the population but they are

distributed poorly, relative to the needs of their communities.

o 19% of the total pool area in the Canterbury region is over 45 years of age, with over 2% of all

pool facilities reported to be in poor condition.

o The establishment of the Christchurch Central City Metro Sports Facility will provide suitable

facilities for international competitions in New Zealand. The publicly available information

indicates that the Metro Sports Facility will be a world-class venue and centre of excellence,

accessible to people of all ages, abilities and sporting skills. It will provide aquatic and

indoor sports facilities and cater to the day-to-day needs of the recreational and leisure,

educational and high-performance sporting communities, and host national and

international events.

o The new Christchurch Metro Sports Hub will be critical in meeting the needs of the Upper

South Island. However, this facility’s contribution at a regional and national level is more

important than its contribution as an international facility.

o The older (50+) age groups in the demographic profile are the major growth area and they

have different expectations for aquatic facilities, being temperature, access, covered and

water depth. Consequently, there is a need to adapt and refurbish existing facilities to meet

the needs of an aging population which can also include the provision of more tailored

programmes within existing facilities. This is to ensure higher utilisations potentially in non-

peak times now and into the future.

− Recommendations

o Canterbury requires one additional standard (Local Suburban) pool facility by 2031 in addition

to those proposed, i.e. Metro Sports Facility and ER&S facility.

o Ensure that the proposed Christchurch Central City Metro Sports Facility has sufficient

capacity to operate as a regional and national-level facility for the mid and upper South

Island.



o Ensure that the proposed Christchurch Metro Sports Hub has sufficient capacity to operate as

a regional and national-level facility for the mid and upper South Island.

4.2 Inter-regional and international tourism development

International visitation to the Canterbury region has reduced considerably; down from over 800,000

visitors in 2004 to less than 650,000 in 2013. It is unsurprising that attracting both domestic and

international visitors to the region remains a high priority.

Council’s visitor strategy (2007-17) which was prepared before the earthquakes, sets the vision for

Christchurch to be “a leading destination for both domestic and international visitors in New

Zealand…….” where “visitors are drawn” because of its “world-class facilities” amongst other things. Its

key strategic goals supporting this vision are:

− Developing Christchurch into a priority destination for all visitors, by providing unforgettable

experiences through ongoing product development across a range of attractions, activities, festivals

and events.

− Building a prosperous and enduring visitor industry, by providing amongst other things, an adequate

visitor infrastructure.

− Ensuring visitors continue to benefit the local communities, and that visitation increases in accord with

the needs and wishes of the local communities it affects.

The strategy also acknowledges the perception of Christchurch as being “dull, boring and conservative”.

It suggests that domestic visitors viewed Christchurch as a “shopping centre, international connection

point and a destination for visiting friends and family”. This perception may partially offset the ‘wet n

wild’ image of the Waterpark.

The New Brighton Draft Master Plan identifies the vision for New Brighton to be a “fun, creative and

lively” destination “…….whilst also being functional in meeting the needs of the local community and

attracting visitors and tourist to a ‘unique destination’”. This draft plan captures the views of the

community who perceive aquatic areas as ideal venues for young people to become actively involved in

the community.

Importantly, research has shown that aquatic facilities promote community well-being and mental health

of individuals, which is known to have a direct impact on reducing crime and vandalism in the

community.20

The visitor strategy acknowledges that tourists to Christchurch engage primarily in sightseeing activities,

walking, shopping and spending time at beaches, museums and travelling to Mount Cook. Such activities

were high on the agenda of domestic and international tourists to Canterbury before the quake (refer

Table 11 below). Interestingly, some water related activities such as kayaking, sailing, fishing, diving and

surfing are popular activities at Banks Peninsula.

Indeed research from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment also shows that of all

domestic visitor trips in New Zealand made in 2013, 1% of all visitors participated in Canoeing, Kayaking

and Rafting; 4% participated in swimming; 1% in fishing; 2% participated in other water activities and 1%

visited in Theme and Leisure Parks. It appears that a modest number of visitors seek thrill-oriented

aquatic sports and activities.

20 Sport NZ Research and SGS (2009). Impact of Sport and Recreational Facilities in Victoria. A Report for Sport & Recreation

Victoria.



TAB LE 11 SELECTE D ACTIVIT IES OF DOMESTIC & IN TE RNATIONAL TOURISTS TO

CAN TE RBURY (AUGUST 2007)

Activities/ Attractions August 2007

Eating out/ restaurants 32%

Shopping 32%

Walk in the City 80%

Beaches 22%

Bar/ nightclub 16%

Sightseeing tour 30%

Scenic drive 30%

Swimming 11%

Museums and Galleries ~23%

Gardens 12%

Heritage Attractions 19%

Source: Christchurch Visitor Strategy 2007.

4.3 Concluding remarks

Broadly speaking, SGS’s desktop review suggests that the Christchurch region will be well serviced with

aquatic facilities once current re-investment plans are fully implemented.

Proposals for additional or supplementary aquatic facilities at New Brighton will need to be justified on

grounds other than community service requirements. That is, they will need to demonstrate significant

tourist drawing power related to the novelty of the concepts on offer within the context of the wider

tourism experience in Christchurch.



OPTIONS AND

IMPACTS ON NEW

BRIGHTON





5 OPTIONS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON NEW BRIGHTON

Overview

This section identifies and evaluates the options for investment in aquatic, or other, facilities to support

the revitalisation of the New Brighton centre.

5.1 Options

As pointed out in introductory section, a total of nine options are being evaluated at this stage. These

options are described in the table below, ranging from the more ambitious ‘Village option’ to the more

conservative scenario where no aquatic facilities are provided in New Brighton.

TAB LE 12. DESCRIPTION S OF OPTIONS OF PROVIS ION OF AQUATIC FACIL ITIES

No. Name Description

1 No Waterpark and

ER&S facility located

elsewhere in the East

No aquatic facilities are provided in New Brighton, whilst the ER&S facility is

located somewhere else in the city’s east.

The ER&S facility, in part, will replace the facilities previously available at QEII,

and will include elements as described below in Option 4.

2 Waterpark combined

with the ER&S facility

in New Brighton

A variation to the theme identified in Option 3 below is that a Waterpark

‘blockbuster’ facility is provided as suggested along the lines below, but this

facility also incorporates an ER&S facility. That is, apart from aquatic rides and

sports, this facility provides other dry sport and recreation options.

Key elements of this facility are likely to constitute: 25m x 25m laned pool; learn

to swim pool (25 metre x 12.5 metre); fitness gymnasium; foyer/reception; café;

and change rooms. The facility will also include both a fitness centre (group

exercise studio) and indoor sport (for example, several basketball courts).

Additional facilities likely to be included are: static wave, river, lagoon, beach,

aquaplay and outdoor spas.

The vision for this option is not to be an aquatic centre with just a few water toys

on the side, but rather, a waterpark with elements of aquatic centre attached.

3 Waterpark only in

New Brighton and


elsewhere

A Waterpark ‘blockbuster’ facility which will have 25 metre salt water pools

under cover for 365 day recreational enjoyment and sport as well as wave-pools,

hydro-slides and gymnasium. This envisages a major water sports and leisure

facility embedded within a re-framed New Brighton shopping centre. The

Waterpark, as the current proposals stand, would extend across Marine Parade

and on to the foreshore.

4 ER&S facility only in

New Brighton

Only a major aquatic facility such as the ER&S facility is provided in New Brighton

with no Waterpark. The ER&S Facility will include: a 25 metre and a 33 metre lap



pool; Learn to Swim pool; leisure: spa, aquaplay, hydro slide/s; fitness centre –

group exercise studio; and 3 basketball courts.

5 ‘Village’ in a

Waterpark

The ‘Village in a Waterpark’ envisages a number of smaller scale aquatic facilities

distributed around the edge of the centre and complementing the existing sea

and river attractions. It includes boardwalks / coastal promenade; outdoor

pools, specifically a salt water hot pool; mixed use buildings and beach front

interaction; and shopping and markets.

Under this option, the proposed salt water hot pools would be located on the

foreshore adjacent to the surf club and using a small portion of the current

Council car park. The three pools would be ‘nested’ into the dunes and provide a

good visual outlook and new experience for residents and visitors.

In this option, the whole of New Brighton is expected to be transformed into a

‘village’, and this village would have distributed through it a range of aquatic and

seaside themed attractions. In addition to the existing sea/surf and river

opportunities, the ‘Village’ option might involve a foreshore, transitional

saltwater pool development; an attraction by the river – potentially a small

whitewater course or river rides; and other non-aquatic options, such as a

coastal promenade, mixed use buildings and markets.

New Brighton would be cultivated as a seaside tourist attraction along the lines

of St Kilda, Fremantle, Glenelg or, indeed, Brighton in the UK. In this scenario, it

might have a ‘Luna Park’, boardwalk, eat street, sideshow alley, specialised

retailing, a water play facility, a swim centre, a surfing museum etc.

(This idea is conceptualised more in the section below).

6 Boutique salt water

pool in New Brighton

to complement ER&S

facility elsewhere

The ER&S Facility will not be located in New Brighton and aquatic elements

within New Brighton will be limited to a boutique salt water hot pool, as

described above in Option 5.

7 All aquatic

entertainment

elements in New

Brighton and a

reduced scale fitness

oriented ER&S facility

elsewhere

This is a combination of Option 3 (Waterpark only) and Option 6 (salt water pool

only) described above, with the difference being that the ER&S Facility

elsewhere in the East would provide ‘dry’ elements only.

8 Scaled down ‘Village’

option

In a variation to option 5, this option involves using a portion of the Earthquake

Appeal funding ($4.5 million) to pursue a smaller, targeted ‘Village’ option. The

intent would be to support a small range of additional attractions around the

commercial core of New Brighton to reinforce a seaside village theme. This

would be developed over time and would incentivise time and investment from

the local community so that responsibility for success is shared. The new

attractions would complement previous investments in New Brighton (library,

pier), provide the opportunity and incentive for visitors to wander through the

shopping area and encourage business and land owners to continue to invest in

the centre.

This option would include a small, transitional hot water pool complex,

potentially associated with a surf club redevelopment, on the foreshore of New

Brighton, funded partly by the Earthquake Appeal funding.

This would enable the ER&S Facility to be located at its optimal location

somewhere in the East of the City, without being so large as to compete with the

Metro Sport Centre.

9 ER&S facility ‘plus’ This entails a full-sized ER&S Facility, with significant leisure features, day

spa and salt water pools on a coastal location.



Attributes for a Successful Waterfront Village

So as to understand the attributes which contribute to the success of a ‘waterfront village’ atmosphere

SGS has surveyed three well known Australian examples profiled below:

− Glenelg, a popular beach-side suburb in Adelaide, South Australia has become a popular tourist

destination due to its beach, large number of high rise hotels and fine dining restaurants.

− St Kilda, an inner southern suburb of Melbourne, located along the beach of Port Phillip, has

developed into a trendy cosmopolitan destination due to its music, café and bar scene. St Kilda is also

known for its ‘sea baths’ which is a complex housing an indoor saltwater pool, spa and gymnasium

located just along the beach edge.

Both Glenelg and St Kilda have small densely fitted out amusement parks which are regularly visited

by locals and visitors alike.

− Fremantle, located at the mouth of the Swan River in Perth, Western Australia boasts a vibrant live

music scene with many local performers and venues.

The table below shows the attributes which make these areas popular to live and visit.

TAB LE 13 AT TRIBU TES OF WATE RFRON T VILL AGES

Activities Glenelg St Kilda Fremantle

Wildlife Tours and Other Scenic Tours (i.e. swimming with

dolphins) � � �

Restaurants and Cafes � � �

Iconic Landmark (i.e. Pier or Lighthouse) � �

Late-night music venues such as bars and nightclubs � � �

Hotels �

Cycle, Rollar Blade and Skating along the Promenade � �

Amusement Park � �

Sail, Windsurf, Surf, Kitesurf � � �

Fine Dining � � �

Small boutique stores (i.e. records, fashion, surf) �

Tourist stores (i.e. professional photographs of the local area

and history)

Caravan Park

Community market � � �

Community facilities (i.e. libraries, golf course, ovals) � � �

Point of Difference

Large Number of

High Rise Hotels

and Restaurants

Edgy Music, Cafe

and Bar Scene

Known for its

regular Music,

Artistic and

Indigenous

Festivals



5.2 Option evaluation

Estimated spillover potential

is the maximum potential annual spending (aggregated for both on-site and off-site spending) that New Brighton might achieve under each of the evaluated

options. The assumptions underpinning these estimations are mentioned in the table within parenthesis.

For this assessment, likely visitation statistics to aquatic facilities under different options have been sourced from the SGL study which was running in parallel with

this study.

It must be stated here that these estimates are produced assuming that whichever aquatic option is finalised and built, will be financially viable. This report was

not required to test the viability of the proposed aquatic option itself.

Evaluation criteria

The potential of these development options on the revitalisation of the New Brighton commercial centre and the central city as well as their effects on the

planned metropolitan sports centre are assessed against the following option evaluation criteria:

− Harmonisation with wider City of Christchurch aquatic facility investment and tourism strategies, i.e. appropriateness for central city revitalisation;

− Fit with community aspirations of aquatic facilities in the New Brighton area, and its long term role and function;

− Likely economic impact (spill-over effects on the trading performance of New Brighton); and

− Practicality of delivery, i.e. likely use of the facility given surrounding land uses in New Brighton/ elsewhere, and the suggested need for additional aquatic

facilities in New Brighton.

The results are shown in Table 16 below.



TAB LE 14 PROSPECTS OF MAXIMUM OFFSITE E XPE NDITURE IN NEW BRIGHTON UNDER EACH EVALUATED OPTION

Options Additional annual visits to

New Brighton (sourced

from SGL Report)

Maximum spend per visit on and off-site Maximum

potential spend

per year in New

Brighton

Maximum spend as a percentage of

current total retail turnover in New

Brighton catchment (i.e. $155

million)

Option 1: No Waterpark and



No additional visitors to

New Brighton

None None Not applicable

Option 2: Waterpark

combined with the ER&S

facility in New Brighton

Between 800,000 and 1.19

million visits from primary

and secondary catchment

and up to 50,000 regional

and tourist visits

Visitors from primary and secondary catchment spend up to NZ$ 12

off-site (i.e. observed per visit spend off-site by local users visiting

similar aquatic centres in international locations – refer Table 8)

Regional and international tourists spend between NZ$ 27 and NZ$ 57

off-site (i.e. half of the likely off-site spend by tourists visiting tourist-

oriented facilities – refer Table 6. The other half of total observed

spending likely to be spent on-site and contained within the Waterpark

rather than diffused through New Brighton centre).

Between NZ$ 10.9

and NZ$ 17

million

Between 7% and 11%

Option 3: Waterpark only in

New Brighton and ER&S

facility located elsewhere

Between 410,000 and

550,000 visits from

primary and secondary

catchment and up to

50,000 regional and tourist

visits

Visitors from primary and secondary catchment spend between NZ



similar aquatic centres in international locations - refer Table 8)






Between NZ$ 6.3

and NZ$ 9 million

Between 4% and 6%

Option 4: ER&S facility only

in New Brighton (with extra

water features)

Between 780,000 and

900,000 visits from

primary catchment

15% of patrons visiting the facility spend up to $48 off-site (i.e. the

likely off-site spend by patrons visiting district facilities – refer Table 6).

Between NZ$ 5.6

and NZ$ 9 million

4%

Option 5: ‘Village’ in a

Waterpark





and tourist visits

(estimated after taking the

average of all inter-

regional and international

tourists who visit New




Regional and international tourists spend between NZ$ 57 and NZ$

114 off-site (i.e. half of the likely off-site spend by tourists visiting

tourist-oriented facilities – refer Table 6. The other half of total

observed spending likely to be spent on-site and contained within the

Waterpark rather than diffused through New Brighton centre).

Between NZ$ 15

and NZ$ 25

million

Between 10% and 17%




New Brighton (sourced

from SGL Report)


potential spend

per year in New

Brighton




million)

Zealand for swimming and

visiting marine parks and

assuming that 27% of

these visitors are bound for

Christchurch and half of

these visit New Brighton)

Option 6: Boutique salt

water pool in New Brighton

to complement ER&S facility

elsewhere

Between 180,000 and

200,000 visits from

catchment



Up to NZ$ 1

million

1%

Option 7: All aquatic

entertainment elements in

New Brighton and a reduced

scale fitness oriented ER&S

facility elsewhere

Between 590,000 and

750,000 visits from


catchment and up to


visits









Between NZ$ 8

and NZ$ 12

million

Between 5% and 8%

Option 8: Scaled down

‘Village’ option

Over time, as this option

matures, it should emulate

the results expected under

Option 3, i.e. Waterpark

only with ER&S facility

provided elsewhere

Option 9: ER&S facility ‘plus’ Between 970,000 and 1.1


catchment



Between NZ$ 7

and NZ$ 8 million

5%



TAB LE 15. RANKING OF OPTIONS AGAINST EVALUATION CRITE RIA


New Brighton*


potential spend

per year in New

Brighton




million)




No additional visitors to

New Brighton

None None Not applicable

Option 2: Waterpark







and tourist visits



similar aquatic centres in international locations – refer Table 8)






Between NZ$ 10.9

and NZ$ 17

million

Between 7% and 11%




Between 410,000 and

550,000 visits from


catchment and up to


visits

Visitors from primary and secondary catchment spend between NZ









Between NZ$ 6.3

and NZ$ 9 million

Between 4% and 6%



water features)

Between 780,000 and

900,000 visits from

primary catchment



Between NZ$ 5.6

and NZ$ 9 million

4%


Waterpark





and tourist visits

(estimated after taking the

average of all inter-




Regional and international tourists spend between NZ$ 57 and NZ$

114 off-site (i.e. half of the likely off-site spend by tourists visiting

tourist-oriented facilities – refer Table 6. The other half of total

observed spending likely to be spent on-site and contained within the

Between NZ$ 15

and NZ$ 25

million

Between 10% and 17%




New Brighton*


potential spend

per year in New

Brighton




million)

regional and international

tourists who visit New

Zealand for swimming and

visiting marine parks and

assuming that 27% of

these visitors are bound for

Christchurch and half of

these visit New Brighton)

Waterpark rather than diffused through New Brighton centre).




elsewhere

Between 180,000 and

200,000 visits from

catchment



Up to NZ$ 1

million

1%





facility elsewhere

Between 590,000 and

750,000 visits from


catchment and up to


visits









Between NZ$ 8

and NZ$ 12

million

Between 5% and 8%



Over time, as this option

matures, it should emulate

the results expected under

Option 3, i.e. Waterpark

only with ER&S facility

provided elsewhere

Option 9: ER&S facility ‘plus’ Between 970,000 and 1.1


catchment



Between NZ$ 7

and NZ$ 8 million

5%

Source: Christchurch Visitor Strategy 2007.

Notes: *data sourced from SGL consulting report for Christchurch City Council.



TAB LE 16. RANKING OF OPTIONS AGAINST EVALUATION CRITE RIA

Options Harmonisation with City of

Christchurch aquatic facility

investment and tourism strategies

Fit with community aspirations of

aquatic facilities in New Brighton and

New Brighton’s perceived long-term

role and function

Likely economic impacts on New

Brighton

Practicality of delivery




Only has limited potential to attract

additional interstate/international

visitors to Christchurch, a clear

objective of Council

Will not contribute to the seaside

attractions in New Brighton, or help in

enabling the centre achieve its role as

a regional seaside attraction.

This option will not meet community

perceptions and retail and other land

use prospects for New Brighton are

likely to continue dwindling

No spillover effects in New Brighton,

and consequently, no prospects for its

revitalisation

Will do nothing to revive retail

spending in New Brighton

Option 2: Waterpark



Has the potential to attract additional

interstate/international visitors to

Christchurch, a clear objective of

Council.

However, may undermine visitation to,

and consequently, viability of, the

planned metropolitan sports centre.

The aquatic facilities in themselves will

meet community aspirations and will

enable New Brighton’s revitalisation.

There is some potential for spinoff

private funding and reduction of crime

and vandalism in New Brighton.

Visitors will still be concentrated in

one facility rather than being spread

around in New Brighton.

Has the potential to increase visitation

choice for visitors likely to reside at

the planned tourist accommodation in

the centre.

Large spillover effects in New Brighton

of up to 11% of existing total retail

turnover in catchment

Same comments as for Option 5




Has the potential to attract additional



Council.



planned metropolitan sports centre

and ER&S.

The aquatic facilities in themselves will

meet community aspirations but

potential for spinoff private funding

and reduction of crime and vandalism

is relatively low. Visitors will be

concentrated in one facility rather

than being spread around in New

Brighton.




Modest spillover effects in New

Brighton of up to 6% of existing total

retail turnover in catchment

Same comments as for Option 5









role and function


Brighton


the centre.



water features)

Has some potential to attract

additional interstate/international

visitors to Christchurch, a clear

objective of Council.

The aquatic facilities may meet

community aspirations, and there is

some potential for spinoff private

funding and reduction of crime and

vandalism in this option

Limited spillover effects in New



From the perspective of the

surrounding retail offer and

community need perspective, this

option appears one of the most

superior amongst all


Waterpark

Has the potential to attract substantial

numbers of additional



Council.



planned metropolitan sports centre

and ER&S.

Rejuvenating ‘New Brighton’ using its

inherent strengths and positioning it

as a seaside hub has the maximum

potential to turn its fortune.

Importantly, this option presents the

best potential to leverage additional

private sector funding and positive

spillover effects on other land uses,

especially residential development in

the centre and help in reducing

vandalism and crime due to an

improvement in the overall urban

fabric and amenity.




the centre.

Maximum spillover effects in New

Brighton (up to 17% of existing total

retail turnover in catchment)

Investor interest in funding this option

may be limited given the surrounding

retail offer and the scaled back,

community focused role that New

Brighton is expected to serve in the

short term. Over this timeframe, this

option appears impractical.

It must also be borne in mind though

that existing research also points out

that the Canterbury region needs only

one additional facility by 2031 with a

standard pool. Any more will perhaps

constitute over-supply.

Over time though, and if decided by

Council, dedicated efforts can be

made to turn New Brighton’s

prospects by investing in facilities and

services, which may render this option

viable.




elsewhere

Has the potential to attract some

visitors to Christchurch, if facilities

located close to the shore. If not, this

option does not appear to have the

potential to attract new visitors to

New Brighton, let alone Christchurch.

Only has limited potential to promote

Has very limited potential to turn the

fortunes of New Brighton or provide

choice for visitors choosing to reside

at the planned tourist accommodation

in the centre.

Also has limited potential to reduce

vandalism and improve amenity of

Very limited spillover effects in New



Such a niche facility may not

complement New Brighton’s existing

centre offering and retail offer









role and function


Brighton


Christchurch as a ‘prosperous’ city New Brighton centre. If provided on

the shore, has limited potential for

visitors to pass through the New

Brighton centre





facility elsewhere

Similar to Option 3 Similar to Option 3 Similar to Option 3 Similar to Option 3



Over time, will emulate Option 5. The potential for revitalising New

Brighton may not be as high. Though,

it provides the necessary lead time for

an interventionist strategy to be

implemented in New Brighton by

Council which turns the fortunes of

the centre.

Importantly, the gathering of

community support to uphold the

delivery of this option over time will

enable ownership amongst local

residents.

Over time, will emulate Option 5

As the village concept cultivates over

time, and involves the community,

potential to provide modest spillover

effects in New Brighton of up to 6% of

existing total retail turnover in

catchment

From the perspective of the

surrounding retail offer and

community need perspective, this

option appears one of the most

superior amongst all

Option 9: ER&S facility ‘plus’ Similar to option 4 Similar to option 4 Spillover effects in New Brighton of up

to 5% of existing total retail turnover

in catchment

Similar to Option 4



CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS





6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the discussion, the following observations are put forward:

− The seaside Village idea as outlined above is likely to generate the greatest spillover effect for New

Brighton and indeed Christchurch, simply because there would be more spend opportunities in the

area, and additionally, these tourists might spend extra time in Christchurch. Additionally, from the

perspective of New Brighton, tourists would be distributed in the centre rather than funnelled into a

particular attraction thereby promoting exposure to a wide variety of retail and services in the centre.

− This option also meets the vision of the New Brighton community to the utmost, and importantly,

provides opportunities for positive spinoff effects on other land uses in the region as it may boost

investment activity in neighbouring residential and commercial precincts once the urban form and

amenity of the centre improves. Importantly, improvements in the urban form and amenity of the

centre will be very beneficial for reducing anti-social behaviour in the region.

− In a variation to this theme, the scaled back ‘village’ option also presents some potential for turning the

fortunes of New Brighton. Indeed, it appears a better alternative to the more ambitious full-scale

option, as investments in facilities will be staged, allowing sufficient lead time for Council to

implement an interventionist strategy if need be and garner community support to partner in the

delivery of this option. Importantly, this option will not compromise visitation to the planned metro

sports centre.

− Other options such as a ‘blockbuster’ Waterpark and/or a Waterpark incorporating an ER&S facility

might also generate significant visitation to the area and consequently spillover effects in New

Brighton, but they will not be as large in magnitude compared with the seaside Village idea. This is

because, in each of these options, visitation will be funnelled to a particular facility, rather than

distributed through the centre.

− Though these more ambitious options (Options 2, 3 and 5) hold promise for rejuvenating New

Brighton’s trading prospects and consequently the centre’s viability and social-economic fabric, they

may undermine visitation to, and consequently, the viability of the planned and committed

metropolitan sports facility. Some visitors may be diverted to these ‘blockbuster’ options or the

seaside village rather than to the metropolitan sports facility. The number of events and

championships held at the metropolitan sports facility will however be a determining factor.

It is recommended that:

− Christchurch city Council pursues the revitalisation of New Brighton through staging the “Village in a

Waterpark” concept, focusing on leveraging the centre’s seaside location through a variety of

attractions as distinct from a single ‘blockbuster’ attraction.

− The ER&S facility be located to optimise access and use from the sub-region, rather than subordinating

these parameters to revitalisation objectives in New Brighton.

− In the event that a decision is made to build the ‘Waterpark’ concept in New Brighton, Council should

try and provide the committed ER&S facility within the ‘Waterpark’. This will maximise returns to

committed investment.

− In the event that a decision is made to build the ‘Waterpark’ or indeed the ‘village’ concept in New

Brighton, marketing efforts should be coordinated across agencies to leverage maximum visitation

and returns.



Contact us CANBERRA

Level 1, 55 Woolley Street

Dickson ACT 2602

+61 2 6262 7603

[email protected]

HOBART

Unit 2, 5 King Street

Bellerive TAS 7018

+61 (0)439 941 934

[email protected]

MELBOURNE

Level 5, 171 La Trobe Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

+61 3 8616 0331

[email protected]

SYDNEY

Suite 12, 50 Reservoir Street

Surry Hills NSW 2010

+61 2 8307 0121

[email protected]


ATTACHMENT 3 - EXTRACTS FROM WATERPARK TEHNICAL INFORMATION





Rattler

Examples of slides referred to above (additional information, not shown in the proposal)

Family boomerango

Superbowl slide

Aquaplay 1750


ATTACHMENT 4 - ‘VILLAGE IN A WATERPARK’ Information from proponents

Salt water hot pools

Concept:

A variety of aquatic or seaside themed attractions surrounding a

central commercial core, encouraging movement through the

shopping area.

Builds upon existing water attractions and reflects the size /

nature of New Brighton suburb.

Concepts are very preliminary. The proposal to construct salt

water hot pools is the most advanced - see overleaf.

Copyright: Pivnice Ltd

Intellectual property of Pivnice Ltd, Align Ltd, and

Joseph & Associates Ltd

Images and concepts are indicative only


ATTACHMENT 4 continued - VILLAGE IN A WATERPARK - Information from proponents

Salt Water Hot Pools:

The original concept sketch (top) has been further

developed and the idea now comprises three outdoor

salt-water pools set on the edge of the beach.

The pools, plant rooms and buildings are constructed

offsite. Because these are modular pools they can be

relocated later if required, while satisfying potential

immediate demand in the short to medium term.

Potential synergies with the local, adjacent surf club

facility could be investigated to provide a shared

changing, reception and staffing areas, thus reducing

land use and development costs. A separate proposal

has been developed for a 25m modular pool for this

facility.

Requires lease from CCC of a por-

tion of the existing car park. Seek-

ing a ‘soft start’ lease over the ini-

tial term to allow the operator to

spend more on business promo-

tion.

To encourage initial investigatory

investment, an early statement of

city council position in principle

would be preferable and would

allow for development of a brief

and completion of feasibility stud-

ies.

The feasibility study would

determine actual size and scale.

Initial estimated cost:

- Standalone development (not part

of surf club redevelopment):

$3,829,000 + GST (not including

café)

- Surf club synergy: $2,990,600 +

GST.

A feasibility study would

Include: market research to confirm

critical components, target market,

scale of commercial opportunity);

the design and cost estimate; finan-

cial analysis (return on investment),

and energy study. There may be

potential to add on as the business

grows. Initial investment to deter-

mine feasibility would be $37,200

+gst with a further second stage

study if viable after stage one of

$25,760 +gst. Total: $62,960 + GST

The proposal is a preliminary concept. It includes three to

four pools with a temperature range of 38—40 degrees

alongside modular ancillary main pool buildings (reception,

changing facilities, staff and administration areas).

Pools range in size from 36sqm to 58sqm.

Bather capacity is 75 - 100 people.

The surrounding areas would be landscaped to incorporate

the local profile and flora and would be intersected with

access walkways (potentially modular).

New Brighton is closer to the larger market than other de-

velopments such as Hanmer Springs (75% of patrons are

from Canterbury region).

Intellectual property of Pivnice Ltd, Align Ltd, and

Joseph & Associates Ltd.




ATTACHMENT 5 - INDICATIVE OPTION 8 AS ASSESSED BY CONSULTANTS

This outline shows a possible distribution of funds to support boutique/unique aquatic leisure attractions in New

Brighton. The concept encourages pedestrian flow into and through the centre.

The ideas are indicative only. The possible new attractions for New Brighton are a salt water hot pool

development; a redevelopment of Brighton Mall - in this example including a bold and innovative splash pad; and a

privately funded attraction on the river edge (the example of a white water course is shown below).

Other non-aquatic proposals are shown as stars.

Artificial white water course, suitable for national and

international events.

Aquaplay with a difference –as

part of redevelopment of

Brighton Mall. Eg day/night;

discovery stream to reinforce

river to sea connection.

Hot salt water pools

Image: Pivnice Ltd

Proposed market (NBBLA)

Oram Ave extension - budget approved for

land purchase. When developed, will enable

sheltered café /pedestrian space

Proposed bus interchange


ATTACHMENT 6 – EXTRACT FROM SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS, DRAFT NEW BRIGHTON

CENTRE MASTER PLAN

Big Picture

There was strong support for the direction of the plan. Eighty eight percent of people stated yes when

asked if they overall support the direction of the plan.

Respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the Big Picture Themes. At least 89%

of people or more agreed or strongly agreed with each of the Big Picture Themes.

Consolidation of the centre through rezoning of land

Agree: 90%; Ambivalent: 8%; Disagree: 2%

Best aspects

Comments 49

Respondents generally supported the consolidation of the centre. Some also provided reasons for their

support. Supporting reasons included that it will contribute to a better community feel in the area by

making it more efficient, viable, people friendly and interactive.


The reduction and consolidation of the retail area into a more village like (sic) which will enhance contact

amongst community.

Respondents suggested the number of shops should decrease to ensure the premises are better looked

after and that there is a good fit of shops that the residents can support.

… reducing the number of commercial properties is essential. Rundown/empty shops destroy the momentum.

Commercial centre consolidation was also supported, because it would create more space for other land

uses such as residential.

Improvement suggestions

Comments 10

Improvement suggestions for centre consolidation included the process that will be taken in the rezoning,

the scale of the consolidation and future development considerations. Three respondents suggested that

the Council should take over control of the land to ensure that a uniformed approach is taken to the

rebuild. Others also expressed concern about the amount of time that might be involved in the plan

change process.

That, after rezoning land in accordance with the plan, the Council facilitate redevelopment by establishing a

revolving land purchase fund to buy property to amalgamate titles or extinguish existing use rights, the land to

be on-sold (or leased) for development under the new zoning.

Others think that even though consolidation is needed, the scale involved in the plan is too excessive.

Respondents stated that there will need to be consideration as to how future development will be

allowed for, that if more people are attracted to New Brighton due to the Draft Plan’s success then

consolidation may be short sighted.

Development of precincts: entertainment, retail/commerce and residential while

encouraging mixed-use activities


Best aspects

Comments 20

Development of precincts: entertainment, retail/commerce and residential was generally supported by

respondents. Some stated that it would bring more cohesion between different parts of the area.

The creation of precincts will give the area more cohesion and will hopefully bring new development into the

business area.

Some respondents supported the concept of mixed-use activities, particularly a mix involving retail/office

and residential.

Development of precincts, entertainment, retail/commercial and residential (with mixed-use activities) is also

supported…


Comments 4

There were limited comments from respondents about how this theme could be improved. Statements

were made about having mixed-use throughout the area, meaning that residents could play a role in

monitoring the area, the need to incorporate more green/open space and make better use of the

foreshore by including it in the plan as an entertainment precinct.

Would like to see a mixed use of residential and commercial all throughout the area e.g. like Sydenham,

apartments above. Check out other seaside towns around the world. Not put into separate areas.

…Our suggestion is to allow a mixed retail/office and residential zone on Seaview Road's south side between

Union Street and Oram Avenue.


One respondent raised the concern that this theme was entirely dependent on landowners to put into

action.

Theme #3 depends entirely on landowners as to all but the last of these “development stars”, so the role of the

Council in devising actual business cases is minimal.

B5 New residential development


Best aspects

Comments 28

There was general support for new residential development. Respondents that commented on this action

supported the transfer of unused commercial areas to residential.

The plan to rezone part of the commercial area for residential purposes is to be commended. The economic

assessment makes it abundantly clear that New Brighton has far more commercial space than it requires, and

the surplus of commercial premises used for low-grade commercial activity detracts from the viability of the

centre as a whole. Replacement of non-viable commercial buildings by housing would be positive socially and

commercially.


Comments 20

There were a number of respondents who commented on the need to incorporate housing with the

commercial area to improve the use of the area and provide a higher level of surveillance for security,

especially at night time.

New Residential development is an improvement but we feel the area along the south side of Seaview Road

from Union Street to Oram Avenue should also include residential living to reduce the crime issues currently

exacerbated by the lack of activity in this area, leaving dead spots and darks spots. Apartments above the

retail shops would reduce this concern.

Respondents also expressed concern about the types of housing development in the Draft Plan. Some

suggested that mid-level priced housing would be more appropriate, while a few stated the need for

improved affordable housing.

Why have low cost housing? we are not all poor over here for many it is a lifestyle choice. Mid-level housing

would add appeal and uplift the area. Low cost housing reeks of potential slum type living. Low rise quality

apartments for professional couples and smaller quality homes that will attract back older people who have

been forced from their homes but wish to stay in the area

One respondent suggested the Council should take on the role of a proactive investor, or be involved in

joint ventures to encourage development in the area.


Resource Management Act 1991

Christchurch City Council

Christchurch City Plan

Proposed Plan Change

84

SPECIAL PURPOSE (AIRPORT) ZONE Explanation The purpose of Plan Change 84 is to provide a clear policy framework for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, and to provide clarity over what activities are anticipated to occur within the zone, beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”. There has been an ‘evolution’ of activities establishing on the Airport land in recent years and these changes have led to questions being asked regarding activities anticipated to occur on the land. Resource consent applications have been sought, and granted, for activities that have been considered to be beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”. Through these consent processes it has been recognised that there is: A significant policy gap in guiding development within the Special Purpose (Airport)

Zone, with no specific objective or policy in the City Plan for the Zone. An enablement of activities under the designation, which activities have legitimately

evolved over time to reflect a modern airport operation, but which are not clearly documented or aligned with the City Plan.

A need to provide greater certainty for all parties (landowners, neighbours, Council staff, and the wider community) in how activities will be considered and processed in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone in the future.

The airport plays a significant role in supporting the economic and social development of Christchurch, Canterbury and South Island. To remain viable and for it to be able to compete successfully with other airports, it is important that the airport is not unduly constrained in the way it uses its land resource. It is considered appropriate that the City Plan likewise evolves, and moves from a position of requiring all business activity in the zone to be related to airport operations, to a wider perspective that will assist the airport in maintaining an economically healthy operation and support flow-on effects in terms of benefits to the City and region. The Plan Change however takes account of the need for this to be balanced against consideration of the airport’s role in the wider perspective of the City’s recovery, and against other City wide objectives, for example avoiding distributional effects (e.g. underutilised community infrastructure, duplication of resources, dispersed activity, etc) on the Central City and Key Activity Centres. Based on the technical evidence gathered, a statutory review and best practice planning analysis, Plan Change 84 proposes the following changes to the City Plan: Amendments to clarify the issues relating to the Airport.


Amendments to the transport policies – outlining the role of the Airport as a strategic transport hub.

Insertion of a new Objective and Policy, and associated explanations and reasons, Environmental Results Anticipated, etc. These provide a clear policy context for the zone and guide future development.

Amendments to various provisions for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. These refine the description of the Airport and update the relevant rules, including those relating to activities anticipated (or not) within the zone.

Insertion of an appendix to include an Airport Precinct Plan setting out two precinct areas for the zone (aviation and development precincts).

Amendments to the relevant planning maps, linking these maps to the associated precinct plan.

Date Publicly Notified: Date Operative: Plan Details: File No: PL/CPO/3/84 Planning Maps 16A, 22A, 23A, 29A, 30A


CITY PLAN AMENDMENTS Note: For the purposes of this plan change, any text proposed to be added by the plan change is shown as bold underlined and text to be deleted as bold strikethrough. Amend the City Plan as follows: Volume 1, Chapter 3 The Issues for Christchurch, 3.18 The growth of the city

3.15.9 Rail, air and sea International access to Christchurch for both passengers and freight is provided by Christchurch International Airport and the Port of Lyttelton, with regional and national access also being provided for by rail and road. Christchurch International Airport lies 10 kilometres to the north-west of the City centre and was used by over 3 million travellers in 1993, comprising 2.4 million domestic and 0.6 million international 5.5 million travellers in 2011. The airport is also the base for the New Zealand and United States Antarctic Research Programmes and is used by other national programmes to service research bases in the Ross Sea Region. Large land requirements, noise and traffic generation are significant impacts. It is regionally and nationally important that there are opportunities to effectively and efficiently develop and operate the International Airport. ... 3.18.2 Opportunities for growth Christchurch can accept present trends and the modest growth outlook, or it can seek to influence them. Many of the factors that will affect the future growth are outside the City's control, for example Government and international economic policy. Nevertheless, Christchurch and its surrounding region have many advantages and other strengths that can be further developed to promote growth. Some of the opportunities include, amongst many others: • a developing horticultural sector, and sound export base generally, including potential for further resource development such as forestry; • a well established and expanding tertiary education sector; • an environment, lifestyle and relatively low cost structure conducive to attracting new industry and migrants; • a well established infrastructure including an international airport and port; • an efficient and reliable air transport network; and • land for urban expansion. ...


Volume 2, Section 7 Transport 7.8.1 - 7.8.3 Policies: Airport services 7.8.1 To provide for the effective and efficient operation and development of Christchurch International Airport. 7.8.2 To avoid, remedy or mitigate nuisance to nearby residents through provisions to mitigate the adverse noise effects from the operations of the Christchurch International Airport. 7.8.3 To limit the noise generated by aircraft movements at Christchurch International Airport. Explanation and reasons The Christchurch International Airport is an important local, regional and national resource and performs a vital function in the transport network for Christchurch. There are also other land uses within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone and it is important that these are managed appropriately to ensure the effective and efficient ongoing operation of the airport facility. ( See Objective 12.12 and Policy 12.12.1). ... Controls are necessary to safeguard the continued operation and development of facilities at the International Airport as they are essential to the development and economic well being of the City, region and nation. Similarly, surrounding landuses also need protection from the adverse effects of these facilities which, are required to operate on a continual basis. The potential effects of airport operations are influenced by the density of surrounding development, particularly residential development and the degree to which buildings are insulated against the impacts of noise. Rules will be primarily aimed at new residential activity and other noise sensitive uses, but will also apply to the extension of existing residences and buildings. ...

Volume 2, Section 12 Business, New Objective and Policy

Objective 12.12 Role of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone The efficient use and development of the land, infrastructure and operational facilities at the Christchurch International Airport, where such use and development: (a) provides for the ongoing operation of airport / aviation activities; (b) provides for economic and social benefits to the region, including those

arising from the efficient and effective integration of Airport development and other regional infrastructure such as the state highway;


(c) supports the needs of travellers, workers within the zone, and visitors to services within the zone; and

(d) avoids adverse distributional effects on the City Centre, key activity centres, or suburban centres;

(e) is compatible with the overall urban form of the City; (f) achieves a standard of amenity reflective of the role and functions of the

Airport, and a high level of safety in this area.

Explanation and reasons Operational facilities present in the established and developing Airport include a main runway and a single cross-wind runway, taxiways, terminal, support and engineering facilities, and US Antarctic Operations. Non-operational activities incorporate a range of logistics and distribution freight activities, tourist and employee service activities and a range of supporting commercial activities. The Christchurch International Airport contains significant land holdings and physical resources, and is well integrated with supporting infrastructure including the regional roading network, and sewer and water provision. All activities at the Airport need to be appropriately located to ensure the efficient use of those resources. The Airport competes in national and international markets to attract airlines, services, businesses, investors and employees. It generates significant economic and social benefits to the Canterbury Region and acts as a gateway to the South Island. Providing for a greater diversity of business activities at the Christchurch International Airport will support further growth in air travel, freight and logistics demand in the future. New activity not currently present in any other business area in the city may also gain efficiencies and economies of scale from this location. However, any expansion of the range of business activities will also need to be compatible with the City’s business distribution strategy and overall urban form. Within the Airport land there are a wide range of activities established that were traditionally visitor based. Over time this has evolved to provide services that meet the needs of employees based at the airport, and to provide other niche services, often linked to airport activities. Most of the Airport environment is characterized by airport operations, including runways, terminals, fuelling and mechanical engineering facilities, and other large utilitarian buildings associated with air freight and logistics. Specific areas are also enclosed with security fencing so as to ensure public and airline safety. Accepting these functional requirements, it is still necessary to ensure a good standard of visual amenity and pedestrian access on the public roads within the airport, The airport is one of the principal gateways to the South Island and it is therefore especially important that there is a high standard of visual amenity along Memorial Avenue and Russley Road, at the Airport entry and exit points, and within the central part of the Development Precinct where the needs of visitors and passengers are a focus.


Control of noise is also an amenity issue, primarily managed in the Plan through airport noise contours and noise insulation standards for activities which are exposed to higher levels of noise. (Refer Policies 6.3A.7, 7.8.2 and 7.8.3.) 12.12.1 Policy: Special Purpose (Airport) Zone To promote the ongoing sustainable development and operation of the Christchurch International Airport and facilitate a planned approach to its future development, in a manner that: (a) identifies precinct areas within the Airport with distinct character and uses

including: (i) An Aviation Precinct which provides for aviation operations and

expansion, and (ii) A Development Precinct which supports a mix of business activity

including freight services, retail, and tourist and visitor/workforce support activities; ,

(b) provides for a range of business activity, where such activities would not: (i) constrain airport/aviation operations; or (ii) result in adverse effects on City form or urban growth, including on

the role, function, viability and amenity of the City Centre or key activity centres;

(iii) lead to significant adverse effects on transportation networks including the state highway; or

(iii) be incompatible with the character and standards of amenity of Christchurch International Airport.

(c) limits the types and scale of retail and office activities, to those which provide for the reasonably foreseeable needs of travellers, workers within the zone, and visitors to services within the zone.;

(d) accommodates future development of the Airport, whilst: (i) having regard to effects on amenity values, including the relationship

between buildings, roads, car parks, signage and landscaping, and the functions and character of the Christchurch International Airport;

(ii) ensuring the visual importance of the Airport’s Memorial Avenue and Russley Road frontages, is safeguarded through specific consideration of building setbacks and landscaping;

(iii) ensuring noise sensitive activities within the airport area do not restrict effective and efficient Airport operation and development;

(e) avoids the establishment of inappropriate activities such as large format retail activities, or noxious industry.

Explanation and Reasons There are significant positive effects for the region, the wider South Island, and New Zealand as a whole arising from the sustainable operation and development of the Christchurch International Airport. The Airport is critical to support the wider community, and also to provide for the on-going social and economic wellbeing of Canterbury. The Airport is a significant economic provider and also provides major employment opportunities.


The Airport's core business is to be a safe, efficient airport operator, providing appropriate facilities for airport and aviation users. It also provides a wide range of complementary services and activities. As such, it is important to recognise that Airport has distinct, but inter-related areas, with different characters and roles. The identification of separate precincts provides for the targeted application of standards that ensure any adverse effects of such activities can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The zone is divided into two precincts: The Aviation Precinct: those areas necessary for core aviation operations and

functions, and includes areas used for maintenance and engineering, and Antarctic Operations. Activities provided for typically generate significant noise and are similar in character to industrial activities.

The Development Precinct: the remainder of the zone where substantial development exists and in which it is anticipated that future development will occur. This encompasses the terminal buildings themselves and the mixed use areas extending from the terminal buildings down Memorial Avenue, and existing businesses elsewhere in the zone. This area provides for regional, national and international logistics and distribution businesses, freight services, light industrial support activities, and interim uses such as rental car parking and car storage, as well as commercial, retail and tourist related activities which provide services for travellers, visitors and employees. It also incorporates car parking areas and some other business activities that are compatible with airport operations.

These precincts are shown on a Precinct Plan included in Volume 3, Part 8, Appendix 12 and link to rules managing activities within the zone. Christchurch International Airport is a nationally and regionally significant infrastructural and transport hub, and is ideally placed to contribute to Canterbury's economic and employment growth. The United States Antarctic Operations are currently located west of Orchard Road within the Airport, and these facilities provide the gateway to the United States Antarctic Programme at McMurdo Station. It is essential to maintain appropriate security for these operations. There is limited potential for short to medium term growth in this location. The provision of a range of freight and appropriate business activities in the area needs to remain compatible in character and amenity with more traditional aviation based activities undertaken at the Airport. The further development of such activities would also help to service the considerable visitor, employment and business markets served by a modern Airport and its associated infrastructure. However, it is important to ensure that a wider diversity of business activities at the airport does not conflict with the City's aim of efficiently and effectively utilising its business land resource. Strategic policies of consolidating commercial activities within key activity centres and the Central City, need to be supported by ensuring that retail and office activities establishing within the Airport are primarily linked to the needs of travellers, workers and visitors to activities within the zone. These include offices directly related to aviation activities and those supporting the functioning of activities anticipated to occur in this area. Additional retail and office


they will not significantly impact on how key activity centres or the Central City function. In the areas that are most accessible to the public, development should take place in a manner that ensures a good standard of amenity. In relation to Memorial Avenue and Russley Road which are principal gateways into the City, and in the case of Memorial Avenue its historical importance, an even higher standard of visual amenity is required, including specific consideration of building setbacks and landscaping. Amenity for pedestrians is particularly important in the central part of the Development precinct where pedestrian access is anticipated to be further developed to facilitate safe connectivity between different parts of the zone. Other Sections of the City Plan (principally Volume 2 Sections 6.3A, 7 and 13), cover noise sensitive activities in the vicinity of the airport and these are also limited within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

While the Airport provides for a wide range of activities, there is a need to avoid the establishment of activities considered inappropriate, based on either their effects on the surrounding environment (e.g. noxious industry), incompatibility with established activities (e.g. high traffic generators), or their actual or potential effects on other commercial areas (e.g. large format retail).

Environmental Results Anticipated

Continued development of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone for general

aviation, freight, service and appropriate business activities. Restrictions on noise sensitive activities within the zone. A high standard of landscaping and visual amenity, particularly adjacent to

Memorial Avenue and Russley Road.

Implementation Objective 12.12 and associated policies will be implemented through a number of methods including the following: District Plan Identification of precincts within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone to

recognise the varying activities that occur within the zone. Zone rules for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone controlling activities, site

density, open space, street scene, visual amenity and landscaped areas.

Volume 2, Section 13 Rural

13.3.1 Policy: International Airport operations


To ensure development within the rural zone surrounding the International Airport takes into account the impacts of the operations at of the International Airport, particularly noise effects.

Volume 3, Definitions

Freight depots: means sites where the primary use is receiving, despatching or consolidating goods in transit by road, rail, air or sea, and includes: carrier's depots; courier services; mail distribution centres; bus and truck depots. This definition excludes: composting plants; refuse transfer stations. Light manufacturing and servicing: means sites in which articles, goods or produce are prepared and/or repaired for sale or rent, and apart from required parking and manoeuvring, the light manufacturing and servicing activity will be contained entirely within a building. This definition excludes sales or servicing of motor vehicles (vehicle servicing is covered under “repair and maintenance services”). Manufacturing: means making items by physical labour or machinery, and includes assembly of items. Repair and maintenance services: means sites where the primary business is servicing or repairing vessels, vehicles or machinery, and includes motor servicing facilities.

Supermarket: means an individual retail outlet that sells, primarily by way of self service, a comprehensive range of: domestic supplies such as fresh meat and produce; chilled, frozen, packaged,

canned and bottled foodstuffs and beverages; and general housekeeping and personal goods; and

non domestic supplies comprising not more than 20 per cent of all products offered for sale as measured by retail floor space.

Warehousing and Distribution Activities: For the purposes of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone and calculating parking numbers in the Business 8 Zone only means a building used for the storage and sorting of materials, goods, or products pending distribution.

Volume 3, Part 8 Special Purpose Zones


Zone Statements

1.3 Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Zone description and purpose The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone contains facilities associated with the operations of Christchurch International Airport including runways, airport buildings and surrounding land used for airport support services. The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone recognises:

the substantial physical resources provided by the Airport; the role of the Airport as ‘Strategic Infrastructure’ as defined in the

Canterbury Regional Policy Statement; the need to provide for continued use and development of the Airport,

and the importance of its wider economic role for Canterbury and the South Island; and

the likely continuation of the designation for 'Airport Purposes'. The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone It is bounded in the north by McLeans Island and Jessons Roads, to the west by Pound Road, to the east by Russley Road and extends southwards to Grays and Ryans Roads. A substantial area has been zoned in the plan for expansion of airport freight operations, adjacent to the western end of Avonhead Road known as Dakota Park, and this area is also subject to the airport purposes designation (refer Part 12). There has been substantial growth in passenger numbers and freight volumes, both domestic and international, and a continuation of this steady growth in both visitor numbers and freight, servicing and economic activity is expected. This will have implications for the range and extent of development within the airport zone itself, and beyond. The airport zone is surrounded by the Rural 5 (Airport Influences) Zone, and the extent of development within this is important as far as airport operations are concerned, particularly with regard to the effects of aircraft noise and public safety. This also has an impact to a lesser extent on parts of the Rural 4, Rural 6 and Rural Q Zones as well as the Open Space 3D zone. The historical intention was is that any development within the airport zone be clearly associated with the operations and associated functions of the airport and aviation and this continues to be the main purpose for the zone. Business development which has little or no relationship with the airport, is provided for elsewhere in the city to ensure that the availability of land within the airport zone is not unduly restricted for airport uses. However a wider range of activities are now considered to be appropriate within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone to recognise the changing operational context, of international airports and air travel. The zone permits both Aviation operations and a wider range of freight, traveller and employee servicing activities together with some business development. This approach recognises the economic benefits from clustering business activities which can share servicing infrastructure and enhanced air and highway freight accessibility, a situation that could not be attained in any


significant adverse effects on the airport itself, or conflict with the urban growth strategy for the whole of the City, are restricted within the zone provisions. Environmental results anticipated (a) Continuing development and intensification of building and airport support activities on the eastern side of the zone between Russley Road and the main airport runway. (b) High noise impacts, both from and within the zone, associated with aircraft movements, aircraft testing and maintenance. (c) Development of general (and military) aviation support facilities on the western side of the zone between Pound Road and the main runway. (d) Relatively high levels of traffic generation both to and from the airport zone, but with protection of the Russley Road frontage from commercial access in reflection of its role as a major arterial route. (e) An effective transportation network to and from the Special Purpose (Airport) zone, with the direction of airport traffic to and from the city via Memorial Ave and Harewood Road, and to a lesser extent, Wairakei Road. (f) High standards of amenity and landscaping around the edge of the airport zone and along major roads within the airport zone, but particularly on the Russley Road, Memorial Avenue and Jessons Road frontages. (g) Containment of any hazardous substances stored within the airport zone (including fuel) in a manner which ensures that they do not have any adverse affect on ground or surface waters, or create a hazard to life. (h) Co-ordination and management of activities in the airport zone and the surrounding rural zones to minimise incompatible activities, particularly in respect to activities which are sensitive to aircraft noise. (i) Continued and enhanced economic and social activity at the Airport including provision for visitor, traveller and employee services, air freight and logistics, and employment opportunities.

3.0 Rules - Special Purpose (Airport) Zone

3.1 Categories of activities 3.1.1 All activities (a) Any activity which is not a prohibited activity under Clause 3.3.1, and which complies with:

• all of the development standards under Clause 3.2; and • all of the critical standards under Clause 3.3.

shall be a permitted activity. (b) Any activity (which is not a prohibited activity) and which complies with all of the critical standards, but does not comply with any one or more of the development standards under Clause 3.2, shall be a discretionary activity with the exercise of the Council's discretion limited to the matter(s) subject to that standard. (b) Any activity which does not comply with any one or more of the community standards under Clause 3.3 shall be a discretionary activity.


(dc) Any activity (which is not a prohibited activity) but which does not comply with any one or more of the critical standards under Clause 3.43, shall be a non-complying activity. 3.1.2 Reference to city rules Attention is drawn to the provisions of the city rules (cross referenced in these zone rules) which may separately specify, or result in, an activity being prohibited, non-complying, discretionary, controlled, or permitted, notwithstanding the provisions of these zone rules. 3.2 Development standards Any application arising from non-compliance with the standards in (a) Clause 3.2.3 where the percentage of site area coverage by buildings is less than 50% or (b) Clause 3.2.4(a)(i) shall not be publically notified or limited notified. does not require the written approval of and need not be served on affected persons and such applications need not be notified. 3.2.1 Street scene Buildings shall be set back a minimum distance from road boundaries as follows: (a) Russley Road, Johns Road, McLeans Island Road 20m (b) Memorial Avenue 20m (c) Jessons Road 45m (d) Any other road vested in the Council ie Orchard Road, Wairakei

Road east of Orchard Road 10m

(e) any "private road" as defined in Section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974

5m

This rule shall not apply to any "private way" as defined in Section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974. 3.2.2 Separation from neighbours Buildings, parking or storage areas shall be set back from the boundary with the Rural 5 Zone by a minimum distance of 20m. 3.2.3 Open space The maximum percentage of site area coverage by buildings shall be 5040%. 3.2.4 Visual amenity (a) Outdoor storage (i) Any outdoor storage area on any site with frontage to Russley Road, Johns Road or Memorial Avenue, other than those for the storage of aircraft or for the hire of vehicles or caravans, shall be screened by shrub planting capable of growing to a minimum height of 2m at maturity. The planting shall be spaced at a maximum of 3m centres with a gap between shrubs of no more than 1m; (ii) any outdoor storage area shall not be sited within the setbacks specified in Clauses 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. (b) Location of landscaping Landscaping areas shall be provided along road frontages as follows;


(i) A landscaping area shall be provided along Russley Road, Johns Road and McLeans Island Road, and shall be a minimum of 20m deep on any site adjoining the road frontage, exclusive of any road widening required. (ii) A landscaping area shall be provided along Memorial Avenue averaging 10m deep on any site on the road frontage, and not less than 5m deep at any point, except for permitted access points. (iii) A landscaping area shall be provided along Jessons Road of a minimum depth of 45m from the road frontage, consisting of dense vegetation capable of reaching a height of 1.8m, to screen properties in Jessons Road from any existing or future airport development south of that road, and to provide a limited degree of attenuation of airport and aircraft noise. (iv) A landscaping area with a grass surface and/or shrubs shall be provided along any other public or private road frontage and shall be an average of 3m deep on any site on the road frontage, and not less than 1.5m deep at any point except for access points. (v) The minimum average width of a landscape strip shall be calculated by excluding any part of the strip that is further back than the minimum required building setback for the site. (c) Trees (i) Sites with road frontages of at least 10m shall be planted with a minimum of one tree, plus one additional tree for every 10 metres of road frontage (e.g. 10 metres frontage - 2 trees, 20 metres frontage - 3 trees, etc.). (ii) Where three or more trees are required these trees shall be planted no more than 15 metres apart, or closer than 5 metres apart. (iii) Any trees required shall be planted along the road frontage and in front of any buildings on the site. (iv) In addition to (i) - (iii) above, one tree shall be planted for every 5 parking spaces required on the site. Trees shall be planted within or adjacent to the carparking area. (v) Any trees required by this rule shall be of a species capable of reaching a minimum height at maturity of 8 metres and shall be not less than 1.5 metres high at the time of planting. Any trees listed in Part 3, Appendix 3 are deemed to comply with this rule. (d) Protection of trees and landscaping (i) Any trees required under Clause (c) above shall be located within a landscaping strip (see Clause (b)), or within a planting protection area around each tree, with a minimum dimension or diameter of 1.5 metres. (ii) No more than 10% of any landscaping strip (see Clause (b)) and planting protection area shall be covered with any impervious surfaces. (iii) Landscaping strips or planting protection areas adjacent to a road boundary or adjacent to or within a carparking area shall be provided with wheel stop barriers to prevent damage from vehicles. Such wheel stop barriers shall be located at least 1 metre from any tree. (e) Maintenance of landscaping Any landscaping of trees required by these rules shall be maintained, and if dead, diseased, or damaged, shall be replaced. (f) Exception from rules:


The provisions for tree planting in Clause 3.2.4 shall not apply to any sites or parts of sites within the airport protection surfaces as identified on the planning maps, and in Part 9, Clause 6. 3.2.5 Road access to zone (i) There shall be no direct access to any site within the SP (Airport) Zone from Avonhead Road, Harewood Road, Pound Road, Russley Road, Johns Road, McLeans Island Road, or Jessons Road, except when required for emergency airport maintenance and farming vehicles. 3.2.6 Height Buildings, structures and vegetation shall not exceed a height of 20 metres. (Refer also to critical standard 3.4.3. ) 3.3 Community Standards 3.3.1 Retail Activity - Supermarket One Supermarket, not exceeding 2,700m2 gross leasable floor area. (Refer also to critical standard 3.3.4 3.4.2) 3.3.2 Staging of Development a) No more than 31 hectares of additional building development or land use,

beyond that existing at [insert date of operative plan change], shall be established within the zone until July 2019, or until such time as the Avonhead sewer line, the Riccarton Interceptor and/or the Riccarton Main Trunk Sewer are upgraded to a capacity adequate to service additional building development or land use within the zone.

b) All wastewater discharges, during the period specified in clause a) above, shall connect to the Wairakei Collector.

3.34 Critical standards 3.34.1 Aircraft noise exposure (a) Any new residential unit, or any building or part of a building described in Part 4, Appendix 1, and which is between the 55 dBA Ldn noise contour and the 65 dBA Ldn/95 SEL dBA air noise boundary as shown on the planning maps, shall be insulated from aircraft noise so as to comply with the provisions of that appendix. (b) Any additions to existing residential units, or any other buildings or parts of buildings described in Part 4, Appendix 1 and which are within the 55dBA LdN noise contour as shown on the planning maps, shall be insulated from aircraft noise so as to comply with the provisions of that appendix. (c) No dwelling unit or any building or part of a building described in the Aircraft Noise Exposure Rules (refer to Part 4, Appendix 1) shall be erected within 800 metres of the engine testing area located in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone as shown on Planning Map 23. (d) The construction of residential units, education facilities including pre-school places or premises, (but excluding flight training, trade training or other industry related training facilities), travellers' accommodation, hospitals, healthcare facilities,


elderly persons housing or complexes (excluded in all cases accessory buildings, outdoor storage or car parking) on land that is within the 65 dBA Ldn/95 SEL dBA Air Noise Boundary as shown on the planning maps shall be a prohibited activity. 3.3.2 Residential units and accommodation Any residential units or other accommodation provided within the Airport Zone shall only be: (a) in association with security or management of an activity on a site within the zone, with no more than one unit per site, or; (b) for personnel associated with the operations of the airport, and which is for short term stay of no more than twelve months, or; (c) to provide travellers' accommodation; (Refer also to prohibited activities (Airport noise) in Clause 3.3.1 (d)).

3.3.3 Activities within Airport Zone Any activity within the Airport Zone shall be confined to: (a) commercial, recreational, or military aviation and ancillary maintenance

and support facilities, navigation, meteorological and aircraft operational facilities;

(b) support facilities and activities which enable an airport to function e.g. terminals and customs and quarantine facilities (as opposed to facilities which enable aircraft to function as provided for in (a) above;

(c) tourist, demonstration and educational facilities provided for persons working in the Airport zone and passengers and visitors using the airport, or facilities or associated within aviation activities at the airport, or with the Antarctic programme;

(d) dispatch and receipt of freight and ancillary facilities; (e) any retailing consisting of one or more of the following:

(i) retail activities located in the terminal buildings; (ii) food and beverage outlets; (iii) commercial services and vehicle rental services. For the purposes of

this rule, the term commercial services shall include, but no be limited to such activities as airline, travel agency and entertainment services; banking or postal services; cleaning services; footwear and clothing repair services; health and beauty services;

(iv) retailing other than those specified in (e), (f) (iii) above, and outside the terminal buildings, provided that no single tenancy shall exceed 450m2 of gross leasable floor area, nor shall the total sum of such retailing in combination comprise any more than 2,000m2 of gross leasable floor area. For the purposes of this rule the figure of 2,000m2

excludes retailing existing as at 29 September 2005. 3.4.2 Activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Any activity within the Airport Zone shall be confined to those listed below in the precincts as set out in Appendix 12: Airport Precinct Plan: a) Within the Aviation Precinct:

1. Runways, aircraft operations, and the testing of aircraft engines on the wing.


2. Any activity associated with the operation of the Airport, including taxiways, and other aircraft movement areas and aprons, terminals, rescue facilities, navigation and safety aids and facilities, maintenance and servicing facilities, catering facilities, air freight facilities, quarantine and incinerating facilities, fuelling facilities, stormwater facilities, roads, landscaping and aviation signage.

3. Any activity associated with commercial, recreational, or military aviation, including any ancillary maintenance and support facilities, navigation, meteorological and aircraft operational facilities.

4. Support facilities and activities which enable an airport to function e.g. terminals and customs and quarantine facilities.

b) Within the Development Precinct:

1. Any activity associated with the operation of the Airport, including taxiways, and other aircraft movement areas and aprons, terminals, rescue facilities, navigation and safety aids and facilities, maintenance and servicing facilities, catering facilities, air freight facilities, quarantine and incinerating facilities, fuelling facilities, stormwater facilities, roads, landscaping and aviation signage.

2. Any activity associated with commercial, recreational, or military aviation, including any ancillary maintenance and support facilities, navigation, meteorological and aircraft operational facilities.

3. Support facilities and activities which enable an airport to function e.g. terminals and customs and quarantine facilities.

4. Residential units, outside the 65 Ldn/95 SEL dBA contour, where they are: a) in association with security or management of an activity on

a site within the zone, with no more than one unit per site. b) for personnel or trainees associated with the aviation or

Antarctic operations of the airport, and which is for short term stay of no more than twelve months.

5. Travellers’ accommodation, outside the 65 Ldn/95 SEL dBA contour.

6. Preschools outside the 65 Ldn/95 SEL dBA contour. 7. Places of entertainment, conference facilities, and tourist based

ventures. 8. Educational facilities provided for persons working in the Airport

zone and passengers and visitors using the airport, or associated within aviation activities at the airport, or with the Antarctic programme.

9. Retail activities limited to:

a) a total gross leasable floor area within the zone of 1,400m2 (excluding any supermarket), provided that no single tenancy shall exceed 450m 2 of gross leasable floor area, except that this limit does not include:

i. Any retail activity inside the terminal buildings;


ii. Food and beverage outlets. (Note: one supermarket is provided for under community standard 3.3.1.)

10. Offices or commercial services inside the terminal buildings. 11. Offices for aviation administration purposes, and offices ancillary

to a permitted activity. 12. Dispatch and receipt of freight and ancillary facilities. 13. Container storage and transfer..

14. Industrial activities limited to:

a) Freight Depots; b) Light Manufacturing and servicing; c) Repair and maintenance services associated with aviation

activities or with the Antarctic programme; d) Warehousing and Distribution Activities.

15. Vehicle parking. 16. Vehicle rentals and valet activities, and vehicle and machinery

repair and maintenance services. 17. Service stations and truck stops.

(Refer also to prohibited activities (Airport noise) in Clause 3.3.4.1 (d)).

3.3.4 3.4.3 Height Buildings, structures and vegetation shall not exceed a height which intrudes into any airport height restrictions, identified on the planning maps and in Part 9 Clause 6; (Refer also to Development Standard 3.2.6)

12.0 Assessment matters for resource consents

12.3 Special Purpose (Airport) Zone 12.3.1 Street Scene (a) The external appearance of vehicle manoeuvring, loading or carparking areas located within the building setback area. (b) The ability to provide adequate landscaping located within the building setback area, and the quality of that landscaping. (c) The scale and extent of building within the setback and the scale form and appearance of the building(s) as viewed from the street or any public place. (d) The use to be made of the setback space. (de) Any increased impacts in terms of noise intrusion, including perceived noise intrusion, as a result of a reduced building setback, where this is relevant. 12.3.2 Separation from neighbours (a) Any potential for nuisance effects from activities on adjoining sites in the Rural 5 zone.


(b) The potential adverse impacts of activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) zone on residents in the adjoining rural Rural 5 zones. (c) The provision of compensating landscaping or screening. (d) The scale and height of buildings within the reduced setback. (e) The ability to better utilise the site and provide better environmental quality elsewhere on the site. (f) The use to be made of the setback space and its visual and other effects. 12.3.3 Open space (a) The ability to provide required landscaping, parking and manoeuvring on the site itself or to provide remote parking within reasonable proximity in the Special Purpose (Airport) zone. (b) Any adverse effects of increased building coverage particularly on properties in the adjoining Rural 5 Zone. (c) The ability to mitigate any adverse effects of increased coverage by additional landscaping or screening. (d) The extent to which increased building coverage is compensated for by increased open space elsewhere in the Special Purpose (Airport) zone. 12.3.4 Visual amenity (a) The effect of any reduced landscaping in terms of the visual impacts of the buildings in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone and the scale of these buildings. (b) The effect of any reduction in landscaping and screening on the visual impacts of outdoor storage areas. (c) The extent to which the site is visible from adjoining sites, particularly those in the Rural 5 Zone and the likely consequences of any reduction in landscaping standards or screening. (d) Any aspects of the proposal which may compensate for reduced landscaping or screening, including the nature of planting or materials used, the location of parking, manoeuvring or storage areas, and office accommodation. (e) The visual appearance of the site in terms of the length of road frontage, particularly Russley Road and Jessons Road or along the length of the adjoining Rural 5 Zone boundary. (f) The relative importance of landscaping on the particular site concerned, taking account of the visual quality of the surrounding environment, particularly where a low standard of visual amenity exists and improvement is necessary. (g) The nature of the activity itself, and any particular adverse visual impacts it may have. (h) The effect of any reduction in tree planting provision, particularly in respect to the visual character of carparking areas and building scale. (i) The effect of any tree planting on operational safety or requirements of the airport. (j) The importance of landscaping, where relevant, as a factor in reducing perceived noise intrusion. 12.3.5 Road access to the zone (a) The likely vehicle numbers and type of traffic thorough the proposed access point into the zone. (b) The effect on the safety and efficiency of the adjoining road network particularly State Highway 1.


(c) Any effects of the additional access point on the amenities of the adjoining Rural 5 Zone. (d) The location of the proposed access points and the suitability of existing access points elsewhere. 12.3.6 Height (a) The effect of any increased building height on operational safety or requirements of the airport. (b) The ability to mitigate any adverse effects of increased building height by additional landscaping or screening. (c) The scale and extent of building that is over height and the form and appearance of the building as viewed from the street or any public place. (d) The extent to which the building is visible from adjoining sites, particularly those in the Rural 5 Zone, and the likely consequences of any increase in building height.

13.0 Reasons for rules

13.2 Special Purpose (Airport) Zone 13.2.1 Street scene The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone contains a range of buildings, some of which are very large, such as the hangar in Orchard Road. The scale of the airport operations and the buildings required to service it, justify a reasonable degree of setback from the adjoining road network, some of which fronts the Rural 5 zone rural zones and land occupied by private residences. This setback provision is reinforced by requirements for landscaping. One of the major reasons for this rule is also to ensure that in addition to landscaping, that the scale of buildings and other activities within the airport is sufficiently set back from major roads to maintain a high standard of amenity adjacent to the airport which is essentially surrounded by a rural environment, and which has a high degree of public "visibility". The zone is also highly visible from State Highway 1 and protection of visual amenity from this important transport corridor is to be maintained.

13.2.2 Separation from neighbours The scale of buildings and operations within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone is such that considerable impacts could also be experienced by neighbours within the adjoining Rural 5 Zone, particularly around the southern fringe of the airport and adjacent to Jessons Road. In recognition of the relatively large building set-backs required on road frontages, and the need to protect the amenities of rural residents, a reasonably generous set-back provision from the rural zone boundary is required in order to protect the amenities of persons in that zone. 13.2.3 Open space The open space rule relates to a maximum building coverage on any site within the Airport Zone. This provision has been incorporated to ensure that sufficient open space is provided around buildings, many of which within the zone are likely to be


very large and some are of a distinctly utilitarian appearance. The open space requirement provides some visual relief from this, and also provides scope for landscaping to reduce the visual impacts of such buildings. To a large extent this provision is similar to those applicable in business zones in industrial areas. It also reflects the fact that in the case of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone in particular, the surrounding environment is largely a rural one, and is highly visible to the public especially from State Highway 1, and while it is recognised that the operations of an airport must inevitably involve the provision of very large buildings, this needs to be balanced to at least some degree by provision for adequate open space around these buildings. 13.2.4 Visual amenity The rules and reasons relating to visual amenity are similar to those for industrial business zones. The reasons for the requirements for landscaping are in order to protect the visual amenities of persons residing in the Rural 5 Zone surrounding the airport, and also to have a pleasing environment which is appropriate within the surrounding rural area notwithstanding the large scale of buildings and activities within the zone. In addition to this, the airport is located on a major transport route (State Highway 1) and is the access point for most many visitors into the city. Accordingly, it is important that the visual amenity at of the airport area, as seen from major roads and as experienced from within the main visitor areas of the zone, is of a high standard, and accordingly a high degree of landscaping in association with setbacks is required on major routes in and around the airport. To support these landscaping requirements, the rules require trees to be planted on road frontages and within parking areas, and that these, along with all landscaping required on the site are protected and maintained. These provisions act to ensure the landscaping is and remains of reasonable quality and appearance. 13.2.5 Road access to zone The Plan provisions for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone include restrictions on access points into the Airport Zone. The reason for these rules relates primarily to the safety and efficiency of the roading network, and in particular State Highway 1 along Russley Road and Johns Road, where access points are to be confined to existing roads entering onto this route. Similarly, McLeans Island Road is also protected from direct access in order to reflect its function as an access to a major recreational area and in acknowledgement of the alignment of this road. Restrictions are also provided to Jessons Road on the northern edge of the airport in order to protect the residents of that road from any undue impacts from activities that may ultimately be developed in the Airport Zone. Harewood Road merits protection in a similar manner given its function as a connector road / connection between the state highway and Orchard Road, and given the close spacing of the existing intersections. Pound Road provides a through road function that also needs to be protected from new access points. 13.2.6 Travellers accommodation and residential units


The Airport Zone, more than any other in the city, will be subject to considerable noise intrusion from airport operations and the movement of aircraft both during the day and night. There are rules in the Plan restricting the density of residential accommodation and urban growth in the rural and living areas in the vicinity of the airport. For reasons of consistency with these provisions, it is necessary to ensure that any residential occupation within the Airport Zone is strictly limited as to its type and extent. This will be achieved by limiting residential accommodation to that which is associated with management or custodial purposes for businesses operating at the airport. Secondly, temporary accommodation for those who have to carry out activities associated with airport operations, and travellers accommodation will be provided for. Any accommodation must be outside the 65LdN noise contour, which represents a level within which noise impacts could have an adverse effect on health and welfare. 13.2.7 Activities within the Airport Zone Activities within the Airport Zone are, unlike most of the general purpose zones (e.g. living, business etc), limited to those necessarily associated with the operation of the airport and support services. The reason for this is to prevent a wide range of activities (of a commercial or industrial character) having little or no relationship to the airport, becoming established. If this were to happen, there would be potential for severe pressure on the limited land resources available for development within the zone and consequent pressures for outward expansion of the zone to the detriment of the surrounding rural area and policies for sustaining rural land and soil resources.


13.2.6 Activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone are anticipated to be largely those associated with the operation of the airport and aviation services. In addition there is a diverse range of services providing for travellers, workers and visitors, along with freight and logistics services, and employment opportunities, where these are compatible with City form and growth. As parts of the zone have distinctly different functions, a precinct approach has been applied to the zone to differentiate between activities anticipated to occur in each area. Primarily this differentiates between the “airside” area where the main aviation activities occur and the remaining land that provides support facilities and land capable of supporting development. The rules permit all activities necessary for the operation of the airport and aviation activities in both precincts. Beyond these, restrictions are imposed on activities to ensure they are appropriate to this location. The zone is subject to considerable noise intrusion from airport operations and the movement of aircraft both during the day and night. For this reason, residential accommodation within the zone is strictly limited as to its type and extent. Any residential activity, travellers’ accommodation or preschool facility must be outside the 65 Ldn/95 SEL dBA noise contour, which represents a noise level within which noise impacts could have an adverse effect on health and welfare. Facilities of benefit to visitors and workers within the zone are provided for. This includes educational facilities and tourist based ventures such as the Antarctic Centre. Specific limits on the scale and extent of retail, commercial and office activities that may establish in the zone are imposed to prevent a wide range of activities occurring in a way that could unduly restrict airport related uses, or create distributional effects. Similarly the types of industrial activities are limited to ensure compatibility with the zone and the other activities occurring in this area. A range of other support activities are anticipated, including vehicle rentals and servicing and freight storage and dispatch, which are appropriately located in this zone close to the airport and main transport routes.

13.2.87 Building Hheight The limitations on height in the Special Purpose (Aairport) Zzone are primarily attributable to the safety of aircraft operations. The purpose and use kind of buildings and structures required in the airport zone are such that it is likely that large buildings of considerable height may need to be erected and a number already exist within the airport zone. The provisions on maximum height therefore are set according to the operational needs of aircraft and the provisions in the Plan on maximum heights are consistent


with aircraft operating requirements. Maximum height is managed through the use of airport protection surfaces. For reasons of aircraft safety, no buildings, structures or vegetation must be allowed to penetrate into this plane these protection surfaces. Other provisions in the Plan relating to landscaping and setbacks are considered to offer sufficient protection for any adverse affects that may occur as a result of on building activity within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, in conjunction with a 20m height maximum where this is less than the level of the airport protection surfaces (Appendix 4 in Part 9). 13.2.98 Noise sensitive activities and Aircraft noise testing area Controls are in place to require noise insulation of specified new buildings or additions to existing buildings where they are located in areas subject to noise levels of greater than 55 dBA Ldn.. Such acoustic insulation is necessary to ensure that the health, safety and amenity of occupants of such buildings is maintained. This rule also contains a clause prohibiting the construction of buildings associated with specified activities on land that is within the 65 dBA Ldn/95 SEL dBA contour, ie in areas subject to the highest noise exposure. This rule is included to avoid adverse effects on health and safety. A rule applies in the Rural 5 Zone rural zones controlling dwellings within 800m of the aircraft engine testing area, identified at the western end of the airport cross runway within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone (Map 23B).This is to protect persons living in close proximity to the Pound Road side of the airport. This location is now only very occasionally used for engine testing, with the majority of testing taking place on the engine testing pad near Orchard Road, and some testing at specified locations at each end of the main runway. This location, while not ideal, offers the least potential disturbance to persons living near the airport, although some disturbance may still occur from time to time. In order to ensure that adverse noise from engine testing is at least minimised, the majority of engine testing activities will take place within 200m of the "cross" identifying the Aircraft Engine Testing Area shown on Planning Map 23B. It is anticipated that updated provisions relating to aircraft engine testing will be inserted into the Plan in the near future. 13.2.9 Retail Activity – Supermarket A supermarket up to the scale specified in the community standard would be appropriate to service the zone, including travellers, visitors, and workers within the zone. Beyond this scale there is the potential for adverse impacts to occur, including distributional effects on nearby commercial centres. Thus an increase in supermarket activity within the zone is not anticipated to occur, except where it will clearly not cause wider adverse effects. 13.2.10 Staging of Development The ability of the existing wastewater network to service development and land use within the zone is limited in capacity, until upgrade works are completed (particularly in relation to the Avonhead sewer line, the Riccarton Interceptor


FINAL DRAFT as at 15 August 2013 24

and/or the Riccarton Main Trunk Sewer). These upgrade works are scheduled to be complete by July 2019. In order to avoid a situation where building development or land use cannot be adequately serviced, it is necessary to limit the extent of development that can occur prior to the increase in network capacity being completed and to ensure that these only connect to the Wairakei Collector. There may be other methods of increasing capacity or an earlier timeframe for network upgrades and therefore this rule has been inserted as an interim measure to reduce the potential for impacts on the network.

Insert a new Appendix 12 as attached. Amend Volume 4, Planning Maps 16A, 22A, 23A, 29A, and 30A as attached.


276

Aviation Precinct

Development Precinct

Proposed Precincts


BML File Ref: C12119_DM_planning_maps_CCC.indd

See Airport

Precinct Plan



See Airport

Precinct Plan



See Airport

Precinct Plan



See Airport

Precinct Plan


282

Resource Management Act 1991

Christchurch City Council

Christchurch City Plan

Plan Change

Section 32 Assessment

84

SPECIAL PURPOSE (AIRPORT) ZONE PLAN CHANGE


CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Background and Context 2

2.1 Site Location and Use 2 2.2 Site Context 3 2.3 Background to Christchurch Airport Planning 3 2.4 Planning Status for the Airport 4 2.5 Case Law, Recent Consents and Legal Opinions 4 2.6 Other related issues 7

3.0 The Proposed Plan Change 9

3.1 Evidential Reasons for the Plan Change 9 3.2 Key Reasons for the Plan Change 11 3.3 Proposed Plan Change Content 11

4.0 Statutory Context 13

4.1 The Requirements of the Act 13 4.2 Regional Planning Documents 15 4.3 District Planning Documents 21

5.0 Section 32 Analysis 26

5.1 Analysis of Broad Options 26 5.2 Examination of Proposed New Objective 30 5.3 Examination and Evaluation of Policies, Rules and Methods 31 5.4 Further Statutory Analysis 36

6.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects 41

6.1 Economics 41 6.2 Transport 41 6.3 Infrastructure Support 41 6.4 Land Conditions 42 6.5 Amenity 43 6.6 Noise? 43 6.7 Social / Cultural? 43

7.0 Consultation 44

8.0 Conclusions 45


Appendices Appendix 1: Land Zoning Pattern

Appendix 2: Airport Planning Background / History

Appendix 3: Designation Description

Appendix 4: Ownership Pattern

Appendix 5: Case Law and Legal Opinions

Appendix 6: Current Objectives and Policies

Appendix 7: Current Rules

Appendix 8: Consultation Summary

Figures Figure 1: Christchurch International Airport Location .............................................2


1.0 Introduction

This proposed Plan Change is in relation to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. The land is owned/administered by Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL), who are largely owned by Christchurch City Council (75% ownership, with the remaining shares held by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State-owned Enterprises). The Christchurch International Airport represents a considerable physical resource within the City, comprising a total landholding of some 996ha.

The purpose of Plan Change 84 is to provide a clear policy framework for the zone and clarity over what activities are anticipated to occur within the zone (beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”).

There has been an evolution of activities establishing on the Airport land and these changes have led to questions being asked regarding activities anticipated to occur on the land. This has led to resource consent applications being sought, and granted, for activities that have been considered to be beyond those provided for by the designation of the land for “Airport Purposes”. Through these consent processes it has been recognised that there is:

A significant policy gap in guiding development within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, with no specific objective or policy in the City Plan for the Zone.

An enablement of activities under the designation that has legitimately evolved over time to reflect a modern airport operation, but which is not clearly documented or aligned with the City Plan.


The proposed plan change does not cover airport noise, or use of land surrounding the airport area.


2.0 Background and Context

2.1 Site Location and Use The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone is located on the north western edge of Christchurch’s urban limits as shown in Figure One below. This figure also outlines the area of land subject to a designation for Airport Purposes shown in red and the area subject to the Special Purpose (Airport) zone shown outlined in yellow.

Figure 1: Christchurch International Airport Location

Today, Christchurch International Airport is New Zealand's second largest airport. Some key statistics relating to the airport activity include1:

5,592,529 passengers travelled in and out of Christchurch International Airport from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011.

Total passenger movements decreased by approximately 405,000 (-6.7%) over the same period ending 31 December 2010, a result reflective of the current environment

The company recorded $21.0 Million Adjusted Operating Surplus After Tax for the year ended 30 June 2011. The operating surplus after tax, excluding the deferred tax adjustment and including a revaluation of investment property.

Approx. 5,000 people working on the airport campus.

1 Source: http://www.christchurchairport.co.nz/en/about-us/corporate-information/facts-and-figures/


In 2007, the Canterbury GDP was $21.2 billion, the airport contributed 7.2% of regional GDP.

In 2007, Canterbury employed 239,100 full time equivalent employees (FTE's), the airport accounts for 8.8% of these.

Antarctic operations delivered $80 million in direct benefits to the city annually.

In addition to airport and aviation activity itself, there are a range of other activities established within the zone including:

Tourism based activities e.g. Antarctic Centre, car hire, Sudima Hotel.

Freight and Logistics e.g. NZ Post, Courier Post, GVI.

Commercial activities e.g. RECALL, Hewlett Packard.

Service activities e.g. Craddocks car storage, fuel, car servicing.

Temporary offices (post earthquake response).

2.2 Site Context The land surrounding the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone has a variety of zones. It is predominantly zoned Rural however there are residential zones to the east and a range of open space and business zones in the area. See Appendix One for details of the surrounding zoning pattern.

Immediately adjacent to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone is State Highway 1 (Russley and Johns Roads), also known as the Western Corridor. This forms an important transport link.

2.3 Background to Christchurch Airport Planning Christchurch International Airport was initially established in 1936 with an aerodrome at Harewood. By 1946 the form of the terminal area development was established with hangars, a small terminal building, the water tower and some barracks buildings. The two runways and parallel taxiway concept was established in the early 1950's and in 1960 a new terminal building was in operation. Since that time, additions to the buildings, development of parking and access and extensions to the runway/ taxiway/ apron system have been almost continuous.

A further summary of the history of development at the Airport from the CIAL website is included in Appendix Two.

The Airport site was selected in 1936 because it met a number of criteria such as: the suitability of terrain; its proximity / accessibility to the Christchurch urban area and labour force; its favourable wind conditions, and weather conditions that would cause little interference to likely operations. The urban area was at that time some three to four miles to the east of the Airport but has subsequently spread west as a consequence of post WWII increase in population.

The Airport Company has undertaken a range of planning processes over the years to guide the development of the airport, including:

A Master Plan in 1985 setting a direction for the period to 2005 and beyond.

A Master Plan in 2006 outlining a framework for development of land over the next 20 years and beyond. The Master Plan included a Land use Plan and Property Development Strategy setting out the key issues for the airport and incorporating seven land use activity zones.


A Strategic Property Vision in 2007 based around three distinct precincts.

A Planning Vision in 2012 further developing the concept of three precincts for development.

See Appendix Two for additional notes on these matters.

2.4 Planning Status for the Airport The airport land is subject to both a designation for “Airport Purposes” and the Special Purpose (Airport) zone, although the spatial extent of these differs. The legal descriptions of the designated land are contained in Appendix Three.

The first Paparua District Scheme (1974) shows the airport land as designated, which remained in place in the 1985 scheme. In the first Scheme the land had an underlying Rural zoning but in the 1985 Scheme an airport zoning was introduced. In 1994 as part of the review of the District Plan, the Airport Company sought to roll over the designation of the airport land (650ha) and add an additional 100ha of designation to enable expansion of activities over time. The rollover of the designation was considered by a Commissioner and recommended to be approved by the Council. The addition of the further 100ha of land was considered by Commissioner Collins in November 1997 who recommended the confirmation of the designation of land for "Airport Purposes ", in the vicinity of Russley Road, Avonhead Road and Grays Road, Christchurch for the period of 10 years sought “subject to the area designated being reduced to no more than 45 hectares plus any additional area needed for access”. These recommendations were accepted by the Airport Company in April 2000.

The designation is not subject to any qualification in relation to its scope, nor is it subject to any conditions that limit activities or their location/scale within the designated area. Any activity that is in accordance with the designation is not subject to any other rules within the City Plan.

Most of the land subject to the airport designation is either owned by CIAL or leased by CIAL from the Canterbury Regional Council. The key landownership is shown in Appendix Four.

For those activities that are not in accordance with the designation of the land, the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone rules apply. The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone for the land was established in the current District Plan at the time of the review and notified in 1995.

2.5 Case Law, Recent Consents and Legal Opinions

2.5.1 Case law

In 2008, Craigie Trust sought a declaration that Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) was under obligation to offer land back to the trust that had been taken under the Public Works Act 1981 as it was no longer required for an ‘aerodrome’. The case was heard in the High Court in Auckland. One of the outcomes of the case is that the High Court had to determine what was meant by the term ‘aerodrome’. The Court concluded that the term can be ‘held to encompass the facilities commonly found at airports and changing over time to what was and is now available’. This has been deemed to support a wide range of activities within airports/aerodromes. This wide interpretation of ‘aerodrome’ has been upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.

A copy of this declaration is contained in Appendix Five.


2.5.2 Recent land use changes and Legal opinions

The Airport land has been subject to a range of major changes over recent years. In particular, Dakota Park which is an 80ha business park development on the south western corner of the airport land, designed for for warehousing and logistics industries and other businesses. Development is progressing rapidly within Dakota Park.

Over recent years a number of specific new developments have occurred or been consented on land within the Special Purpose (Airport) zone. These include:

RECALL, Dakota Park

Landpower, Dakota Park

Hewlett Packard, Dakota Park

Japanese food wholesaler and distribution centre, Dakota Park

McDonalds, Memorial Avenue

Gen I, Richard Pearse Avenue

Spitfire Square, Corner Memorial and Russley Roads

Some other key recent developments include the substantial NZPost mail sorting centre on Orchard Road, Cafe Raeward on the corner of Harewood Road and Johns Road, and the temporary office accommodation (post earthquake) on Orchard Road.

RMA92014489 (THE RECALL DECISION)

The RECALL application related to the construction of two warehouses, ancillary office block and car parking facilities and associated access for a document storage and retrieval company RECALL at 269 Russley Road (Dakota Park). The link to the Airport was based on the following:

Airports generate activities which impact their immediate environment – a “courier hub” or “freight hub” would be an example of this;

Airports may include land which has a primary aviation purpose related to noise effects, landing paths etc, which it will then use for a secondary purpose which is compatible with that requirement – data storage and retrieval would be such a use.”

CIAL lodged an outline plan application in May 2009 pursuant to section 176A of the RMA. Council wrote to the applicant advising that in its opinion the proposal was not in accordance with the designation for “airport purposes” and therefore could not be considered as an outline plan. The applicant supplied a legal opinion from Chapman Tripp law firm which stated that the proposal for RECALL, as lodged, was consistent with the “airport purposes” designation and should therefore be assessed as an outline plan. See Appendix Five.

Consequently, Council sought its own legal advice from Anderson Lloyd lawyers (see Appendix Five) and to review the legal opinion of Chapman Tripp, and to determine as to whether the proposal for RECALL, as lodged, was an activity which could be considered to be consistent with the “airport purpose” designation. The legal advice from Anderson Lloyd, in summary, stated that the proposal was not an activity anticipated in the airport zone and therefore was not consistent with the designation. They determined that the term ‘airport purposes’ should be defined as per its’ plan ordinary meaning’ that would be understood by an ordinary reasonable member of the public. Anderson Lloyd determined that the designation is intended to cover ‘core activities that are directly related to the operation of the airport itself’. They determine that even if the High Court interpretation of aerodrome is accepted, it focuses on activities directly connected with the operation of the airport and meeting the expectations of airport users. It does not necessarily extend to commercial activities that are not connected to the functioning


of the airport. Therefore the Council considered that application could not be processed as an outline plan and therefore a resource consent should be lodged for the proposal.

The applicant was supplied with a copy of this legal opinion and sought a further independent review of both legal opinions from Hugh Rennie QC (see Appendix Five). Mr Rennie agreed with the applicant’s original legal opinion from Chapman Tripp that the proposal did fall within the designation for “airport purposes”. His opinion relied on the Craigie Trust case but went even further, stating that the definition in that case was a ‘minimum definition’ and not necessarily a complete definition of the term used in the CCC City Plan.

Since then, the issue has been discussed further within Christchurch City Council and CIAL was advised by Council to seek a declaration from the Environment Court as to whether the proposed RECALL development falls within the definition of “airport purpose”, or whether it is subject to the Special Purposes (Airport) Zone rules. No declaration has been sought at this stage.

A concurrent resource consent application (RMA92014489) for resource consent was lodged for the RECALL development as a non-complying activity, and it was stated in the AAE that it was not an activity consistent with those listed by the activities rule in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, hence the resource consent application.

The Council’s s42A report recommended approval for the application stating the effects would be no more than minor, and that the activity though inconsistent with some of the objectives and policies in the Plan, but that this did not extend to being contrary to them.

The application was decided by an independent Commissioner who concurred that any adverse environmental effects were minor, or that any adverse effects would be adequately dealt with by way of conditions. The Commissioner considered there to be potential for issues regarding City Plan integrity in terms of specific rules relating to activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. The plan anticipates that ‘any development within the airport zone be clearly associated with the operations and associated functions of the airport and aviation. Business development which has little or no relationship with the airport, is provided elsewhere in the city to ensure that the availability of land within the airport zone is not unduly restricted for airport uses’ [Vol. 3, Part 8, s.1.3]. The stated ‘Reason’ for the critical standard limiting permitted activities in the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone states: “Activities within the Airport Zone are, unlike most of the general purpose zones, limited to those necessarily associated with the operation of airport and support services”.

The Commissioner’s decision clearly identified that there are no clear objectives and policies for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone within the Plan, and furthermore only limited guidance on the assessment of non-complying activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. The decision identified that granting of consent could not therefore undermine the integrity of the Plan as there are no overarching policies providing linkage to the rule seeking to limit such activities. The Decision highlighted this policy gap and suggested that the Council should seek to amend the City Plan as such to provide greater guidance on the purpose and outcomes sought through the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

The Decision does identify that in the event of future proposals, there should be an examination of: the amount of land involved relative to land available; the likely risks to core airport activities; and whether the proposal would impact adversely on the effective functioning of the airport overall. Consequently, a merit based decision needs to be undertaken for such future applications, in recognition of the policy vacuum within the City Plan for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

OTHER CONSENTS

Subsequent applications for resource consent have been lodged and processed in a similar way for a range of other activities. In most cases the applications have included commentary accompanying the application stating that “based on past legal opinions the Airport Company


considers the proposal is in accordance with the designation for airport purposes, however as the Council does not agree with this position they have opted to lodge a resource consent for the activity instead”.

All applications have been processed as non-complying activities on the basis of not meeting critical standard 8-3.3.3 which sets out activities permitted within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

All applications have been approved, on the basis of the following (or similar):

Adverse effects on the environment being minor (e.g. “the effects the proposal will have on the surrounding environment are likely to be similar to what is anticipated in the zone, and will not be discernibly different from the effects of activities that are permitted within the SPAZ”).

The proposal not being contrary to the objectives and policies of the City Plan.

A number of the decisions have also included commentary that highlights the lack of policy basis for the zone and the inefficiency of requiring resource consents for all such activities when there is little basis for these not being granted, albeit that there may come a cumulative effect at some future time.

2.6 Other related issues The Council is currently progressing a project entitled the North West Review Area (NWRA) to

look specifically at the area identified in decisions on PC1 as “special treatment area 1”. This project is intended to lead to a plan change to rezone some 100ha of land as business zoning. Public consultation is occurring on this project at present.

The Council is preparing a plan change in relation to giving effect to chapters 12A and 22 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement for airport noise contours and urban limits. This involves the amendment of the noise contours for the airport.

The land located on the south-eastern corner of the Memorial Avenue and Russley Road intersection is known as the MAIL site (previously identifiable as the site surrounded in shade cloth). This site has been the subject of years of controversy with proposals mooted to develop the land for retail activity. A private plan change was lodged with the Council in 2009 to rezone the land for business purposes, subject to an Outline Development Plan. This plan change is currently on hold at the applicant’s request.

Russley / Johns Road runs along the eastern side of the airport land and forms part of State Highway 1 (Western Corridor), and is administered by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). NZTA are presently involved in major road works to this corridor with four laning currently occurring between Yaldhurst and Avonhead Roads and between Sawyers Arms and Harewood Roads. The stretch of road between Yaldhurst and Harewood Roads will include a major new intersection at Memorial Avenue and another new intersection at Avonhead Road (colloquially known as the trumpet) providing access to the Dakota Park development area.

The Airport Authorities Act 1966 defines an Airport as:

“Airport means any defined area of land or water intended or designed to be used either wholly or partly for the landing, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft; and includes any other area declared by the Minister to be part of the airport; and also includes any buildings, installations, and or equipment on or adjacent to any such area used in connection with the airport or its administration.”


There are further definitions provided for such aspects as aircraft freight facilities, airfield activities, specified passenger terminal activities and security areas.

Under the Airport Authorities (Christchurch International Airport Limited) Order 1988 (SR1988/70) Christchurch International Airport has been identified as an airport for the purposes of the Airport Authorities Act 1966 (noting that under Section 3 of the Act provides that local authorities or people acting under consent of the Governor General by Order in Council may establish, improve, maintain, operate, or manage airports). It is considered that the definition under this Act does not provide tangible guidance on what activities are anticipated under the definition of ‘Airport’.


3.0 The Proposed Plan Change

3.1 Evidential Reasons for the Plan Change The following is a summary of the reasons why a plan change is important. For more detail on effects on the environment, refer to section 6.0 of this document.

3.1.1 Economic

The Airport plays an important regional role as an expanding business and employment centre given its strategic location, extent of land holdings, and role in relation to the national and regional transportation network. As the second biggest Airport in New Zealand, some 10,000 people (2010) are employed both within the airport and in the immediate area, and over 5.5 million passenger travel movements in the 2011 year. On a daily basis, 25,000 – 30,000 people visit the airport in some form.

The Airport fulfils a significant economic, commercial and business role, and a significant node of employment role for the Canterbury Regional community. It not only serves as a significant employer for the region, with over 5,000 employees within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, but is responsible for transporting some 16,500 tonnes of cargo a year to overseas ports at a value of nearly $1b. The positive flow on effects to the Canterbury economy include the formation of considerable storage and transportation employment associated with these freight volumes.

Christchurch International Airport (CIA) has, post the Canterbury Earthquakes, remained the primary gateway for national and international visitors to the South Island. The total contribution to the regional economy from visitors annually has been estimated at $2.16billion (pre Feb 2011) of which it is conservatively considered that some $920m per annum is contributed to the Regional Economy by visitors that arrive through the CIA. CIA, both directly and indirectly contributes nearly 10% to the Canterbury economy, and accordingly the agglomeration of aviation and business activities undertaken at the Airport makes it the single most important business facility in the Region. The extent and diversity of employment at the Airport, prior to the 2010 / 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes was second only to the Central City and provided considerably greater employment densities than a number of commercial centres in the City.

The expected capacity of CIA operations is projected to reach 175,000 aircraft movements per annum, which based on the proportional growth margins is likely to contribute over $3.22b (2010 dollars) to the regional economy. By 2019, total passenger numbers are expected to exceed 6.8 million per annum, with some 2.2 million being international passengers. Local based employment is expected to almost double to 19,900 by 2021.

Lastly, it is important to consider the context of economic development within the broader issues of earthquake recovery, the restoration of economic activity within the CBD, and business activity within the City as a whole. In this light, whilst it is important that there are some thresholds placed on the extent and type of comparison retail and large scale commercial office activity that would otherwise be enabled within CIA, the CIA business node offers the region a competitive


business location that is likely to attract and retain, businesses that would otherwise not locate in Canterbury, and would be unlikely to establish in such centres as the CBD.

The CBD has had its residential base diminished as a consequence of the earthquakes, and its CBD office market largely decimated. There is a need for the City’s overall economic recovery for the CBD’s larger scale and speciality retail, as well as office market to not be compromised by the establishment of non-CBD retail and office activity. There is a need therefore for this plan change to be particularly sensitive to impacts on the CBD, and Key Activity Centres, of retail and office activity.

3.1.2 Business Land Resource

The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone is not recognised as one of the many Business zones (B3 to B8) within the City Plan, although it does perform a similar role.

A city wide analysis of vacant land identifies that the appropriate quantum of additional land that should be provided for industrial business activities is some 100ha2 with only around 300ha of unutilised but developable land presently available. Take up rates for industrial land are around 16 hectares per annum down from an average of 26 hectares per annum prior to the global financial crisis. Within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone realistic industrial land vacancy consists of some 143 ha.

Business activities enabled within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone are likely to be similar to the industrial land criteria used in other studies (e.g. NWRA), and would also provide a number of additional benefits including:

A critical mass of employment, and associated service facilities.

A range of activities and associated character that resembles the Business 4T in terms of low densities, street scene setbacks and car parking.

Availability of existing infrastructure, including street networks, wastewater, water supply, and electricity.

Consents for the management and disposal of storm water within the unconfined aquifer.

Bus routes and frequent services that already connect to the airport.

In considering the demand for additional business land, the Commissioners recommendation3 on PC1 reviewed a wide range of data available on current vacant land, uptake of business land, locational issues, demand and supply, infrastructure provision, and sequencing. The Commissioners recommendation recorded the need for substantial areas of additional business land, while assuming a business use on vacant land within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

At the time of this consideration, it was agreed that the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone contained some 173.6ha of land available for development, although now some of that land has been taken up in post earthquake development and the commencement of development at Dakota Park. The current vacant land situation for the zone is some 143ha of land.

The Commissioners recommendation acknowledges the importance of the Airport as a strategic asset and important link. The Commissioners accepted the evidence of the need to allow for ongoing efficient operation and provide for the ability to continually improve and upgrade facilities to remain competitive.

2 North West Review Area - Council Committee Report 3 October 2012, page 37. 3 This recommendation was provided prior to the earthquakes but remains relevant as a comprehensive review of land demand and supply at that time.


3.2 Key Reasons for the Plan Change The key issues that have arisen relate to:

The debate over what activities are within the designated purpose,

The lack of a strong policy framework for the zone.

There has been a strong difference of opinions expressed over what is within the scope of the “Airport Purposes” designation. This is most clearly shown by the differing legal opinions (see earlier in this document) which are on a spectrum from narrow to wide definition of the scope of activities permitted under the designation. Case law around NZ does not assist in refining this issue. What is clear is that it is not a simple matter to resolve and is open to debate as has occurred and will continue to occur in the absence of an agreed position being reached.

A clear limitation on activities within the designation itself would be useful in better understanding the situation, as this would take the issue beyond dispute. This would however require a variation to the designation by CIAL as requiring authority. Such a process would be a public process and would open the issue up to wide discussion and debate. This is not a course of action desirable to CIAL as they consider that their scope is extensive (as demonstrated by the two legal opinions they have obtained) and they are not eager to open this issue up to public debate. Likewise, CIAL have not at this time sought a declaration to confirm the scope of the designation. It is important to note that there remains the possibility that another party could seek to challenge the scope of the designation by seeking a declaration from the Environment Court.

An alternative approach was initiated in 2010 where attempts were made to establish an agreed position between Christchurch City Council and CIAL on what activities are beyond the scope of the designation. This was based around a schedule of possible activities with some agreed as being appropriately contained in the designated purpose. This was intended to lead to a practice note for Council staff in 2010 to inform their consideration of applications for the Dakota Park and Spitfire Square areas, but was never completed and implemented.

The process of considering the recent resource consent applications as non-complying activities has clearly identified the lack of strength in the policy framework relating to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. It is significant that there is no objective relating to this important regional hub and that the policies do not clearly state the intentions for development of the zone. There is a need for a clear, comprehensive set of provisions to guide future development in this area.

The current position driving the plan change can be summarised as:

A significant policy gap in guiding development within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, with no specific objective or policy in the City Plan for the Zone.

An enablement of activities under the designation that has legitimately evolved over time to reflect a modern airport operation, but which is not clearly documented or aligned with the City Plan.


3.3 Proposed Plan Change Content A full set of changes contained within the Plan Change is set out in the Plan Change document. In summary the changes proposed include:


Amendments to statements in Volume 1, sections 3.15.9, and 13.18.2 – clarifying the issues relating to the Airport.

Amendments to the explanation and reasons for Policies 7.8.1-7.8.3 – outlining the transport role of the Airport.

Insertion of a new Objective and Policy in Volume 2; 12.12 Role of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, and 12.12.1 Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, and associated explanations and reasons, Environmental Results Anticipated, and Implementation. These provide the policy context for the zone and guide future development.

Amendments to Policy 13.3.1 International Airport operations – better recognising the context of the Airport.

Amendments to the rules in Volume 3, Part 8, Special Purpose (Airport) Zone – including the zone statement, development standards, critical standards, assessment matters, and reasons for rules. These refine the description of the Airport and update the relevant rules, including a revision of the rules relating to activities anticipated (or not) within the zone.

Insertion of an appendix to Part 8 (as Appendix 12) to include an Airport Precinct Plan setting out the three precinct areas for the zone.

Amendments to the planning maps 16A, 22A, 23A, 29A, and 30A for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone – linking these maps to the associated precinct plan.


4.0 Statutory Context

4.1 The Requirements of the Act Any Plan Change must be designed to accord with, and assist the Council to carry out its functions, so as to achieve the purpose of the Act. The relevant sub-sections for consideration of this Plan Change are contained in section 31, as follows:

31 Functions of territorial authorities under this Act

(1) Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district:

(a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(c) [Repealed]

(d) the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes:

(f) any other functions specified in this Act.

(2) The methods used to carry out any functions under subsection (1) may include the control of subdivision.

In relation to this Plan Change, the purpose of the Plan Change would be to aid in achieving integrated management of the Airport area and in controlling any actual or potential effects of the use and development of Airport land.

Section 32 of the Act sets out the process for evaluating a proposal for a change to a District Plan. This states:

32 Consideration of alternatives, benefits, and costs

(1) In achieving the purpose of this Act, before a proposed plan, proposed policy statement, change, or variation is publicly notified, a national policy statement or New Zealand coastal policy


statement is notified under section 48, or a regulation is made, an evaluation must be carried out by—

(a) the Minister, for a national environmental standard or a national policy statement; or

(b) the Minister of Conservation, for the New Zealand coastal policy statement; or

(ba) the Minister of Aquaculture, for regulations made under section 360A; or

(c) the local authority, for a policy statement or a plan (except for plan changes that have been requested and the request accepted under clause 25(2)(b)of Schedule 1); or

(d) the person who made the request, for plan changes that have been requested and the request accepted under clause 25(2)(b)of Schedule 1.

(2) A further evaluation must also be made by—

(a) a local authority before making a decision under clause 10 or clause 29(4)of Schedule 1; and

(b) the relevant Minister before issuing a national policy statement or New Zealand coastal policy statement.

(3) An evaluation must examine—

(a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

(b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

(3A) This subsection applies to a rule that imposes a greater prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies than any prohibition or restriction in the standard. The evaluation of such a rule must examine whether the prohibition or restriction it imposes is justified in the circumstances of the region or district.

(4) For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account—

(a) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

(b) the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

(5) The person required to carry out an evaluation under subsection (1) must prepare a report summarising the evaluation and giving reasons for that evaluation.

(6) The report must be available for public inspection at the same time as the document to which the report relates is publicly notified or the regulation is made

Thus the key aspects of the Section 32 evaluation are:

1. Examination of the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act.

2. Examination of whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

3. Evaluation of the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods.

4. Evaluation of the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods

The Purpose of the Act is set out in Section 5 which states:

5 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.


(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment

4.2 Regional Planning Documents In 1955 the Regional Planning Authority was established. The Christchurch Regional Scheme, Section 1, Rural Area (Operative 1959), recognised the Airport’s regional importance. Continued policy recognition was provided to the Airport in the ‘rolled over’ into the 1968 Regional Scheme.

In 1979 the Canterbury United Council (which replaced the Christchurch Regional Planning Authority in 1974) notified a draft ‘Second Review’ of its Regional Scheme which continued to recognise the Airport.

In 1980 the newly formed Canterbury Regional Council finalised this ‘Draft’ as the ‘Second Review Section 1: Settlement Distribution Regional Scheme’ (Operative in 1985). This scheme included regional objectives and policies, and established a “Greenbelt” around the Christchurch Urban Area. In terms of the protection and use of the Airport, Objective 14.2(f) sought the protection of “the Christchurch International Airport from encroachment by urban development and safeguard its development potential”. Policy 2 sought “the development and improvement of the airport should be provided in accordance with an agreed comprehensive plan”.

4.2.1 Regional Policy Statement

The first Regional Policy Statement was made operative in 1998. It contained a number of relevant policies, which read together (refer Chapter 15: Policy 1 – Transport, and Chapter 12: Policy 2 – Settlement and the Built Environment), not only point to the likely adverse effects of ‘reverse sensitivity’ from urban encroachment, but furthermore that the Airport represents significant regional infrastructure, and that the efficient operation, use and development of such should be recognised at a Regional Policy level.

The new Regional Policy Statement (Operative January 2013) identifies Christchurch International Airport as critical infrastructure, strategic infrastructure, regionally significant infrastructure, and as a transport hub4.

The RPS identifies within Objective 5.2.1 (for the entire Canterbury Region) that development, be located and designed so that it functions in a way that:

(1) achieves consolidated, well designed and sustainable growth in and around existing urban areas;

(2)(c) encourages sustainable economic development by enabling business activities in appropriate locations;

(2)(f) is compatible with, and will result in the continued safe, efficient and effective use of regionally significant infrastructure; and

4 Different definitions apply between Chapter 6 and the rest of the RPS and the differing terms are used throughout the RPS.


(2)(g) avoids adverse effects on regionally significant infrastructure, and where avoidance is impracticable, remedies or mitigates those effects.

Enabling a range of activities to occur on airport land would be consistent with the objective. The airport location is appropriate for business development given its locational benefits of proximity to both the airport activity and SH1. Through the provision of appropriate rules on activities, compatibility and avoidance of adverse effects can be maintained.

The bulk of the provisions within the RPS that relate to Christchurch International Airport are contained within chapter 6 which relates to the Greater Christchurch Urban Area and is subject to proposed Change 1 (discussed below).

4.2.2 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy / RPS Proposed Change 1

The Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS), adopted in June 2007, is a plan for managing urban development that protects water, enhances open spaces, improves transport links, creates more liveable centres and manages population growth in a sustainable way. The Strategy provides strategic directions for the Greater Christchurch area, including the location of future housing, development of social and retail activity centres, areas for new employment and integration with transport networks. It enables the Strategy partners (Environment Canterbury, the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Waimakariri District Council, the NZ Transport Agency and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu) and the community to work collaboratively to manage growth. The UDS is in part implemented through proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement (PC1).

Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement (‘PC1’) was notified in July 2007.

CIAL made a submission on proposed Change 1 seeking that the:

Urban limits under PC1 and Variations be accepted but that the urban limit be extended to include the entire CIA.

Also that the Key Activity Centre definition be amended to include the CIA and reflect that not all the bullet points listed in the definition will apply, or

Alternatively that a key commercial and employment definition be included in the RPS.

The reporting officer recommended that:

The urban limit be extended to include that part of the CIA that lies within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

Recognising CIA as a key activity centre be rejected.

CIAL accepted the reporting officer’s recommendation on recognising CIA as a key activity centre. However, it was argued that the airport represents a major physical resource as a business and economic centre as well as a significant transport interchange mode. It also sought recognition of the Airport’s economic development and viability. CIAL noted that: ‘the Environment Court has previously observed that the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone has many similarities to other business districts in Christchurch and that new and developing areas within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone are less directly connected to airfield activities and reflect an increasing function of the airport as a nodal transportation and shipping point’.

ECan accepted the commissioner’s recommendation that the Airport does not become a Key Activity Centre. However, Dakota Park was always proposed to be within the Urban Limit but the Urban Limit was further extended to include land to the west, towards Hornby. The RPS was also amended to include the following statement under Policy 6 as a note under Table 3: Business


Land Areas for Greater Christchurch 2007-2041: In addition, in June 2007 there were around 287 hectares of vacant zoned business land within the Christchurch City Plan area. There are also around 174 hectares of vacant land zoned Special Purpose (Airport).

Decisions on PC1 were made in 2009 and appealed to the Environment Court. Consideration of these appeals was overtaken by the earthquakes and Minister Brownlee’s made a decision to revoke PC1 and put in place chapters 12 and 12A to the RPS. The Minister’s decision has subsequently been overturned by the High Court and the appeals are again before the Environment Court. In essence this means that the PC1 provisions are not yet settled and the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) is also not yet settled. At this time, the boundary of the MUL runs around the outer edge of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone.

This analysis has been undertaken against the decision version of PC1.

PC1 defines the Christchurch International Airport as “Strategic Infrastructure”. Objective 8 seeks to achieve urban land use development without adversely affecting the efficient operation, use and development of strategic infrastructure and enable the development of the additional Strategic Infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of growth in population and economic activity. Objective 8 recognises that such Strategic Infrastructure will need to develop in response to future demands placed on it by the growth of population and economic activity. Supporting Policy 10 seeks to ensure that urban activities do not adversely affect the efficient use and development of such strategic infrastructure. This plan change assists such processes by providing clarity around what is anticipated to occur within the airport land area and balancing change within the area with that going on around it.

Policy 3 relates to business land and seeks that the Council provide for business activities in a manner that promotes the utilisation of existing business land while reinforcing Key Activity Centres, utilising existing infrastructure and ensuring proximity to labour supply, major transport hubs and passenger transport networks. This is applicable to the airport land which already performs a business activity role and can meet the other aims of this policy without unduly undermining any Key Activity Centre.

Policy 5 defines the Key Activity Centres and seeks to ensure that commercial activity outside of these does not adversely affect their function, vitality or amenity. To ensure that this is the case, this Plan Change proposes to put limits on the scale of commercial activity that could occur within the airport zone.

4.2.3 Land Use Recovery Plan

The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery directed preparation of a Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) by Environment Canterbury. The intention for this Plan is to provide the certainty needed for greater Christchurch to recover and once again be a great place to live, work, play and visit. It will provide the necessary framework and guidance for how best to address short and medium-term needs for housing and business, review the existing planning and policy framework and ensure land-use changes support an efficient and effective earthquake recovery. The framework will enable people to understand their choices for housing, business and investment and make decisions with confidence. The LURP focuses on the following principal issues:

Housing and residential land supply – including a range of housing types;

Business land supply;

Infrastructure and transport to support residential and business land-use decisions;

Avoiding and mitigating natural hazards and environmental constraints.


A draft Plan has been out for consultation and is now with the Minister to review. It is intended to be operational in the third quarter of 2013.

In terms of vacant business land, the LURP context document identifies that the total future industrial business land across Greater Christchurch equates to around 1,293 ha, made up of currently-zoned vacant land (626 ha), together with land identified for potential future zoning (667 ha). The latter includes the approximately 100ha within the NWRA.

These totals however do not include the SPAZ. This zone currently provides for airport related activities, the zones purpose being for “activities clearly associated with operations and associated functions of the airport and aviation”. There is a large amount of vacant land in the SPAZ (144ha at June 2012), which supports cargo and freight companies that would otherwise locate in other industrial business areas of the City. The draft LURP notes that recent Commissioner decisions in relation to the types of business activities which could be located in the SPAZ have identified the need to provide a clearer policy framework for the SPAZ and/or specific areas within it, such as Dakota Park. Should the outcome of this policy review widen the range of business activities which can locate in the SPAZ then the vacant land within this area would be additional industrial business land provision available to the market.

In terms of potential constraints, the LURP identifies that the provision of supporting transport infrastructure, including public transport and active modes of travel, may impact on the availability and suitability of business land supply. It notes that protection of, and provision for, strategic (transport) infrastructure needs to be integrated with business land supply.

The LURP Business Factsheet highlights that Christchurch International Airport (and Lyttelton Port of Christchurch) are strategic infrastructure of national significance, enabling movement of international and domestic freight to and from the South Island. The airport also provides a gateway for tourism and is a major contributor to the Canterbury economy. Both have seen significant operational growth and are expected to continue to grow substantially. Given New Zealand’s relative remoteness from international markets, the LURP notes that it is essential that the transport and handling of freight to, from and within these ports is reliable, effective and efficient so that unnecessary transport costs and delays are avoided.

In early LURP consultation with the Greater Christchurch Transport Group, Airport links and access were stated to be important. Public transport links and freight distribution functions at the airport were desired although noted to be a much longer term desire. Integrating public transport with both existing and intensified land uses was desired and more generally, active travel was stated to be a real potential to realise. (Better) public transport links with the airport as noted above were also identified as desirable.

The draft LURP notes that both ports have seen significant operational growth and are expected to continue to grow substantially in coming years. Passengers through the airport are expected to increase by 50% by 2028 and freight tonnage will double, from a relatively low base. By 2028, it is expected that Lyttelton Port will need to accommodate a significant increase in container and other traffic. Given New Zealand’s relative remoteness from international markets it is essential that the transport and handling of freight to, from and within both ports is reliable, effective and efficient so that unnecessary transport costs and delays are avoided. The strategic partners are working to optimise freight efficiency of both road and rail.

Key issues for the airport are ensuring freight access is efficient and reliable from State Highway 1. The airport is well located relative to the strategic road network and the surrounding industrial and commercial land uses that rely on good connectivity with domestic and international markets.

In terms of responses recommended within the LURP, the most relevant (in transport terms) to this study are:

Within 6 months of approval of the LURP:


ECan and CCC would be required to provide to the CER Minister amendments as required to the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Programme, Annual Plans, Three Year Plans and Long Term Plans to ensure that infrastructure funding programmes are aligned to priority areas

CCC would be required to review the District Plan transport provisions following the recent adoption of the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement and Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan and “provide to the CER Minister changes as required and appropriate to reinforce land use and transport integration.”

4.2.4 Regional Plans

The Canterbury National Resources Regional Plan (‘NRRP’) became operative in June 2011. The water quality and water quantity chapters of the NRRP are of specific relevance to development options at the Airport as the area is underlain by unconfined and semi-confined aquifers.

The principle Objective WQL4(1) as it relates to groundwater quality states: “The quality of Christchurch groundwater is maintained or enhanced as far as practicable in its overall high quality state in the long term”.

Zone 1 covers the covers the area of the Christchurch Groundwater System of high hydrogeological vulnerability, within which lies Zone 1C Christchurch International Airport which recognises areas associated with the operational and functional needs of the Christchurch International Airport.

Policy WQL17: Effect of Activities in Christchurch Groundwater Protection Zone 1C seeks to manage land use ensure that adverse effects of activities in the Christchurch Groundwater Protection Zone 1C are managed. The policy identifies that there should not be a significant increase in the effects of contamination of groundwater, whilst recognising that activities provided for in the City of Christchurch District Plan or Canterbury Regional Policy Statement are able to be enabled at the Airport, provided: the effects of such activity are consistent with the protection of groundwater quality; and where appropriate best practicable options are pursued to manage adverse effects on groundwater quality. Sub-clause WQL17(3) is important in this regard as it places some reliance on those activities identified in the City Plan [8-3.3.3] as being provided for, as would be activities undertaken in accordance with the ‘Airport purposes’ designation.

Rule WQL8 relates to the discharge of stormwater onto land, with any discharges onto land within Zone 1C deemed a discretionary activity (Condition 4). Similarly the storage of hazardous substances within Zone 1C would typically be deemed a discretionary activity.

Rule WQL36 limits the extent of excavation within Zone 1C, with any breaches deemed to be non-complying activities. The type and extent of activity to be enabled under the existing City Plan provisions, designation or proposed plan change provisions would unlikely trigger this provision.

The Proposed Regional Land and Water Plan was notified in August 2012 and has immediate effect. Hearings commenced in late February 2013.

Objective 3.12 states that “groundwater continues to provide a sustainable source of high quality water for flows and ecosystem health in surface waterbodies and for abstraction”.

Objective 3.14 identifies that high quality fresh water is available to meet actual and reasonably foreseeable needs for community drinking water supplies.

Objective 3.16 seeks to recognise that “infrastructure of national or regional significance is resilient and positively contributes to economic, cultural and social wellbeing through its efficient and effective operation, ongoing maintenance, repair, development and upgrading”.


Policy 4.10 and 4.11 seeks to manage the type, extent and management framework of stormwater discharges that may enter groundwater. Policy 4.20 identifies the need to protect any water source used for drinking water from any discharge of contaminants that may have any actual or potential effect on the quality of the drinking water supply. Policy 9.4.1 for the Christchurch-West Melton Sub-Region identifies the desire to “Protect the high quality, untreated groundwater sources available to Christchurch City as a potable water supply in the area shown on the Planning Maps as the Christchurch Groundwater Protection Zone…”

Rule 5.71 sets out provisions in relation to discharge of stormwater from a network utility operator stormwater system onto or into land or into or onto land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water, or into groundwater. Rule 5.155 to 5.161 set out to manage the extent of excavation where such activities are located over an unconfined or semi-confined aquifer. Rules 5.162 to 5.169 manage the use and use of hazardous substances.

Unlike the Operative NRRP, the Proposed Regional Land and Water Plan does not provide specific provisions for the Airport, and as a consequence does link activities back to those permitted by the Christchurch City Plan. Taking of water – Christchurch-West Melton Groundwater Allocation Zone proposed to be a prohibited activity as it is over allocated.

It is noted that stormwater management from activities undertaken at CIA can be undertaken within the capacity afforded by Environment Canterbury Consent CRC042924 (refer Part B, Section 5).

4.2.5 Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy

The Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy (CRLTS) sets out strategy for managing regional transport issues for the period 2012-2042. The Vision for the strategy is “Canterbury has an accessible, affordable, integrated, safe, resilient and sustainable transport system”.

While the airport does not itself support a land transport mode, it is important that it is adequately linked to the other transport connections. In this way the CRLTS is important as it identifies the need to protect and maintain transport hubs and enhance connectedness. It is also important that development on airport land can be serviced by the range of transport modes and can operate and expand without unduly impacting on transportation networks.

4.2.6 Greater Christchurch Transport Statement

The Greater Christchurch Transport Statement, released in December 2012, aims to provide an overarching framework for integrated transport planning and network development within the Greater Christchurch area. It is designed to guide the city's 10 transport providers in the development and management of the Greater Christchurch transport programmes and the partners' investment strategies to ensure a 'one network' approach.

Primarily, the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement focuses on the strategic links between key places within the Greater Christchurch area, with the partners committed to looking ahead and working together to deliver better outcomes which build resilience, efficiency and reliability into the transport network, at the same time ensuring the community is provided with sustainable transport choices.

In terms of direct relevance to the Study Area, the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement notes among “the most pressing strategic transport issues needing partnership action in the short term” are “the Western corridor, airport access and overall freight growth and opportunities”. It outlines an indicative Action Plan that requires resolution by the partners, within the ‘short-term’ of measures to address these issues.


4.3 District Planning Documents

4.3.1 Christchurch City Plan

The Christchurch City Plan provides for the Airport specifically within the Special Purpose (Airport) zone. The description of the zone states:

1.3 Special Purpose (Airport) Zone

Zone description and purpose

The Airport Zone contains facilities associated with the operations of Christchurch International Airport including runways, airport buildings and surrounding land used for airport support services. It is bounded in the north by McLeans Island and Jessons Roads, to the west by Pound Road, the east by Russley Road and extends southwards to Grays and Ryans Roads. A substantial area has been zoned in the plan for expansion of airport freight operations, adjacent to the western end of Avonhead Road, and this area is also subject to designation (refer Part 12).

There has been substantial growth in passenger numbers and freight volumes, both domestic and international, and a continuation of this steady growth is expected. This will have implications for the range and extent of development within the airport zone itself, and beyond.

The airport zone is surrounded by the Rural 5 (Airport Influences) Zone, and the extent of development within this is important as far as airport operations are concerned, particularly with regard to the effects of aircraft noise and public safety. This also has an impact to a lesser extent on parts of the Rural 4, Rural 6 and Rural Q Zones.

The intention is that any development within the airport zone be clearly associated with the operations and associated functions of the airport and aviation. Business development which has little or no relationship with the airport , is provided for elsewhere in the city to ensure that the availability of land within the airport zone is not unduly restricted for airport uses.

Environmental results anticipated

(a) Continuing development and intensification of building and airport support activities on the eastern side of the zone between Russley Road and the main airport runway.

(b) High noise impacts, both from and within the zone, associated with aircraft movements, aircraft testing and maintenance.

(c) Development of general (and military) aviation support facilities on the western side of the zone between Pound Road and the main runway.

(d) Relatively high levels of traffic generation both to and from the airport zone, but with protection of the Russley Road frontage from commercial access in reflection of its role as a major arterial route.

(e) An effective transportation network to and from the Special Purpose (Airport ) zone, with the direction of airport traffic to and from the city via Memorial Ave and Harewood Road, and to a lesser extent, Wairakei Road.

(f) High standards of amenity and landscaping around the edge of the airport zone and along major roads within the airport zone, but particularly on the Russley Road, Memorial Avenue and Jessons Road frontages.

(g) Containment of any hazardous substances stored within the airport zone (including fuel) in a manner which ensures that they do not have any adverse affect on ground or surface waters, or create a hazard to life.

(h) Co-ordination and management of activities in the airport zone and the surrounding rural zones to minimise incompatible activities, particularly in respect to activities which are sensitive to aircraft noise.


The airport site was originally located entirely within the area governed by Paparua County Council and was zoned as rural in the Paparua District Scheme. The relevant provisions of the Operative Paparua Scheme (1974) were primarily aimed at protection of the on-going operation of the Airport, such as including provisions with regard to approach and take off slopes.

Confirmed in March 1988, the City Council designated the airport for ‘Airport Purposes’ in the Paparua Scheme. The designation was based on the 1985 Master Plan for the Airport, which identified the land use options for the entirety of the designated area including airport operations, terminals, commercial aviation, cargo and freight, future development area, and ‘miscellaneous’. The range of activities under ‘miscellaneous’ included:

Airport hotel;

Administrative buildings (office blocks);

Medical facilities;

Airmail distribution centre;

Airport Authority administrative building; and

Trade / Business Centre.

The Christchurch City Plan was notified in 1994. This document proposed a Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, and set out the parallel approach to planning controls at the Airport being either the Designation (for “Airport Purposes”) or the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone (for those activities that did not fit comfortably within the designation). The City Plan aims to manage the airport as an important physical resource that will meet the needs of future generations. Through the limitation of activities at the airport to those associated with airport uses and managing the types of activities that can establish on land surrounding the airport, the rules seek to protect the airport resource itself.

The designation allows the airport to carry out activities which fall within the designated area without being subject to the provisions of the City Plan (permits the provision of outline plans and removes the need for resource consents). The designation is broad in that it states that the land is to be used for “airport purposes”. The generality of the designation in the City Plan has both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, it allows CIAL considerable scope to argue that a range of activities fall within the general description of “airport purposes”. However, due to the broad description CIAL does not currently have any certainty as to whether particular activities fall within the designation or not.

Evidence presented by CIAL on the proposed City Plan focused on the need for freight handling facilities rather than the need for more land for other airport purposes. The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone allows a range of activities and evidence indicated that such development would have adverse effects in terms of landscape and rural amenities of the area generally. Hearing evidence also suggested that there was no realistic alternative to operating the airport apart from on its current site due to the high cost of relocation. The Decision notes that the designation allows for a broad range of activities which have an ‘airport purpose’, and noted that the outline plan procedure in section 176A of the RMA allows for the provision of a full assessment of any proposed development.

The City Plan contains both policies and rules relating to the airport area. A copy of the key policies and rules is contained in Appendices Six and Seven.

The policy framework applying to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone is limited. There is no objective specifically for the Airport. There are few specific policies, including:

a policy in relation to protection of Airport operations from activities occurring within the surrounding environment, especially those that may be noise sensitive,


a policy in relation to protection of the air corridors through height and use restrictions,

policies around provisions for effective and efficient operation and development of the airport, along with limiting noise effects,

a policy in relation to ensuring development within Open Space zones does not affect airport operations and does not increase the risk of bird strike.

The Airport is also mentioned in a range of other policies, mainly in their explanation and reasons, relating to issues such as management of bird strike, distribution of business activity, and proximity of residential activities to the airport operations.

The main rules relating to the airport are contained in two areas; Volume 3, Part 8 contains the rules for the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone and Part 9 contains rules relating to the airport protection surfaces. The Special Purpose (Airport) Zone rules relate to:

building setbacks from road boundaries

building setbacks from the Rural 5 zone

maximum site coverage by buildings

outdoor storage and landscaping requirements

limits on road access to the zone

maximum building heights

limits on sensitive activities within the airport noise contours

limits on residential units and accommodation in the zone

limits on activities generally within the zone

The City Plan includes a range of general objectives and policies that have some relevance to the Airport, including:

6.1 Objective: Urban consolidation To accommodate urban growth with a primary emphasis on consolidation.

6.2 Objective: Business activity and urban growth Patterns of land use that promote and reinforce a close proximity and good accessibility between living, business and other employment areas.

6.3A Objective: Peripheral urban growth Peripheral urban development of a scale and character consistent with a primary emphasis on urban consolidation; which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse impacts on water, versatile soils, significant amenity values and other natural resources; and which makes efficient use of physical infrastructure.

7.8 Objective: Access to the City Recognition of the need for regional, national and international links with the City and provision for those links.

12.2 Role of the Central City To restore and enhance the Central City as Christchurch's principal focus for a diversity of business, accommodation, community and cultural activities, while managing adverse effects arising from the intended mix of activities.

12.3 Efficiency and Viability To enable the efficient use and continued viability of the physical resources of the Central City, and promote the economic success and vitality of the area.

Business objective A distribution, and diverse range, of business environments which meet the social and economic needs of the wider community, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating the potential adverse effects of their activities within the immediate area, and on the broader surrounding environment.


12.1 Distribution objective: Distribution of Business Activity A distribution, scale and form of business activity which meets the economic needs of businesses, provides the community with convenient access to goods, services and opportunities for social interaction, and which:

(a) is able to be efficiently serviced by infrastructure, including water, effluent disposal and roading;

(b) encourages in appropriate circumstances:

• co-location of community services and facilities within the central city and district centres;

• consolidation of residential development around selected consolidation focal points;

• accessibility, by a variety of modes of transport, to centres providing a wide range of public and private services and facilities; and

(c) manages the adverse effects of business activities on the environment, including:

• maintaining or improving the safety and efficiency of the road network and related systems for all users (including public transport, pedestrians and cyclists), and minimising unnecessary trip generation;

• maintaining the amenity of residential and other sensitive environments (including local roads);

• ensuring the function, vitality and amenity of those existing centres that provide a wide range of public and private services and facilities to the community will not be significantly affected by new retail activity; and

• minimising contamination, pollution, odour, hazardous substances, noise and glare.

12.10 Industrial areas objective: Role of industrial areas A wide range of industrial areas which accommodate a diversity of appropriate business activities, where adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

12.11 Industrial areas objective: Amenity and effects of industrial areas A standard of amenity in industrial areas recognising their location and function, whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects resulting from activity and development in these areas.

4.3.2 Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan

This is a non-statutory Plan adopted by CCC in November 2012. It has sought to update Christchurch’s local transport policy in relation to relevant statutory plans, in particular the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy, Regional Policy Statement, Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Regional Public Transport Plan, placing a strong emphasis on travel choice by establishing strong networks for all transport options during the next 30 years.

The Plan has four main goals:

1) to improve access and choice;

2) to create safe, healthy and liveable communities;

3) to support economic vitality; and

4) to create opportunities for environmental enhancements. It sets out a number of objectives and actions to achieve these.

A key tool to achieve the CTSP goals will be a proposed new road classification system, called ‘Liveable Streets’, which, in time, is likely to replace the existing City Plan road hierarchy.


Appendix C to the CTSP explains this system in more detail. The key elements of relevance to this study are outlined below.

Essentially, the existing4-level hierarchy classification system would be replaced by a system that seeks to present a more balanced view of the ‘place’ (land use) function of streets alongside their ‘link’ (movement) function.

Additionally, priority corridors have been identified which recognise modal networks (freight, cycling, walking, public transport and strategic roads) and seek to achieve an integrated ‘one network’ approach.

A key action identified within the CTSP will be the development of one Network Operating Plan for the city, in consultation with other transport agencies but especially NZTA (as funder and state highways manager) and ECan (as public transport operator). This Plan is likely to reflect the principles of the Liveable Streets system outlined below - but may be subject to change.


26 Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Plan Change | Statutory Analysis

5.0 Section 32 Analysis

5.1 Analysis of Broad Options In addressing the current situation, the broad options that the Council has considered are:

Status quo

Amend or remove the designation

Plan Change

Review zoning of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone

The following table provides a brief summary of the advantages and disadvantages of these options, supporting the decision to proceed to a plan change.


312

Option Advantages Disadvantages

Status Quo

Continue with existing situation of designation and zone, with limited policies and rules.

No costs for plan change process. Retains current uncertainty and confusion through having no clear definition of what is within the scope of the designation and what is covered by the rules.

Continues the situation of having to deal with most proposed activities through individual resource consent applications – costly and time consuming for both applicants (CIAL) and the Council.

Amend Designation

Amend the designation to specify exactly what activities are included within the description of “Airport Purposes” and to what scale

and/or

include conditions on the designation constraining the extent of activities within the designation.

Establishes exactly what is permitted by the designation, leaving clarity over what then requires consideration under City Plan rules.

Costly and time consuming process for change to the designation.

Opposed by CIAL as they do not want the designation altered.

Remove the Designation and rely on Special Purpose (Airport) Zone provisions in the City Plan only

This would still require a plan change (see options below) to amend the zone provisions, as well as a statutory process to remove the designation.

Would reduce complexity within the City Plan and would lead to a simple rule situation applying.

Would remove confusion with interpretation between the provisions of the designation and the City Plan.

Costly process for plan change and statutory removal of the designation.

Would be opposed by CIAL as the requiring authority who would not want the designation removed.

Would give less certainty and flexibility for airport operations and would reduce the control available to the airport company over their land.

Would remove certainty that the airport requires to operate and change relatively quickly to respond to operational demands and changes in the market.

Would need to get the amended Special Purpose



(Airport) Zone provisions very precise and agreed to ensure that they did not undermine the importance of the Airport or unreasonably limit activities essential to the wider operation of the airport.

Plan Change A

Incorporate revised policy framework only.

Establishes a policy framework against which activities (outside the designation) can be measured.

Costly process for plan change.

Retains situation of uncertainty over application of rules.

Plan Change B

Incorporate revised Policy Framework

and

specify activities that are permitted/not permitted within the zone generally across the zone.


Establishes exactly what activities are anticipated or not within the zone.

Provides rules limiting activities to ensure appropriateness to the zone.


Requires activities that can be undertaken under the designation to be quantified.

Plan Change C

Incorporate revised Policy Framework

and

specify activities that are permitted/not permitted within the zone

and

divide the zone into precincts within which different outcomes and activities are anticipated.


Establishes exactly what activities are anticipated or not within the zone.

Incorporates subtleties to recognise different activities in different areas of the zone (precincts).

Provides rules limiting activities to ensure appropriateness to the zone.


Requires activities that can be undertaken under the designation to be quantified.

Review zoning - extend

Consider whether to extend the current

Extending the zone would enable new rules to be applied to control activities in this area e.g. have a special open space

Extending the zone would take the zone outside the metropolitan urban limits and be inconsistent with the RPS.


Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Plan Change | Statutory Analysis 29


zone to also include the other airport purposes designated area to the west of Pound Road.

precinct or a future activities precinct. Extending the zone removes the existing rural zone (under the designation) and could increase the likelihood of inappropriate activities occurring on this area. (Note all designated activities could continue to occur on this land.)

This land is leased by CIAL from the Canterbury Regional Council and may not facilitate the intentions for the lease.

Would lead to perceptions around intentions for urbanisation of the land and impacts on the underlying and surrounding rural land.

Review zoning - reduce

Consider reducing the area of the zone to not cover the aviation operations areas e.g. runways.

Would mean that rules would only need to apply to non-aviation activities.

Would be confusing in relation to what was covered in what area.

Would mean that another zone would need to become the underlying zone for the aviation operations area – a rural zone as applies to adjoining land would imply that rural activities are anticipated and this is not realistic.

Likely to be opposed by CIAL as a reduction in the historical area of zoning which would imply changed expectations for the land.


316

Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Plan Change | Statutory Analysis

Having undertaken the analysis above, the preferred option is Plan Change C taking a holistic approach to reviewing the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone. This option demonstrates a high level of efficiency with advantages outweighing disadvantages.

Having made this decision, the following diagram shows the scope of the proposed Plan Change.

5.2 Examination of Proposed New Objective

As it was identified that the lack of a clear and directive Objective (and supporting policies) for the zone was a key issue, the Plan Change proposes the introduction of a new Objective. The Act requires an examination of the extent to which the objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act.

In determining appropriate objectives and policies for the Special Purpose (Airport) zone the following reference material was considered:

Existing City Plan provisions

Provisions from the Auckland Plan, Wellington District Plan, and Queenstown District Plan

In developing a proposed objective, there was no review/amendment of the existing provisions in the City Plan that the airport operations relate to:

Other zones (e.g. Open Space zone)

Noise issues (e.g. noise contours)

Other related issues (e.g. bird strike)

as it is considered that these provisions remain relevant and are not applicable to the purpose of this plan change which is to consider activities within the area, rather than effects of airport operations on the wider environment.

The approach to developing the new objective has been to keep this as precise as possible in terms of clarifying the purpose of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone and how this zone is intended to operate presently and into the future.

The proposed new objective states:

Objective 12.12 Role of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone

The efficient use and development of the land, infrastructure and operational facilities at the Christchurch International Airport, where such use and development:

(a) provides for the ongoing operation of airport / aviation activities;

(b) remains compatible with business distribution, and the overall urban form of the City;

(c) provides for positive economic and social effects arising from the efficient and effective integration of Airport development and other regional infrastructure;



(d) supports the needs of travellers, workers within the zone, and visitors to services within the zone; and

(e) achieves a standard of amenity reflective of the role and functions of the Airport, and a high level of safety in this area.

There are currently no objectives within the City Plan applying specifically to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone and thus it is not possible to evaluate the proposed new objective against any specific existing objective. In this way the new objective is a more appropriate means of achieving the purpose of the Act than the absence of an objective as is the current situation.

The introduction of the proposed objective is relevant as it directly resolves the situation of the City Plan not having any clear objective statement around the future growth and development of the airport land. The sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the airport land will be better achieved through having such a clear objective statement, especially when compared to the existing situation of a policy void.

The proposed objective is considered fit for purpose as without this objective the lack of an objective would be perpetuated. Without this objective, decision making on proposals (beyond the extent of the designation) would continue to be extremely difficult as there is no test for consideration of appropriate activities. The proposed objective sets a clear statement around what is intended to occur on the land and how use and development would be considered to be appropriate. The proposed objective is consistent with other current objectives in the City Plan in relation to urban growth, business areas, and transport (see analysis in section 5.4.1).

The proposed objective is to be supported by a comprehensive set of policies and a revision of the rule provisions (see analysis below) which together can ensure that the objective is able to be realised. There are clear benefits in providing a resolution to the current situation of a lack of clarity and direction.

5.3 Examination and Evaluation of Policies, Rules and Methods The Act requires an examination of whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives, and an evaluation of the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods.

5.3.1 Proposed Policy

The proposed new policy states:

12.12.1 Policy: Special Purpose (Airport) Zone

To promote the ongoing sustainable development and operation of the Christchurch International Airport and facilitate a planned approach to its future development; in a manner that:

(a) provides for a range of business activity, where such activities would not:

(i) constrain airport/aviation operations; or

(ii) result in adverse effects on City form or urban growth, including the role and function of the City Centre or key activity centres;

(b) identifies precinct areas within the Airport with distinct character and uses promoting:

(i) a mix of tourist, business and service activities within the Terminal Precinct, and

(ii) employment, freight and commercial/industrial service activities within the Freight - Service Precinct,

(iii) aviation expansion and operations within the Aviation Precinct;

(c) accommodates future strategic development of the Airport, whilst:

(i) having regard to effects on amenity values, including the relationship between buildings, roads, car parks and landscaping, taking into account the character and functions of the Christchurch International Airport;

(ii) ensuring noise sensitive activities do not adversely limit effective and efficient Airport operation and development; and

(iii) limiting nuisance to nearby residents through provisions to actively manage and mitigate adverse noise effects from Airport operations;



(d) seeks to avoid adverse effects of activities on the visual amenity of Memorial Avenue and Russley Road;

(e) limits the types and scale of retail and office activities, except where these provide for the reasonably foreseeable needs and wellbeing of travellers, workers within the zone, and visitors to services within the zone, and only where such activities would not otherwise:

(i) significantly impact on the functioning, amenity or viability of the City Centre or key activity centres; or

(ii) be incompatible with the character and standards of amenity of Christchurch International Airport;

and

(f) avoids the establishment of incompatible activities such as large format retail activities, or noxious industry.

This policy seeks to set out clear direction around what activities are anticipated and intended to occur and under what conditions. This gives effect to the overriding goal of efficient use and development, set out in the new Objective. This policy also sets a position for the development of methods to control development and the specific activities within the zone.

The proposed policy directly addresses the issues in the proposed new objective by requiring that activities must be compatible with airport/aviation activities, and protect City form and urban growth objectives, together with dealing with adverse effects. Other relevant resource management issues (such as noise impacts) are already addressed in other sections of the City Plan.

As there is presently an absence of policy relating to the airport, the introduction of this policy fills a void in the Plan and addresses one of the fundamental reasons for the plan change. It will give direct effect to the new objective.

Alternative approaches to this policy would include:

Status quo of no specific policy

A generic policy trying to cover all issues for the zone

A series of policies trying to tease out the issues for the zone.

Such alternatives are not particularly useful to this analysis. The proposed policy will better achieve the new objective that the current status quo of no specific policy and no clear policy direction for the zone.

As a detailed policy dealing with the aspects of activities and precincts, strategic development, visual amenity, activity scale and compatibility, the policy better achieves the objective than a generic policy would. Although this leads to a complex policy, it is considered appropriate as all these matters are interlinked and are best expressed in a comprehensive manner than trying to break them into separate policies which would be complex and confusing. It is considered that the proposed policy is both efficient and effective.

5.3.2 Proposed Rules and Methods

In relation to the development of rules/methods, there are many activities currently carried out within the zone which have been considered in some manner, at some time in the past – either through resource consents or under the scope of the designation. There has been a lot of variation in how the rules have been applied to different activities. This is not assisted by the varying definitions within the City Plan which have in some cases considerable overlap e.g. business activities.

In determining what activities are to be covered by the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone rules, a baseline for considering activities has been a schedule of activities agreed as permitted within the designation5. The process followed has been:

5 This process of agreeing activities was undertaken between Christchurch City Council and CIAL to facilitate agreement over what activities would require resource consent.



In summary (see separate document for full rule text changes) the proposed new rules and methods relate to:

More clarification of the purpose of the zone in the Zone Statement;

Amendments to the rules relating to activities permitted in the zone.

A revision of the rules relating to anticipated activities in the zone, including business, retail, offices, residential and travellers accommodation;

Refinement of the Assessment Matters and Reasons for Rules applicable to the rules;

Addition of an Appendix inserting an Airport Precinct Plan.

Amendment of the planning maps to show the proposed new precincts.

Alternative approaches to the new rules and methods include:

Alternative Comment

Status quo (no change to existing rules)

This would not be effective as there is a need to update the rules to provide clarity and certainty of future directions for the zone. No change to the status quo would not give effect to the policy or objective.

No permitted activity rule Having no rule specifying permitted activities would mean that all activities beyond the designation would need resource consent. This would not be efficient as there would remain an issue with the definition and limits on activities provided for in the designation. This would also not provide certainty or clarity or give effect to the policy or objective.

Apply an existing zone to all or part of the zone

Applying an existing zone or zones from within the City Plan could be efficient as it would not require the development of new provisions. However, there is no existing zone rule package that recognises the unique nature of the site.

The B1 or B2 zones would allow excessive office or retail activities that could impact on Key Activity Centres or the CBD. B3-8 zones would allow too much industry or general commercial activity to be sustainable for such a location. Residential zones would clearly be inappropriate for such a location (as would most other zone provisions e.g. cultural).

No limits on activities in the zone This would enable potentially significant levels of activity with character and intensity that would not be appropriate to the location or character of the area. There would also remain uncertainty over the direction of intended development and impacts on the wider city. This would also not give effect to the



policy or objective.

No precincts Not delineating the precincts within the zone would make it difficult to direct activities to appropriate locations within the zone. This would not give effect to the policy or objective.

Overall it is considered that these alternatives would not be as effective or efficient as the proposed rule and method package. None of these alternatives would better achieve the policy or objective, and many could lead to increased uncertainty for the future. A number of these alternatives could compromise earthquake recovery, undermine the role of the central city or other retail / business zones. It is noted that some of the existing rules (e.g. road boundary setbacks) do achieve the policy and objective and thus are not proposed to be altered.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness means how successful a particular option is/will be in achieving the stated objective. How successful an option is can be measured in terms of not just whether an objective will be achieved outright; but it may alternatively relate to the extent to which progress will be made even if the objective won’t be met in full. The speed at which progress is made may also be a relevant consideration.

The proposed rules each give effect to aspects of the policy (and therefore the objective). The key aspects of the policy relate to; strategic development, activities in appropriate locations, activity scale and compatibility, and visual amenity. Strategic development outcomes are provided for through ensuring appropriate activities are located in the right parts of the zone. This is further reinforced by the rules relating to activities permitted (including limiting the scale and location of these). These rules are directly relevant to balancing the ability for new activities to occur in the zone with ensuring that such activities do not cause adverse effects on the environment or impact on the development of the wider city. This rule sets parameters around what level of activity is appropriate within the zone. There are a number of rules relating to amenity aspects of development (largely unchanged from the existing plan provisions.

Overall the package of rules and methods is effective at achieving the objective for efficient use and development of the land, infrastructure and operational facilities at the Christchurch International Airport.

Efficiency

The most efficient policy / method will achieve either of the following objectives:

the greatest benefit with the least cost

the greatest 'amount of benefit' (e.g. highest level of amenity) relative to the level of cost, where the objective is not expressed as a fixed amount.

In essence the assessment of benefits and costs needs to consider both qualitative and quantitative attributes with a view to understanding what proposal is most efficient overall.

A summary assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed rules and methods is set out in the table below:

MATERIAL TO BE INSERTED IN TABLE BELOW

COSTS BENEFITS

Environmental

Permitted activities could enable additional traffic generation beyond that presently anticipated. Flow on transport effects are addressed in the assessment of effects section.

Social

The proposed rules would specifically permit activities that may not be presently permitted which may not be

Environmental

The

Social

The proposed rules would provide clarity and certainty around what is anticipated to occur within the special purpose (airport) zone.

The proposed rules would provide clarity and certainty around what levels of activity are expected in which



COSTS BENEFITS

acceptable to some parties.

Economic

Cost to the Council in undertaking a plan change and thus cost to the wider community in undertaking a plan change process (paid for through rates).

Cost to other participants in the plan change process.

parts of the zone.

The proposed precinct approach would clearly set out how the zone is intended to operate.

Economic

Avoids ongoing costs for both the Council (ratepayers) and applicants in processing resource consents for activities that are not permitted by the designation but are anticipated / appropriate for the zone.

Enables additional employment opportunities within the zone.

Enables additional areas for business development where this will not adversely affect the wider city, giving greater opportunities for development.

Supports the ongoing growth and development of the airport as a resource.

Based on this analysis it is considered that the benefits of the proposed policy and rules outweigh the costs and therefore are an efficient approach to the issue.

5.3.3 Specific Rules

MATERIAL TO BE INSERTED


5.4 Further Statutory Analysis

5.4.1 City Plan Objectives

The City Plan currently contains a range of general objectives that have some peripheral relevance to this plan change.

6.1 Objective: Urban consolidation

To accommodate urban growth with a primary emphasis on consolidation.

6.2 Objective: Business activity and urban growth

Patterns of land use that promote and reinforce a close proximity and good accessibility between living, business and other employment areas.

6.3A Objective: Peripheral urban growth

Peripheral urban development of a scale and character consistent with a primary emphasis on urban consolidation; which avoids, remedies or mitigates adverse impacts on water, versatile soils, significant amenity values and other natural resources; and which makes efficient use of physical infrastructure.

The objectives relating to urban growth seek an emphasis on consolidation and patterns of activity that are appropriately located in relation to access and compatible activities. The intent is to constrain growth within established areas to avoid sprawl and inappropriate pressure being placed on the surrounding rural land resource, along with promoting efficiency. While the airport land is, by necessity, located on the periphery of the urban area, growth and development of this land cannot be considered peripheral development as it would not future extent urban activities outside the existing developed areas. The available land resource within the Special Purpose (Airport) zone is confined by the existing infrastructure and particularly by the location of the aviation operations e.g. the runways. Thus development in the zone is contained to areas that would not adversely impact on goals of consolidation and would not contribute to inappropriate sprawl. Generally, the Plan Change is consistent with the urban growth objectives of the City Plan.

7.8 Objective: Access to the City

Recognition of the need for regional, national and international links with the City and provision for those links.

The key objective in the Transport Section is that relating to access to the City and the need to continue to provide for transportation links. The plan change would not undermine the ability of the airport to function as a regional, national and international connection.

12.2 Role of the Central City

To restore and enhance the Central City as Christchurch's principal focus for a diversity of business, accommodation, community and cultural activities, while managing adverse effects arising from the intended mix of activities.

12.3 Efficiency and Viability

To enable the efficient use and continued viability of the physical resources of the Central City, and promote the economic success and vitality of the area.


The Business Section contains a number of objectives around the restoration and redevelopment of the Central City area, following the earthquakes. It is important that the ability for activities to develop and expand at the airport does not undermine the ability of the Central City to return to its role as a focus of activity or undermine its viability. The economic impacts of the proposed Plan Change have been considered with particular emphasis on ensuring the protection of the Central City area, with expert advice provided in this respect (see...???). Thus the expectation is that such activity enabled through the Plan Change would be appropriate in relation to these objectives. It is also intended that the controls on development in the zone would further ensure that the Central City did not suffer from competition from this area.

Business objective

A distribution, and diverse range, of business environments which meet the social and economic needs of the wider community, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating the potential adverse effects of their activities within the immediate area, and on the broader surrounding environment.

12.1 Distribution objective: Distribution of Business Activity

A distribution, scale and form of business activity which meets the economic needs of businesses, provides the community with convenient access to goods, services and opportunities for social interaction, and which:

(a) is able to be efficiently serviced by infrastructure, including water, effluent disposal and roading;

(b) encourages in appropriate circumstances:

• co-location of community services and facilities within the central city and district centres;

• consolidation of residential development around selected consolidation focal points;

• accessibility, by a variety of modes of transport, to centres providing a wide range of public and private services and facilities; and

(c) manages the adverse effects of business activities on the environment, including:

• maintaining or improving the safety and efficiency of the road network and related systems for all users (including public transport, pedestrians and cyclists), and minimising unnecessary trip generation;

• maintaining the amenity of residential and other sensitive environments (including local roads);

• ensuring the function, vitality and amenity of those existing centres that provide a wide range of public and private services and facilities to the community will not be significantly affected by new retail activity; and

• minimising contamination, pollution, odour, hazardous substances, noise and glare.

12.10 Industrial areas objective: Role of industrial areas

A wide range of industrial areas which accommodate a diversity of appropriate business activities, where adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The overall business objective and those relating to distribution and industrial areas, seek that distribution is appropriate to accessibility and is located to appropriately manage effects. The location of the airport has been used for many years for forms of business/industrial activity and thus is well established as a node for activity which meets social and economic needs. The potential for expansion of activity would give greater opportunity for services to meet community


needs for employment and products. The ability to provide for business opportunity in this location would give another area that increases the diversity of sites for varying business activities. The proposed complimentary controls within the plan change are intended to manage effects of activities to protect amenity and avoid adverse effects on surrounding areas.

12.11 Industrial areas objective: Amenity and effects of industrial areas

A standard of amenity in industrial areas recognising their location and function, whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects resulting from activity and development in these areas.

It is intended the standard of amenity in the airport area, which is currently high, would be maintained and enhanced through the package of controls including those on built form and landscaping. This would reinforce this objective for ensuring that business areas have an appropriate level of amenity.

5.4.2 Regional Matters

The key objective (5.2.1) in the new operative RPS in relation to development in the entire Canterbury Region seeks that development be located and designed so that it functions in a way that:

(1) achieves consolidated, well designed and sustainable growth in and around existing urban areas;

(2)(c) encourages sustainable economic development by enabling business activities in appropriate locations;

(2)(f) is compatible with, and will result in the continued safe, efficient and effective use of regionally significant infrastructure; and

(2)(g) avoids adverse effects on regionally significant infrastructure, and where avoidance is impracticable, remedies or mitigates those effects.

Enabling a range of activities, beyond the key aviation operations, to occur on airport land would be consistent with the objective as it would enable economic development in an established business environment, while avoiding adverse effects. The airport location is appropriate for business development given its locational benefits of proximity to both the airport activity and SH1. Through the provision of appropriate rules on activities, compatibility and avoidance of adverse effects can be maintained.

In relation to the provisions of the decision version of PC1, the objective and policies of relevance to the airport zone include objective 8 and policies 3, 5 and 10. These collectively seek to protect and provide for strategic infrastructure, and promote business development while protecting Key Activity Centres. Similarly to the above comments, the development of the airport land in a way that protects aviation operations, will provide for development of this strategic site and can be done in a way that will not undermine other business land areas or Key Activity Centres.

The Regional Plans have a particular focus on water quality protection in relation to development on the airport land and this can be maintained through a range of operational controls on any future development.

Overall therefore it is clear that the proposed Plan Change is consistent with the intent of the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plans.


5.4.3 Risks of Acting or Not Acting

The Act requires an evaluation of the risk of acting, or not acting, if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

In this case there is a wealth of information available about the subject matter including significant history on the use of the land, extensive documentation of recent land use changes and consenting issues, and a wide range of “legal” input through both legal opinions and case law.

The wide range of information available does show that there are varied opinions and views expressed on the issues and not necessarily consensus over how the airport land should develop in the future. This is not an uncertainty about the subject matter but is an issue of different opinions.

However, there is sufficient information around the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods to proceed with the plan change.

5.4.4 Part II Analysis

Section 6 of the Act sets out the Matters of National Importance which need to be recognised and provided for in managing use, development and protection of resources. Few matters within this section are of relevance to this Plan change as it is not close to the coast, wetlands, lakes or rivers, does not contain any identified historic heritage, is not within an area of outstanding natural landscape, or contain any significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitats of indigenous fauna. In relation to Maori culture, tradition or customary rights, there is no known significance to the land in question.

Section 7 addresses “other matters” for which particular regard needs to be had when managing the use, development, and protection of resources. Again due to the location and use of the land, few of these matters are relevant to the Plan Change. It is considered that the proposed plan change would enable efficient use and development of the natural and physical resources associated with the airport land. The natural resource of the land and the physical resources of the infrastructure and existing development can be used and enhanced through additional compatible development that is controlled to avoid adverse effects. The controls through rules in the City Plan will ensure that amenity values are maintained and enhanced, e.g. through requirements for setbacks and landscaping. Likewise the quality of the environment will be maintained and enhanced through provisions to ensure appropriate development occurs and inappropriate development is not permitted.

Section 8 requires that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are taken into account. Through consultation with Ngai Tahu it is understood that


Section 5 sets out the overall purpose of the Act as promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The airport land is made up of extensive areas of natural land resource and much of this is necessary to ensure the ongoing aviation operation of the airport as a key strategic resource. Continued use and development of the natural land resource needs to be well managed to ensure that this use is strategic and appropriate.


The physical resources of the area have developed over many years with considerable infrastructure in the way of roading and services (water, wastewater, power and communications). Again the ongoing use and development of these physical resources needs to be carefully managed to make best use of these through compatible activities and planned development.

It is considered that the proposed plan change would provide for social, economic and cultural well-being and health and safety. These well beings are linked in terms of the area providing for workers and travellers associated with the aviation operations and for employers and employees in other associated or wider business activities within the land. Health and safety is to be maintained through clear procedures around aviation operation, existing controls in the City Plan e.g. relating to noise effects, and proposed new controls over the scale and extent of anticipated activities.

In providing a clear policy framework and an extensive rule package, through this plan change, it is intended that the ongoing development of the airport land would be sustainable in providing for the needs of present and future generations, as well as avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects. The clear policy framework is intended to give direction over what is intended for future development in the area. The rules are intended to specifically manage appropriate activities in a way that avoids adverse effects, enabling a clear framework for consideration of unanticipated activities against the policy direction.]

Overall, it is considered that the comprehensive package of this plan change, when read as a whole, will promote sustainable management.

5.4.5 Functions of a Territorial Authority

The proposed plan change will assist in the ability of the Council to fulfil its function in achieving integrated management of effects. By better defining and controlling activities within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone, the Council is better able to integrate these activities with the wider environment.

The proposed policy framework and rules package will enable control of actual and potential effects of activities.


6.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects

The following is an assessment of the actual and potential effects on the environment from a change to the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone as proposed by this plan change.

6.1 Economics


6.2 Transport Significant road upgrades are proposed or underway in the immediate area around the airport, particularly in relation to SH1. These will assist to support capacity and efficiency of the road network as activity levels increase within the airport zone.


6.3 Infrastructure Support

6.3.1 Water Supply

The current water supply system of artesian wells and a ring main has substantial unutilized capacity and can provide for increased activity within the zone.

All water is supplied by artesian wells located within the Christchurch International Airport boundaries and a ring main supplies potable water to the terminals and buildings. The onsite fire service has multiple sources of water including the potable water main.

The system has substantial unutilized capacity within the consents held by CIAL from the Canterbury Regional Council. Thus any expansion of operations within the airport land can be adequately serviced for water supplies.

6.3.2 Sewer Connections and Wastewater Disposal



6.3.3 Stormwater Capture and Disposal

Stormwater capture and disposal for both the airside and landside areas are covered under stormwater consents held by CIAL from the Canterbury Regional Council (CRC9811291.1 (Airside) and CRC000013.2 (Landside)). These consents include capacity for additional activities to be developed within the existing stormwater consents.

Future capacity is provided by consent CRC042924 to allow an additional 50ha of compacted and hardstand area. This provides capacity for additional activities to be developed within the existing stormwater consents.

6.3.4 Power, Communications and Gas

The airport zone is supplied with power, communications (cable, microwave and radio frequency), and reticulated gas, all with the capacity to provide services to a growth in activity within the zone.

The airport land is supplied by the Orion NZ network via two independent sub stations at Harewood and Hawthorndon. An additional third independent supply is available from Papanui should there be any outages. The sub-transmission network has full N-1 capability and therefore outage at transformer or transmission line will not cause interruption of supply. Any expansion of activities within the airport zone can be serviced in relation to power.

There are existing supplies to the area including, land based cable (Telecom NZ), microwave for cell transmission and radio frequency. These are adequate to deal with increasing operations.

Gas is supplied through in-ground reticulation by Rockgas and the network includes Orchard Road, Durey Rd, Memorial Ave and Harewood Road.

6.4 Land Conditions

6.4.1 Geotechnical conditions

CIAL have had investigations undertaken by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd in 2011 and 2012 to better understand geotechnical conditions on airport land and particularly liquefaction hazard potential.

The assessment showed that liquefaction is not expected to occur for the following reasons:

• The geotechnical investigations showed that the soils are primarily non-liquefiable gravel. The gravel is too permeable and too dense to liquefy.

• The depth to groundwater is greater than seven metres below ground level. This means that even if liquefiable materials are present which were not picked up in the geotechnical investigations a non-liquefiable crust of greater than 7m will prevent liquefaction induced damage occurring on the ground surface.

For this reason, it would appear that there are no geotechnical reasons to limit development within the zone.

6.4.2 Land contamination

CIAL have also commissioned work by Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd to undertake a preliminary environmental assessment at ten former landfills located within the airport property, with a view


to better understanding potential environmental issues associated with the sites and ways to deal with the sites. This report provided information on the level of environmental risk from the contaminant sources and migration pathways.

Since the time of the report, monitoring bores and test pits have been installed, and samples taken. There is now a good knowledge of the contamination levels within the zone and how to manage these. There have also been a number of developments on previously affected land (McDonalds, NZ Post Distribution) which have let to sampling and some remediation work. CIAL has also received consent under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health in relation to the Dakota Park area.

It is understood that any existing land contamination is well known and is able to be dealt with appropriately at the time of any future use of the land without leading to any adverse effects on the environment.

6.5 Amenity Many of the existing plan provisions are intended to deal with amenity based issues – building setbacks, landscaping, etc. These rules are particularly designed to place an emphasis on key public areas and corridors, especially Memorial Avenue and State Highway 1.

It is intended that these rules would continue to apply and would be further reinforced by the policy which includes references to “having regard to effects on amenity values, including the relationship between buildings, roads, car parks and landscaping” and “seeks to avoid adverse effects of activities on the visual amenity of Memorial Avenue and Russley Road”.

These rules would ensure that any future development maintains a reasonable standard of amenity within the zone and between the zone and surrounding areas. It is considered that future development within the zone would not cause adverse effects on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Other aspects that impact on amenity, that are not specifically covered by this plan change, include noise emissions and visual effects of signage. While these matters are addressed by other provisions in the Plan (specific noise rules and signage rules in Volume 3, Parts 10 and 11), it is intended that the policy would set a clear intention for the outcomes expected with the zone.

6.6 Noise


6.7 Social / Cultural



7.0 Consultation

Consultation has been carried out in relation to:

Workshops with Christchurch City Council Councillors.

Meetings and liaison with the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board.

Meetings and liaison with Christchurch International Airport Company.

Meetings and liaison with NZ Transport Agency.

Meetings and liaison with the Canterbury Regional Council.

Correspondence with Ngai Tahu.

Correspondence with affected landowners within the zone.

Correspondence with landowners in the immediately surrounding area.

Schedule 1 consultation as required by the RMA.

Refer to Appendix Eight for a more detailed summary of consultation undertaken prior to notification of this plan change.


Special Purpose (Airport) Zone Plan Change | Statutory Analysis 45

8.0 Conclusions

Are the proposed changes efficient and effective?

Based on the analysis undertaken above it is considered that the proposed changes within the Plan Change are both efficient and effective.

What are the risks of acting or not acting?

As stated above, there is sufficient information that there are no significant risks around proceeding with this Plan Change.

Does the Plan Change better achieve the purpose of the RMA?

Overall it is considered that the Plan Change will better achieve the purpose of the Act than either the present situation or any alternative approaches examined.

Having assessed the proposed plan change against all the requirements under the RMA, it is considered that the proposed changes to the Christchurch City Plan would meet the sustainable management purpose of the Act. The proposed Plan Change would better meet the objectives of the City Plan for development in the airport area than the present situation and would provide clarity around intentions for future use and development in this area.



Appendix 1: Land Zoning Pattern


Appendix 1: Land Zoning Pattern





1935 Christchurch City Council selected the present site at Harewood.

1936 227 hectares of land purchased.

1937 A 915 metre runway and a 60 square metre terminal constructed.

1940 "Harewood Airport" opened for commercial flying.

1940 Airport used by RNZAF as a training base until 1945.

1948 An additional 260 hectares of land purchased.

1950 Christchurch Airport became the first international airport operating in New Zealand.

1953 Christchurch hosted the "Great London to Christchurch Air Race", the first time the route had been traversed in less than 24 hours.

1955 United States Antarctic Operations begin in Christchurch.

1960 A new 6,000 square metre terminal opened.

1962 The main runway was extended to 2,442 metres providing for commercial jet operations.

1966 An international wing was added to the Domestic Terminal.

1975 Extentions to the Domestic Terminal were completed, extending the total floor space to 16,000 square metres.

1980 New International Arrivals Hall completed, providing an additional 2,800 square metres of floor space.

1984 Main runway extended by 845 metres to 3,287 metres.

1987 Terminal extended to accommodate Ansett New Zealand and Air New Zealand lounges and domestic airbridges.

1988 Christchurch International Airport Limited was established as a company owned


75% by the Christchurch City Council and 25% by the New Zealand Government.

1988 International check-in and departure area extended by 2,320 square metres.

1989 International arrival area extended by 1,100 square metres and airbridges and associated facilities of 1,000 square metres added.

1990 International Antarctic Centre opened.

1997 Redevelopment of airport public carpark completed with an additional 340 parking spaces.

1998 New International Terminal Building completed creating an additional 28,000 square metres of new floor space.

2000 Christchurch International Airport introduced real-time Internet flight information on christchurchairport.co.nz, for both domestic and international services and became the first airport in the country to do so.

2000 Qantas New Zealand took to the country's air routes for the first time.

2001 Expansion of the International Terminal to create two new international gates.

2002 A new satellite departure lounge was constructed for Origin Pacific to cater for growing passenger numbers.

2003 Pacific Blue announces Christchurch as their home base in New Zealand.

2004 Expansion of the International Terminal to create five more international stands and four more international airbridges.

2005 Jetstar commence trans-Tasman services from Christchurch.

2006 Construction of the Multi-level Carpark Building.

2007 The commencement of the Terminal Development Project.

2008 Christchurch International Airport Limited becomes the first airport company in the Southern Hemisphere to achieve carbon neutral status.

2009 Construction begins on the new integrated terminal, Jetstar commences New


Zealand domestic services and the new Airways Air Traffic Control Tower opens.

2011 Stage 1 of the Terminal Development Project is completed.

2011 AirAsia X commence services from Christchurch.

(Source: http://www.christchurchairport.co.nz/en/about-us/corporate-information/airport-history)

Christchurch International Airport Master Plan 1985

In 1985 Christchurch City Council commissioned the preparation of the first Master Plan for Christchurch International Airport. The purpose of this exercise was to produce a ‘Master Plan for the development of Christchurch International Airport for the period to 2005 and beyond.’ The 1985 Master Plan established sub-zoning as the means by which land for future airport development can be reserved within the then ‘Airport Zone Boundary’.

Christchurch International Airport Master Plan 2006

The 2006 Airport Master Plan incorporates the key land-use planning principles established in the 1985 Master Plan, which includes: the use of sub-zoning by activity type; limiting the extent of the Master Plan of the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone; planning for land outside the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone; and consideration of development needs over the next 20 years and beyond.

It provides a framework for the development of land within the Christchurch City Plan within the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone which comprises of 721 hectares, of which 683 hectares is owned by Christchurch International Airport Limited (CIAL).

The major aeronautical related developments identified in the AMP are the:

Extension of runway 02-20

Upgrading and extension of crosswind runway

Expansion of taxiway network

Construction of aircraft parking apron areas

Construction of new passenger terminal facilities

Expansion and formation of new internal roads and associated infrastructure.

Development of dedicated freight and cargo precinct in SE of the existing Special Purpose (Airport) Zone

Incremental expansion of commercial facilities to support increasing activity levels.

It also sets out CIAL’s intention to purchase land and not rely on District Plan provisions as these are frequently amended. CIAL have also tried not to use compulsory acquisition and prefer to buy land as it becomes available.

The AMP also includes a Land-use Plan and CIAL’s Property Development Strategy. The Development Strategy sets out the following key issues:


Ensuring the long term viability of safe and efficient airport operations is core business

Airports are long term, asset intensive businesses with long term planning horizons

Operational requirements dictate that airports are space extravagant with large areas of land being a primary requirement

The footprint and nature of land holdings are primarily determined by the core business

Allowing for predicted future growth needs.

The Strategy seeks to enable a reasonable return on CIAL’s property portfolio in the short-term but not compromise the longer-term planning objective of protection for airport purposes.

The Land Use Plan has seven land-use activity zones:

Passenger terminal (63ha)

Cargo/freight (114ha)

Aircraft maintenance (25ha)

Commercial support (58ha)

General aviation (10ha)

Future development (2 areas inside the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone totalling 45ha)

Airfield reserve (6 areas inside the Special Purpose (Airport) Zone totalling 112ha)

Strategic Property Vision, 2007

This builds on the AMP to establish three distinctive precincts:

1. Commercial and Service: 5 zones:

Terminal,

Commercial (Business Park),

Aircraft engineering and maintenance,

Service Commercial (includes Antarctic Experience, car parking, gyms and hotels) and

Expansion (car auction and storage, aviation charter services, campervan operations and helicopter emergency services).

2. Freight: national logistics, emergency fire services and airfreight operations.

3. Aviation: identified as ideal location to develop an attractive and world class Aviation Technology Park.

CIA: Planning Vision

In 2012, Aurecon were engaged by CIAL to develop a ‘planning vision’ for the airport to supplement the Master Plan developed in 2006. It reflects the recent changes in the Canterbury region, the aviation industry, and responds to the impacts of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes.

The planning vision identifies 3 precincts, each with a distinct focus:




Precinct Potential Activities Objectives

Freight and Logistics Courier/Packaging

Perishable freight handling

Hi-tech manufacturing

Biosciences laboratory

Medical facilities

Logistics and Distribution

Commercial, Service and Tourism

Office Park

Hotel/Backpacker facilities

Business Centre

Community Facilities

Commercial Service Village

Antarctic Visitors Centre

Satellite Education Facility

Expansion Antarctic Operation

Aeronautical Upgrade Current International Terminal

Aviation Servicing

Aviation Safety

Freight Apron (support Courier Post and other air cargo operators) Also proposed to extend apron into Dakota Park.

Deliver outstanding airport and airport-related services and aeronautical growth.

Commercial: Maximise economic value through commercial opportunities.

Property: Maximise economic value through property development and management.

Making It Happen: deliver robust business enablers to ensure success.

People: Develop an engaged workforce that performs strongly.

















Appendix 6: Current Objectives and Policies



Appendix 7: Current Rules







Attachment 1 New Zealand Trotting Cup Day Temporary Alcohol Ban, original area – shaded area The area bounded by and inclusive of Whiteleigh Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Princess Street as indicated in the map below.


Attachment 2 New Zealand Trotting Cup Day Temporary Alcohol Ban, extended area – shaded area The area bounded by and inclusive of Blenheim Road, Moorhouse Avenue, Lincoln Road, Wrights Road and Matipo Street, as indicated in the map below.


Attachment 3 Sumner Alcohol Ban Area – shaded area The area bounded by and inclusive of the whole of the Esplanade (from Marriner Street to Heberden Avenue) and along Heberden Avenue (from the Esplanade to the Sumner Boat Ramp car park), and including the Sumner Boat Ramp car park, as well as the beach that runs alongside this area (down to the mean low water spring level), as indicated in the map below.


ATTACHMENT 1 TO CLAUSE 11 PLANNING COMMITTEE 20. 9. 2013

356


357


358


359


360


361


362


363


364


365


366


367


368


369


370


371

Atta

chm

ent 2


372

BennettMa

Typewritten Text

Atta

chm

ent 2


373

Atta

chm

ent 2


374




378

ATTACHMENT 1


379

ATTACHMENT 2


380

Comprehensive Development Mechanism ‐ Process

YES It proceeds to STAGE 2 as a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity.

NO It is a non‐complying activity.

The development cannot proceed using the CDM.

Restricted Discretionary for urban design only.* (No limited or public notification.*)

The development complies with qualifying standards but not all development standards.

Restricted Discretionary for urban design only and non‐compliance with development standard(s).* (No limited or public notification.*)

The development complies with qualifying standards and all development standards.

Fully Discretionary

NO

YES

NO

YES

The whole site meets accessibility and constraint criteria.

The Development and Site: 1. is 1,500m2 to 10,000m2 in size in one contiguous block of land and, 2. is in whole on L2, L3, L1 (as indicated) or identified Brownfield land and, 3. yields a minimum of 30 / maximum if 65 household per hectare and, 4. in whole or in part meets the accessibility and constraint criteria and, 5. has no buildings that are above 13m and, 6. is accompanied by a design statement.

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

* Additional assessment matters apply to brownfield sites. For larger brownfield sites, in multiple ownership, limited notification would be required to owners and operators of land and/or activities within the same brownfield site.


381

1

Attachment 2: Comprehensive Development Mechanism

Insert new Part 16 in Volume 3, Part 2

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

16 Objective, Policies and Rules Comprehensive Development Mechanism

16.1 Objective

Comprehensive development of existing medium density residential areas

Higher density comprehensively designed residential development within appropriate medium

density residential areas to support residential recovery needs.

16.2 Policies

Redevelopment of existing medium residential density areas through comprehensive

design

1. To enable, over the recovery period until the end of 2016 an increase in residential density by

comprehensive development of suitably sized and located existing medium density

residential and brownfield sites through the comprehensive development mechanism.

2. To ensure that comprehensive developments under policy 1:

a. achieve high quality urban design and onsite amenity; and

b. have appropriate access to services; and

c. integrate with, and are sympathetic to the amenity of existing neighbourhoods and

adjoining sites; and

d. provide a range of housing types; and


2

e. do not promote land banking, and are completed in accordance with an approved

development.

3. To ensure that comprehensive development under the Comprehensive Development

Mechanism is avoided in areas that are not suitable for intensification for reasons of:

a. location within the residential red zone; or

b. vulnerability to natural hazards; or

c. inadequate infrastructure capacity; or

d. adverse effects on Special Amenity Areas subject to external appearance controls and

heritage values; or

e. reverse sensitivity on existing heavy industrial areas and Christchurch International

Airport.

16.3 Review of comprehensive development mechanism

16.3.1 The rules under this mechanism shall be reviewed as part of the second phase of the district plan review and any changes needed to improve the effectiveness of the provision are progressed via requests to the Minister as set out above

16.4 Activity Status

16.4.1 Restricted Discretionary Activities

(a) Residential activities that comply with all qualifying standards in rule 16.5 and the

development standards in rule 16.6 shall be a restricted discretionary activity, with the

exercise of the Council’s discretion restricted to the assessment matters in clause 16.7.

(b) Residential activities that comply with all qualifying standards in rule 16.5 but do not

comply with one or more of the development standards in rule 16.6 shall be a restricted

discretionary activity, with the Council’s discretion restricted to:

(i) the assessment matters in clause 16.7; and

(ii) the listed assessment matters for the development standard or standards that

are not met.

Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 1.27 cm

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Deleted: Duration

Deleted: cease to have effect after 5pm 31 December 2016. ¶


3

Resource consent applications in relation to these rules shall not be publicly or limited

notified.

(c) Residential activities on sites qualifying under Rule 16.5.2a) ii) (Brownfield Sites) shall be

a restricted discretionary activity, with the Council’s discretion restricted to:

(i) Matters arising from the characteristics of the site or the relationship of the site

to surrounding land uses. This would include, but not be limited to,

contaminated land, reverse sensitivity and noise. (TBC)

(ii) the assessment matters in clause 16.7; and

(iii) any listed assessment matters for the development standard or standards under

Rule 16.6 that are not met.

Resource consent applications in relation to these rules shall not be publicly or limited notified

unless the brownfield site is one part of a larger brown field area in multiple ownership. In this

circumstance, notification would be limited to owners or operators of land and/or activities

within the same brownfield site.

16.4.2 Discretionary Activities

Residential activities where part of the site, but not all of the site complies with the accessibility

or constraint criteria in rule 16.5, and complies with all other qualifying standards in rule 16.5,

shall be a discretionary activity.

16.4.3 Non‐Complying Activities

(a) Residential activities that do not comply with the qualifying standards for:

(i) site size in qualifying standard 16.5.1; or

(ii) zoning in qualifying standard 16.5.2; or

(iii) housing yield in qualifying standard 16.5.3;

shall be a non‐complying activity

Deleted: zoning

Deleted: site size


4

(b) Residential activities on a site where no part of the site complies with the accessibility or

constraint criteria in rule 16.5.4, shall be a non‐complying activity.

(c) Buildings that exceed a 13m height limit shall be a non‐complying activity.

(d) Applications for resource consent under 16.4.1 and 16.4.2 that are not accompanied by a

design statement shall be a non‐complying activity.

For the purposes of this mechanism a design statement is a statement prepared by an expert

suitably qualified in Resource Management Planning, Architecture, or Urban Design that is

submitted as part of the overall assessment of effects for the proposal. A design statement

outlines the design justification of the proposal, examines local character and site constraints,

and explains the vision and concept of the proposal in terms of how it will contribute to

creating a high quality development that responds positively to the surrounding context.

Contextual plans illustrating the proposal within the surrounding environment shall be

included.

16.5 Qualifying Standards

Sites shall be assessed against the following qualifying standards.

16.5.1 –Site size

Qualifying sites shall:,

(a) Be of a size greater than or equal to 1500m2 but less than or equal to 10,000m2; and

(b) Contain all allotments within one single contiguous1 block of land.

16.5.2 – Suitability of location

Sites shall meet the following three sets of criteria to qualify:

a) Zoning

Qualifying sites shall be

i) located within the Living 2, or Living 3 zone, or those areas of Living 1 zone shown on

Planning Map X (Note – Planning Map numbers to be inserted once area location known).

ii) Brownfield Sites2

1 Contiguous means: touching along the entire length of the boundary of the allotment

Formatted: Font: 9 pt

Deleted: be

Deleted: O

Deleted: In

Deleted: adj 1

Deleted: side or

Deleted: ; in contact (Concise Oxford Dictionary)


5

b) Suitability of location

Accessibility Criteria

Qualifying sites shall lie fully within all of the four criteria3:

(i) 800 metres walking distance4 of Business 2 Zone or a supermarket5; and

(ii) 800 metres walking distance of either a primary or intermediate school; and

(iii) 400 metres walking distance of an Open Space 2 zone of an Open Space 1 zone that has an area

greater than 4000m2; and

(iv) 800 metres walking distance of a core public transport route6.

c) Suitability of location

Constraint Criteria

No part of a qualifying site shall lie within7:

(i) Special Amenity Areas (SAM) which are subject to external design and appearance rules in this

plan8; or

(ii) 400m of the boundary of a Business 5 zone; or

(iii) The Riccarton wastewater interceptor catchment; or

(iv) The residential red zone9; or

(v) The tsunami inundation area.

ALTERNATIVE TO LOCATION CRITERIA

An alternative to 16.5.2 a), b), and c) is to show the areas that meet the criteria as overlays on the planning

maps. The above assessment matters would then form part of the Section 32 analysing the location of the

overlays. Identification of qualifying brownfield sites would also be clearer although current data relates to

survey work undertaken in 2009 and does not include sites under 1ha.

2 Abandoned or underutilised business or industrial land, excluding any land on the Port Hills, . 3 The Council shall maintain a publicly accessible database of all of the above criteria categories for the purposes of administering the rules. 4 Walking distance means a distance as measured along any continuous accessible and walkable route over which the general public has a legal right of walking access, including footpaths and open space. 5 Supermarket means a self service retail shop, of not less than 1000m2 gross floor area, primarily selling a wide range of fresh produce, meat and other foodstuffs and a wide range of packaged food and non grocery items. 6 Core Public Transport Route means a bus route along high‐demand corridors connecting key activity centres and operating at high frequencies (as identified in the Regional Public Transport Plan 2012, including any changes to those routes). 7 The Council shall maintain a publicly accessible database of all the above criteria categories for the purposes of administering the rules. 8 SAM’s which are subject to external design and appearance rules are 17A, 18, 35, 10A, 24,33,30, 13, 23A, 29, 26, 32, 14, 22, 31, 28, 11, 8B, 34, 32. 9 The residential red zone refers to the area of land subject to the Minister CER as at the date of 31 October 2012

Formatted: English (NewZealand)

Deleted: and

Deleted: and

Deleted: and

Deleted: and


6

16.5.3 – Yield

Comprehensive developments shall deliver a minimum of 30 households per hectare, and a maximum of 65

households per hectare pro rata for the application site.

16.6 Development and Performance Standards

Notes:

(a) The City wide rules, and development, community and critical standards in Part 2‐2.0 of this Plan shall

apply to residential activities provided for by the Comprehensive Development Mechanism, except

where otherwise specified in rule 16.6 below.

(b) The Living 1, 2 and 3 zone rules, and development, community, and critical standards in Part 2‐2.0 of this

Plan shall apply to any activities other than residential activities provided for by the Comprehensive

Development Mechanism.

(c) (Cross reference to airport noise rules to be added).

(d) For the purposes of the following rules net application site area means the area contained within the

outside legal boundaries of the land being comprehensively designed.

16.6.1 Height

(a) The maximum height of any building on the site, excluding lofts, attics and other similar roof interventions,

shall not exceed 8m for a distance of 10m into the site from the boundary where the site abuts sites in the Living

1 and 2 zoned areas, and, 11m on other parts of the site.

(b) The abutting zone height limits shall be adopted for the first 10m of the site from the road boundary. For

clarity if there are two or more different height limits on either side of the site then the more restrictive height

limit shall apply.

Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents for non‐compliance with this rule shall only

be assessed as to whether :


7

(i) the development is compatible with the scale of other buildings in the surrounding area, and

the extent to which building bulk is out of character with the local environment.

(ii) there is any effect of increased height on the amenity of neighbouring properties, including

through loss of privacy, outlook, overshadowing or visual dominance of buildings.

16.6.2 Building setback from internal boundaries with other sites.

(a) Building setback from internal boundaries with other sites.

The minimum building setback from internal boundaries of the site with adjoining sites shall be 1.8m

except that:

(i) Accessory buildings may be located within 1.8m of boundaries where the total length of walls or

parts of accessory buildings facing and located within 1.8m of each boundary, does not exceed 9m

in length;

(ii) Where an internal boundary of the site immediately adjoins an access or part of an access,

the minimum building setback (except accessory buildings) from that internal boundary shall be

1.0m;

(iii) Where buildings on adjoining sites have a common wall along an internal boundary, no set back

is required along that part of the boundary covered by such a wall;

(iv) Where the buildings on an adjoining site contain a habitable room window facing the internal

boundary, then the minimum setback distance shall be 3.0m for single storey buildings and 6.0m

for all other buildings.

(b) Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents for non‐compliance with this rule

shall only be assessed as to whether:

(i) there is any effect t h e of proximity of the building on the amenity of neighbouring

properties, including through loss of privacy, outlook, overshadowing or visual dominance of

buildings.

(ii) the intrusion is necessary for the long term protection of significant trees or natural features on

the site.


8

(iii) there is the ability to provide adequate opportunities for garden and tree plantings around

buildings.

(v) the intrusion is necessary, when balanced against the other assessment matters, to allow more

efficient, cost effective and/or practical use of the remainder of the site.

16.6.3 Setback from Road Boundaries

(a) The minimum building setback (including accessory buildings) from road boundaries for new structure

and/or additions shall be 4.5m, except where a site has a road boundary that is subject to another non

Special Amenity Area standard that requires a wider setback.

(b) Where a garage has a vehicle door facing a road of shared access the minimum garage setback shall be

5.5m from the road boundary or shared access. Not withstanding, this standard shall not apply where

the shared access provides access to garages at the rear of the related dwellings.

(c) Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents for non compliance with this rule


(i) the proposed building will detract from the coherence, openness and attractiveness of the site

as viewed from the street and adjoining sites, including the ability to provide adequate

opportunity for garden and tree planting in the vicinity of road boundaries.

(ii) there is the ability to provide adequate parking and maneuvering space for vehicles clear of the

road or shared access in respect of traffic and pedestrian safety.

(iii) there are other factors in the surrounding environment that are effective in reducing the

adverse effects, such as existing wide road widths, street plantings and the orientation of

existing buildings on adjoining sites.

(v) there is the ability to provide for the long‐term protection of significant trees or natural features

on the site.

(vi) the intrusion is necessary, when balanced against the other assessment matters, to allow more


16.6.4 Recession planes (sunlight protection) and solar gain


9

(a) Buildings shall not project beyond a building envelope constructed by recession planes from points 2.3m

above boundaries with other sites as shown in Appendix 1. For the avoidance of doubt where this rule

and (d) below apply the latter shall prevail.

(b) The main internal living area of each residential unit shall receive no less than four hours of direct

sunlight on a glazed area of at least 1.0m2 on June 21 (midwinter solstice).

(c) Building eaves or other fixed overhangs shall be incorporated at a depth of no more than 600mm.

(d) Not withstanding (a) sites shall adopt at their net application site area boundary the recession plane

standards of the zone of the relevant directly abutting site.

(e) Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents non‐compliance with this rule shall

only be assessed as to whether:

(i) there is any effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties, including through loss of privacy,

outlook, overshadowing or visual dominance of buildings ; and

(ii) that the intrusion is necessary to enable the long term protection of significant trees or natural

features on the site.

(iii) the intrusion is necessary, when balanced against the other assessment matters, to enable more


16.6.5 Street Frontage

(a) each site containing more than 8 residential units shall have a minimum road boundary length of 25m.

(b) each site containing less than 8 residential units shall have a minimum road boundary length of 17m and

have no more than 4 residential units facing a single road frontage.

For the avoidance of doubt the length on a corner site shall be a combined length of both boundaries.

(c) Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents for non‐compliance with this rule


(i) the relationship between road boundary lengths, the scale of development, and the length of

building facing the street is reflective of the surrounding area.

(ii) the intrusion is necessary, when balanced against the other assessment matters, to enable

more efficient, cost effective and/or practical use of the remainder of the site.


10

16.6.6 Minimum unit size, and mix of units

(a) The minimum gross floor area of each unit shall be:

No. of Bedrooms Minimum Gross Floor Area

1 bedroom 45m2

2 bedroom 70m2

3 bedroom or more 90m2

(b) There shall be a mix of at least 3 ranges of 1, 2, 3 or more bedroom residential units with no single range

making up more than 70% of the overall yield.



(i) the area of the unit/s will maintain amenity for residents and the surrounding neighbourhood .

(ii) on-site factors appropriately compensate for the reduction in unit size.

(iii) the nature and duration of activities proposed on site may warrant a reduced unit size to

operate e.g. very short term duration;

(iv) The balance of unit mix and unit sizes within the overall development is such that a minor

reduction in the area of a small percentage of the overall units may be warranted;

(v) The units are to be operated by a social housing agency and have been specifically designed to

meet atypical housing needs.

16.6.7 Access and Parking

(a) A maximum of one car parking space shall be provided for each residential unit of 70m2 or less in Gross

Floor Area.

(b) A maximum of two car parking spaces shall be provided for each residential unit of 90m2 or over in

Gross Floor Area

(c) No more or less than one visitor / shared car parking space shall be provided for every five residential

units


11

Note:

Parking may be configured for each unit individually and/or within a single parking area:

(d) A minimum of 1 cycle space shall be provided at ground level for each residential unit where car

parking is provided in a multi bay garage with no physical separation between spaces.

(e) Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents for non‐compliance with this rule


(i) any adverse effects on the safety or efficiency of the surrounding transport network, including

continued use of on‐street parking opportunities, are, or need be, avoided remedied or mitigated.

(ii) any alternative parking arrangement is effective, including having regard to accessibility, safety

and amenity within the site and for the surrounding area.

16.6.8 Outdoor Living Space

(a) 30m2 of outdoor living space shall be provided on site for each unit.

(b) The required outdoor living space can be provided through a mix of private and communal

areas, at the ground level or in balconies provided that:

(i) Each unit shall have private outdoor living space of at least 16m 2 in total.

(ii) Private outdoor living space shall have a minimum dimension of 4m when provided at

ground level and a minimum dimension of 1.5m when provided by a balcony

(iii) At least one private outdoor living space shall be directly accessible from a living area of that

unit.

(iv) Outdoor living space provided as a communal space shall be accessible for use by all units and

shall have a minimum dimension of 4m;

(v) 50% of the outdoor living space required across the entire site shall be provided at ground

level.


12



(i) the outdoor living areas provide useable space and access to sunlight throughout the year for

occupants.

(ii) the accessibility of outdoor living space is convenient for occupiers.

(iii) The extent and quality of communal outdoor living space or other open space amenity

compensates for any reduction in private outdoor living space.

(iv) a reduction in outdoor living space will result in retention of mature on‐site vegetation or

adversely affect spaciousness of the surrounding area.

16.6.9 Permeable Landscape areas

(a) A minimum of 20% of the site shall be provided for landscape treatment that is permeable for

stormwater (which may include private or communal open space).


shall only be assessed as to whether any reduction in landscaping h a s a n a d v e r s e e f f e c t on

the amenity of the site and on neighbouring properties, including the street or other public open

spaces.

16.6.10 Acoustic Insulation

(a) Any new habitable space within a residential unit,

(i) Within 20 metres of the edge of the nearest marked traffic lane of a Collector Road, or

(ii) Within 40 metres of the edge of the nearest marked traffic lane of a Minor Arterial, or Major

Arterial Road

shall achieve a minimum external to internal noise reduction of 30 dBA (Dtr, 2m, nT).

Notes:

Compliance with this rule may be achieved by ensuring any construction is in accordance with the


13

acceptable solutions listed in Part 11, Appendix 1. Alternatively, compliance with the rule can be

achieved through certification by a qualified acoustic engineer that the design is capable of achieving

compliance with the performance standard.

Where no traffic lane is marked, the distances stated shall be measured from 2m on the road ward side

of the formed curb. The location of Collector Roads and Minor and Major Arterial Roads is identified in

Appendices 3 and 4 to Part 8.


shall only be assessed as to whether a reduced level of acoustic insulation may be acceptable due to

mitigation of adverse noise impacts through other means, e.g. screening by other structures.

16.6.11 Habitable Space at Ground Level

(a) All ground level residential units shall have a habitable space located at the ground level.

(b) Each of these habitable spaces located at the ground level shall have a minimum floor area of 12m 2 and

a minimum internal dimension of 3m and be internally accessible to the rest of the unit.

(c) Applications for restricted discretionary activity resource consents for non compliance with this rule


(i) engagement between residential activity and ground level open spaces is adversely impacted

by the loss or reduction of a living space at ground level.

(ii) undersized living space can continue to be used for functional residential activity.

16.6.12 Outdoor and Indoor Storage

(a) Each residential unit shall be provided with

(i) outdoor service, rubbish, and recycling space of 5m2 with a minimum dimension of 1.5m; and

(ii) a single, indoor storage space of 4m3 with a minimum dimension of 1m

Except that if a communal outdoor service, rubbish, and recycling space with a minimum area of 10m2 is


14

provided within the site, the outdoor service, rubbish and recycling space may reduce to 3m 2 for each

residential unit.

(b) Outdoor service, rubbish, and recycling space shall not be located between the road boundary and any

habitable room and shall be screened from adjoining sites, conservation or open space zones, roads, and

adjoining outdoor living spaces to a height of 1.5 metres.



(i) the alternative provision for storage facilities, affects the convenience and accessibility of

those facilities for building occupiers.

(ii) storage facilities are visually integrated, screened or otherwise accommodated to minimise

adverse amenity or visual impacts on surrounding properties (including units within the

same development) or public spaces.


15

16.7 Matters for Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment

Note:

Matters for discretion set out below shall apply to any application made under the Comprehensive Development

Mechanism (CDM).

While the intention is that each proposed development meets the intent of the matters, the design response to

each matter and the subsequent assessment of the design needs to take into account the specific nature of the

site, location and surrounding context, and whether or not the control is otherwise necessary and/or relevant.

16.7.1 Assessment Matters

Whether the development:

CONTEXT AND CHARACTER

(a) Provides sufficient visual quality to create complementary new character in the neighbourhood.

(b) Responds to its context with respect to subdivision patterns, scale of buildings, degree of openess,

building materials and design styles, views and environmental conditions.

(c) Retains or responds to existing character buildings or established landscape features on the site,

particularly mature trees, which contribute to the amenity of the area and Garden City image.

(d) Through the amalgamation of properties, a development site of sufficient size and with shape and

dimensions is created that:

- provides a residential built form structure that is permeable (ie movement through the site is easy

and safe); and

- creates a legible and cohesive neighbourhood (ie a sense of place)

RELATIONSHIP TO STREET AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

(a) Engages with and contributes to adjacent streets and public open spaces with regard to, fencing and

boundary treatments, sightlines, building orientation, configuration of pedestrian entrances, windows

and internal living areas within buildings.

(b) Is designed to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, including

effective lighting, passive surveillance, management of common areas and clear demarcation of

boundaries and entranceways.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.27 cm, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 0.71 cm + Tabafter: 1.35 cm + Indent at: 1.35 cm, Tabs: 1.9 cm, Listtab + Not at 1.35 cm

Deleted: ¶¶


16

(c) Addresses all adjacent streets and public open spaces on corner sites, with the corner being emphasised

as a positive feature of the street scene.


17

BUILT FORM AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

(a) Minimises the visual bulk of the buildings by avoiding the use of blank facades, continuous rooflines and

building repetition whilst creating visual interest by the separation of buildings, distribution of walls and

openings, and in the use of architectural detailing, glazing, materials, and colour.

(b) Is configured to provide a good standard of residential amenity for occupants and neighbours, in respect

of outlook, privacy, weather protection and access to sunlight, through building location and

orientation, internal layouts and use of screening.

(c) Has considered environmental efficiency measures in the design, including water management

and use, plant species, recycling of materials, natural light and ventilation, and energy consumption.

ACCESS, PARKING AND SITE SERVICES.

(a) Provides safe and efficient routes for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, including convenient external

connections to walking and cycling routes to local facilities, open space and public transport.

(b) Provides a layout that provides for safe, efficient movement of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, and

which makes convenient connections by walking or cycling to local facilities, open space and public

transport.

(c) Integrates service and storage areas in a way that does not dominate the development, having regard

for convenient access, landscape provision and minimising any adverse visual, noise and odour effects

on occupants, neighbours, streets and other public spaces.

(d) Integrates car parking and garaging in a way that does not dominate the development, particularly when

viewed from the street or other public spaces.

OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE AND AMENITY

(a) Provides attractive private outdoor living spaces that include useable space, access to sunlight and

available outlook.

(b) Provides usable communal outdoor living spaces (if provided) and avoids noise, light spill and loss of

privacy for properties within and adjacent to the development.

(c) Provides soft and hard landscaping that provides internal amenity for the development, having

particular regard to boundaries, accessways, car parking and service areas, building entrances and

stormwater management.


18

**** May need to consider an additional ‘Larger Developments’ set for developments over a certain threshold

where there are issues to manage about how internal space is successfully resolved *****

Amend Rule 14—4.3.8 ‐ Allotments with Existing or Proposed Buildings

Notwithstanding the provisions of Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, where an allotment is to be created after the

erection of a building (to the extent that the exterior is fully closed in) on that allotment, or alternatively,

where the subdivision consent is issued after, or at the same time as, the building consent for such a building,

the minimum net area for an allotment in the following zones is as specified in the table below and the

minimum net area and minimum average net area provisions specified in Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 shall not

apply, provided that the building(s) comply with all the applicable development standards specified in:

(a) living zone rules (refer Part 2, clauses 2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.4, 4.2, and 4.4, and 16.6);

(b) business zone rules (refer Part 3, clauses 2.2, 3.4 and 4.2);

(c) special purpose zone rules (refer Part 8, clause 3.2);

(d) building adjacent to waterways (refer Part 9, clause 5.2); and

(e) parking, access and loading (refer Part 13, clauses 2.2 and 2.3);

and/or resource consents are obtained in relation to those conditions that are not complied with.

In the case of a building not yet erected, the applicant shall be bound to erect the building before

obtaining a certificate under section 224 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and the subdivision consent

shall have attached to it a condition to that effect.

Zone Minimum net area

Living 1 (excluding comprehensive improvement

developments within the areas identified on the

planning maps Zone and comprehensive development

provided through the Comprehensive Development

Mechanism)) and 1A Zone

420m2


19

Living 2 Zone (excluding comprehensive development

provided through the Comprehensive Development

Mechanism) and Living 3 Zone (SAM area 21 only)

300m2


0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0

Kilometers

Legend

L2 & L3 that meet criteria

Logical L1 extensions



Exclusion Area

Street

Comprehensive Development Mechanism ATTACHMENT 3 TO CLAUSE 14 PLANNING COMMITTEE 20. 9. 2013

401

402

CanterburyWater

Canterbury Water Management Strategy

Implementation Programme Summaries

October 2012


403

A collaborative Canterbury process He puna wai, he puna tangata The pool of water sustains the pool of people

THE SUMMARY REPORT

This report summarises the recommendations made by the seven Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) Zone Committees that have finalised their Zone Implementation Programmes (ZIP) for water management.

The report also summaries the Regional Committee’s Regional Implementation Programme (RIP) which identifies priority areas that need to be addressed at a regional level to meet the targets in the CWMS.

The report is intended to give zone committees and members of the public a simple and clear reflection of the recommendations in the Implementation Programmes and how they align with the CWMS.


404

A collaborative Canterbury process He puna wai, he puna tangata The pool of water sustains the pool of people

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) was developed to address water issues in Canterbury.

These issues include the declining quality of both surface water and groundwater, an ongoing loss of cultural value and recreational opportunities, as well as the declining availability and reliability of water for agricultural and energy users.

The CWMS establishes a collaborative framework for sustainably addressing these issues to enable present and future generations to gain the greatest social, economic, recreational and cultural benefits from Canterbury’s water resources within a sustainable framework.

The CWMS provided for the creation of ten zone committees and a regional committee tasked with working with the community to develop recommendations to deliver the goals and targets outlined in the Strategy.

Implementation Programmes for water management Implementation Programmes are non-statutory documents that are being completed by each of the ten CWMS committees within the Canterbury region.

Each Implementation Programme contains zone-specific recommendations for water management to achieve the CWMS targets.

Zone Committees have worked with stakeholders and the community to develop the recommendations. Public and stakeholder feedback meetings were held around each zone to get the views of locals on the recommendations being made.

The seven ZIPs included in this report are:

ZIPs for Kaikoura, Banks Peninsula and Christchurch-West-Melton are still under development. Alongside these is a Regional Implementation Programme, developed to provide an integrated water management programme at a regional level.

The following summary includes examples from the seven ZIPs and RIP – they are indicative only and not fully inclusive of all recommendations included. Whilst the ZIPs and RIP all provide background information, rationale and descriptions of key issues, this report only summarises the recommendations. The ZIPS and RIP cover all aspects of water management under the CWMS targets.

Recommendations have been summarised according to the most common themes identified in the ZIPs and RIP. These are Ecosystem Health/Biodiversity, Land Use and Water Quality, Recreation, Water Use Efficiency, Enforcement, Urban Waterways, Environmental Limits, Improved Understanding, Infrastructure, Kaitiakitanga, Prosperous Communities, and Drinking Water.

To read a copy of a committee’s ZIP, or the Regional Committee’s RIP, visit www.ecan.govt.nz/canterburywater

Environment Canterbury thanks Jessica Chalmers, a graduating student, who completed much of the work involved in bringing the Implementation Programme Summary together.

THE CANTERBURY WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

• Ashburton• Hurunui –Waiau• Lower Waitaki• Orari – Opihi – Pareora

• Selwyn Waihora• Upper Waitaki• Waimakariri


405

4

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH / BIODIVERSITY

Theme Description

Protection of River Birds

All seven ZIPs identify the importance of protecting river birds and their habitats. Though all zones have differing recommendations, the target result is the same, to ensure the protection of river birds.

This target supports the CWMS 2015 target of enhancing and protecting the breeding populations of indigenous braided river birds.

The Hurunui-Waiau ZIP includes a recommendation focusing on setting river flows that protect river birds during their nesting season.

Other zone recommendations include weed management, sensitive engineering works and support for community and waterway care groups.

Immediate Steps Biodiversity Funding

Immediate Steps is a biodiversity protection and restoration programme, which operates under the auspices of the CWMS. Zone Committees are charged with distributing funding in their zone.

All zones have set their priority funding areas until 2014/2015. The range of recommendations across the seven ZIPs is broad, ranging from stream, river, wetland and biodiversity enhancement to protecting remnant habitats.

Braided Rivers As documented in the CWMS, braided rivers are a defining characteristic of Canterbury’s biodiversity and landscapes.

All ZIPs identify braided rivers as significant to the Canterbury region and highlight their need to to be protected. This shows strong alignment with the braided river targets specified in the CWMS.

The importance of habitat protection within braided rivers is mentioned by five of the seven zones, with an emphasis on river birds.

Educating communities on the uniqueness and importance of braided rivers is a common theme among the zones, along with weed management.

Other ZIP recommendations include flood protection, water storage development, river engineering works, and protecting ecological values from the mountains to the sea (“ki uta ki tai”).

The Rakaia and Rangitata Braided rivers are identified as ‘regional flagship’ projects in the RIP, and a number of braided rivers have been identified as regionally significant.

Spring-fed Streams The CWMS has set a target of having no decline in spring-fed stream aquatic health from 2010, with a 2040 target of having 100% of spring-fed streams with at least good aquatic ecosystem health.

In alignment with these targets, recommendations involving spring-fed streams are included in five of the ZIPs.

Recommendations include the identification, monitoring, protection and enhancement of spring-fed streams.

The Regional Implementation Programme includes recommendations relating to spring-fed streams specific to the Selwyn-Waihora and Waimakariri Zones.

Wetlands Wetlands are a major priority for all seven zones, with each zone making several recommendations which align with the CWMS targets to prevent further loss of naturally occurring wetlands, and protecting existing ones.

The most prominent recommendations include the need to develop a database of wetlands, and to increase public awareness of the importance of wetlands and how they can help to enhance biodiversity values.

The Ashburton Zone Committee makes a specific recommendation around nutrient levels in groundwater and the RIP includes a priority outcome stating that ‘all ecologically significant wetlands are protected’.

Water Races Water race management features in four of the seven ZIPs.

Recommendations include creating wetlands where races discharge by wash to ground, identifying, protecting, and maintaining significant biodiversity values in water races, and developing drain management techniques to ensure biodiversity values are maintained.

The Ashburton ZIP recommends that stock water races are managed for multiple values, and that biodiversity and/or mahinga kai values in stock water races are carefully managed or, if races are to be closed, mitigation methods are used.

SUMMARY OF CWMS ZIPs


406

5

Native Fish All seven ZIPs and the RIP include recommendations involving native fish.

The main theme across the ZIPs is the need to identify and protect streams that are occupied by native fish species, including their spawning sites.

These recommendations contribute to the CWMS 2020 target of achieving an upward trend in diversity and abundance of native fish.

The Waimakariri Zone Committee identifies the need to support community groups, Rūnanga, river care groups and stream care groups in relation to native fish protection.

The Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee identifies the option of testing the opening of Te Waihora as a method of improving fish access/passage for migratory fish.

Trout and Salmon Six of the seven ZIPs and the RIP include trout and salmon protection in their recommendations.

Recommendations include improved fish passage, habitat enhancement, identification and protection, the enhancement and monitoring of spawning sites, and supportting community groups, Rūnanga and river and stream care groups.

These recommendations align with the CWMS’s 2015 target of having no further reduction in the number and areas of existing salmon and trout spawning sites.

Weed Control Six of the seven ZIPs include recommendations about weed control.

The Upper Waitaki Zone Committee favours proactive management over corrective management prevention and early removal of high-risk weed species.

The committee also identifies recommendations involving willow and weed control and the removal and prevention of invasive weed species, including aquatic weeds.

Weed management within river beds, streambeds, wetlands, riparian areas and small lakes are all identified across the ZIPs. These recommendations address the ecosystem health and biodiversity, and natural character of braided rivers targets.

Willow Control All ZIPs include recommendations on managing the spread of willow trees.

Common recommendations include the identification and removal of willows where they have no beneficial characteristics (e.g. river bank protection, water quality enhancement, biodiversity function).

Prevention and early removal are identified as a priority in restoration efforts involving weed control within the Upper Waitaki zone.

The Orari-Opihi-Pareora ZIP recommends working with land owners and planners to manage willows and maximise their flood control value.

Restoration Restoration recommendations are included within all Implementation Programmes.

Restoration projects include streams with declining ecosystem health, lowland spring-fed streams, wetlands, hapua, lakes and lagoons, with wetlands being the most prominent.

The Selwyn-Waihora ZIP singles out Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere as the main restoration project and encourages restoration efforts to integrate to form only one restoration project.

Restoration programmes are included in the CWMS targets, with a particular focus on ecologically significant river mouths or coastal lagoons and wetlands.

Riparian Management/Fencing

Riparian management was referred to directly by only two zones.

The Selwyn Waihora ZIP recommends that, wherever practical, native riparian planting should follow river maintenance work to help reach the CWMS’s 2015 target of accelerating the riparian restoration and management programme for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere.

The Upper Waitaki ZIP recommendations focus on supporting and accelerating existing riparian protection programmes.

The Ashburton, Lower Waitaki and Selwyn Waihora ZIPs recommend working with landowners to prevent stock from accessing waterways, wetlands and lakes. This is most likely to be achieved by means of fencing and planting.

Natural Character Natural character preservation features in a variety of recommendations across the zones.

These include water storage developments, supporting Fish and Game and DOC initiatives to maintain natural character, and ensuring the required framework is in place to preserve natural character of braided rivers.

The recommendations comply with the CWMS’s broad target category of ‘Natural Character of Braided Rivers’.


407

6

LAND USE AND WATER QUALITY (LUWQ)

Theme Description

Nutrient Management

Land Use and Water Quality is a Regional Priority Issue identified in the RIP. The RIP recommends a holistic, prioritised, and coordinated approach to LUWQ improvements.

All seven ZIPs include recommendations relating to nutrient management, which aligns with the CWMS target of achieving catchment load limits.

The majority of the zones include the need to promote best practice of nutrient use and the disposal of effluent through a collaborative approach with industry and farmers.

ZIP recommendations include the development and implementation of nutrient management best practice guidelines, extension programmes, annual workshops, water and nutrient research, and the development of a regional framework.

All of the zones, except the Ashburton and Hurunui-Waiau zones, include a recommendation involving the development and delivery of an extension programme working directly with farmers.

The Hurunui-Waiau ZIP has stated a nutrient limit for the Hurunui River. It must remain the same or improve in quality in terms of nitrate and phosphorus levels. It states this must be achieved without diminishing the viability of current land users.

Audited Self-Management

Audited Self Management (ASM) is included in all ZIPs (except the Hurunui-Waiau ZIP).

Recommendations are primarily centred on using ASM as a tool to improve water quality and quantity, and aligned with CWMS targets to achieve catchment load limits and nutrient efficiency targets.

The Orari-Opihi-Pareroa ZIP also includes a recommendation supporting ASM that integrates water use, energy efficiency, water efficiency and water quality.

All of the zones include recommendations involving either the development of ASM models or providing support to groups using an ASM model, including irrigation groups, catchment groups, water user groups and land management groups.

The Selwyn Waihora Zone recommends the implementation of ASM programmes for new irrigation schemes, as well as stating that any water storage development must be included in an ASM framework.

Best Practice Recommendations about ‘best practice’ are included in all of the seven ZIPs and the RIP.

The CWMS water-use efficiency target by 2040 states that all water used for irrigation, stockwater and industrial/commercial use must comply with best practice standards.

The RIP contributes to achieving this target by including a recommendation to develop provisions in a regulatory framework that requires best practice resource/land/water management practices.

Recommendations in the ZIPs include the identifying opportunities and strategies to enable best practice nutrient use and effluent management, management of wetlands on public land according to best practice, and best practice demonstrations on public land and development.

The Waimakariri ZIP recommends the development and delivery of ‘Current Best Practice’ guidelines for private landowners on rural drain management and for commercial waterway cleaners

Catchment Groups Catchment groups are featured in the RIP and five of the ZIPs.

The Lower Waitaki Zone recommend supporting establishment and support catchment groups.

Other recommendations include encouragement and support for catchment groups to convert to ASM, and providing more support to catchment groups.

Catchment groups will have an important part to play in helping to reach CWMS nutrient limit and ecosystem health and biodiversity targets.


408

7

RECREATION

Theme Description

Recreational Values and Activities

All of the ZIPs mention ‘recreational values and activities’ in their recommendations.

Some of the ZIPs address recreation in a broad sense, while others single out specific recreational values to focus on, such as Lake Coleridge, and certain sections of the Hurunui, Waitaki, and Waimakariri rivers.

The Ashburton ZIP recommends an integrated approach with neighbouring zones in relation to recreation on the Rakaia and Rangitata Rivers. They also include collaborating with Rūnanga to protect and enhance recreational values in the hapua of our braided rivers.

The Hurunui-Waiau, Orari-Opihi-Pareora, Selwyn Waihora ZIPs and the RIP all include recommendations involving the development/enhancement of sports fisheries, which aligns with the CWMS target of restoring fishing opportunities in most lowland streams.

The Orari-Opihi-Pareora ZIP includes a recommendation on the setting of flow and water quality limits as a means to protect and enhance recreational values which relates to the CWMS target of achieving the necessary environmental flows to meet recreational outcomes.

WATER USE EFFICIENCY

Theme Description

Water Use Efficiency

Increasing water use efficiency is included in all seven ZIPs, which aligns with the water-use efficiency target set by the CWMS.

The target states that water use efficiency should not decline from its state in 2010.

Ashburton’s ZIP includes recommendations to identify and support activities and strategies to improve and optimise both rural and urban water use efficiencies, as well as investigate the best use of water throughout the zone.

Recommendations by other zone committees include plans to ensure new irrigators have efficient distribution, education and increased public awareness of efficient water use, identification and support of activities to improve urban water efficiency, and that any new storage or distribution infrastructure is required to use rural water efficiently.

The Orari – Opihi – Pareora ZIP recommends the promotion of efficient water use technology such as precision irrigation.

ENFORCEMENT

Theme Description

Enforcing Rules Apart from the Hurunui-Waiau ZIP, all of the zones include the enforcement of rules in their recommendations.

Four of the zones include recommendations relating to enforcing rules on stock exclusion from waterways, particularly the NRRP rules.

Other enforcement recommendations include rules for ecosystem protection, vegetation clearance, wetland drainage, managing non-point pollution and significant non-compliance or repeated non-compliance.

URBAN WATERWAYS

Theme Description

Urban Water and Waterways

Five of the ZIPs refer to water and/or waterways in an urban setting in their recommendations.

Recommendations mostly focus on improving urban water use efficiencies, identifying the possibilities of greening urban waterways and improving community sewerage systems.

The Ashburton ZIP recommends the identification of existing threats to stormwater quality while the Selwyn-Waihora ZIP supports the use of innovative treatments, such as artificial wetlands, to treat residential stormwater.


409

88

ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS

Theme Description

Setting Environmental Limits

The Regional Committee recommends that the setting of Environmental Limits in Canterbury is undertaken through a ‘Preferred Approach’ process which requires zone committee’s to test different limit setting scenarios.

The setting of environmental flow and quality limits was a focus for all zone committees. Recommendations for achieving limits included flow and allocation plans, joint working groups, community engagement, the Land and Water Regional Plan, steering groups and Sub-Regional Plans.

The Orari-Opihi-Pareora ZIP has a specific recommendation to investigate splitting the current groundwater zone into two zones, and then reassessing the groundwater resources in these zones.

Setting nutrient load limits was also included by all seven zones in their ZIP recommendations, which aligns well with CWMS environmental limits targets.

Several Zones state that limits must be set in order to protect significant biodiversity, recreational and cultural values.

Consents Resource consents are mentioned in six of the seven reviewed ZIPs.

Two of the ZIPs include recommendations to improve the application process for consents relating to wetland and waterway enhancements.

The Hurunui-Waiau ZIP recommends its regional plan should ease the consent process for on-farm and small scale storage developments.

Other recommendations include halting the issuing of consents until specified water bodies are restored to a stated flow, and that Environment Canterbury considers risks of sediment contamination when issuing consents for activities in, or takes from water bodies.

The Waimakariri ZIP recommends that a global consent is developed and held by the Waimakariri District Council for minor works in waterways.

IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING

Theme Description

Public Awareness Five of the ZIPs acknowledge the importance of public awareness and involvement in setting recommendations for local water management.

Recommendations are generally focused on promoting the awareness of biodiversity values, cultural values, ecological values, best practice management and efficient water use.

Recommendations of how to increase the public’s awareness of these subjects include engaging with landowners, communications programmes, education and implementing a process for sharing information.

The Regional Committee also includes recommendations involving public awareness, such as the encouragement and support of increasing community knowledge of ecosystem health and biodiversity importance.

Monitoring Monitoring was included in each of the seven ZIPs reviewed.

Monitoring is key to the majority of actions undertaken by councils as it allows them to gauge the success of any actions implemented.

Recommendations involving monitoring are mostly focused on monitoring biodiversity, water quality, mahinga kai sites, cultural values, catchments, fish passage and spawning sites, areas at risk of salt water intrusion and ecosystem health.

Some of the recommendations state that monitoring needs to identify at risk areas, to provide baseline data and to identify crucial sites.

The Hurunui-Waiau ZIP has recommended monitoring as a means to acquiring the knowledge required to improve nutrient management, and with that, achieving load limits.

The Upper-Waitaki and Ashburton ZIPs recommends the integration of monitoring networks as well as implementing a process to share this knowledge with the community.


410

9

Education Education is included in all Implementation Programmes, except Hurunui-Waiau’s.

Education is recommended as a means to improve the public’s understanding of significant ecosystems, habitats, biodiversity and cultural values, and as a method to encourage their protection.

Recommendations include educating landowners, industry, communities and the public through increasing public awareness, educational programmes such as Enviroschools, scientific research, fieldtrips, workshops, educational videos and extension programmes.

Extension programmes are included in five of the ZIPs and focus on educating farmers on nutrient management, monitoring and best practice demonstrations.

Educating landowners on stockwater management is included in two of the ZIPs.

The RIP also identifies education as a means of achieving the Priority Outcomes. Recommendations include the development and progression of an education programme to aid the achievement of LUWQ targets.

Investigations Recommendations around investigations featured prominently across all the ZIPs, as well as the RIP. The most frequently proposed investigations are based around wetlands - closely linked with CWMS Ecosystem Health and Biodiversity targets.

Wetland investigation reccomendations include the identification and assessment of significant wetlands, developments to promote understanding of wetland values and their importance to Canterbury’s ecology, and investigations into the feasibility of creating wetlands, both for biodiversity and water quality purposes.

Both the Ashburton and the Selwyn-Waihora ZIPs include a recommendation about investigating the feasibility of creating wetlands at springheads to reduce nutrient levels going to groundwater.

Another major theme throughout the majority of the ZIPs is investigating opportunities to identify, protect and enhance biodiversity values within the individual zones.

Other investigations include, but are not limited to, research on contributors to river contamination, options to eradicate wilding trees, the best use of water, storage options, bringing water into the Orari-Opihi-Pareora Zone, and elevated nitrate levels.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Theme Description

Ensuring Multiple Uses of Water

The RIP states that in order for a regional approach to supply and the distribution infrastructure to succeed, it needs to benefit the economy, the environment, and communities (local and regional) in an integrated way.

The storage, supply and distribution of water for “multiple uses” to help deliver the cross-cutting targets of the CWMS will therefore be an important element of a regional approach.

The RIP recommends that a ‘big picture’ for regional infrastructure is developed that is consistent with the CWMS Priorities, Principles and Targets, and that priority outcomes are delivered at a zone level.

It recommends benefit cost studies, impact assessments, a tool to help CWMS committees consider the social and economic aspects of the CWMS, and that developers engage with zone committees and landowners at early stages of development.

Irrigation Five of the ZIPs along with the RIP include recommendations relating to irrigation.

Recommendations are varied and include the possibility of piping irrigation schemes, collaborating with water users, councils, Rūnanga, and other organisations to identify options for increasing water supply for irrigated land, increasing quantities of surface available, and that irrigation schemes include wetland creation as part of their development.

The Hurunui-Waiau ZIP recommends ensuring new irrigation systems adopt efficient water-use practices, ensuring water would be available to irrigate approximately 100,000ha in the zone, and that allocation priority should be given to irrigation development.

The RIP includes a recommendation involving a study of how the capital costs of regional infrastructure projects can be made affordable to irrigators across Canterbury.

These irrigation-related recommendations will contribute to the CWMS irrigated land area targets, including increase in reliability of supply.


411

10

Biodiversity Protection

Six ZIPs and the RIP include at least one biodiversity protection aspect in their recommendations about infrastructure development. The majority of the recommendations relate to infrastructure development being completed in a manner that has no or little effect on biodiversity values.

The Ashburton ZIP recommends that biodiversity is a key consideration when identifying options for improving water security and that river engineering works are carried out in a manner that is sensitive to braided river birds.

The Waimakariri ZIP identifies the need for all new and existing floodgates to be modified to allow for fish passage and that any water storage developments explore opportunities for the creation of wetlands as a part of the infrastructure design. The inclusion of wetlands is also recommended in the Lower Waitaki ZIP.

The RIP recommends that a report is commissioned to investigate the potential for infrastructure to include constructed wetlands and opportunities for aquaculture/enhanced native & sports fisheries and native and game birds.

Through these recommendations, CWMS committees acknowledge the importance of achieving a careful balance between development and environmental protection-related CWMS targets.

KAITIAKITANGA

Theme Description

Mahinga Kai Kaitiakitanga is identified as a Regional Priority Issue in the RIP.

Recommendations include taking an integrated ‘ki tua ki tai’ (mountains to the sea) approach to implementing the CWMS, ensuring that kaitiakitanga is considered in all decision-making and subsequent actions, and better coordination and integration of fish passage and to improve mahinga kai abundance.

All seven ZIPs and the RIP include recommendations relating to mahinga kai, supporting the CWMS’s 2020 target of increasing the abundance of, access to and use of mahinga kai.

Reccurring recommendations include setting minimum flows that provide for mahinga kai, identifying, protecting and enhancing significant habitat sites, gathering baseline data and monitoring of mahinga kai sites, and raising community awareness of the importance of mahinga kai sites.

Other recommendations include the implementation of drain management techniques that reduce the impact on mahinga kai, managing gravel extraction to protect mahinga kai, and identifying suitable locations for the re-introduction of significant mahinga kai species.

The identification of areas where mahinga kai is compromised by poor water quality and the undertaking of actions to rectify this problem is recommended in two ZIPs.

Wāhi Taonga All seven ZIPs include recommendations that address the CWMS target of preventing further degradation of nominated wāhi taonga sites. While the RIP does not include a recommendation specifically involving wāhi taonga, its importance is mentioned in the RIP introduction, and implicitly within kaitiakitanga and biodiversity recommendations.

Recommendations include the identification of flows and water quality, and gravel extraction techniques to protect wāhi taonga sites, and the development of restoration plans for sites requiring protection/restoration.

Ki Uta Ki Tai While all the ZIPs and the RIP mention Ki Uta Ki Tai in their supporting information, only four of the ZIPs include recommendations aligning with the 2020 CWMS target of integrating Ki Uta Ki Tai environmental management philosophies with zonal management planning.

The Ashburton and Waimakariri ZIPs recommend that opportunities for a project protecting a braided river from the mountains to the sea be investigated.

The Selwyn-Waihora and Upper Waitaki ZIPs recommend the creation of a mountains to the sea biodiversity corridor. Ki Uta Ki Tai is also included in the RIP which recommendeds that there is an integrated “Ki Uta Ki Tai and beyond” approach to implementing the CWMS targets, including through RMA plans.

Mixing of Water/ Rūnanga

The majority of the Implementation Programmes recommend consulting with Rūnanga /Tangata Whenua when dealing with major water alterations/developments, and in relation to the ‘mixing’ of water.

This is well aligned with the 2010 CWMS target to ‘formally recognise Rūnanga when dealing with the unnatural mixing of water bodies’.

The Ashburton ZIP also recommends consultation with Rūnanga and key stakeholders to identify actions needed to protect and enhance cultural values.

The RIP recommends that the mixing of water is addressed early in all regional infrastructure developments.


412

11

PROSPEROUS COMMUNITIES

Theme Description

Prosperous Communities

The majority of ZIPs include specific recommendations that lead to a prosperous community.

Recommendations include encouraging local ownership of water infrastructure, encouraging local industries to support a ‘clean green image’, and encouraging collaborative and economic developments.

Ensuring infrastructure is future proofed and/or supply was secured for the future is recommended by three zones.

The Regional Committee recommends the use of Impact Assessment tools to ensure that social and economic aspects of the CWMS are included in work programmes, including within the zone committees.

These recommendations are closely linked to achieving CWMS indicators of regional and national economies targets.

DRINKING WATER

Theme Description

Drinking Water All seven ZIPs recommend actions relating to drinking water.

The majority of the zone recommendations are based on securing a reliable, high quality supply of drinking water for the entire zone.

Recommendations to achieve this include supporting initiatives to improve water quality, monitoring water quality, the promotion of efficient water use, extension and development of catchment groups that prioritise drinking water catchments and setting flow and quality limits for water abstractions to protect drinking water supply.

All of these recommendations are aimed at meeting the CWMS’s 2020 target of achieving an increase in the percentage of the population supplied with water that meets New Zealand Drinking Water Standards.

The Hurunui-Waiau ZIP recommends a whole-of-life assessment to interpret the cost of providing a drinking water source from a water storage reservoir.

The Selwyn-Waihora ZIP recommends that all water storage developments identify alternatives for supplying communities with poor quality supplies a supply of quality drinking water.

The Regional Committee acknowledges the possible impacts of land use on drinking water quality, but there are no specific recommendations included in the RIP.


413

www.ecan.govt.nz/canterburywater Phone: (03) 353 9007 or 0800 324 636 Report: R12/92ISBN: 978-1-927222-48-5 - Hard CopyISBN: 978-1-927222-49-2 - Electronic


414

SELWYN WAIHORA ZIP ADDENDUM

SUMMARY

Delivering the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) in Selwyn Waihora

The Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee is recommending a package to improve cultural and

environmental outcomes in the Selwyn Waihora catchment while maintaining farm viability and

economic growth.

The Selwyn Waihora ZIP Addendum1 describes how this will be achieved through:

• Selwyn Waihora Sub‐regional Section of Land & Water Regional Plan;

• Other actions.

This package is shaped and driven by the current situation in the catchment:

• Agriculture is significant contributor to the local and regional economies;

• Reliable water supply for irrigation underpins agricultural prosperity;

• Water use, irrigated area and intensive land use has substantially increased in last 20 years;

• Most (80%) of water‐use consents do not come up for renewal until 2030‐2040;

• Flows in lowland streams and Selwyn/Waikirikiri River have decreased 15‐20%;

• High nitrate concentrations in shallow groundwater and lowland streams;

• Phosphorus has accumulated in lake‐bed sediments of Te Waihora;

• Health of Te Waihora has decreased;

• Lag in groundwater system of 10‐30 years means that some environmental, cultural and

social outcomes will decline further;

• CPW irrigation development consented;

• National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management requires Regional Councils to

set limits in relation to water quantity and water quality.

The key pathways and actions proposed in the Zone Committee’s solution package are:

Water quantity

• Water allocation limits set to first provide for ecological and cultural flows in waterways and

alpine water (CPW) provides additional water to meet current demand (though not current

consented volume) and for augmenting stream flows:

• Combined surface water and groundwater allocation limits;

• Allocation limits reduced by 35%, further reduced if CPW benefits not seen

• New takes prohibited (except small or community takes)

1 See http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/zip‐addendum‐at‐150613‐v6.pdf


415

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/General/zip-addendum-at-150613-v6.pdf

• Alpine water replaces groundwater takes through CPW development

• Alpine water distributed through CPW and stock water infrastructure provides

targeted stream augmentation and replaces stock water take from Hororata River

• New minimum flows from 2025

• Water transfers are allowed with 50% surrendered when transferred

• Annual volumes on consents are revised to reflect demonstrated (water metered)

use

• Requirement for efficient and justified water use included in audited farm

environment plans.

• Water storage is required but needs to take particular regard to “red flags” identified in

preliminary assessment of potential water storage areas2.

Water quality

• Restrict the nitrogen load from the catchment:

• Agricultural N load limit/target;

• Point‐source N load limits.

• Manage to the agricultural N load target at the property level3 by:

• Land users required to meet good management practice (GMP) loss rates from 2017

• Land users can intensify provided they are operating at GMP and intensification

does not result in discharges exceeding 15 kgN/ha/yr;

• Land users discharging more than 15 kgN/ha/yr are required to make about 15 ‐ 20%

improvement on GMP loss rates by 2022 and, if they are not in CPW, can only

intensify if this does not increase N loss

• Providing a N load to CPW to allow for intensification from 30,000 ha new irrigation

• Require all rural properties (larger than 20 ha) to prepare audited farm environment plans

(to improve soil, nutrient (N and P), irrigation, wetland, riparian and cultural health

management)

• Reduce phosphorus and microbial contaminants from the catchment by

• Requiring stock exclusion (as per proposed LWRP) from streams, rivers, wetlands

and lakes and applying the rules in the same manner to exclude stock from drains

• Provide effective riparian margins on a significant length of the lowland streams and

drains in the catchment

• Enhancing and constructing wetlands to improve water quality, including spring‐

head wetlands

• Improving management of macrophytes (aquatic “weeds”) in drains

• Managing sediment including through sediment detention and targeted in‐stream

sediment removal.

Lake interventions

2 See http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Council/strategic‐assessment‐selwyn‐waihora‐100713.pdf

3 See Appendix 2 of ZIP Addendum: Recommendations of Primary Sector/Ngai Tahu/Environment Canterbury

working group “Key steps in the planning framework for managing effects of land management activities on

water quality in the Selwyn – Te Waihora catchment”.


416

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Council/strategic-assessment-selwyn-waihora-100713.pdf

• Progress, through further discussion, engagement and investigation, and then implement

lake interventions including:

• Improved lake‐level and lake‐margin management (including lake opening)

• Addressing the legacy phosphorus from historical land use

• Restoring macrophyte beds

• Constructing floating wetlands and enhancing lake‐margin wetlands.

While the Package is a significant first step it does not achieve all of the Selwyn Waihora ZIP

outcomes and continual improvement is needed over time.

A programme of action, including funding, needs to be developed and then put in place to

implement this package over the next 20 years.

There will need to be regular review and revision, if required, of the Selwyn Waihora Sub‐regional

section and work programme.


417

SELWYN WAIHORA ZIP ADDENDUM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This ZIP Addendum reflects the community engagement and committee discussion as part of

developing the Selwyn Waihora Sub‐regional Section of the Land and Water Regional Plan (the ‘Sub‐

regional Section”). The ZIP Addendum should be read with the Selwyn Waihora ZIP (produced in

2011) and the proposed Sub‐regional Section.

The ZIP Addendum is the recommendations that the Committee wishes to achieve through statutory

(RMA) plans (the Sub‐regional Section) and other approaches in order to progress towards achieving

the outcomes of the Selwyn Waihora ZIP.

The ZIP and this ZIP Addendum are not statutory plans under the Resource Management Act and the

Zone Committee does not have the power to commit any Council to any path or expenditure. The

ZIP and ZIP Addendum, however, carry the weight of the wide commitment to the CWMS of

Councils, Rūnanga, and the community and a wide range of agencies and industry and interest

groups.

1.1 ZIP Outcomes

The Selwyn Waihora ZIP outcomes are:

Thriving communities and sustainable economies

Sustainable and productive land use

Energy security is increased

Customary and commercial fisheries are improved

Secure water supply to provide a target of 95% reliability for irrigation

High quality and secure supplies of drinking water

All domestic drinking water meets national standards, preferably without treatment, within 10 years

Best practice nutrient and water management

Land managers use optimal water and nutrient practices for their land class, soil type and farm system

Management is based on clear and agreed science including mātauranga

Innovative nutrient and water management is adopted rapidly

Kaitiakitanga is integrated into water management in the Zone

Rūnanga are actively involved in resource management decision making

Wāhi tapu and mahinga kai are protected and enhanced

Healthy lowland streams

Water quality, flows and habitat supports increased abundance and diversity of aquatic life

Safe and plentiful food gathering is available

Nutrient inflows decline over time to acceptable levels

Te Waihora is a healthy ecosystem

There are healthy macrophyte beds and water clarity is improved

Fish recruitment and food gathering on and around the lake is improved

Governance of Te Waihora reflects Rangatiratanga and Kaitiakitanga in action


418

Nutrient inflows decline over time to acceptable levels

Recreation opportunities are improved

Hill‐fed waterways support aquatic life and recreation

Popular swimming places meet contact recreation standards

Flows are sufficient to provide for swimming at popular swimming places

Flows support aquatic life and fish passage

Alpine rivers and high country values are protected

Threatened bird populations trends improve

The natural braided character of alpine rivers is preserved

High water quality and quantity in high country lakes and streams is maintained

Populations of native and sports fish flourishing

River mouths and hāpua are healthy and functioning

High quality recreation opportunities are maintained

Enhanced indigenous biodiversity across the Zone

No further loss of indigenous biodiversity habitat and ecosystems

Indigenous biodiversity corridors are created across the plains including waterway corridors

Significant high country wetlands are protected

Wetlands associated with hill fed river flows are protected and restored

Wetlands on the plains are restored

The wetlands of Te Waihora are enhanced

1.2 Long‐term goal for Te Waihora Lake Ellesmere

The Zone Committee’s aspiration for Te Waihora catchment is simple:

to restore the mauri of Te Waihora while maintaining the prosperous

land‐based economy and thriving communities.

This means rehabilitating Te Waihora to a state that is delivering outcomes for mahinga kai, water

quality and recreation that are similar to those in the 1940s – 1960s prior to the Wahine storm (that

ripped up the macrophyte beds in the lake). It means farming profitably to limits. Rehabilitating Te

Waihora will require healthy lowland streams and hill‐fed waterways.

Achieving this long‐term vision will be a challenge. The reality is the health of Te Waihora and the

nitrate concentrations in lowland streams and drinking‐water wells will decline before they get

better. This reflects the 10 – 20 year‐long lag between agricultural nitrogen losses from the land and

load to the lake, the legacy phosphorus in the lake sediments from 150 years of agriculture, and the

Central Plains Water (CPW) irrigation development that is consented but not yet implemented.

The recommendations in this ZIP Addendum have a timeframe of about 30 years. The Committee

sees this ZIP Addendum, and the related Sub‐regional Section of the Land and Water Regional Plan

(LWRP), as the compass and gyroscope for the long journey to achieve the long‐term goal for the

catchment.

The proposed recommendations will halt the decline and turn the tide so there is improvement to Te

Waihora and the waterways in the catchment. The Selwyn Waihora limit setting process has

identified a specific programme of actions that best meets the environmental, cultural, economic


419

and social outcomes identified in the ZIP. Further actions need to be identified in the future if the

Committee’s long‐term goal of rehabilitating Te Waihora to a state similar to that in the 1940s‐1960s

is to be achieved.

The journey will require collaborative action and innovation to address many issues, not the least of

which are addressing the legacy phosphorus in the lake, farming for prosperity within nutrient limits,

strengthening co‐governance, and a willingness to review progress every five years and identify

what more, if anything, is required to achieve the long‐term outcomes. There may be a willingness

to set new long‐term goals at this time.

1.3 A first step – continual improvement required

Recommendation 1.1

The Sub‐regional Section will recognise that while the Zone Committee’s “Solution Package”, as

described in this ZIP Addendum, is a significant first step it does not achieve all of the Selwyn

Waihora ZIP outcomes and continual improvement is needed over time to continue to make progress

towards achieving all of the outcomes.

The Solution Package described in this ZIP Addendum is a significant first step towards achieving the

Zone Committee’s outcomes for the zone, as described in the Selwyn Waihora ZIP (see sections 1.1

and 1.2 above). It does not, however, fully achieve some of the outcomes. Continual improvement

and other actions beyond those in this ZIP Addendum will be required to continue to make progress

towards achieving all of the ZIP outcomes.

1.4 Implementation and funding

Recommendation 1.2

a) Environment Canterbury will work with Ngāi Tahu, Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City

Council, Government, industry and other parties to identify and progress funding for the work

programme to implement this ZIP Addendum;

b) Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu will work with other parties to design, then put in place,

the programme of action required to implement the ZIP Addendum and Sub‐regional Section;

c) Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury will identify and then put in place the leadership required

to implement the programme of action required for Te Waihora.

Commentary

The Solution Package proposed in this ZIP Addendum is multi‐faceted and more ambitious in scope,

scale and complexity than anything attempted in New Zealand to date (c.f. Lake Taupo and Te Arawa

– Rotorua Lakes). Significant funding, probably in the order of at least $200 million, will be required

over the next 20 or more years for the work programme to implement the Solution Package. The

Zone Committee has focused on identifying the critical components of the Solution Package, not on

identifying how it will be funded.

A very significant work programme is required, along with strong leadership, to implement this ZIP

Addendum and the Sub‐regional Section.


420

1.5 Scope of ZIP Addendum

This ZIP Addendum has the same scope as the Sub‐regional Section.

The Sub‐regional Section deals primarily with policies and rules relating to water quantity and

quality. There is also some coverage of biodiversity, mahinga kai and wāhi taonga. The geographical

scope of the Sub‐regional Section is the rivers and streams that flow into Te Waihora, the related

groundwater system between the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers and the lake itself. The Selwyn

Waihora Sub‐regional Section does not include the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers. There will be a

separate Sub‐regional Section covering the alpine river catchments.

1.6 Arrangement of ZIP Addendum

To progress the ZIP outcomes an integrated approach is required – everything is inter‐related and no

single action or point‐of‐focus will achieve the result required.

The ZIP Addendum has been divided into sections on water quantity, mahinga kai, wāhi taonga and

related matters, biodiversity, water quality, and lake interventions. This arrangement is for

convenience of presentation – they are all related.


421

2 WATER SUPPLY, ALLOCATION AND FLOWS

2.0 Context

There are nearly 1,700 groundwater consents and about 80 surface water consents in the

catchment. About 80% of the consents do not expire until 2030‐2039. Allocation limits were set in

the Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) for the groundwater zones in the catchment. The

current consented volume is 30‐40% above the NRRP allocation limits. While it is estimated only

about half of the consented volume is used, on average, the cumulative impact of the water takes

has reduced flows in the lowland streams and hill‐fed rivers, adversely affecting ecological and

cultural values.

The Solution Package described in this ZIP Addendum aims to address over‐allocation and improve

stream and river flows, primarily through setting water allocation limits to provide for ecological and

cultural flows in waterways and through the addition of alpine water to the catchment for irrigation

and environmental benefit.

2.1 Regular review of progress in relation to water quantity outcomes and revision, if required, of

Sub‐regional Section and work programme(s)

Recommendation 2.1

Environment Canterbury will review, at least every five years, the progress towards and achievement

of the ZIP water‐quantity related outcomes and, if required, revise the Sub‐regional Section and work

programme(s). This review should consider, though not be limited to:

a) Measured water use;

b) The impact on stream and river flows, drainage and the groundwater resource from

irrigation development through the addition of alpine water and retirement of groundwater;

c) The impact of targeted stream augmentation and managed aquifer recharge on stream and

river flows.

Commentary

The Solution Package as described in this ZIP Addendum is a significant first step towards achieving

the ZIP water quantity outcomes. Some of the Committee want better outcomes, and sooner. There

are also concerns about the reliance on modelling, alpine water and assumptions about actual water

use.

Over time, monitoring of river and stream flows and groundwater levels, and data from water

meters on water consents, will indicate how well the outcomes and the changes anticipated through

the Solution Package are being achieved. Review of this information may indicate that changes are

needed to the Solution Package – comprising the Sub‐regional Section and an integrated suite of on‐

the‐ground actions as described in this ZIP Addendum.


422

Should monitoring show that water use is increasing, beyond that envisaged in the Solution Package

described in this ZIP Addendum, resource consents will need to be reviewed to include revised

volumes based on demonstrated use. In addition, if monitoring shows that stream and river flows,

from the addition of alpine water and retirement of groundwater, are not delivering the anticipated

benefits, then the combined surface and groundwater allocation limits in the Sub‐regional Section

should be further revised down and further reductions to consented annual volumes on resource

consents made.

2.2 Combined surface and groundwater allocation blocks

Recommendation 2.2

The Sub‐regional Section will recognise the strong connection between groundwater and surface

water in the Canterbury Plains by managing takes of groundwater and surface water as one

combined resource.

Commentary

The total amount of groundwater and surface water taken from the catchment affects flows in the

lowland streams. Therefore water allocation blocks and limits must be integrated to include both

surface and groundwater takes. Doing so will make managing the cumulative impacts of water takes

on ecological and cultural flows in the lowland streams more effective.

2.3 Water allocation zones

Recommendation 2.3

The Sub‐regional Section will designate four water allocation zones that align with topographical,

geological and hydrogeological boundaries: Selwyn‐Waimakariri, Rakaia‐Selwyn, Little Rakaia and

Kaituna zones. The boundaries of the zones should not put a property into two zones.

Commentary

The Committee supports the proposed allocation zones that better reflect different responses to

recharge, such as the influence of Rakaia River water in the Little Rakaia zone. The principal changes

to current allocation zones, in addition to combining surface water and groundwater takes, are:

o A new Little Rakaia (riparian) Zone that coincides with a hydrogeological divide between

shallow groundwater discharging to Te Waihora and that discharging direct to the coast.

This substantially reduces the size of the current Rakaia‐Selwyn allocation zone.

o The current boundary between the Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri allocation

zones is redrawn to coincide with the centreline of the Selwyn/Waikirikiri River. This

results in the Selwyn‐Waimakariri allocation Zone increasing in size through the

incorporation of more land on its western edge up to the course of the Selwyn River and

Kaitorete Spit being incorporated into the Selwyn‐Waimakariri allocation zone.

o The boundary between the Selwyn‐Waimakariri and Christchurch‐West Melton zones is

moved to coincide with the current south‐western boundary of the Christchurch

Groundwater Protection Zone.


423

o A new Kaituna Zone is created to include four small catchments, including the Kaituna

River, that flow directly into Te Waihora and are separate from the plains aquifer system

to the north.

2.4 Volume allocated for ecological and cultural flows

Recommendation 2.4

The Sub‐regional Section will set the allocation limits for Selwyn‐Waimakariri and Rakaia‐Selwyn

allocation zones to provide for a volume that improves ecological and cultural flows in the lowland

streams and the lower and mid reaches of the hill‐fed rivers in the zone such that minimum flows of

90% of 7DMALF4 are provided in average years and on average across the streams and rivers

draining to Te Waihora.

Commentary

The total consented volumes for the current Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri groundwater

allocation zones are 130‐140% of the allocation limit (as defined in the NRRP).

The NRRP allocation limits were set to protect flows in the lowland streams but as more monitoring

has been carried out it has become clear that the current allocation limits do not protect all values in

the lowland streams. There is concern about the adverse impact of long periods when the lowland

streams are at low flow or dry and the adverse impact of the longer duration and extent of dry

reaches in rivers such as the Selwyn/Waikiriri River.

The Zone Committee considers the starting point for calculating how much water can be sustainably

allocated from the water allocation zones is the effect on values in the lowland streams that the

community wants to protect. Minimum flow recommendations for rivers and streams in Selwyn

Waihora have been made by expert panels, by using habitat modelling methods and using the

Proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels, and COMAR5

surveys for cultural flow preferences. The different methods lead to similar recommendations that

can be summarised as minimum flow requirements for protection of ecological and cultural values in

the streams and rivers.

The minimum flow requirements to protect ecological values, including native fish, trout, food

production and aquatic habitat being:

For smaller rivers (where 7DMALF is less than 300 L/s) – minimum flows of at least 90% of

7DMALF;

For larger rivers (where 7DMALF is more than 300 L/s) – minimum flows of 70 – 90% of

7DMALF.

4 7DMALF – 7‐day Mean Annual Low Flow is a commonly used low‐flow statistic. The lowest of the average

flows recorded at a site over seven consecutive days in a single year are averaged over all years for the period

of data to give the 7DMALF for that site.

5 COMAR – Cultural Opportunity Mapping, Assessment and Responses. Representatives of kaitiaki Rūnanga assess the river flows and other management actions necessary to protect cultural interests.


424

The minimum flows to protect cultural interests are determined to be those flow thresholds to

protect values such as mauri, mahinga kai and wāhi taonga. Some of these cultural flow

recommendations are above the minimum flows considered sufficient to provide for in‐stream

ecological values.

Modelling has calculated the average annual volume required to remain in the groundwater‐surface

water system to improve cultural and ecological flows (towards achieving at least 90% of 7DMALF).

The sum of this volume for ecological and cultural flows and the average of the amount of water

taken from the groundwater‐surface water is greater than the average annual volume put into the

groundwater‐surface water system from recharge (from alpine and hill‐fed rivers and land‐surface

recharge. This means that either additional water would be required, the amount of water taken

would need to be reduced, or both.

The Central Plains Water (CPW) irrigation development will use “alpine” water from Rakaia and

Waimakariri Rivers to irrigate 30,000 ha of dryland (new irrigation) and replace groundwater takes

on 30,000 ha of currently irrigated land in the command area. This will increase the amount of water

in the groundwater system, significantly improving flows in lowland streams and the lower reaches

of hill‐fed rivers. Modelling indicates that this increased volume will, on average, provide flows close

to the ecological flows of at least 90% 7DMALF while still meeting current average water use (see

illustration below). The beneficial impact of CPW on flows is uneven across the streams and rivers

with most benefit to flows in Selwyn/Waikiriri River. The Irwell River and LII streams also benefit

though not as much and there is less benefit on flows in Halswell River, Harts Creek and Waikekewai

Stream.


425

2.5 Allocation limits for Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri Allocation Zones

Recommendation 2.5

The Sub‐regional Section will:

a) set allocation block sizes for Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri Allocation Zones that

ensure the volumes of water in the groundwater‐surface water systems are sufficient to

significantly improve ecological and cultural flows in lowland streams and hill‐fed rivers

(towards achieving 90% 7DMALF) taking into account the additional water from CPW

(including through replacement of groundwater takes) and the natural annual recharge from

rivers and land surface;

b) prohibit new takes from these water allocation zones;

c) require existing takes, at the time of consent renewal, to include relevant conditions such as

seasonal or annual volume conditions, and reasonable‐use conditions (that are based on

measured water use moderated to meet demand conditions nine years out of ten).

Commentary

As discussed above, the starting point for setting allocation limits must be the protection of the

volume of water required to significantly improve ecological and cultural flows in lowland streams

and hill‐fed rivers. The CPW development, which uses water from Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers,

will improve flows in the streams through additional recharge from irrigation and by replacing

groundwater takes with surface water in 30,000 ha of the CPW command area.

It is proposed that the allocation block size be calculated as the amount left once the volume is

allocated for ecological and cultural flows in lowland streams from the average annual supply of

water to the groundwater‐surface water system (being the additional volume from CPW

development and the average annual recharge from Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers and land surface

recharge).

The changes to the water allocation zone boundaries and the creation of the new Little Rakaia Zone

mean that comparisons with current allocation should be made using the total volumes.

Allocation zone Existing allocation

limits Existing

allocation* Proposed allocation

limit*

million m3/yr million m3/yr million m3/yr

Little Rakaia Included in Rakaia‐

Selwyn 68 68

Rakaia‐Selwyn 215 210 111

Selwyn‐Waimakariri 121 209 128

TOTAL 336 487 307

* Allocation volumes are from Environment Canterbury technical staff, as at 08 July 2013.


426

The contribution from alpine (CPW) water can be seen from the comparison below of allocation

limits with and without CPW.

Allocation Zone Current

allocation

(million

m3/yr)

Proposed

allocation (with

CPW) (million

m3/yr)

Proportion of

existing

allocation

Allocation if

CPW not

included

(million m3/yr)

Proportion of

existing

allocation

Little Rakaia 68 68 100% 68 100%

Combined Rakaia‐

Selwyn and Selwyn‐

Waimakariri

419

239

About 70%*

76

18%

TOTAL 487 307 145

* An allowance has been made for the ground water takes currently used by CPW shareholders that would be

surrendered once reliable CPW surface water is provided to these consent holders. This reduces the current allocation

by 60 – 90 million m3/year.

New water takes would be prohibited in the Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri allocation

zones. Existing takes would be able to be renewed with relevant conditions applied to the consents

at the time of renewal if they are not already included, for example seasonal or annual volume

conditions, reasonable‐use conditions (that incorporate measured water use) and minimum flow

conditions for surface water and surface‐water depleting takes.

2.6 Water transfers in Rakaia – Selwyn and Selwyn – Waimakariri Water Allocation Zones

Recommendation 2.6

a) The Sub‐regional Section will:

i. Enable the permanent and temporary transfer of water permits, other than those held by

users supplied with CPW water, provided:

a) In the case of surface water and stream‐depleting groundwater the point of take

remains within the same surface water catchment, and in the case of ground water,

remains within the same water allocation zone and is not from down‐plains ( below

State Highway 1) to up‐plains (above State Highway 1);

b) 50% of the transferred water is surrendered;

ii. prohibit transfers where the conditions of (i) are not met;

iii. Enable the temporary transfer of groundwater permits by CPW shareholders to CPW Ltd

only, without requiring the surrender of any proportion of the transferred water;

iv. Prohibit the permanent transfer of groundwater permits by those who hold CPW shares

or who are entitled to be supplied with CPW water.


427

b) Environment Canterbury will at the time of transfer require conditions to be placed on the

transferred take and the parent take relating to seasonal and/or annual volumes, reasonable‐use

(that incorporate measured water use) and minimum flow conditions (where required).

Commentary

There are many factors influencing recommendations on water transfers and the Committee has

tried to find a pragmatic solution that addresses the, often conflicting, factors outlined below.

In water allocation zones where new takes are prohibited, water transfers offer people the only

chance of accessing new or additional water other than through purchase of property with existing

water permits. Water transfers also provide the opportunity for people to access additional water

for temporary need, such as to grow a more water‐demanding crop.

Water transfers increase the risk that more water in total will be used as some people may transfer

“unused” water, that is, water that they would never use. Should this occur in the Rakaia ‐Selwyn

and Selwyn‐Waimakariri water allocation zones then the cumulative impact of water takes on

lowland stream flows would increase. This is a key concern for Rūnanga. Ngāi Tahu policies in the

Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (2013) oppose the transfer of water permits in catchments that are

over‐allocated. It is likely to be some time before the benefit of CPW will be fully seen in lowland

stream flows. This means the average annual volume of water taken for irrigation will continue to

adversely impact flows in lowland streams and hill‐fed rivers until then.

There are limited ways of reducing these impacts in the short‐term, however the risk of the impacts

worsening through increased water use could be managed by conditions on the transfer of water (as

water transfer could mean some currently “unused” water would no longer contribute to stream

flows).

The water quantity solution proposed relies on the beneficial impacts of CPW irrigation

development. This includes the retirement and surrender of groundwater takes by those who are

supplied with reliable CPW water (from Rakaia and/or Waimakariri River). If users supplied with CPW

surface water were able to permanently transfer their (no longer required) groundwater consents

this would substantially reduce the benefits to ecological and cultural flows. On the other hand, CPW

Ltd wishes to have the flexibility to transfer groundwater consents from the area supplied with

surface water in Stage 1 of its development, thereby increasing the extent of Stage 1 and hence

initial shareholder investment. It is recommended that temporary transfers (e.g. for 5 years) be

permitted for CPW shareholders.

2.7 Minimum flows for lowland streams and hill‐fed rivers in Rakaia – Selwyn, Selwyn –

Waimakariri and Little Rakaia water allocation zones

Recommendation 2.7

a) include revised minimum flows for streams and rivers in Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐

Waimakariri Allocation Zones, as per Appendix 1 of this ZIP Addendum, that come into effect

from 2025 once the benefits of CPW development are evident in improved flows;


428

b) remove consent banding so that each minimum flow site has a single minimum flow and all

users tied to the site share the same restrictions;

c) enable the following to be processed as a restricted discretionary activity:

i. Consents that expire after 2025:

New minimum flow on expiry

ii. Consents that expire before 2025:

Current minimum flow pre 2025 and

New minimum flow post 2025

d) Provide policy direction to ensure that, when processing applications that will not meet the

new minimum flows, consideration be given to:

i. Whether there are alternatives (e.g. drilling deeper)

ii. Cost of moving to an alternative source

iii. Duration of consent requested

iv. Investment in existing infrastructure

v. Whether the water take is in the Halswell or LII catchments (where reliability impacts

of new minimum flows are potentially significant);

e) Where the minimum flow is based on natural 7DMALF estimates, update these via a plan

change pre‐2025, to reflect any changes and improvements in the 7DMALF statistic from

additional gauging data. At the time of this plan change, consideration should also be given

to:

i. Minimum flow recommendations that are made on the basis that alpine water will

mitigate reductions in reliability;

ii. Minimum flow recommendations on rivers where the earthquakes are thought to

have altered the flow, but there is currently insufficient data to assess this (e.g.

Halswell);

f) Enable existing consent holders to more easily move from surface water and stream

depleting groundwater takes to a deeper groundwater source, provided that:

i. The new take is not stream depleting (direct or high > 5 l/s)

ii. There is no increase in allocation and allocation is based on reasonable need

iii. Above State Highway 1 it is below 50 m and below State Highway 1 it is into the

second confining aquifer (generally considered to be below 30 m deep)

iv. There is no well interference (as indicated by step test)

v. It is greater than 2 km from the coast to prevent salt water intrusion

vi. The existing surface water or stream‐depleting groundwater consent is surrendered.

Commentary

To provide ecological and cultural flows the continual effect of the cumulative groundwater

abstraction must be managed by having an appropriate Water Allocation Block size. There is need,

however, to set flow restrictions (minimum flows) to avoid surface water takes and stream‐depleting

groundwater takes having adverse impacts locally on stream flows. Minimum flows are a


429

management tool used to protect values in the streams by ceasing direct abstraction when a flow

threshold is breached. They cannot stop the effects of cumulative groundwater abstraction.

Minimum flows are currently set for most streams and rivers in the catchment. If minimum flows are

increased but over‐allocation is not addressed this will result in a decrease in reliability for surface

water and stream depleting groundwater takes.

CPW irrigation development is predicted to result in an overall increase in flows of around 15‐20%

over recorded flows in the last 5‐10 years. This will reduce the amount of time streams spend below

the minimum flow and an increase in reliability for abstractors. Minimum flows to provide for in‐

stream ecological and cultural values have been recommended for all of the waterways in the

catchment which have surface or stream‐depleting groundwater takes. Some of these

recommended minimum flows are above current minimum flows (see Appendix 1).

2.8 Hororata River stockwater take

Recommendation 2.8

Environment Canterbury will continue to work with Selwyn District Council to maintain the viability of

community stock water supply whilst at the same time managing any potential adverse effects on

river flows in the Hororata and Selwyn/Waikiriri Rivers.

Commentary

At times of low flows the stockwater take for Selwyn District Council’s Ellesmere Water Race may

significantly impact flows and ecological and cultural values in Hororata River. Selwyn District Council

is reviewing its water race system. There may be opportunity to supply the Ellesmere Water Race

with alpine water thereby improving flows in Hororata River.

2.9 Efficient and justified water use

Recommendation 2.9

The Audited Farm Environment Plan provisions in the Sub‐regional Section will require efficient and

justified water use.

Commentary

Using water efficiently and only using the amount of water required by the pasture or crop on the

land being irrigated are part of good water management. The Irrigation New Zealand Farm

Environment Plan template includes objectives to ensure that the irrigation system can apply water

efficiently (through system design and installation to industry standards), that use of water is

justified (based on soil moisture monitoring and irrigation scheduling) and that records are kept to

show compliance.

As per Section 5.8 of this ZIP Addendum, the Sub‐regional Section will require properties in the

catchment to prepare Audited Farm Environment Plans from 2017. Adoption of good water

management practice as part of such Plans will reduce water use thereby increasing the amount of

water left in the groundwater‐surface water system and hence improve stream flows.


430

2.10 Protection of Waikekewai as wāhi tapu

Recommendation 2.10


a) Recognise Waikekewai as wāhi tapu by prohibiting, on expiry, surface and groundwater

takes that have a hydraulic connection with a direct stream depletion effect or high stream

depletion effect greater than 5 L/s;

b) Enable existing consent holders to more easily move from surface water and stream

depleting groundwater to a deeper non‐stream depleting groundwater source.

Commentary

Waikekewai and Taumutu Creek are of high cultural significance to Te Taumutu Rūnanga. The

waterways are recognised as wāhi tapu (sacred places). Particular concerns are that there is not

enough water to sustain mauri (life force) and cultural health, and that it is inappropriate to be

abstracting water for irrigation from the catchment because of the wāhi tapu associations.

Te Taumutu Rūnanga and the Ellesmere Irrigation Society have agreed to a Joint Position Statement

for the Waikekewai catchment.6 The position recognises the wāhi tapu status of the catchment, and

prohibits surface water and stream‐depleting groundwater takes. The statement enables existing

takes to move to a deeper non‐stream depleting groundwater source.

2.11 Water storage

Recommendation 2.11

a) The Sub‐regional Section will:

i. include a policy specifying the characteristics required for development of water storage

(based on ZIP recommendation 2.6 and the “red flags” identified in the preliminary

assessment of Selwyn Waihora potential water storage areas against CWMS and other

key targets);

ii. make consents easier for on‐farm water storage on the Plains.

b) Potential developers of storage in the Selwyn Waihora zone should take particular regard to

the “red flags”, either through the avoidance of the specified areas or through development

of appropriate mitigations.

Commentary

Water storage would provide the reliability of supply for irrigation required to facilitate the change

from groundwater takes to surface water over all the CPW command area. Water storage may also

assist with ensuring adequate supply for actively managing recharge of water to aquifers and

streams for environmental benefit.

6 In progress, not confirmed by either party (10 July 2013)


431

Recommendation 2.6 of the Selwyn Waihora ZIP lists desired characteristics for water storage

development in the Zone including providing for biodiversity, environmental, and cultural outcomes.

The Water Supply Working Group of the Zone Committee has undertaken a preliminary Strategic

Assessment (against ZIP and CWMS and other targets) of two areas for potential medium‐scale

water storage7. The two areas assessed were upper Selwyn Waihora plains and foothills, and

Waianiwaniwa River catchment. This assessment identified “red flags” that need to be addressed by

potential storage projects.

The “red flags” identified for all areas include:

Loss of flows of river or tributary that may be inundated;

Unnatural mixing of waters from different waterbodies;

On site loss of wāhi taonga values;

Potential for increased non‐point source pollution;

Potential for further loss of mahinga kai abundance, access to and customary use;

Potential for loss of cultural landscape values.

The “red flags” identified in the Upper Selwyn Waihora plains and foothills area include:

Inundation of an existing wetland;

Inundation of Wairiri intermontane basin ecosystem;

Inundation affecting known trout and salmon spawning areas;

Impacts on upland river health due to inundation of the mainstem of the Selwyn/Waikiriri,

Hororata, Wairiri and Hawkins Rivers;

Inundation affecting river reaches noted for native fish, especially threatened species8, in

the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database;

Short term impacts of development on the local community.

The “red flags” identified in the Wainiawaniwa area include:

Inundation of an existing wetland;

Inundation of Waianiwaniwa intermontane basin ecosystem;

Impacts on upland river health due to inundation of the mainstem of the Waianiwaniwa

River;

Inundation affecting river reaches noted for native fish, especially threatened species9, in

the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database;

Short term impacts of development on the local community.

7 “Preliminary assessment of Selwyn‐Waihora potential water storage areas against CWMS and other key

targets.” July 2013. At http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Council/strategic‐assessment‐selwyn‐waihora‐

040713.pdf

8 Threatened species include Canterbury mudfish (ranked as nationally critical) and long‐fin eel

9 The Waianiwaniwa River contains the largest remaining sub‐population of Canterbury mudfish.


432



The Zone Committee understands there are potential storage options that would address these “red

flags” and the “red flags” are not “show stoppers” for major storage for the zone.

Small (on‐farm) scale water storage may reduce the size of major water storage required in the

catchment however it may be less efficient and more costly than strategically‐placed major storage.

Such small‐scale storage could be encouraged, where appropriate, through reduced consenting

requirements but not to the detriment of major water storage.

2.12 Managed recharge of water to groundwater and targeted stream augmentation for

environmental benefit

Recommendation 2.12

(a) The Sub‐regional Section will support use of managed aquifer recharge (MAR), targeted stream

augmentation or other methods of augmentation to increase base flows in lowland streams

subject to a source of water being available, feasibility, and acceptability from a cultural

viewpoint about the unnatural mixing of water from different sources, and other issues such as

potential adverse effects from groundwater mounding in the lower catchment.

(b) Further consultation and technical work should be undertaken, including:

a. Acceptability of mixing of waters;

b. Development of options (including augmentation to lower Plains) and evaluation of

options (including evaluation against CWMS and ZIP);

c. Pilot trial, subject to Zone Committee agreement, of targeted stream augmentation

and/or managed aquifer recharge.

(c) CPW Ltd should, where possible, take into account the possibility of managed recharge of

groundwater or targeted stream augmentation for environmental benefit when designing and

constructing infrastructure and distribution, acknowledging that these techniques are only at an

early‐concept stage.

(d) The Sub‐regional Section will require that water provided through targeted stream augmentation

is for environmental benefit, not for additional allocation to irrigation.

Commentary

Actively managing recharge of water to aquifers could increase the flows in the spring‐fed lowland

streams. Options include managed aquifer recharge (MAR) putting Waimakariri or Rakaia River

water into infiltration basins in upper plains (as part of planned irrigation canals), on to the mid

plains, or on to lower plains via stockwater races or through irrigation distribution pipes/channels.

Thinking about actively managing groundwater recharge to benefit the lowland streams is very much

at the “concept” stage. Considerable further consultation, discussion and technical work is required.

This includes a decision on cultural acceptability and further modelling work to assess a range of

options for infiltration amounts, mechanisms and locations.


433

A targeted stream augmentation project is progressing to trials in the zone. This directs a portion of

a Selwyn District Council stockwater consent not required for stockwater into soak holes near the

lowland streams. No direct water‐to‐water mixing occurs as the water mixes instead with the

shallow groundwater system which pushes more groundwater into the lowland streams.

Other forms of MAR will continue to be considered on a case‐by‐case basis. For example, aquifer

recharge in the mid and upper plains could be considered in the future once the effect on aquifers of

any changes (e.g. piping, additional irrigation, more efficient irrigation) is understood.

CPW is currently designing irrigation distribution infrastructure. The decisions made in this design

may influence the cost and feasibility of future managed aquifer recharge for environmental benefit.

CPW is encouraged to design infrastructure that will enable managed aquifer recharge,

acknowledging that this is only at concept stage.

2.13 Monitoring impact of CPW on lowland streams and drainage

Recommendation 2.13

CPW and Environment Canterbury will commence an integrated monitoring programme, as soon as

possible, to measure impacts of CPW irrigation development on flows in lowland streams and hill‐fed

rivers and on drainage.

Commentary

CPW irrigation development is predicted to improve flows in streams and rivers. The development

will also impact on drainage in the lower Plains.

Drainage concerns were addressed in the decision on the CPW resource consent. Conditions have

been included in the consent that require drainage issues to be arbitrated by an independent panel.

The CPW consent requires CPW to instigate a monitoring programme. Environment Canterbury has a

groundwater and surface monitoring network in the catchment. The CPW consent‐compliance

monitoring should integrate with the Environment Canterbury network and together be able to

determine the impacts of CPW as accurately and as soon as possible.

2.14 Groundwater B Block consents with adaptive management

Recommendation 2.14

The Sub‐regional Section will maintain the adaptive management conditions on current Rakaia‐

Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri Groundwater B Block consents when these are renewed.

Commentary

Following hearings in 2006 and 2007, 69 consent applications to take groundwater from the Rakaia‐

Selwyn Groundwater Allocation Zone and 41 applications for the Selwyn‐Waimakariri Groundwater

Allocation Zone were granted by independent hearing commissioners in 2008.

In recognition of the over‐allocated nature of these zones, the consents were issued with complex

‘adaptive management conditions’ and for a duration of ten years after implementation, or 1 May

2020, whichever is earlier. The adaptive management conditions include setting the water available


434

each season based on groundwater levels in September of that year in relation to an environmental‐

flow‐standard level.

The full beneficial impact of CPW on ecological and cultural flows in lowland streams is unlikely to

have occurred by the time these Groundwater B Block consents come up for renewal in or about

2020. Therefore, to continue to limit the cumulative impact of these groundwater takes on the

lowland streams, the adaptive management conditions should be retained.

2.15 Allocation limit for Little Rakaia Allocation Zone and water transfers in this zone

Recommendation 2.15


a) set the allocation block size for Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone at the total volume of

current groundwater and surface water takes;

b) only allow additional water to be allocated in exceptional circumstances where it can be

shown that water is available and the take would not have adverse effects;

c) enable transfers of water permits in Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone without requiring

any of the transferred water to be surrendered.

Commentary

The Little Rakaia area is more water‐rich than the Rakaia Selwyn Water Allocation Zone due to

additional recharge from the Rakaia River and the addition of surface water as part of the Northbank

and other irrigation schemes (though the contribution from irrigation schemes has decreased with

the conversion from border dike to spray).

The Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone has around 85 groundwater consents (61 stream depleting)

and 4 surface water take consents.

The Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone includes Muriwai (Coopers Lagoon) which has high cultural

and biodiversity values. Water quality monitoring of the lagoon has been carried out since 2002 and

shows the lagoon generally is of good quality. The Trophic Lake Index10 (TLI) of the lagoon is

generally 4 or less (and therefore meeting the LWRP objective). There are times when the TLI

increases to about 6 due to increases in algae in summer but these are relatively short lived. The

main reason for the good water quality in the lagoon is that the inflows are mostly re‐emergent

groundwater that has come by seepage from the Rakaia River and from shallow groundwater that

has a low nitrate concentration. An increase in allocation or use of water may potentially reduce

groundwater inflows to Muriwai (Coopers Lagoon) and compromise current water quality.

The lowland streams in Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone flow directly into the ocean. Flows in Lee

River are generally good. There are limited data for Jollies Brook though flows seem to be higher and

more consistent than the flows in the streams in Rakaia‐Selwyn Water Allocation Zone.

10 Trophic Lake Index is a measure of lake health. It runs from less than 1 (almost pure water) to more than 7

(highly nutrient enriched)


435

The method used to calculate allocation limits for the Rakaia‐Selwyn and Selwyn‐Waimakariri water

allocation zones cannot be applied in the Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone. The hydrological

model does not adequately capture the dynamic nature of the impact of recharge from the Rakaia

River on the stream flows. For example,(when the Rakaia River is flowing down the north branch the

stream flows in the Little Rakaia zone have increased flows. The model does not predict the timing,

duration or magnitude of flows in the north branch.

Given the current (good) state of the lowland streams in this zone and of Muriwai (Coopers Lagoon),

the model inadequacies and the more water‐rich nature of the Zone, it is recommended that the

allocation limit for the Little Rakaia Zone be set at the current consented volume (that is at 68

million m3/yr). In contrast to the adjacent Rakaia‐Selwyn Water Allocation Zone where new takes are

prohibited, some new takes may be allowable in the Little Rakaia Water Allocation Zone in

exceptional circumstances where a strong case can be made that water is available and can be taken

without any adverse effects. Transfer of water permits would also be permitted and would not

require surrender of any of the transferred water as the water allocation zone is considered to be

“fully allocated” rather than “over‐allocated”, is more water‐rich and there is relatively low risk of

the transfer of “unused” water having a significant impact on lowland stream flows.

2.16 Allocation and minimum flows for Kaituna Water Allocation Zone and water transfers in this

zone

Recommendation 2.16


a) set the A Block allocation for Kaituna River at 44 L/s and B Block allocation of 131 L/s( for

takes to storage at higher flows);

b) set the minimum flow for Kaituna River at 60 L/s (as per Appendix 1 of this ZIP Addendum)

and the B Block minimum flow at 522 L/s;

c) prohibit surface water takes from Prices Stream and Graylees and Turrells Drains (which

currently have no takes);

d) allow new groundwater takes in the allocation zone provided these are unconnected to

streams and rivers, or only hydraulically connected to a low degree;

e) permit water transfers in the Kaituna River catchment.

Commentary

The four catchments that make up the Kaituna Water Allocation Zone – Kaituna River, Prices Stream,

Graylees Drain and Turrells Drain – are fed from the slopes of Banks Peninsula and flow into Te

Waihora. They are unconnected to the central plains aquifer system.

There are currently three surface water consents for Kaituna River. One of these is to take for

storage when river flows are higher (i.e. a “B Block” allocation). There are three groundwater

consents in the Kaituna River catchment, none of these are assessed as stream depleting. There are

two groundwater takes in Graylees Drain catchment, neither is assessed as stream depleting.


436

It is considered that the Kaituna River A Block allocation is full and new takes should be prohibited.

The current minimum flow for Kaituna River is 60 L/s. Modelling indicates that a moderate size B

Block would not significantly impact on the size and frequency of small floods.

There are no surface water takes from Graylees and Turrells Drains or Prices Stream, probably due to

the poor reliability of supply and limited land suitable for irrigated development. Prices Stream has

high natural values, good water quality and significant cultural values associated with the Waikakahi

Pa site. Given these factors, and reinforced by there being no current takes, surface water takes

should be prohibited from Prices Stream and Graylees and Turrells Drains. Small takes of surface

water and stream‐depleting groundwater for essential domestic use and stockwater would still be

permitted.


437

MAHINGA KAI, WĀHI TAONGA, WĀHI TAPU

3.0 Context

This section covers some aspects of kaitiakitanga, however as in the Selwyn Waihora ZIP,

kaitiakitanga is woven through all sections of this ZIP Addendum. The Solution Package (see other

sections) will help protect and restore Ngāi Tahu values.

3.1 Recognition of Te Waihora as a Ngāi Tahu cultural landscape

Recommendation 3.1


a) Recognise Te Waihora as a Ngāi Tahu cultural landscape of particular importance, reflecting

the relationship of Ngāi Tahu with the lake and the mahinga kai, wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga

values that define that relationship.

Commentary

Te Waihora and its margins and associated wetlands are recognised by Ngāi Tahu as a cultural

landscape of particular importance. The designation reflects the importance of the lake to Ngāi Tahu

culture, history and identity, the concentration of mahinga kai, wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga values,

and the need to manage the lake environment in a holistic manner.

Recognising Te Waihora as a Ngāi Tahu cultural landscape means that activities that may affect the

lake and the relationship of Ngāi Tahu to it are managed in a way that reflects the sensitivity of the

lake to those activities and the degree of risk to particular values. It also means that land use

activities can be assessed for consistency with Ngāi Tahu objectives to restore the mauri and

mahinga kai value of the lake.

Te Kete Ika a Rākaihautū – the fish basket of Rākaihautū – is the original name for Te Waihora and

exemplifies the once rich and bountiful resources of the lake. The significance of the lake in respect

of Ngāi Tahu history, mahinga kai and customary fisheries is recognised in the National (Te

Waihora/Lake Ellesmere) Water Conservation Order (1990).


438

BIODIVERSITY AND CATCHMENT INTERVENTIONS

4.0 Context

This section deals with a range of activities that contribute to biodiversity and water quality

outcomes. Many of these activities were identified in the Selwyn Waihora ZIP.

4.1 Catchment interventions are essential to meet ZIP outcomes

Recommendation 4.1

The Sub‐regional Section and other plans being developed (statutory and non‐statutory) and the

Environment Canterbury work programme will support catchment interventions that are essential to

meet the desired outcomes for the Selwyn Waihora catchment. The key catchment interventions

include wetland protection and enhancement, effective riparian margins, drain management, stream

macrophyte management, and sediment management.

Commentary

To deliver the outcomes expected from the Zone Committee’s Solution Package, as described in this

ZIP Addendum, will require a suite of biodiversity and catchment interventions as outlined in this

section. Few of these interventions will be delivered through the Sub‐regional Section. Therefore it is

important that the work programmes of Regional and local councils, of primary sector organisations,

and of farmers, include and progress these interventions.

4.2 Wetland protection and enhancement

Recommendation 4.2

Significant additional support should be provided for protection and enhancement of wetlands. This

will include support for:

a) voluntary retirement and restoration of at least 90 ha of springhead wetlands in lowlands

streams draining to Te Waihora;

b) voluntary protection and enhancement of wetlands near Te Waihora and hill‐fed rivers,

through a well‐resourced co‐ordinated approach;

c) identification and prioritisation of the most important wetlands for protection and

enhancement to improve biodiversity and water quality;

d) an assessment of the placement of targeted facilitated or constructed wetlands in the

catchment to improve water quality. This assessment should focus on location, type of

wetland (constructed vs facilitated), cost and efficacy.

Commentary

Wetlands contribute to biodiversity and help trap and remove nutrients. It is these ecosystem

services that lead to the identification of wetlands as wāhi taonga. For example, retiring and

enhancing wetlands around the springhead areas on the lower Plains (i.e. the areas where the

lowland streams start from) would promote removal of nitrogen and phosphorus, thereby reducing


439

the amount of nutrients in lowland streams, as well as enhancing biodiversity values. The cost of

retirement of 90 ha of springhead wetlands has been estimated at about $1 million. To significantly

reduce nutrients there will need to be a substantial effort in protecting and enhancing wetlands. It is

estimated that in order to be effective for nitrogen and phosphorus reductions of 50 and 25%

respectively, 1‐3% of the catchment needs to be in wetlands. The cost of facilitated wetland

rehabilitation is very dependent on the size of the wetland with the cost of a 10 ha wetland being

about $1 million ($95,000/ha), the cost of a 100 ha wetland being about $4.7 million ($47,000/ha),

and about $7.5 million for a 200 ha wetland ($38,000/ha).

There are a wide range of wetland protection and enhancement initiatives including those of the

Zone Committee through its Immediate Steps programme, work through Whakaora Te Waihora,

Waihora Ellesmere Trust (WET) and others. Substantial additional support is required.

Wetland protection and enhancement is voluntary. Region‐wide rules in the proposed LWRP make

enhancing or restoring a wetland a permitted activity (subject to conditions e.g. fish passage is not

restricted).

Recommendations 5.6, 5.7, 5.9 and 5.12 in the Selwyn Waihora ZIP relate to protecting and

enhancing wetlands including working with landowners, restoring Ahuriri Lagoon and targeting

Immediate Steps funding to connecting springs and wetlands in Hororata River catchment. Good

wetland management is included as part of the requirements for a Farm Environment Plan.

4.3 Effective riparian margins

Recommendation 4.3

Significant additional support should be provided for active management and enhancement of about

750 km of effective riparian margins including for:

a) working with land owners on case‐by‐case solutions for effective riparian management on

hundreds of kilometres of stream margins;

b) prioritisation of funding for improved management of riparian margins and that targets be

set, such as focussing on the 10% most critical sites and achieving 30 km annually.

Commentary

Effective riparian margins slow down overland flows from surrounding land and allow particulates to

drop out of the runoff, and provide shading to the waterway stream. This reduces the amount of

phosphorus and microbial contaminants entering the waterways (and hence into the lake) and

improves in‐stream ecological health. Riparian areas are wāhi taonga with a key role in protecting

and enhancing the cultural health of waterways. The active management of riparian margins

involves the fencing out of stock and the planning and planting of riparian margins and adjacent high

risk, sensitive or heavily impacted areas.

ZIP Recommendation 3.2 includes delivering a restoration programme for prioritised lowland

waterways. A lot of riparian planting has already been done covering about 1% of the total stream

length. The Whakaora Te Waihora programme includes riparian planting along 70% of the Kaituna,

Halswell and Waikekewai mainstems.


440

The active management (improvement) of riparian margins is voluntary. Region‐wide rules in the

proposed LWRP make planting in beds of rivers a permitted activity (subject to conditions e.g. no

unwanted organism planted, does not interfere with flood control).

4.4 Improved drain management

Recommendation 4.4

Significant additional support should be provided for working with farmers on case‐by‐case solutions

for effective drain management on about 1000 km of drains that include stock exclusion and the

planning and planting of vegetation along drain margins and:

a) starts with smaller drains and moves progressively down the drain network;

b) works with Selwyn District Council and Environment Canterbury to ensure the drains continue

to function as drains.

Commentary

Improved drainage management includes effective margins on drains. These would be similar to

improved riparian margins on streams and would involve fencing out of stock and the planning and

planting of riparian margins and high risk areas. The purpose is to slow down flows, allow

particulates to drop out of runoff and to achieve some shading of drains. This will reduce the

amount of phosphorus and microbial contaminants in the drains and hence entering the lake.

Improved drain management is voluntary.

Recommendation 3.12 of the ZIP supports the Sustainable Drain Management Project. The

Whakaora Te Waihora programme includes a package of work for the Halswell and Waikekewai

drainage networks.

The following are required as part of the proposed solution package: drain‐side planting on 1000 km

of smaller drains at an estimated cost of about $44 million, improved macrophyte (aquatic “weed”)

clearing practices at an estimated cost of about $0.7 million/year, additional mechanical clearance of

sediment at an estimated cost of about $3 million, and co‐ordination of clearing practices, weed

removal from stream banks, and the production of 50 drainage restoration plans.

4.5 Stream macrophyte (aquatic “weed”) management

Recommendation 4.5

Significant additional support should be provided for the active management of macrophyte (aquatic

“weed”) growth in streams and drains, including consideration of “cut‐and‐carry” options to remove

macrophytes.

Commentary

The proposed Solution Package includes the active management of macrophyte (aquatic “weed”)

growth, involving the cutting and removal of macrophytes. Currently about $0.2 million is spent on

management of macrophytes in the streams; a significant increase is required.


441

4.6 Sediment management

Recommendation 4.6

a) Environment Canterbury will investigate sediment detention options and targeted in‐stream

sediment removal, and support cost‐effective options that reduce sediment supply and/or

improve in‐stream habitat.

b) Environment Canterbury will inform farmers of the use of sediment detention dams and bunds

and encourage consideration, through Farm Environment Plans, the use of sediment dams and

bunds to reduce soil loss.

Commentary

The proposed Solution Package includes the targeted removal and disposal of sediment from 50% of

the total length of lowland streams in the catchment at an estimated cost of $1.3 million. The

lowland streams seldom carry flushing flows so once fine sediment is in the channel it tends to

remain there and can cause long term ecological issues. Management measures such as retiring land

around spring heads, effective riparian margins, improved drain management and the use of farm

plans will reduce the amount of sediment that enters lowland streams in the future, but will not

address the legacy issue of sediment already in the streams.

Reducing sediment supply to streams will improve stream health and reduce the amount of

phosphorus to Te Waihora. To achieve the water quality outcome for Te Waihora the amount of

phosphorus from the catchment needs to be halved. Sediment reduction options could include

detention dams in the upper reaches of rivers and streams and bunds on flatter terrain, such as

beside a river or stream, to temporarily store flood water for a few days allowing some sediment to

settle out without adversely effecting pasture growth.


442

WATER QUALITY

5.0 Context

A package of statutory policies and rules (the Sub‐regional Section) and other actions will be

required to progress water quality issues and make progress towards achieving the ZIP outcomes.

Lake interventions are covered in the next section.

The lag in the impact of the current (2011 baseline) land use nitrogen load means things will get

worse before they can get better. It is estimated that even if there was no further land use

intensification in the catchment we can expect a 35% increase in the current load of total nitrogen

entering the lake in the next 10‐20 years as a result of the effects of current land use. The current

water quality in streams, groundwater and the lake does not reflect the nitrogen load from the

current land use.

Different contaminants from agricultural land use need to be managed differently. Stock exclusion

will be the key management tool for reducing microbial contaminants. Riparian management, as

well as fertiliser and soil management, will be the key tool for reducing phosphorus losses. Nitrogen

load limits with nitrogen discharge allocation to land parcels and/or requirement for particular

nitrogen management practices will be the key tools for reducing nitrogen losses. Management of

collected animal effluent (e.g. dairy shed effluent) through the Land and Water Regional Plan will

also be important for managing nitrogen load.

Nitrogen and phosphorus loads and health of Te Waihora

Te Waihora is highly enriched with nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) from rural and urban land uses

in the catchment. The current average annual TLI (Trophic Lake Index) for the middle of Te Waihora

is 6.8. The lake is very turbid due to sediment re‐suspended from its bed and eroded from its banks,

and to phytoplankton (algae) blooms. The macrophyte beds that were once present, and the clear

lake‐edge waters associated with those beds, have largely disappeared.

Despite its degraded water quality the lake still supports very productive tuna (eel) and pātiki

(flounder) fisheries. Poor water quality, however, fails Ngāi Tahu cultural expectations for a quality

fishery even though fish production is good.

Te Waihora has the highest recorded bird numbers of any lake in New Zealand, presumably

supported by the productive aquatic food chain, and supports internationally significant populations

of migratory birds.

Phosphorus from historical land use has accumulated in the lake bed sediments of Te Waihora. This

“legacy” phosphorus is re‐released into the lake when wind‐induced wave action disturbs the lake

sediments. It is estimated that this legacy phosphorus needs to be reduced by 50% if the ZIP

outcomes for the lake are to be achieved. The legacy phosphorus cannot be reduced by changes to

agricultural or land use practices although reduction in agricultural phosphorus load is also required.

Increased nitrogen and phosphorus loads, beyond current levels, brings with it increased risk of not

meeting environmental outcomes. Continuing to increase lake nutrient loads will favour higher


443

phytoplankton biomass that pushes up pH and maintains cyanobacteria (“blue‐green” algae) as the

predominant phytoplankton group.

Lake modelling predicts that a 50% decrease in the current load of both nitrogen and phosphorus is

needed to improve water quality in Te Waihora to achieve the objective in the proposed LWRP of a

TLI of 6.0 or less. This includes the need for a 50% reduction in legacy phosphorus in the lake. It is

possible (although uncertain) that even further reduction down to around 30% of current nitrogen

load would be needed to create nutrient conditions favourable for returning the lake from its

current phytoplankton (algae) dominated state to a self‐sustaining macrophyte (aquatic plant)

dominated state. Achieving such large reductions in nutrient loads at source alone is incompatible

with current land use and the further land use intensification (with CPW) in the catchment.

There is no silver bullet for mitigating high nutrient loads and rehabilitating Te Waihora to a less

degraded state. The degree of current nutrient enrichment in Te Waihora and the likely nutrient

load yet to come is of a scale that cannot be offset by any single mitigation measure. A multifaceted

approach stands the best chance of successful restoration and includes:

(i) minimising nutrient losses at source (e.g. good to best possible land use practice);

(ii) capturing nutrients where possible down the catchment (e.g. riparian and wetland

management);

(iii) improving flow in tributaries; and

(iv) lake mitigation and restoration measures.

A long‐term strategy is required with the rehabilitation of the lake taking decades.

5.1 Regular review of progress

Recommendation 5.1 Regular review of progress in relation to water quality outcomes and

revision, if required, of Sub‐regional Section and work programme(s)

Environment Canterbury will review, every five years, the progress towards, and achievement of, the

ZIP water quality related outcomes and, if required, revise the Sub‐regional Section and work

programme(s). This review will consider, though not be limited to:

a) Nitrate levels in drinking water wells;

b) Nutrient discharges from land use, as estimated for properties in the catchment;

c) Improvements in Good Management Practice (GMP) for nutrient management, including

through technological advances;

d) Progress with catchment and lake interventions and the impact of these on water quality

outcomes, taking into account lag times.


444

Commentary

The Solution Package as described in this ZIP Addendum is a significant first step towards achieving

the ZIP water quality and lake outcomes. Some of the Committee want better outcomes, and

sooner. There are concerns as well of whether the outcomes of the Solution Package will be

achieved and if so, when, as the predicted outcomes are based on modelling, include significant lag

effects and rely heavily on catchment and lake interventions and substantial changes to farm

management.

Over time, monitoring will indicate how well the outcomes and the changes anticipated through the

Solution Package are being achieved. Review of this information may indicate that changes are

needed to the Solution Package – comprising the Sub‐regional Section and an integrated suite of on‐

the‐ground actions as described in this ZIP Addendum.

5.2 Nitrogen and microbial contaminant loads in relation to ZIP drinking water outcome

Recommendation 5.2 Drinking water wells

Canterbury District Health Board, Selwyn District Council and Environment Canterbury will continue

to investigate, communicate and implement options (including funding options) to address the

unacceptably high and increasing nitrate levels in drinking water wells that supply community

schemes and, particularly, individual households, with the goal of continual improvement.

Commentary

Drinking water wells

The increasing nitrate concentrations in groundwater are not consistent with Ngāi Tahu freshwater

objectives. Nor do they achieve the ZIP drinking water outcome. This is not satisfactory and the Zone

Committee wants the situation to be addressed, though it is uncertain how this can be done.

The national drinking water standard (Maximum Allowable Value (MAV)) for nitrate‐Nitrogen is 11.3

mg/L. In order to protect for the drinking water standard, the average water quality should be at or

below half MAV (i.e. 5.65 mg/L).

Currently, the average nitrate‐N concentrations is 6.6 mg/L in the shallow monitor well network in

the Selwyn Waihora catchment, just over half of the drinking water standard. Occasionally there is a

peak in groundwater concentrations above the drinking water standard, but it is temporary. While

the current exceedances of the drinking water are temporary, they are important as the drinking

water standard is the maximum allowable value.

The nitrate concentrations in groundwater will increase in future as the full impact of the current

land use and the impact of land‐use intensification from CPW are felt. Average nitrate

concentrations in groundwater are predicted to rise to 9.2 mg/L. The proposed Solution Package

should result in average nitrate concentrations of about 8 mg/L.

Less than 5% of households are reliant on their own groundwater supply for their drinking water in

the Selwyn Waihora catchment. The cost of deepening these bores (to reach water with lower

nitrate concentrations) is estimated at about $2.6 million. There are also nitrate‐removal

technologies available for household water supplies. Ion exchange units cost approximately $600 for


445

an under‐the‐sink unit and $6,000 ‐ $50,000 for a larger household unit. Reverse osmosis units cost

about $1,500 for an under‐the‐sink unit and about $30,000 ‐ $50,000 for a unit to treat the whole

house. None of these treatment units are “fit and forget” and require on‐going maintenance.

The wells around the lake, including those at Ngāti Moki marae at Taumutu, are not at risk of

increased nitrate contamination from land use change on the plains. Nitrate concentrations in

groundwater around the lake are kept low because of the saturated conditions and by dilution by

the upward flow of deep low‐nitrate groundwater.

Where groundwater is close to the land surface, it can be vulnerable to contamination from micro‐

organisms from either grazing animals or waste water disposal. Currently Environment Canterbury

detects E. coli in about 5‐15% of wells. The risks to the reticulated water supply are low, however the

risks to the drinking water supplies from domestic wells are greater, especially where border dike

irrigation is still practised.

The proposed Land and Water Regional Plan includes rules precluding some activities (e.g. silage and

compost pits, disposal of animal effluent from an effluent system) within 20 m or 50 m of a

groundwater bore but does not appear to specifically prevent grazing in the vicinity of drinking

water bores except immediately adjacent to the well head. Conventional wisdom is that microbial

contaminants do not survive for long periods in groundwater and so the risks of microbial

contaminants in drinking water wells is low even where there is intensive grazing in the vicinity of

the well. Possibly a precautionary approach should be taken to provide greater protection of

drinking water wells through exclusion of some stock (or restriction on stocking density) in the

vicinity (50 m?) of a drinking water well, though this may increase fire risk.

Nitrate levels in lowland streams

The New Zealand nitrate toxicity guidelines were updated in January 2013 to take into account data

for two New Zealand native species, including a whitebait species (juvenile inanga) and a widespread

mayfly species. A nitrate concentration of 6.9 mg/L is the guideline for environments like those in

most of the Selwyn Waihora streams, that is, environments which are measurably degraded and

which have seasonally elevated concentrations for significant periods of the year (1 – 3 months).

The Solution Package is expected to result in nitrate levels below the updated guidelines in all

streams in the catchment.

All other factors being equal, the cover of filamentous algae and nuisance aquatic plants (“weeds”)

in the lowland streams is related to nutrient levels. The range of management interventions in the

Solution Package are expected to reduce the risk of algae blooms and nuisance aquatic plants.

5.3 Nitrogen loads from agriculture

The amount of nitrogen lost from the root zone below agricultural land in the catchment is

estimated, using the “look‐up” tables (good management practice and Overseer 6) as 4,100 t/yr. The

impact of this load is not currently being seen (because of the lag effect). It is estimated that the

current impacts relate to a load of 2,650 t/yr. The agricultural load will increase with the land use

intensification from the already consented CPW irrigation scheme and with gradual intensification.


446

TABLE: Nitrogen loads – agricultural component (calculated using Overseer 6 and assuming GMP – good management practice losses)

N load (agric*

component) t/yr

Comments

Current 2650 Load extrapolated – excludes lag effects of current land use)

2011 land use

baseline

4100 Includes lag effect from 2011 land use

With addition of

CPW + some

gradual

intensification

5600 Half of the additional load is from 30,000ha of new CPW

irrigation assuming land use is 40:40:20 split dairy: arable: beef,

sheep & dairy support. The other half is from gradual

intensification (with no land use change) over the rest of

catchment.

Proposed Solution

Package

4800 See Recommendation 5.3. Requires on‐farm N loss rates to be,

on average, 12.5% less than those for GMP.

* This is the allocable diffuse N load. If the load from low productive land (e.g. hill country) is subtracted, the 2011 baseline

load is 4,000 tN/yr and the proposed Solution Package load is 4,600 tN/yr.

About 40% of the nitrogen loss load from agricultural diffuse sources comes from dairying which

makes up about 26% of the area. Arable contributes about 16% of the nitrogen loss from about 17%

of the area.

Soils in Selwyn Waihora have a wide range of soil drainage behaviours and water holding capacity,

and hence vulnerability to nitrogen leaching. The range in leaching vulnerability is reflected in the

estimates of nitrogen leaching from intensive dairying: nitrogen losses from stony, very light and

light soils are estimated at 80 kgN/ha/yr or more, while those from heavy soils are estimated at 20

kgN/ha/yr or less. Over 40% of the high‐productive agricultural soils in Selwyn Waihora are light soils

with high vulnerability to nitrogen leaching (see map below).

The estimates above are based on Good Management Practice (GMP). Advanced Mitigation is the

maximum reduction in nitrogen that is technically feasible for a particular farming system/land use

(without changing land use). The amount of reduction in nitrogen loss varies with land use, for

example there are relatively few mitigation options available for dryland beef and sheep. Advanced

mitigation does not consider affordability, only whether there are technically feasible mitigations.

While 100% adoption of Advanced Mitigation would reduce nitrogen losses it would not reduce

them to zero. It is estimated that 100% adoption of Advanced Mitigation would result in a 25%

reduction of the load with GMP.


447

Recommendation 5.3

The Sub‐regional Section will set the nitrogen load from agricultural land in the area covered by the

Sub‐regional Section at 4,800 tN/year (allocable load calculated with Overseer 6). It is estimated that

this load will:

a) Achieve, in combination with lake interventions and catchment initiatives, a healthier lake,

including

i. an average TLI of 6.5 mid‐lake for Te Waihora and a TLI of 6.0 at the lake

margins;

ii. improved indigenous bird populations;

iii. improved tuna and pātiki populations;

iv. improved fisheries with safer opportunities to gather/harvest;

v. Recreational activities carried out more safely;

vi. re–establishment of macrophytes;

vii. clearer water around lake margins;

viii. Healthier wetland margins; and


448

ix. Increased diversity of shoreline ecosystems.

b) Result in an average nitrate concentration of about 8 Mg/L in groundwater monitoring wells

in the catchment with about 50% of shallows wells experiencing temporary exceedances

above the maximum allowable value (MAV of 11.3 mg/L) drinking water standard;

c) Result, in combination with other interventions (including establishment of riparian margins

and increase to lowland stream flows), in improvements to ecosystem health in lowland

streams ‐ particularly a lower risk of nuisance macrophyte and algal coverage and an

increase in aquatic species;

d) Include provision for land use change following irrigation of the 30,000 ha in the CPW

command area that is currently not irrigated;

e) Require farmers, on average, to reduce nitrogen losses by 12.5% above Good Management

Practice, reflecting losses from improvements to farm management practice that is halfway

between good and advanced management practice (without having to change land use);

f) Result, in comparison with no nitrogen load limit being set, in about a $30 million/year 11

reduction in the contribution from the catchment to the Canterbury regional GDP.

Commentary

The nitrogen load limit for agricultural land should be set at a level that is the contribution farming

needs to make, in combination with the load from point sources and with other interventions, to

achieve the ZIP outcomes for Te Waihora.

A very large reduction in nitrogen load from farming, probably to less than 20% of the current load

(i.e. to less than 800 tN/yr), would be needed for changes to farming practices and land use to be

able to achieve, on their own, the ZIP outcomes for Te Waihora. Given the lag effect whereby a 35%

increase above the current nitrogen load to the lake can be expected as a result of current land use,

reducing nitrogen loads to less than 20% of current load would require massive land use change with

significant economic impact and social disruption. Scenario 3 of the Limit Setting process explored

the consequence of a 30% reduction in current nitrogen load. All of the wide range of interests

involved in the Focus Group process found the land use change required and the consequent social

disruption unacceptable. In addition, even with this 30% reduction below current nitrogen load, the

lake outcomes could not be achieved without lake interventions.

The proposed Solution Package indicates that a catchment nitrogen load of 5,000 tN/yr (calculated

with Overseer 6 and including point‐source discharges) could, in combination with lake interventions

and a 50% reduction in the phosphorus catchment load, achieve lake outcomes including an annual

11 This estimate of impact on GDP, the estimates of impacts on TLI and nitrate concentrations, and on‐farm

management are taken from the “Overview of Strawman 1” at http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/selwyn‐

tewaihora‐wkshop8‐overview‐strawman.pdf and supporting material at http://ecan.govt.nz/our‐

responsibilities/regional‐plans/regional‐plans‐under‐development/ellesmere‐selwyn/Pages/community‐

involvement.aspx


449

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/selwyn-tewaihora-wkshop8-overview-strawman.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Plans/selwyn-tewaihora-wkshop8-overview-strawman.pdf

http://ecan.govt.nz/our-responsibilities/regional-plans/regional-plans-under-development/ellesmere-selwyn/Pages/community-involvement.aspx



average TLI of 6.5 in the centre of the lake with TLI better than 6.0 in the vicinity of restored

wetlands and macrophyte beds in embayments and at the lake margins.

The proposed Solution Package sets the agricultural load at the level achieved with management

practice at 50% between good management practice and advanced mitigation. This is an average

reduction in nitrogen loss of about 13%. The results of Dairy NZ’s analysis of dairy farms in Selwyn

Waihora indicate that this level of reduction in nitrogen losses would, on average, have a 5% or less

adverse impact on farm profitability (EBIT – earnings before interest and tax) though this will vary

depending on milk price and debt level. Modelling by Dairy NZ indicates that a 10% reduction in

nitrogen loss in the catchment will reduce milk production by 6‐7% thereby reducing milk revenue

from the catchment by about $30 million. The limited information available for other land uses

indicates that the impact is likely to be greater for lamb and beef, with data not yet available for

arable and dairy support.

The additional development from CPW and gradual intensification is estimated to contribute about

$310 million to Regional GDP (including flow on) above the current Regional GDP contribution from

agriculture of $620 million. It is estimated that implementing the nitrogen mitigation measures to

achieve the proposed load limit will reduce the contribution to Regional GDP by $30 million. It is

estimated that the total cash farm surplus will be about $250 million/yr, down by $40 million/yr

from the surplus without nitrogen mitigation, though still more than the current total farm surplus

of $180 million/yr.

Mike Barton briefed the Zone Committee on his experience as a beef farmer operating within the

nitrogen load limit for Lake Taupo. He told the Committee that a nitrogen load limit was a cap on

production and therefore to remain viable farmers had to change from the current production‐

based and commodity‐product business model to a production‐constrained value‐added price‐

premium business model. Historically farmers have maintained, albeit very low, financial returns

through production gains and by keeping costs as low as possible, and counted on capital gains from

increasing land value. In Taupo the nitrogen load limit has capped production and adversely

impacted land values. Mike Barton said that working within nutrient load limits would be the biggest

issue that farming, rural communities and food consumers have faced since the removal of

government subsidies in the 1980s.

5.4 Managing nitrogen load – expectation of existing users

Recommendation 5.4

a) The Sub‐regional Section will require existing land users to meet Good Management Practice

(GMP – Good Management Practice) loss rates as soon as practicable after notification of

the Sub‐regional Section. This may include:

i. Requirement for resource consent where a farm is leaching more, as measured as a

3‐year rolling average, than the value for that farming system on the same soil type

operating at GMP;

b) The Sub‐regional Section will require existing land users to:

i. identify their farm system type and management practices, and


450

ii. estimate nitrogen losses using Overseer 6 and the industry‐agreed protocols.

c) Primary Sector organisations should communicate, as soon as possible, the need for all

existing users to meet GMP and indicate the N leaching rates (kgN/ha) for different farming

systems.

d) Primary Sector organisations with Environment Canterbury will agree by 2014 the protocol

for Overseer use in Selwyn Waihora catchment.

Commentary

The Committee (and the proposed LWRP) expects existing users to be at, or better than, good

management practice. Nitrogen loss tables for good management practice for different farming

systems on different soils in different climates are being developed by industry. It is expected these

tables will be confirmed for use as part of the Land and Water Regional Plan from 2017.

Nutrient loss monitoring and reporting will be required from when the Sub‐regional Section is

notified. It will be essential for Overseer to be used in a consistent manner. This will require an

agreed set of protocols. The Audited Farm Environment Plans could include Overseer reporting and

audit against the Overseer protocols.

5.5 Managing to nitrogen load target at the property level

Recommendation 4.3

The Sub‐regional Section and its implementation will reflect the “Key steps in the Planning

Framework for managing effects of land management activities on water quality in the Selwyn‐Te

Waihora Catchment”12 developed by the Primary Sector/Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu/Environment

Canterbury Working Group, including:

a) Land users are required to make a percentage improvement on 2017 GMP by 2022;

b) Land users who are discharging less than 15 kgN/ha/yr can change (intensify) land

management or land use provided they are operating at GMP and the change does not result

in discharges exceeding 15 kgN/ha/yr;

c) Requiring any new land use that will discharge more than 15 kgN/ha/yr to operate at better

than 2017 GMP from the start (as per a) above) and, if they are not in CPW, not to discharge

more N than under the previous land use;

d) Requiring land users who cannot comply with a) above to submit a management plan to

show how they will meet the requirements as soon as practicable and no later than 2037;

e) Providing a N load of 520 t/yr to Central Plains Water to allow shareholders to change land

use or intensify land management activities;

12 See Appendix 2 of this ZIP Addendum – “Key Steps in the Planning Framework for managing effects of land

management activities on water quality in the Selwyn‐Te Waihora Catchment”.


451

f) Developing a comprehensive support package, with industry, to implement the Sub‐regional

Section.

Commentary

The introduction of managing within nutrient limits on the scale proposed in the Selwyn Waihora

catchment is unprecedented in New Zealand.

A key to managing to limits is creating a strong link between the catchment agricultural nitrogen

load and nitrogen discharges from individual farms. There is opportunity in this catchment as well to

allocate a load to an irrigation scheme (CPW). The approach to managing to limits in Selwyn Waihora

will need to manage the risk of intensification leading to the load limit being exceeded.

There is insufficient experience with managing to limits elsewhere to know the full impacts of

different approaches to allocating discharge allowances: all approaches appear to have issues.

A Working Group of representatives from Primary Sector organisations and staff from Te Rūnanga o

Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury have developed, at the request of the Zone Committee, a

framework for managing to nutrient targets in the Selwyn Waihora catchment (see Appendix 2).

5.6 Nitrogen loss from point sources

Recommendation 5.6

a) Point source discharges from small on‐site wastewater disposal systems (septic tanks) and farm

dairy effluent ponds (i.e. leakage from effluent ponds) will be managed as per the regional rules

in the proposed LWRP;

b) The Sub‐regional Section will:

a. Expect discharges from new and existing community sewage systems (includes septic

tank sludge sites) and industrial and trade processes (includes , milk, meat and food

processing plants), to operate at or improve operation over time to meet better than

industry good practice in relation to nitrogen, phosphorus and microbial discharges (as

with expectations for Agriculture);

b. Set a load limit for nitrogen discharge from land for community sewage systems,

including septic tank sludge sites, that accommodates projected population growth and

planned extension of the area covered by community sewage systems;

c. Set a load limit for nitrogen discharge from land for industrial and trade processes

(includes milk, meat and food processing) that provides for some growth in the same

proportion as for nitrogen discharges from farming activities;

d. Require discharges to land from new and existing community sewage systems and

industrial and trade processes to meet the load limit for nitrogen discharge for these

activities or meet the nitrogen discharge limit equivalent to those required for the

farming activity on the land to be used for the discharge;


452

e. Only permit the nitrogen load limit for community sewage systems or industrial or trade

processes to be exceeded where the increase is offset by an equivalent or greater

reduction in nitrogen leaching loss elsewhere in the Selwyn‐Waihora catchment;

f. Require reporting of nitrogen and phosphorus losses to land from centralised sewerage

systems, septic tank sludge sites and milk, meat and food processing plants;

c) Environment Canterbury will ensure that an appropriate methodology is agreed and applied to

estimating nitrogen losses to land from existing community sewage systems, and industrial and

trade processes (includes milk, meat and food processing plants, and septic tank sludge sites);

d) Environment Canterbury will work with industry and Selwyn District Council to improve

understanding of phosphorus losses to land from major point‐source discharges in the Zone with

the aim of establishing agreed standards and targets for phosphorus loss to land from existing

centralised sewerage systems, milk, meat and food processing plants, and at septic tank sludge

sites.

Commentary

The contributions from consented and permitted “point source” discharges are estimated at 209 t/yr

of nitrogen and 157 t/yr of phosphorus (see table below). These estimates are for the consented

activities, not for the current loads. The nitrogen load from point source discharges is about 5% of

the agricultural load (for the 2011 land use).

The discharge from some sites has yet to reach the full extent authorised by some discharge permits.

For example, the Selwyn District Council’s Eastern Selwyn (Pines) sewerage system is currently at

less than 10% of its consented volume and further expansion is under way. The Fonterra milk

processing plant at Darfield commenced stage one this year with stage two expected to be

completed by 2018. The Synlait milk processing plant has only been at full current production since

2011.

Table: Estimated nitrogen and phosphorus contributions to water from consented and permitted

point‐source activities in the Selwyn Waihora catchment

Source Pathways Number N (t/yr) P (t/yr)

On‐site sewage (septic tanks) ‐ post 2006 discharge into land 2966 9

6

On‐site sewage (septic tanks) ‐ pre 2006 discharge into land 5335 47

11

Farm Dairy Effluent ponds leakage 172 18 3

Centralised Sewerage systems pond seepage, discharge on to land/into water

5

38

30

Meat & Food processing discharge on to land 9 35 9

Milk processing discharge on to land 2 61 96

Septic tank sludge Discharge on to land 3 1 1

Total 8492 209 156


453

Septic tanks and farm dairy effluent pond leakage

Discharges from existing and new on‐site wastewater systems (septic tanks) are permitted under the

proposed LWRP provided the system is operated and maintained in accordance with NZ standards

and other key conditions (including being not within 50 m of wells used for water abstraction).

The proposed LWRP requires resource consents for dairy farm effluent ponds and the discharge on

to land of effluent from the ponds. This includes the leakage from the constructed pond – which is

being considered here as a point source discharge.

Centralised sewerage systems and septic tank sludge

There are five centralised sewerage systems (Rolleston (Pines and Helpet), Leeston, Burnham and

Upper Selwyn Huts) making up about 18% of the point source nitrogen load estimated from

consented discharges and it is expected that the actual load will be less than this for at least the next

20 years. Notwithstanding this, parts of Selwyn District are experiencing rapid population growth

and it is not appropriate to set a load limit based just on current consented volumes. There is also

need to accommodate the possibility of new centralised sewerage schemes (e.g. for Darfield) or

extending the area covered by centralised schemes.

The Committee believes that the management and operation of centralised sewerage schemes and

disposal of septic tank sludge should improve over time to achieve best industry practice. This is

analogous to the expectation that farms will improve practice to better than good management

practice in relation to nitrogen losses.

Discharges from milk, meat and food processing

About half of the estimated consented nitrogen losses from point sources come from discharges on

to land associated with major processing plants. The Fonterra and Synlait milk processing plants

contribute about a third of the total estimated consented point source nitrogen loss. Both milk

processing plants dispose of their effluent to farm land, however Fonterra spread the effluent on

land managed in a “cut and carry” manner while Synlait spread effluent on to land that is part of a

dairy farm. Therefore estimated nitrogen losses are much higher for Synlait as the losses also include

the contribution from dairy farming.

Fonterra and Synlait are likely to expand their processing operations in Selwyn Waihora. Capping the

load for nitrogen losses from processing plants at the estimated current consented load for current

consents would restrict such expansion and new development, potentially restricting economic

development in the Zone. It is considered that new consents could be granted but that new nitrogen

discharges from processing plants should be to farms and so could be managed in the same manner

with a farm nitrogen allowance. The nitrogen losses to land from processing have been estimated

using Overseer. The effluent from processing plants has much higher nitrogen concentrations than

those from dairy farm effluent ponds and care will be needed to ensure that Overseer is being used

appropriately.

Phosphorus losses from milk processing and centralised sewerage systems

Most of the estimated consented phosphorus losses from point sources comes from the two milk

processing plants (96 tP/yr: about 60% of total P load) and centralised sewerage systems (30 tP/yr:

about 20% of total P). In the last decade there has been substantial improvement in the knowledge


454

of nitrogen leaching and to managing nitrogen losses, but not a similar improvement with regards to

phosphorus leaching or its management. Monitoring and standards need to be developed and

agreed with industry for point source phosphorus losses.

5.7 Stock exclusion

Recommendation 5.7

The Sub‐regional Section will require stock exclusion:

a) as per the proposed LWRP from streams, rivers, wetlands and lakes, and;

b) apply the rules in the same manner to drains in the Selwyn Waihora catchment.

Commentary

Stock exclusion is a key part of reducing the amount of microbial contaminants and sediment

entering waterways. It is a key component of improving riparian management for reducing P losses.

Stock exclusion is required to ensure waterways meet standards for cultural use, including mahinga

kai/food gathering, and are safe for the community to use for swimming and fishing.

Livestock exclusion rules are included in the NRRP and proposed LWRP. The Zone Committee wishes

these to also apply to the drains (with running water) in the Selwyn Waihora catchment.

The requirements for Farm Environment Plans should include livestock management to exclude

stock from wetlands and water bodies. This includes stock exclusion from springs, drains and Te

Waihora.

Stock exclusion from the margins of Te Waihora may also be facilitated by retirement of land

adjacent to the lake, as recommended in the “lake” section of this ZIP Addendum.

5.8 Audited Farm Environment Plans

Recommendation 5.8

a) The Sub‐regional Section will require that Audited Farm Environment Plans be prepared for all

properties of 20 ha or more and for properties of 10 ha or more with very intensive land use

(such as intensive horticulture or “factory farming”) in the catchment.

b) The Farm Environment Plans will include management objectives, where relevant, for:

a. Nutrient management;

b. Irrigation management;

c. Soils management;

d. Wetlands, riparian and biodiversity management;

e. Collected animal effluent management;

f. Cultural health management.

c) The Farm Environment Plans will include a risk assessment for each distinctly different land

management unit on the property;


455

d) The Farm Environment Plans will include, where relevant, objectives and performance in relation

to water‐use efficiency and justified water use;

e) Environment Canterbury, working with Ngāi Tahu and primary industry, will produce a Farm

Environment Plan template. Farmers should be able, if they wish, to prepare their own Farm

Environment Plan using a template.

f) The Sub‐regional Section will require Farm Environment Plans to be independently audited

yearly for the first three years and three‐ to five‐yearly thereafter depending on the

environmental risk status of the property, as assessed in the Farm Environment Plan, and the

degree of audit compliance achieved. The first audit should include a process for approving the

Farm Environment Plan. The audits will be based on:

a. Compliance with all relevant statutory requirements;

b. an assessment of the performance against the management objectives and targets.

c. an assessment of the overall robustness of the management programme to manage

identified risks.

d. an assessment of the robustness of the nutrient budget/s.

g) Primary Sector organisations and Environment Canterbury will develop and implement a well‐

resourced and co‐ordinated programme to support the implementation of Audited Farm

Environment Plans in the Selwyn Waihora catchment.

Commentary

Audited Farm Environment Plans are a key component of the proposed solution package to reduce

nutrient, sediment and microbial losses, and to enhance biodiversity and cultural values on farms in

the Selwyn Waihora catchment. Farm Environment Plans identify on‐farm environmental risks and

outline how these will be managed. They are action plans that help farmers implement good

management practice (GMP) and advance this to better and then advanced management practice.

There are over 4,300 rural properties in the catchment. Over 60% of these are classified as “lifestyle” blocks. A property size of 20 ha is probably a pragmatic cut‐off for whether a property is required to do a Farm Environment Plan. There are about 1,250 rural properties in the catchment that are larger than 20 ha. There are some intensive operations, such as piggeries, on properties less than 20 ha that should also be required to do a Farm Environment Plan. These small intensive operations include those defined as “Intensive Livestock Production” in the Selwyn District Plan and “Factory Farming” in the Banks Peninsula District Plan, plus intensive horticultural operations over 10 ha.

For practicality reasons the requirement for Farm Environment Plans should be phased in, for example with all farms larger than 50 ha required to complete their first plan sooner than properties smaller than this. There are about 780 properties larger than 50 ha in the catchment. Non‐contiguous blocks that are effectively part of the same farming operation should be treated as a single property for the purposes of the Farm Environment Plan requirements.

The Farm Environment Plans should include as a minimum: irrigation, nutrient, soils, wetland, riparian and biodiversity, collected animal effluent, and cultural health management. The Plans should include an environmental risk assessment for all distinctly different land management units on the property.


456

The Plans, where relevant (i.e. for irrigated properties), should include objectives and performance in relation to water‐use efficiency and justified water use. Good management practice in relation to water use is key to reducing water use, and hence improving stream flows, as soon as possible rather than just at the time of consent renewal.

The Plans should be able to be prepared by farmers, should they so desire, using a template developed by Environment Canterbury with primary industry and Ngāi Tahu. The template should allow people to skip sections if they are not relevant to the situation and be focussed on essential information requirements rather than requiring “extra” information. The Farm Environment Plans should be linked to existing industry plans and initiatives, such as Supply Fonterra, to avoid duplication. A well‐resourced, co‐ordinated approach from industry and Environment Canterbury is critical to support development and delivery of Farm Environment Plans. The advancement of the Farm Environment Plan process through collectives should be encouraged but not mandated unless required as a condition of resource consent. The cost of preparing an initial Farm Environment Plan is estimated at $1,000 – $2,000 (in 2013) though this could be higher if the plan is prepared by a consultant (say $2,000 – $5,000). This equates to a cost of about $1.5 million to $4 million for the properties larger than 50 ha and about $2.5 million to $6 million for all properties larger than 20 ha.

The Farm Environment Plans must deliver the improved farm management that along with other key initiatives will achieve the ZIP outcomes. The Farm Environment Plan process must also satisfy those in the community who are sceptical of farmer‐led processes and want strong regulation and enforcement. Therefore it is critical that there be independent audit of the Farm Environment Plans.

The audits should be yearly for the first three years and three‐ to five‐yearly thereafter depending on the environmental risk status of the property and the degree of audit compliance achieved. The first audit must include approval of the Farm Environment Plan. It is expected that in many cases the first audit(s) will also in part be coaching sessions to help farmers with their plans. The audit cost is estimated at about $500 – $1,000 per property based on current cost of auditing of farm plans that are part of irrigation company audited self‐management programmes.

The audits should be carried out by suitably‐qualified independent auditors. Environment Canterbury and primary industry should develop the process for approval of auditors. Building audit capability and capacity is a priority. Environment Canterbury’s role in the audit of Farm Environment Plans should be to audit the auditors.

Where farmers have not developed a Farm Environment Plan the Zone Committee’s preference is for industry and Environment Canterbury to work with the farmer to resolve issues but ultimately a regulatory back‐stop is required where farmers have not done a Plan, where there is serious non‐compliance or persistent failure to meet the audit criteria.


457

LAKE INTERVENTIONS

6.0 Context

In‐lake and near‐lake mitigation options are required to complement statutory rules, load limits and

other activities to reduce and manage the nitrogen and phosphorus loads from agricultural land and

point sources. For example, it is estimated that the effects of the legacy phosphorus in the lake

needs to be reduced by 50% if the ZIP outcomes for the lake are to be achieved. The legacy

phosphorus cannot be reduced by changes to land use or land management practices, the issue

must be addressed through measures in or near the lake. Not addressing the legacy phosphorus

means accepting more or less the current trophic state of the lake, and potentially a worse state as

the catchment nitrogen and phosphorus loads increase.

A suite of inter‐dependent lake mitigations have been proposed including:

Lake opening and level management;

Macrophyte bed restoration;

Addressing the legacy phosphorus in lake bed sediments;

Flood water routing and detention.

While modelling has been undertaken that identifies the key role of lake mitigation in delivering

better outcomes for the lake, the mitigation options are very much at the concept level. There is

need for more information and discussion on the details of each option and their acceptability. Ngāi

Tahu, as owners of the lake bed, should take the lead role in determining the acceptability of the

options and how they should be progressed.

None of the lake mitigation options is a substitute for nutrient load limits and active management to

reduce catchment N and P loads. The lower the nutrient load limits set, the more effective the lake

mitigation actions are likely to be and the better the outcomes for the lake. Conversely, the higher

the nutrient load, the greater is the reliance on successful lake mitigations and the lesser are the

lake outcomes that are possible.

Recommendation 6.1

a) The Sub‐regional Section and other plans being developed (statutory and non‐statutory) will

support lake interventions that are essential to meet the desired outcomes for Te Waihora. The

key lake interventions include improved lake‐level and lake‐margin management (including lake

opening), addressing the legacy phosphorus from historical land use, restoring macrophyte beds,

floating wetlands and lake‐margin wetlands.

b) The Co‐governors (Te Waihora Board, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Regional Council) will lead

and facilitate further discussion, engagement and investigation of lake interventions to identify

progress and implement acceptable solutions to achieve the desired lake outcomes.

Commentary

To meet the ZIP outcome that Te Waihora is a healthy ecosystem lake interventions are essential.

Detail is provided below on the proposed lake interventions with specific recommendations on how

to progress these in the short term.


458

6.1 Lake‐level management

Improved lake level management is considered to be the top priority lake intervention option. It

provides several benefits, flexibility for adaptive management, and is to some extent a pre‐requisite

for maximising the likely success of other mitigation options, including phytoplankton reduction (i.e.

phosphorus‐inactivation), macrophyte restoration and marginal wetland enhancement.

A lake‐level control structure could provide significantly increased operational flexibility to provide

lake level, opening timing and duration, and salinity conditions to manage for the wide range of lake

values influenced by these factors (e.g. lake‐side land flooding, fish passage, macrophyte restoration,

nuisance and toxic bloom management, saltmarsh vegetation maintenance, salt‐sensitive invasive

weed control, and associated suitable habitat for wading birds). Such a structure would enhance the

improvements already made to the management of the lake openings under recent changes to the

Water Conservation Order.

Better management of lake level and the amount of seawater inflow during openings would enable

consideration of the use of alum to inactivate the bed sediment P load, thus reducing phytoplankton

blooms and the risk of toxic cyanobacterial blooms, and therefore also enhancing the likelihood of

successful macrophyte restoration. Better lake level control would also directly assist efforts to

restore macrophyte beds and marginal wetland vegetation because very low lake levels could be

avoided. A control structure could still provide for seawater inflow at times and thus support

saltmarsh vegetation and the important bird habitat that this provides. A very preliminary estimate

of the cost of a control structure is about $5 million based on the concept of a sheet piling wall with

a section that could be raised or lowered as required to achieve the desired water level in the lake.

Considerably more discussion is required on lake‐level control options, particularly on their

acceptability to the Te Waihora Board and the community. For any option to be taken further more

detailed feasibility and design work is required. In addition, if an acceptable option is identified,

funding would be needed as well as the necessary approvals from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu,

Environment Canterbury, Te Waihora Board, and Department of Conservation.

6.2 Addressing legacy phosphorus in lake

The dominant contribution of phosphorus in Te Waihora comes from the internal release of

phosphorus in the bed sediments, a legacy from historic land use. Reducing this internal phosphorus

load is necessary if the risks associated with phytoplankton blooms are to be significantly reduced.

These blooms result in water quality problems (e.g. high pH, low dissolved oxygen and toxin

production) that can be harmful to aquatic life (invertebrates, fish, birds) and people. Reducing the

risk of all these effects would in general be reflected in a lower TLI score (i.e. a less enriched trophic

state). Reducing the conditions that favour phytoplankton growth (e.g. nutrient load) also enhances

the chance of successful macrophyte restoration.

At this stage it is considered that the only practically feasible method for reducing the legacy

sediment phosphorus load significantly (i.e., > 50%) in a timely manner in Te Waihora is chemical

phosphorus inactivation. Alum, administered at a continuous low dose rate to some of the tributary

streams, is likely to be the most effective and with a very low risk of negative environmental side


459

effects. Removing the lake bed sediment (e.g. by dredging) is likely to be prohibitively expensive and

has a high risk of negative side effects (e.g. physical destruction of biota and release of sulphides and

ammonium from the deeper sediments that would be toxic to fish). The cost of using alum is

significant (coarse estimate $5 million). There are strong negative perceptions associated with

applying a foreign substance to a lake. Conversations with Ngāi Tahu, as owners of the lake bed, may

identify other concerns and disadvantages, as may further work and consultation with other

interested parties (e.g. DoC).

Alum is used as part of the management of some lakes in the Rotorua area. Five members were part

of a hikoi to Te Arawa – Rotorua lakes in June 2013. They were impressed with the wide range of

initiatives to improve the lakes. Some of the approaches may be relevant to Te Waihora although it

is acknowledged that the Rotorua lakes are very different from Te Waihora. More information is

required. In addition, more discussion is needed with Te Arawa hapu to understand their thoughts

on the use of alum.

There is considerably more discussion required on the use of alum, particularly on its acceptability.

Should its use be acceptable there would need to be detailed feasibility studies and design work. It

may be possible to pilot the use of alum in one tributary.

6.3 Retirement of lake margins

Retirement of lake margins would allow Te Waihora to ‘fill’, creating a bigger lake, or the lake could

still be managed to a lower height, with extensive lake margin areas managed for wetland function

and sediment detention areas. Both are likely to be effective in the long term for improving the

water quality, the health of the lake, native fish spawning and waterfowl breeding habitat, and the

reduction of groundwater seepage into the lake during rapid falls in water level. There would be a

significant cost associated with retirement of lake margins – an indicative estimate is $80 million to

$150 million.

6.4 Floating and lake‐margin wetlands

Wetlands, both floating on the lake and on the lake margins, would “scrub” nutrient as well as

improving habitat for water fowl, fish and fish spawning. The floating wetlands also provide effective

barriers, thereby providing sheltered water to facilitate re‐establishment of macrophyte beds.

Some Zone Committee members observed floating wetlands during their hikoi to Te Arawa Rotorua

lakes. A 0.5 ha floating wetland on Lake Rotorua cost about $1 million.

6.5 Macrophyte bed restoration

Restoring macrophyte beds would to some extent return the visual appearance of the lake to “the

way it was”. Macrophyte beds would reduce local sediment resuspension and lake shore erosion due

to the wave‐break effect in the vicinity of the beds. Thus, visual water clarity would be significantly

improved in the margin areas inshore of the beds. Therefore a TLI score of less than 6.0 seems

achievable in those areas, particularly if the external nutrient load is reduced by setting limits and

the internal P load is reduced by alum. There would be a gain for biodiversity by reintroducing

previously present native macrophyte species (e.g. Ruppia and Stuckenia (Potamogeton) spp.) and


460

Page 47 of 58

Selwyn Waihora ZIP Addendum 08 August

by creating a greater diversity of habitat conditions for aquatic life (i.e. sheltered habitat near lake

margins compared to the currently open conditions throughout the lake).

Macrophyte beds would probably not improve the productivity of the tuna (eel) and pātiki

(flounder) fisheries but may be positive for the declining brown trout fishery, particularly if trout

spawning and recruitment conditions in the tributaries are also improved. Macrophyte beds would

provide greater cover (i.e. refuge) for all these fish species, more diverse trout angling conditions,

and the opportunity to catch tuna amongst the beds, which is a customary fishing opportunity that is

not currently available.

The disadvantages of macrophyte beds include a reduction in the lake area available for boating and

windsurfing, the nuisance for net fishing created by broken weed fragments, and the accumulation

and decomposition of broken weed on windward shorelines following storms (a natural process in

macrophyte‐dominated lakes). The sheltered conditions and improved water clarity created by

macrophytes would also be more favourable for phytoplankton blooms and potentially toxic

cyanobacterial blooms in those areas unless nutrient loads are significantly reduced.

It is uncertain whether macrophyte beds can be sustainably re‐established; it is likely that

restoration efforts will be set back from time to time by occasional severe storms like the 1968

Wahine storm that last destroyed the beds. The chances of successful macrophyte restoration would

be enhanced by other interventions including: i) better lake level control to maximise conditions for

growth, reduce exposure to saline water during propagation in spring, and avoid salinity rendering

alum ineffective; ii) installing anchored wave‐breaks and/or other forms of shelter (e.g. islands) to

protect regenerating beds from wind and wave action; iii) P‐inactivation (e.g. alum) to reduce

phytoplankton growth and increase clarity to allow growth of macrophytes at greater depth (where

they would be less wind prone and less susceptible to grazing), and to mitigate the risk that toxic

cyanobacterial blooms could occur in the sheltered conditions created for the macrophytes; and iv)

control of swan and geese populations to manage grazing effects.

A decision to attempt macrophyte restoration thus potentially brings multiple benefits, but comes

with uncertainty and the cost of several interventions. Conversely, a decision to abandon

macrophyte restoration will forgo several benefits but lessen the need for interventions. In

particular, a decision to abandon macrophyte restoration would mean acceptance of the current

phytoplankton‐dominated trophic state of the lake, with little likelihood of improved water clarity or

achieving TLI less than 6.0 anywhere in the lake.

The Whakaora te Waihora Project includes some work looking at re‐establishing macrophyte beds in

the lake.

6.6 Flood water routing and detention

Lowland farmland near the lake and adjacent to the Selwyn/Waikiriri River could be used to take the

initial surge of flood water and settle out the sediment load before it enters the lake. This would

reduce the sediment load to the lake as well as reducing the lake internal phosphorus load. The

disadvantages are the costs of constructing the containment structures and the land area lost from

production.


461

462

Table 1: Minimum flow recommendations for inclusion in the Selwyn Waihora Sub‐Regional Section.

These minimum flows have been adopted by the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee with consideration given to the ecological recommendations, cultural recommendations, economic assessment, and community feedback. These minimum flows should be read alongside Recommendation 2.7 of the ZIP Addendum.

River / min flow site Current min flow L/s

7DMALF Ecological L/s Cultural L/s Economic impact of changes to min flows

Minimum flow for inclusion in Sub‐Regional

Rationale

Baileys Creek Baileys Creek at Lincoln Leeston Road

Band 1: 40 13 12*

40

Very low viability currently. Improvement with ecological flows, but remains low viability source

40 Based on current minimum flow, and taking a precautionary approach. Flow data shows that the stream drops quickly and can be dry therefore lowering minimum flow will have little impact on reliability.

Birdlings Brook Birdlings Brook at Leggs Rd

Band 1: 150 Band 2: 200 Band 4: 150 Band 5: 150 Band 6: 150

637 446

446

Low viability currently. Significantly worse with new flows, little economic difference between revised options

440

Based on ecological and cultural flow recommendations

Birdlings Brook Birdlings Brook at Lochheads Rd

Band 1: 200 685 480

480

‐ 480 Based on ecological and cultural flow recommendations

Boggy Creek Boggy Creek at Lower Lake Rd

Band 1: 50 Band 2: 100

290 261*

261

Very low viability currently. Unreliable in all events. Inclusion of CPW makes little difference to overall low reliability

260 Based on ecological and cultural flow recommendations

Doyleston Drain (recorder) Doyleston Drain at D/S The Lake Rd

60 (no current takes)

6 5*

50‐60

Very low reliability currently. Improvement with ecological flows, but remains low viability source

‐ No minimum flow is needed as there are no surface water or direct or high >5 L/s stream depleting groundwater takes tied to Doyleston Drain.

Halswell River (recorder) Halswell River at Ryans Bridge

Recorder (no min flow)

760 532

532

‐ ‐ No minimum flows is needed as this is a recorder site and there are no surface water or direct or high >5l.stream depleting groundwater takes tied to this site.

Halswell River Halswell River at Neills Rd

Band 1: 510 Band 2: 550 Band 3: 650

926 648

648

Low viability currently. Significantly worse under ecological flows. Marginally improved with CPW.

640 Based on ecological and cultural flow recommendations

Halswell River Halswell River at Hodgens Rd

Band 1: 280 1157 810

Not assessed

Currently 100% reliability. Ecological flows w/o CPW is low viability.

70 % 7dMALF Based on ecological flow recommendation, however, there is currently insufficient flow data to be confident of a 7dMALF estimate. It is therefore recommended that the principle of 70% 7dMALF be inserted in the Plan, and that an actual number is


463


7DMALF Ecological L/s Cultural L/s Economic impact of changes Minimum flow Rationale to min flows for inclusion in

Sub‐Regional

inserted into the plan prior to 2025.

Halswell River Halswell River at Leadleys Rd

Band 1: 230 Band 4: 370

582 407

Not assessed

High viability currently. Ecological flows w/o CPW is low viability

400 Based on ecological flow recommendations

Halswell River Halswell River at Tobecks Bridge

Band 1: 280 Band 2: 405 Band 3: 500 Band 4: 610

934 654

Not assessed

Currently viable with moderate‐low viability. Ecological flows w/o CPW is low viability.


Halswell River Halswell River at D/S of Knights Creek diversion

Band 1: 90 ‐ Not assessed

Not assessed

90% 7dMALF Based on ecological flow recommendation, however, there is currently insufficient flow data to be confident of a 7dMALF estimate. It is therefore recommended that the principle of 90% 7dMALF be inserted in the Plan, and that an actual number is inserted into the plan prior to 2025.

Halswell River ‐ Knights Creek tributary Knights Creek at Jamiesons Property

Band 1: 64 Band 2: 150

253 228*

228

High reliability currently. Very low reliability at ecological flows. CPW improvement only marginal at this reliability


In the Halswell River catchment (including Knights Creek), it is recognised that the ecological flow recommendations have the potential to significantly impact the high reliability currently experienced by consent holders. For this reason, the Halswell River can be specifically mentioned in policy to guide consenting staff (see recommendation d) above).

Hanmer Rd Drain Hanmer Rd Drain at Lower Lake Rd

Band 1: 100 Band 3: 200

369 258

260

Very low viability currently. Almost no irrigation takes place under ecological or cultural minimums

250 Based on ecological flow recommendation. Staff understand that this drain may be perched. Those who are currently tied to minimum flows may be able to provide evidence that they are not stream depleters, and so may not require a minimum flow when consents are renewed.

Harts Creek Harts Creek at Lower Lake Rd

Band 1: 1000 1238 867

1200‐1400

Very low viability currently. Reliability improves slightly with ecological flow, but irrigation still marginal. Ecological with CPW improves reliability; cultural with CPW similar to current.

1100 Mid‐point between current and cultural flow recommendation. Very high cultural significance and considered one of the best waterways assessed by Whānau. Taonga values high. Dependent on Alpine water to help mitigate impact on reliability (current reliability = reliability under cultural flows with Alpine water).

Harts Creek Harts Creek at Timber Yard Rd (recorder)

Band 1: 1000 1238 867 Not assessed

1100 As above

Hawkins River Band 1: 35 37 33* Not Currently viable with 35 Based on current minimum flow. Within 2 L/s of ecological


464



Sub‐Regional

Hawkins River at Willows‐Dalethorpe Rd

assessed moderate‐low reliability. Small improvement with ecological flows. Unlikely to be significant

flow recommendations.

Hawkins River Stokes Stream (Hawkins) at Dalethorpe Rd

27 (residual flow)

‐ Not assessed

Not assessed

27 (residual) There is insufficient flow data to justify any alteration to the current residual flow

Hororata River (Recorder) Hororata River at Haldon Water Race Bridge

Band 1: 30 Band 2: 30

424 382*

382

30 Based on current minimum flow, until such time as certainty is provided regarding the future of the SDC stock water take from the Hororata river i.e. whether stock water is to be provided by CPW; or whether flow is left in the river or used for targeted stream augmentation. SDC can take 341 L/s with no minimum flow restrictions (so in theory could divert the entire flow in the river). Except when the flow in the river upstream of the intake is > 475 L/s SDC can take up to 500 L/s providing there is a residual flow of 134 L/s downstream. On expiry and renewal, the stock water take will be subject to Policy 4.46 and Rule 5.58 of the LWRP, which applies to group and community water supplies. These require, on review, a water supply strategy which documents ways to reduce water demand during periods of low flow or low water levels.

Irwell River Irwell River at Leeston Christchurch Rd

Band 1: 200 ‐ Not assessed

Not assessed

90% 7dMALF There is currently insufficient flow data to give a 7dMALF estimate. It is therefore recommended that the principle of 90% 7dMALF be inserted in the Plan, and that an actual number is inserted into the plan prior to 2025.

Irwell River Irwell River at Lake Rd

Band 1: 300 Band 5: 300

910 637

890‐1100

Currently very low viability. Reliability very low under all scenarios – only minor differences between min flows and with or w/o CPW. Not viable for irrigation.

890 Based on cultural flow recommendation – very high cultural significance and priority for restoration as mahinga kai site. Important for connection to lake – wāhi tapu at the mouth. Staff believe that the addressing the cumulative effect of over‐allocation in the catchment will be of greater benefit than changing the minimum flow, however, there is a recognised need to protect any additional recharge or targeted stream augmentation for ecological and cultural values.

Unnamed Drain at Prendergast 26 (residual ‐ Not assessed Not 26 (residual) There is insufficient flow data to justify any alteration to the


465



Sub‐Regional

property Tributary of Irwell

flow)

assessed current residual flow

Jollies Brook Jollies Brook at outlet to sea

Band 1: 360 Band 2: 360 Band 4: 360

424 297 – 381 (70‐90% MALF)

360

360 Based on current minimum flow, which aligns with both ecological and cultural flow recommendations.

Kaituna River (recorder) Kaituna River at Kaituna Valley Rd

Band 1: 60 Band 2: 325

35 32*

100

Very low reliability currently. Viability improves with ecological flows, and may be low reliability but viable source. COMAR flows worse

60 Based on current minimum flow, which is nearly twice the ecological flow recommendation.

Lee River (Recorder) Lee River at Temoana

Band 1: 700 935 655

1500

70% 7dMALF Based on ecological flow recommendation, however, there is currently insufficient flow data to be confident of a 7dMALF estimate. It is therefore recommended that the principle of 70% 7dMALF be inserted in the Plan, and that an actual number is inserted into the plan prior to 2025.

Liffey No minimum flow

None ‐ Not assessed

30‐40

‐ No minimum flow is needed as there are no surface water or direct or high >5l.stream depleting groundwater takes tied to the Liffey

L‐II River L‐II River at Pannetts

None (recorder)

1820 1274

2100

‐ No minimum flows is needed as this is a recorder site and there are no surface water or direct or high >5 L/s stream depleting groundwater takes tied to this site.

L‐II River L‐II River at Moir’s Property


‐ Not assessed

290

160 Based on flow gauging information – the LII has never been gauged below 160 L/s. The stream also receives water from the LI diversion, therefore the actual flow seen downstream is greater than 160 L/s. There are a number of stream health related issues at this site, and could be a focus of future restoration activities.

L‐II River L‐II River at Wolfes Rd

Band 1: 560 Band 2: 1330 Band 3: 1500

1771 1240

2100

Currently low reliability but potentially viable. Ecological and cultural (both with and without CPW) reduce reliability

1240 Based on ecological flow recommendation

In the L‐II River catchment, it is recognised that the ecological flow recommendations have the potential to significantly impact the high reliability currently experienced by consent holders. For this reason, the LII River can be specifically mentioned in policy to guide consenting staff (see recommendation d) above).


466

Page 52 of 58





Rationale

Miles Drain Miles Drain at Pannetts Rd

Band 1: 30

14 13*

30

30 Based on current minimum flow, which aligns with cultural flow recommendation.

Prices Stream Prices Stream and Prices Valley Road


>50

‐ No minimum flows is needed as this is a recorder site and there are no surface water or direct or high >5 L/s.stream depleting groundwater takes tied to this site, and there is no allocation for water to be taken from this stream

Selwyn River (Recorder) Selwyn River at Coes Ford


993 893*

1200

Very low viability currently. Reliability worsened considerably by ecological flow, but with CPW, the reliability will improve, even with higher min flows. However, even with CPW, irrigation remains a marginal proposition.

1200 Based on cultural flow recommendation; higher flows needed for migration of Tuna to other streams ‐ important for the whole system. Important as mahinga kai source to feed visitors. Also considered ChCh playground / key recreational area. Dependent on Alpine water to help mitigate impact on reliability. (current reliability < reliability under cultural flows with Alpine water).

Selwyn River Selwyn River at Whitecliffs

Band 1: 550 Band 2: 965 Band 3: 10000

792 713*

713

Currently 100% reliability. Significant impact but still medium reliability.

550 Based on current minimum flow. Any change could have significant impact economically but only minor ecological gains, and no benefit provided by alpine water as site upstream of the CPW development (but a number of takes are below the CPW area). When the flow in the Selwyn River is > 10,000 L/s SDC can are consented to take up to 280 L/s for stockwater. When the flow in the river is < 9,999 L/s SDC can take 250 L/s with no minimum flow restrictions. On expiry and renewal, the stockwater take will be subject to Policy 4.46 and Rule 5.58 of the LWRP, which applies to group and community water supplies. These require, on review, a water supply strategy which documents ways to reduce water demand during periods of low flow or low water levels.

Selwyn River Selwyn River at Rennie Property D/S of Intake

600 (residual flow)

‐ Not assessed

Not assessed

600 (residual) There is insufficient flow data to justify any alteration to the current residual flow

Silverstream

Band 1: 60 88 79*

120 60 (100)

Low viability currently. Viability improves with CPW



467

Page 53 of 58





Rationale

Silverstream at Lincoln Leeston Rd and ecological flows, and may be a low reliability but viable source. COMAR very marginal for irrigation.

Silverstream is the subject of significant restoration work and contributes valuable flow to lower Selwyn River in summer

Snake Creek Snake Creek at Lincoln Leeston Rd

Band 1: 30 70 63*

63

Low viability currently. Significantly worse under ecological flows. Significantly improved with CPW and becomes a low reliability irrigation source


Taumutu Creek Taumutu Creek at D/S Gulliver Intake

30 (residual flow)

‐ Not assessed

No abstraction

No surface water or stream depleting groundwater (direct or high >5l/s)

A joint position statement between Taumutu Rūnanga, Waikekewai/Taumutu consent holders and EISI is in development

Tent Burn Stream Beachcroft Road


200

90% 7dMALF There are currently no consents tied to the Tentburn, but records show that a number of consents that went through the Rakaia‐Selwyn review would have received a min flow on the Tentburn, if there had been one in place. There is currently insufficient flow data to give a 7dMALF estimate. It is therefore recommended that the principle of 90% 7dMALF be inserted in the Plan, and that an actual number is inserted into the plan prior to 2025.

Tramway Reserve Drain No min flow site

None ‐

Not assessed

50

‐ No minimum flows is needed as this is a recorder site and there are no surface water or direct or high >5 L/s stream depleting groundwater takes tied to this site, and there is no allocation for water to be taken from this stream

Waikekewai Creek Waikekewai Creek at Taumutu Beach


38 34*

No abstraction

Current reliability not viable. Ecological flow improves reliability, though still not viable.

No surface water or stream depleting groundwater (direct or high >5l/s)

A joint position statement between Taumutu Rūnanga, Waikekewai/Taumutu consent holders and EISI is in development.


468

Appendix 2: Recommendations from Working Group

Key Steps in the Planning Framework for Managing Effects of Land

Management Activities on Water Quality in the Selwyn‐Te Waihora

Catchment


Action: 1: Operate at GMP

All land uses operate at or above defined Good

Management Practice (GMP) for their land use and

soil type by 2017, as set out in the plan schedule.

Theme: Everyone is doing their bit to improve their

environmental performance (sediment, P, N,

microbial, riparian & wetland, agrichemical, water

use).

Action 2: Improved GMP

Land uses are required to make a percentage

improvement on 2017 GMP by 2022, as set out in

plan schedule

The N improvement required is related to the

amount of N being discharged and the costs of

making improvements

Theme: An improvement beyond GMP is required to

meet the N load and other targets. Requirements for

improvement incentivise improved environmental

performance and progressive operators.

Principles of GMP

Industry informed &

developed

Continuously improves –

information & innovation

Includes narrative

objectives &

management actions,

alongside numeric

targets

Outputs are accountable

& auditable

Moves beyond ’lawful

use’

Recognises and provides

for the temporal and

spatial variability of land

management activities

Keeps land management

activities financially

viable


469

Action 3: Community irrigation Schemes

A total N load is allocated to community irrigation schemes listed in the plan (e.g. CPW) that

provides for an additional 520 tonnes for new land uses.

The irrigation scheme determines how the load is distributed among the shareholders. However,

new irrigators using scheme water must operate at a minimum of Action 2 from the outset.

Existing irrigators using scheme water are subject to the same timeframe to achieve Action 2 as

other existing land management activities.

Theme: New irrigation that is part of a Community Irrigation Scheme must operate at the 2022

GMP plus improvement requirements from the outset. (In this catchment the only new sources of

irrigation are likely to be from a community scheme using alpine water, eg CPW.)

Action 4: Changes to Low Leaching Land Management Activities

The catchment N load includes an allowance of 520 tonnes for intensifying land management

activities outside of CPW. This load is only available to low leaching land management

activities which need to change their current land management activity to remain financially

viable and who are not shareholders in a community irrigation scheme.

From this load a N threshold of 15 kg/N/ha has been established. Below this threshold land

uses can change and are permitted activities (no resource consent required) provided they

comply with Action 1 .

Theme: To ensure current low leaching land uses have future options to remain financially

viable. People who are currently leaching low levels of N may need to change their land

management activity in the future. If they cannot access an increase in N discharge to allow this,

they may become unviable and their properties value will also be affected. This is a

disproportionate cost relative to the effect they are currently having on N loads in the catchment.


470

Action 5: New Land Uses

It is possible to change land uses provided:

1. The new land use operates at Action 2 from the outset; and

2. The new land use does not discharge more N than under the previous land use; or

3. Actions 3 or 4 apply.

Note:

1. Changing to a new land use may also be achieved through the combining of more than one property or enterprise, providing the resulting total N discharge is no greater than of the previous at GMP plus improvement required by 2022 levels.

Themes: Retain flexibility and resilience for farming systems by allowing for some changes in land uses without compromising overall catchment load targets.

New land management activities outside of the CPW command area also operate at 2022 GMP plus improvement requirements from the outset.


471

Action 6 – Ensuring Compliance

Any land use which complies with all the threshold rules for managing contaminants is a

permitted activity:

‐ Operates at GMP for all contaminants by 2017 (Action 1) and GMP plus improvement

by 2022 (Action 2);

‐ Complies with any other plan rules, e.g. stock exclusion;

‐ Is part of a certified farm environment plan programme/keep records; and

‐ Any change in land use complies with Action 5.

Any land use which does not comply with Actions 1 or 2 is a restricted discretionary activity

and applicants must submit a management plan to show how they can meet the plan

requirements by 2037.

Any land use which cannot meet the plan requirements for managing discharges by 2037, is

a non‐complying activity.

Any land use which cannot comply with Action 5 for changing farm systems is a non‐

complying activity.


472

Page 58 of 58


Action 7 – Ensuring Delivery

Implementation

A comprehensive support package is

required for consistent & timely advice

for councils (consents & compliance) &

farmers, including:

1. An independent technical

advisory panel to advise consent

officers on appropriateness of

resource consent applications &

management plans (Actions 4 &

5).

2. Primary sector support to

farmers in identifying issues,

management options & smart

decision‐making.

3. Primary’s sector industry

support to develop & audit farm

management plans/record

keeping for permitted activities.

Monitoring & Review

1. Assessment of actual discharges

from land uses at current levels

and reductions made as a result

of moving to industry defined

GMP targets by 2017 and % N

improvements by 2022.

2. Review catchment loads, target

timeframes and achievability of

GMP improvements or other

thresholds by 2022 and

thereafter at 10 yearly intervals.


473

474

Date post:	07-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times