Category: Ideas

1. Option A: Leave The Space
2. Option B: Recreation Space
3. Option C: Community ‘Hub’
4. Option D: Proposed Facility
5. Option E: ‘Shirley Centre’

---

1. Option A: Leave The Space
The site at 10 Shirley Road is not called ‘Shirley Park’.
It is called ‘Shirley Community Reserve’ for a reason.

“The land at 10 Shirley Rd is classified as reserve, vested in the Council by the Crown to be held “in trust for local purpose (site for a community centre)”.

That means the land could not be used for any other purpose than a community centre.

It also appears the land could not simply sit “vacant”, as that would also be inconsistent with the reserve purpose.”

‘Option A’ goes against the Reserve status requiring a building & would not support the current or future needs/wants of these communities around Shirley Road.

---

2. Option B: Recreation Space
‘Option B’ also goes against the Reserve status highlighted above.
In the 2023 consultation, this ‘Option B’ received 87 votes/comments of 205 (adjusted as ‘Option A’ votes invalid) = 42.44%

There is already a total of sixty seven recreation spaces (does not include our 7 community gardens) within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.

– There are 32 recreational facilities located within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
– There are 17 playgrounds located within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
– There are 18 parks located within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve, not including the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor.

---

3. Option C: Community ‘Hub’
‘Option C’ is for a building, a Citizen ‘Hub’, define in the 2023 Feasibility Study as:
“Co-locating multiple services the Council provides across the community in a common location, enabling the customer and community experience to be an integrated one…Shirley Library and Service Centre is an example.”

In the 2023 consultation, this ‘Option C’ received 118 votes/comments of 205 (adjusted as ‘Option A’ votes invalid) = 57.56%

The Board are aware of the different factions within the areas around Shirley Road, as highlighted in both the 2020 & 2023 Consultation votes/comments.
Reading the comments, you can see why some residents who voted for a ‘recreational space’, did so as they were against a ‘community hub’/new building.

Many residents are protective of their community centre in their suburb & purposely voted for any option that opposes a new ‘traditional’ community centre being built.

In the 2020 consultation, this is the information that was provided to residents:
“Due to Council’s financial situation it is not expected in the short term that funding will be available, however the Board would like to see the site being used by the community.”

This messaging led residents to believe that this consultation was about ‘short term’ activation ideas for the site, not whether in the ‘long term’ residents wanted a building back on site.

“We received 29 submissions supporting the replacement of the Community Centre at this location. A number of these submissions also asked that a library be included in the building.”
– For Centre: 36 submissions of 58 = 62.07%
– Against Centre*: 10 submissions of 58 = 17.24%
No Comment re Centre: 12 submissions of 58 = 20.69%
* Organisation & [Other Connections] information included in my Excel document.

---

4. Option D: Proposed Facility
‘Option D’ is suppose to be a combination of ‘Option B’: Recreation Space & ‘Option C’: Community ‘Hub’, is based on incorrect consultation feedback data analysis.

In the 2023 consultation, based on votes/comments received 24 votes/comments of 205 (adjusted as ‘Option A’ votes invalid) = 10.91% (suggesting they would be happy with both options)

‘Option B’: Recreation Space – Option C: Community ‘Hub’, received 28 votes/comments of 205 (adjusted as ‘Option A’ votes invalid) = 12.73% (against ‘Hub’ see Comment for their reason).

The ‘Proposed Facility’ is not ‘Option C’: Community ‘Hub’.

Build a 400m2 ‘traditional’ community centre.
“A small community building would include a meeting space and kitchenette with toilets that are accessed externally.”

The proposed building size is only 36.36% of the original building/former Shirley Community Centre.

The ’36 Marshland Road facility’ Shirley Library & Service Centre building is 1,100m2, similar in size to the original building/former Shirley Community Centre.
(Figure 1. 36 Marshland Road facility superimposed on Shirley Community Reserve, 2023 Feasibility Study)

This is not what the community have been asking for the last 12 years…
They have been asking for either a ‘replacement’ community centre or a citizen hub: library, service centre, learning spaces, meeting rooms & playground.

This ‘proposed community facility’ would not restore the Christchurch City Council community facilities levels to pre Christchurch Earthquakes & would not provide for the current/future population growth.

The Staff Report & 2023 Feasibility Study haven’t take into consideration:
– number of existing community centres & recreation spaces in the suburbs around Shirley Road.
– local knowledge of community issues within the areas around Shirley Road.
– local knowledge of the known factions within the different areas/community groups.
– governance of proposed community facility being ‘built & operated’ by one community group.
This goes against the 2019 Feasibility Study: “Unfavourable treatment of one Trust over others, Not one Trust that spans these neighbourhoods, That trust would not necessarily hold the vision for the whole area”.
– lack of fairness & equity with ‘new’ community group being given a new $4 million dollar facility, while existing community groups in Richmond were ‘gifted’ a ‘Red Zone building’ & Shirley were ‘gifted’ a ‘prefab building’.
– existing community groups having to compete with another ‘new’ community group for contestable funding available through the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

“An on budget community building – the recommended option”, in my opinion is based on incorrect consultation feedback data analysis (ignores reserve status, different percentages, data skewed by questions/factions) &
– doesn’t align with Libraries Network Plan 2015, CCC Citizen Hub Strategy, CCC Equity and Inclusion Policy, CCC Integrated Planning Guide or Intergenerational Design.
– ignores my research, 6 years from 2018 to today.
– ignores the concerns highlighted in the 2019 Feasibility Study.
– ignores the ‘Shirley Road Central’ Group & ‘Where is our Community Centre?’ Petition (incorrect petition numbers quoted, only included the online petition, didn’t include the paper petition = approx 1,200 signatures).
– ignores the Letters of Support from Local Christchurch MPs.
– ignores the ‘Richmond Residents & Business Association/We are Richmond’ (previously both Hayley Guglietta & David Duffy supported the idea of relocating the Shirley Library).
– ignores the ‘Shirley Village Project’ Youth Friendly Spaces Audit of Shirley Library & 10 Shirley Road.
– The 2023 Feasibility Study has incorrect information & is incomplete, yet has data & information that supports relocating the Shirley Library to 10 Shirley Road.

---

5. Option E: ‘Shirley Centre’
‘Option E’ is a Citizen ‘Hub’, define in the 2023 Feasibility Study as “Co-locating multiple services the Council provides across the community in a common location, enabling the customer and community experience to be an integrated one…Shirley Library and Service Centre is an example.” plus Learning Spaces, Meeting Rooms, Inclusive Accessible Playground & Recreation Space, with the existing Shirley Playcentre.

In the 2020 consultation, “We received 29 submissions supporting the replacement of the Community Centre at this location. A number of these submissions also asked that a library be included in the building.”
For Centre: 36 submissions of 58 = 62.07%

In the 2023 consultation, this ‘Option C’ received 118 votes/comments of 205 (adjusted as ‘Option A’ votes invalid) = 57.56%

“A ‘Community Focal Point’ (CFP) is a means of enhancing community life by providing a ‘heart’ in each neighbourhood.
The entire space is designed to enable and encourage community connections, in a relaxed, inclusive and welcoming environment that is enjoyable to be in.”
(Figure 1. Neighbourhood Focal Point Approach to Community Facility Provision, 2019 Feasibility Study)

– There are already 8 community centres located within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
– “Community Provision (Non-Council): There seems a gap (or at least less provision) of non-Church community space across the Community Board, especially as we see the current range of facilities available is split between ‘Community’ and ‘Church-based’ Trusts.” (6.4.2, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “There is no direct provision of Council facilities within the defined facility catchment area (Shirley, Richmond, Edgeware and Mairehau) and much of what is provided is Church based, with the area being home to a number of strong Church based Trusts.” (Location of Provision, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “Council Owned Community Facilities: This suggests current provision is lower than the city-wide average in terms of community facilities.” (6.4.1, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “Governance Option ‘All comers’ Approach’: Perceived as fair & Council is not partisan.” (Table 9, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “There does appear to be a gap in the area identified on the boundary of Shirley and Richmond.” (Location of Provision, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “Here we see Richmond South, Edgeware and Shirley have higher levels of deprivation (6 and above) as a percentage of total population, much higher than the Christchurch Average. These factors need to be considered in any analysis of the cost of access to community facilities.” (Table 4, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “Lack of low cost, creative and fun activities for after-school and school holidays.” (7.3 Community Needs Analysis for Richmond, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “Mental health needs: adults through to children identified as a gap.” (7.3 Community Needs Analysis for Richmond, 2019 Feasibility Study)

“Although there are some who would want permanent activities locked onto the site; given its proximity to transport and its high visibility it would be a shame for it to be locked into one type of use when it has opportunity to be a flexible and changing community space for the whole community and different interest groups at different times…Its high visibility is particularly attractive to young people.” (9. Fit with Christchurch City Council Network Plan, 2019 Feasibility Study)

The current Shirley Library doesn’t align with ‘Location Preferences’:
“malls and aquatic facilities not seen as highly desirable areas for co-location or as adjacent locations; co-location with a Council service centre favoured…
Therefore, library facilities are best located either close to a major destination within the city, such as a mall and/or a major transport junction, or at sites sufficiently attractive to draw visitors to them as standalone ‘destination locations’.” (Libraries Network Plan 2015)

– There are zero suburban libraries in the Innes/Central Ward.
The 10 Shirley Road site/Shirley Community Reserve is on the border of both Wards.
– Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board have 5 suburban libraries, including the Shirley Library.
– Shirley Library is the busiest suburban library in the Christchurch Libraries network. (2023 Feasibility Study)
– The current Shirley Library is the only location in our communities that is free, has WIFI access & you don’t have to make a purchase or participate in an activity/event in order to just be in this space.
– Shirley Library is hidden in The Palms carpark (vehicle access only through The Palms carpark, no dedicated car parking for library/service centre users), not easily visible from Marshland Road & has limited bus services at this location.
– “Outdoor environment important – need natural features and to be welcoming; clear signposting within and outside the building.” (Building Requirements, Libraries Network Plan 2015)
– The current Shirley Library does not align with the new CCC Equity and Inclusion Policy. “Accessible buildings and facilities for people with disabilities.” (Building Requirements, Libraries Network Plan 2015)
– This location at 10 Shirley Road is accessible by public transport (7, 44, 100 & Orbiter) for residents in:
Shirley, Dallington, Richmond, Edgeware, St Albans & Mairehau
Plus: Citywide (Orbiter), Merivale, Parklands, Burwood & Avonside.
– The population density for the current Shirley Library (located next to The Palms commercial area & Christchurch Golf Club) is less than the current/future population density around 10 Shirley Road, due to infill/social housing increases as part of the Christchurch District Plan.
– The current Shirley Library has a limited book selection/no room for more book shelves, no boardroom, meeting rooms or learning centre (flexible spaces) & didn’t rate well in the ‘Shirley Village’ Youth Audit.
– The current Shirley Library has a lack of “Spaciousness: room for quiet spaces away from the children’s area; generous space between book stack aisles to enable easy browsing by less nimble and multiple users at one time; plenty of chairs/ beanbags and desks at which to work/relax.” (Building Requirements, Libraries Network Plan 2015)
– The current Shirley Library has a lack of: “Whanau-friendly facilities, e.g. children’s areas, baby feeding/changing facilities.” There are no toilets available in the Library area. Toilets for the building are located in the corridor off the Main Entrance to the building. (Building Requirements, Libraries Network Plan 2015)
– “Use of PCs at Shirley Library is one of the highest rates in the network at 41.9%” (2023 Feasibility Study). Many residents are on low fixed incomes, internet at home and/or unlimited mobile data plans are seen as luxuries that they can’t afford.
– ‘Wā Pēpi: Babytimes’ has the highest attendance (2023 Feasibility Study). Yet there are no toilets in the Library area & no outdoor space or playgound at the current Shirley Library. Whereas relocating the Shirley Library to 10 Shirley Road, would help to form connections with the existing Shirley Playcentre already onsite, destination nature space with trees & Dudley Creek to explore, plus an upgraded fenced inclusive accessible playground so attendees can extend their stay & have the opportunity to form friendships naturally.
– “Providing access to places where children can access play independently is important for their physical and emotional development.” (Outdoor Recreation Space, 2023 Feasibility Study). This is unavailable for safety reasons at the current Shirley Library, situated in The Palms carpark.
– “Need for improved playground facilities across Richmond targeting pre-schoolers and small children.” (7.3 Community Needs Analysis for Richmond, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– “The current play provisions in this area are older and in need of refurbishment, namely the play space next to the Shirley Playcentre.” (Outdoor Recreation Space, 2023 Feasibility Study)
– “There is an opportunity to provide for inclusive play as the [Shirley] Community Reserve is already currently fenced, which is rare in Christchurch, particularly in the area north of Bealey Avenue. With the addition of a couple of gates, this would enable the space to be a fenced playground, which is something the Disability community is advocating for more of, in particular the Autism community in Christchurch.” (Outdoor Recreation Space, 2023 Feasibility Study)
– There are 11 support providers located within a 3km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
– There are 14 schools, kindergartens & playcentres located within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
– There are 7 community gardens located within a 2km radius of the 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
– With an aging population, it is important to also consider what has been lost that would be of value to older adults. (8. Need and Gap Assessment, 2019 Feasibility Study)
– Secular Bumping space (for casual interactions and cross-over between activities and areas) for adults like that provided in libraries. (8. Need and Gap Assessment, 2019 Feasibility Study)

“With the provision of the correct infrastructure this site could be reborn as a new interpretation of a contemporary community centre…the site could act as an extension location for other community bases spreading activity across the community…The location of 10 Shirley Road is perfect for this as there is no other Trust close by and yet the location is important to Shirley, Edgeware, Mairehau and Richmond.”
(Potential Activity for the 10 Shirley Road Site, 2019 Feasibility Study)

I still believe that Option E: ‘Shirley Centre’, is the best option for all residents in the communities around Shirley Road is to have this ‘proposed community facility’ at 10 Shirley Road be a Christchurch City Council owned/operated facility, so that the facility is truly inclusive & accessible to all residents & not controlled by one community group.

“The LTP budget for Shirley Community Centre would be insufficient to include the relocation of Shirley Library and a significant level of additional capital funding would be required.”
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-funding/

Isn’t now the time during the current Christchurch City Council LTP 2024-34 decision-making process, for the Board to advocate for all their residents in the Innes/Central areas, for Council to approve an appropriate new budget to build a new ‘Shirley Centre’/relocate Shirley Library & Service Centre, in the Central Ward at 10 Shirley Road, Richmond?