Reports – 10 Shirley Road

Shirley Community Centre

1. Why did the Shirley School move from the 10 Shirley Road site?
2. What were the plans for the old ‘Shirley School’ building at the time?
3. When did the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ start?
4. What facilities where added to the ‘Shirley Community Centre’?
5. When was the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ officially opened?
6. When did the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ building become a ‘Historic Place’?
7. What is the history of the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ since opening?

1. Why did the Shirley School move from the 10 Shirley Road site?

‘Shirley School to be rebuilt’, The Press, 19th March 1976
“Work is expected to start soon on the rebuilding of the Shirley School [across from the 10 Shirley Road site, at 11 Shirley Road], the Minister of Education has announced.
The school, which dates from 1915, is to be replaced for structural reasons.
Replacement accommodation will comprise an eight classroom block, two relocatable classrooms, a library-multi-purpose room, and administration accommodation.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19760319.2.76

2. What were the plans for the old ‘Shirley School’ building at the time?

‘Shirley Community Centre’: Letters to the Editor, The Press, 9th September 1977
“Sir, If the City Council’s reserve account has been drained to pay for the much needed Centennial Park project, where does the Shirley Community Centre and Adventureland Park project now stand?
The council, at a full meeting, after consideration of the community services report and others, earmarked funds to ensure that a whole community could get into gear and do their bit to ensure the old Shirley School site and buildings become a useful and working point for the community.
It is to be hoped that our funds have not also been drained while we await an agreement between the council and the Government.”
Yours, etc. G.D. Stanley, Chairman, Adventureland Community Team (Shirley).
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19770907.2.146.4

‘Shirley Community Centre’: Letters to the Editor, The Press, 19th September 1977
“Sir, In reply to G Stanley’s letter, may I say first this Citizens’ City Council has built more community centres than any other previous City Council, and the Shirley area will not be neglected.
We are waiting to acquire the old Shirley School site as soon as it can be released by the Education Department. We have been in close touch with the Minister of Lands who knows that the council is determined that this splendid site be not lost to the local community.
In the meantime a council community officer is working with local groups and the council has set aside $13,800 to help with building alterations.”
Yours, etc. P.N.G. Blaxall, Chairman, Community Services Committee, Christchurch City Council.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19770909.2.85.2

‘Shirley community centre’, The Press, 19th September 1977
“Shirley residents are a step closer to gaining a community centre, according to the Community Centre Society. This prospect came with the Housing Corporation’s decision not to use the old Shirley School site.
“We had been notified that the Housing Corporation wanted the land.” said the society’s chairman (Mr I. Finlayson). “However, after discussions with the corporation it agreed to drop its claim to the site.”
He was assured by the Ministry that the site would be handed over to the Minister of Lands for disposal within the next few days.
It would then be possible for the Minister to consider declaring the site a reserve, and leasing it to the Christchurch City Council, which would lease it to the society. “We are tremendously pleased that this progress has been made and expect that if all goes well we will have the building in use as a community centre within a very short period” Mr Finlayson said.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19770919.2.14

3. When did the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ start?

‘Shirley centre starts with fair’, The Press, 31st October 1977
“Government approval in principle has been given for the old Shirley Primary School to be used as a community centre.
The decision has been greeted with delight by the Shirley Community Centre Society, which has been lobbying for rights to the old school – at the corner of Shirley Road and Slater Street.
The old school site has been set aside as a reserve for community purposes, and the Christchurch City Council has been appointed officially to control and manage it.
The Minister of Lands had said this will allow the land and buildings on the site to be available as a community centre, and the council to delegate day-to-day management to the society. The council would assume control of the school site immediately.
Several local organisations have said they will use the old school buildings, and a skateboard area and adventure playground are planned already. The secretary of the society said her group was delighted with the decision.
It would give the area a focal point, and would be much appreciated by the locals.
The City Council has promised $13,800 towards the community centre – on the condition that the society raises $5250.
The combined funds will go towards structural improvements, heating, a ramp for wheelchairs, rewiring and general alterations. To raise its share of this money, the society will hold a fair today at the old school.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19771031.2.56

4. What facilities where added to the ‘Shirley Community Centre’?

‘Need seen for creche’, The Press, 10th February 1978
“The Shirley Community Centre may soon have creche facilities for working parents and those attending activities at the centre.
The centre’s committee is now trying to assess demand for such facilities.
The secretary said it was hoped that the creche would run during the mornings and afternoons. Three hours would be the maximum time in each period for a child…the committee felt that there was a need for child care facilities for parents attending the centre as well as for parttime working parents.
The creche might also cater for parents wanting to attend appointments and for school holiday care.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19780210.2.107

5. When was the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ officially opened?

‘Shirley centre to be opened’, The Press, 31st October 1978
“The Shirley Community Centre will be officially opened by the Mayor (H. G. Hay).
The centre, on the corner of Slater Street, Shirley Road and Chancellor Street, has been the venue for various social and cultural activities for about a year, but has not been officially opened.
A community fair will be held at the centre, and Mr Hay will perform the opening ceremony.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19781031.2.30

‘Centres “good investment”’, The Press, 8th November 1978
The opening of the Shirley Community Centre represented another milestone in the Christchurch City Council’s policy to provide strategically sited centres throughout the city, said the Mayor of Christchurch (H.G. Hay) at the opening of the centre.
It was not long since centres were opened in Aranui, Hoon Hay, and Sydenham and, during the last few years, the Council had spent a considerable amount of ratepayers’ money in this field, said Mr Hay.
“But I believe we are receiving a good return on our capital investment in terms of the variety of uses to which these centres are being put.” he said.
The Shirley Community Centre had been a good example of co-operation at “grass roots” level, the council responding to a strong local citizens’ move and genuine desire to provide a community amenity.
The buildings for the centre had been school buildings: Mr Hay said that he hoped the former Bromley School site could soon be vested in the City Council and re-established like the Shirley centre as a community centre for a developing residential area.
The council was waiting for Government approval for the old Bromley School to be handed over to it. “I hope that preoccupation with election campaigning does not unduly delay the appropriate Ministerial consent,” said Mr Hay.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19781108.2.75

6. When did the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ building become a ‘Historic Place’?

Heritage New Zealand’s Register of Historic Places
Shirley Community Centre (Former Shirley Primary School).
Register Number: 7117. Registration Type: Historic Place Category 2.
This historic place was registered under the Historic Places Act 1980, on the 17th December 1993.
“With its hipped roof and symmetry, the overall flavour of this school building is Georgian. Its U-shaped plan, and large and regular fenestration, together hint at the Jacobean influence which was to be developed in Penlington’s later work.
In addition, it provides evidence of Penlington’s skill in polychromatic brick construction.”
https://quakestudies.canterbury.ac.nz/store/object/111836

7. What is the history of the ‘Shirley Community Centre’ since opening?

‘Community Centre ideal venue for groups, clubs’
Christchurch City Council Community Plan, Shirley/Papanui 2002 Edition
“The Shirley Community Centre is located in a park like setting on the corner of Shirley Rd and Slater St and has excellent, well-lit parking and disabled access.
If you want to hire out a room (there is also a hall with a small stage!) for educational, cultural or recreational activities, give the Centre Co-ordinator a call, or come into the Centre Monday-Friday 9.30am-12.30pm.
A Brief History:
Shirley Community Centre was originally opened as Shirley Primary School in 1916.
Falling roles and high building maintenance cost resulted in Shirley Primary School moving to its present site across the road.
In May 1977 the building and site became surplus to Ministry of Education requirements.
In October 1977 Christchurch City Council was appointed to control and manage the site pursuant to the Lands and Domains Act 1953.
The site was set aside for use as a Community Centre and the running of the Centre was handed over to the Shirley Community Centre Society, which had been established earlier in the year to lobby for the building to be used as a Community facility.
The centre opened for hire in March 1978.
Over the next almost 25 years funding from the City Council, fundraising and volunteer work from members of the Society and the local community have restored this building to a pleasant, well appointed Community Centre the local community can be proud of. It is well used by both local and citywide community groups, clubs and some commercial ventures, and is largely self-funding.
Groups use the centre for activities such as meetings, art, pottery, yoga, karate, aerobics and exercise classes, spinning, lace making, computer tuition, latin dancing, bridge, parenting and antenatal classes, first aid, walking groups and social clubs.
In addition the centre leases space on an ongoing basis to Seniornet Canterbury, Christchurch Parent Centre, the Shirley Pottery Group, NZ Society of Genealogists (Canterbury) and Santa’s Workshop.”
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/CommunityPlans/Shirley-Papanui/2001/CommunityCentreIdealVenueForGroupsClubs.asp

“The previous community facility played a crucial role in enhancing community well-being.
A range of activities were lost when the community facility at 10 Shirley Road was removed post-earthquake.
A number of these groups have since been re-established in other locations:
– Senior Net (moved to Westminster Street)
– New Zealand Society of Genealogists (moved to Parklands Community Centre)
– Pottery (disbanded)
– Parent Centre (moved to Bishopdale, now at The Village @ Papanui)
– Santa Workshop (now at Shirley Intermediate)
– Canterbury Embroiders (to Hammersley Park)
– Shirley Recreational Walkers (meet on Chancellor Street)
– Shirley Leisure Group (finished up because no suitable building in the area on a main bus route)”
https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/SCR/SCRHistory

13.3 Appendix 3. Open Strategies – Past Users Shirley Community Centre
Celebration of the past:
1. There were weekly leisure clubs for the elderly, who attended for friendship, companionship and exercise.
The fact that the centre was ‘local’ made it easier for them to attend.
2. There were antenatal classes which were popular and had waiting lists.
As well as residents learning during the classes, they often built enduring relationships with others.
3. There were opportunities for babies to enjoy music.
4. Rooms were a great size for mothers learning together.
5. All classes were packed with people due to learning and social opportunities and links were created.
6. AFS met at the building and included a sit-down meal.
7. A home school group regularly met at the building.
8. A pottery group had a kiln and their own space in the building.
9. Genealogy had their own room.
10. Parents centre had their own room.
11. Santa’s workshop had their own space.
12. A fly fishing club met there.
13. A knitters club met there.
14. The Centre was used by Senior Net.
15. Rooms had a little stage.
16. A toy library operated there (with its own storage facility).
17. Weight watchers ran meetings there.
18. Playcentre training was done in a classroom.
19. A church used the big space.
20. The primary school currently has no large spaces so it is hoped that the new centre will have some larger spaces (while acknowledging that the Intermediate school has a good-sized hall).
21. The old centre worked as a ‘Drop-in centre’ due to a worker being there on a part time basis in the Foyer/and other permanent groups based in the centre so the old centre felt continuously alive.
22. A Cook Island group worked out of there.
23. The centre encouraged people to meet there – building a sense of community through attending classes.
24. The group who ran the Centre dissolved recently.
25. The centre was welcoming to people and was used by local groups as well as by groups from throughout Christchurch.
26. The centre had good parking and plenty of space.
27. It had history – residents had gone to school there.
28. Groups have located to other areas could and would (probably) come to this new space eg Zumba group currently in Aranui.
29. The combination of building and green space was attractive to people so it is hoped that this combination can continue.”
2019 Feasibility Study: GLG Ltd Report, Page 44

“…the Council completed a community consultation process. The work was undertaken by Open Strategies in November 2017.
Its report provides a unique window into what local residents identified as needed in a new community facility.
It contrasted in many ways with the [Crossways] proposal then submitted to the Shirley Papanui Community Board by Crossways.” Page 7
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Shirley_Community_Centre_Feasibility_Report_and_Business_Case_August_2019.pdf

CCC Draft Annual Plan 2025-2026

1. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Joanna Gould
2. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Joanna Gould
3. Email/Letter to the Waipapa P-I-C Community Board (12th April 2025)
4. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board
5. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board

1. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Joanna Gould

2025-2026 Draft Annual Plan | Topics
– T.1. Shirley Community Reserve | Feasibility Study
– T.2. Shirley Centre | Business Case
– T.3. Emmett Street | Trees Removal

Topic 1: Shirley Community Reserve | Feasibility Study
In response to the ‘2023 Feasibility Study’ included in the Agenda for the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s meeting on the 13th June 2024, I have researched & written my own Feasibility Study, available here:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

Topic 2: Shirley Centre | Business Case
I do not agreed with the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s decision on the 13th June 2024, for ‘Item 9. Shirley Community Reserve: Proposed Community Facility’:
“3. Request that staff initiate the process to design an ‘on budget community building’ on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections.”
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_MIN_9127_AT.PDF Page 5-6
I have researched & written my own ‘Shirley Centre’ Business Case for the Shirley Community Reserve, available here:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

Topic 3: Emmett Street | Trees Removal
3.1. ‘Shirley Centre 10 Shirley Road’ Facebook Post:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AP2bFNwGY/
“I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

To tell the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ story, I did some research to find out when they were planted, by whom & why their story is an important part of our local history, landscape architecture in NZ, Christchurch the ‘Garden City’ & Shirley’s identity.

Below are four parts to the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ story:
1. ‘Emmett Street Trees’ (How did we get here?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/emmett-street-trees/
2. ‘George Brington Malcolm‘ (Who was G.B. Malcolm?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/george-brington-malcolm/
3. ‘Significant Trees‘ (They were, but now they’re not?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/significant-trees/
4. ‘Emmett Character Area‘ (Plenty of character, but not an Area?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/emmett-character-area/

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better it’s not.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss
UNLESS someone…cares:
George Brington Malcolm cared & we have benefited from his vision in the Emmett Street Oak Trees & MacFarlane Park.
Christchurch City Council please care…
‘Save our Trees’…’Save our Character Area’…’Save our History’…

3.2 ‘CCC Works Notice: Emmett Street and Riselaw Street – tree removals and road closures’
https://ccc.govt.nz/transport/works-3/show/1677
What: We’re removing 22 trees in the area, due to non-compliance with the NZ Electricity (Hazards from trees) Regulations and other safety concerns. Some road closures on Emmett Street will be necessary.
Why: These trees are within the prescribed clearance distances of overhead powerlines. While various solutions allow many non-compliant trees to be retained, there are no viable solutions for these trees.
Where: Emmett Street and Riselaw Street, Shirley.
When: 7 April 2025 to 24 April 2025. Monday to Friday, 7am to 5.30pm. (weather/site condition dependent).

3.3. Emmett Street Flooding Remediation
– Has the CCC considered the ramifications of removing “19 trees on Emmett Street”?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129394267/residents-on-floodstricken-christchurch-street-feel-forgotten–it-looked-like-lake-emmett

3.4. Emmett Street Replacement Trees
– Does the CCC consider the ‘2 for 1’ replacement tree deal enough compensation for these established significant trees?
https://ccc.govt.nz/environment/trees-and-vegetation/urbanforest

2025-2026 Draft Annual Plan | Questions
– Q. 1. When will our Rates & Development Contributions be invested back into the communities around Shirley Road?
– Q. 2. When will the CCC Equity & Inclusion Policy be applied to the communities around Shirley Road?
– Q. 3. When will Elected Members vote in favor of Capital Projects to benefit the communities around Shirley Road?

While researching I found this article from ‘The Press’ on the 5th May 1980, nearly 45 years later it is still relevant today:
“‘Funds for libraries’: The Christchurch City Council has yet to adopt the recommendation of its cultural committee to go ahead with the new Shirley library…Part of this expense is for the new central library.
It should not be forgotten that Christchurch people have been getting a central library service on the cheap because they have not had to pay for an adequate central library building for a long time past. Because the cost of books and of everything to do with presenting books to the public is going up at a staggering rate, it must be a temptation for those in charge of public money to restrict expenditure.
The central government has, after all, shown in the past that cultural expenses can be an early casualty in difficult times.
All times are difficult to some degree, and a case could always be made for standing still.
It is not the way of the Christchurch City Council to fail to consider a worth-while project just because the funds for it are hard to find.
The Shirley library comes into this class.
If the council were concerned only to shelter its ratepayers, some notable facilities would be wanting in the city today.
Vital as the new central library may be, the local suburban services must be given a high rating.
They are an essential extension of the central library’s service to readers of all kinds and it is to be hoped that the council will endorse the committee’s recommendation in the interests of a fuller service.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800505.2.108

2. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Joanna Gould

11.04.25 – Item 3 – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 – Joanna Gould:
https://youtu.be/1hFy9hVBkUI
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CCCDraftAnnualPlan2025JoannaGouldPresentation.pdf
The Shirley Community Centre was demolished in 2012 after the earthquakes.
Last year the Waipapa Community Board, after receiving the long awaited Feasibility Study, made the decision to create a ‘mixed use’ reserve & are currently designing a small building.
Since this decision, I’ve been researching & writing my own Feasibility Study & Business Case, for a new fit for purpose building that includes relocating the Shirley Library to Shirley Road.
Our communities have lost a lot since the earthquakes: our schools, our Shirley Community Centre & now our Emmett Street Trees.
My submission is simple:
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” The Lorax by Dr Seuss
“What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.” Jane Goodall
Your support can make a difference in the lives of those living in the communities around Shirley Road.

Question from Cashmere Ward Councillor Tim Scandrett
– Q. Sorry I thought the [Shirley] library based at the [Palms] mall was doing very well, was very successful?
– A. It is doing very well, but it’s very small. It’s only about a third of the space [36 Marshland Road building].
The rest of the space is used for office spaces for the library staff, the governance team for the other community board and it’s not adequate.
It doesn’t have a boardroom, doesn’t have meeting rooms, doesn’t have learning spaces. We’re limited in what we can actually provide for our residents there, and my feasibility study shows that it’s not what we actually need for our communities.

Question from Mayor Phil Mauger
– Q. The area [Shirley Community Reserve, 10 Shirley Road] that you’re looking to take it [Shirley Library] to, is large enough to put all that in?
– A. Yes, the Community Board have already done the site [selection] process and they’ve said that it’s got plenty of meterage to be able to provide all that.
The community centre was 1,500m2, and the building that they’re currently looking at replacing it with is 400m2, so it’s a significant decrease in size of what we had previously.

2016 Shirley Community Centre Site Selection
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2016/12/PICB_20161209_AGN_1197_AT.PDF Pages 72-73
The site at 10 Shirley Road met the following criteria including:
1. Sufficient space (9042m2) for both the community centre and necessary off-street parking plus other community activities.
2. Good access with road frontages to Chancellor Street, Slater Street and Shirley Road.
3. Appropriate zoning designation for the purpose of community facilities already in place.
4. Ownership is with the Council and is held in trust for a local purpose.
5. Community awareness of site as this was the site of the previous community centre.

Question from Deputy Mayor/Innes Ward Councillor Pauline Cotter
– Q. The reason for that is, I’m just wonder if you know that when the Board went out for consultation about what to do with that site, it was 50% of people wanted to retain it as just green space and 50% of people wanted a new centre, so what they’ve done is both…
– A. I’ve come back and done my own feasibility study and recalculated the feedback, and that data is incorrect. If you look at the information that I provided in Excel spreadsheets, the numbers are not right.
The second consultation includes information and votes from an event that was on the 6th of July, and the [consultation] submissions didn’t open until I think the 12th [17th] of July, so they shouldn’t have been included in my opinion.
– Q. You probably need to, because the community board has now embarked on the process, set up a working group and everything, to follow that decision they made to do 50% green space 50% centre, which means the centre will be smaller than the old one, you probably need to take that back through to the community board if you’re disputing the data.”
– A. Yes, I can do that.

3. Email/Letter to the Waipapa P-I-C Community Board (12th April 2025)

To: Emma Pavey, Mark Saunders & Elected Board Members
Subject: Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Update 2025 | Joanna Gould
Yesterday during my verbal submission for the CCC Draft Annual Plan, Councillor Pauline Cotter requested I provide an update to the Board, regarding my comments that the feedback data analysis for the Shirley Community Reserve consultations was incorrect.
Attached is a .pdf for the Board to review.
The first page is my written submission for the CCC Draft Annual Plan.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WaipapaPICcbUpdateApril2025JoannaGould.pdf
I’m currently researching & writing my ‘Shirley Community Reserve Feasibility Study’ & ‘Shirley Centre Business Case’, available here:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

– I have not received any acknowledgement or response from the Board re my email/letter.
– My email/letter was not included in the Board’s meeting agenda for the 15th May 2025 under Item 7. Correspondence, as an attachment.
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/05/PCBCC_20250515_AGN_9137_AT.PDF

4. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board

3.1. Draft Annual Plan 2025/26
A – Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board: Presentation, Page 9
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/04/CAPL_20250403_MAT_10570.PDF
“Making community friendly spaces.
– Retain the current funding for: Shirley Community Reserve.
– Libraries are also vital as in high density environments.”

5. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board

03.04.25 – Item 3 – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26
Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILQG3LE9JA&t=395s
– “It also is to be noted that our Council and Community facilities serve an important role in creating and fostering a sense of community.
– Libraries are key places for people to engage with the Council’s work, as well as to access the services that libraries offer.
– These facilities are increasingly important as high density housing continues to develop around key activity centres.”

– Q. 1. If this is the case, why has the Board not advocated for a new local suburban library for residents in the Innes/Central Ward, who do not have access to one?

– Q. 2. Why didn’t the Board support & advocate for the 1,200+ residents who signed the ‘Where is our Community Centre?’ petition?

– Q. 3. When residents from the suburbs around Shirley Road created the ‘Shirley Road Central Inc’ group, advocating for a new fit for purpose library at the Shirley Community Reserve, why did the Board not engage with & support this group?

– Q. 4. When the opportunity to ‘incorporate the Shirley Library’ into the proposed facility for the Shirley Community Reserve, why did the Board not advocate for this?

Dear St Albans News Editor

I recently read the below article in your latest March/April 2025 edition:
“Design work begins for Shirley Centre”
Council staff have started the process to design a mixed-use community building for the Shirley Community Reserve at 10 Shirley Road.
Emma Norrish, Jake McLellan and Emma Twaddell will join the Working Party for the project to represent the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board. Initial surveying works have already started on the site and Geotech consultants been busy.
The Shirley Community Centre (Christchurch’s first community run centre) ran in the former intermediate school building at 10 Shirley Road until the building suffered a similar fate to the St Albans Community Centre in the earthquakes.
Some residents there have been pushing for a replacement but have faced opposition from other groups in Shirley and Richmond also serving the community.
The St Albans Residents Association is helping support the Shirley Centre plan.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFY1xiHqwLrJAXlWzyhAOEU-ThiFahu7/ Page 8

I wonder St Albans residents, how you would feel if:
– a ‘Residents Association’ from another area,
– engaged with a ‘building company’,
– had meetings to create a ‘new proposal’,
– endorsed by a Councillor from another area,
– for land in your community classified as reserve, vested in the Council by the Crown to be held “in trust for local purpose (site for a community centre)”?

Is this what ‘community led development’ looks like in the communities around Shirley Road?

Is this how we ‘support’ another communities ‘idea’ by creating an opposing ‘new proposal’?

Let’s imagine & rewrite the ‘story’ so far…
To tell this ‘story’, details will be swapped regarding the communities from West/East of Hills Road:
– a local ‘Residents Association’: We are Richmond
– a local Ward ‘Councillor’: Jake McLellan, Councillor for Central Ward
– a local long awaited, many years advocated for ‘Community Facility’: Edgeware Pool
– a local historic section of land, that has been part of this communities identity & memories for many many years: 43A Edgeware Rd, St Albans.

Sidenote: This is a ‘story’ for demonstration purposes only.
Many years ago I randomly ended up at the Annual General Meeting for the St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc.
I listened to their plans, made some suggestions & have supported their project as a ‘neighbour’.
Many times we have ending up in the public gallery together, as we both presented our verbal submissions to the Christchurch City Council Long Term & Annual Plans.

The ‘story’ starts on the 22nd May 2024, while watching online the Christchurch City Council – Long Term Plan 2024-34 Information Session/Workshop
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-draft-ltp-2024-34-workshops/
In this ‘story’, ‘Edgeware Pool’ was being discussed.
Staff advice was to “bring back the existing budget for the ‘Edgeware Pool’ in the Long Term Plan.
“Staff are through the Board Chair currently negotiating with a ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’ to develop this facility in a Community Partnership through the Build and the Operation…
So yes that’s what the [Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community] Board has in mind.
We have a report going to the Waipapa Community Board in early June reflecting that, that’s on the cards and that’s how we’d like to proceed at this point in time…
but it needs community board decision making to ratify that and that’s scheduled for early June.”

What?!? Who?!? Why?!?
So I sent an LGOIMA request to the Christchurch City Council asking for answers.
– What happened to the long awaited ‘Feasibility Study’?
– Where was the feedback report from the last ‘Consultation’ in 2023?
– Why has the Waipapa Community Board made a predetermined decision based on an unsolicited proposal?

In this ‘story’, I messaged the ‘St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc’ members to let them know & was told:
“Cancel your LGOIMA request, it was us. Sorry we forgot to tell you.”
They (residents from the east of Hills Road, in this ‘story’ a few ‘We are Richmond’ members are also members of ‘St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc’) were the ‘prospective Community Partner’.
They had approached the ‘sympathetic Building Company’ & involved a Councillor from another Ward, in this ‘story’: Jake McLellan, Councillor for Central Ward.
Their ‘proposal’ for the land at 43A Edgeware Rd, St Albans would be a ‘Community Facility’ that is the opposite of ‘St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc’ constitution…

‘Shirley Road Central’ Constitution: To support the development of a community hub including a modern library, and meeting rooms on the site at 10 Shirley Road for the use of the surrounding communities.
This group was created to bring together residents in the suburbs around Shirley Road to be a combined voice advocating for a new building at Shirley Community Reserve, that would benefit all the residents in these suburbs.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-road-central-group/

The ‘story’ continues on the 13th June 2024 at the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Meeting
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_MIN_9127_AT.PDF
There were four deputations regarding Item 9 in this ‘story’, ‘Edgeware Pool’: Proposed Community Facility.
My deputation was the only one that did not support the Staff Recommendations, aka the ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’ new proposal.
If you were unaware of this ‘proposal’, you wouldn’t have realised that the Board had already made a decision on the ‘Proposed Community Facility’, before this meeting.

The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board resolved:
3. Request that staff initiate the process to design an ‘on budget community building’ on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections.
This is subject to Council bringing back the budget for the facility to financial years 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 in the 2024/34 LTP.
4. Requests that staff identify an appropriate community partner/ operator to progress the development of the community facility at Shirley Community Reserve and report this back to the Board.

Pages 29-39, CCC Staff Report
Pages 40-41, CCC Staff Memo
Pages 42-81, Shirley Community Reserve Feasibility Study 2023
Pages 82-102 Shirley Road Central, ‘Where is our Community Centre’ Petition* May 2021
(over 1,200 signatures in total, *paper petition with 600+ signatures not included)
Page 103, Letter of Support from Dr Duncan Webb, MP for Christchurch Central
Page 104, Letter of Support from Hon Poto Williams, MP for Christchurch East
Pages 105-135, 2023 Consultation Feedback
Pages 136-140, Shirley Community Reserve Feasibility Study 2023 Supplementary Info
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_AGN_9127_AT.PDF

So now you know the history behind this ‘story’, back to the St Albans News article:
“Some residents there have been pushing for a replacement but have faced opposition from other groups in Shirley and Richmond also serving the community.”
As I said in my deputation, this ‘proposal’ is insensitive and insulting to the existing community centres & facilities already established in Shirley and Richmond.
“Other groups in Shirley and Richmond” haven’t supported a replacement ‘traditional’ community centre, as funding is already stretched to support all the existing community centres & facilities around Shirley Road.
– North of Shirley Road, we have the MacFarlane Park Centres, Rhombus & MacFarlane Park Community Garden
– South of Shirley Road, we have North Avon Community Centre, Delta, Richmond Cottage, Avebury House, Richmond Community Gardens & Riverlution Eco Hub
– West of Shirley Road, we have St Albans Community Centre & Community Garden, plus The Whānau Centre
– East of Shirley Road, we have Avon Hub & opening soon: All Saints Church & Community Centre
https://www.allsaintsburwood.nz/community-facility-fit-out
There is no need for another ‘traditional’ community centre at Shirley Community Reserve.
But there is support for a ‘contemporary’ community centre, Citizen Hub:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/community-hub-support/

“The St Albans Residents Association is helping support the Shirley Centre plan.”
“…helping support”? No.
“…the Shirley Centre”? No.
The ‘Shirley Centre’ idea is not the community facility that has been proposed by the ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’.
Since 2018, the ‘Shirley Centre’ idea has been to:
– relocate the Shirley Library to Shirley Road,
– add learning spaces &
– meeting rooms,
– with a new inclusive accessible playground,
located at 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-what/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-overview/

So my question to St Albans residents after reading this…
How would you feel?
– if your ‘Edgeware Pool’ project was our ‘Shirley Centre’ idea?
Residents & Councillor from another suburb/ward telling you what you should put on the land in your area?
– if you were told that your replacement “on budget” facility would be 400m2, instead of 1500m2, only 26.67% of the original facility?
– if you were told the Board supported a new proposal (that is the opposite of your group’s constitution), presented by their preferred ‘prospective Community Partner’ (members of your group that was set up to bring residents in the different suburbs together)?

The Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan for 2025/26 is now out for consultation from the 26th February – 28th March 2025.
https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/annualplan

My submission is simple:
I do not support the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s decision to design/build: an ‘on budget community building’ with their ‘prospective Community Partner’, on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections.
This land is classified as reserve, vested in the Council by the Crown to be held “in trust for local purpose (site for a community centre)”.

I would appreciate your support.
Thanks,
Joanna Gould
Shirley/Richmond resident since 2008

P.S. I am currently writing my own Feasibility Study & Business Case for a new ‘Shirley Centre’ facility at Shirley Community Reserve.
These will be presented to the Christchurch City Council as part of my submission for the 2025 Annual Plan & uploaded to this page soon: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

Shirley ‘What?’

https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-map/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/christchurch-city-libraries-by-community-board/

https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-reserve-proposed-facility/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-centre-decision-making/

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.

Update February 2025:
The original building/former Shirley Community Centre was 1,500m2.
*The proposed building size is only 26.67% of the original building/former Shirley Community Centre.
“Social and Community Development Committee – Public Excluded
06 September 2017
Current budget is $2,621,400 which is available in FY21 & FY22.
Contingency needs to be made for community expectations.
The current budget would only build back a facility of 447m2.
The size of the demolished building was 1,500m2.
If we were to build back to the same meterage we would need $8,250,000.
Have therefore put in a contingency to allow for a total facility cost of $5M.”

Interestingly 1,500 (original building) – 400 (proposed building) = 1,100…

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.”
‘Shirley Centre’: Library and Service Centre plus Learning Spaces, Meeting Rooms, Inclusive Accessible Playground & Recreation Space, with the existing Shirley Playcentre.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-citizen-hub-strategy/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-overview/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/building-ideas/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/landscape-ideas/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/playground-ideas/

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.

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, from the Burwood Ward to the Central Ward at 10 Shirley Road, Richmond?

Shirley Community Reserve Proposed Facility

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board, Thursday 13 June 2024
2. Staff Report: 9. Shirley Community Reserve: Proposed Community Facility
3. Re: 6. Legal Considerations
4. Re: 6. Strategy and Policy Considerations
5. Options Considered, but ruled out
6. Options Descriptions
7. Community Consultations
8. Proposed Community Facility
9. Re: 3. Request Staff to: ‘initiate the Design Process’
10. Re: 4. Request Staff to: ‘identify an appropriate Community Partner’
11. Re: 5. Requests that staff provide an update to the Board on a quarterly basis
12. Attachment B: Shirley Community Centre Feasibility Study 2023
13. Attachment C: Shirley Community Centre Supplementary Information 19 February 2024

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board, Thursday 13 June 2024
Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Meeting
Thursday 13 June 2024, 4 pm
Function Room, Level 1, Multicultural Recreation and Community Centre, 455 Hagley Avenue, Christchurch
9. Shirley Community Reserve: Proposed Community Facility
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_AGN_9127_AT.htm#PDF2_ReportName_44759
The .pdf link below is Item 9. of the Agenda, Pages 29-140
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/WaipapaCBAgenda13June2024SCRProposedFacility.pdf *
* I’ll also refer to this .pdf, as it is easier to quote Page Numbers & has the ability to use the ‘Ctrl-F’ feature, if you would like to search the document.

2. Staff Report: 9. Shirley Community Reserve: Proposed Community Facility
Staff Report: Pages 29-39 of the Agenda & Pages 1-11 of the .pdf
1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide staff with clarity and direction to progress the proposed development of a community facility at Shirley Community Reserve.
1.2 The report is the outcome of a Council resolution requesting an updated feasibility study for the proposed development of a community facility at Shirley Community Reserve. The feasibility study was to look at “…other options, including incorporating the current Shirley library” on the site.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Shirley Community Reserve: Proposed Community Facility Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Request that staff initiate the process to design an ‘on budget community building’ on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections. This is subject to Council bringing back the budget for the facility to financial years 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 in the 2024/34 LTP.
4. Requests that staff identify an appropriate community partner/ operator to progress the development of the community facility at Shirley Community Reserve and report this back to the Board.
5. Requests that staff provide an update to the Board on a quarterly basis.

3. Re: 6. Legal Considerations
Staff Report:
6.4.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.

Incorrect. The site at 10 Shirley Road is not called ‘Shirley Park’.
It is called ‘Shirley Community Reserve’ for a reason:
“Legal Implications (Page 27)
9.9. 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.”
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/08/SPCB_19082015_AGN.PDF

4. Re: 6. Strategy and Policy Considerations
Staff Report:
6.5.5 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.
The ‘proposed community facility’ does not align with:
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-equity-and-inclusion-policy/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/location-location-location/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/christchurch-city-libraries-by-community-board/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/christchurch-city-council-libraries-2025-facilities-plan/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-citizen-hub-strategy/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-integrated-planning-guide/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/intergenerational-design/

5. Options Considered, but ruled out
Staff Report:
– 1. Do nothing
There has been community support for a community facility on Shirley Reserve for a number of years, this support is evidenced in submissions to Council’s Long Term Plan and Annual Plan’s over many years.
4.26.1 Option Description: Close the project, propose the existing LTP budget as a saving.
4.26.3 There is expectation and anticipation in the local community for a community facility at Shirley Community Reserve.
6.4.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.

– 3. Investigate the relocation of Shirley Library
Libraries Network Plan 2015
Any relocation of Shirley Library would need to align with the Libraries Network Plan 2015, location preferences would include:
a. Near local shops/supermarket/mall/bank/medical centre/schools/playgrounds/toy libraries.
b. On bus route/near transport hubs/handy walking distance from home/easily
accessed/free, plentiful carparking adjacent to library.
c. Attractive street visibility.

– 4. Investigate the relocation of the Council facility at 36 Marshland Road
a. No plans or intentions currently exist to relocate any of the three services from thislocation.
b. Should relocation of Shirley Library be decided, the Waitai Governance Team would require office space within their Board area.
c. The Head of Customer Services highlighted the Council’s NZ Post franchise provides a key service for The Palms.
d. Furthermore, a facility of the size of 36 Marshlands Road (1100m2), with associated amenities, placed on Shirley Reserve would significantly impact the available space for recreation and play space on the Reserve.
e. Additional operational costs would be incurred from separating the existing Council services located at the 36 Marshland Road facility including location of suitable office space for the Waitai Governance Team.

6. Options Descriptions
4.26.1 Option Description: Close the project, propose the existing LTP budget as a saving.
4.27.1 Option Description: An on budget community building – the recommended option.

The Board narrowed the options to two, ignoring 6 years of research & ideas that I have provided for a new ‘Shirley Centre’/relocating the Shirley Library to 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve.

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

– 4.27.1 is based on incorrect consultation feedback data analysis (ignores reserve status, different percentages, data skewed by questions/factions), ignores the concerns highlighted in the 2019 feasibility study, the recent 2023 feasibility study has incorrect information & is incomplete, yet has data & information that supports relocating the Shirley Library to 10 Shirley Road.

https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/community-hub-support/ includes:
– ‘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)
– Letters of Support from Local Christchurch MPs
– Richmond Residents & Business Association/We are Richmond (previously both Hayley Guglietta & David Duffy supported the idea of relocating the Shirley Library)
– Shirley Village Project (Youth Friendly Spaces Audit of Shirley Library & 10 Shirley Road)

7. Community Consultations
Staff Report:
4.4 In 2020, the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board led a community consultation on the future use of the Shirley Community Reserve.
Thematic analysis of the 58 submissions identified an equal split between replacing the community centre and developing outdoor community opportunities.
6.5.4 Staff acknowledge the high level of local community interest.

In the previous ‘How would you like to use 10 Shirley Road? Consultation 2020’
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/your-ideas-wanted-for-10-shirley-road/

“We have asked and talked to you about this before, and we acknowledge the work that has been done. We are asking again because we want to get this right, and we recognise the community landscape has changed considerably, especially over the last 2-3 years.”

“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’ 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.”

I’ve gone through the ‘Feedback Received Table’ & recalculated based on comments:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Your-Ideas-Wanted-for-10-Shirley-Road-Consultation-Feedback-2020.xlsx

Total Submissions: 58
– For Centre: 36 submissions, 62.07%
– Against Centre*: 10 submissions, 17.24%
– No Comment re Centre: 12 submissions, 20.69%
* Organisation & [Other Connections] information included

I’ve gone through the ‘Appendix B: 2023 public consultation written feedback’ & recalculated based on preference/comments:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Shirley-Community-Reserve-Consultation-Feedback-2023.xlsx
Total Votes/Comments = 220
HUB only Option: 118 = 53.64%
PLAY only Option: 87 = 39.55%
KEEP only Option: 15 = 6.82%*

*KEEP votes are invalid.
Shirley Community Reserve is for a Community Centre (building).
See ‘3. Re: 6. Legal Considerations’ above.
Subtracted KEEP votes from TOTAL Votes/Comments = 205
Adjusted HUB only Option: 118 = 57.56%
Adjusted PLAY only Option: 87 = 42.44%

HUB & PLAY Option (Highlighted Yellow): 24 = 10.91%*
* based on vote & comment suggesting they would be happy with both options.
This ‘HUB & Play’ Option is the ‘proposed community facility’, which only has 10.91% support for this option.

PLAY – HUB (Highlighted Blue): 28 = 12.73%*
* against HUB (see Comment for their reason).

The Board are aware of the different factions within the areas around Shirley Road, as highlighted in the ‘Shirley Community Reserve Consultation 2023’ 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’.
Many residents are protective of their community centre, in their suburb.

I attended the stakeholders meeting prior to the ‘Shirley Community Reserve Consultation’ going live in 2023.
“The options that we’ve developed take into consideration feedback received by the Shirley community in 2020, as well as what we’ve seen works well around Ōtautahi Christchurch.
– Option 1. Leaving the space as it is. [No building]
– Option 2. A recreation space with a full basketball court, renewed playground, planting, a picnic and BBQ area, a community garden and a walkway. [No building]
– Option 3. Creating a community hub* that’s open to partnerships with local organisations.”
https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/SCR

* The definition of a ‘hub’ is outlined in the 2023 feasibility study ’15. Glossary’:
“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. Initially this includes libraries, and service desks.
Shirley Library and Service Centre is an example.”

At the meeting I asked staff if the questions could be aligned to the 4 options being researched & I was told “no the questions have already been decided by the Board”:
“4.3 A feasibility study is currently underway to estimate the construction costs for four potential options for a new community facility.
– 1. Mixed use hub incorporating a library, service centre, and community operated community space,
– 2. Community operated large community facilities building,
– 3. Community operated small community facilities building,
– 4. Outdoor options similar to Dallington landing.” [No building]
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-reserve-memo/

My ‘Shirley Community Reserve Consultation’ feedback:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-reserve-feedback/

While my comments were included from the online form, my uploaded ‘Supporting Information’ .pdf was not.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/ShirleyCommunityReserveConsultation2023JoannaGould.pdf

Did the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board elected members see the research & information provided in this .pdf?

Did the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board elected members see my written submission to the Christchurch City Council LTP 2024-34?
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-long-term-plan-2024-submission/

8. Proposed Community Facility
Staff Report:
4.27.1 Option Description: An on budget community building – the recommended option.
5.3 Council is proposing to set aside $40,000 p.a. from 2028 to contribute to the operating costs of the facility not recovered through user charges.

See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-facility-feasibility-study/
9. Discussion, Fit with Christchurch City Council Network Plan
Providing hubs and focal points are important network plan outcomes.
9. Discussion, Breaking out of the box
– 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.

When are residents in our communities going to find out that after waiting for over 12 years, the ‘Proposed Community Facility’ at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve is to:
Build a 400m2 ‘traditional’ community centre.
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.*
* See Figure 1. 36 Marshland Road facility superimposed on Shirley Community Reserve, Page 138 of the Agenda & Page 110 of the .pdf.

“A small community building would include a meeting space and kitchenette with toilets that are accessed externally.”???
Cost Estimate: $3,654,700 plus Geotech and foundation for a 400m2 building???

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.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-facility-feasibility-study/ (2019)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/community-facilities-network-plan-email/ (2019)

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.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/where-is-our-community-centre-petition/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-road-central-group/

9. Re: 3. Request Staff to: ‘initiate the Design Process’
The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board have yet to make a decision on the ‘Officer Recommendations’.
This decision process is suppose to be ‘open & transparent’ with discussions & decisions made in public, at the upcoming 13th June 2024 meeting.

Yet this process has already started.
Is this another predetermined decision by the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board?
Like the ‘Crossway Church’ proposal?
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/crossway-church-proposal/
& the ‘temporary’ (installed in May 2020) Pump Track proposal?
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/papanui-innes-skate-facilities/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/proposed-pump-track-for-shirley/

I was unaware until the ‘22.05.24 – Council – Long Term Plan 2024-34 Workshop’ that meetings had already been held…
“Staff are through the Board Chair [Emma Norrish] currently negotiating with a ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’ to develop this facility in a Community Partnership through the Build and the Operation.
So yes that’s what the [Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community] Board has in mind.
We have a report going to the Waipapa Community Board in early June reflecting that, that’s on the cards and that’s how we’d like to proceed at this point in time.”
John Filsell, Head of Community Support & Partnerships, Christchurch City Council
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-draft-ltp-2024-34-workshops/

10. Re: 4. Request Staff to: ‘identify an appropriate Community Partner’
Staff Report:
– 3.5 Requirements, of the Community Facilities Network Plan, for a new Council opportunity include: “…a willing and able community partner that should be in a position to lead and drive the project end to end unless there is a clear reason why Council must lead.”

See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-facility-feasibility-study/
6.4.1 Asset data Across Council Owned Community Facilities
This suggests current provision is lower than the city-wide average in terms of community facilities.
8. Need and Gap Assessment, Summary of Need
– With an aging population, it is important to also consider what has been lost that would be of value to older adults.
– Secular Bumping space (for casual interactions and cross-over between activities and areas) for adults like that provided in libraries.
Table 9. Governance options toward increased activation of 10 Shirley Road
Option ‘Support an existing Trust’, Negatives of approach:
– Unfavourable treatment of one Trust over others
– Not one Trust that spans these two neighbourhoods
– That trust would not necessarily hold the vision (Community Plan) for the whole area
Option ‘All comers’ Approach’, Positives of approach:
– Perceived as fair
– Council is not partisan
(Shirley Community Facility Feasibility Study, Page 33)

‘Prospective Community Partner’
After my LGOIMA request to Christchurch City Council, I received a phone call from John Filsell.
I was told “it’s you, ‘Shirley Road Central'”, the ‘prospective Community Partner’.

I hadn’t been informed that meetings that had been held with:
a few members of the former ‘Shirley Road Central’ group*, a townhouse property developer, an elected member & staff
to develop a proposal for a ‘traditional’ community centre to be built at 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve, Richmond.
* See: 2. Constitution & 4. Current Status
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-road-central-group/

A few members of the former ‘Shirley Road Central’ group to ‘develop this facility in a Community Partnership through the Build and the Operation.’???

The Board have focused on funding different community groups/organisations to ‘activate’ the 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve, which has caused further division:
‘Why are the Board providing funding for another activity/event hosted by a community group/organisation that isn’t located in Richmond?’
‘Why are they having an activity/event at 10 Shirley Road, when they have their own parks in their own areas?’
– ‘We are Richmond’ wayfinding signage installed.
– ‘Shirley Road Central’ Skip Day & Car Boot Sale events.
– ‘Shirley Village’ Youth Audit of 10 Shirley Road & Shirley Library.
– ‘Eastern Community Sport and Recreation’ Shirley Play Pop-up preschooler events.
– ‘St Albans Residents Association’ Nau mai Fiesta event.
– ‘Youth & Cultural Development (YCD)’ House of Hoopz FRESH event.

I helped to create the former ‘Shirley Road Central’ group.
I’ve engaged with ‘We are Richmond’, ‘Shirley Village’ & ‘St Albans Residents Association’ members.
Previously I also advocated for the Dallington Residents Association ‘Dallington/Burwood/Avondale Community Centre’ proposal.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/community-needs-community-centres/ (2018)

I still believe 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.

This 10 Shirley Road site has historically brought these communities together.
Yet these attempts to ‘activate’ 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve & the governance/operating expenses/contestable funding of the ‘proposed community facility’ have & will further divide these communities.

‘Sympathetic Building Company‘
A residential ‘Townhouse Property Developer’???
Many residents have vocally opposed the ‘townhouse property developers’, especially in the suburbs around Shirley Road due to the Christchurch District Plan changes.

The reputation of our local ‘Townhouse Property Developers’ is:
they are ‘buying up land/demolishing family homes/removing all the trees’,
before building infill housing/townhouses that are taking over in their communities.

Does the Board want this ‘proposed community facility’ to succeed & be accepted by residents, when the ‘draft concept plans’ are put out for public consultation?

Why are the Board considering a ‘Community Partnership’ with this ‘sympathetic Building Company’/residential townhouse property developer?

Why are the Board not putting this ‘proposed community facility’ out for tender & engaging with an architecture firm/construction company that has previous experience building commercial/civic buildings & working with the Christchurch City Council?

Working with the Council: Proposal, tender and contract information for doing business with Christchurch City Council.
– https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/tenders-and-contracts/
– https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/sustainability-policies/procurement-policy/
– https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Policies/Council-org/Christchurch-City-Council-Unsolicited-Proposals.pdf

11. Re: 5. Requests that staff provide an update to the Board on a quarterly basis
The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board was given the ‘Delegated Authority for the rebuild of the Shirley Community Centre’* by the Christchurch City Council, after the failed ‘Crossway Church’ proposal.
* See: 1. Delegated Authority for the rebuild of the Shirley Community Centre (2016)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-centre-decision-making/
4. History of Shirley Community Centre Decision-making (2012 to 2024)

After researching & writing the above blog post with 46 items, I’m left wondering:
Q. What actual progress has the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board made from 2016 to 2024?

Q. Is the current ‘sympathetic Building Company’ proposal only going to end up like the ‘Crossway Church’ proposal (2013 to 2016) before it was voted against by elected members, with residents no closer to having a new building at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve after 12 years waiting?

Q. Is it time for the Board to pass the delegated authority for this project back to the Council so that it can:
– distance itself from having to deal with the factions in these communities over this project’s design/build
– make faster progress on the design/build & the Board would not be held responsible by our communities for any delays
– be co-designed with partnerships & specialists in their fields
See: ‘Partnerships’ (Pages 3-4) & ‘Planning’ (Pages 5-6)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCCDraftAnnualPlan2023SubmissionJoannaGould.pdf

At the recent Christchurch City Council – Long Term Plan 2024-34 Workshops on the 22nd, 24th & 28th May, this ‘Proposed Community Facility’ at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve has been discussed.
The current Staff Advice & Direction Given for the Mayor’s Recommendations:
– $75,346 in FY25, $800,000 in FY26, $2,830,000 in FY27
– Bring forward construction from 2031 to 2026-2027
See: 44., 45. & 46. Christchurch City Council – Long Term Plan 2024-34 Workshop
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-centre-decision-making/

“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?

12. Attachment B: Shirley Community Centre Feasibility Study 2023
Feasibility Study: Pages 42-135 of the Agenda & Pages 14-107 of the .pdf

Re: d. Shirley Road Central (Page 28 of the Study, Page 69 of the Report)
Shirley Road Central (SRC) was not ‘previously known as the 10 Shirley Road Group’.
They are two separate entities.
’10 Shirley Road’ website, Facebook Page & Group is my personal ideas/research as ‘Shirley Centre 10 Shirley Road’.
I setup a separate ‘Shirley Road Central’ website, Facebook Page & Group to distinguish between the SRC group & my personal views.

This Feasibility Study does provide information to support relocating the Shirley Library to 10 Shirley Road.
– population density for the current Shirley Library 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.

– busiest suburban library in the Christchurch Libraries network, with no learning spaces/meeting rooms/toilets in the our current Library area.

– “explained by shared space with the Council Service Centre and NZ Post, but it is also due to proximity to the Palms Mall.”
It 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.

– difference in total issues, due to the lack of books available, no room for more book shelves.

– “Use of PCs at Shirley Library is one of the highest rates in the network at 41.9%”, 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.

– The ‘ReVision/Shirley Village’ Youth Friendly Spaces Audit highlights the problems with the current Shirley Village from our youth perspective: “would not recommend to others”.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-youth-audits/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-transport/
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-facility-feasibility-study/
– Its high visibility is particularly attractive to young people.
(Shirley Community Facility Feasibility Study, Page 26)

– ‘Wā Pēpi: Babytimes’ has the highest attendance, 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.
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/landscape-ideas/

Re: Outdoor Recreation Space (Page 36 of the Study, Page 77 of the Report)
– “Providing access to places where children can access play independently is important for their physical and emotional development.”
This is unavailable for safety reasons at the current Shirley Library, situated in The Palms carpark.

– “The current play provisions in this area are older and in need of refurbishment, namely the play space next to the Shirley Playcentre.”
“7.3 Community Needs Analysis for Richmond
Need for improved playground facilities across Richmond targeting pre-schoolers and small children.”
(Shirley Community Facility Feasibility Study, Page 22)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-facility-feasibility-study/

– “There is an opportunity to provide for inclusive play as the 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.”
This is why I have been promoting my original ideas from 2018:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-centre-ideas/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/playground-ideas/
See: ‘Support Providers’ & ‘Playgrounds’
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-map/

13. Attachment C: Shirley Community Centre Supplementary Information 19 February 2024
Supplementary Info: Pages 136-140 of the Agenda & Pages 108-112 of the .pdf
1. Summary of information on the physical capacity of local facilities
2. Community support for both community and recreation play spaces
3. Future plans for the Council facility at 36 Marshlands Road
4. Considerations for relocation of Shirley Library
5. Understanding the existing Council facility
6. Consideration for a large Council facility at Shirley Community Reserve
7. Cost estimates for capex and opex
8. Potential coastal retreat implications

2. Community support for both community and recreation play spaces
See: ‘6. Community Consultations’ above

3. Future plans for the Council facility at 36 Marshlands Road
a. Currently there are no plans or intention to relocate any of the three services from this location.
b. Should relocation of Shirley Library be decided, the Waitai Governance Team would require office space within their Board area.
c. The Head of Customer Services highlighted the Council’s NZ Post franchise provides a key service for The Palms.

Re: 3a. Relocate Shirley Library Plans
– Shirley Library 2008
Current Facility: Built 1996.
Future need for more service capability.
Space required to develop service for learning services to support need in the community.
Growth retail: The Palms Shopping Centre. Need: Community.
Recommended Actions: Participate in ongoing Council/Ecan planning with mall owners with the view to possible relocation and upgrade of library facility as suburban library.
Priority Driver: Growth/need. Retail development impacted by growth.
Opportunity for service improvement.
– Land Use Recovery Plan | December 2013
Halswell, Belfast, New Brighton and Shirley suburbs are identified a key activity centres for business and community which aligns with the planning for new and retention of libraries in these areas.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/christchurch-city-council-libraries-2025-facilities-plan/

– 13.1 Appendix 1. Key Informant Interviews:
David Cosgrove. Divisional Development Manager for AMP Capital, NZ
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-community-facility-feasibility-study/
The Palms Shopping Complex is owned by AMP Capital (Sydney) [has been sold again, since this report was written].
a. There was an attempt with the past owners to purchase land and to start a process that might have led to the re-positioning of the Council owned facilities (Library, Service Centre and Committee/Meeting and Staff Office Space).
This work happened around 2005-6.
b. For us development to the north is complicated because Council own three blocks of pensioner flats which would also need to be relocated as well.
c. In the previous master planning there was a relocation of community facilities, bus exchange and pensioner housing, but as indicated nothing was actually achieved and the ownership of the Palms changed hands.
(Shirley Community Facility Feasibility Study, Page 36-37)

Re: 3b. Relocate Waitai Governance Team
– Option 1: to New Brighton (to help support the investment/redevelopment projects now happening in New Brighton), co-locate with the current Waitai Community Board meeting room at The Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Street, New Brighton?
– Option 2: to a new ‘Dallington/Burwood/Avondale Community Centre’?
“at 255 New Brighton Road close to All Saints Church, includes [Waitai] Coastal-Burwood[-Linwood] Governance Unit more central to their residents [new boardroom for Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board meetings?]”
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-funding/
4. Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board

Re: 3c. Relocate NZ Post
Relocate NZ Post back into The Palms, co-located by their Service Desk (wheelchair & shopping carts available), in between the food court & the playground area.
Similar to the NZ Post Kiosk that use to be located in the South City food court.
More space to parcel up purchases to post & seating opportunities while waiting at busy times of the day/holidays.
Increase foot traffic into a quieter area of the mall & make it easier for residents & courier drivers to find a park close by.

4. Considerations for relocation of Shirley Library
a. Any relocation of Shirley Library would need to align with the Libraries Network Plan 2015, location preferences would include:
– Near local shops/supermarket/mall/bank/medical centre/schools/playgrounds/toy libraries.*
– On bus route/near transport hubs/handy walking distance from home/easily
accessed/free, plentiful carparking adjacent to library.
– Attractive street visibility.
b. Not all buses that stop at The Palms travel past Shirley Community Reserve. Routes 60 and 135 closest stop will be on North Parade with approximately a 10 minute walk to the new location.
Route 44 stops further along Shirley Road near Stapletons Road and Quinns Road.
c. 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.

Re: 4a. Libraries Network Plan 2015
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/christchurch-city-council-libraries-2025-facilities-plan/

Location Preferences:
* This is the text missing from the above sentence:
“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.”
“Library facilities need to be ‘where the people go’. Many users, particularly casual leisure users, are attracted to libraries in a similar way to retail and entertainment activities. 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’.”

Building Requirements:
– 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.
– Whanau-friendly facilities, e.g. children’s areas, baby feeding/changing facilities.
– Outdoor environment important – need natural features and to be welcoming; clear signposting within and outside the building.
– Accessible buildings and facilities for people with disabilities.
– Good infrastructure and building design (air conditioning, etc).
– Library buildings will foster a sense of civic pride.

From Papanui Road (Papanui Library/Papanui Ward) to Marshland Road (Shirley Library/Burwood Ward), children/residents/visitors are without access to a local suburban sized library in the Innes Ward.

The current Shirley Library is located in the carpark of The Palms (Burwood Ward).
There is no outdoor area/playground or dedicated car parking available for library users.

The current Shirley Library* has a limited book selection, no boardroom, meeting rooms or learning centre (flexible spaces) & didn’t rate well in the Youth Audit.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/youth-audit-shirley-library/

* 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.
– you have to leave unissued books in the library, due to security gates as you leave the Library area or take issued books into the Toilets.
– you can’t see the Toilets from the Library area:
a. Young children left unsupervised, could leave via the Main Entrance doors by the carpark.
b. If you have more than one child you can’t see them in the library, while attending to another child wanting to go to the toilet.
c. These toilets don’t align with the new ‘CCC Equity and Inclusion Policy’
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-equity-and-inclusion-policy/

Re: 4b. Bus Routes/Stops
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-transport/
3. Public Transport: Buses
This location at 10 Shirley Road is accessible by public transport for residents in:
Shirley, Dallington, Richmond, Edgeware, St Albans & Mairehau
Plus: Citywide (Orbiter), Merivale, Parklands, Burwood & Avonside.
https://go.metroinfo.co.nz/mtbp/en-gb/arrivals/content/routes
No. 60 & 135 Bus Users have access to New Brighton Library.
No. 60 Bus Users from Richmond can use the Orbiter to get to 10 Shirley Road.
Parklands*/New Brighton residents can use the No. 7: Halswell/Queenspark to get to 10 Shirley Road.
* Only a small area of Parklands residents can use the No. 80: Lincoln/Parklands to get to the Parklands Library by bus.

Re: 4c. Insufficient budget to relocate the Shirley Library
See: 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?

5. Understanding the existing Council facility
The combined Shirley Library/Service/Governance facility has a footprint of approximately 1100m2.
Superimposing the existing Council facility on Shirley Community Reserve can be represented by the image in figure 1.
This size of facility and associated amenities would significantly impact on the available space for recreation and play space on the reserve.

Re: Size of Facility
If you look at ‘Figure 2 Aerial map of ground conditions at Shirley Community Reserve (source GHD Geotechnical Investigation Report, 2013)’
Attachment B, Page 49 of the Report & Page 8 of the Study
You will see that the original building is similar in size to the existing Council facility.
Previously the original building covered the current ‘grass area’.
See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/local-green-spaces/ &
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-map/ which includes:
Community Gardens, Recreational Facilities, Playgrounds & Parks in our areas.

6. Consideration for a large Council facility at Shirley Community Reserve
– Similar to the proposed Ōmōkihi South Library project, approximately 50 car parks including a minimum of three accessible spaces are recommended. There is a no requirement for car parks in the District Plan.
– Design criteria should follow CPTED principles and allow for cycle parking and accessible pathways to the facility.

Re: Car/Cycle Parking & Accessible Pathways
See: 2. Driving: Off Street & Street Parking, 4. Bikes & Scooters & 5. Walking
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-transport/

7. Cost estimates for capex and opex
– a. Capital budget
Scenario 2. Rebuild 36 Marshlands Rd facility (1,100m2) plus 200m2 community space [at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve, Richmond in the Central Ward]
Cost Estimate: $15,489,952 plus Geotech and foundation
Based on scenario 2 above the shortfall would be $12,489,952 plus geotechnical investigations and suitable foundation.
– b. Operational budget
Additional operational costs would be incurred from separating the existing Council services located at the 36 Marshland Road facility including location of suitable office space for the Waitai Governance Team.

Re: 7a. Capital budget
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-funding/
Re: 7b. Operational budget
Relocating the Shirley Library to 10 Shirley Road means that it is Council operated & the budget already exists. This would just move it from the Burwood Ward to the Central Ward.
Being Council owned/funded, this facility wouldn’t be competing with the already existing community facilities in our areas, vying for the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board contestable funding.

My recommendation is:
Scenario 2. Rebuild 36 Marshlands Rd facility (1,100m2) plus 200m2 community space at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve, Richmond in the Central Ward.

This would be the ‘Shirley Centre’ on Shirley Road…the final piece in our community facilities puzzle, the missing link that would help to connect all our residents in the areas around Shirley Road, to the existing schools/facilities/green spaces/organisations/support services in our local communities.

– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-map/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/location-location-location/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-concept-image/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/you-are-here-a-place-to-be/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/placemaking/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/third-place/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/bumping-spaces/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/building-ideas/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/landscape-ideas/
– https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/playground-ideas/