Research – 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

Shirley Community Reserve

1. Where is the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?
2. What was located at the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?
3. When did 10 Shirley Road become the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?
4. What type of reserve is the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?
5. What happened to the 10 Shirley Road site once it became the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?
6. What are the legal implications for the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?
7. What have the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board decided to do with the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

1. Where is the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

The ‘Shirley Community Reserve’ is located at 10 Shirley Road, Richmond, Christchurch 8013.

Google Maps for ‘Shirley Community Reserve’:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sSddENDC276voiPE8

The ‘Shirley Community Reserve’ is located in the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area, on the border of Central & Innes Wards.
https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/waipapa-papanui-innes-central-community-board

2. What was located at the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

The 10 Shirley Road site was the original location for the Shirley School.
“On the 16^th June 1915, the foundation stone was laid for the Shirley School building at 10 Shirley Road, erected in 1915 to the design of George Penlington, the Education Board Architect in Canterbury.”
https://quakestudies.canterbury.ac.nz/store/object/13346

“Approximately halfway through its fifty years the school [opened in 1916] was decapitated – in other words the Forms I and II (Standards 5 and 6) children no longer went to our school but to the Shirley Intermediate School.
Our school then became known as the Shirley Contributing School and more recently as the Shirley Primary School.”
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-school-golden-jubilee-celebrations-1966/

https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/the-christchurch-districts-of-windsor-and-shirley/

3. When did 10 Shirley Road become the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

“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.”
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/CommunityPlans/Shirley-Papanui/2001/CommunityCentreIdealVenueForGroupsClubs.asp

The New Zealand Gazette, Thursday, 1st March 1979
“Declaring Land in the Canterbury Land District, Vested in the Canterbury Education Board as a Site for a School, to be Vested in Her Majesty the Queen.”
https://library.victoria.ac.nz/databases/nzgazettearchive/pubs/gazettes/1979/1979%20ISSUE%20016.pdf Front Page

The ‘Classification of Reserve’ was dated 7th July 1980 & published in The New Zealand Gazette: Thursday, 18th September 1980.
“Classification of Reserve: Pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977, and to a delegation from the Minister of Lands, the Assistant Commissioner of Crown Lands hereby declares the reserve described in the Schedule hereto, to be classified as a reserve for local purpose (site for a community centre), subject to the provisions of the said Act.”
https://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1980/110.pdf Page 14 (left column)

The ‘Reservation of Land’ was dated 8th September 1980 & published in The New Zealand Gazette: Thursday, 18th September 1980.
“Reservation of Land: Pursuant to the Land Act 1948, and to a delegation from the Minister of Lands, the Assistant Director of Land Administration hereby sets apart the land, described in the Schedule thereto, as a reserve for local purpose (site for a community centre).”
https://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1980/110.pdf Page 14 (right column)

4. What type of reserve is the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

Type of Reserves:
1. National Reserves (Section 13)
2. Recreation Reserves (Section 17)
3. Historic Reserves (Section 18)
4. Scenic Reserves (Section 19)
5. Nature Reserves (Section 20)
6. Scientific Reserves (Section 21)
7. Government Purpose Reserves (Section 22)
8. Local Purpose Reserves (Section 23)
9. Wilderness Areas (Section 47)
https://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/legislation/reserves-act/

The ‘Shirley Community Reserve’ is “classified as a reserve for local purpose (site for a community centre)”.

“The Reserves Act 1977 is a New Zealand law that governs the management of public reserves. The act’s purpose is to preserve and manage areas for the public’s benefit, including for recreation, education, and conservation.
23 Local purpose reserves: (1) It is hereby declared that the appropriate provisions of this Act shall have effect, in relation to reserves classified as local purpose reserves for the purpose of providing and retaining areas for such local purpose or purposes as are specified in any classification of the reserve.”
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0066/73.0/whole.html#DLM444305

5. What happened to the 10 Shirley Road site once it became the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

“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.”
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/CommunityPlans/Shirley-Papanui/2001/CommunityCentreIdealVenueForGroupsClubs.asp

‘Need Seen for Creche’, The Press, 10^th February 1978
“The Shirley Community Centre may soon have creche facilities [now Shirley Playcentre] for working parents and those attending activities at the centre.
Mrs Dutton said 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 Page 12

“The Canterbury Playcentre Association has a lease over approximately 769 square metres of Shirley Community Centre Reserve, at 61 Chancellor Street for the Shirley Playcentre.”
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/council/agendas/2000/November/ShirleyPapanui/CanterburyPlaycentreAssociationLeaseatShirleyCommunityCentre.pdf

Located on the east side of the Shirley Community Reserve, are the Half Basketball Court, Children’s Playground & the Shirley Playcentre building & outdoor area.

After the Shirley Community Centre building was demolished (due to earthquake damage) in 2012, the Papanui-Innes Community Board installed the following recreation items in the Shirley Community Reserve during May 2020:
“Along with the pump track, there will be a multi-purpose concrete table (that can be used for table tennis or picnics) and two bench seats installed nearby.”
https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/draft-shirley-pump-track-gets-green-light

Since 2012, the former site of the Shirley Community Centre building, which is the ‘grass area’ in the centre of the Reserve, remains “vacant”.

6. What are the legal implications for the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

The Reserve classification & legal implications of the “Shirley Community Reserve’ were included in the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting agenda for the 19^th August 2015, Item 9. Shirley Community Facility Rebuild.
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2015/08/SPCB_19082015_AGN.PDF Page 27

At the time the Shirley/Papanui Community Board members were:
Mike Davidson (Chairperson), Aaron Keown (Deputy Chairperson), Jo Byrne, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones, Emma Norrish and Barbara Watson.

“Legal Implications:
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 unless and until the reserve classification is changed.
This involves a process set out in the Reserves Act 1977, providing for notification and objections by the public.
It also appears the land could not simply sit “vacant” with the reserve status unchanged, as that would also be inconsistent with the reserve purpose.”

7. What have the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board decided to do with the ‘Shirley Community Reserve’?

“At its meeting on 13 June 2024, the Board considered the community feedback on the future of Shirley Community Reserve.
Analysis of the feedback had shown that younger age groups tended to support facilitating outdoor activities on the reserve, while older age groups tended to be seeking indoor spaces.
By the end of the meeting, where some of the submitters took the opportunity to be heard in person, the Board had resolved to accept the recommendation to initiate a process to design an on-budget community building [400m2 not a ‘replacement’ 1,500m2 building] on the reserve that will enable a mixed use of the reserve and support recreation*, play and social connections.”

* See: 4. ‘Types of Reserves’: There are ‘Recreation’ Reserves & ‘Local Purpose’ Reserves. There are no ‘mixed use’ reserves.

“The development of outdoor recreation and play elements will receive further consideration in the future as opportunities arise to integrate the plans for a community building with the balance of the reserve being available to be enjoyed as a park.”
https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/waipapa-papanui-innes-central-community-board/agreed-vision-shirley-community-reserve

Historically this 10 Shirley Road site has been ‘a place for learning’ from 1916 to 2012.
It is not Shirley ‘Park’, it is called Shirley ‘Community’ Reserve for a specific reason: the land has been “set apart” and “classified as a reserve for local purpose (site for a community centre).”
Since 2012, the 10 Shirley Road site is mostly used as a car ‘park’.

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?

Emmett Character Area

Q. What is a ‘Character Area’ according to the Christchurch City Council?

A. Character Areas (previously known as Special Amenity Areas or SAMs) are areas in residential neighbourhoods that are distinctive from their surroundings and are considered to have a character worthy of retention.
The Christchurch District Plan includes character area overlays in 15 Christchurch locations.
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/residential-and-housing/character-areas

‘The Management of Suburban Amenity Values in Christchurch City’, July 1997
Suburban Amenity Christchurch Report
– Page 20
The amenity values and garden city design of Christchurch are to a large extent the result of the vision shown by the city fathers in designing and providing the city’s green spaces over 100 years ago.
City heritage is expressed through the city’s inherited assets including buildings, places, objects, trees, natural features, archaeological sites, and sites of significance to tangata whenua.
– Page 21
Special Amenity Areas
Special Amenity Areas (SAMs) have been identified in Living Zones as areas with special aspects or characteristics that contribute to the pleasantness of an area including the scale, age and style of buildings, the lack of intrusions or the level of intactness, the combination of streetscape and vegetation, and the intimacy of the street scene.

Christchurch Suburban Character Areas Assessment, January 2015
Assessment Report
– 7 Character Areas 10 and 10a: Slater / Poulton and Dudley Assessment
Pages 39 – 44
– 18 Character Area 37: Emmett Street Assessment
Pages 111 – 117
18.1 Area Description
Character Area 37 is located in Mairehau, north of Shirley Road and west of Marshland Road to the north-east of the central city.
Character Area 37 comprises the length of Emmett Street.
The area has been identified as a Character Area due to the consistent style and era of dwellings (primarily consisting of state housing of the 1940s and 1950s), consistently generous street setbacks, low or no fencing (enabling good visual connectivity between dwellings and the street), well-landscaped gardens and a relatively narrow, high-amenity streetscape. The street pattern is a curvilinear street, which wraps around McFarlane Park.
18.2 Streetscape Elements
The underlying topography of the site is flat, with no notable long or short views. This area has significant streetscape quality, with a street width of approximately 20m and wide grass berms (approximately 3m) on either side of the carriageway (located between the carriageway and the footpath) within which mature street trees are planted (spaced at approximately 15m down the length of the street).
These street trees create a canopy over the street and this in conjunction with the grass berms, large front yard setbacks and small scale of dwellings give the street a spacious yet intimate character & provide a pleasant pedestrian environment.
18.4 Conclusion
The continuity and coherence of Character Area 37 – comprising of the streetscape and site character elements (landscape and built form) is consistent.
This Character Area has approximately 92% of sites that are classified as either primary or contributory.
– Page 121
Character Area 37: Emmett Street
Recommendations: It is recommended that Character Area 37 – Emmett Street, is retained as a Character Area in its entirety (as illustrated in the Site Classification and Boundary Map, Appendix 16).

‘The Proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan’, 2 May 2015
Character Areas Info Sheet
– Christchurch City Character Areas (Formerly ‘Special Amenity Areas’)
Character Areas, which used to be known as special amenity areas (or SAMs) will be changed as a result of proposals in stage two of the district plan review.
– Character Areas are residential parts of the city that contain a set of qualities (eg building style/type/age) that make the area distinctive and of value to the district.
– There will be two types of Character Areas:
Category 1 Character Areas have the highest character value.
Category 2 Character Areas have moderate character value and the rules mainly seek to retain the streetscape character between the house and the street boundary.
– CA 11: Dudley, SAM 10 (Slater/Poulton), Category 1, Restricted Discretionary Activity – rule 14.2.2.3.22 RD22
– CA 32: Emmett SAM 37 (Emmett Street), Category 1, Restricted Discretionary Activity – rule 14.2.2.3.22 RD22

Christchurch Suburban Residential Character Areas, July 2015
Classification & Boundary Maps for Category 1 Character Areas
– Page 6
Appendix 5 – Character Areas 10 and 10a: Site Classification and Boundary Map (Dudley)
– Page 22
Appendix 16 – Character Area 37: Site Classification and Boundary Map (Emmett)

Partial Assessment of Benefits and Costs of Character Areas, 18 August 2015
Assessment Report
– Page 3
1.3 Engaged by the Christchurch City Council (Council) to provide
evidence on the assessment of the costs and benefits of the Character Area rules in the Residential Proposal of the proposed Replacement District Plan (pRDP).
– Page 4
3.1 The analysis undertaken in the Report comprises an objective assessment of the benefits of Character Areas (hedonic valuation), and subjective assessment of the benefits and costs of the Character Areas (survey).
– Page 31
4.2 Sample Method
Letters were sent by the Christchurch City Council (CCC) on 9 July 2015 to all households within the Character Area, excluding properties belonging to Housing New Zealand, Orion and the Council.
The letter noted that the household was within a Character area, and requested that they fill out the survey with the web link directing them to the site.
4.3 Response
The survey received 430 responses, of which 70 were discarded as incomplete. A further 3 were removed because they responded that they were not within any of the listed character areas.
Of the 357 completed responses 110 came from the Beckenham Loop area, and a further 73 from Dudley.
These two areas therefore contribute strongly to the overall responses, but analysis of the sample shows that the sample is reasonably representative.
These two largest groups (Dudley and Beckenham Loop) are represented in the sample at approximately the same proportion as their representation in the overall character area.
– Page 32
Figure 3: Survey sample representation by Character Area designation
– Page 33
Table 3: Response count and proportion by character area
CA 32 – Emmett (Emmett Street)
Response Count = 13, Response Proportion = 3.6%, Proportion of properties in total = 7%
[See 4.2 “excluding properties belonging to Housing New Zealand”, this area of Shirley is predominately Housing New Zealand.]
– Page 35
Figure 5: Question 3 – important aspects of character areas (proportion of respondents)
‘Street Trees’ received over 70%, 2nd to ‘Age and style of houses’
– Page 52
Table 5: Comparative data for Question 3 – Aspects of character areas

Independent Hearings Panel, 18th August 2015
Urban Design – Character Areas, Overlays and the Residential Small Settlement Zone Built Forms Standards
– Page 9
Matters of agreement
(c) The deletion of CA32 Emmett Street
– Page 26
Submission #2378 (Crown)
7.3 In addition to the Category 2 Character Areas, the Crown identifies Category 1 Character Areas with a high rate of Housing New Zealand Corporation property ownership. These are CA32 Emmett, CA29 Auburn and CA7 Piko.
7.4 While distinctly different from each other, each of the areas identified by the Crown reflects a highly intact street layout, subdivision pattern, site and building layouts and landscape qualities that are highly representative of the eras in which they were established.
7.5 Of these areas, CA 32 Emmett offers the most substantial gain in housing density under the Comprehensive Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM), particularly in conjunction with the wider Shirley area which has been the subject of a master plan process for redevelopment undertaken by Housing New Zealand Corporation in consultation with Council.
While I support the retention of all three Character Areas, from a resource management perspective and taking into account the Ministers’ SOE, with my knowledge of potential residential density gains of Emmett Street within the wider context of Shirley, I consider that the area provides significant benefit in respect to the potential increase in residential unit numbers, if redeveloped comprehensively. As such, I do not oppose the deletion of CA 32 Emmett Street.

‘Council moves to protect special areas from new housing rules’, 26 Nov 2021
https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/council-moves-to-protect-special-areas-from-new-housing-rules
Christchurch City Council is assessing which areas of the city would be unsuitable to enable more housing when the government’s new rules are applied.
The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) and the recently-announced Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and other matters) Amendment Bill will make it easier for new housing to be built in cities around the country as local Councils will have less ability to request resource consents for proposed developments.
However, Councils will be able manage housing development in areas they deem unsuitable if features or areas are listed in the Christchurch District Plan as ‘qualifying matters’.
Some qualifying matters have already been listed in the NPS-UD, such as outstanding natural features and landscapes, natural hazards and historic heritage. Although the Council can include other matters as qualifying matters, the NPS-UD limit this to matters that are site-specific, supported by evidence, and where the costs and broader impacts of imposing these limits are assessed.

‘Character areas protected from housing intensification rules’, 13 Apr 2022
https://www.newsline.ccc.govt.nz/environment/story/character-areas-protected-from-housing-intensification-rules
Residential areas of Christchurch with special character value are being protected from new housing intensification rules.
Christchurch City Council has begun consulting with the public on its Draft Housing and Business Choice Plan Change, which will enable medium density housing development to occur in most residential parts of the city without the need for resource consent.
Residential areas can only be exempted from those rules if Councils can provide evidence that they are unsuitable for the amount of increased housing enabled by the legislation, referred to in the legislation as ‘Qualifying Matters’.
“We have taken the position in our Draft Housing and Business Choice Plan Change that most of the 15 Character Area overlays in the current Christchurch District Plan meet the threshold to become Qualifying Matters,” says Council Head of Planning and Consents John Higgins.
“We are proposing that these areas should be treated differently than other residential areas in the city, meaning the amount of intensification allowed should be reduced,” Mr Higgins says.
Character Areas are identified in the District Plan as areas in residential neighbourhoods that are distinctive from their wider surroundings and are considered to be worthy of retaining.
They were last reviewed in 2015, on the basis that at least 80 percent of the properties in the area contributed to the character values that made it special. [The Emmett Character Area has approximately 92% of sites that are classified as either primary or contributory].
“Residential character is created from the way that different physical elements of our neighbourhoods come together,” explains Mr Higgins.
“This might include the combination of a landscape setting, such as a riverside esplanade or an avenue of trees, or with a grouping of properties with buildings of the same era, with consistent architecture and scale. [Emmett Street]
These character areas can make neighbourhoods feel quite special and we want to protect them as much as we can,” Mr Higgins says.
Examples of remaining character areas include Dudley in Richmond.

Land Use Recovery Plan, April 2024
Appendix 2: Amendments to the Christchurch City Plan
Amendment 1B: Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM)
– Page 18
Community Housing Unit: means a residential unit supplied by Christchurch City Council, Housing New Zealand or a Registered Community Housing provider (under Part 10 of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act, 1992) and which is offered for rental as Social Housing (as defined at Section 2 of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act, 1992).
Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism, Map 8 Shirley
– Page 26
Map 8 Shirley, extent of the proposed CHRM Area.

Christchurch City Council Residential Intensification, 2025
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/residential-and-housing/residential-intensification
– Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism
Community houses are rental social housing units supplied by Christchurch City Council, Housing New Zealand Corporation, a not-for-profit housing organisation, or a Registered Community Housing provider.
– What is the Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism?
The Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM) is a set of rules in the District Plan that apply to specific areas of Christchurch that contain clusters of social or community housing. The rules enable medium density redevelopment to provide for better use of land and a wider range of housing types to suit different kinds of households (e.g. town houses and terrace houses).

It was ironic to find during my research, that these ‘Character Areas’ on either side of Shirley Road have received different fates based on their ‘original’ social housing status (North Richmond) & ‘current’ community housing status (Shirley) by being excluded due to the Community Housing Redevelopment Mechanism (CHRM) rules.

See: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/site-history/
Chancellor Street Heritage Houses
“New Zealand Premier ‘King’ Dick Seddon’s Liberal Government (1893-1906) wanted architectural variety, rather than uniformity, in the design of the workers’ dwellings. Local architects submitted entries to design competitions held throughout New Zealand and the dwellings were built by local contractors.”
“The Chancellor Street houses also form part of New Zealand’s heritage of state housing generally. The setting is the original 1914 rectangular land parcel with a small garden between the house and the roadway and a larger open space at the rear.”
Dudley Character Area
“In Christchurch, some of these homes were designed by some prominent local architects including Hurst Segar, Cecil Wood, Barlow and England.
Three pockets of these homes were built in Christchurch in 1918 to 1920, one being in Chancellor Street. Of the three pockets of these homes built in Christchurch, little remains of the other two, so Chancellor Street is unique in the fact that they are all still there and are in good hands.”

“Richard Seddon, concerned at the number of homeless and substandard conditions, decided that the the State should play a larger part in housing. Seddon came from England and had seen for himself good quality council housing available to low income families.”
https://www.riseuprichmond.nz/dudley-character-area/

So while Dudley Character Area in North Richmond remains (Dudley Street trees are protected), Emmett Character Area in Shirley (Emmett Street trees are not protected) has been removed.

Significant Trees

Q. What is a ‘Significant Tree’ according to the Christchurch City Council?

A. “Trees are a major part of the city’s character and amenity.
Trees are identified as being ‘significant’ because they have particular botanical, heritage, amenity, landscape, cultural, ecological and/or environmental values.”
https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/resource-consents/resource-consent-activities/general-rules-and-information/protected-trees-and-guidelines

“A society grows great, when old men plant trees, whose shade they know, they shall never sit it.” – Greek Proverb

‘Trees to be pruned’, The Press, 18th June 1985
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19850618.2.53
The trees in Emmett Street will not be topped but they will be pruned, the City Council decided last evening. Residents of the Shirley street petitioned the council to have the pin oaks that line the street topped to let in more light, and avoid power and telephone lines.
The council believes that topping the trees would spoil their natural beauty.
Several councillors agreed that the trees did inhibit lighting in the street and some branches did grow over property boundaries. However, they did not want to see the mature trees topped or removed.
The director of parks and recreation reserves, Mr Neiel Drain, said the Emmett Street trees were pruned regularly. Topping would promote bushy growth that would further inhibit light and cause problems with overhead lines.
The council supported the retention of the parks and recreation department’s practice of pruning street trees to retain the natural form and beauty of the trees and approved its adoption for all street trees belonging to the council.

4.0 Rules Special Purpose (Road) Zone
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/City-plan/14-V3-Part-8.pdf
4.5.4 Removal or major pruning of any tree in Road Zone
Updated 14 November 2005
Category B
Street plantings of special historic, landscape and specimen value
Emmett Street: Landscape

Greenspace Traffic Works Committee, 4th March 2009, Meeting Minutes
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/council/agendas/2009/april/spgreenspacetrafficworks1st/shirleypapanuigreenspacetrafficworkscommitteeagenda1april2009.pdf
Pages 3 – 8
Purpose of Report: To recommend that the Board recommend to Council that the request to undertake height reduction pruning (topping) of the protected scarlet oak trees in Emmett Street be declined.
Executive Summary: The trees in Emmett Street are protected through the Christchurch City Plan for their landscape value under Volume 3: Part 8 Special Purpose Zone 4.5.4 Removal or major pruning of any tree in Road Zone as category B trees.
Legal Considerations: The rules for pruning trees protected under Part 8 Special Purpose Zones are :
“In addition to any relevant rules applicable to listed protected trees in Appendix 4, part 10 of the Plan, within any of the streets listed in the SP (Road) Zone listed below:
(a) No tree shall be removed”
The Greenspace Manager has the following delegation with respect to trees:
“In consultation with any other units affected and the relevant Community Board, authorise the planting or removal of trees from any reserve or other property under the Manager’s control.”
Therefore the delegated authority to approve or decline this request lies with the Transport and Greenspace Manager or the Community Board.

Volume 2 : Section 4 City Identity
4.2.1 Policy: Tree Cover
To promote amenity values in the urban area by maintaining and enhancing the tree cover present in the City. Tree cover and vegetation make an important contribution to amenity values in the City. Through the redevelopment of sites, existing vegetation is often lost and not replaced. The City Plan protects those trees identified as “heritage” or “notable” and the subdivision process protects other trees which are considered to be “significant”.

4.2.2 Policy: Garden City
To recognise and promote the “Garden City” identity, heritage and character of Christchurch. A key aspect of achieving this policy will be maintaining and extending environments and vegetation types which compliment this image.
A broad range of matters influence and contribute to this image, including the following:
– tree-lined streets and avenues
– parks and developed areas of open space

14.3.2 Policy: “Garden City” image identity
To acknowledge and promote the “Garden City” identity of the City by protecting, maintaining and extending planting which compliments this image.

Volume 3: Part 8 Special Purpose Zone
14.3.5 Street Trees
Nearly half the length of streets within the city contains street trees, but the presence of very high quality street trees which add considerable presence to streets and neighbourhoods is confined to a relatively small proportion of the road network. These streets add particular character and amenity of the city, either in the form of avenues which form points into the city, or an important part of the local character of particular streets.

Background:
31. The scarlet oak trees in Emmett Street were planted in 1950 and 1970.
There are 115 trees.
32. They are significant to Christchurch City as a landscape feature for size, form and age.
33. It is possible that they also have significance to Christchurch for commemorative purposes as it has been suggested that they were planted to commemorate soldiers in World War II. This has not been confirmed.
34. Topping the trees would have a negative effect on them as a landscape feature and would negate the reason why they were protected.
35. A conservative value of $2.7 million (using STEM Standard Tree Evaluation Method, which is the national aboricultural industry standard for evaluating and valuing amenity trees) has recently been placed on them. Topping them would reduce the value by approximately $900,000.
36. Approving the request may lead to residents with similar requests (e.g. Massey Crescent, Severn Street, Dudley Street etc) expecting the same result.
This would have serious consequences for the Garden City image.
37. Council has declined similar requests from residents in other streets with significant trees.

The Preferred Option:
(a) decline the request to reduce the height of the trees in Emmett Street; and
(b) that the trees in Emmett Street be maintained to internationally recognised and accepted arboricultural standards and practices.

Christchurch City Council Proposed Tree Policy, March 2010
http://archived.ccc.govt.nz/Council/agendas/2010/August/ShirleyPapanui18th/Clause7Attachment1ProposedTreePolicy.pdf
– Trees make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of Christchurch’s residents and to the Garden City image through the quality of the city’s landscape.
– Trees play a vital ecological, environmental, heritage, financial and cultural role. They have an important contribution to make in the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
– Christchurch is internationally recognised as the Garden City and one of the city’s greatest assets is its trees.
– This is a tribute to those people past and present who on public and private land have planted a wide range of trees and other vegetation.
– The rate of development and urban intensification places pressure on privately owned protected trees and those that are not protected through the City Plan.
– Urban intensification places more pressure on public spaces to provide the vegetation amenity that was once provided for on private land.
– Retention of existing juvenile and mature trees, replacing old trees and the planting of new trees in public spaces therefore presents a significant contribution to retaining and enhancing the city’s Garden City image.
– Council considers that it should be seen as taking a proactive stance by retaining trees wherever possible within the environment.

Q. So how did the ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ go from being ‘significant’ to Christchurch City, part of the “Garden City” identity & “an important part of the local character of a particular street”: Emmett Street, to receiving a ‘Start Work Notice’ (SWN) in January 2025, for 17 of Malcolm’s Oak Trees to be removed?

A. “As a result of a process introduced under the Canterbury Earthquake emergency powers legislation (the CER Act), protection is being removed from 80% of Christchurch’s notable trees.
We are a group who has organised to fight this environmental disaster, coming on top of so much other earthquake loss.
So far we have negotiated a deal which would see more than 900 of these trees saved. We need help to save the rest, and to make sure that no one backs out of the agreement that has already been reached.”
https://givealittle.co.nz/fundraiser/chchnotabletrees/

Independent Hearings Panel, March 2015
Christchurch Replacement District Plan
https://chchplan.ihp.govt.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Decision-63-Schedule-1-Chapter-9.4-Trees-Appendix-9.4.7.pdf
– Appendix 9.4.7.1.2 – Schedule of Groups of Trees
Pages 53 – 57
– Appendix 9.4.7.2 – Schedule of Significant Trees in Road Corridors, Parks, Reserves and Public Open Space
Pages 58 – 106
Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ are not included in either Appendix.

‘Tree Protection Change Rankles Christchurch Residents’
The Press, January 29, 2016
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/76383155/tree-protection-change-rankles-christchurch-residents
– Big beautiful trees are an integral part of Christchurch’s garden city image.
Rules protect thousands of trees on private land, but under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan protection measures for those trees are in for some radical changes.
– Under the current Christchurch District Plan, the tree is listed as a Protected and Notable tree but under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan, which is currently the subject of an extensive hearing process…
– The new schedule under the proposed plan cuts the list of about 1600 protected trees on private land to only 400 by using a new assessment method.
Predictably the massive excision of a host of clearly loved trees in the garden city has caused consternation.
– The controversy is partly about the assessment process used to prune the list of trees on the current list of 1600 trees.
– The council used a system called the Christchurch Tree Evaluation Methodology (CTEM) to come up with the new list. The system is designed to overcome the subjectivity of the assessor and the ability of a tree to become listed because of a high score in one category, such as age.
– Submitters opposing the new method and list are worried about the threshold and the lack of importance attached to the landscape values of trees.
– [Arborist Michael] Ontash sees problems with that. He says that could potentially withdraw protection from over 2800 significant trees that might score below the threshold using CTEM but still make a large contribution to the garden city image.

‘Call To Save Christchurch Trees’
RNZ, 7 February 2016
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regional/295951/call-to-save-christchurch-trees
– Christchurch residents are urging the council to save more than 1500 heritage and notable trees from being delisted and losing protection in the city’s plan.
– A group of advocates for the trees is raising money through a “give a little” campaign for a legal challenge to the proposal.
– Some trees listed as notable under the current Christchurch District Plan, will not be protected under the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan.
– The new law, which is being fast-tracked under earthquake recovery legislation, would change planning rules to make it easier to develop property, reducing the number of protected trees by 80 percent.
– Mark Belton is a professional forester and advocate for heritage trees. He told Radio New Zealand’s Sunday Morning programme that Christchurch had the greatest variety of trees of any city on the planet.
– Another opponent of the rule change, Barbara Stewart, said the council was considering reducing the number of protected trees from 1900 to just 380.
She said after losing so many old buildings to the earthquakes, the city’s trees were one of its few remaining connections to the past.
Ms Stewart described removing the trees’ protection as a man-made disaster.

‘Council Reneges On Deal To Protect Trees’
RNZ, 5 August 2016
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/310195/council-reneges-on-deal-to-protect-trees
– Christchurch City Council is being accused of shameful behaviour in going back on an agreement to protect the city’s notable trees.
– In February, it signed an agreement with heritage advocates to save more than 800 trees that faced losing their protected status because of changes to planning rules.
It has now cancelled that agreement.
– One of those who wants the trees protected, Mark Belton, said some of them dated back to when the city was first settled.
They were one of the few reminders of the past in a city that had lost most of its heritage buildings to the earthquakes, he said.
“This is something the people of Christchurch really expressed a preference for in the Share An Idea exercise where people were given an opportunity to express what sort of city they wanted and the most overwhelming response was about making the city greener and more attractive.
“And then we have these sorts of things happening which are essentially driving the whole process in reverse.”

“On October 7, 2016 the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) publicly notified its Tree decision – a decision that overall, has delivered a positive outcome.
The key elements of the IHP’s decision are as follows:
1) Our Mediated Agreement with the Christchurch City Council has been upheld, with 80% of the original 1623 trees on private land remaining on the Christchurch Plan schedule;
2) The Panel has also directed that the 724 listed trees on public land be returned to the Plan; and
3) The new Plan still contains a suite of provisions (objective, policies and rules) that continue to provide recognition and some protection for scheduled trees.
Overall, although we have lost some very good trees and still retain misgivings for the future (particularly given the culture within Council that proposed so drastic a reduction (ca. 84%) of the Heritage and Notable tree schedule in the first place) we believe this is a very good result for the Christchurch community and the landscape character of our city.
https://givealittle.co.nz/fundraiser/chchnotabletrees/updates

“2) The Panel has also directed that the 724 listed trees on public land be returned to the Plan”, but the ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ were not returned to the Christchurch District Plan & are no longer classified as ‘significant’ or protected for the future.

Significant Trees Qualifying Matters Technical Report, June 2022
Christchurch City Council Report
– Page 5
17. Varying forms, shapes and textures of trees contributes to the amenity values3 of a place. By providing specific landmarks within an urban landscape, the physical feature of a tree can help identify a specific location. Through physical responses to the environment, trees can add micro-changes to an urban landscape, such as responses to the wind and shading effects. Through their own growth and seasonal
change, trees allow people to mark change over time. Urban structures, in comparison, can be erected within months and then remain unchanging, providing only a very limited sense of change over time.
18. Trees are also valued as they connect with people’s historical associations and memories. In addition, trees within the urban landscapes are easily accessible on a daily basis as they are located in proximity to where people live.
– Page 6
18. Trees are often planted for sentimental or cultural reasons…Public and private trees are also planted as markers, as physical links to sister Cities, or as records of notable events and memorials…Over time, these trees become even more valuable to the community and provide a human connection with history.
– Page 8
3.2 CTEM Criteria for Group Trees
36. Group of Trees means a cluster, grove, or line of trees (including the root systems) that may be the same or variable species, either planted or naturally occurring that:
are located in close geographic proximity to each other and meet at least one of the following criteria: canopies are touching; or canopies are overlapping…
– Page 15
3.4.7 Visibility
Visibility is a measure of the prominence of the tree in the wider landscape…It is a measure of how far the tree can be seen from, and is different from “Location”,
which is a measure as to the frequency of viewing.
3.4.8 Location
Location is a measure of how many people see the tree(s) and is based on site profile e.g. road hierarchy…The tree is assessed based on where it is located. e.g. if the tree is located in an urban park that borders an urban arterial road…
[The ‘Emmett Street Trees’ are off Shirley Road, which is a Minor Arterial Road & the trees are clearly visible at this intersection].
– Page 23
3.6.2 Heritage
Association: There is a recorded association with a major natural or planned event, or an eminent person by the presence of a plaque or other written record.
Commemoration: Well documented planting to commemorate an occasion or occasions of importance in New Zealand’s history such as battles or treaties.
– Page 29
127. Over time, these trees become even more valuable to the community and provide a human connection with history, though they may not be yet listed as Heritage under the District Plan.
128. Recording these historical human connections becomes more important through time.
– Page 31
136. Trees perform very important environmental, social and cultural services within current and future urban landscapes. Trees that are listed in the Schedule of Significant Trees have the highest legal protection afforded to trees in Christchurch.
– See also: 3.4.9 Role, 3.5 Environmental and Ecological, 3.5.1 Services, 3.5.2 Canopy Volume, 3.6 Exceptional Evaluation & 3.6.1 Landscape.

Christchurch District Plan (2025)
Chapter 9 Natural and Cultural Heritage
9.4 Significant and Other Trees
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?docId=BJN6TOTWF9M%3d

9.4.2.1.1 Objective – Trees
a. Maintain and enhance the contribution of the Christchurch District’s significant trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1, and trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space, to community amenity through:
i. landscape character and amenity;
ii. heritage and cultural values;
iii. purification of air and rainwater;
iv. releasing oxygen and storing carbon;
v. cooling of the built environment and waterways;
vi. stormwater and erosion management; and
vii. biodiversity protection and enhancement;
while providing for the reasonable use and enjoyment of property and landowner responsibilities.

9.4.2.2 Policies
9.4.2.2.1 Policy – Identification and assessment of significant trees for scheduling in the District Plan
a. Identify trees, including groups of trees, and assess them for significance and/or exceptional values according to the following:
i. botanical value;
ii. historic heritage value;
iii. amenity value;
iv. landscape value;
v. cultural value; and
vi. ecological and/or environmental value.

9.4.2.2.3 Policy – Tree protection
a. Protect from inappropriate physical works:
i. trees that are listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1, particularly those trees identified as having exceptional values; and
ii. trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space where they provide amenity value and/or collectively contribute to the character and environmental quality of the Christchurch District, to the extent consistent with maintaining the multiple functions of road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space.

9.4.2.2.4 Policy – Tree maintenance
a. To enable the maintenance and management of trees that are listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1 and trees in the road corridors, parks, public open space and reserves in recognition that such works may be necessary to:
i. ensure the continuing health, structural integrity and amenity value of the trees;
ii. enable the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property and surrounds; and
iii. minimise the risk from the trees to public safety, property, buildings, strategic infrastructure and electricity distribution lines.

9.4.2.2.5 Policy – Trees and utilities
a. Where it would not be reasonable to locate outside of the dripline of a significant tree listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1 due to locational, technical or operational requirements, ensure that the utility is appropriately designed, located and installed to maintain as far as practicable the specific values of the tree.

9.4.2.2.6 Policy – Trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space
a. Road corridors, parks, reserves, and public open space are planted with trees to enhance environmental, landscape, cultural, social and economic values.
b. Identify significant trees, including groups of trees, in road corridors, parks, reserves, and public open space and list them in Appendix 9.4.7.2.

9.4.2.2.7 Policy – Felling of trees
a. For trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.1:
i. limit the felling of significant trees, except where there are no reasonable alternatives enabling retention of the tree due to its condition, or where the use and enjoyment of a property and surrounds is significantly compromised or diminished; and
ii. avoid the felling of significant trees that are identified as having exceptional values, except where there are no reasonable alternatives, or where the use and enjoyment of a property and surrounds is significantly compromised or diminished.
b. Limit the felling of trees in road corridors, parks, public open space and reserves having regard to size, location and species, except where there are no reasonable alternatives.

9.4.3 How to interpret and apply the rules
a. To understand whether a site has a significant tree(s), including groups of trees, listed in the Schedule of Significant Trees, and the nature of this listing, refer to Appendix 9.4.7.1 and the planning maps.
b. The rules that apply to significant trees and trees in parks, road corridors, reserves and public open space are contained in the activity status tables (including activity specific standards) in Rules 9.4.4.1.1 – 9.4.4.1.6. Trees listed in Appendix 9.4.7.2 form part of the wider set of trees referred to as trees in road corridors, parks, public open spaces and reserves.

Chapter 9 Natural and Cultural Heritage
9.4 Significant and Other Trees
9.4.7 Appendices
Appendix 9.4.7.2 Schedule of significant trees in road corridors, parks, reserves and public open space
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?p=1&docId=Vx15lDOsvwk%3d

George Malcolm’s Emmett Street Oak Trees (located on the north side of Shirley Road) are not included in this Appendix.

But this Appendix does include the following ‘significant’ trees located on the south side of Shirley Road, in North Richmond.

10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve, ‘Significant’ Trees
– PTG51, 6038, Thuja plicata, Western red cedar
– PTG51, 6039, Quercus coccinea, Scarlet oak
– PTG51, 6041, Liriodendron tulipifera, Tulip Tree
– PTG51, 6042, Liquidambar styraciflua, Sweet gum
– PTG51, 6043, Platanus x acerifolia, London plane
– PTG51, 6044, Fagus sylvatica Purpurea, Copper beech
– PTG51, 6046, Tilia x europaea, Common lime
– PTG51, 6047, Quercus robur, English oak

Dudley Street, Dudley Character Area, Road corridor, ‘Significant’ Trees
25 Quercus heterophylla, Bartram’s oak
STG25: 4596, 4597, 4598, 4599, 4601, 4602, 4603, 4604, 4605, 4606, 4607, 4608, 4609, 4610, 4611, 4612, 4613, 4614, 4615, 4616, 4617, 4670, 4671, 4672, 4674

Q. So why are the trees on the south side of Shirley Road in Richmond, classified as ‘Significant’ Trees, whilst George Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ (located on the north side of Shirley Road in Shirley) are not?

A. Maybe because these trees are located in the Shirley Community Reserve & North Richmond, which is classified as the ‘Dudley Character Area’:
https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Consents-and-Licences/resource-consents/Forms/Character-Areas/Dudley-Design-Guide-2019.pdf
George Malcolm’s ‘Emmett Street Oak Trees’ in Shirley were originally classified & protected as part of the ‘Emmett Character Area’.
But in 2025, this ‘Character Area’ no longer exists in the new Christchurch District Plan.
See: Emmett Character Area