BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH ENV-2013-CHC-019 IN THE MATTER
of of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND IN THE MATTER
of a direct referral under section 87G of the Act
BETWEEN
CANTERBURY CRICKET ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED Applicant
AND
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF DIANE JEAN LUCAS ON BEHALF OF HANDS OFF HAGLEY INCORPORATED ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________ WYNN WILLIAMS LAWYERS CHRISTCHURCH Solicitor: M Perpick (margo.perpick@wynnwilliams.co.nz)
Homebase, Unit B, 195 Marshland Road, P O Box 4341, CHRISTCHURCH Tel 0064 3 3797622 Fax 0064 3 3530247
1 Introduction 1.
My full name is Diane Jean Lucas. I am a landscape architect and landscape planner with more than 35 years' experience. I am a Director of Lucas Associates Limited, a landscape planning, design and management practice I established in Canterbury in 1979 and have worked throughout New Zealand.
2.
I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note dated 1 November 2011. I have complied with the Code when preparing my evidence.
Qualifications and Experience 3.
My qualifications include a Bachelor of Science Degree (Otago University), a post-graduate Diploma and a Masters Degree in Landscape Architecture (Lincoln University). I was elected a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA) in 1987 and am a Registered NZILA Landscape Architect. I am a certified Resource Management Hearings Commissioner.
4.
I have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix 1.
5.
At the request of 10 groups - professional, business and residential in October 1995 I was contracted by the Christchurch City Council to facilitate the Inner City Charrette, a community workshop-based planning process. The process was instigated by the Civic Trust; professional groups including Institute of Architects (NZIA), Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA), Historic Places Trust (HPT), and the Inner City Promotion Team (ICPT), along with residents' groups.
6.
The charrette process and resultant document, “The Shape of Christchurch within the frame of the 4 avenues�, showed an overwhelming vision for a low-rise, lively, aesthetic inner city character with strong historic qualities and identity, amenity, and plains city character. The tree canopy height for major tree belts such as the avenues, park and river corridor, was identified as a desired height threshold for structures to enable the low rise character to prevail. The project received a premier NZILA planning award.
2 I have authored several tree planting design publications1 and of
7.
heritage management2. I have been an advisor on waterway restoration in Christchurch and received a premier award for waterway work. I am familiar with park requirements and was an appointed member of the Garden City Committee, a sub-committee of the Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee. I have developed park plans in Christchurch and assessed proposals in and around Hagley Park, including an amphitheatre assessment. I have developed heritage assessment criteria and am a judge of heritage awards. I am currently a member of the council’s Urban Design Panel and have an advisory role in several anchor projects. 8.
I am very familiar with Hagley Park having lived and worked nearby, and moved around and through the park, for more than 25 years and have undertaken professional assessments within and around Hagley Park.
Scene Setting 9.
Central Christchurch is admired by many from afar. It is essentially a low-rise city of the plainscape. In contrast, trees being essentially taller than nearby built masses, form frameworks to green spaces and corridors have been able to form, creating a strong framework and thus an identity for the city.
10.
Many cities of admired character have a strong identity formed by a coherence created by strong topographic form and pattern. The isthmus of Auckland, whilst often criticised for its lack of built cohesion and spatial coherence, intricate land-sea relationships as well as the dramatic series of volcanoes provide such a strong framework that Auckland is able to achieve some pattern in response, thus some definition and distinctiveness. The vast built environment is broken
1
“Planting Design” Chapter 1 in Trees for the New Zealand Countryside. Pp. 19 – 39. 1984.
“Woodlots in our Landscape” 1987. Landscape Publications Limited. Wellington.
2
Vegetation Management in the Archaeological Landscape. Research report for Department of
Conservation Science and Research. 1993.
3 and somewhat subordinate to the natural pattern provided by the coastal edge, the open water spaces, and the volcanoes as "islands" dotted through, giving a degree of aesthetic coherence and thus identity to greater Auckland. 11.
Wellington, sited on the faultline, wrapping around the harbour hills, but usually not extending onto the upper slopes, giving these the job of forming enveloping green space. The tallest built form steps up the city slopes, enabling Wellington to have a very coherent pattern and identity.
12.
Dunedin, too, wraps the harbour basin, with the tallest buildings confined to the base of the slope, with hill backdrop and green belts encircling on and above the slopes. Together with the coherent built character, this provides an overall exceptionally high aesthetic coherence for that city. The strong coherence and enhanced human scale mean that Dunedin has a distinctive identity and a very high amenity value. This coherence is increasingly recognised, from both resident and visitor appeal, as a valuable city resource.
13.
For Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin, the location on slopes allows for diverse outlooks and spaces and quite different opportunities in relation to building heights and spacings than occur if located on the flat.
14.
As a plains city, Christchurch, being mostly of the subtle plains landscape, lacks the strong topographic frameworks that form the basis for the identity of Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. Lacking anything to relate to, some cities surrounded by plains create their identity through tall buildings - to create an exclamation mark, a focus, a statement, out on the plains. Some, e.g. Brasilia, recognise the expansive plains scale through having substantial buildings of similar scale and of blocky form, but surrounded by extensive open space.
15.
Christchurch, however, is backed by the Port Hills. Traditionally a low rise city with a vast majority of residential buildings being single storey, the Port Hills provide a backdrop enjoyed across the city. The low-rise flats spreading out from the foot of the volcano have enabled the city to have a strong aesthetic coherence, a high amenity, because the urban form has been evident. The taller built node of the central city and the major natural, green and open space features and corridors of
4 the flats are legible. They provide the fundamental pattern that makes sense of the city form. 16.
The major corridors and spaces of the flat central city are those of Hagley Park, the river, squares and surrounding avenues. It is their tree pattern, the scale and continuity of trees forming a logical pattern defining the spaces and corridors and establishing a setting for the built matrix between. The tree pattern is an essential contributor to the amenity of central Christchurch. The tree pattern, along with the open spaces and river, are highly valued resources for city amenity, both in themselves and in what they contribute to city coherence, character and identity.
17.
The importance of the tree pattern and the open spaces, and their contribution to the appeal of Christchurch. If the city is to retain the character and amenity, the appeal of the city, it is essential that structures are designed to respect the tree setting and the open spaces. The central Christchurch tree framework suggests both a vertical and a horizontal scale of reference in the city.
18.
Past planning here and elsewhere has sought to maximise the value of the open spaces and river through allowing/encouraging taller buildings nearby so that a maximum number of occupants of these buildings can enjoy views over the trees space, and river. The aesthetic underpinning this approach gave minimal recognition to potential effects on other users of these spaces.
19.
The taller buildings changed the experience of the spaces through overtopping the tree surrounds and thus reducing the significance of the trees, reducing the naturalistic qualities of the space, and increasing the built character of spaces. Disaster Landscape Context
20.
I have resided and worked in the Central City throughout our quaking era, earlier being within the Red Zone. It has been clearly evident that unbuilt, tree-framed green open spaces formed refuges during the major quake times. In this (hopefully) post-disaster city landscape, the tree-framed green spaces of the central city – Latimer Square, Cranmer Square, the ĹŒtÄ karo Avon corridor and Hagley Park - provide on-going refuge qualities.
5 21.
With the continued flattening of the predominance of built sites in the central city, the tree-framed green spaces have become the major surviving heritage, the symbols of what Christchurch was renowned for, prior to the quakes.
22.
Care is needed in any change to what remains of our historic heritage, particularly the intact and highly valued heritage park, Hagley Park.
Hagley Park 23.
The tree framework is an important contributor to enabling the amenity values to be sustained. The cohesive, large-scale, deciduous exotic tree band characterises Hagley Park. The large tree mass, with high aesthetic value and seasonal variety, is important in setting the scale for the adjoining built city.
24.
The tree cover, clearly overtopping the built fabric within Hagley Park, enables coherence so that various areas are experienced as a single comprehensive unit.
25.
Hagley Park forms the heart of the Garden City. I quote from the website NZ.com: " The Garden City Christchurch City easily wins the heart of visitors with its reputation as New Zealand's Garden City. The Avon River and gently undulating topography of the central city and its surrounds encouraged the city's leaders to recreate 'the best of botanical British'. Hagley Park and the Botanic Gardens The Garden City’s crowning glory is Hagley Park, which offers 165 hectares (407 acres) of mature introduced tree plantings, beautifully thought-out walkways meandering past the river, permanent and evolving garden features and installations, extensive sports grounds, and a small golf-course. There are many cycle tracks and pathways around the perimeter and throughout the park, making it accessible for everyone. In wintertime you’ll find the park packed with people playing sport, especially on Saturday mornings, and in summer the park literally buzzes with
6 activity – people meeting after work for a run or perhaps a game of ultimate frisbee. Although much of the central city has been ravaged by earthquakes and in varying stages of demolition and rebuild, Hagley Park remains a steadfast symbol of the city of Christchurch. Despite a small number of closures of buildings and structures within the Park, the grounds are largely unscathed and are a wonderful reminder of what Christchurch will always be – the Garden City. Hagley Park is a glorious place to wander or exercise all year round, but is especially lovely in springtime. This time of year the park is brimming with daffodils and bluebells – Little Hagley Park along Harper Ave is covered in a carpet of spring flowers, making the area particularly pretty. Christchurch’s Botanic Gardens, located in South Hagley Park, are another magical place to explore, featuring 21 hectares of horticultural displays, conservatories, memorials, walking tracks and unique flora from New Zealand and other parts of the world. The Botanic Gardens are open every day of the year from 7am. Highlights include the Central Rose Garden and the Daffodil Woodlands. Although the Band Rotunda is currently closed due to the recent earthquakes, this area is still cheerfully spring-like – a perfect spot for a picnic. The Peacock Fountain, located in the gardens beside Canterbury Museum, has recently be repainted and restored in its original vibrant Edwardian style. Hire a paddleboat or kayak at the nearby Antigua Boatsheds and peacefully meander through the Park along the Avon River. The water is a great way to see the sights! With towering trees, some as old as 120 years, the park is characterised by woodlands and wide open spaces. Hagley Park has a number of sporting grounds and is home to Hagley Golf Club, Hagley Park Tennis Club, the Christchurch Petanque Club and United Croquet Club and Canterbury Netball. As well as being a recreation centre, the Park is a venue for a number of concerts and festivals, such as the biannual Ellerslie Flower Show, when North Hagley Park becomes awash with landscape-designed gardens of a world class standard. The North Hagley Park Events Village is a temporary entertainment and performance events village
7 which was built in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Since then the Village has hosted events for festivals such as the Body Festival, the Christchurch Arts Festival and the World Buskers Festival. During the summer months as part of the Christchurch City Council’s Garden City SummerTimes initiative there are a number of free concerts and events held in different spots around the Park – check out the SummerTimes website for more information. Two events not to miss are the Anthony Harper Summer Theatre season of Wind and the Willows, which will feature Mark Hadlow from The Hobbit as Toad and The Breeze Lazy Sundays, which will feature an assortment of Christchurch musicians performing on the Archery Lawn every Sunday from January through to early March. Another good reference point for events in and around Hagley Park is the BeThere website. The Christchurch City Council (CCC) website provides you with a map of Hagley Park, as well as a map and information for your tour of the Botanic Gardens. If you’re visiting the city and would like a uniquely Christchurch experience, head to Hagley Park to enjoy the beautiful open spaces, cultivated gardens and vibrancy of this established and much-loved Christchurch landmark." (NZ.com)
Hagley Park South 26.
Whilst records of the original design intent for Hagley Park are scarce, the planting layout and species selection was well-recorded and the management intent is clear. Hagley Park South plantings were recorded as a challenge to establish, due to hare damage, and were thus replaced several times, with varying attempts through species choice to increase resistance to that damage.
27.
A series of historical plans show the planting patterns. The layout was of the English Landscape School tradition, with multi-row long, straight avenues widened to form woodland blocks in several locations. Whilst the land surface involved various undulations and several waterways, the planting layout did not follow these, but involved formal rows, from
8 single to many wide. That is, it was not laid out in naturalistic or picturesque clumps and groves. 28.
The planting layout involved establishment of the single rows and avenues in large-growing deciduous broadleaf species, primarily of European origin. However, within the rows, the deciduous trees were deliberately inter-planted with fast-growing conifer species, particularly pines, to force the deciduous trees into a single, clean-trunked upright form. The infill conifers were removed once the deciduous trees had adequately formed. The purpose of the dense nurse planting to encourage clean trunks was to provide for high visual permeability through the tree rows. A "gothic canopy" was sought.
29.
The dominant characteristic of clean-trunked tree rows has enabled the key heritage landscape attribute of visual permeability through the tree rows and across intervening spaces.
30.
Whilst an aerial photo might suggest limited visual access from space to space, the "gothic canopy" enables exceptional visual permeability from one side of Hagley Park South to another. The grassed ground plane continues through almost entirely undisrupted. There are few paths. Most is accessible grass, which is well-used, formally and informally by many people, by a great diversity of people in daytime plus at dawn and dusk.
31.
The tree spacing has also established an intact canopy that intermittently roofs the park. The canopy above, spaced trunks below and uncluttered space between are crucial landscape attributes with very high intactness through South Hagley and for the Oval.
32.
The character from the upper canopy surface continuity around park spaces sets the scene and the experiential scale.
33.
This character of ground level permeability results in a lack of visual and physical barriers around and across large tree-framed open spaces. Historic Heritage
34.
There is an important simplicity about Hagley Park. This contrasts sharply with the character of the Botanical Gardens. The simplicity experienced from the large open spaces bound by tree rows and woodlands which you can see under, from space to space. The large
9 tree rows and woodlands with dominant trees of similar size that have been specifically managed to display clear single trunks so that the resulting visual and physical permeability of South Hagley is a major heritage and amenity attribute. 35.
Designed in the style of the English Landscape School, the name ‘Hagley Park’ references the founders of the English Landscape Garden (“Changes in the Canterbury Landscape” S.Challenger. Lincoln College. 1974).
36.
The flatness of the grassed surfaces extending from space to space, with the rows and groves of clear trunks enable visual continuity that is highly valued. It is a heritage and an amenity attribute.
37.
Hagley Park and some adjoining areas to the east, particularly Worcester Boulevard to Montreal Street, including the Museum and Arts Centre, provide a strong cohesive heritage landscape character.
38.
As has been well-recognised by colleagues internationally, historically Hagley Park is of high significance. The first funding approval for plantings in Hagley Park occurred in 1858, the year the design for New York’s Central Park was approved, just prior to the statute in England that provided for public recreational land to be set aside. Large tree-lined open spaces, long vistas, avenues and woodlands were key ingredients. Simplicity and grandeur are essential components.
39.
Egalitarianism was a fundamental intent for Hagley Park. It was to be a common or people’s park. Not a place for segregated interests.
40.
South Hagley was leased out for grazing from 1852; lessees had to fence their stock but were not allowed to impede the public’s access for recreation or amusement “or to interfere with the right of way across it in any direction”.
41.
From 1859, Enoch Barker guided the overall design and layout of the park, undertaking substantial tree plantings. This work was reportedly ‘One of the first attempts at “landscape gardening” in the Colony.’ (Lyttelton Times 1866).
42.
That year, the United Canterbury Cricket Club located its pavilion and club to the South Hagley site, followed by other cricket grounds
10 established across Addington Brook toward Hagley Avenue (Attachment 4). 43.
Designed on traditional English lines, the pavilion reinforced Barker’s English planting aesthetic (Beaumont, 2012). Barker resigned the following year, and by then the surrounding tree belts were all established. (Challenger, 1979).
44.
John Armstrong was responsible from 1867 – 1889. He completed the tree belts, increasing the depth of some, and established permanent footpaths. Around South Hagley, additional avenues were planted in 1875 along Riccarton Road, Hagley and Moorhouse Avenues, plus a woodland on the south-west corner of the park. Particular broadleaved deciduous trees were favoured by Armstrong for their carbon absorption properties, as they were understood to correlate with environmental health (Armstrong, J.B. “Planting in Towns”. New Zealand Country Journal. 1 January 1880, 4:50).
45.
Nurse trees of various pine species were established between the deciduous broad-leaved specimens. The pines typically formed every second row and every second plant, and were removed when they were 5, 10 or 15 years old. (Armstrong, J. B. The Forming and Management of Plantations. New Zealand Country Journal, Vol 3, No 2, 1879, page 101).
46.
The effect of the nurse trees continues to be enjoyed today, with the single clear trunk formation, side branches discouraged, and high branches forming a canopy. The clear trunks and high canopy allow views through Park spaces and beyond. English grasses were cultivated in the spaces between tree plantings.
47.
The large-scale planting across the park between 1862 and 1889 determined the landscape aesthetic for the park. The walk around Hagley Park was soon recorded as “one that for sylvan beauty cannot be surpassed” (The Star 3 November 1887).
48.
By 1889 there was considerable criticism that the development of clubhouses and barriers was alienating areas and was contrary to the requirement that the Park be a place of recreation for all. Hedging of playing fields was not allowed initially, as they were considered to adversely affect the character that was being worked toward. However
11 with a clutter of buildings appearing, hedging was allowed to mitigate their visual effects where possible. 49.
The eastern corner of South Hagley, between Riccarton and Hagley Avenues, was the venue for the International Industrial Exhibition. The building was more than 200 metres long and 85 metres wide. Construction began in January 1882 and was all removed by September 1882 (Attachment 7).3
50.
Taking control in 1889, Ambrose Taylor thinned, pruned and removed trees including the remaining nurse pines, to open and manage viewshafts through the Park and to the Port Hills. He worked on the avenues and woodlands to “lift up the trees to form a Gothic archedshaped canopy” and sought to clear space between each avenue tree of around 15 metres (The Star, 11 February 1899). Taylor managed the trees to achieve “outlook” to and through the spaces beyond.
51.
The hectare behind the Netball Centre was planted in 1893.
52.
James Young, in command from 1908 to 1932, continued the pruning and thinning, and new plantings continued the established aesthetic of large-growing, broad-leaved deciduous trees.
53.
The Cricket Club caretaker’s house was built south of the Umpires Pavilion, where the Council caretaker's house is today (Attachment 8, lower).
54.
Post-war, with an increased demand for sporting facilities, small buildings became dotted across the Park and sports grounds were enclosed with planted hedges or fences. There was major public concern expressed at potential conflict between the Park’s active amenity role, its aesthetic values and a loss of the landscape’s spaciousness.
55.
The fundamental planted structure of Hagley Park is the oldest surviving aggregation of planted trees in the city. The layout and
3
This exhibition should not be confused with that of 1905, when 116 acres of North
Hagley Park was fenced off for the New Zealand International Exhibition in 1906-07. Special buildings were constructed just for the Exhibition. As an indication of the scale, 37,000 people attended the opening. All structures were removed afterwards.
12 management has followed an English parkland aesthetic with broadleaved deciduous species planted in orderly lines, avenues, perimeter belts and woodlands demonstrating visual and physical permeability. The simplicity created by the spatial layout, species selection and tree management is a very important attribute of the historic heritage of the Garden City. It is a major landscape and amenity value of the city. South Hagley, including the plantings and spaces associated with the Hagley Oval, exemplifies this landscape and heritage character 56.
The heritage significance is associated with the first government gardeners and their decisions on English Landscape Design through the spatial layout, species selection and ongoing management toward achieving spatial enclosure, shelter, shade, and, visual and physical permeability.
57.
In several woodland blocks, long term conifer species were also incorporated. Up until the 1940s, much of the park was leased for grazing.
58.
The stature and maturity of the trees, their venerable broadleaved character, their individual legibility as well as their massing as a simple high canopy, means the tree cover has very high landscape value. They are crucial in defining South Hagley’s sense of place, heritage and amenity value. The continuity of the near-level ground surface beneath and visual and physical permeability between the tree trunks, allowing views through the trees, across and between spaces and beyond, providing the desired ‘ample uninterrupted promenade’.
59.
The tree belts define Hagley Park in total. For the simpler landscape of South Hagley, which generally has greater landscape integrity in total, the simple uncluttered land surface and permeable spatial divisions with grand over-arching canopy forms, form very important historic heritage in the city. They display a depth of time, and a clarity of purpose at a surprisingly large scale for a central city, and this is internationally valued. (eg Attachments 6, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 41, and 43).
60.
Various more recent introductions detract from the integrity, including several utilitarian structures, including the large Horticultural Centre, the caretaker’s house beside the Umpires Pavilion, and the soccer light standards alongside the grounds to the south.
13 61.
The tree rows, belts and woodlands created spaces and spaces were also created within the grand belts. As identified by heritage landscape architect Louise Beaumont (Conservation Plan: Hagley Park and Christchurch Botanic Gardens. Draft May 2012. Vol 2, S. 1, page 19) “The spatial organisation of Hagley Park reflects some of the common maxims of design for Victorian-era public parks with the formation of the planted perimeter, limited use of tree massing (clump planting or the formation of groves) in the internal spaces of the park, and an early design emphasis on pedestrian and equine promenade and other public sporting amenity.”4
62.
As was identified in 1926, the space of the Park as a whole has a high value to the community. Encroachment by buildings and vehicles has been strongly resisted. That the needs of sports groups have been considered contrary to the highly valued parkland aesthetic was identified to illustrate the community’s deep sense of attachment to the Park and its various spaces.
63.
The Umpires Pavilion is not only a heritage asset to the Oval, it is a heritage asset enjoyed from across Hagley Park South, and from lengths of the surrounding Avenues, specifically Deans Avenue and Riccarton Avenue. Located in the Oval in 1866, this heritage building contributes importantly to the heritage landscape of Hagley Park.
64.
Either side of the Oval are two houses, with a small amount of associated private space for these caretakers' homes. This is the only private space in Hagley Park South.
65.
The crucial attribute of visual and physical permeability through Hagley Park, within and through tree masses and between tree trunks, makes the Oval a core feature in South Hagley. Highly visible from near and far, the Umpires Pavilion makes it a landmark in the Oval. The near-level grassed surface allows for the full view of the Umpires Pavilion. The 13 m long, two-level Umpires Pavilion sets the scale for the space. It is the focus. Excepting the Horticultural Centre set back from the edge, the other buildings are not of overly larger scale. It is the visual and heritage appeal of the Umpires Pavilion and the small
4
Note: All content in this plan is the property of the Christchurch City Council unless
otherwise acknowledged.
14 built scale around the oval that enables this space to have a village green character. The trees and space dominate. It is an overwhelmingly green space, not a dominantly built space. It is a space that is so inextricably visually and physically linked to spaces beyond, with the level ground surface extending out between the trees to the west and south. The smaller Oval space is appreciated as part of the greater South Hagley. As a continuous part. A special part. 66.
As recorded by R. T Brittenden in “Great Days in New Zealand Cricket” (1958, page 34), “In September, 1864, the Canterbury Provincial Council granted the Christchurch Cricket Club the lease of 30 acres of Hagley Park,…. The council wisely stipulated that the public must always have the right of access to the area, and it was thus saved from becoming an arena.” The current proposal would now convert that ground to an arena.
67.
Brittenden recalled that “Hagley matured and the legends were born beneath the sturdy elms and oaks.” “At day’s end the stumps cast long shadows across the soft grass to the mellowing timbers of the ancient pavilion. The “serenity of the surroundings” was appreciated, being identified as “The loveliest ground in the world.” (pp. 33-4).
68.
He recorded further that: "The pavilion from the original ground was also brought down, long lines of trees were planted, live fences established, wells sunk, and the first club match was played in November, 1866…."The pavilion is still there, nearly 100 years of age, … From it some of the world's greatest cricketers … have gone out to play.” “… the only bowler in the world to take all ten wickets in an innings in his first-class debut – and he did it at Hagley.”
69.
The grand tree lines of the surrounding park have, for more than a century, been part of the experience of the Oval. The undisrupted grass surface between pavilion, Oval and surrounding park has long been appreciated.
70.
South Hagley and the Oval are not enjoyed merely from fixed viewpoints. They are part of people’s experience moving around and through the Park. Many people do this daily. The nuances are wellknown and appreciated. The experience, the vistas and spaces vary as you move, whether on cycle or foot within or around, or by car. The
15 experience changes markedly with the seasons, with greater visual permeability in winter. 71.
In 2003, Dr Janet Stephenson (Patina. 20105) described heritage landscapes as ‘those landscapes, or networks of sites, which deserve special recognition or protection because of their heritage significance to communities, tangata whenua or the nation.� Hagley Park is undisputedly a heritage park of high significance. The Oval within South Hagley is within a Christchurch Central heritage landscape that embraces the whole of Hagley Park and the adjoining heritage complexes including Christ’s College, Canterbury Museum and the Arts Centre on Worcester Boulevard. It is a network of sites that is of very high heritage significance to the Christchurch, Canterbury and wider communities. The integrity of this heritage landscape, of the relationship between sites within it, requires particular consideration in terms of the proposed development.
72.
The Regional Policy Statement, Chapter 13, Objective 13.2.1, requires the identification and protection of significant historic heritage. Objective 13.2.2 requires recognition that such values are often expressed in a landscape setting which requires protection from inappropriate development. The Christchurch City Plan and the Hagley Park Management Plan address these aspects, and Ms Briggs outlines those measures.
73.
Under Policy 13.3.3 of the RPS, significant historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes are to be protected from inappropriate development. That policy states: Significant historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes are to be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. When determining the significance of values of historic cultural or historic heritage landscapes, the following matters will be considered: (1) Heritage fabric (2) Time depth
5
Beyond the Scene. Landscape and identity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Ed. Janet
Stephenson, Mick Abbott, Jacinta Ruru. Otago University Press. Page 165.
16 (3) Natural science value (4) Tﾄ］gata whenua value (5) Cultural diversity (6) Legibility and evidential value (7) Shared and recognised value (8) Aesthetic value (9) Historic or cultural importance 74.
The significance of Hagley Park South in total is largely due to the integrity of assessment matter (1) heritage fabric. The layout around 150 years ago of the grand tree framework spread out around and across generally level grassed space, and the management of those trees and the grass beneath to maximise the spatial qualities, maximise the visual and physical permeability and allow for maximum all-purpose public usage and enjoyment, has been commendable.
75.
The spatial integrity of South Hagley overall has high intactness. The Hagley Oval is a key feature within this, as a continuity of the smooth grassed open space framed by clear-trunked trees. The grand stature of the tree trunks and canopy, the treed continuousness, the evident age and intactness demonstrate highly significant heritage fabric.
76.
These characteristics also demonstrate significant time depth (2). The English Landscape Garden style remains very highly legible (6). The heritage values of the tree-framed grass spaces that form South Hagley have very high shared and recognised value as can be shown through the public responses to various proposals and planning processes over the last century.
77.
Within the Hagley Oval, the Umpires Pavilion is a heritage feature that has been present and enjoyed there for almost 150 years. The scale of the structure, the elevated viewing balcony and detail of the construction contribute importantly to the village green character that exists within the Oval.
78.
The elevated viewing balcony is an important characteristic of the series of cricket buildings, excepting the former cricket building, the Horticultural Centre. The other buildings are of small footprint, typically more enclosed below, with balconies and windows for over-viewing the Oval above. The two-storied built form with the upstairs over-view
17 focus is an important characteristic of the surrounding cricket structures. The Umpires Pavilion is the most elegant in this regard. It forms a distinctive landmark when viewed from near or far, including from along Deans Avenue. The distinctive heritage building relates to the tree-framed Oval space but is also a key feature in the vistas from beyond. 79.
The Umpires Pavilion has buildings of a similar scale either side. The St Albans Cricket Club pavilion to the north, and the caretaker's house to the south. Some decades ago, this house replaced the original caretaker's house on that site (attachments 15, 26). Whilst low profile and with a hedge around, the current house does not assist the heritage and aesthetic values of the Oval. To respect the restoration of the Umpires Pavilion, any upgrade project for the Oval would preferably revamp the caretaker's house. Whilst an acknowledged negative in this space in the management plan, the current proposal is as yet silent in addressing this issue.
80.
I understand that the Horticultural Centre was built by Canterbury Cricket. The adverse visual effects of that building are referred to in the application documents. Whilst within the "site", it is disappointing that no effort is made in the proposal to improve the aesthetic of that building and its environs. The facility is unbecoming to Hagley Park South and highly visible from many directions. The only effort by the Applicant is stated to be to place the Pavilion to (somewhat) block out the view of it from the Oval. This is a very narrow approach to the issue.
81.
The aesthetic value (8) enjoyed around and within the Hagley Oval, and from adjoining spaces and routes, the vistas through, to, and from the Oval are of very high significance. The regular tree placement in single and multiple rows, all open beneath and canopies enmeshed above, form a major aesthetic attribute. The grass surface that is clearly visible linking between trees, surfacing across spaces and providing the continuity and base ingredient that links the Park together. It is the tree, grass space combination and their absolute visual clarity that is a valued aesthetic.
82.
The flatness of the grass surface through South Hagley enables full visual continuity. The mounds at the Netball Centre, whilst of
18 naturalistic form, are obvious as works associated with the Courts, and not part of the broad park surface. Whilst barely 2 metres in height, the larger one blocks the visual continuity from alongside Hagley Avenue across the Park. It provides a visual separation that is contrary to the overall Park heritage character. Landform separation is not a Park characteristic. 83.
Hagley Park, South Hagley and the Hagley Oval are a series of nested heritage sites of high historic importance in Christchurch and Canterbury. The historic heritage requires consideration in terms of section 6(f) of the RMA and Policy 13.3.3 of the RPS.
The Site 84.
'The Site' has been defined by Mr Nixon (para 1.7) and is shown at Attachment 2, along with the 'Polo Grounds' which are to accommodate event parking. As mentioned earlier, the eastern boundary to The Site is along the Addington Brook, a spring-fed waterway that is an important Central City ĹŒtÄ karo / Avon tributary. Existing access and car parks intrude into this degraded natural feature. The proposal involves no landscape analysis or plans to address remedying this or other existing adverse effects within the site. Nor is there any proposal to address appropriate access to service the major new venue proposed.
85.
The site involves a central space within South Hagley. The space is blocked off to the east with a series of buildings and some vegetation. To the south and west, it is open to adjoining spaces.
Assessment of Effects 86.
I have analysed the attributes of Hagley Park and the proposed development of cricket facilities in Hagley Park South to international level requirements as proposed by Canterbury Cricket, as Papa Kirikiti. In summary, I assess that the pavilion, embankment and lighting as proposed would have significant adverse effects on the park's valued heritage landscape character and the amenity attributes enjoyed. In addition, the temporary structures and concentration of activity associated with large and multiday events have the potential to
19 have further adverse effects on the public's everyday experience of the Park landscape and amenity. 87.
From my analysis I assess that the proposal does not remedy existing adverse effects, instead exacerbating a number of them.
88.
The application involved no landscape analysis to underpin the proposal, no identification of issues needing to be addressed. The assessments by landscape architects have merely assessed three proposed features, the pavilion building, the embankment mounding and the lighting structures. The landscape has not as yet been comprehensively assessed by the applicant or the partner agencies. Yet, as has previously been identified (Heremaia, 2003)6 the Horticultural Hall and associated car park are inconsistent with the overall English parkland character of South Hagley. These were developed by Canterbury Cricket and are within the application site. Yet there has been no analysis and no attempt to address the existing landscape issues in the site redevelopment.
89.
The application is to provide a “replacement pavilion”. The former Canterbury Cricket building, now the Horticultural Centre, was a former cricket pavilion. Replacement or redevelopment of this intrusive structure is desirable. Whilst it is currently owned by the Horticultural Society and included within the application site, it is disappointing for an anchor project to be contemplated without a comprehensive approach to “the site” being undertaken.
90.
Considering the site as involving significant historic heritage, in terms of Policy 13.3.3 of the RPS, I note that the Policy goes on to state: In relation to [the management of significant historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes] and determining the appropriateness of scale, form and location of development in these areas, the following matters will be considered: (a) Cultural sensitivity of the proposal (b) Integrity or intactness of the landscape, items, features or linkages
6
Heremaia, Christine "Case Study: Hagley Park Management Plan (1991)", Lincoln
University.
20 (d) Vulnerability to change or modification (e) Recognition of boundaries (f) Opportunities for maintaining values 91.
For more than a century there has been considerable cultural sensitivity regarding the intent of the park being for the enjoyment of all, and the pressure for more exclusive activities. The proposal is one such activity involving a corralling of a core area with an embankment, introducing a building of a scale that would dwarf the heritage spatial qualities and heritage features of that space, introducing very hefty lighting standards of a height that would dwarf the tree canopy that is the crucial scene-setter of Hagley Park.
92.
The landscape integrity of South Hagley, within which the Hagley Oval is a subset, is very vulnerable to intrusion through built structures and landform change. The spatial qualities are vulnerable to intrusion by buildings. The Pavilion
93.
The large, white pavilion structure would introduce a much greater scale and presence of structure to the Oval and to Hagley Park South in total. Even with burial into the embankment, the pavilion would be somewhat visible across much of Hagley Park South. It would jostle to form a landmark, but be segregated by the embankment. Given the unbuilt character and long open vistas which are major attributes of Hagley Park, the pavilion corralled in the Oval would appear out of scale and out of context.
94.
The visual effects of the Pavilion would not be confined to the Oval. The proposed pavilion is of a very large scale that will command control of the Oval and of the vistas and spatial relationships beyond. The size and whiteness proposed mean that it will be highly visible.
95.
The Pavilion will adversely affect the historic heritage through the dominating scale and character of the building. The Umpires Pavilion would no longer command this space. Instead the Pavilion would dominate it. The Umpire’s Pavilion would become a minor curiosity, a little heritage left-over, and no longer the visual and heritage core of this place and space.
21 96.
The essential park character of domination by trees and grass would be significantly adversely affected by the introduction of the Pavilion. The integrity and intactness that are important historic heritage attributes would be significantly adversely affected by the introduction of the Pavilion.
97.
Considering the raft of Objectives and Policies and the direction they provide, I assess the Pavilion to be inappropriate. As outlined by Ms Briggs, it is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies, and it would result in highly significant adverse landscape, amenity and heritage effects. The Embankment
98.
The park as part of the plainscape is a place of gentle terrain, of flatness, excepting for the waterways. Except where obstructed by structures or dense vegetation at least 1.5 m high, the flatness enables high visual permeability. The introduction of the embankment over 2 m high would separate the Oval space from the Hagley South landscape context.
99.
Enjoyment of the vistas, such as more distant through from Deans Avenue or nearby from the Lime Walk, Christ's College Grounds and the Polo grounds, would be intercepted by the embankment. Walking by, the embankment extending above head height, would provide a separation from the Oval. (attachments 26 - 38).
100.
The sudden embankment slope would be a disruption to the visual and physical permeability of South Hagley and of the Oval specifically, that is in contradiction to the historic heritage attributes long valued and recognised.
101.
When walking by, the height is such that it would appear as a deliberate screen to the space beyond. A segregation of spaces.
102.
The embankment would screen out the lower storey of the existing pavilion structures, removing their relationship with the surrounding spaces.
103.
Whilst a slot through the embankment is proposed to the Umpires Pavilion, this does not allow retention of the relationship of that building to the breadth of the Oval. Most certainly it does not allow retention of the relationship to the wider South Hagley.
22 104.
The relationship between heritage attributes of the Oval and its heritage building would be very significantly adversely affected by the construction of the embankment.
105.
From within the Oval space, the enclosure by the embankment would create a very different landscape experience that is contrary to the integrity and intactness of South Hagley as a heritage park.
106.
With the geometric form of the embankment extending to above eyelevel, with just 2 narrow slots cut through, with the large embedded Pavilion building, and with the 4 very large embedded lighting masts towering above, the Oval would be transformed into an arena. Whilst utilising the surrounding tree canopy as backdrop, the Oval would no longer relate to South Hagley as in the heritage character defined. From within, the corralled and built Oval would be experienced as separated and apart.
107.
Whilst the embankment structure would be grassed, and therefore have some visual continuity with the adjoining spaces and their surfaces, that does not mitigate the effects. The elevation forms a wall, and whilst a green wall, it would significantly disrupt the visual relationship from one side to the other. It would be too high to see over. It would disrupt the ground surface permeability to and through the space.
108.
From outside, and from beyond, the Oval would be considerably separated from South Hagley, visually, physically and psychologically.
109.
I assess the corralling embankment proposed to be inappropriate.
110.
Due to the fundamental heritage landscape characteristic of high visual and physical permeability through and across Hagley Park, the large embankment encircling the Oval would permanently 'wall out' the public, making the Oval a seemingly exclusive place and foreclosing viewshafts. The continuity of the levelled and grassed plains surface across the various Hagley Park South spaces, continuing through the deliberately managed tree rows, would abruptly change to a rather steep circular and obviously very artificial grassed landform.
111.
The embankment would be an inappropriate landform feature in South Hagley Park.
23 112.
The corralling embankment would seek to selectively display and screen structures to Oval users. In doing so, it would disrupt important views across Hagley Park South, for the small scale and upstairs overview character of several of the existing cricket buildings contribute to amenity, heritage and landscape character. From within and around the Oval and South Hagley, the embankment would visually “knee-cap� them. The Lighting Structures
113.
The lighting structures, both the substantial masts and the large light heads mounted on them, would introduce modern and out-sized structures to a small "village character" site. Even whilst retracted, the structures would breach the tree canopy. Being almost the width of a full grown tree, the hefty-looking structures would belittle the trees that are the context and setting for the Oval. The lights would visually disrupt the heritage landscape character created by tree canopy that forms the highly valued spatial framework to South Hagley and the Oval.
114.
The 1.5m x 1.5m octagonal lighting masts would form substantial structures extending out of the embankment. Extending up 30 metres or more, they would extend above the tree canopy. The mast head structures some 10 m wide and elevated would appear almost the width of the Umpires Pavilion. Their modern character would be in stark contrast to the heritage character of the existing Oval.
115.
The integrity of the tree canopy around South Hagley and around the Oval is a very important heritage attribute. The masts would be visible from various places within and around the Park. When walking by, their bases would be evident, and the scale and height of the mast heads.
116.
Variously visible intruding through the tree canopy, the very substantial lighting structures would introduce modern and out-size structures aloft that would diminish the integrity of the tree canopy. Whilst only visible at intervals, their presence would intrude into the grandeur that the tree canopy provides across the Park space.
117.
The lighting structures would be intrusive and clumsy introductions to a place valued for its fine-grained attributes.
24 118.
I assess the lighting structures would have significant adverse effects and to be inappropriate at the Hagley Oval. Overall Landscape Character and Amenity
119.
The proposal to establish a venue capable of hosting international cricket was stated by the applicant to be founded on a number of key design influences, including: • The over-arching desire of all stakeholders to preserve the longstanding quality and accessibility of Hagley Park for all users, as a shared recreational heart to the city; • The retention of the park setting with an established grouping of mature trees around the presently established natural oval grassed clearing, with the loss of no trees or historic buildings; • A commitment to establish a village-green atmosphere utilising the present treed oval enclosure, rather than to develop a ‘stadium’ type venue.
120.
From my analysis of the site and its context landscape including its heritage, I assess that the proposal fails to adequately address these provisions. The long-standing quality and accessibility of South Hagley would be disrupted by the structures and embankment that disrupt perceived accessibility. The Oval would no longer read as a shared space in south Hagley, but as a space owned by a large Pavilion and defined by an embankment.
121.
The proposal would not retain the relationship with the surrounding trees, the grassed space or the historic buildings. The large scale building, lighting and embankment would significantly disrupt the valued relationship between trees, space and historic buildings.
122.
The existing Oval already has a village green atmosphere and the proposed development would convert that to instead an enclosed arena. "Temporary" Effects
123.
The additional structures such as the TV towers, grandstands extending metres above the embankment, the car parking in and around Hagley Park, fencing, entrances structures and portaloos, which would occur on an ongoing but intermittent basis, would exacerbate the effects of the activity occurring.
25 124.
A picket fence is proposed to encircle the pitch inside the embankment. It is able to have advertising attached to it and will be present for the length of the season (September – April).
125.
I assess that the presence of the picket fence would further segregate the cricket Oval from surrounding Park enjoyment. In addition to the embankment barrier, the fence would impede casual access by runners, and would impede the visual continuity of the green space. The fence with any advertising would make a strongly commercial presence which is alien to the Hagley Park character outside of specific events. The picket fence scale would be somewhat more in keeping with the Umpires Pavilion. However being physically separated from it by the embankment, with the Umpire’s Pavilion largely hidden behind, the picket fence will not have any legible heritage connection. Located in front of the large modern Pavilion, the little picket fence may appear rather incongruous. Around events a mesh fence would be installed around the outside of the embankment. The triple barriers, of picket, bank and mesh, would create visual clutter that is inappropriate, resulting in significant adverse effects. In my assessment, the design is inadequate to avoid, remedy or mitigate these adverse effects. Access
126.
As is appropriate for such a park, I understand there are currently no allocated access route or car parks for cricket activities. With the large development proposed, which would inevitably have substantial regular servicing and other access requirements, no specific access or parking is proposed. This will result in the significant parking requirements being placed in an ad hoc and likely inappropriate manner, creating significant adverse effects on the existing landscape, character and amenities of the park. Avon Catchment – Addington Brook
127.
The Hagley Park Management Plan is one of several council documents where the intent to reduce the degraded state and naturalise Addington Brook is recorded. Disappointingly the applicant ignores this need. The waters of the Addington Brook are very contaminated. Drainage from the Oval is all piped into Addington Brook. The car park intrudes on the waterway space. Yet the conflicts
26 in sustainable management of this resource are ignored in the application and in the experts’ reports and evidence. Mr Field states there is no need for any landscape works. Whilst part of the “site”, the degraded state of the areas shared with the Horticultural Centre is entirely ignored in the application. 128.
Investigations into Hagley Park have for some time been critical of the management of the Avon tributaries as utilities, and the need for naturalistic restoration works along Addington Brook (C. Heremaia 2003). Bank re-grading and riparian restoration are very obviously needed for the Addington Brook length that is part of the application site. Because of the excessive degradation of the stream corridor, the undercut and eroding banks, and the very contaminated waters, a comprehensive approach is necessary to ensure the stream is adequately addressed to support the aspirations for the health and life of the Ōtākaro Avon.
129.
My site analysis endorses the concerns previously identified. That to enable the naturalisation of the stream banks and natural stream movement, some facilities such as car parking and access routes may need to be removed or relocated. The anchor project involves several partners that should appropriately take responsibility for the Addington Brook enhancement as part of the proposal. The Canterbury Cricket application has ignored this need. Disappointingly, the assessments by my colleagues Mr Field and Mr Brown have also ignored this issue.
130.
Water quality studies undertaken by the Christchurch City Council (CCC) between 1992 and 2006 identified Addington Brook as a significant source of pollution for the Avon River/Ōtakāro. Golders' study for Environment Canterbury, published January 2012, notes that Addington Brook is part of the stormwater network with waters channelled through stormwater pipes and road gutters before becoming an above ground stream as it passes through Hagley Park, to then be discharged untreated into the Avon River/Ōtakāro. Golders (2012) identify that Addington Brook waters smell anoxic and is the most contaminated waterway tested in Canterbury: “In the biofilm survey results reported in this document, Addington Brook had the highest number of ISQG exceedances across the range of parameters analysed – three exceedances of the ISQG-High guideline (arsenic, nickel and zinc) and four exceedances of the ISQG-Low guideline
27 (cadmium, copper, lead and mercury). It seems highly likely that the ecological values in this stream are being compromised as a result.� (Golders 2012 page 80) (see also summary data at Attachments 44 46). 131.
Waterway restoration in Christchurch has been led by landscape architects. Whilst neither Mr Field nor Mr Brown may have been actively involved in such projects, it is not acceptable to ignore the degraded waterway within the site as a landscape issue requiring remediation. Heritage
132.
My assessment of the proposal overall is that it would have significant adverse effects on the environment, in relation to the historic heritage values of Hagley Park. I assess that, even when not in use, the pavilion, embankment and lighting structures would not protect the historic heritage of Hagley Park South. The proposal is thus assessed as inappropriate development in terms of section 6(f) of the RMA, a matter of national importance.
133.
The importance of such a historic heritage landscape, composed of various heritage items, places and areas, provides a crucial sense of identity to Christchurch and Canterbury. The City Plan and the Hagley Park Management Plan recognise the important English Heritage Landscape character of South Hagley. As is recognised in the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, Policy 13.3.3, adverse effects on such significant historic heritage are to be avoided in the consideration of any development proposal. Amenity
134.
The proposed structures and activities, both when not in use and when hosting events, would not maintain or enhance the amenity values of Hagley Park South, or of the Oval specifically, in terms of section 7(c) of the RMA. The proposal would not maintain or enhance the pleasantness, the aesthetic coherence, the cultural or the recreational attributes of the Oval and its context landscape, which are all highly valued dimensions.
28 135.
I assess that this historic landscape requires protection from inappropriate development, and that the Oval development proposal is inappropriate development.
136.
I note that the proposal is to be assessed as a non-complying activity, and therefore must either be not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies, or not have any adverse effects on the environment which are more than minor. I have reviewed Ms Briggs' analysis in relation to the relevant objectives and policies, and agree with that analysis. In my view, the proposal fails on both limbs of section 104D of the RMA.
Remediation Required 137.
The caretakers house and Horticultural Centre within The Site have been recognised in Hagley Park planning documents as landscape issues. No effort has been applied in the application to remedy these issues, nor to address the degraded Addington Brook along the east of the site.
138.
The adverse visual effects of what is now the Horticultural Centre are referred to in the application documents. The lack of visual appeal of this large building, which was originally built by Canterbury Cricket for cricket activities, has not been adequately addressed to achieve mitigation through management of this site.
139.
Whilst within the “site�, it is disappointing that no effort is made in the proposal to improve the aesthetic of that building and its environs. The facility is unbecoming to Hagley Park South and highly visible from many directions. The only effort by the applicant is stated to be to place the Pavilion to (somewhat) block out the view of it from the Oval. This is a very narrow approach to the issue.
140.
Whilst maligning the use of camouflage colours on buildings – presumably such as The Atrium building owned by Netball interests, and the Tennis Pavilion in North Hagley (see attachments 39 and 44) - the proposal is for a structure around twice their size and white and therefore of considerably greater visual presence. Yet the park planning documents seek a lessened built presence.
29 141.
As has been recorded in various council documents, with changing community requirements, the Netball Association and Horticultural Society have both sought alternative uses for their buildings. I understand they unsuccessfully sought to realise the equity in their buildings.
142.
As is appropriate for such a park, I understand there are currently no allocated access route or car parks for cricket activities. With the large development proposed which would inevitably have substantial regular servicing and other access requirements, no specific access or parking is proposed. The application provides no landscape analysis of site access. Disappointingly, no landscape analysis has been provided of the site or proposal.
Christchurch Central City Recovery Plan 143.
The Recovery Plan states the underpinnings as including the “greening of the city, embracing and improving the health of the water and the river, and a strong sustainability focus to the redevelopment of public and commercial spaces” recognised as of importance for all communities of greater Christchurch. (CCRP page 11).
144.
As stated on page 17, “A city’s identity is made up of its collective memories which create a sense of place. After a natural disaster this becomes even more important.” The “Green City” aspiration (page 23) was for a “revitalised Ōtākaro/Avon River corridor, and improved surface stormwater treatment”. Papa o Otakaro / Avon River Precinct is shown (page 37) to extend from the Carlton Bridge on the Bealey Avenue – Park Terrace corner, down to Armagh Street, and also from Rolleston Avenue through to Fitzgerald Avenue. That is, it does not include the meander around the Botanic Gardens, but lengths upstream and downstream of this.
145.
Addressing heritage, the plan identifies (page 39) that existing heritage “will continue to define the identity of central Christchurch and provide a point of difference for visitors and residents alike.”
146.
Addressing sustainability, the plan seeks “Greening the city, embracing and improving the health of the water and the river, and focusing strongly on sustainable redevelopment” (page 41). It is stated
30 (page 45) that the aspirations for a “green” city are reflected in the Blueprint Plan and the anchor projects. 147.
The Avon River Precinct anchor project (pages 53 – 56) seeks to bring life and health to the waters, to improve water quality, to protect and enhance springs and waterways and to better treat and manage stormwater. “Specific measures will be taken to improve the water quality of the Otakaro/Avon River. Rain gardens, planted swales and other treatment measures are references as tools for the cleanup. Addington Brook is shown flowing into the river upstream of the Hospital.
148.
On The Blueprint Plan (page 33), stating that the Hagley Cricket Oval will be “enhanced”, the proposed pavilion and the encircling embankment with two gaps, are shown.
149.
Listed in the Blueprint (page 87) for the Cricket Oval anchor project is the addition of a grass embankment, lighting and a “replacement pavilion”. The Pavilion is to have “lounge and media facilities” Training and coaching facilities with indoor and outdoor nets are proposed. It is stated that the project will stimulate activity in the area. Identified partners in the project include CERA, CCC, New Zealand Cricket, private sector and other government agencies as necessary. Canterbury Cricket is not referenced
150.
The CCRP seeks comprehensive development to enhance urban design opportunities. It is mentioned on page 107 that fragmented underlying landholdings can be a barrier to a comprehensive approach. With council ownership of the lands of and around The Site the lack of a comprehensive approach is questionable, particularly in regard to access and waterway management.
………………………………. D J Lucas 14 May 2013
attachments
to the evidence of
Di Lucas, Registered NZILA Landscape Architect Hagley Oval, April 2013
print A3, landscape, double sided, bind left photo taken: April 2013
BEALEY AVE
R
N
O AV
Hagley Park North
E RIV
CRANMER SQUARE VICTORIA
DEANS AVE
WORCHESTER STRET
Ricc
LATIMER SQUARE
FITZGERALD AVE
BOTANIC GARDENS
arto
n Av e
MONTREAL STREET
Hagley Oval
Hagley Park South
Ave y le
g
Ha
MOORHOUSE AVE
Hagley Oval in Central Christchurch, post-quake
attachment 1
source: Google Earth, 26th April 2012
Christs College Grounds Hagley Oval Polo Grounds Hockey Ground
Netball
Ricca
rton
Ave
Hagley Oval
Addington Brook
Hagley Park South
Hagley Oval - “the site” as per application
attachment 2
Hagley Park Plan 1850
attachment 3
source: DRAFT Maps in Conservation Plan for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Volume One: History, Christchurch City Council 2013
Hagley Park Plan 1867 source: DRAFT Maps in Conservation Plan for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Volume One: History, Christchurch City Council 2013
attachment 4
Hagley Park 1955
attachment 5
source: DRAFT Maps in Conservation Plan for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Volume One: History, Christchurch City Council 2013
Hagley Park aerial, 24th October 2007
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HagleyParkAerialPhoto.jpg
attachment 6
the buildings had been removed and five of its six ornamental fountains had been razed from the site, using charges of blasting powder. However, one fountain was left intact on the site where the main building had been located.289 This was variously described by The Star as a “memento” and “memorial” of the exhibition and was said to serve the purpose that Mr Joubert intended to be fulfilled by the foundation stone.290 No information concerning the fountain's removal or relocation VOLUME 2. S has been located to date.
performed in a way that cannot fail to afford satisfaction to every member of the club. A hawthorne (sic) hedge has been planted, and a small ditch dug round the ground. The old fe has been strengthened by the addition of two more wires, and has been properly strained a stayed. An iron gate has been put up at the corner of the fence nearest town, and by the er of a stile, the members are enabled to get to the ground.”108
Soon after this meeting and once the new Club's finances had been determined the pavilio the Canterbury Club's former grounds was divided into sections, relocated to its present sit the Oval and reassembled by George Blockley for the sum of £28 and 10 shillings.109
Figure 3.19 Postcard view of the main exhibition building from Lincoln Road ( Hagley Avenue). Over the following years the pavilion became the home of various cricket clubs, the last be Source: PhotoCD 1, IMG00013, CCL
Marist in the 1980s.
New Zealand Tablet, 3 February 1882, p. 11; The Star, 24 August 1882, p. 3 The Star, 31 January 1882, p. 3; Exhibition Sports Committee Scrapbook 1882, CH343/75b,CCCA 289 The Star, 20 September 1882, p. 3 290 Ibid; The Star, 27 September 1882, p. 2 287 288
CONSERVATION PLAN: HAGLEY PARK AND CHRISTCHURCH BOTANIC GARDENS VOLUME ONE: HISTORY
New Zealand International Exhibition, Hagley Park, Christchurch 1882
attachment 7
source: http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Photos/Disc2/IMG0008.asp source: NZHPT File 12009-086 Figure 1.82 Photograph of the Cricket Pavilion,1869 showing saw tooth detailing. Photograph of the Cricket Pavilion, 1869 showing saw tooth detailing Source: NZHPT File 12009‐086
1892. The Christchurch Ladies’ Golf Club began to share the 18 hole layout of the Christchurch Golf Club's course •
•
1893. Christchurch Polo Club pavilion erected to a design approved by the Board
•
1893. Christchurch Golf Club erected a hut (on wheels) on North Park to hold their equipment
•
1896. Hockey Club granted ground between the polo ground and the College Cricket club
•
1899. Model Yacht Club pavilion erected near Victoria Lake
•
1901. Golf Course reduced to nine holes in 1901
•
1902/ 1903. Christchurch Golf club surrendered its lease and removed its hut on wheels
•
1904. Hagley Golf Club formed and took over the nine‐hole course
1905. United Bowling, Tennis and Croquet Club took up a lease of 3 acres, 3 roods and 27.2 perches in North Hagley Park in an area “bounded by the Plane Avenue Riccarton Road and the Wellingtonias.” Their two‐storey pavilion was erected in December 1905 •
source: 1/2-028957-G, ATL ExplodedFigure 3.6 Photograph of a lithograph depicting the England vs. Canterbury cricket match held at 'Dilloway's' detail from “All England II. V 22 of Canterbury, N. Zealand 8th, 9th, 10th Feb. 1864 North Hagley Park, in February 1864. Enoch Barker's perimeter plantings are depicted as a running belt to the
rear of the stands and tent. The pavilion (right background) was constructed for this event. Source: Exploded detail from “All England II. V 22 of Canterbury. N. Zealand 8th, 9th, 10th of Feb. 1864” 1/2‐028957‐G, ATL 'Dilloway's Ground and Hagley Oval', Unsourced publication held on New Zealand Historic Places Trust Christchurch Branch File: 12009‐086 139 Reese, T. W. (1945) A short history of Hagley Park, pp. 4‐7 140 The Press, 21 November 1906, p. 12 141 Lamb, R.C. (1981) From the Banks of the Avon, p. 125 142 Hagley Park bridges including Carlton Mill and Helmore's. CAAR 19946 CH287/ICPW 2525/1876, ANZ 138
CONSERVATION PLAN: HAGLEY PARK AND CHRISTCHURCH BOTANIC GARDENS VOLUME ONE: HISTORY
Cricket Pavilion and caretaker’s house, South Hagley Park, circa 1908
Figure 3.37 Cricket Pavilion and caretaker's house, South Hagley Park, ca. 1908. Source: Part of G‐004102‐1/1, ATL
358
source: Part of G-004102-1/1, ATL
attachment 8
Sheep grazing in Hagley Park, 1910 `In the past, animals grazing on urban green spaces like Hagley Park, Christchurch, would have been a common sight. Farm animals were kept in urban areas well into the 20th century and parks were a convenient place to house and feed them, particularly if saleyards were nearby. Owners had to get permission from the local council – but not all did, particularly in the early days of settlement when local government structures were still emerging.`
attachment 9
source: www.teara.govt.nz, 1910
Hagley Park
source: Brian Brake, Te Papa online collection
Hagley Oval Addington Brook
embankment proposal
Hagley Oval
Addington Brook
1850 Landcover of Christchurch
Christchurch Ecosystems Wet Plains
source: Lucas Associates 2011, based on Waterways, wetlands, and vegetation cover of the Christchurch Region, as at 1856. Modified by J. Walter based on a compilation in Wilson (1989), which was based on the Black Rural Section cadastral maps of 1856.
source: Lucas Associates & Ian Lynn, Landcare Research 1995
Dry Plains
Kahikatea kereru - manatu, older plains ecosystem Pukio pukeko - karamu, peat plains ecosystem
Houhere piwakawaka - kohuhu, mid-age plains ecosystem
Totara bellbird - matai, older plains ecosystem
Underlying Ecosystems of ‘the site’
attachment 10
River Avon
Ricca
rton
River Avon
Ricca
rton
Ave
Hagley Oval
Hagley Oval
Addington Brook
LiDAR image (DRAFT March 2011)
attachment 11
Ave
Addington Brook
LiDAR image (DRAFT March 2011) with embankment proposal
HAGLEY PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007
Hagley Park Landscape Zones source: Hagley Park Management Plan 2007, Christchurch City Council
27
attachment 12
OR IA
TC
ST
E
COLOMBO ST
CT
RK
Deciduous canopy trees to provide shade in summer
E E R AV
DURHAM ST
VI
PA
HARP
MONTREAL ST
B E A L E Y AV E
SALISBURY ST
Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings Heritage buildings that housed the early provincial government
Te Puna Ahurea Cultural Centre
KILMORE ST
Botanic Gardens New Visitor Centre
(indicative)
New Visitor Centre including inter pretation and information facilities, a new café and greenhouses
Local traffic and buses only along part of Cambridge Terrace to provide widened river corridor
Cricket Oval
Bridge of Remembrance
RI
War memorial and gathering space at the end of City Mall. Design improved to remove visual barriers and improve access
CC
AR
TO
Commuter cyclists on true left bank
Papa o Ōtākaro Avon River Precinct HEREFORD ST
Health Precinct N
CAMBRIDGE TCE
OXFO
The Frame
Historic riverside recreation since 1882
H
G
L
E
E
M O O R H O U S E AV E
attachment 13
TUAM ST
ST ASAPH ST
Metro Sports Facility
MONTREAL ST
A
V
HEREFORD ST
RD TC E
Antigua Boatsheds and Footbridge
A
Justice & Emergency Services Precinct
CASHEL ST
A
VE Christchurch Hospital
Y
Retail Precinct
COLOMBO ST
Addington Brook
Cambridge Terrace
Convention Centre
DURHAM ST
D E A N S AV E
Riccarton Stream
R O L L E S T O N AV E
ARMAGH ST
COLOMBO ST
Additional islands provide habitat for birds
source: Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, 2012
Christchurch Central Blueprint Summary (pp 5-6) overlain with Avon River Precinct Te Papa o Ōtākaro (pp 55-56)
Hagley Park on a winters day without the maintenance fence
source: Save Hagley Park’s Facebook page
Cricket in Hagley Park
source: Save Hagley Park’s Facebook page
attachment 14
St Albans Pavilion and Umpires Pavilion
attachment 15
source: Athfield Architects Ltd Hagley Cricket Oval Perspectives, View 4 Existing p.10
RICC
view 9 view 10
view 11
view 12 view 13 view 20
DEANS AVE
view 15
view 14 view 16
view 17
Hagley Oval
ART ON A VE view 8 view 7
view 1 view 2 view 3 view 4
view 18 & 19
view 5 view 6
temporary carpark
view 23 view 22 view 21
E
GL A H
VE A Y
MOORHOUSE AVE Photo Locations
source: Google Earth, 26th April 2013
attachment 16
VIEW 1: Existing entry into the Horticultural Hall carpark from Riccarton Ave.
attachment 17
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 2: Looking south along Addington Brook toward Horticultural Hall
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 18
VIEW 2: Looking north along Addington Brook to Riccarton Ave.
attachment 19
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 3: Looking north along Addington Brook, Horticultural Hall access on left
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 20
VIEW 4: Looking north along Addington Brook, Old Boys Collegians Pavilion on right to be demolished
attachment 21
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 5: Addington Brook (Old Boys Collegians Pavilion on left to be demolished)
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 6 : Addington Brook by Horticultural Hall
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 22
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Horticultural Hall
VIEW 7a: Looking south over Hagley Oval from second floor of Umpires Building
VIEW 7b: Looking south over Hagley Oval from second floor of Umpires Building (panorama stitched)
attachment 23
Store Shed (to be demolished)
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
Photo taken: 5th May 2013
Umpires Pavilion
VIEW 8: Looking south over Hagley Oval from beside Umpires Pavilion
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Horticultural Hall
Store Shed (to be demolished)
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
attachment 24
St Albans Pavilion Umpires Pavilion
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Groundsmans House
VIEW 9: Looking south over Hagley Oval from carpark on Riccarton Ave.
attachment 25
Horticultural Hall
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
VIEW 10: Looking south over Hagley Oval from Line Walk Groundsmans House
Riccarton Pavilion St Albans Pavilion
Umpires’ Pavilion
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 26
VIEW 11: Looking south-east over Hagley Oval to the Port Hills
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013 Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
attachment 27
Horticultural Hall
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 12: Looking south through Line Walk and over Hagley Oval St Albans Pavilion
Umpires’ Pavilion
Groundsmans House
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
attachment 28
St Albans Pavilion
Umpires Pavilion Groundsmans House
VIEW 13a: Looking south through the line walk and over Hagley Oval
VIEW 13b: Looking south through the line walk over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
attachment 29
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Horticultural Hall
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
Riccarton Pavilion
St Albans Pavilion
Umpires’ Pavilion Groundsmans House
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Horticultural Hall
VIEW 14: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval from Line Walk
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
VIEW 15: Looking north-west over Hagley Park South over Christs College grounds
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
attachment 30
VIEW 16: The Line Walk entrance from Riccarton Avenue and carpark
attachment 31
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 17a: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval from near Christs College facilities
Photo taken: 29th April 2013 St Albans Pavilion
Umpires Pavilion
Groundsmans House
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
attachment 32
VIEW 17b: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
attachment 33
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
Umpires Pavilion
Umpires Pavilion
VIEW 18: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
Groundsmans House
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 34
St Albans Pavilion
Umpires Pavilion
Groundsmans House
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
VIEW 19a: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 19b: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 35
VIEW 20a: Looking east from Deans Ave over Hagley Park South to Hagley Oval & Umpire´s Pavilion
Umpires Pavilion
Groundsmans House, grandstand & sheds
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013 Store shed (to be demolished)
attachment 36
Groundsmans House
VIEW 20b: Looking east from Deans Ave over Hagley Park South to Hagley Oval & Umpire´s Pavilion St Albans Pavilion
attachment 37
Umpires Pavilion
Groundsmans House, grandstand & sheds
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
VIEW 21: Hagley Avenue and Netball Association building (Atrium in the Park)
Photo taken: 5th May 2013
attachment 38
VIEW 22a: From Hagley Ave over Netball court mound
attachment 39
Photo taken: 5th May 2013
VIEW 22b: From Hagley Ave over Netball courts, across temporary carpark to Hagley Oval
Photo taken: 5th May 2013
attachment 40
VIEW 23: Hagley Avenue’s Avenue
attachment 41
Photo taken: 5th May 2013
Looking east from Riccarton Ave over Hagley Park North
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 42
Hagley Park North from Riccarton Ave looking over Rugby Fields through to Tennis Club
attachment 43
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
518
51820
1570000
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN 14 STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY
8
r St
rea
! (
m
13
o
i ve R n
5175000
Concentration (g/m≥)
0
1
Zinc
50 - 220 > 220
2
3
! ( ! ( ! (
< 200
Hagley Oval
> 410
4
Datum: NZGD 2000 Lead and mercury concentrations were below the ISQG-Low trigger value at the majority of sites. Dock Projection: Transverse Mercator 1570000 1575000 1580000 Creek at Chamberlains Park (Amberley) and Avon River/Ōtakāro at Fitzgerald Ave (Christchurch) reported lead and mercury concentrations above the ISQG-Low trigger but as noted above, lead exceeded the ISQGDECEMBER 2011 CITYatCOPPER, LEAD AND ZINC CONCENTRATIONS HighCHRISTCHURCH trigger in Taitarakihi Creek SH1 (Timaru).
1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand NZ Topo50 Series, Crown Copyright Reserved. 2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.
5 Kilometres
© Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.
TITLE
PROJECT
1078105525
gt on
1565000
COMPARED TO ANZECC SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
25
Canterbury regional urbanvalue stream at sediment and biofilm surveyabove, p 67, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012 Zinc concentrations exceededsource: the ISQG-Low trigger 10 sites and quality as noted zinc exceeded the ISQG-High trigger value in Addington Brook.
3
Dock Creek
4
Dock Creek
10
Avon River/Ōtakāro
13
Avon River/Ōtakāro
15
Addington Brook
ermission infringes copyright.
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
16 18 19
15
11
! (
19
at
! (
Legend
! (
Sediment sample site Waterways
source: clipped from Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm 1.quality surveyEarth, p 27, reportReserved. prepared Aerial: Google Copyright Image Date 15/02/2 2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012 1566000
TITLE
SAMPLING
S:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2010\10781x\05xxx\1078105_525_ECanSedim
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 65, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
January 2012 Report No. 1078105525
Ad
Arsenic
Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
0
Addington Brook sampling site 15
Location
d in
S:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2010\10781x\05xxx\1078105_525_ECanSedimentQualitySurvey\MapDocuments\SedimentSampling\Fig25_ChristchurchCopperLeadZincConcentrations_GIS.mxd
Table 9: Summary of sites where exceedences of ANZECC (2000) sediment quality guidelines were found in this study.
! (
200 - 410
k
! ( 65 - Brook (at 270 ! Arsenic concentrations were below the ISQG-Low trigger value at all sites except for Addington Riccarton Ave (Christchurch). Copper concentrations exceeded the ISQG-Low trigger value one site ! ! ( >at270 ( (Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho at Annex Road).
Site No.
r
am
All sites recorded cadmium, chromium and nickel concentrations below the ISQG-Low trigger value. This Copper Lead indicates that concentrations of these parameters would be unlikely to cause adverse effects on aquatic ! ! ( < 65 ( < 50 biota.
am
He
21
Av
In Figure 25 and Figure 26 the concentration of copper, lead and zinc has been presented graphically in a 17 traffic light system, where green denotes sediment metal concentrations were below the ISQG-Low, yellow denotes concentrations above the ISQG-Low, but below the ISQG-High, and red denotes concentrations above the ISQG-High. Table 9 provides a summary of the ANZECC (2000) ISQG exceedences. Legend: 18 Only two ISQG-High trigger values were exceeded across the entire survey: 20 20Brook at Riccarton Ave (Christchurch) Cu Pb Zn Zinc in Addington Site no. Lead in Taitarakihi Creek at SH1 (Timaru)
m
! (
ee
22
tre
5180000
5175000
S
rea
12
Cr
5180000
ov e
r St
trea m
5180000
am
i ri S
© Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.
Stre
The ANZECC (2000) sediment quality guidelines are used in this section to assess the potential effects that sediment quality may have on biological communities inhabiting 10 the stream. Increased concentrations of metals in stream sediments have the potential to adversely affect stream biota that inhabit these sediments. 15 the exposure of organisms to pore water within the sediments. Metals adsorbed to Toxicity arises through sediment particles are in equilibrium with the metals in the pore water. The concentration in the pore water is a function of many factors 11 including the redox state of the sediment (how much oxygen is present) and the rate of diffusion between the pore water and the overlying stream waters. Concentrations can in some situations become high enough to exert toxic effects on biota. It should be noted however, that toxicity may arise from constituents other than metals. Ammoniacal nitrogen is common in stream-bed sediments 19especially if organic matter builds up and the sediments become anaerobic. A number16 of studies have shown that ammoniacal nitrogen in sediments is often implicated as the prime causal agent of toxicity.
tre
ma
5178000
Ok e
ai
ov e
S
9
iri in Metal Concentrations in Sediments Implications of Changes
13
W
5176000
ma
Ok e
Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright.
ai
¯
5180000
6.6
1580000
m Ila
Information contained in this drawing is the copyright of Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. Unauthorised use or reproduction of this plan either wholly or in part without written permission infringes copyright.
W
12
1575000
m Ila
© Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd.
1565000
65
attachment 44
Table 8: Metal/metalloid concentrations in sediment samples collected from Canterbury streams. Site Number
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
1
Lyell Creek
6.4
0.32
17
27
27
0.094
16
160
2
Lyell Creek
5.4
0.12
14
14
17
0.065
13
81
3
Dock Creek
4.8
0.45
20
32
150
0.17
10
260
4
Dock Creek
2.8
0.21
12
11
17
0.078
9.1
220
5
South Brook
2.4
0.056
11
7.6
14
0.044
7.5
57
6
Middle Brook
3.4
0.12
12
27
48
0.071
8.6
140
7
North Brook
2.0
0.062
11
8.2
19
0.080
8.7
79
8
Avon River/Ōtakāro
7.7
0.15
30
20
32
0.11
15
150
9
Avon River/Ōtakāro
3.7
0.11
17
14
25
0.060
14
110
10
Avon River/Ōtakāro
4.4
0.52
19
40
110
0.17
14
380
11
Avon River/Ōtakāro
1.9
0.074
12
10
20
0.051
11
81
Avon River/Ōtakāro
1.0
0.12
11
8.9
27
0.047
8.9
120
3.6
0.28
15
35
70
0.083
9.4
250
12 13a
Addington Brook sampling site 15
Waterway
1
Avon River/Ōtakāro
13b
Avon River/Ōtakāro
4.0
0.30
15
38
70
0.077
9.4
250
13c
Avon River/Ōtakāro
4.0
0.29
16
41
72
0.086
10
270
14
Dudley Creek
2.1
0.052
10
4.6
14
0.038
8.4
61
15
Addington Brook
21
0.24
16
16
39
0.047
14
500
16
Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
4.6
0.30
28
25
36
0.078
13
250
17
Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
18
Heathcote
2.1 0.040 URBAN 11 6.0 0.043 8.6 CANTERBURY REGIONAL STREAM SEDIMENT AND10BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY 7.3
0.45
21
54
50
0.087
14
71 410
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 49, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012 January 2012 Table Trace element Report 15: No. 1078105525
Site Number
Waterway
1 2 3 4
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Lyell Creek – Information Centre
9.2
0.2
35
85
16.5
0.21
27
115
Lyell Creek – u/s SH1
11.4
0.25
29
92
10.9
0.26
27
92
9
0.42
53
124
121
0.23
48
450
6
0.32
68
73
21
0.29
35
200
7
0.25
68
96
23
0.34
35
240
Dock Creek – Chamberlains Park Dock Creek – d/s Lawcocks Rd South Brook - u/s Railway Rd
6
Middle Brook- Denchs Rd
12.5
0.27
42
74
108
0.19
28
390
7
North Brook – d/s stormwater pond
8.8
0.31
46
90
55
0.32
47
174
8
Avon River/Ōtakāro – Pages Rd
18
0.19
40
28
49
0.2
20
157
9
Avon River/Ōtakāro – Kerrs Reach
15.9
0.23
35
54
57
0.21
32
320
10.3
0.41
38
92
79
0.33
30
460
16.4
0.43
33
98
93
0.36
34
410
10
0.36
67
128
130
0.3
49
260
24
0.61
41
62
129
0.21
29
780
90
6.0
39
121
80
0.23
91
7,100
10.6
0.32
56
43
59
0.16
21
300
12 13 14
attachment 45
Arsenic
5
11
Addington Brook sampling site 15
concentrations in biofilms from urban streams in Canterbury. 49
15 16
Avon Rivew – Antigua Boatsheds Avon River/Ōtakāro – Carlton Corner Avon River/Ōtakāro – Mona Vale Dudley Creek – Banks Ave Addington Brook – Riccarton Ave Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho – d/s the cut
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 75, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012 January 2012
a) Arsenic
b) Cadmium 7
100
Biofilm Sediment
90
*ISQG - High 10 mg/kg
6
80
Cadmium (mg/kg)
60
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Biofilm
5
ISQG - High 70 mg/kg
70
50 40 30
Sediment
4 3 2
20
ISQG - Low 20 mg/kg
ISQG - Low 1.5 mg/kg
1
10 0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Site Number
Site Number
c) Chromium
d) Copper
90
300 *ISQG - High 370 mg/kg
80
ISQG - High 270 mg/kg
ISQG - Low (80 mg/kg)
250 Biofilm
60
Biofilm
200
Sediment
Copper (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
70
50 40 30
Sediment
150
100 ISQG - Low 65 mg/kg
20 50 10
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY 0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Site Number
Site Number
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 77, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
Figure 27: Concentrations (mg/kg) of (a) arsenic, (b) cadmium, (c) chromium and (d) copper recorded in biofilms and sediments at stream sites sampled in 2011. ANZECC recommended sediment quality trigger values for ISQG "high" and "low" are shown. Site names corresponding site number are listed in Table 2. a) Lead b)and Mercury 300
0.45 Biofilm Sediment
ISQG - High 220 mg/kg
Lead (mg/kg)
200
150
100
77
0.35 Biofilm
0.3
Sediment
0.25 0.2
ISQG - Low 0.15 mg/kg
0.15 0.1
ISQG - Low 50 mg/kg
50
*ISQG - High 1.0 mg/kg
0.4
Mercury (mg/kg)
January 2012 Report No. 1078105525 250
0.05 0
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1
Site Number
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
d) Zinc
100
2000
90
1800
Biofilm
80
*Biofilm Zinc Concentration at Site 15 continues to 7100 mg/kg
1600
Sediment
Biofilm
1400
60
ISQG - High (52 mg/kg)
50 40 30
ISQG - Low (21 mg/kg)
Zinc (mg/kg)
70
Nickel (mg/kg)
3
Site Number
c) Nickel
Addington Brook sampling site 15
2
1000 800 600
20
400
10
200
0
Sediment
1200
ISQG - High 410 mg/kg ISQG - Low 200 mg/kg
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Site Number
Site Number
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 78, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
Figure 28: Concentrations (mg/kg) of lead (a), mercury (b), nickel (c) and zinc (d) recorded in biofilms and sediments at stream sites sampled in 2011. ANZECC recommended sediment quality trigger values for ISQG "high" and "low" are shown. Site names and corresponding site number are listed in Table 2.
attachment 46
Gannet Point
Hagley Park South sign on Deans Ave.
Photo taken: 29th April 2013 View from Titirangi Road over Melville Cove
attachment 47
Appendix 1 - DI LUCAS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT , CV Director of Lucas Associates Limited, Christchurch, a Registered NZILA Landscape Architect and Fellow member of NZILA (1987), Di works in community -friendly planning and design processes for creative and sust ainable solutions. Having skills in landscape assessment, landscape ecology and restoration, natural character analysis, community consultation, heritage values, sustainable resource management, creative problem solving and documentation, Di works on a ran ge of projects around Aotearoa New Zealand. Projects var y in scale from broad frameworks for regions, districts and towns to planning development or restoration for specific sites, working for community, industry, landowners, iwi and government agencies. Di has undertaken landscape assessments for a wide diversity of projects and locales, utilising an holistic approach. She has undertaken assessments and prepared plans and proposals under various conservation statutes as well as the RMA. The Lucas Associates team has twice been awarded New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s premier landscape planning award, the NZILA Charlie Challenger Award, the only recipient of this award in the decade to 2005. Di received a NZILA landscape planning 2008 Gold Award for evidence to the Environment Court. Assessment and Planning Di Lucas is a qualified Resource Management Act decision maker . Landscape assessment, reporting and preparation of evidence, including to council and Environment Court hearings, regarding landscape, natural and amenity value s of rural and urban areas, and sites, working variously for individuals, landowners, community groups, iwi, councils and government departments. Community Plans Facilitation of rapid community-based workshops ranging nationwide, town and/or country, with on-site immediate follow up preparation of community plans and documentation - typically a week or a month from â&#x20AC;&#x153;go to whoaâ&#x20AC;?. Biodiversity and Land Collation and communication of complex scientific data through the interpretation of land, geomorphology and biodiversity, enabling restoration via eas y to understand field booklets, brochures and plans. Sustainability Sustainable management plans recognising natural and cultural values, land use practices and alternative markets, through enhanced landscape mana gement.