Surface Water Strategy

SURFACE WATER STRATEGY LANDSCAPE VALUES’ ASSESSMENT

for Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Christchurch and Banks Peninsula

Lucas Associates

June 2008

1

SURFACE WATER STRATEGY LANDSCAPE VALUES’ ASSESSMENT CONTENTS

Page

1. SUMMARY

4

2. SURFACE WATER DEFINED

7

3. LANDSCAPE DEFINED

9

4. LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY

15

5. Landscape Type 1.

Hill Country

21

6. Landscape Type 2.

Colluvial Country

39

7. Landscape Type 3.

Bottom Lands

47

8. Landscape Type 4.

Coastal Lands

57

9. Landscape Type 5.

Wet Plains

69

10. Landscape Type 6.

Dry Plains

81

11. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

85

12. Landscape commons

85

13. Special Landscapes

86

14. Modified Landscapes

89

15. Aesthetic Preferences

96

16. CATCHMENT VISIONS & TARGETS

102

17. CONCLUSIONS

106

APPENDIX

109

The Coast

110

The Plains

110

The Hill

111

BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

Cover underlain with Water Grasses, Tapestry by Ida Lough, 1974 The Collections, Te Puna o Waiwhetu, Christchurch Art Gallery Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

2

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

3

1.

SUMMARY – reviewing the past to enable a sustainable future

Addressed holistically, landscape provides a useful framework for understanding the character, roles, issues and opportunities for surface water management in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

Surface waters have for eons sculpted the lands that now define Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. The surface waters have dissected the craters, worked the coast, and deposited the plains. The rains weathering hill slopes, waves washing onto shores, rivers braiding and transporting sediment and nutrients, the spring-fed arising and meandering, the periodic snows, floods, storms and drought, these have formed the landscapes that underlie the Christchurch City Council (CCC) District.

From mountain snowflake to mobilised pebble and coastal arrival, from hill raindrop to plant uptake and transpiration, from spring waters to wetland habitat and tidal flows, the surface waters have defined and nurtured these landscapes. The surface waters resulted in natural processes, formed natural patterns, and, interacted with and sustained natural elements, to result in characteristic natural landscapes for the hills, coast and plains of the CCC District.

Since settlement, the surface waters of these landscapes were variously confined, denuded, barricaded, detoured, sealed off, detained, contaminated, piped and discharged. The extensive buildings, acres of asphalt, concrete channels, pipes and boxed drains have resulted in surface waters by-passing the soils, wetlands and riparian margins of urban areas. Hard and compacted surfaces, confined streams, denuded banks and drained soils have sped up the paths from raindrop to coast in both town and country.

With waters, sediment and nutrients not dispersed, riparian and wetland buffering removed, biodiversity minimised, the watertable lowered, soils moisture-deprived and erosion increased, landscape resilience has been markedly reduced. Surface waters became an element to be separated and disposed of. The surface water interface and expression in landscapes was thus considerably reduced or simplified. Very different landscapes have resulted.

For the last decade, effort has been made by CCC to value and nurture surface waters through re-instating some of the natural processes and elements of the surface water systems. Buffers and storage essential to robust systems have been constructed. Effort has been made to re-naturalise some streams, to protect springs, to restore wetland processes, to encourage rainwater infiltration through vegetation

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

4

to soils, to enable floodwaters to be held and slowly released, to enable estuarine margins to re-establish. These actions enable more resilient landscapes to be established. They enable the surface waters to again define the core structure of each landscape. Water management can be planned, designed and interpreted to achieve a diverse aesthetic. Reinstating natural functions need not involve a naturalistic aesthetic.

Vegetated surfaces including green roofs, yards and berms; rainwater storage and soakage, permeable surfaces, swale drainage and riparian buffer vegetation; meandering stream courses, ponds and wetlands, and complex coastal ecosystems; plus de-stocked and vegetated rural springs, streams and wetlands.

In slowing and nurturing the paths of raindrops, strategies and policies need to ensure adequate space is allowed for water-based processes to both operate and to be experienced and enjoyed as the core of each healthy catchment-based landscape. Together these measures can provide for new, resilient landscapes of diverse expression and character.

Interpretations of “landscape” are considered particularly with respect to assessing appropriate futures. The use of widely accepted landscape criteria or factors, that address natural science values, legibility (expressiveness), aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness, shared and recognised values, tangata whenua values and historic associations, are considered generally appropriate. These recognise that “landscape is the distinctive character of an area”1. The expression and management of surface waters can be a key underpinning of that character.

Waterways and water management can define the landscapes of the CCC District to respond to social and heritage values, and environmental issues and opportunities.

Heightened community and commercial expectations of sustainable management, along with urban and rural landuse intensification, and climate change projections of decreased rainfall but increased high-intensity events, provide very substantial challenges for management of surface waters as a key resource and environmental attribute. Addressed as functioning ecosystem, as spatial framework and as definer of character, surface waters would be appropriately managed catchment by catchment in response to underlying land type to achieve sustainable, distinctive and well-loved landscapes.

1

Professor Simon Swaffield. 2008. pers.com.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

5

With water increasingly viewed as the “new gold�, with resources increasingly stressed and vulnerable, there is potential for wider Christchurch to be creatively managed as a sustainable garden city. Place-based spatial strategies are essential to nurture responsive and innovative change. Development of a landscape management model is recommended that celebrates the local distinctiveness of the urban and rural. The natural and cultural heritage, including the horticultural and agricultural heritage across the wider district, should inform a catchment-focussed, sustainable landscape approach to nurture surface water from source to sea.

The Waimakariri River forms the northern boundary to Christchurch

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

6

2.

SURFACE WATER DEFINED

“Surface water” means all naturally occurring water, other than subsurface water, which results from rainfall on the site or water flowing onto the site including that flowing from a Drain, stream, river, lake or sea.2 “Drain” means Wastewater Drain or Stormwater Drain.3 “Wastewater Drain” means a Drain primarily for the reception and discharge of Contaminants.4 Surface water is thus more than the freshly fallen raindrops, the runoff over a surface, the springs bubbling up, and the natural streams. It includes coastal waters variously washing onto shores, into estuaries and up streams. It includes water flowing from man-made systems including from downpipes, rain-water tanks and open drains, plus grey water emitted to a site from a pipe or channel, and sewage ponds.

Surface water thus includes both ‘natural’ and ‘used’ waters, waters arriving on a site either naturally or being piped or channelled there, but not swimming and ornamental pools “filled from the tap”.

As recognised in defining these waters in terms of their flow onto a site, surface water is inextricably linked with land. Whether rural or urban, surface water management cannot be considered without considering land management, nor without consideration of artificial surfaces on which waters naturally arrive as rain, runoff, waves or tide.

Surface water therefore occurs in the CCC District in several forms: 1. Freshwater, from rain, fog, hail or snow as: •

soil-moisture, saturated humus and as a film on vegetation;

•

runoff from buildings, hard surfaces and land, and in channels and swales;

•

water bodies - streams, drains, wetlands, ponds, lakes, rain gardens and retention basins;

•

springs and spring-fed water bodies fed from inland.

2

CCC Proposed Water Related Services Bylaw 2008. p. 7 CCC Proposed Water Related Services Bylaw 2008. p. 6 4 CCC Proposed Water Related Services Bylaw 2008. p. 7 3

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

7

2. Treated Wastewater, as: •

surface disposal fields,

•

grey-water irrigation,

•

effluent irrigation,

•

wastewater ponds.

3. Salt or brackish water, as: •

estuary and dune lakes and wetlands;

•

inner harbours;

•

tidal reaches of streams;

•

coastal beaches and reefs.

The presence and management of surface water is a major attribute in many of the wider district landscapes, both urban and rural. Surface water flowing from spoutings, downpipes and channels into swales, storm-water ponds, streams, wetlands and lakes, we read these in the landscape as surface water features. Frequently implicit, as a lushness at a node or along a corridor, as vegetation growth expressing the presence (or absence) of surface water contributes the essence to a place.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

8

3.

LANDSCAPE DEFINED

The landscape reflects the cumulative effects of physical and cultural processes5.

“Landscape comprises more than the purely visual.”6 “Landscape” is not defined in any of the statutes. Landscape is widely interpreted to include both the physical and the experiential.

“The physical resource in any area is expressed in landscape. In addition, each area is perceived and experienced. The values people place on these areas are subjective, although many are widely shared ... Landscape as a human experience combines both aesthetic values and other values which humans attribute to landscape. Used in this sense landscape is not only the physical appearance of land, but also the subjective baggage each person carries with them - what they know, what they imagine and how they are disposed.”7 The Waterways and Wetlands Guide interprets “landscape” as “The special character of sites, aesthetic quality, and sense of place to people and communities.” However, under Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) practice, an explicitly broader understanding has emerged. "We consider it useful to consider "landscape" as a large subset of the environment” ”We have already observed that 'landscape' involves both natural and physical resources themselves and also various factors relating to the viewer and their perception of the resources." and, “We also regard ‘landscape’ as a link between individual (natural and physical) resources and the environment as a whole.”8 The Environment Court has endorsed the more holistic approach to addressing landscape, developed from the Canterbury Landscape Study (1993), as the accepted criteria to assess landscapes and features 9 10 11: •

the natural science factors - the geological, topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape;

5

NZILA Statement of Philosophy W90/2004 Gannet Beach Adventures Ltd v Hastings District Council & Cape Kidnappers Stn. para. 44 7 Boffa Miskell & Lucas Associates. 1993. Canterbury Regional Landscape Study.

8 NZRMA 59 WESI v. QLDC. para. 70, 78 9 W24/2007 The Outstanding Landscape Protection Society v. Hastings District Council & Unison Networks. para. 107.

10 W82/2007 Save the Point v. Wellington City Council. para. 66 11 W90/2004. Gannet Beach Adventures v. Hastings District Council & Cape Kidnappers Stn. para. 46 6

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

9

•

its aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness;

•

its expressiveness (legibility): how obviously the landscape demonstrates the formative processes leading to it;

•

transient values: occasional presence of wildlife; or its values at certain times of the day or of the year;

•

whether the values are shared and recognised;

•

its value to tangata whenua;

•

its historical associations.

These criteria have been utilised for the recent landscape study of the Banks Peninsula area of the city12 and are referred to in the Banks Peninsula Proposed District Plan Chapter 19, Overview.

In addition, the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (RPS) (8.2 policy 3) addresses the sensitivity of regionally significant natural features and landscapes in terms of their: •

Aesthetic values – gauged by things such as: i.

how memorable they are;

ii.

their naturalness; and

iii.

their

composition

(how

their

elements

fit

together) •

Expressiveness (the ability of a landscape or feature to legibly portray or express the formative processes from which they evolved) comprises:

12

i.

the underlying geology;

ii.

topography;

iii.

vegetation and wildlife present; and

Banks Peninsula Landscape Study. Boffa Miskell Limited for CCC. 2007.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

10

iv.

human influences past or present.

Examples are particularly evident in the … volcanic craters of Banks Peninsula”.

•

Transitory values, which include: i.

wildlife occurrences or behaviour that are associated with places and impart distinctive qualities that although transitory are a noted characteristic, and,

ii.

characteristic moods arising from local weather patterns.

•

Natural science factors, comprise: i. landforms; ii. soil properties; and, iii. their related active physical processes.

The RPS criteria thus address some of the dynamic and natural dimensions, as well as the perceptual. They are useful for landscape assessment with respect to surface waters, however their explanations should include that of the equivalent criteria, and therefore natural science factors should also include ecological dimensions.

Various areas of the CCC District are identified as of regional significance, including Banks Peninsula and the rural Port Hills, Te Waihora and Kaitorete Spit.13 The lower Waimakariri, River and Brooklands Lagoon, Travis Swamp, Avon Heathcote Estuary, Riccarton Bush, McLeans Island Woodland and Grasslands were also assessed as of regionally significance on the plains14. In addition, rivers, springs, wetlands, river terraces, coastal cliffs, dunes, inland sandhills, tussock and flaxlands, shrubland and forest, and pre-historic sites were assessed as generic features of the plains of regional significance15.

13

RPS Chapter 20.4 (1) Boffa Miskell & Lucas Associates. 1993. Canterbury Regional Landscape Study. Vol. 1, pp.68 - 70.

15 ibid. Volume 1, page 70.

14

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

11

Considering natural dimensions of landscape assessment, the various criteria recognise that a feature or ecosystem need not be scarce or rare to contribute importantly to landscape functioning and value. Considering ‘natural’ in terms of landscapes and natural character, natural does not equate with ‘pristine’. The RPS (Appendix) defines “natural” as “a predomination of elements that are natural rather than made by people.”

Natural and naturalness can be usefully addressed in terms of natural processes, natural patterns and/or natural elements.

The Environment Court has found “the criteria of naturalness under the RMA include: •

the physical landform and relief

•

the landscape being uncluttered by structures &/or obvious human influence

•

the presence of water (lakes, rivers, sea)

•

the vegetation (especially native vegetation) and other ecological patterns.”16

The Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide (2003 Part A pg 1-2) interprets “landscape” to include “the special character of sites and places, their aesthetic qualities and their meaning to the community” is assessed as involving some overlapping dimensions. It therefore requires clarification and is not adequate to inform assessment. Indications of a holistic assessment approach, recognising RMA interpretations and landscape dynamics, would seem appropriate.

In addressing landscape in association with surface water, it is critical that a very process-oriented interpretation is taken. A static features approach is not adequate.

Landscape ecology provides useful guidance.

A brief and comprehensible definition of landscape is desirable, that can be applied for all uses. Then, for assessment for surface water management and other such considerations, there should be specific factors or criteria. Through the criteria or factors, the breadth of landscape considerations can be made more explicit.

Landscape is the distinctive character of an area. This definition recognises that landscape is part of, but different from, the “environment” as per the RMA. The definition allows for recognition of the full spectrum of dimensions for which a

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

12

landscape might be valued. 'Distinctive' draws in the perceptual and experiential dimension. It does not emphasise the visual or natural dimensions. 'Character' implies both pattern and process, and can draw in both natural and cultural influences. 'Of an area' signals that the landscape is located and there is an essential spatial dimension that will need to be identified.

Along with this concise definition, use of the more holistic approach via criteria or factors, as endorsed by the Courts and in part elaborated on in the RPS, is appropriate for the surface water strategy developed under the Local Government Act. This would enable parity and complementarity for activities that may need to be addressed under the various statutory regimes.

The concise definition informed by the comprehensive approach of the 7 landscape factors or criteria, the RPS criteria elaboration, along with an interpretation of naturalness, is assessed to be appropriate for consideration of the CCC District’s surface water management.

To consider how landscape might be defined in terms of surface water within Christchurch, these landscapes are analysed and a typology developed as a framework for consideration and management. The district planning regime is then addressed with regard to each landscape type.

16

C180/99 WESI v. Queenstown Lakes District Council. para. 80

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

13

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

14

4.

LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY

The underlying character of The District’s landscapes is historically determined by the role of surface water on that land. Surface water has shaped, and continues to shape, these landscapes. To understand their formation assists in guiding their sustainable management and cues to potential issues and opportunities. Addressing geomorphological land types17 provides a timeless basis for landscape consideration, changing land use activities on the surface can then be considered in that context.

To address surface water management in the landscapes of the CCC District, a land type framework has been utilised to differentiate lands where surface waters have different characteristics and effects, regardless of their land use overlay (Appendix).

To address surface water, the CCC District can in general terms be addressed as 6 broad land or landscape types: 1. Hill Country – eroded volcanic country (0 – 950 m. asl.).

2. Colluvial Country – deposition slopes of the valleys (0 – 150 m. asl).

3. Bottom Lands – fluvial lands of valley floors (0 – 40 m. asl).

4. Coastal Lands – coastal deposits & eroded headlands.

5. Wet Plains – spring-fed and drainage impeded lands.

6. Dry Plains – gravel plains and low terraces.

These underlying landscape types are mapped, the underlying character of each is described, some surface water features noted, a few of the issues identified along with the types of opportunities that would enable restorative and resilient management.

17

Lynn IH, Basher LR 1994. Principles underlying land systems in resource assessment of hill and mountain lands in New Zealand. In Webb, T. H. Ed. Soil landscape modelling in New Zealand, Landcare Research Science Series No. 5. pp 38-51.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

15

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

16

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

17

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

18

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

19

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

20

5.

Landscape Type 1. HILL COUNTRY

Most of the CCC District involves eroded volcanic hill country derived from

volcanoes

that

erupted

millions of years ago, beginning with the Lyttelton Volcano. The Akaroa Volcano was the most recent, erupting some 9 million years ago. The resultant simple circular landform was some 3, 000 metres high. Surface water has worn these great volcanoes down to a series of spurs and gullies radiating from a crater rim that now reaches only 800 metres above sea level.

The

craters

have

been

invaded by the sea to form Lyttelton and Akaroa harbours respectively.

The crater landforms were draped by a layer of loess, windblown material derived from inland Canterbury, and forming a layer up to 30 metres thick on the lower slopes. The loess has been eroded to largely remain only on the summits of the broad spurs at higher elevations. Surface water continues to rapidly sculpt the loess rich layers. The loessial layer erodes easily, with surface waters concentrating to form gullies, and subsurface tunnel gullies.

Current or former sea levels abut the extremities of the volcanic hills so that from Motukarara seaward around the Peninsula to Mount Pleasant, the hills have seasculpted snouts. The sea has eroded these slopes, the loess has been stripped and the bedrock hewn by eons of tidal and storm action. In the west, between Mount Pleasant and Motukarara the volcanic spurs to the Lyttelton volcano have been sculpted by rainwater (note, half of these are in Selwyn District, not CCC). The western spurs abut the great outwash plain that infilled from the west, in contrast to the coast and coastal lands that neighbour the north, east and southern spurs of the peninsula.

The radial arrays of hills of the CCC District thus involve volcanic bedrock overlain with loess, dissected by runoff from above, and truncated by coastal processes around most of the perimeter. These natural processes continue.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

21

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

22

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

23

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

24

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

25

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

26

Wilson. in The Natural History of Canterbury. 2008

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

27

ISSUES The dissection by runoff is typically exacerbated by landcover reduction and land surface disturbance, with steeper slopes more vulnerable. These loess soils are prone to erosion and slumping, particularly following cultivation, earthworks or heavy rainfall.

As identified in BPDP Chapter 19, Issues 4 and 5, land use activities can cause erosion, and adversely affect water quality and quantity and the natural character of the water bodies. The explanation recognises that on-site methods of waste and stormwater disposal can compromise surface water quality. These Hill Country slopes are prone to erosion through any concentration of runoff. The slopes are prone to drought through lack of moisture retentive soils and vegetation. Due to these surface water issues, the landscape lacks resilience.

For Hill Country identified as RAL in the BPDP, certain buildings, earthworks and forestry are permitted activities, including one dwelling per 100 ha above the 160 m contour and up to 2,000 sq. m. of built footprint per site (Ch. 19, Rules 1, 2 and 3.3).

Whilst there are few holdings, the Hill Country involves many existing small titles, and location of building platforms would be assessed only if on a site created by subdivision since 1997 (Rule 3.4). Whilst recognising the potential for lots to not contain an appropriate development site, and the vulnerability to soil erosion and slope instability, the BPDP assumes that existing lots can be developed (Ch. 31).

This is a significant issue for surface water management in the Hill Country landscapes.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

28

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

29

OPPORTUNITIES Surface water management opportunities include improvement of infiltration, reduction of runoff, and increased capacity for water storage by destocking and vegetating the Hill Country lands.

These rural lands are variously zoned Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL), Coastal Natural Character Landscape (CNCL) and Rural Amenity Landscape (RAL) in the (proposed) Banks Peninsula District Plan (BPDP). The BPDP states (Chapter 13, Method 2) that “The Council will encourage bodies, such as land-care groups and the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust to work with land managers to prepare Land Management Plans for the adoption of land management practices which foster the conservation and protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, among other values.” Due to the vulnerability of these Hill Country lands to drought and erosion, proactive guidance and encouragement for sustainable and resilient landscape management which encourages soil moisture retention and naturalness but discourages erosion would be appropriate.

There is limited permitted development in the ONL and CNCL. However, most of the extensive Hill Country is zoned as RAL and thus allows for certain buildings, access and forestry as a permitted activity. Chapter 19 of the BPDP identifies that the character and amenity of all the Banks Peninsula rural lands are vulnerable to development. Policy 1A recognises that indigenous vegetation and habitat, rivers and streams, riparian and coastal vegetation are some of the aspects that contribute to landscape character and amenity values. That is, it is not just the significant indigenous vegetation or habitat, nor just the ONL areas or highly natural coastal areas that contribute important values. BPDP Chapter 19 Objective 4 includes maintaining and enhancing water quality and the natural character of streams and water bodies.

In considering discretionary activities, such as development of residences on 10 ha lots in the extensive RAL areas of Hill Country, the BPDP encourages consideration of “Opportunities for Benefits” (Ch. 19 8 (h)). Such potential benefits include addressing ecosystem enhancement (i), natural character protection for streams (iv), and avoidance of fragmentation of the landscape, allowing “for the physical and visual connections between natural features and elements” (vi). Also to be considered are (i) the location and design of access, the clustering of buildings, “hydrological effects (availability of water, seasonal variations ad water quality)” (vii),

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

30

effects on wetlands, ecological corridors and linkages (xvi), and the potential effects of forestry on water (xviii).

These methods provide opportunity for improved surface water management at the landscape scale providing there is adequate understanding of the landscape effects and opportunities to inform and encourage applicants and decision-makers. With discretionary activity status often interpreted as generally appropriate, and the identified vulnerability of these lands, a proactive approach by CCC would be appropriate.

Due to the historic multiplicity of small lots on the Hill Country, and the BPDP incentive to utilise these in preference to undertaking subdivision, boundary adjustment processes may provide an opportunity to proactively address potential adverse effects.

Landscape management visions, guidance and targets for each landscape character area18 would enable the vulnerability of the Hill Country of each catchment to be addressed in terms of surface water management for landscape and natural character resilience, and creative sustainable management, for activities that require consent. As identified in BPDP Ch. 31, voluntary methods such as education and advocacy, support for community based environmental initiatives, and development of a riparian protection schedule, are necessary to achieve the Objectives and Policies of the Plan. Due to the vulnerability of these lands, taking up the suggested proactive approach is necessary.

The City Plan recognises the Hill Country as “susceptible to erosion, particularly soil creep and gully erosion” (Vol. 1 1/1 1.2) and a significant issue (Vol. 2 3/1 3.1.1, also Vol. 2 2/1, 2/6 2.1.2). Tunnel gully erosion and slope failure from poor land management are recognised issues (Vol.1 3/7 3.4.3). Policy 2.7.6 (Vol. 2 2/31) is to avoid promoting erosion or unnecessary disturbance to the land surface. The Plan anticipates that in the Rural Hills Zone, management of the soils and vegetation will reduce erosion and instability, there will be management of surface water drainage and minimised effects on downstream river catchments (Vol. 3 4/7 1.10 (d) and (e)).

The Objectives and Policies for water do not address surface water management at a landscape scale, but focus on water bodies and their margins (Vol. 2 2/8 – 2/12, 2.2), although the ‘Environmental results anticipated’ provide some support for such an approach (Vol. 2 2/12).

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

31

Perhaps as drafted more than a decade ago, broadscale management of surface waters is not explicitly identified as an issue in ensuring the lands are sustainable and resilient (Vol. 1 3/1 3.2). However the Plan identifies the need for “changes in land use patterns in particularly sensitive ways”. Problems of built development and preferences for recreation and conservation land uses are identified (3/7 3.4.3), and the lands above the urban boundary are identified as an ONL (Vol. 2 2/29 2.7; 4/7 1.10) with structures kept to a minimum and the natural character enhanced (Vol. 2 2/30) no permitted or discretionary development above 160 m. asl. – any building in the Rural Hills is non-complying (Vol. 3

4/15

2.5.5 (b)). Drought and storms are

now predicted to increase, which needs to be addressed in hill lands management.

The City Plan anticipates erosion prone areas being contained and reduced (Vol. 2 2/32 2.7.7; 2/36 1.), and the “maintenance of water quality in terms of the effects of land based activities” (2/37 6.)

Sustaining the water resource to serve the future needs of the City is recognised as an issue (3/4 3.2.6). The need to address land and soil management together is recognised, including with regard to landscape values (Vol. 2 2/3 2.1). But the need to recognise water and soil management together has not. The review of the City Plan enables an opportunity for the broader surface water management issue across all land use activities, urban and rural, to be addressed.

The City Plan anticipates “indigenous revegetation of valleys and in particular their watercourses”.

Whilst in the City Plan, in the Rural Hills Zone any building above 160 m is a noncomplying activity (4/14 2.5.4), for the rest of the Hills Country the BPDP is much more liberal. Thus on the City’s Port hills, there is much less vulnerability to adverse landscape related surface water issues. The City Plan identifies the “poor subsoil drainage conditions and potential for erosion” in this zone (Vol. 3 4/31 5.1.13).

Considering revegetation, the Indigenous ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch Set 4: The Port Hills of Christchurch City (Lucas Associates, 1997) provides species lists for plantings on the Hills Country – the relevant ecosystems the ‘Akiraho, karearea, rocky ridge ecosystem’ of the Rapaki soils; the ‘Kotukutuku, ngiru-ngiru, crest and shoulder ecosystem’ of the Summit soils; the ‘Korokio, riroriro, rocky ridge ecosystem’ of the Cashmere soils, and the ‘Porcupine shrub, common gecko, steep,

18

Boffa Miskell Limited 2007. Banks Peninsula Landscape Study. Figure 30, page 73.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

32

rocky, bluff ecosystem’ of the Evans Steepland soils.19 On Banks Peninsula, for the Lyttelton Harbour Basin20 planting lists, revegetation and waterway restoration guides are provided for the Cashmere, Stewart and Evans lands as the ‘Kowhai, Korokio, jewelled gecko, dry rocky ecosystem’21.

19

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 4: The Port Hills of Christchurch City.

20 Lucas Associates. 1998 & 2005. Indigenous Ecosystems of the Lyttelton Harbour Basin with Stream Guide – a guide to native plants, their ecology and planting. for the Governors Bay Community Association & Governors Bay Landcare Group.

21 ibid. plant lists pp. 31 – 33. Riparian planting guide pages 40 – 41.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

33

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

34

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

35

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

36

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

37

6.

Landscape Type 2.

COLLUVIAL COUNTRY

The colluvial country involves harbour basin and valley slope lands within the volcanic hill complex on which eroded rock and soil material, the colluvium22, has accumulated. The colluvium has been removed from the hills above by surface water and deposited downslope.

These deposition lands form the more gentle slopes within the valleys of the peninsula. Surface water features involve the stream corridors that cut down through the slopes. The bottom lands lie below.

ISSUES Being loose deposits of loessial material and rock, the colluvial country is easily eroded by concentrations of surface water. The slopes are particularly vulnerable to tunnel gully erosion. Even under pastoral regimes extensive and intensive tunnel gullying is evident, such as across the Takahe soils in the Lyttelton Harbour Basin23.

Whilst steepness varies, vulnerability relates more to what lies above, up-slope. This limits the appropriateness and/or character of development in the colluvial country.

These lands are primarily zoned RAL in the BPDP therefore involve certain permitted, controlled and discretionary activities assumed therefore to be ‘generally appropriate’. All the colluvial lands are located below 160 m asl. The BPDP allows for 22

colluvium – loose deposit of rock or soil material at the foot of a cliff or steep slope that has been transported by gravity. source: Landforms of New Zealand. Ed. J.M.Soons, M.J.Selby. Longman Paul.

1982. p. 378.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

38

development of a built footprint of up to 2,000 sq. m., along with associated earthworks, on each 40 ha site in RAL as a permitted activity. As many small lots have long existed, subdivision methods to avoid, remedy and mitigate environmental effects due to surface water issues may not be triggered. There are therefore significant potential issues in the colluvial lands from the activities permitted.

As identified in BPDP Chapter 19, Issue 4, land use activities can adversely affect water quality and quantity and natural character of the water bodies. The highly vulnerable colluvial soils require particular care in their management. The BPDP does not recognise this vulnerability.

The City Plan policy 2.7.6 (Vol.2, 2/31) notes the problem of these loose soils, and seeks to avoid them being disturbed.

The City Plan does not recognise the effects of urbanisation and densification on the surface waters in the Living Hills Zone. The City Plan identifies the need to address on-site open space and amenity within living areas, but does not recognise the impact of buildings, hard surfaces and earthworks on surface water management in the Living Hills Zone (Vol.2 11.4 – 5). Although the City Plan recognises a link between residential development and flooding potential for the Heathcote, and the larger lot sizes having “scope for planting� (Vol.3 2/6 1.3.1), the issue of surface water management within lots and for hill suburbs is not addressed.

The colluvial soils are vulnerable to a range of land use activities including agricultural, horticultural, recreational and built. With colluvial soils of the wider CCC district being extensive and highly vulnerable to effects from surface waters, there is a need for broadscale deep-rooting vegetative cover. Not just riparian management and water disposal management need attention, but catchment-wide management is necessary.

OPPORTUNITIES Careful management of land surface water is essential to avoid erosion. Thus avoiding any concentration of runoff is crucial. Vegetation cover and minimising soil disturbance are important in achieving surface water management that does not exacerbate soil erosion.

23

Lucas Associates. 1998. A Concept Plan for the Restoration of Omaru Stream, Rapaki. prepared for Ngati Wheke.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

39

These colluvial lands are primarily zoned as RAL in the (Proposed) Banks Peninsula Plan, and lie below the 160 m. development threshold. With their drought proneness and vulnerability to erosion, guidelines and demonstrations for rainwater collection, earthworks, waste disposal and vegetation guidelines would be advisable for permitted development activities. For earthworks and structures requiring consent, surface water management plans should be required, or at least encouraged, and methods encouraged to avoid adverse effects from any interference with natural drainage patterns.

BPDP Chapter 19 Objective 4 seeks to maintain and enhance water quality and the natural character of streams and water bodies. The explanation mentions riparian vegetation buffers and the need for space between buildings and water bodies.

Adequate spatial separation, vegetative buffering and naturalness are key landscape management opportunities. Development of community-based catchment or landscape character area management plans, guidelines and targets would be appropriate.

The BPDP (CH.31 Overview and 12) identifies the opportunities for esplanade reserves/strips to be created or waived with subdivision. Reasons include that natural values, water quality or aquatic habitat would be protected or enhanced by esplanade reserves/strips, or they would complete or promote the marginal protection of a river or lake. Opportunities for reserves of adequate width and extent can be central to achieving adequate landscape management for surface water systems. Reserves greater than 20 metres are allowed for (12.4). To ensure adequate reserves are created and able to be justified for their public benefits, proactive development of base information, planning, visions and targets is proposed.

Recognising the landscape significance and vulnerability, the City Plan identifies that RMA controls may not be adequate, but that protection and transferring development rights off these lands may be appropriate (2/32 2.7.7).

Considering revegetation, the Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch Set 4: Indigenous Ecosystems of the Port Hills (Lucas Associates 1997) provides species lists for the Colluvial Country of the Port Hills, the ‘Silver Tussock, tree weta, gentle rolling ecosystem’ of the Takahe soils; the ‘Mikoikoi, korimako, steep lower slope ecosystem’ of Kiwi Hill soils; the ‘Horoeka, pipipi, rolling mid-slope ecosystem’ of steep Clifton soils; the ‘Akeake, jewelled gecko, foot-slope ecosystem’ of the steep Scarborough Hill soils; and, the ‘Matai, pipiwharauroa, lush, rolling toe-slope

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

40

ecosystem’ of Heathcote soils. Also, for Banks Peninsula, in Lyttelton Harbour Basin the Heathcote, Takahe, Pawson, Kiwi Hill, Akaroa, Rapaki & Clifton soils24 of the ‘Matai, totara, kereru, moist forest ecosystem’.25 The Avoca Valley stream report26 provides guidance for waterway restoration in these lands.

24

Lucas Associates. 1998. Indigenous Ecosystems of the Lyttelton Harbour Basin – a guide to native plants, their ecology and planting. for the Governors Bay Community Association & Governors Bay Landcare Group. pp.11-19.

25 ibid. species list pages 27 - 29. Riparian planting guide pages 42 – 45.

26 Lucas Associates & Christchurch City Council. 1998. Restoring Avoca Valley Stream. a community model.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

41

Omaru Stream, Rapaki. Being loose deposits of loessial material and rock, the colluvial country is easily eroded by concentrations of surface water. The slopes are particularly vulnerable to tunnel gully erosion.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

42

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

43

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

44

7.

Landscape Type 3.

BOTTOM LANDS

The bottom lands involve the fluvial lands, the flats that lie on valley floors at the head of existing or former bays around the Peninsula, formed by deposition from valley streams. Contained by current or former tidal influences, the bottom lands lie inland of a fringe of coastal dune belts and estuaries. Whilst occurring in almost all bays, the largest bottom land areas are to the south, near Motukarara, in Kaituna Valley, around Little River, and in the east behind Le Bons Bay and Okains Bay, plus in the head of Lyttelton Harbour.

The valley streams typically meander across the bottom lands depositing sediment and seeking the shore. On these low-gradient, fine-grained fluvial lands, the lowest reaches of valley streams are variously impounded by beach deposits, so that wetlands and estuaries have formed. These barriers may be breached by storm events, by both floods and high seas.

Entirely shaped by the natural processes of stream and coastal deposition, intercepted by occasional storm events, these lands result entirely from surface water action. The alluvial lands naturally enable a more rich forest ecosystem. However, the quantity and quality of freshwater will be influenced by catchment management.

Where rural, these Bottom Lands are primarily zoned RAL in the (Proposed) Banks Peninsula District Plan, with some coastal frontages zoned CNCL. Others are urban.

In the City Plan they have a mix of residential, conservation and Rural 7 (Port Hills Intensive Farming) Zone (Vol. 3 4/6 1.9). The Avoca, Horotane and part Heathcote valleys are recognised as “physically distinctive, contain a long-standing pattern of intensive subdivision, and have high amenity values. They reflect development of horticultural and other intensive uses over a long period of time, with a particular local micro-climate.� (Vol. 2 13/8 13.1.5 ). The City Plan seeks to sustain the productive capacity, the rural dwelling density, the visual character and high amenity values (Vol.3

4/6

1.9). However the intensified built development desired is a significant

issue.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

45

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

46

ISSUES The bottom lands have long been a focus for settlement. Where stable, these small, sheltered areas would have naturally supported lush kahikatea forests. However, as the flat part of steep country, with fresh water and easy to access from the coastal waters, these lands have long been the focus for development. Little remains of the forests, the wetlands have mostly been drained and many streams channelled.

Runoff is encouraged to discharge rapidly. The natural sinks and filters have been removed or reduced. The natural focal lushness of these bottom lands has been transformed, often to form a settlement node, horticultural production and/or paddocks.

These bottom lands continue to be vulnerable to drainage, being filled, and being built over. Their important surface water management roles are significantly reduced as a consequence.

The City Plan seeks to protect the production attributes of Rural 7 Zone (Vol.3 4/31 5.1.13 (a)). The surface water functions, the ecosystem services, provided by such lands are not however recognised.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

47

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

48

OPPORTUNITIES Future management of the bottom lands could seek to sustain and restore viable ecosystems. Even in the settled and developed bays, riparian protection and restoration for streams and wetlands is desirable to minimise nutrients and sediments being discharged to the coast. Depending on the particular cultural context, the values and opportunities, should guide the ecological aesthetic for this surface water management work.

The dumping of fill on these lands should be discouraged. Instead, retaining and restoring natural surface water processes in these lands can provide a valuable catchment management role. Located at the base of hill catchments and adjoining the coastal ecosystems, the bottom lands are major natural places to store and process surface waters, and for ecological richness. They are naturally lush nodes in the landscape. The Avoca stream restoration project document provides guidance for surface water management in the Bottom Lands.27 Careful greywater and wastewater management are important, and can complement natural systems on these gentle lands. The Bottom Lands primarily involve the Horotane soils. Planting guides have been provided for those valleys around the Lyttelton Harbour Basin as ‘Kahikatea, kaikomako, kotare, gully and swamp forest ecosystem’ and the ‘Harakeke, pukio, banded kokopu, swamp and stream ecosystem’ of the Horotane and part Heathcote soils28, as well as for the valleys of the city-side Port Hills as the ‘Kaikomako, kotare, rich, valley floor ecosystem’ of the Horotane soils’.29 The Avoca report includes generic guides for managing such lands.

27

Lucas Associates & Christchurch City Council. 1998. Restoring Avoca Valley Stream. a community model. Waterways and Wetlands Team, Christchurch City Council 28 ibid. species list pages 23 - 25. Riparian planting guide pages 50 – 54.

29 Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 4: The Port Hills of Christchurch City.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

49

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

50

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

51

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

52

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

53

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

54

8.

Landscape Type 4.

COASTAL LANDS

The coastal lands of Christchurch are

deposition

lands.

On

the

Canterbury coast, the rivers and seacliffs

supply

roughly

equal

amounts of gravel to the ‘river of sediment’ that moves parallel to the shoreline as longshore drift and drift.30

beach

persistent

Driven

southerly

by

the

swell,

the

sediment moves north up the coast and

around

Pegasus

Banks

Peninsula.

Bay to the north is

sheltered by the Peninsula so that the net longshore drift here is southwards.

The swash of the waves onto the shore sorts beach sediments and creates coastal landforms. Hence either side of Banks Peninsula material is being moved up the Canterbury Bight to nourish Kaitorete Spit impounding Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) and Lake Forsyth. A circular counter-current carries sand down from Pegasus Bay to impound Brooklands Lagoon and nourish New Brighton Spit impounding the Avon Heathcote estuary. The inland waters breach these spits at various intervals and in various locations.

A band of coastal country is thus hinged to Banks Peninsula to north and south to front the plains country inland. Similarly, small facets of coastal land front the lands in each of the peninsula bays.

Except where interrupted by the wave-carved snouts to volcanic spurs, the coastal lands fronting the CCC District are deposition lands, nourished by the great braided greywacke rivers to north and south. The coastal lands are extensive, extending some kilometres inland up the Waimakariri in the north and in a band through to the Port Hills, plus inland to Motukarara in the south.

The southern coastal lands to the CCC district are largely undeveloped and variously zoned RAL, CNCL (Coastal Natural Character Landscape) and/or ONL in the BPDP. 30

Jeremy Gibb. 1983. The Geography of the New Zealand Coast. in “The Edge of the Land. The Coastline of New Zealand.” p. 122

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

55

Of the sand and estuarine systems, only the seaward edge to Kaitorete Spit and edge to Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) are recognised as CNCL. Neither of these is identified as outstanding natural features in the BPDP, although the other half of Te Waihora, within Selwyn District, is recognised as ONL. With Kaitorete Spit zoned primarily as RAL under the BPDP presumes suitability for some residential development as a permitted activity, with up to 2, 000 sq. m. of building footprint per 40 ha site. 10 ha subdivisions are discretionary. Thus, whilst residential development is permitted as of right, surprisingly Policy 4D seeks to restrict vehicle access to the Spit and Te Waihora. Method 3 involves fencing and signage to protect the Spit from vehicle damage. Considering effects on landscape and surface water management, land development could be more problematic than vehicle access.

The Coastal Environment is addressed at Chapter 12 in the BPDP. The Plan seeks to preserve natural character and effects are to be avoided remedied or mitigated (Policies 1B and 1F). The Plan identifies that “Many parts of the coastline and the coastal environment of the District are wild and remote and are highly valued for their natural character and amenity values. It is important that these areas’ high natural values are not adversely affected by activities, earthworks and structures located adjacent to the foreshore.”

Policy 2B is “The retention, restoration and rehabilitation of the indigenous ecosystem functioning, habitat values and natural character of the coast of the Banks Peninsula is to be encouraged.” Thus this coastal management is not confined to the areas identified as CNCL. The explanation identifies the potential adverse effects of water.

Issue 3 identifies “Discharges and run-off from land use activities can affect the quality of coastal waters.” Thus Objective 3 is “Land use activities are carried out in such a way so as to maintain or enhance coastal water quality.” Policy 3A is “When considering resource consents or plan change requests, to ensure that proposals are designed to avoid or reduce sediment and other contaminants from entering the coastal water.” And, 3B “Land use activities should not induce erosion, subsidence or landslip.” Thus, surface water issues are clearly identified as key factors in protecting the natural character of the Banks Peninsula coast. The explanation states that the Council together with ECan “will foster land use practices that serve to reduce siltladen runoff. Mitigation measures, such as the use of silt ponds, will be required.”

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

56

Whilst addressed as coastal issues, much of these effects may be derived from activities on the colluvial lands above. Addressing the activities at source, rather than the sediment problems downstream, may provide for a more sustainable system.

The coastal fringe within the City involves the dry young dune Kairaki and old dune Waikuku soils; the dry sands of the coastal inlet Taylors Mistake soils; the wet and peaty Aranui and Waimairi soils; and, the wet, salty, Motukarara soils associated with the estuary. These are mapped as ecosystems in Sets 2

31

and 4

32

of the City plant

guides.

These coastal lands are thus formed by the actions of surface waters, both by the supply of material by the rivers and its deposition by the sea.

Coastal sites/features include Waimairi Beach; Brooklands Spit and Lagoon; New Brighton Spit and Estuary, Kaitorete Spit and Te Waihora (Ellesmere), Waiwera (Lake Forsyth).

At New Brighton, urban development has long removed the coastal lands character excepting for the foredune. The former dune and wetland complex fronting the estuary has long been developed as a series of sewage ponds.

Policy 2.5.4 (Vol. 2

2/21) addresses sea level rise, seeking to avoid high intensity

built development “that could be subject to anticipated sea level rise”. Brooklands, Spencerville, the estuary and lower Avon and Heathcote Rivers are mentioned. The explanation notes that “recognition will need to be given to the inland migration of natural features in the event of sea level rise, and in some cases this could involve inland relocation of protective structures. It would also allow for inland migration of features such as rush belts.”

The City Plan has no specific coastal chapter. Objective 2.6 is “Preservation of the natural character of the coast, including habitat, landscape, and associated amenity and cultural values: and the maintenance of the stability of the coastline consistent with the retention of these values” (Vol. 2 2/25). The explanation notes that much of the coastal lands are in public ownership. Also, “As areas in the coastal environment have a high degree of sensitivity and vulnerability to modification, a precautionary approach will be adopted in managing activities, including assessing applications for resource consents in these areas.”

31

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 2: The coastal plains of Hagley-Ferrymead and Burwood-Pegasus.

32 Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 4: The Port Hills of Christchurch City.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

57

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

58

Whereas the RMA seeks to protect the natural character of the coastal environment by avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects, the Policies focus on remedying and mitigating rather than avoidance (2.6.1). Whilst the explanation recognises that building structures, removing vegetation, filling and excavation can have effects, there is minimal effort at avoiding such effects. Such activities can very significantly effect surface water management and consequently landscape values.

The various policies do implicitly recognise the various ecosystems of the City’s coast, the estuarine systems (2.6.4 and 2.6.5), the dune systems (2.6.6), and, the rocky coast (2.6.7), together in 2.6.2.

For the estuarine ecosystems, the coastal water quality policy (2.6.5) is “To manage the coastal margins to improve the quality of the water environment in the AvonHeathcote Estuary and Brooklands Lagoon, and their value for wildlife and amenity purposes.” The explanation is of course water quality focussed and describes the need for “some degree of buffer protection” around the edge of the estuary and lagoon. “Any regulatory measures however, will be supported by provision of appropriate planting around the edges of the water, as well as programmes for public education”.

For the dune systems, the focus is on maintaining their open character (2.6.2) and stability (2.6.6). The explanation for the latter notes their fragility and instability.

Whilst the explanation seeks that stabilising not be contrary to protecting natural character, and seeks preference for indigenous species in restoration plantings, there is no hint of this in the policy. There is no recognition of the complexity of dune systems, including the inter-dune wetlands.

For the rocky coast on the City, the scenic, recreational and wildlife values are to be preserved (2.6.7).

The Rural 1 (Coastal) Zone, located in the north toward the Waimakariri River, identifies that the coastal environment is to be protected through building setback and site coverage.

The lands are identified as prone to erosion and forestry is

encouraged, and 20 ha is required for a residence (Vol. 3 4/2 1.2; 4/14 2.5.2).

The Conservation 1/A (Coastal margins) Zone is to provide a buffer between MHWS and urban development (Vol. 3

5/3

1.3). The Zone includes coastal dunes, the

estuarine margins and rocky coast, but is limited in extent by existing urban development. It is recognised as a fragile and dynamic environment. The City Plan anticipates the “Protection of the integrity, functioning and resilience of the coastal

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

59

margin�, conservation and enhancement of significant areas, maintenance of the natural character, and, avoidance or mitigation of erosion hazards.

ISSUES For much of the Coastal Lands the dunes have been flattened and the dune slacks filled. The wetlands have been reduced or removed entirely. The intricacy of the coastal lands above MHWS, which involve vastly different surface water regimes than for other landscape types, has been seriously degraded or entirely obliterated.

The extent of coastal lands has become difficult to read in the City landscape. In rural areas much has also been simplified through agricultural and recreational activity.

These coastal lands are the interface between fresh and saline systems. With both fresh and saline surface water systems impacting diurnally, seasonally and during storms, there has been a tendency to simplify the complexity of these lands and thus minimise storm effects. Coastal lands and their ecosystems have thus been deliberately simplified in the past. However, the complex processes of the coastal lands receiving both saline and fresh surface waters, the complexity and transient qualities of the natural landforms and habitats that they create, require that the natural complexity and dynamism be nurtured rather than nullified. Sea level rise is anticipated will exacerbate effects.

The high porosity of sand deposit lands makes them vulnerable to contaminated waters leaching through to associated water bodies. The sand lands are also easily disturbed and eroded.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

60

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

61

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

62

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

63

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

64

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

65

OPPORTUNITIES Protect and natural estuaries and natural dune systems, including inter-dune slacks, as important interfaces, landforms, ecosystems and landscapes that demonstrate natural surface water processes and provide essential natural buffering between land and sea.

Among other results anticipated, the City Plan expects Integrated and consistent management of the coastal marine area and the landward coastal environment; Improved and extended protection to estuary and lagoon margins, and their value as wildlife habitats; Retention of open landscape character of the coastal dunes and rocky headlands; Maintenance of water quality in terms of the effects of land based activities (Vol. 2

2/28). A more proactive approach to preservation of natural

character in the coastal environment of the City, through various mechanisms, may then enable progress toward these anticipated results.

The City Plan’s sea level rise policy (2.5.4) provides encouragement and opportunity to redesign the coastal lands in response to sea level rise predictions.

Surface water management should seek to limit the collection of pollutants on these coastal lands that can be discharged to estuarine lands or seaward. Drainage swales and soakage basins can be designed to collect pollutants and enable local clean soakage rather than piped or polluted discharge.

Ensuring urban coastal lands have adequate vegetated surfaces, including roof gardens, yards and berms, to slow and retain runoff on-site. Drought-tolerant vegetation needs to be encouraged. In some locations, rainwater collection and use of treated greywater, can assist in establishment irrigation of plantings.

The extensive coastal lands could be more evident in the landscape character of the area through allowing coastal processes to occur naturally over the full width of the natural interface, for both dune and estuarine systems. Also, effort could be encouraged to reinstate dimensions of older dune systems inland, with landform patterning, sand substrates, discoidal stones and vegetation appropriate to the particular locale. The Avoca report provides some guidance for estuarine margins33.

Planting guides are available for the different landforms and habitats in the Christchurch coastal lands, for:

33

Lucas Associates & Christchurch City Council. 1998. Restoring Avoca Valley Stream. a community model. Waterways and Wetlands Team, Christchurch City Council

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

66

•

young dune country, the PINGAO, kuaka, tauhinu young dune ecosystem34 of the droughty and raw Kairaki soils;

•

extensive old dunes, the AKEAKE, riroriro, ngaio old dune ecosystem of the droughty Waikuku soils that lie inland;

•

saltmarsh of the estuarine lands, the OIOI, tuturiwhatu, marsh ribbonwood, estuarine ecosystem of the Motukarara soils35, including in the Lyttelton Harbour Basin36;

•

coastal inlets, the KAPUKA, korora, coastal inlet ecosystem37 of the low, very dry, sandy Taylors Mistake soils; and,

•

coastal slopes and cliffs, the dry, rocky or shallow Evans steepland soils38.

Note, planting guides have not as yet been developed for the outer and Akaroa harbour coasts of Banks Peninsula.

34

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 2: The coastal plains of Hagley-Ferrymead and Burwood-Pegasus.

35

ibid.

36

Lucas Associates. 1998 & 2005. Indigenous Ecosystems of the Lyttelton Harbour Basin with Stream Guide – a guide to native plants, their ecology and planting. for the Governors Bay Community Association & Governors Bay Landcare Group. pp. 8, 17-18.

37 Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 4: The Port Hills of Christchurch City.

38 Lucas Associates. 1998 & 2005. Indigenous Ecosystems of the Lyttelton Harbour Basin with Stream Guide – a guide to native plants, their ecology and planting. for the Governors Bay Community Association & Governors Bay Landcare Group. pp. 8, 17-18.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

67

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

68

9.

Landscape Type 5.

WET PLAINS

Toward the junction of the alluvial plains with the volcanic Peninsula, drainage coastwards is impeded and the heavy alluvial soils are saturated, forming the wet plains lands.

The flow across and through the plains to these heavy soils naturally results in meandering streams and wetlands.

The

swamp

country

naturally supports kahikatea forest, but the whole of the wet plains is in the natural path of the wandering and flood-prone lower Waimakariri River.

The wet plains lands are a fluvially formed land dependent on surface spring and rain waters for their wet character.

Excepting for an “island” of Dry Plains from Hagley Park through Cathedral Square into Christchurch East, the wet plains underlie the central city and most intensely developed areas of Christchurch. Sites through the central city show layers of podocarp forest buried under gravels. The Christchurch drainage network map cues to the area with the naturally wet plains character. The City Plan notes (Vol 1 3/49 3.16.3) that “Were it not for this network of drains, the high water tables would revert much of Christchurch back to swamp.”

Riccarton Bush and lengths of the spring-fed Styx, Avon, Heathcote and Halswell Rivers are important natural features of these wet plains lands. Other remnant natural features of the wet plains lands include Otukaikino (Wilsons Swamp), Waikakariki (Horseshoe Lake), Travis Wetland and Bexley Wetland.39 Whilst each has been spatially confined and ecologically simplified, these wet plains features remain key attributes of Christchurch’s “Garden City” character. Each display some hint at least of naturalness in being of organic form and somewhat vegetated. The formal grid pattern of much of the city contrasts with the organic form

39

CCC. 2000. Christchurch Naturally. discovering the city’s wild side. Wet Plains pp. 16-23.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

69

of these features to emphasise them. As noted in the City Plan (Vol 1 1/1

1.5)

these urban waterways “are a significant feature and contribute to the naturalness of the urban area.” The value of the rural Styx and Halswell Rivers are recognised, and the paucity of wetlands remaining. The Plan notes that many of the small streams through the City “are managed more as drains rather than valuable water resources.”

For more than a century the management of the wet plains that form the core to the built city has involved extensive drainage, permeable surfacing and piping away of rainwater. Surface waters thus largely bypass the soils. The remnant wet plains features have become vulnerable and fragmented from surrounding lands. The wet plains lands have thus been largely dried out, have become moisture deprived, the water table lowered, and now unable to support the wet plains ecology that belongs here naturally. This continues to be exacerbated from intensified development with rainwater unable to soak into the soil, springs depleted and water table lowered.

Noted in the City Plan (Vol 1 1/3 1.6) as the last remnant of wetland podocarp forest on the plains”, Riccarton Bush now requires irrigation.

Waterway enhancement works have provided some amelioration, but primarily only within a narrow riparian margin, plus some stormwater ponding opportunities and swale drainage. There has been little attempt to re-enable rainwater soakage, to discourage stormwater runoff excepting during storm events.

Considering planning issues, the City Plan seeks to enhance the unique qualities of the many water features of the city (Vol 1

3/4

3.2.4). The importance of the

amenity value of experiencing the water environment, and the quality of the containment of the waters, is identified. “The water’s edge is the place of greatest interest and diversity, both in terms of human and wildlife activity.” “The significant issues relating to amenity values of water are how best to maintain and enhance the diversity of water environments found within the City, and how to promote a positive attitude and awareness to the value of water.”

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

70

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

71

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

72

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

73

ISSUES Extensive and intensive drainage of the wet plains lands, the excavation of the impermeable layer beneath, the confining and piping of spring-fed streams, and the removal of the rainwater onto buildings and hard surfaces as stormwater, means that these lands are no longer naturally wet. The lands have lost their moisture retentive character. Vegetation increasingly depends on irrigation. Bypassing cleansing by vegetation and soils, the piped urban stormwater contributes considerable pollutants to the waterways. Densification is increasing the proportion of impermeable surfaces.

Whilst traditionally a landscape with abundant surface waters, these lands are increasingly being moisture deprived. The natural values and the traditional “Garden City� image are both challenged.

Sea level rise is an anticipated issue in the lower wet plains lands, with increased seawater intrusion and tidal reach.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

74

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

75

OPPORTUNITIES The City Plan recognises the importance of “the “Garden City” image in setting standards for new developments” and “the kinds of landscapes and plantings that are appropriate in promoting this image”. (Vol 1

3/53

3.17.7(i)). It then notes “(j) the

identification and promotion of new projects for improving the qualities and amenities of the public spaces of the City, particularly within the central city and older housing areas and shopping centres.”

The spatial extent and connectivity of natural surface water features, the waterways and wetlands that characterise the wet plains, need to be less artificially confined and to re-establish their natural processes with surround lands and connections to associated features. The City Plan seeks to impose controls on building location, filling and excavation activities along waterways (Vol 2

8.3.6). However, in many

instances the required buffering has been inadequate.

Unfortunately residents have been prevented by CCC from on-site retention of their roofwaters. However the City Plan identifies that “retention of some of the stormwater within properties rather than discharging it directly to the road, is now receiving more attention” (Vol 1 3/49

3.16.3). Much greater encouragement and leadership could

be provided to achieve on-site soakage for all except storm events. To re-nourish the wet plains lands, and ensure more vegetated surfaces of both buildings and land, including street corridors, would enable a more appropriately lush and sustainable landscape. The City Plan supports the concept of new open space with adequate corridors for landscape structure and function (Vol 1 3/58).

Opportunities

abound

for

individual

and

comprehensive

developments,

redevelopments and retrofitting to reduce off-site discharge and encourage on-site rainwater retention. Encouragement of use of permeable surfaces and minimising impermeable surfaces; of green areas and green roofs to slow and reduce surface runoff; of treatment swales and retention basins, wetlands, stream restoration. With droughted soils and lowered water tables, encouragement for zero-runoff designs is needed, and options for treated grey-water application, to enable a well-vegetated and sustainable city landscape on the lands naturally wet plains.

Native plant guides for the wet plains have been developed, with planting lists for these Tai Tapu and Kaiapoi Soils40, plus a stream restoration guide41.

40

Lucas Associates. 1995-1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 1 – 3.

41

Streamside Planting Guide. Colin Meurk, Lucas Associates & CCC.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

76

RIVERSIDE PARK With road removed, pedestrian and cycle routes, slopes regarded and naturalised plus riverbank access with possible landing stages etc.

With one lane, one way slow street, pedestrian and cycle routes, slopes re-graded and naturalised.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

77

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

78

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

79

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

80

10.

Landscape Type 6. DRY PLAINS

Great outwash plains have been built by glacial and fluvial outwash to link

Canterbury’s

mountains

to

Banks Peninsula, a former island.

The

snow-fed

rivers

cut

down

through the high plains to emerge onto the recent dry plains below.

Leakage from the Waimakariri River moves

south-east

through

the

gravels. The rain-fed river waters from the foothills also disappear into the plains gravels. Drainage is rapid, streams ephemeral and there are few cues to surface water. These dry plains with varying shallow and deep soils, enclose the west and north of Christchurch. In the north they reach through to the coastal lands. Much of the dry plains have not been urbanised, but lifestyle and rural residential activity is widespread on private dry plains lands. The importance of the remnant dry plains grassland landscape is recognised in the City Plan (Vol 2 2/33

2.8).

Christchurch City extends some 30 km up the south side of the Waimakariri River.

Across these low plains, the braided rivers’ character is to spread and move. The Waimakariri River forms the northern boundary to the City, although previously it flowed south and out at Te Waihora.

Underground flows through the gravels emerge as springs in the low plains. The 10 km wide band of dry plains lies inland and inter-fingered with the wet plains. These dry plains soils are diverse, with a mix of droughty shallow and moist deep alluvial soils. This pattern is reflected in the land use capability or soil versatility rating as identified in the City Plan (Vol 2 2/4 2.1.1).

The dry plains are naturally characterised by extensive open space, by broad skyscapes and the enclosure by the source mountains in the west. The terrain variations, the gravels and soil variations, the free-draining character, the ephemeral water bodies, the open grassland and savannahland character, the lack of substantial tree cover are all fundamental characteristics of the natural dry

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

81

plainscape.42 McLeans Island, Waimakariri River Regional Park, is a sample area.

Waimakariri floodplain protection is an integral management objective.

Whilst the dry gravel plains lands are legible as alluvial deposits, as river transported, there is little evidence of water in these lands. Water is generally evident or cued only where excavations expose ground-water, races and irrigators convey water from elsewhere, springs arise and/or where water-loving vegetation clusters.

Intensified land use, whether urbanisation, rural residential or intensive farming, are typically involving greater water use than would be available naturally. The waste waters from each of these activities on the permeable dry plains soils put the aquifers at risk.

42

CCC. 2000. Christchurch Naturally. discovering the city’s wild side. Dry Plains pp. 24-29.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

82

ISSUES The free-draining character to aquifers below means that surface water management requires careful management to maximise available freshwater and avoid contamination of groundwater. Concerns at the high soakage rate hazard is identified in the City Plan (Vol 2 6/10 6.3.6).

The surface waters policy (2.2.4) recognises their vulnerability to pollution from land use activities and stormwater disposal. Policy 2.2.3 seeks ground water recharge, including via “disposal of roof stormwater to ground in areas where water can be readily absorbed”.

The dry plains lands of the west are recognised as involving different water management issues than for other lands. The City Plan recognises the limited underground water resource and that on the light soils, twice as much water is used by properties compared with those on the heavy soils (Vol 1 3/57 3.18.4).

OPPORTUNITIES Water is precious in the dry plains. There needs to be recognition of the value of a distinctive dry plains landscape. The broad spacious character, stony areas and naturally low vegetation stature, needs to be allowed for in development scenarios.

Design at both the broad comprehensive scale and at the site and detail scales can display the dry plains character and cherish every raindrop and spring flow. Water demanding activities are not appropriate. De-stocking and vegetation of riparian lands, including of ephemeral streams, is appropriate43.

The City Plan identifies the need for water conservation, re-use and recycling (Vol 2 8/10

8.2.4). The City plan recognises the potential roles of ‘ground soakage

swales’ and direct soakage from roof stormwater (Vol 2

10/12).

Surface water management techniques for these dry plains landscapes appropriately involve rainwater storage and on-site use; minimum irrigation; drought tolerant and well-mulched plantings; with minimum hard and impermeable surfaces. Low dense drought- and inundation-tolerant vegetation clothing drainage swales and retention ponds can filter pollutants for on-site soakage and avoid loading the storm-water system. Groundwater exposure and management as water features is appropriate, such as with old gravel pits. All designed are desirably within a spacious dry plains

43

Lucas Associates. 2001. Caring for streams of the Canterbury Plains: a guide to riparian management. Environment Canterbury.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

83

design vernacular, recognising the above ground water paucity and below ground water vulnerability.

Planting guides are available for the Selwyn and Waimakariri soils of the dry plains lands. 44

44

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 3: Plants of the Plains of Shirley-Papanui and Fendalton-Waimairi.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

84

11. LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides an opportunity to strategically address management of surface waters as a core dimension and definer of the landscape resource.

Considering the RMA and Part II matters, landscape needs to be addressed with respect to s.5 of the RMA, as well as consideration as per s.6 and s.7. Waters and landscape values associated with them are natural and physical resources in terms of section 5 of the Resource Management Act. The surface waters based landscape resource is important for social, economic and cultural well-being. The sustainable management of the use, development and protection of this landscape resource must be considered. Significant adverse effects are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

12. LANDSCAPE COMMONS Water is recognised as a commons in New Zealand. A resource shared by all and owned by the state. However the land over which the surface water flows, sits or seeps may be privately, commercially, institutionally or publicly owned. As a commons, there is a public interest in sustainable management of water quality and quantity, but also for its contribution to landscape.

In recent years’ proximity and access to, and overview of, surface water has become highly valued in both urban and rural contexts. Streamside, lakeside, sea view and beach properties enable a market premium. With a market premium there is considerable pressure to maximise opportunities for water views and associations.

The allure of surface water features and water associations, and expectations of environmentally responsible approaches, enables opportunities for surface water management and expression in the landscape to be maximised. With adequate space and buffers to enable achievement of water quality, habitat value and public enjoyment amidst a comprehensive landscape framework, significant public benefits can be achieved. However, to contribute adequately, spatial and landscape character parameters are preferably identified in advance of individual development activities.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

85

13. SPECIAL LANDSCAPES The RPS states (8.1 (k)) that “The region has landscapes that can be considered outstanding on a national, regional or local scale, and amenity value is one of the things that can give them that standing.”

Banks Peninsula is recognised as

outstanding in total when considered at the broad scale.

In the low altitude plains landscapes that lie within Christchurch, Brooklands Lagoon, Travis Swamp, the Avon Heathcote Estuary, Riccarton Bush, McLeans Island Woodlands and Grasslands, were identified as “Natural Features and Landscapes of Regional Significance”.45 Lake Ellesmere and Kaitorete Spit were also identified as outstanding natural features and landscapes at the regional scale, as were Banks Peninsula and the rural Port Hills.46 In the Christchurch City Plan and endorsed by the Courts, the rivers have been identified as outstanding natural features47; the Port Hills above the urban boundary as ONL48; plus Banks Peninsula at the broad scale49 and lengths of crest to the crater rims, Quail Island, Adderley Head, Waharoa Point, some lengths of outer eastern coast, Akaroa Heads and a narrow strip of coastal edge to Kaitorete Spit have been identified as ONL at the district scale. Also, various coastal edges to Banks Peninsula are identified as Coastal Natural Character Landscapes (CNCL), and, the rest of the rural lands as Rural Amenity Landscapes (RAL). Whilst no whole catchments or water bodies are identified, the Plan recognises the overall importance of Banks Peninsula landscapes and their need for appropriate management.

The challenge is therefore for sustainable and integrated surface water management across the landscape matrix of the wider district, rather than only in relation to special water bodies or sites. Catchments form useful spatial units to address the landscape matrix in terms of surface water management.

45

Boffa Miskell and Lucas Associates. 1993. Canterbury Regional Landscape Study. Vol.1 p. 68 Boffa Miskell and Lucas Associates. 1993. Canterbury Regional Landscape Study. Vol.1 p. 67 47 City Plan Policy 4.1.7, also C 171/2003 Inner City West Residents Association v. CCC, para. 51 48 C28/2003 Stonehaven Developments Ltd v. CCC, para. 69.

49 C45/2008, E M Briggs v. Christchurch City Council, para. 125.

46

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

86

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

87

In contrast to the approach often taken in New Zealand with selection of a few special natural landscapes or natural features, the European Landscape Convention (2000) instead: •

Recognises a public interest in ALL landscapes- the everyday as much as the iconic

•

Focus upon landscape as an expression of cultural identity

•

Encourages a range of policy responses from protection to rehabilitation.

Such an approach would seem appropriate in consideration of surface water management.

The RMA s.6(a) requires “The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate use and development.”

As noted above, the definition of “natural” has evolved through case law.

In addressing the preservation of natural character, the natural processes, natural patterns and natural elements need to be addressed. Thus, the functioning landscape, not just the visual landscape, needs to be addressed to ensure that it can be sustainably managed. This provides opportunity for comprehensively and strategically managing surface waters in the landscape. The surface waters and springs that feed each tributary; the vegetation slowing water flows, holding sediment and nutrients, creating habitat and amenity; the soils absorbing and holding the rainfall and runoff; dispersed across each catchment, these dimensions are all appropriately managed to address landscape objectives developed for that land type and catchment.

The focus of protection management via identification of only high natural character, particular indigenous biodiversity of significance and isolated ‘outstanding natural landscape’ areas, risks reducing overall landscape naturalness and value. This risk was identified where under the Protected Natural Areas Programme only “the best” was identified.50 This issue remains relevant for the role and landscape management of surface water under the RMA. Samples or “jewels” are not enough. As ecologists increasingly recognise the natural values and functioning of the matrix needs first to

50

Geoff Kelly, Geoff Park. ed.1986. “The New Zealand Protected Natural Areas Programme: a scientific focus”. Biological Resources Centre Publication No. 4. Wellington, Dept. Lands & Survey. p. 26

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

88

be addressed.51 It is not enough to manage a few “jewels”, their matrix, their setting and support systems also need to be appropriately managed to sustain their value.

If only the ‘cream sites’52 of the wider district are identified for protection management, then their context, the landscape matrix, could be ignored and the special bits may be left as fragile island oddities. It is necessary to address landscape management in 4 dimensions, that is, including across space and time.

To enable protection management for some values, land use change or refinement will be necessary, and avoidance of other changes. For example, discontinuing grazing and avoiding earthworks, paving and buildings in riparian areas.

A landscape approach, not a site approach, is needed. Management of surface water enables

the

opportunity

for

landscape-wide

management

addressing

both

vulnerabilities and opportunities.

Surface water management provides an important opportunity to address linkages, networks and corridors, to address water-related processes and patterns across the landscape, to address heritage and amenity values, at all scales and for all activities.

14. MODIFIED LANDSCAPES The underlying natural landscape has been identified to be the primary determinant of regional and city identity.53 Professor Hough (1990) identified that only by bringing together an aesthetic appreciation of the natural landscape with an understanding of the associated natural processes would there be an understanding of places. As recognised by Christine Heremaia (2002), with such an “understanding of identity and sense of place , it makes sense to design with cultural and ecological processes already present in a location rather than force an idealised preconceived plan upon a site.”54 To avoid potential conflicts between ecological and aesthetic objectives55, as

51

Susan Walker, Ann L. Brower, Bruce D. Clarkson, William G. Lee, Shona C. Myers, William B. Shaw, R.T.Theo Stephens. 2008. “Halting indigenous biodiversity decline: ambiguity, equity, and outcomes in RMA assessment of significance.” Forum Article. NZ Jnl. of Ecology 52 Judith Roper-Lindsay, David Norton. 2005. New Zealand Ecological Society Newsletter 113. p. 3 53 Hough, Michael. 1990. “Out of Place, Restoring Identity of the Regional Landscape”. Yale University Press, New Haven & London. p.19.

54 Heremaia, Christine. 2002. “Investigation. Christchurch’s Western Urban Edge, from a landscape perspective”. Lincoln University. p. 19.

55 Parsons, R. 1995. “Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canard or curiosity.” Landscape and Urban Planning 32(1), 227-244.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

89

identified by Professor Nassauer’s team56, it is necessary to ensure surface water management concepts will be both ecologically beneficial and culturally sustainable.

It is necessary to recognise that the CCC District has few if any catchments or ecosystems that have not been seriously damaged over recent centuries. It would not therefore be appropriate to seek to only undertake protection management where a system is reasonably intact and still functioning as it would have done prior to settlement. To achieve natural values in specific catchments and areas, restoration is a key task. Restoration is typically more easily achieved where lesser damage has occurred and where more recovery has already been achieved.

Landscape criteria address “naturalness” and “memorability” which may address distinctly different landscape characteristics. A highly natural landscape may or may not be highly memorable. The aesthetic value may not be entirely visual, but may also please other senses - a cool, tinkling, splashing sound; the memorable smell of damp earth, for example.

Where a surface water feature is attributed particular non-natural amenity values whether aesthetic, recreational or cultural, or heritage - then an evaluation of the sustainability and appropriateness of that regime needs to be assessed. Whilst adequate care for the quality of the water resource needs to be assured, it may be found that the amenity or heritage values are of sufficient significance that justifies an exemption from a naturalising philosophy.

Some water features, such as the Avon and Te Waihora, might be appropriately addressed as heritage landscapes or as having heritage landscape values re. s.6(f).57 58 From the Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide (CCC, 2003), surface water management for the city is currently based on managing the ‘six values’ of ecology, landscape, recreation, heritage, drainage and culture. The six values derive from a multi-disciplinary and sustainable approach to surface water management. The 56

Joan Iverson Nassauer, .David J Allan, Thomas Johengen, Sandra E. Kosek, Dana Infante. “Exurban residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception.” Urban Ecosystems, 7:267-281, 2004. p. 279 57 Kenderdine, S. 2005. Heritage Landscapes: Developing Legislative Frameworks Which Allow For Protection and Change. Paper presented to New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects Conference, Dunedin, 27 April 2005.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

90

Guide replaced a utilitarian approach which was to pipe open drains and prescribe waterway capacity criteria. It encourages people to work with natural features and processes in the landscape. Projects improving the aesthetic and ecological values of streams have been implemented and formed a model for New Zealand. However, nationwide, in the various RMA planning instruments available to Council (policies and objectives, rules and other methods) “an understanding of landscape requires both the natural / physical (biophysical) and cultural (social / economic / heritage / community) dimensions are addressed, this is rarely evident in the plans.”59 One approach is to address policy both FOR and THROUGH landscape: •

FOR LANDSCAPE - Public interest in landscape as an expression of natural character, social history, aesthetic qualities and cultural identity.

•

THROUGH LANDSCAPE -

Landscape planning and management

as a means to achieve OTHER public policy goals, such as for biodiversity; health and well being; water management and flood protection; and, economic transformation (Selman 2004).

In addressing landscape through the RMA, Lincoln University’s Professor Swaffield has identified that: •

Plans and Policies failed to deal with cumulative effects, due to lack of clear spatial strategies, and this has become expressed in rapid and unforeseen landscape change.

•

Undue policy focus upon protection of the visual status quo, and insufficient attention to the management of change in a positive way.

•

Reliance on a narrow range of tools.

Professor Swaffield has recommended a focus on the land use practices that maintain and create landscape character. It is possible to identify the ‘deep’ landscape structure and processes at a range of scales, as a framework for both protection and enhancement. In this way the big picture and the detail, the historic, the existing and the long term can all be addressed.

58

W25/2007. McPherson & Stevens v. Otorohanga District Council. para. 219 Claire Findlay. “Protecting the Landscape” Chapter 20 in Handbook of Environmental Law. Ed. Rob Harris. Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society. 2004. p. 485.

59

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

91

For all land types, vegetation is a key ingredient in the management of surface water.

Whether assisting slope or bank stability, providing shade or filtering runoff, vegetation plays a key role. The roots, ground cover and canopy are all fundamental.

The selection, arrangement and management of vegetation are crucial dimensions of both surface water management and landscape character, for the landscape aesthetic.

Buffering against the typical and occasional weather patterns obviously needs to be built in to the management regime. The dry plains, coastal lands, colluvial lands and hills of the CCC District are frequently water-short. With climate change, the predictions are for more storms but perhaps less rain overall. Sea level rise may affect the coastal lands. With information and acceptance, there can be a changed aesthetic that accommodates more drought-tolerant landscape management regimes. Direct infiltration to soil via permeable surfaces and rain gardens, swales and detention ponds for runoff management, soil health and root zone management, and, resilient vegetation, can all assist in achieving surface water management targets as part of distinctive and sustainable landscapes.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

92

Green roof – Lucas Associates, Marokapara, Manchester Street Christchurch

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

93

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

94

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

95

16. AESTHETIC PREFERENCES Cultural and heritage landscape values can seem to be at odds in terms of what is desired management. Traditional formal, exotic or gardenesque approaches may achieve less in terms of surface water quality and quantity objectives than modernist and naturalistic designs that include these as design objectives.

There are endless design options in layout design for land uses large and small, urban and rural, including regarding plantings and vegetation management. A “messy” or “ecologically pure” approach may be desired for water quality and habitat reasons. Compromise between ‘purist’ and management contrary to achieving water quality outcomes may be more achievable, particularly in the interim. An ecological attribute may be achievable within a more formal or picturesque heritage arrangement where such character is highly valued for that setting.

Research has identified public preferences for landscapes that display apparent human care. Ecologically healthy streams and wetlands can look messy to the unknowing eye. Evidence of an intentional state, with visible management or ‘cues to care’ such as defined edges, rather than an abandoned character, can assist markedly in public acceptance. In addition, interpretation to enable an understanding of the ecosystem, will further increase acceptability of a natural aesthetic.

The degree of openness to be retained can be a key aesthetic requirement where openness has been traditionally enjoyed. For example, the amount of vegetation enclosing a space or impeding views of waters or impeding a sense of spaciousness.

Rather than sudden dramatic change, a phased approach can be an important method for achieving long term desirable outcomes. Small changes can incrementally achieve acceptance.

The public has tended to prefer landscapes that are well cared for, but if the intent of management and the values sought to be sustained or restored are understood, then a less well-cared for aesthetic is arguably acceptable, with greater wildness and naturalness. However, an ecologically appropriate and less well-cared for state can be achieved whilst also seeking to address some aesthetic preferences.

As identified by Professor Nassauer’s team, in assessing perceptions of alternative catchment management, they found that the ecologically beneficial regimes were

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

96

perceived as the most attractive. With more invertebrates and low nutrient and sediment they compared favourably with typical agricultural or residential catchments, the former exhibiting higher nutrient concentrations and the latter higher sediment concentrations. That is, public perceptions of attractiveness were consistent with aquatic ecological quality.60 Professor Nassauer’s team identified that new concepts of ecologically beneficial development scenarios can be perceived by environmental group members and the general public as more attractive than conventional scenarios.61 Whilst they differed in their perception of the conventional development, they agreed on the appeal of an environmentally friendly scenario – a large lot, indigenous cover, ecologically beneficial alternative. They showed the potential appeal of innovative eco-friendly designs. Landscapes that produced the highest water quality were also perceived as the most attractive.

Nassauer’s team suggested that where development sprawl generates conflicting public opinion, then there may instead be potential for public agreement on the desirability of innovative forms of development that can deliver ecological benefits.

Alternative designs with a cohesive framework, linkages and complementary character may enable protection and restoration of water quality or habitat as a greater public benefit, and better address landscape management.

A division has emerged in society. To display extensive care, to diminish the natural, can be interpreted as a sign of social and economic well-being; a sign of progress and success; of victor against nature. Evident maintenance effort for some in society equates with a traditional work ethic, particularly with some older sectors of society that recall and relate to efforts to “break in” country, man against nature. A greater evidence of the human footprint was sought.

Campaigns to protect wild and remote places since the 1960s have led to greater appreciation and awareness of natural values. For at least the last decade there has been growing interest in the natural values that do or did belong within the built city

60

Joan Iverson Nassauer, .David J Allan, Thomas Johengen, Sandra E. Kosek, Dana Infante. “Exurban residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception.” Urban Ecosystems, 7:267-281, 2004.

61 Joan Iverson Nassauer, .David J Allan, Thomas Johengen, Sandra E. Kosek, Dana Infante. “Exurban residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception.” Urban Ecosystems, 7:267-281, 2004. p. 278

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

97

and wider district, and numerous efforts to protect, restore, regenerate and reintroduce natural values.

Many younger people yearn for nature and natural remnants and recognise we are of the environment; that we are dependent on natural processes for continued wellbeing. They seek that humans lessen their footprint on the environment. With less and less wildness available locally to people, what remains is more valued and further restoration is sought. Allowing natural processes to occur can result in a very different aesthetic to designing for a naturalistic, picturesque or formal aesthetic.

These differing world views currently create a tension in society. With more information and involvement, so that people can take pride in what is locally natural and what restoration or enhancement of naturalness might be achieved, then a more natural aesthetic can find support. With greater knowledge of natural processes and the intent of achieving them, there is greater sympathy for this approach, and the naturalistic aesthetic.

Environmentally friendly solutions need not be “wild and woolly�. Serious attention to design is essential to enable sophisticated solutions achieving a widely accepted and exciting aesthetic, such as demonstrated at Waitangi Park on the Wellington Waterfront. Appropriate to their context and on site values, the formal aesthetic, picturesque aesthetic and the naturalistic aesthetic can all provide an appropriate environmental and aesthetic solution.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

98

Sustainability Award of Excellence, Wraight Athfield Landscape + Architecture Ltd. Waitangi Park, Wellington. Images courtesy of www.nzila.co.nz

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

99

Catchment Management Areas Catchment visions and targets can be drafted with their communities, and catchment management guidance provided.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

100

Landscape Character Areas can be broken down into smaller catchment management areas where appropriate, for example 24. Peraki Bay divided into three catchment management areas.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

101

14. CATCHMENT VISIONS & TARGETS The former City has been addressed as catchments for waterway management. The CCC District would appropriately all be managed on a catchment basis for surface water management. On the Peninsula, watersheds clearly define places.

Whether originating in the plains or the hills, most catchments involve several landscape types, culminating in the coastal lands. Due to differing behaviour of surface waters in each, a different management approach is needed for each landscape type.

Visions for each catchment would desirably be developed, involving a base vision in response to the land types present, and specific visions with regard to particular values, issues and opportunities in that place. The radial spur pattern of the Peninsula results in more than 80 catchments draining to the coast, plus more than 20 draining to Lakes Forsyth and Ellesmere.

Baseline information on the state of the surface water in each catchment would be useful. Issues and opportunities can be identified. Catchment visions and targets can then be drafted with their communities, and catchment management guidance provided. With similar terrain and landuses in groups of catchments, there can be information that is in common, along with that specific to a catchment.

Coordinating very localised information can assist public and private landowners in their day to day management and in planning for any land use change, but also assist the Councils in addressing sustainable management decision-making.

Incrementally there can be steps toward achieving the vision within a catchment.

There are roads and farm houses on the broad spurs which sit above and apart from the valleys and bays either side. In terms of surface water management, consideration in relation to the catchment or catchments below is essential. However it is also crucial that in drafting catchment visions, there is recognition of the landscape importance of the hill lands, the ridges, spurs and headlands that enclose each, and their contribution to the Banks Peninsula landscape. The open spurs and headlands typically have a very different landscape character than the valley and bay lands below. A catchment management approach needs to develop a particular

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

102

regime for the watershed lands on the summits and upper slopes as distinct from that for the valley lands below.

With the visual prominence of the headlands and spurs as enjoyed from above, across and below, both individually and collectively as an array of radial spurs, surface water management on each headland and spur requires consideration of not only the catchment below. Careful consideration of the contribution to valued Banks Peninsula landscape character is required. As earthworks and vegetation are key tools in surface water management, and they can generate diverse landscape consequences, care is needed in the integration and coordination of surface water management activities to sustain important natural character, landscape and amenity values. Whilst they may achieve effective surface water management in terms of the water being dealt with, such works can very easily become a “blot on the landscape�.

The landscape sensitivity of the elevated lands of the Peninsula are such that technically sophisticated and ecologically sensitive solutions alone are not adequate.

Appropriate location and careful integration into the local and wider landscape is essential.

Greater vegetative cover can enable improved water-holding capacity of the soils, reduced erosion, and improved stream quality. Stormwater and wastewater disposal provide opportunities for increased vegetative cover, as do rainwater storage, runoff capture, key-line systems and dams. Unless carefully located, sensitively and comprehensively designed, the application of such techniques on the upper and outer slopes, spurs and headlands, risks generating adverse landscape effects in terms of valued landscape character. The application of such techniques in somewhat

prominent and valued locations

can have negative

landscape

consequences. As with some dry plains areas, openness and treelessness can be a

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

103

valued characteristic. The vulnerability is such that a landscape vision for surface water management must seriously address the maintenance and enhancement of landscape and amenity values.62 Historic vegetation cover may provide guidance. The vegetation mapping for the Peninsula recognises the former grassland and shrubland character of many headlands. As identified in research for upland Otago catchments63 water yields differ in relation to vegetative cover. Indigenous tall tussock grasslands in good condition have been found to maximise water yield relative to other vegetation types. The tussocks can sweep moisture from the fog and mist and take that down to the soil below, which may contribute to their 40% greater annual water yield as compared to forestry clad catchments. With some headlands and spurs being naturally nonforested, grassland and shrubland options might be explored for their potential to satisfy landscape and water management objectives.

The Peninsula involves landscapes where surface water management regimes of ecological benefit may have significant adverse landscape effects. Great care is therefore needed. Issues, opportunities and vulnerabilities all need to be addressed.

As recognised in the (draft) National standard on Environmental Flows and Water Levels (MFE, March 2008), ecological, tangata whenua, natural character, recreational and other amenity values need to be addressed.

However, with the extent of vegetation depletion and soil erosion that has occurred, a status quo regime may well not be appropriate and restoration of any dune system fronting a Peninsula valley, the front wedge of Coastal lands; restoring wetlands and meandering streams in the Bottom lands; the riparian corridors through the Colluvial country; and, increased vegetative cover of hill slopes including of de-stocked riparian corridors, are likely to all be appropriate to achieve more sustainable water resources and ecosystems.

Neither a purely ecological nor a purely aesthetic approach would be appropriate.

Typical ecological restoration could in some locations be unnecessarily damaging and contrary to the protection of existing amenity values. What is currently highly 62

Brack W. Hale, Michelle M. Steen-Adams, Katie Predick, Nick Fisher. 2005. “Ecological Conservation through Aesthetic landscape Planning: A Case Study of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway�.

Environmental Management Vol. 35, no.4. p. 382 63 Alan F Mark, Katharine JM Dickinson. Maximizing water yield with indigenous non-forest vegetation: a New Zealand perspective. Frontier Ecol Environ 2008: 6(1): 25-34. The Ecological Society of America.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

104

valued requires respect, including openness. Along with good baseline information and an informed community, achievement of a more sophisticated ecological aesthetic64 is required to address the full spectrum of ecological and landscape parameters. A responsible and appreciated aesthetic of care can then emerge.

If adequately defined, strategies to address surface water according to holistic landscape management objectives have the potential to enhance the valued characteristics and distinctiveness of the various landscape types of the CCC District, whilst improving, buffering and maximising the surface water resource.

As the surface water has formed the underlying landscapes of the CCC District, innovative and integrated management of surface water has the potential to nurture the distinctive character of each landscape, to enhance the environmental quality, and to protect and enhance valued amenity.

64

Paul H. Gobster, Joan L. Nassauer, Terry C. Daniel, Gary Fry. “The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?� Landscape Ecology (2007) 22: 959-972.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

105

15. CONCLUSIONS There is considerable potential for the surface waters of the CCC District to be wellmanaged through a landscape approach. Increasingly sympathetic attitudes as well as pressures on water quality and quantity, likely climate change effects, pressures for development and landuse change, and, infrastructure (re)development, all provide extensive opportunities to guide, persuade and require sustainable management and restoration of natural surface waters as key landscape attributes, and to construct innovative surface water management facilities at all scales, catchment-wide.

Differing aesthetic aspirations can be resolved through information and design. With innovation, reasonable developers’ aspirations can be met along with sustainable landscape aspirations.

Because of the essential interconnectedness of surface water processes, whole catchment management is appropriate. With private and fragmented ownership of most catchments, effort is required to identify visions and spatial strategies for the landscape management of surface water in each catchment. The RMA provides opportunity to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects and catchment visions and plans can provide the direction to ensure that in considering any opportunities for change such as with consent applications, esplanade reserve creation, infrastructure development and reserve contributions, these opportunities maximise the effort toward the vision, strategies and plan for that catchment. Whole systems, not just waterways, wetlands and lakes, require addressing.

Whilst waterway enhancement guidance is exemplary, the Council’s existing statutory documents provide minimal support for an enhanced landscape approach to surface water management within the CCC District.

Council documents such as Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide, address landscape as aesthetic and heritage features. A multi-dimensional functioning landscape approach would more appropriately address catchment-scale surface water management. Definition of ‘landscape’ to address contemporary RMA approaches would assist in surface water management. Definition to include the 7 factors

of

natural

science,

legibility,

aesthetic

(including

naturalness

and

memorability), transient, shared and recognised, tangata whenua values and historic associations, provides a more holistic approach. The landscape expression of

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

106

surface water dimensions must be addressed as active and not passive values.

Whilst the natural science factor encourages a process-based consideration, as surface water management necessarily involves very dynamic dimensions, this should be a fundamental dimension. Therefore consideration under the discipline of landscape ecology would also contribute importantly.

Christchurch involves diverse lands, the volcanic hills, the coasts and the alluvial plains. They have very different landscape characteristics and different surface water management issues and opportunities. To enable sustainable management of the various surface waters of the wider district, a landscape typology that addresses the various types of underlying lands, provides a useful framework. Whilst this approach has been recognised by the Council for ecological restoration65, a land type approach is equally valid for planning surface water management regimes.

The 6 landscape types identified (Hill Country, Colluvial Country, Bottom Lands, Coastal Lands, Wet Plains and Dry Plains) each involve a series of landform components66. The landscape types can be ‘windowed into’ for addressing any and every site through the city so that its underlying character, its natural patterns, natural processes and natural elements can be understood as a basis for developing surface water management regimes that respect and complement the landscape. Concepts can be developed that recognise the connections between all lands in a catchment and form the entire system. Landscape management concepts for each catchment would be appropriate.

He taura whiri kotahi mai anĹ? te kopunga tai no i te pu au From the source to the mouth of the sea all things are joined together as one

Guidance for management, and methods to avoid, remedy and mitigate effects on the surface water values, can be developed for each of the landscape types, and for specific landform components and places within each. The landscape typology also provides a basis for integrated catchment management templates.

65

66

CCC. 2003. Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide. Part B: Design. 4-10.

Appendix 1. Lists of landform components. Note. Banks Peninsula mapped for Landscape Study for CCC by Ian Lynn, Landcare Research, 2006. Scale 1:50, 000.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

107

With the landscape opportunities for surface water management from raindrop, spring or wave onward, it is recommended that catchment management rather than waterway management be the focus. Methods to maximise the quantity and character of water arriving in each catchment in ways that contribute to an overall landscape vision for a catchment, could be actively encouraged in public and private decision-making and management, and as a basis for future planning documents.

In all landscapes, at all scales, soil management should be encouraged that holds moisture and makes it available for plant uptake.

To nurture every raindrop, protect the aquifers and floodplains, to cherish our waterways from hill crest or spring source to sea, enables opportunity to re-think land management systems that are the basis for these waters. A landscape approach provides that opportunity.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

108

APPENDIX The land types used distinguish major physiographic landform units and are broadly equivalent to a Land Region as defined by Lynn and Basher (199467), for hierarchical land resource mapping in New Zealand. The land types depict largely lithologically based macro-relief units and are frequently bounded by structural dislocations or contrasting rock terrains.

A land type framework at a broad scale can be “windowed into” to finer scale for different areas or different issues and opportunities, when and where desired.

Christchurch and Banks Peninsula have been addressed as broad land systems of the coastal fringe (L1), and the plains behind (L4) and for Banks Peninsula, the Port Hills (L8), Herbert (L9) and Akaroa (L10) land types (refer map).68 Each involves a number of landform components.

67

Lynn IH, Basher LR 1994. Principles underlying land systems in resource assessment of hill and mountain lands in New Zealand. In Webb, T. H. Ed. Soil landscape modelling in New Zealand, Landcare Research Science Series No. 5. pp 38-51 68 Lynn, Ian. 1993. “Land Types of the Canterbury Region” Landcare Research Report LC9394/2 Ch. 2. in Canterbury Regional Landscape Study. Boffa Miskell & Lucas Associates.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

109

THE COAST L1 PLAINS – COASTAL FRINGE LAND TYPE The Canterbury Plains coastal fringe incorporating undulating to rolling coastal beach sand dunes and associated interdune backswamps, sand plains, gravel beach ridges and bars, and saline lake and lagoonal fringe wetlands. Includes the coastal fringe north of Banks Peninsula and the coastal fringe to Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere).

Landform components included: •

beach, sand dune complexes

•

backswamps

•

sand plains

•

gravel bars & beach ridges

•

saline lake & estuary fringes.

THE PLAINS L4 PLAINS – RECENT FLOODPLAINS & LOW TERRACES LAND TYPE Active, recent, major river floodplains incorporating wide, braided, active and recently active riverbeds, recent floodplain terraces and associated backswamp wetlands.

Landform components included: •

active braided floodplain

•

recently abandoned braided floodplain

•

low terraces

•

backswamps.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

110

THE HILLS L8 BANKS PENINSULA – PORT HILLS LAND TYPE Westerly segment of the steep to very steep, dissected (distinct ridge and valleys), Lyttelton volcano bounded by the western shore of Lyttelton harbour and Gebbies Pass; with loess mantled, smooth and tunnelled lower slopes, especially those with a westerly aspect; broken rocky, moderately steep to very steep westerly aspect mid and upper backslope dip slopes; rocky spur crests and major ridge summits; very steep to steep rocky and bluffy scarp slopes (easterly aspect); very steep coastal cliffs, and small, poorly drained valley floors with beach dunes. Elevation ranges from 0-580 m, and rainfall from 600-850 mm/A. Landform components include: •

smooth, loess mantled lower slopes & spurs

(0 – 150 m.)

•

upper, broken, rocky & dip slopes

(0 – 580 m.)

•

rocky & bluffy (eastern aspect) scarp slopes

(0 – 580 m.)

•

rocky summits & crests

(200 – 580 m.)

•

poorly drained valley floors; with lagoonal deposits & beach dunes (0 – 30 m.)

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

111

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

112

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

113

L9 BANKS PENINSULA – HERBERT LAND TYPE The north and westerly segment of the steep to very steep, dissected (ridge and valleys), Lyttelton (excluding the Port Hills type) and Akaroa volcanoes, with loess mantled, smooth and tunnelled lower slopes, especially those with a westerly aspect; broken, rocky, moderately steep to very steep mid and upper backslope dip slopes; rocky spur crests and major ridge summits; very steep to steep rocky and bluffy scarp slopes; highly indented coastline with deep harbours and very steep to precipitous coastal cliffs, and poorly drained valley floors with meandering floodplains, beach dunes and minor lagoons. Elevation ranges from 0 – 920 m, and rainfall from 650 – 1400 mm/A. Landform components include: •

smooth, loess mantled lower slopes & spurs

(0 – 150 m.)

•

upper, broken, rocky dip slopes

( 0 – 950 m.)

•

rocky and bluffy scarp slopes

(0 – 950 m.)

•

rocky summits and crests

(400 – 950 m.)

•

poorly drained valley floors, meandering floodplains; with lagoonal & dune deposits.

Surface Water Strategy

(0 – 40 m.)

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

114

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

115

L 10 BANKS PENINSULA – AKAROA LAND TYPE The east and southerly segment of the steep to very steep, dissected (ridge and valleys), Akaroa volcano, with loess mantled, smooth and tunnelled lower slopes; broken, rocky, moderately steep to very steep mid and upper backslope dip slopes; rocky spur crests and major ridge summits; very steep to steep rocky and bluffy scarp slopes; highly indented coastline with very steep to precipitous coastal cliffs, and poorly drained valley floors with meandering floodplains, beach dunes and minor lagoons. Elevation ranges from 0 – 850 m, and rainfall from 650 – 1200 mm/A. Landform components include: •

smooth, loess mantled lower slopes & spurs

(0 – 150 m.)

•

upper, broken, rocky dip slopes

( 0 – 850 m.)

•

rocky & bluffy scarp slopes

(0 – 850 m.)

•

rocky summits and crests

(300 – 850 m.)

•

coastal cliffs

(0 – 200 m.)

•

poorly drained valley floors, meandering floodplains; & dune deposits.

(0 – 40 m.)

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

116

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

117

For the former Banks Peninsula District, the landform components have been individually delineated at the1:50, 000 map scale as Rocky; Smooth upper slope; Rocky scarp slopes; Smooth dip slopes; Smooth colluvial slopes; and, Bottom lands (Lynn, 2007).69 For the former City, the land types have been mapped and modelled as 12 plains and 12 Port Hills land type based ecosystems.70 These were grouped as 3 plains and 1 hills ecosystem – The Coast, Wet Plains, Dry Plains, and, Port Hills.71

1. Hill Country – eroded volcanic country (the Rocky; Smooth upper slope; Rocky scarp slopes; and, Smooth dip slopes landform components, 0 – 950 m. asl.).

2. Colluvial Country – deposition slopes of the valleys (the Smooth colluvial slopes landform component, 0 – 150 m. asl).

3. Bottom Lands – fluvial lands of valley floors (the Bottom lands landform component, 0 – 40 m. asl).

4. Coastal Lands – coastal deposits & eroded headlands.

5. Wet Plains – spring-fed and drainage impeded lands; and, 6. Dry Plains – gravel plains and low terraces.

69

Boffa Miskell. 2007. Banks Peninsula Landscape Study. Figure 6 Land Type Units – landform components, map at 1:175,000 scale.

70 Lucas Associates. 1995 – 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Sets 1 – 4.

71 Christchurch City Council. 2000. Christchurch Naturally. discovering the city’s wild side.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alan F Mark, Katharine JM Dickinson. Maximizing water yield with indigenous nonforest vegetation: a New Zealand perspective. Frontier Ecol Environ 2008: 6(1): 2534. The Ecological Society of America.

Boffa Miskell Limited 2007. Banks Peninsula Landscape Study. for CCC. Boffa Miskell & Lucas Associates. 1993. Canterbury Regional Landscape Study Brack W. Hale, Michelle M. Steen-Adams, Katie Predick, Nick Fisher. 2005.

“Ecological Conservation through Aesthetic landscape Planning: A Case Study of the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway”. Environmental Management Vol. 35, no.4. p. 382 Christchurch Boys’ High School. 1952-1974. Peninsula & Plain, A history and geography of Banks Peninsula and the Canterbury Plains. Whitcombe & Tombs, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Christchurch City Council. 2000. Christchurch Naturally. discovering the city’s wild side.

Christchurch City Council. 2003. Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide. Part B: Design. 4-10.

Claire Findlay. “Protecting the Landscape” Chapter 20 in Handbook of Environmental Law. Ed. Rob Harris. Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society. 2004. p. 485.

Geoff Kelly, Geoff Park. ed.1986. “The New Zealand Protected Natural Areas Programme: a scientific focus”. Biological Resources Centre Publication No. 4.

Wellington, Dept. Lands & Survey. p. 26 Jeremy Gibb. 1983. The Geography of the New Zealand Coast. in “The Edge of the Land. The Coastline of New Zealand.” p. 122 Paul H. Gobster, Joan L. Nassauer, Terry C. Daniel, Gary Fry. “The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?” Landscape Ecology (2007) 22: 959-972.

Head J, deRidder L, Findlay C. 2004. Protecting Natural Areas – a design guide.

Nature Heritage Fund. Wellington, New Zealand.

Heremaia, Christine. 2002. “Investigation. Christchurch’s Western Urban Edge, from a landscape perspective”. Lincoln University. p. 19.

Hough, Michael. 1990. “Out of Place, Restoring Identity of the Regional Landscape”.

Yale University Press, New Haven & London. p.19.

Kenderdine, S. 2005. Heritage Landscapes: Developing Legislative Frameworks Which Allow For Protection and Change. Paper presented to New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects Conference, Dunedin, 27 April 2005.

Lucas Associates. 1998. A Concept Plan for the Restoration of Omaru Stream, Rapaki. prepared for Ngati Wheke.

Lucas Associates. 2000. Akaroa Harbour Coastal Environment – Working Draft.

Lucas Associates. 2001. Caring for streams of the Canterbury Plains: a guide to riparian management. Environment Canterbury.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

119

Lucas Associates. 1998. The Coastal Lands of Waimakariri – Rakahuri (Ashley) a preliminary report developing a community vision. Community Employment Grant and Waimakariri District Council.

Lucas Associates. 1999. Estuary Green Edge Te Ihutai – Draft Report. For Christchurch City Council.

Lucas Associates. 1998 & 2005. Indigenous Ecosystems of the Lyttelton Harbour Basin with Stream Guide – a guide to native plants, their ecology and planting. for the Governors Bay Community Association & Governors Bay Landcare Group.

Lucas Associates. 1995. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 1: The plains of Riccarton-Wigram & Spreydon-Heathcote.

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 2: The coastal plains of Hagley-Ferrymead and Burwood-Pegasus.

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 3: Plants of the Plains of Shirley-Papanui and Fendalton-Waimairi.

Lucas Associates. 1997. Indigenous Ecosystems of Otautahi Christchurch. Set 4: The Port Hills of Christchurch City.

Lucas Associates & Christchurch City Council. 1998. Restoring Avoca Valley Stream. a community model. Waterways and Wetlands Team, Christchurch City Council.

Lucas Associates. 2001. Avonside Park, from Fitzgerald Avenue to Linwood Avenue. concept plans for ALPA. Lucas Associates and Wrightson Forestry Service. 2003. The Sustainable Landowners Group Management Handbook.

Lynn, Ian. 1993. “Land Types of the Canterbury Region” Landcare Research Report LC9394/2 Ch. 2. in Canterbury Regional Landscape Study. Boffa Miskell & Lucas Associates.

Ian Lynn, Landcare Research. 2006. Appendix 1. Lists of landform components.

Lynn IH, Basher LR 1994. Principles underlying land systems in resource assessment of hill and mountain lands in New Zealand. In Webb, T. H. Ed. Soil landscape modelling in New Zealand, Landcare Research Science Series No. 5. pp 38-51.

Colin Meurk, Landcare Research; Lucas Associates; &, CCC. 1998? Streamside Planting Guide. What to plant and how to maintain native plants along freshwater streams in Christchurch. A2 brochure.

Joan Iverson Nassauer, .David J Allan, Thomas Johengen, Sandra E. Kosek, Dana Infante. “Exurban residential subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception.” Urban Ecosystems, 7:267-281, 2004. p. 278-279 Parsons, R. 1995. “Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canard or curiosity.” Landscape and Urban Planning 32(1), 227-244.

Judith Roper-Lindsay, David Norton. 2005. New Zealand Ecological Society Newsletter 113. p. 3 J.M.Soons, M.J.Selby. Longman Paul. 1982. Landforms of New Zealand. Ed. p. 378.

Professor Simon Swaffield. 2008. personal communication.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

120

Susan Walker, Ann L. Brower, Bruce D. Clarkson, William G. Lee, Shona C. Myers, William B. Shaw, R.T.Theo Stephens. 2008. “Halting indigenous biodiversity decline: ambiguity, equity, and outcomes in RMA assessment of significance.� Forum Article.

NZ Jnl. of Ecology Winterbourn M, Knox G, Burrows C, Marsden I, University of Canterbury. 2008. The Natural History of Canterbury. Canterbury University Press. Christchurch, New Zealand.

ENVIRONMENT COURT DECISIONS NZRMA 59

WESI v. QLDC. para. 70, 78

C180/1999

WESI v. Queenstown Lakes District Council. para. 80

C171/2003

Inner City West Residents Association v. CCC, para. 51

C28/2003

Stonehaven Developments Ltd v. CCC, para. 69.

W90/2004

Gannet Beach Adventures v. Hastings District Council & Cape Kidnappers Stn. Para. 44 & 46

W24/2007

The Outstanding Landscape Protection Society v. Hastings District Council & Unison Networks. para. 107.

W25/2007

McPherson & Stevens v. Otorohanga District Council. para. 219

W82/2007

Save the Point v. Wellington City Council. para. 66

C45/2008

E M Briggs v. Christchurch City Council, para. 125.

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

121

Š Lucas Associates Ltd 2008

Di Lucas (Registered NZILA Landscape Architect, Director) plus Carl Pickens, Antonia Guthrey, Glenys Drury, and,

Ian Lynn of Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research June 2008

Surface Water Strategy

Landscape Value Assessment

Lucas Associates

June 2008

122