Hundreds of homes may be built on Christchurch’s former red zone land
Christchurch City Council staff have kicked off a process that could see former red zone land “disposed of” for hundreds of homes.
This may mean land sales, long-term leases - where the council retains ownership - or partnerships.
After the 2010-11 earthquakes, whole neighbourhoods and some half neighbourhoods were deemed unsuitable for housing. The government bought the land, residents were forced to move elsewhere, and nearly 7000 homes were demolished.
Read more:
The area became known as the red zone with the portions along the river formally known as the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (Oarc). It is in this area that the council has identified areas for possible housing despite acknowledging a “long-standing community perception that Oarc land will remain in public ownership in perpetuity”.
There are 11 “development lots” comprising 12.15 hectares, available for “edge housing”. The large sections are strips, sometimes ragged, where the red zone meets surviving neighbourhoods.
Staff commissioned a report from planning consultants Boffa Miskell that found between 68 and 90 dwellings could be built on edge housing land on Cheam, Sutton and Birchfield Sts in Dallington.
They would be a mix of two-storey walk-up apartments, terraces and duplexes. The study was indicative.
Space for such edge housing was included in the much-consulted 2019 Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor (Oarc) Regeneration Plan, which still guides development in the area.
The new housing would improve integration with existing housing and provide some surveillance over public land, according to council documents released this week.
The process started by staff this week is a recommendation to commence a “request for information” (RFI) from organisations that might be interested in developing edge housing.
Staff said there was “known interest” in developing edge housing and organisations like community housing providers, Kāinga Ora, iwi, charitable trusts and private developers would be approached.
A RFI is an “early, non-binding process used to gather information and perspectives before decisions are made”, the documents state.
“In this context, an RFI would support informed decision making by testing what options may exist for edge housing, without committing the ... council to any particular outcome. An RFI is not a procurement, rezoning decision, or approval to develop land.”
Starting the process will first be a decision for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Committee, which holds its inaugural public meeting next Tuesday.
Its six members are mayor Phil Mauger, deputy mayor Victoria Henstock, councillor Kelly Barber, representing the council, and Dr Te Maire Tau, Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako and Tania Wati, representing Ngāi Tūāhuriri and the Te Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust.
The committee does not have the authority to dispose of red zone land. That decision will be made by the full council at a future date, if needed.
“We would need to have a lot more information before considering options in the red zone,” said Jill Hawkey, executive director of the Christchurch Methodist Mission, a social housing provider.
In any event, “we are only in a position to develop new community housing if support is provided through the Government,” she said.
The vast majority of homes in Brooklands were red-zoned after the Canterbury earthquakes.
Resident Jan Burney is one of those who still lives in the community and said she recalled “way back”, about 15 years ago, that it was possible houses would be built on the red zone perimeter.
“There were reasons for the red zone,” she said, but there should be complete transparency about building plans and experts should examine the hazards and build according to land heights and lateral spread.
“It should be Kainga Ora,” she told The Press of potential new homes in the zone, “… or low-cost housing for people to get into because it was public land and not a private capitalisation.”
In February, Hayley Guglietta, spokesperson for the Avon-Ōtākaro Network, said the group “would not support the land being sold and we never will”.
Comment (18)