Hagley Oval Evidence Di Lucas
Post on 11-Mar-2016
221 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH
ENV-2013-CHC-019 IN THE MATTER of of the Resource Management
Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of a direct referral under section
87G of the Act BETWEEN CANTERBURY CRICKET
ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
Applicant
AND CHRISTCHURCH CITY
COUNCIL
Respondent
BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF DIANE JEAN LUCAS ON BEHALF OF HANDS OFF HAGLEY INCORPORATED
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________ WYNN WILLIAMS LAWYERS CHRISTCHURCH Solicitor: M Perpick (margo.perpick@wynnwilliams.co.nz)
Homebase, Unit B, 195 Marshland Road, P O Box 4341, CHRISTCHURCH Tel 0064 3 3797622 Fax 0064 3 3530247
1
Introduction
1. My full name is Diane Jean Lucas. I am a landscape architect and
landscape planner with more than 35 years' experience. I am a
Director of Lucas Associates Limited, a landscape planning, design
and management practice I established in Canterbury in 1979 and
have worked throughout New Zealand.
2. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in
the Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note dated 1
November 2011. I have complied with the Code when preparing my
evidence.
Qualifications and Experience
3. My qualifications include a Bachelor of Science Degree (Otago
University), a post-graduate Diploma and a Masters Degree in
Landscape Architecture (Lincoln University). I was elected a Fellow of
the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA) in 1987
and am a Registered NZILA Landscape Architect. I am a certified
Resource Management Hearings Commissioner.
4. I have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix 1.
5. At the request of 10 groups - professional, business and residential -
in October 1995 I was contracted by the Christchurch City Council to
facilitate the Inner City Charrette, a community workshop-based
planning process. The process was instigated by the Civic Trust;
professional groups including Institute of Architects (NZIA), Institute of
Landscape Architects (NZILA), Historic Places Trust (HPT), and the
Inner City Promotion Team (ICPT), along with residents' groups.
6. The charrette process and resultant document, “The Shape of
Christchurch within the frame of the 4 avenues”, showed an
overwhelming vision for a low-rise, lively, aesthetic inner city character
with strong historic qualities and identity, amenity, and plains city
character. The tree canopy height for major tree belts such as the
avenues, park and river corridor, was identified as a desired height
threshold for structures to enable the low rise character to prevail. The
project received a premier NZILA planning award.
2
7. I have authored several tree planting design publications1 and of
heritage management2. I have been an advisor on waterway
restoration in Christchurch and received a premier award for waterway
work. I am familiar with park requirements and was an appointed
member of the Garden City Committee, a sub-committee of the
Council’s Parks and Recreation Committee. I have developed park
plans in Christchurch and assessed proposals in and around Hagley
Park, including an amphitheatre assessment. I have developed
heritage assessment criteria and am a judge of heritage awards. I am
currently a member of the council’s Urban Design Panel and have an
advisory role in several anchor projects.
8. I am very familiar with Hagley Park having lived and worked nearby,
and moved around and through the park, for more than 25 years and
have undertaken professional assessments within and around Hagley
Park.
Scene Setting
9. Central Christchurch is admired by many from afar. It is essentially a
low-rise city of the plainscape. In contrast, trees being essentially
taller than nearby built masses, form frameworks to green spaces and
corridors have been able to form, creating a strong framework and
thus an identity for the city.
10. Many cities of admired character have a strong identity formed by a
coherence created by strong topographic form and pattern. The
isthmus of Auckland, whilst often criticised for its lack of built cohesion
and spatial coherence, intricate land-sea relationships as well as the
dramatic series of volcanoes provide such a strong framework that
Auckland is able to achieve some pattern in response, thus some
definition and distinctiveness. The vast built environment is broken
1 “Planting Design” Chapter 1 in Trees for the New Zealand Countryside. Pp. 19 – 39. 1984.
“Woodlots in our Landscape” 1987. Landscape Publications Limited. Wellington.
2 Vegetation Management in the Archaeological Landscape. Research report for Department of
Conservation Science and Research. 1993.
3
and somewhat subordinate to the natural pattern provided by the
coastal edge, the open water spaces, and the volcanoes as "islands"
dotted through, giving a degree of aesthetic coherence and thus
identity to greater Auckland.
11. Wellington, sited on the faultline, wrapping around the harbour hills,
but usually not extending onto the upper slopes, giving these the job of
forming enveloping green space. The tallest built form steps up the
city slopes, enabling Wellington to have a very coherent pattern and
identity.
12. Dunedin, too, wraps the harbour basin, with the tallest buildings
confined to the base of the slope, with hill backdrop and green belts
encircling on and above the slopes. Together with the coherent built
character, this provides an overall exceptionally high aesthetic
coherence for that city. The strong coherence and enhanced human
scale mean that Dunedin has a distinctive identity and a very high
amenity value. This coherence is increasingly recognised, from both
resident and visitor appeal, as a valuable city resource.
13. For Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin, the location on slopes allows
for diverse outlooks and spaces and quite different opportunities in
relation to building heights and spacings than occur if located on the
flat.
14. As a plains city, Christchurch, being mostly of the subtle plains
landscape, lacks the strong topographic frameworks that form the
basis for the identity of Auckland, Wellington and Dunedin. Lacking
anything to relate to, some cities surrounded by plains create their
identity through tall buildings - to create an exclamation mark, a focus,
a statement, out on the plains. Some, e.g. Brasilia, recognise the
expansive plains scale through having substantial buildings of similar
scale and of blocky form, but surrounded by extensive open space.
15. Christchurch, however, is backed by the Port Hills. Traditionally a low
rise city with a vast majority of residential buildings being single storey,
the Port Hills provide a backdrop enjoyed across the city. The low-rise
flats spreading out from the foot of the volcano have enabled the city
to have a strong aesthetic coherence, a high amenity, because the
urban form has been evident. The taller built node of the central city
and the major natural, green and open space features and corridors of
4
the flats are legible. They provide the fundamental pattern that makes
sense of the city form.
16. The major corridors and spaces of the flat central city are those of
Hagley Park, the river, squares and surrounding avenues. It is their
tree pattern, the scale and continuity of trees forming a logical pattern
defining the spaces and corridors and establishing a setting for the
built matrix between. The tree pattern is an essential contributor to the
amenity of central Christchurch. The tree pattern, along with the open
spaces and river, are highly valued resources for city amenity, both in
themselves and in what they contribute to city coherence, character
and identity.
17. The importance of the tree pattern and the open spaces, and their
contribution to the appeal of Christchurch. If the city is to retain the
character and amenity, the appeal of the city, it is essential that
structures are designed to respect the tree setting and the open
spaces. The central Christchurch tree framework suggests both a
vertical and a horizontal scale of reference in the city.
18. Past planning here and elsewhere has sought to maximise the value
of the open spaces and river through allowing/encouraging taller
buildings nearby so that a maximum number of occupants of these
buildings can enjoy views over the trees space, and river. The
aesthetic underpinning this approach gave minimal recognition to
potential effects on other users of these spaces.
19. The taller buildings changed the experience of the spaces through
overtopping the tree surrounds and thus reducing the significance of
the trees, reducing the naturalistic qualities of the space, and
increasing the built character of spaces.
Disaster Landscape Context
20. I have resided and worked in the Central City throughout our quaking
era, earlier being within the Red Zone. It has been clearly evident that
unbuilt, tree-framed green open spaces formed refuges during the
major quake times. In this (hopefully) post-disaster city landscape, the
tree-framed green spaces of the central city – Latimer Square,
Cranmer Square, the Ōtākaro Avon corridor and Hagley Park - provide
on-going refuge qualities.
5
21. With the continued flattening of the predominance of built sites in the
central city, the tree-framed green spaces have become the major
surviving heritage, the symbols of what Christchurch was renowned
for, prior to the quakes.
22. Care is needed in any change to what remains of our historic heritage,
particularly the intact and highly valued heritage park, Hagley Park.
Hagley Park
23. The tree framework is an important contributor to enabling the amenity
values to be sustained. The cohesive, large-scale, deciduous exotic
tree band characterises Hagley Park. The large tree mass, with high
aesthetic value and seasonal variety, is important in setting the scale
for the adjoining built city.
24. The tree cover, clearly overtopping the built fabric within Hagley Park,
enables coherence so that various areas are experienced as a single
comprehensive unit.
25. Hagley Park forms the heart of the Garden City. I quote from the
website NZ.com:
" The Garden City
Christchurch City easily wins the heart of visitors with its reputation as
New Zealand's Garden City. The Avon River and gently undulating
topography of the central city and its surrounds encouraged the city's
leaders to recreate 'the best of botanical British'.
Hagley Park and the Botanic Gardens
The Garden City’s crowning glory is Hagley Park, which offers 165
hectares (407 acres) of mature introduced tree plantings, beautifully
thought-out walkways meandering past the river, permanent and
evolving garden features and installations, extensive sports grounds,
and a small golf-course.
There are many cycle tracks and pathways around the perimeter and
throughout the park, making it accessible for everyone. In wintertime
you’ll find the park packed with people playing sport, especially on
Saturday mornings, and in summer the park literally buzzes with
6
activity – people meeting after work for a run or perhaps a game of
ultimate frisbee.
Although much of the central city has been ravaged by earthquakes
and in varying stages of demolition and rebuild, Hagley Park remains
a steadfast symbol of the city of Christchurch. Despite a small number
of closures of buildings and structures within the Park, the grounds are
largely unscathed and are a wonderful reminder of what Christchurch
will always be – the Garden City.
Hagley Park is a glorious place to wander or exercise all year round,
but is especially lovely in springtime. This time of year the park is
brimming with daffodils and bluebells – Little Hagley Park along
Harper Ave is covered in a carpet of spring flowers, making the area
particularly pretty.
Christchurch’s Botanic Gardens, located in South Hagley Park, are
another magical place to explore, featuring 21 hectares of horticultural
displays, conservatories, memorials, walking tracks and unique flora
from New Zealand and other parts of the world. The Botanic Gardens
are open every day of the year from 7am. Highlights include the
Central Rose Garden and the Daffodil Woodlands. Although the Band
Rotunda is currently closed due to the recent earthquakes, this area is
still cheerfully spring-like – a perfect spot for a picnic.
The Peacock Fountain, located in the gardens beside Canterbury
Museum, has recently be repainted and restored in its original vibrant
Edwardian style. Hire a paddleboat or kayak at the nearby Antigua
Boatsheds and peacefully meander through the Park along the Avon
River. The water is a great way to see the sights!
With towering trees, some as old as 120 years, the park is
characterised by woodlands and wide open spaces. Hagley Park has
a number of sporting grounds and is home to Hagley Golf Club,
Hagley Park Tennis Club, the Christchurch Petanque Club and United
Croquet Club and Canterbury Netball.
As well as being a recreation centre, the Park is a venue for a number
of concerts and festivals, such as the biannual Ellerslie Flower Show,
when North Hagley Park becomes awash with landscape-designed
gardens of a world class standard. The North Hagley Park Events
Village is a temporary entertainment and performance events village
7
which was built in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Since then the
Village has hosted events for festivals such as the Body Festival, the
Christchurch Arts Festival and the World Buskers Festival. During the
summer months as part of the Christchurch City Council’s Garden City
SummerTimes initiative there are a number of free concerts and
events held in different spots around the Park – check out the
SummerTimes website for more information.
Two events not to miss are the Anthony Harper Summer Theatre
season of Wind and the Willows, which will feature Mark Hadlow from
The Hobbit as Toad and The Breeze Lazy Sundays, which will feature
an assortment of Christchurch musicians performing on the Archery
Lawn every Sunday from January through to early March.
Another good reference point for events in and around Hagley Park is
the BeThere website. The Christchurch City Council (CCC) website
provides you with a map of Hagley Park, as well as a map and
information for your tour of the Botanic Gardens.
If you’re visiting the city and would like a uniquely Christchurch
experience, head to Hagley Park to enjoy the beautiful open spaces,
cultivated gardens and vibrancy of this established and much-loved
Christchurch landmark."
(NZ.com)
Hagley Park South
26. Whilst records of the original design intent for Hagley Park are scarce,
the planting layout and species selection was well-recorded and the
management intent is clear. Hagley Park South plantings were
recorded as a challenge to establish, due to hare damage, and were
thus replaced several times, with varying attempts through species
choice to increase resistance to that damage.
27. A series of historical plans show the planting patterns. The layout was
of the English Landscape School tradition, with multi-row long, straight
avenues widened to form woodland blocks in several locations. Whilst
the land surface involved various undulations and several waterways,
the planting layout did not follow these, but involved formal rows, from
8
single to many wide. That is, it was not laid out in naturalistic or
picturesque clumps and groves.
28. The planting layout involved establishment of the single rows and
avenues in large-growing deciduous broadleaf species, primarily of
European origin. However, within the rows, the deciduous trees were
deliberately inter-planted with fast-growing conifer species, particularly
pines, to force the deciduous trees into a single, clean-trunked upright
form. The infill conifers were removed once the deciduous trees had
adequately formed. The purpose of the dense nurse planting to
encourage clean trunks was to provide for high visual permeability
through the tree rows. A "gothic canopy" was sought.
29. The dominant characteristic of clean-trunked tree rows has enabled
the key heritage landscape attribute of visual permeability through the
tree rows and across intervening spaces.
30. Whilst an aerial photo might suggest limited visual access from space
to space, the "gothic canopy" enables exceptional visual permeability
from one side of Hagley Park South to another. The grassed ground
plane continues through almost entirely undisrupted. There are few
paths. Most is accessible grass, which is well-used, formally and
informally by many people, by a great diversity of people in daytime
plus at dawn and dusk.
31. The tree spacing has also established an intact canopy that
intermittently roofs the park. The canopy above, spaced trunks below
and uncluttered space between are crucial landscape attributes with
very high intactness through South Hagley and for the Oval.
32. The character from the upper canopy surface continuity around park
spaces sets the scene and the experiential scale.
33. This character of ground level permeability results in a lack of visual
and physical barriers around and across large tree-framed open
spaces.
Historic Heritage
34. There is an important simplicity about Hagley Park. This contrasts
sharply with the character of the Botanical Gardens. The simplicity
experienced from the large open spaces bound by tree rows and
woodlands which you can see under, from space to space. The large
9
tree rows and woodlands with dominant trees of similar size that have
been specifically managed to display clear single trunks so that the
resulting visual and physical permeability of South Hagley is a major
heritage and amenity attribute.
35. Designed in the style of the English Landscape School, the name
‘Hagley Park’ references the founders of the English Landscape
Garden (“Changes in the Canterbury Landscape” S.Challenger.
Lincoln College. 1974).
36. The flatness of the grassed surfaces extending from space to space,
with the rows and groves of clear trunks enable visual continuity that is
highly valued. It is a heritage and an amenity attribute.
37. Hagley Park and some adjoining areas to the east, particularly
Worcester Boulevard to Montreal Street, including the Museum and
Arts Centre, provide a strong cohesive heritage landscape character.
38. As has been well-recognised by colleagues internationally, historically
Hagley Park is of high significance. The first funding approval for
plantings in Hagley Park occurred in 1858, the year the design for
New York’s Central Park was approved, just prior to the statute in
England that provided for public recreational land to be set aside.
Large tree-lined open spaces, long vistas, avenues and woodlands
were key ingredients. Simplicity and grandeur are essential
components.
39. Egalitarianism was a fundamental intent for Hagley Park. It was to be
a common or people’s park. Not a place for segregated interests.
40. South Hagley was leased out for grazing from 1852; lessees had to
fence their stock but were not allowed to impede the public’s access
for recreation or amusement “or to interfere with the right of way
across it in any direction”.
41. From 1859, Enoch Barker guided the overall design and layout of the
park, undertaking substantial tree plantings. This work was reportedly
‘One of the first attempts at “landscape gardening” in the Colony.’
(Lyttelton Times 1866).
42. That year, the United Canterbury Cricket Club located its pavilion and
club to the South Hagley site, followed by other cricket grounds
10
established across Addington Brook toward Hagley Avenue
(Attachment 4).
43. Designed on traditional English lines, the pavilion reinforced Barker’s
English planting aesthetic (Beaumont, 2012). Barker resigned the
following year, and by then the surrounding tree belts were all
established. (Challenger, 1979).
44. John Armstrong was responsible from 1867 – 1889. He completed the
tree belts, increasing the depth of some, and established permanent
footpaths. Around South Hagley, additional avenues were planted in
1875 along Riccarton Road, Hagley and Moorhouse Avenues, plus a
woodland on the south-west corner of the park. Particular broad-
leaved deciduous trees were favoured by Armstrong for their carbon
absorption properties, as they were understood to correlate with
environmental health (Armstrong, J.B. “Planting in Towns”. New
Zealand Country Journal. 1 January 1880, 4:50).
45. Nurse trees of various pine species were established between the
deciduous broad-leaved specimens. The pines typically formed every
second row and every second plant, and were removed when they
were 5, 10 or 15 years old. (Armstrong, J. B. The Forming and
Management of Plantations. New Zealand Country Journal, Vol 3, No
2, 1879, page 101).
46. The effect of the nurse trees continues to be enjoyed today, with the
single clear trunk formation, side branches discouraged, and high
branches forming a canopy. The clear trunks and high canopy allow
views through Park spaces and beyond. English grasses were
cultivated in the spaces between tree plantings.
47. The large-scale planting across the park between 1862 and 1889
determined the landscape aesthetic for the park. The walk around
Hagley Park was soon recorded as “one that for sylvan beauty cannot
be surpassed” (The Star 3 November 1887).
48. By 1889 there was considerable criticism that the development of
clubhouses and barriers was alienating areas and was contrary to the
requirement that the Park be a place of recreation for all. Hedging of
playing fields was not allowed initially, as they were considered to
adversely affect the character that was being worked toward. However
11
with a clutter of buildings appearing, hedging was allowed to mitigate
their visual effects where possible.
49. The eastern corner of South Hagley, between Riccarton and Hagley
Avenues, was the venue for the International Industrial Exhibition. The
building was more than 200 metres long and 85 metres wide.
Construction began in January 1882 and was all removed by
September 1882 (Attachment 7).3
50. Taking control in 1889, Ambrose Taylor thinned, pruned and removed
trees including the remaining nurse pines, to open and manage
viewshafts through the Park and to the Port Hills. He worked on the
avenues and woodlands to “lift up the trees to form a Gothic arched-
shaped canopy” and sought to clear space between each avenue tree
of around 15 metres (The Star, 11 February 1899). Taylor managed
the trees to achieve “outlook” to and through the spaces beyond.
51. The hectare behind the Netball Centre was planted in 1893.
52. James Young, in command from 1908 to 1932, continued the pruning
and thinning, and new plantings continued the established aesthetic of
large-growing, broad-leaved deciduous trees.
53. The Cricket Club caretaker’s house was built south of the Umpires
Pavilion, where the Council caretaker's house is today (Attachment 8,
lower).
54. Post-war, with an increased demand for sporting facilities, small
buildings became dotted across the Park and sports grounds were
enclosed with planted hedges or fences. There was major public
concern expressed at potential conflict between the Park’s active
amenity role, its aesthetic values and a loss of the landscape’s
spaciousness.
55. The fundamental planted structure of Hagley Park is the oldest
surviving aggregation of planted trees in the city. The layout and
3 This exhibition should not be confused with that of 1905, when 116 acres of North
Hagley Park was fenced off for the New Zealand International Exhibition in 1906-07.
Special buildings were constructed just for the Exhibition. As an indication of the
scale, 37,000 people attended the opening. All structures were removed afterwards.
12
management has followed an English parkland aesthetic with broad-
leaved deciduous species planted in orderly lines, avenues, perimeter
belts and woodlands demonstrating visual and physical permeability.
The simplicity created by the spatial layout, species selection and tree
management is a very important attribute of the historic heritage of the
Garden City. It is a major landscape and amenity value of the city.
South Hagley, including the plantings and spaces associated with the
Hagley Oval, exemplifies this landscape and heritage character
56. The heritage significance is associated with the first government
gardeners and their decisions on English Landscape Design through
the spatial layout, species selection and ongoing management toward
achieving spatial enclosure, shelter, shade, and, visual and physical
permeability.
57. In several woodland blocks, long term conifer species were also
incorporated. Up until the 1940s, much of the park was leased for
grazing.
58. The stature and maturity of the trees, their venerable broadleaved
character, their individual legibility as well as their massing as a simple
high canopy, means the tree cover has very high landscape value.
They are crucial in defining South Hagley’s sense of place, heritage
and amenity value. The continuity of the near-level ground surface
beneath and visual and physical permeability between the tree trunks,
allowing views through the trees, across and between spaces and
beyond, providing the desired ‘ample uninterrupted promenade’.
59. The tree belts define Hagley Park in total. For the simpler landscape of
South Hagley, which generally has greater landscape integrity in total,
the simple uncluttered land surface and permeable spatial divisions
with grand over-arching canopy forms, form very important historic
heritage in the city. They display a depth of time, and a clarity of
purpose at a surprisingly large scale for a central city, and this is
internationally valued. (eg Attachments 6, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 41, and
43).
60. Various more recent introductions detract from the integrity, including
several utilitarian structures, including the large Horticultural Centre,
the caretaker’s house beside the Umpires Pavilion, and the soccer
light standards alongside the grounds to the south.
13
61. The tree rows, belts and woodlands created spaces and spaces were
also created within the grand belts. As identified by heritage landscape
architect Louise Beaumont (Conservation Plan: Hagley Park and
Christchurch Botanic Gardens. Draft May 2012. Vol 2, S. 1, page 19)
“The spatial organisation of Hagley Park reflects some of the common
maxims of design for Victorian-era public parks with the formation of
the planted perimeter, limited use of tree massing (clump planting or
the formation of groves) in the internal spaces of the park, and an
early design emphasis on pedestrian and equine promenade and
other public sporting amenity.”4
62. As was identified in 1926, the space of the Park as a whole has a high
value to the community. Encroachment by buildings and vehicles has
been strongly resisted. That the needs of sports groups have been
considered contrary to the highly valued parkland aesthetic was
identified to illustrate the community’s deep sense of attachment to the
Park and its various spaces.
63. The Umpires Pavilion is not only a heritage asset to the Oval, it is a
heritage asset enjoyed from across Hagley Park South, and from
lengths of the surrounding Avenues, specifically Deans Avenue and
Riccarton Avenue. Located in the Oval in 1866, this heritage building
contributes importantly to the heritage landscape of Hagley Park.
64. Either side of the Oval are two houses, with a small amount of
associated private space for these caretakers' homes. This is the only
private space in Hagley Park South.
65. The crucial attribute of visual and physical permeability through
Hagley Park, within and through tree masses and between tree trunks,
makes the Oval a core feature in South Hagley. Highly visible from
near and far, the Umpires Pavilion makes it a landmark in the Oval.
The near-level grassed surface allows for the full view of the Umpires
Pavilion. The 13 m long, two-level Umpires Pavilion sets the scale for
the space. It is the focus. Excepting the Horticultural Centre set back
from the edge, the other buildings are not of overly larger scale. It is
the visual and heritage appeal of the Umpires Pavilion and the small
4 Note: All content in this plan is the property of the Christchurch City Council unless
otherwise acknowledged.
14
built scale around the oval that enables this space to have a village
green character. The trees and space dominate. It is an
overwhelmingly green space, not a dominantly built space. It is a
space that is so inextricably visually and physically linked to spaces
beyond, with the level ground surface extending out between the trees
to the west and south. The smaller Oval space is appreciated as part
of the greater South Hagley. As a continuous part. A special part.
66. As recorded by R. T Brittenden in “Great Days in New Zealand
Cricket” (1958, page 34), “In September, 1864, the Canterbury
Provincial Council granted the Christchurch Cricket Club the lease of
30 acres of Hagley Park,…. The council wisely stipulated that the
public must always have the right of access to the area, and it was
thus saved from becoming an arena.” The current proposal would now
convert that ground to an arena.
67. Brittenden recalled that “Hagley matured and the legends were born
beneath the sturdy elms and oaks.” “At day’s end the stumps cast long
shadows across the soft grass to the mellowing timbers of the ancient
pavilion. The “serenity of the surroundings” was appreciated, being
identified as “The loveliest ground in the world.” (pp. 33-4).
68. He recorded further that: "The pavilion from the original ground was
also brought down, long lines of trees were planted, live fences
established, wells sunk, and the first club match was played in
November, 1866…."The pavilion is still there, nearly 100 years of age,
… From it some of the world's greatest cricketers … have gone out to
play.” “… the only bowler in the world to take all ten wickets in an
innings in his first-class debut – and he did it at Hagley.”
69. The grand tree lines of the surrounding park have, for more than a
century, been part of the experience of the Oval. The undisrupted
grass surface between pavilion, Oval and surrounding park has long
been appreciated.
70. South Hagley and the Oval are not enjoyed merely from fixed
viewpoints. They are part of people’s experience moving around and
through the Park. Many people do this daily. The nuances are well-
known and appreciated. The experience, the vistas and spaces vary
as you move, whether on cycle or foot within or around, or by car. The
15
experience changes markedly with the seasons, with greater visual
permeability in winter.
71. In 2003, Dr Janet Stephenson (Patina. 20105) described heritage
landscapes as ‘those landscapes, or networks of sites, which deserve
special recognition or protection because of their heritage significance
to communities, tangata whenua or the nation.” Hagley Park is
undisputedly a heritage park of high significance. The Oval within
South Hagley is within a Christchurch Central heritage landscape that
embraces the whole of Hagley Park and the adjoining heritage
complexes including Christ’s College, Canterbury Museum and the
Arts Centre on Worcester Boulevard. It is a network of sites that is of
very high heritage significance to the Christchurch, Canterbury and
wider communities. The integrity of this heritage landscape, of the
relationship between sites within it, requires particular consideration in
terms of the proposed development.
72. The Regional Policy Statement, Chapter 13, Objective 13.2.1, requires
the identification and protection of significant historic heritage.
Objective 13.2.2 requires recognition that such values are often
expressed in a landscape setting which requires protection from
inappropriate development. The Christchurch City Plan and the
Hagley Park Management Plan address these aspects, and Ms Briggs
outlines those measures.
73. Under Policy 13.3.3 of the RPS, significant historic cultural and historic
heritage landscapes are to be protected from inappropriate
development. That policy states:
Significant historic cultural and historic heritage landscapes are
to be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and
development. When determining the significance of values of
historic cultural or historic heritage landscapes, the following
matters will be considered:
(1) Heritage fabric
(2) Time depth
5 Beyond the Scene. Landscape and identity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Ed. Janet
Stephenson, Mick Abbott, Jacinta Ruru. Otago University Press. Page 165.
16
(3) Natural science value
(4) Tāngata whenua value
(5) Cultural diversity
(6) Legibility and evidential value
(7) Shared and recognised value
(8) Aesthetic value
(9) Historic or cultural importance
74. The significance of Hagley Park South in total is largely due to the
integrity of assessment matter (1) heritage fabric. The layout around
150 years ago of the grand tree framework spread out around and
across generally level grassed space, and the management of those
trees and the grass beneath to maximise the spatial qualities,
maximise the visual and physical permeability and allow for maximum
all-purpose public usage and enjoyment, has been commendable.
75. The spatial integrity of South Hagley overall has high intactness. The
Hagley Oval is a key feature within this, as a continuity of the smooth
grassed open space framed by clear-trunked trees. The grand stature
of the tree trunks and canopy, the treed continuousness, the evident
age and intactness demonstrate highly significant heritage fabric.
76. These characteristics also demonstrate significant time depth (2). The
English Landscape Garden style remains very highly legible (6). The
heritage values of the tree-framed grass spaces that form South
Hagley have very high shared and recognised value as can be shown
through the public responses to various proposals and planning
processes over the last century.
77. Within the Hagley Oval, the Umpires Pavilion is a heritage feature that
has been present and enjoyed there for almost 150 years. The scale
of the structure, the elevated viewing balcony and detail of the
construction contribute importantly to the village green character that
exists within the Oval.
78. The elevated viewing balcony is an important characteristic of the
series of cricket buildings, excepting the former cricket building, the
Horticultural Centre. The other buildings are of small footprint, typically
more enclosed below, with balconies and windows for over-viewing
the Oval above. The two-storied built form with the upstairs over-view
17
focus is an important characteristic of the surrounding cricket
structures. The Umpires Pavilion is the most elegant in this regard. It
forms a distinctive landmark when viewed from near or far, including
from along Deans Avenue. The distinctive heritage building relates to
the tree-framed Oval space but is also a key feature in the vistas from
beyond.
79. The Umpires Pavilion has buildings of a similar scale either side. The
St Albans Cricket Club pavilion to the north, and the caretaker's house
to the south. Some decades ago, this house replaced the original
caretaker's house on that site (attachments 15, 26). Whilst low profile
and with a hedge around, the current house does not assist the
heritage and aesthetic values of the Oval. To respect the restoration of
the Umpires Pavilion, any upgrade project for the Oval would
preferably revamp the caretaker's house. Whilst an acknowledged
negative in this space in the management plan, the current proposal is
as yet silent in addressing this issue.
80. I understand that the Horticultural Centre was built by Canterbury
Cricket. The adverse visual effects of that building are referred to in
the application documents. Whilst within the "site", it is disappointing
that no effort is made in the proposal to improve the aesthetic of that
building and its environs. The facility is unbecoming to Hagley Park
South and highly visible from many directions. The only effort by the
Applicant is stated to be to place the Pavilion to (somewhat) block out
the view of it from the Oval. This is a very narrow approach to the
issue.
81. The aesthetic value (8) enjoyed around and within the Hagley Oval,
and from adjoining spaces and routes, the vistas through, to, and from
the Oval are of very high significance. The regular tree placement in
single and multiple rows, all open beneath and canopies enmeshed
above, form a major aesthetic attribute. The grass surface that is
clearly visible linking between trees, surfacing across spaces and
providing the continuity and base ingredient that links the Park
together. It is the tree, grass space combination and their absolute
visual clarity that is a valued aesthetic.
82. The flatness of the grass surface through South Hagley enables full
visual continuity. The mounds at the Netball Centre, whilst of
18
naturalistic form, are obvious as works associated with the Courts, and
not part of the broad park surface. Whilst barely 2 metres in height, the
larger one blocks the visual continuity from alongside Hagley Avenue
across the Park. It provides a visual separation that is contrary to the
overall Park heritage character. Landform separation is not a Park
characteristic.
83. Hagley Park, South Hagley and the Hagley Oval are a series of nested
heritage sites of high historic importance in Christchurch and
Canterbury. The historic heritage requires consideration in terms of
section 6(f) of the RMA and Policy 13.3.3 of the RPS.
The Site
84. 'The Site' has been defined by Mr Nixon (para 1.7) and is shown at
Attachment 2, along with the 'Polo Grounds' which are to
accommodate event parking. As mentioned earlier, the eastern
boundary to The Site is along the Addington Brook, a spring-fed
waterway that is an important Central City Ōtākaro / Avon tributary.
Existing access and car parks intrude into this degraded natural
feature. The proposal involves no landscape analysis or plans to
address remedying this or other existing adverse effects within the
site. Nor is there any proposal to address appropriate access to
service the major new venue proposed.
85. The site involves a central space within South Hagley. The space is
blocked off to the east with a series of buildings and some vegetation.
To the south and west, it is open to adjoining spaces.
Assessment of Effects
86. I have analysed the attributes of Hagley Park and the proposed
development of cricket facilities in Hagley Park South to international
level requirements as proposed by Canterbury Cricket, as Papa
Kirikiti. In summary, I assess that the pavilion, embankment and
lighting as proposed would have significant adverse effects on the
park's valued heritage landscape character and the amenity attributes
enjoyed. In addition, the temporary structures and concentration of
activity associated with large and multiday events have the potential to
19
have further adverse effects on the public's everyday experience of
the Park landscape and amenity.
87. From my analysis I assess that the proposal does not remedy existing
adverse effects, instead exacerbating a number of them.
88. The application involved no landscape analysis to underpin the
proposal, no identification of issues needing to be addressed. The
assessments by landscape architects have merely assessed three
proposed features, the pavilion building, the embankment mounding
and the lighting structures. The landscape has not as yet been
comprehensively assessed by the applicant or the partner agencies.
Yet, as has previously been identified (Heremaia, 2003)6 the
Horticultural Hall and associated car park are inconsistent with the
overall English parkland character of South Hagley. These were
developed by Canterbury Cricket and are within the application site.
Yet there has been no analysis and no attempt to address the existing
landscape issues in the site redevelopment.
89. The application is to provide a “replacement pavilion”. The former
Canterbury Cricket building, now the Horticultural Centre, was a
former cricket pavilion. Replacement or redevelopment of this intrusive
structure is desirable. Whilst it is currently owned by the Horticultural
Society and included within the application site, it is disappointing for
an anchor project to be contemplated without a comprehensive
approach to “the site” being undertaken.
90. Considering the site as involving significant historic heritage, in terms
of Policy 13.3.3 of the RPS, I note that the Policy goes on to state:
In relation to [the management of significant historic cultural and
historic heritage landscapes] and determining the appropriateness of
scale, form and location of development in these areas, the following
matters will be considered:
(a) Cultural sensitivity of the proposal
(b) Integrity or intactness of the landscape, items, features or
linkages
6 Heremaia, Christine "Case Study: Hagley Park Management Plan (1991)", Lincoln
University.
20
(d) Vulnerability to change or modification
(e) Recognition of boundaries
(f) Opportunities for maintaining values
91. For more than a century there has been considerable cultural
sensitivity regarding the intent of the park being for the enjoyment of
all, and the pressure for more exclusive activities. The proposal is one
such activity involving a corralling of a core area with an embankment,
introducing a building of a scale that would dwarf the heritage spatial
qualities and heritage features of that space, introducing very hefty
lighting standards of a height that would dwarf the tree canopy that is
the crucial scene-setter of Hagley Park.
92. The landscape integrity of South Hagley, within which the Hagley Oval
is a subset, is very vulnerable to intrusion through built structures and
landform change. The spatial qualities are vulnerable to intrusion by
buildings.
The Pavilion
93. The large, white pavilion structure would introduce a much greater
scale and presence of structure to the Oval and to Hagley Park South
in total. Even with burial into the embankment, the pavilion would be
somewhat visible across much of Hagley Park South. It would jostle
to form a landmark, but be segregated by the embankment. Given the
unbuilt character and long open vistas which are major attributes of
Hagley Park, the pavilion corralled in the Oval would appear out of
scale and out of context.
94. The visual effects of the Pavilion would not be confined to the Oval.
The proposed pavilion is of a very large scale that will command
control of the Oval and of the vistas and spatial relationships beyond.
The size and whiteness proposed mean that it will be highly visible.
95. The Pavilion will adversely affect the historic heritage through the
dominating scale and character of the building. The Umpires Pavilion
would no longer command this space. Instead the Pavilion would
dominate it. The Umpire’s Pavilion would become a minor curiosity, a
little heritage left-over, and no longer the visual and heritage core of
this place and space.
21
96. The essential park character of domination by trees and grass would
be significantly adversely affected by the introduction of the Pavilion.
The integrity and intactness that are important historic heritage
attributes would be significantly adversely affected by the introduction
of the Pavilion.
97. Considering the raft of Objectives and Policies and the direction they
provide, I assess the Pavilion to be inappropriate. As outlined by Ms
Briggs, it is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies, and it
would result in highly significant adverse landscape, amenity and
heritage effects.
The Embankment
98. The park as part of the plainscape is a place of gentle terrain, of
flatness, excepting for the waterways. Except where obstructed by
structures or dense vegetation at least 1.5 m high, the flatness
enables high visual permeability. The introduction of the embankment
over 2 m high would separate the Oval space from the Hagley South
landscape context.
99. Enjoyment of the vistas, such as more distant through from Deans
Avenue or nearby from the Lime Walk, Christ's College Grounds and
the Polo grounds, would be intercepted by the embankment. Walking
by, the embankment extending above head height, would provide a
separation from the Oval. (attachments 26 - 38).
100. The sudden embankment slope would be a disruption to the visual
and physical permeability of South Hagley and of the Oval specifically,
that is in contradiction to the historic heritage attributes long valued
and recognised.
101. When walking by, the height is such that it would appear as a
deliberate screen to the space beyond. A segregation of spaces.
102. The embankment would screen out the lower storey of the existing
pavilion structures, removing their relationship with the surrounding
spaces.
103. Whilst a slot through the embankment is proposed to the Umpires
Pavilion, this does not allow retention of the relationship of that
building to the breadth of the Oval. Most certainly it does not allow
retention of the relationship to the wider South Hagley.
22
104. The relationship between heritage attributes of the Oval and its
heritage building would be very significantly adversely affected by the
construction of the embankment.
105. From within the Oval space, the enclosure by the embankment would
create a very different landscape experience that is contrary to the
integrity and intactness of South Hagley as a heritage park.
106. With the geometric form of the embankment extending to above eye-
level, with just 2 narrow slots cut through, with the large embedded
Pavilion building, and with the 4 very large embedded lighting masts
towering above, the Oval would be transformed into an arena. Whilst
utilising the surrounding tree canopy as backdrop, the Oval would no
longer relate to South Hagley as in the heritage character defined.
From within, the corralled and built Oval would be experienced as
separated and apart.
107. Whilst the embankment structure would be grassed, and therefore
have some visual continuity with the adjoining spaces and their
surfaces, that does not mitigate the effects. The elevation forms a wall,
and whilst a green wall, it would significantly disrupt the visual
relationship from one side to the other. It would be too high to see
over. It would disrupt the ground surface permeability to and through
the space.
108. From outside, and from beyond, the Oval would be considerably
separated from South Hagley, visually, physically and psychologically.
109. I assess the corralling embankment proposed to be inappropriate.
110. Due to the fundamental heritage landscape characteristic of high
visual and physical permeability through and across Hagley Park, the
large embankment encircling the Oval would permanently 'wall out' the
public, making the Oval a seemingly exclusive place and foreclosing
viewshafts. The continuity of the levelled and grassed plains surface
across the various Hagley Park South spaces, continuing through the
deliberately managed tree rows, would abruptly change to a rather
steep circular and obviously very artificial grassed landform.
111. The embankment would be an inappropriate landform feature in South
Hagley Park.
23
112. The corralling embankment would seek to selectively display and
screen structures to Oval users. In doing so, it would disrupt important
views across Hagley Park South, for the small scale and upstairs
overview character of several of the existing cricket buildings
contribute to amenity, heritage and landscape character. From within
and around the Oval and South Hagley, the embankment would
visually “knee-cap” them.
The Lighting Structures
113. The lighting structures, both the substantial masts and the large light
heads mounted on them, would introduce modern and out-sized
structures to a small "village character" site. Even whilst retracted, the
structures would breach the tree canopy. Being almost the width of a
full grown tree, the hefty-looking structures would belittle the trees that
are the context and setting for the Oval. The lights would visually
disrupt the heritage landscape character created by tree canopy that
forms the highly valued spatial framework to South Hagley and the
Oval.
114. The 1.5m x 1.5m octagonal lighting masts would form substantial
structures extending out of the embankment. Extending up 30 metres
or more, they would extend above the tree canopy. The mast head
structures some 10 m wide and elevated would appear almost the
width of the Umpires Pavilion. Their modern character would be in
stark contrast to the heritage character of the existing Oval.
115. The integrity of the tree canopy around South Hagley and around the
Oval is a very important heritage attribute. The masts would be visible
from various places within and around the Park. When walking by,
their bases would be evident, and the scale and height of the mast
heads.
116. Variously visible intruding through the tree canopy, the very
substantial lighting structures would introduce modern and out-size
structures aloft that would diminish the integrity of the tree canopy.
Whilst only visible at intervals, their presence would intrude into the
grandeur that the tree canopy provides across the Park space.
117. The lighting structures would be intrusive and clumsy introductions to
a place valued for its fine-grained attributes.
24
118. I assess the lighting structures would have significant adverse effects
and to be inappropriate at the Hagley Oval.
Overall Landscape Character and Amenity
119. The proposal to establish a venue capable of hosting international
cricket was stated by the applicant to be founded on a number of key
design influences, including:
• The over-arching desire of all stakeholders to preserve the long-
standing quality and accessibility of Hagley Park for all users, as a
shared recreational heart to the city;
• The retention of the park setting with an established grouping of
mature trees around the presently established natural oval grassed
clearing, with the loss of no trees or historic buildings;
• A commitment to establish a village-green atmosphere utilising the
present treed oval enclosure, rather than to develop a ‘stadium’ type
venue.
120. From my analysis of the site and its context landscape including its
heritage, I assess that the proposal fails to adequately address these
provisions. The long-standing quality and accessibility of South Hagley
would be disrupted by the structures and embankment that disrupt
perceived accessibility. The Oval would no longer read as a shared
space in south Hagley, but as a space owned by a large Pavilion and
defined by an embankment.
121. The proposal would not retain the relationship with the surrounding
trees, the grassed space or the historic buildings. The large scale
building, lighting and embankment would significantly disrupt the
valued relationship between trees, space and historic buildings.
122. The existing Oval already has a village green atmosphere and the
proposed development would convert that to instead an enclosed
arena.
"Temporary" Effects
123. The additional structures such as the TV towers, grandstands
extending metres above the embankment, the car parking in and
around Hagley Park, fencing, entrances structures and portaloos,
which would occur on an ongoing but intermittent basis, would
exacerbate the effects of the activity occurring.
25
124. A picket fence is proposed to encircle the pitch inside the
embankment. It is able to have advertising attached to it and will be
present for the length of the season (September – April).
125. I assess that the presence of the picket fence would further segregate
the cricket Oval from surrounding Park enjoyment. In addition to the
embankment barrier, the fence would impede casual access by
runners, and would impede the visual continuity of the green space.
The fence with any advertising would make a strongly commercial
presence which is alien to the Hagley Park character outside of
specific events. The picket fence scale would be somewhat more in
keeping with the Umpires Pavilion. However being physically
separated from it by the embankment, with the Umpire’s Pavilion
largely hidden behind, the picket fence will not have any legible
heritage connection. Located in front of the large modern Pavilion, the
little picket fence may appear rather incongruous. Around events a
mesh fence would be installed around the outside of the embankment.
The triple barriers, of picket, bank and mesh, would create visual
clutter that is inappropriate, resulting in significant adverse effects. In
my assessment, the design is inadequate to avoid, remedy or mitigate
these adverse effects.
Access
126. As is appropriate for such a park, I understand there are currently no
allocated access route or car parks for cricket activities. With the large
development proposed, which would inevitably have substantial
regular servicing and other access requirements, no specific access or
parking is proposed. This will result in the significant parking
requirements being placed in an ad hoc and likely inappropriate
manner, creating significant adverse effects on the existing landscape,
character and amenities of the park.
Avon Catchment – Addington Brook
127. The Hagley Park Management Plan is one of several council
documents where the intent to reduce the degraded state and
naturalise Addington Brook is recorded. Disappointingly the applicant
ignores this need. The waters of the Addington Brook are very
contaminated. Drainage from the Oval is all piped into Addington
Brook. The car park intrudes on the waterway space. Yet the conflicts
26
in sustainable management of this resource are ignored in the
application and in the experts’ reports and evidence. Mr Field states
there is no need for any landscape works. Whilst part of the “site”, the
degraded state of the areas shared with the Horticultural Centre is
entirely ignored in the application.
128. Investigations into Hagley Park have for some time been critical of the
management of the Avon tributaries as utilities, and the need for
naturalistic restoration works along Addington Brook (C. Heremaia
2003). Bank re-grading and riparian restoration are very obviously
needed for the Addington Brook length that is part of the application
site. Because of the excessive degradation of the stream corridor, the
undercut and eroding banks, and the very contaminated waters, a
comprehensive approach is necessary to ensure the stream is
adequately addressed to support the aspirations for the health and life
of the Ōtākaro Avon.
129. My site analysis endorses the concerns previously identified. That to
enable the naturalisation of the stream banks and natural stream
movement, some facilities such as car parking and access routes may
need to be removed or relocated. The anchor project involves several
partners that should appropriately take responsibility for the Addington
Brook enhancement as part of the proposal. The Canterbury Cricket
application has ignored this need. Disappointingly, the assessments
by my colleagues Mr Field and Mr Brown have also ignored this issue.
130. Water quality studies undertaken by the Christchurch City Council
(CCC) between 1992 and 2006 identified Addington Brook as a
significant source of pollution for the Avon River/Ōtakāro. Golders'
study for Environment Canterbury, published January 2012, notes that
Addington Brook is part of the stormwater network with waters
channelled through stormwater pipes and road gutters before
becoming an above ground stream as it passes through Hagley Park,
to then be discharged untreated into the Avon River/Ōtakāro. Golders
(2012) identify that Addington Brook waters smell anoxic and is the
most contaminated waterway tested in Canterbury: “In the biofilm
survey results reported in this document, Addington Brook had the
highest number of ISQG exceedances across the range of parameters
analysed – three exceedances of the ISQG-High guideline (arsenic,
nickel and zinc) and four exceedances of the ISQG-Low guideline
27
(cadmium, copper, lead and mercury). It seems highly likely that the
ecological values in this stream are being compromised as a result.”
(Golders 2012 page 80) (see also summary data at Attachments 44 -
46).
131. Waterway restoration in Christchurch has been led by landscape
architects. Whilst neither Mr Field nor Mr Brown may have been
actively involved in such projects, it is not acceptable to ignore the
degraded waterway within the site as a landscape issue requiring
remediation.
Heritage
132. My assessment of the proposal overall is that it would have significant
adverse effects on the environment, in relation to the historic heritage
values of Hagley Park. I assess that, even when not in use, the
pavilion, embankment and lighting structures would not protect the
historic heritage of Hagley Park South. The proposal is thus assessed
as inappropriate development in terms of section 6(f) of the RMA, a
matter of national importance.
133. The importance of such a historic heritage landscape, composed of
various heritage items, places and areas, provides a crucial sense of
identity to Christchurch and Canterbury. The City Plan and the Hagley
Park Management Plan recognise the important English Heritage
Landscape character of South Hagley. As is recognised in the
Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, Policy 13.3.3, adverse effects
on such significant historic heritage are to be avoided in the
consideration of any development proposal.
Amenity
134. The proposed structures and activities, both when not in use and
when hosting events, would not maintain or enhance the amenity
values of Hagley Park South, or of the Oval specifically, in terms of
section 7(c) of the RMA. The proposal would not maintain or enhance
the pleasantness, the aesthetic coherence, the cultural or the
recreational attributes of the Oval and its context landscape, which are
all highly valued dimensions.
28
135. I assess that this historic landscape requires protection from
inappropriate development, and that the Oval development proposal is
inappropriate development.
136. I note that the proposal is to be assessed as a non-complying activity,
and therefore must either be not contrary to the relevant objectives
and policies, or not have any adverse effects on the environment
which are more than minor. I have reviewed Ms Briggs' analysis in
relation to the relevant objectives and policies, and agree with that
analysis. In my view, the proposal fails on both limbs of section 104D
of the RMA.
Remediation Required
137. The caretakers house and Horticultural Centre within The Site have
been recognised in Hagley Park planning documents as landscape
issues. No effort has been applied in the application to remedy these
issues, nor to address the degraded Addington Brook along the east
of the site.
138. The adverse visual effects of what is now the Horticultural Centre are
referred to in the application documents. The lack of visual appeal of
this large building, which was originally built by Canterbury Cricket for
cricket activities, has not been adequately addressed to achieve
mitigation through management of this site.
139. Whilst within the “site”, it is disappointing that no effort is made in the
proposal to improve the aesthetic of that building and its environs. The
facility is unbecoming to Hagley Park South and highly visible from
many directions. The only effort by the applicant is stated to be to
place the Pavilion to (somewhat) block out the view of it from the Oval.
This is a very narrow approach to the issue.
140. Whilst maligning the use of camouflage colours on buildings –
presumably such as The Atrium building owned by Netball interests,
and the Tennis Pavilion in North Hagley (see attachments 39 and 44)
- the proposal is for a structure around twice their size and white and
therefore of considerably greater visual presence. Yet the park
planning documents seek a lessened built presence.
29
141. As has been recorded in various council documents, with changing
community requirements, the Netball Association and Horticultural
Society have both sought alternative uses for their buildings. I
understand they unsuccessfully sought to realise the equity in their
buildings.
142. As is appropriate for such a park, I understand there are currently no
allocated access route or car parks for cricket activities. With the large
development proposed which would inevitably have substantial regular
servicing and other access requirements, no specific access or
parking is proposed. The application provides no landscape analysis
of site access. Disappointingly, no landscape analysis has been
provided of the site or proposal.
Christchurch Central City Recovery Plan
143. The Recovery Plan states the underpinnings as including the
“greening of the city, embracing and improving the health of the water
and the river, and a strong sustainability focus to the redevelopment of
public and commercial spaces” recognised as of importance for all
communities of greater Christchurch. (CCRP page 11).
144. As stated on page 17, “A city’s identity is made up of its collective
memories which create a sense of place. After a natural disaster this
becomes even more important.” The “Green City” aspiration (page 23)
was for a “revitalised Ōtākaro/Avon River corridor, and improved
surface stormwater treatment”. Papa o Otakaro / Avon River Precinct
is shown (page 37) to extend from the Carlton Bridge on the Bealey
Avenue – Park Terrace corner, down to Armagh Street, and also from
Rolleston Avenue through to Fitzgerald Avenue. That is, it does not
include the meander around the Botanic Gardens, but lengths
upstream and downstream of this.
145. Addressing heritage, the plan identifies (page 39) that existing
heritage “will continue to define the identity of central Christchurch and
provide a point of difference for visitors and residents alike.”
146. Addressing sustainability, the plan seeks “Greening the city,
embracing and improving the health of the water and the river, and
focusing strongly on sustainable redevelopment” (page 41). It is stated
30
(page 45) that the aspirations for a “green” city are reflected in the
Blueprint Plan and the anchor projects.
147. The Avon River Precinct anchor project (pages 53 – 56) seeks to bring
life and health to the waters, to improve water quality, to protect and
enhance springs and waterways and to better treat and manage
stormwater. “Specific measures will be taken to improve the water
quality of the Otakaro/Avon River. Rain gardens, planted swales and
other treatment measures are references as tools for the cleanup.
Addington Brook is shown flowing into the river upstream of the
Hospital.
148. On The Blueprint Plan (page 33), stating that the Hagley Cricket Oval
will be “enhanced”, the proposed pavilion and the encircling
embankment with two gaps, are shown.
149. Listed in the Blueprint (page 87) for the Cricket Oval anchor project is
the addition of a grass embankment, lighting and a “replacement
pavilion”. The Pavilion is to have “lounge and media facilities” Training
and coaching facilities with indoor and outdoor nets are proposed. It is
stated that the project will stimulate activity in the area. Identified
partners in the project include CERA, CCC, New Zealand Cricket,
private sector and other government agencies as necessary.
Canterbury Cricket is not referenced
150. The CCRP seeks comprehensive development to enhance urban
design opportunities. It is mentioned on page 107 that fragmented
underlying landholdings can be a barrier to a comprehensive
approach. With council ownership of the lands of and around The Site
the lack of a comprehensive approach is questionable, particularly in
regard to access and waterway management.
……………………………….
D J Lucas
14 May 2013
attachmentsto the evidence of Di Lucas, Registered NZILA Landscape Architect
Hagley Oval, April 2013print A3, landscape, double sided, bind left
photo taken: April 2013
Hagley Oval in Central Christchurch, post-quake source: Google Earth, 26th April 2012
Hagley Park North
BEALEY AVE
MOORHOUSE AVE
WORCHESTER STRET LATIMER SQUARE
CRANMER SQUARE
VICTORIA
BOTANIC GARDENS
AVON RIVER
MON
TREA
L STR
EET
DEAN
S AVE
FITZ
GERA
LD AV
E
Hagley Park South
Riccarton Ave
Hagley Ave
Hagley Oval
attachment 1
Hagley Oval
Riccarton Ave
Polo Grounds
Netball
Hockey Ground
Hagley Oval
Christs College Grounds
Addington BrookHagley Park South
Hagley Oval - “the site” as per application
attachment 2
Hagley Park Plan 1850
source: DRAFT Maps in Conservation Plan for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Volume One: History, Christchurch City Council 2013attachment 3
Hagley Park Plan 1867
source: DRAFT Maps in Conservation Plan for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Volume One: History, Christchurch City Council 2013 attachment 4
Hagley Park 1955
source: DRAFT Maps in Conservation Plan for Hagley Park and the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, Volume One: History, Christchurch City Council 2013attachment 5
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HagleyParkAerialPhoto.jpgHagley Park aerial, 24th October 2007
attachment 6
New Zealand International Exhibition, Hagley Park, Christchurch 1882Photograph of the Cricket Pavilion, 1869 showing saw tooth detailing
source: http://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Photos/Disc2/IMG0008.asp
VOLUME 2. SECTION 5: PAGE 94
performed in a way that cannot fail to afford satisfaction to every member of the club. Ahawthorne (sic) hedge has been planted, and a small ditch dug round the ground. The old fencehas been strengthened by the addition of two more wires, and has been properly strained andstayed. An iron gate has been put up at the corner of the fence nearest town, and by the erectionof a stile, the members are enabled to get to the ground.”108
Soon after this meeting and once the new Club's finances had been determined the pavilion fromthe Canterbury Club's former grounds was divided into sections, relocated to its present site atthe Oval and reassembled by George Blockley for the sum of £28 and 10 shillings.109
Over the following years the pavilion became the home of various cricket clubs, the last beingMarist in the 1980s.
108 The Press, 24 September 1866, p. 2109 Lowrie, G. publication quoted in NZHPT File 12009‐086
CONSERVATION PLAN: HAGLEY PARK AND CHRISTCHURCH BOTANIC GARDENS VOLUME TWO: HAGLEY PARK
Figure 1.83 Photograph taken in 1910 showing chimney in the background. Source: NZHPT File 12009‐086
Figure 1.82 Photograph of the Cricket Pavilion,1869 showing saw tooth detailing. Source: NZHPT File 12009‐086
source: NZHPT File 12009-086
VOLUME 1. SECTION 3: PAGE 78
Two main entrances were formed for carriage drive access, each half a chain in width. The first wasdescribed as being on Riccarton Road about a chain from the Riccarton Road/ Lincoln Road corner,and the second entrance was formed on Hagley Avenue opposite St Asaph Street and necessitatedthe construction of a bridge across a drain. Following the exhibition, this bridge was purchased bythe promoters of the horse ride for use on the Rotten Row. Other earthworks associated with theexhibition involved the cutting of drains and the laying of permanent drainage pipes.287
Newspaper reports documenting the development of the exhibition site describe the ceremoniallaying of a foundation stone by the Christchurch Mayor and note that “copies of the localnewspapers were placed in a sealed jar and deposited in the receptacle, together with the followinginscription on parchment:‐New Zealand International Exhibition. Promoters‐ Jules Joubert, Esq.Richard E. N. Twopeny. Esq. W. R. Mitchell, agent for New Zealand. This foundation stone was laid byJ. G. Ruddenklau, Esq., Mayor of the City of Christchurch, on the 30th day of January, 1882. T. S. Lam‐bert, Esq., architect. H. Carmichael and Son, contractors.”288 Attempts to trace both the foundationstone and the time capsule have been unsuccessful.
Calls to retain the exhibition building as a “Palace of Delight” did not find favour with the DomainsBoard and, following the exhibition's closure in July 1882, all construction materials, parts of themain structure, fixtures, fittings and artworks were auctioned. By September 1882 the last vestige ofthe buildings had been removed and five of its six ornamental fountains had been razed from thesite, using charges of blasting powder. However, one fountain was left intact on the site where themain building had been located.289 This was variously described by The Star as a “memento” and“memorial” of the exhibition and was said to serve the purpose that Mr Joubert intended to befulfilled by the foundation stone.290 No information concerning the fountain's removal or relocationhas been located to date.
287 New Zealand Tablet, 3 February 1882, p. 11; The Star, 24 August 1882, p. 3288 The Star, 31 January 1882, p. 3; Exhibition Sports Committee Scrapbook 1882, CH343/75b,CCCA289 The Star, 20 September 1882, p. 3290 Ibid; The Star, 27 September 1882, p. 2
CONSERVATION PLAN: HAGLEY PARK AND CHRISTCHURCH BOTANIC GARDENS VOLUME ONE: HISTORY
Figure 3.19 Postcard view of themain exhibition building fromLincoln Road ( Hagley Avenue).Source: PhotoCD 1, IMG00013, CCL
attachment 7
VOLUME 1. SECTION 3: PAGE 96
As in previous years, sports groups were required to prepare the grounds at their own expense and pay a licence fee to the Domains Board to occupy a fixed part of the Park. This was a nominal fee,with football and hockey paying 30 shillings a year for three acres, and the Ground Committeerepresenting cricket, paying £15 pounds for the use of ten acres.358 Designs for all proposedstructures were reviewed by the Board, and the cost of erecting buildings was met by the sportsclubs who, although frequently permitted to fence off their grounds, greens and lawns, were notpermitted to debar the public from entering. It was stressed by the Domains Board that Hagley Parkbelonged to the public, and was absolutely open to everyone, without charge for admission.
New licences and structures agreed by the Board during this period are summarised as follows;• 1886. Canterbury Rugby Union Footballer's Memorial pavilion erected on North Hagley Park • 1889. Cricket Club caretaker's house built on South Park • 1891. Linwood Football Club granted a ground on North Hagley Park• 1891. The re‐formed Christchurch Golf Club held its first match on North Hagley links in September• 1892. Christchurch Polo Club granted 15 acres in South Park behind Christ's College Cricket Ground in the north‐west corner of the Park. By 1900 this had grown to 25 acres 2 roods and 25 perches
• 1892. The Christchurch Ladies’ Golf Club began to share the 18 hole layout of the Christchurch Golf Club's course
• 1893. Christchurch Polo Club pavilion erected to a design approved by the Board• 1893. Christchurch Golf Club erected a hut (on wheels) on North Park to hold their equipment• 1896. Hockey Club granted ground between the polo ground and the College Cricket club• 1899. Model Yacht Club pavilion erected near Victoria Lake• 1901. Golf Course reduced to nine holes in 1901• 1902/ 1903. Christchurch Golf club surrendered its lease and removed its hut on wheels• 1904. Hagley Golf Club formed and took over the nine‐hole course • 1905. United Bowling, Tennis and Croquet Club took up a lease of 3 acres, 3 roods and 27.2 perches in North Hagley Park in an area “bounded by the Plane Avenue Riccarton Road and the Wellingtonias.” Their two‐storey pavilion was erected in December 1905
358 The Star, 25 September 1900, p. 1
CONSERVATION PLAN: HAGLEY PARK AND CHRISTCHURCH BOTANIC GARDENS VOLUME ONE: HISTORY
Figure 3.37 Cricket Pavilion and caretaker's house, South Hagley Park, ca. 1908. Source: Part of G‐004102‐1/1, ATL
VOLUME 1. SECTION 3: PAGE 50
Hagley Oval, taking the turf from their Dilloway's pitch with them.138 (Refer Volume 2:1.9.4 for a fullaccount of the history of the pavilion). Soon after this the Albion and a newly re‐formedChristchurch Cricket Club were given permission to develop pitches near Hospital Corner.139
Challenger (1979) has noted that, by the time Barker tended his resignation in late 1867, theperimeter belts of Hagley Park were wholly in existence except for the belt adjacent to what is nowknown as Harper Avenue and a small portion in the north‐east corner of North Hagley Park oppositePark Terrace. It is possible that these areas were left unplanted to facilitate access to a workingshingle pit which operated in North Park until 1870, “when it was abolished owing to the greatinjury done to the Park by carting the gravel away.”140 In addition, tree belts had been formed onthe north side of the Avon River, opposite Christ's College and thorn hedges edged the RiccartonAvenue boundary of both North and South Hagley Parks.
Access into Hagley Park had been improved by the construction of the College Bridge at the westernend of Armagh Street in 1859.141 In addition, as part of the subdivision of his property to the northof North Hagley Park, Joseph Helmore had erected what came to be known as Helmore's Bridge in1865.142 Access through the Park had also been addressed with a system of utilitarian footwalks thatlinked the College Bridge with stiles which had been constructed to allow access to Park Road,Fendal Town (Fendalton), Riccarton and Great South Roads (figure 3.7).
138 'Dilloway's Ground and Hagley Oval', Unsourced publication held on New Zealand Historic Places Trust Christchurch Branch File: 12009‐086 139 Reese, T. W. (1945) A short history of Hagley Park, pp. 4‐7 140 The Press, 21 November 1906, p. 12141 Lamb, R.C. (1981) From the Banks of the Avon, p. 125142 Hagley Park bridges including Carlton Mill and Helmore's. CAAR 19946 CH287/ICPW 2525/1876, ANZ
CONSERVATION PLAN: HAGLEY PARK AND CHRISTCHURCH BOTANIC GARDENS VOLUME ONE: HISTORY
Figure 3.6 Photograph of a lithograph depicting the England vs. Canterbury cricket match held at 'Dilloway's'North Hagley Park, in February 1864. Enoch Barker's perimeter plantings are depicted as a running belt to therear of the stands and tent. The pavilion (right background) was constructed for this event. Source: Exploded detail from “All England II. V 22 of Canterbury. N. Zealand 8th, 9th, 10th of Feb. 1864” 1/2‐028957‐G, ATL
Cricket Pavilion and caretaker’s house, South Hagley Park, circa 1908
Exploded detail from “All England II. V 22 of Canterbury, N. Zealand 8th, 9th, 10th Feb. 1864 source: 1/2-028957-G, ATL
source: Part of G-004102-1/1, ATL
attachment 8
Sheep grazing in Hagley Park, 1910 Hagley Park
`In the past, animals grazing on urban green spaces like Hagley Park, Christchurch, would have been a common sight. Farm animals were kept in urban areas well into the 20th century and parks were a con-venient place to house and feed them, particularly if saleyards were nearby. Owners had to get permission from the local council – but not all did, particularly in the early days of settlement when local govern-ment structures were still emerging.`
source: www.teara.govt.nz, 1910 source: Brian Brake, Te Papa online collection
attachment 9
Hagley Oval Addington Brook
embankment proposal
Christchurch EcosystemsDry Plains
Houherepiwakawaka - kohuhu, mid-age plains ecosystem
Kahikateakereru - manatu, older plains ecosystem
Totarabellbird - matai, older plains ecosystem
Pukiopukeko - karamu, peat plains ecosystem
Wet Plainssource: Lucas Associates & Ian Lynn, Landcare Research 1995
1850 Landcover of Christchurch source: Lucas Associates 2011, based on Waterways, wetlands, and vegetation cover of the Christchurch Region, as at 1856. Modified by J. Walter based on a compilation in Wilson (1989), which was based on the Black Rural Section cadastral maps of 1856.
Addington Brook
HagleyOval
Underlying Ecosystems of ‘the site’
attachment 10
Hagley Oval
Hagley Oval
LiDAR image (DRAFT March 2011) LiDAR image (DRAFT March 2011) with embankment proposal
Addington Brook Addington Brook
Riccarton AveRiccarton Ave
Avon RiverAvon River
attachment 11
HAGLEY PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007
27
Hagley Park Landscape Zones
source: Hagley Park Management Plan 2007, Christchurch City Council attachment 12
CO
LO
MB
O S
TC
OL
OM
BO
ST
RO
LL
ES
TO
N A
VE
DE
AN
S A
VE
MO
NT
RE
AL
ST
MO
NT
RE
AL
ST
DU
RH
AM
ST
DU
RH
AM
ST
CO
LO
MB
O S
TPA
RK
TC
E
T U A M S T
A R M A G H S T
K I L M O R E S T
S A L I S B U R Y S T
VI C
TO
RI A
ST
H E R E F O R D S T H E R E F O R D S T
C A S H E L S T
C A M B R I D G E T C E
M O O R H O U S E A V E
B E A L E Y A V E
O X F O R D T C E
R I C C A R T O N A V E
H A G L E Y AV E
H A R P E R A V E
S T A S A P H S T
Convention Centre
Papa o Ōtākaro Avon River Precinct
Te Puna AhureaCultural Centre (indicative)
Cricket Oval
Metro Sports Facility
Justice & Emergency Services Precinct
Health Precinct
The Frame
Retail Precinct
Botanic Gardens New Visitor CentreNew Visitor Centre including inter pretation and information facilities, a new café and greenhouses
Christchurch Hospital
Antigua Boatsheds and FootbridgeHistoric riverside recreation since 1882
Cambridge TerraceLocal tra�c and buses only along part of Cambridge Terrace to provide widened river corridor
Bridge of RemembranceWar memorial and gathering space at the end of City Mall. Design improved to remove visual barriers and improve access
Addington Brook
Riccarton Stream
Canterbury Provincial Council BuildingsHeritage buildings that housed the early provincial government
Additional islands provide habitat for birds
Deciduous canopy trees to provide shade in summer
Commuter cyclists on true left bank
Christchurch Central Blueprint Summary (pp 5-6) overlain with Avon River Precinct Te Papa o Ōtākaro (pp 55-56)
source: Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, 2012
attachment 13
Hagley Park on a winters day without the maintenance fence Cricket in Hagley Parksource: Save Hagley Park’s Facebook page source: Save Hagley Park’s Facebook page
attachment 14
St Albans Pavilion and Umpires Pavilion source: Athfield Architects Ltd Hagley Cricket Oval Perspectives, View 4 Existing p.10
10-22Hagley Oval 23.01.13
P.10
hagley cricket oval / perspective images
View Four: Existing
attachment 15
Photo Locations
DEAN
S AVE
RICCARTON AVE
HAGLEY AVE
source: Google Earth, 26th April 2013
view 7
view 3
view 2
view 4
view 5
view 6
view 1view 8
view 11
view 9view 10
view 12view 13
view 20
view 22
view 23
view 21
view 14view 16
view 17 view 18 & 19
view 15Hagley
Oval
temporary carpark
MOORHOUSE AVE
attachment 16
VIEW 1: Existing entry into the Horticultural Hall carpark from Riccarton Ave. Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 17
VIEW 2: Looking south along Addington Brook toward Horticultural Hall Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 18
VIEW 2: Looking north along Addington Brook to Riccarton Ave. Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 19
VIEW 3: Looking north along Addington Brook, Horticultural Hall access on left Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 20
VIEW 4: Looking north along Addington Brook, Old Boys Collegians Pavilion on right to be demolished Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 21
VIEW 5: Addington Brook (Old Boys Collegians Pavilion on left to be demolished) VIEW 6 : Addington Brook by Horticultural HallPhoto taken: 29th April 2013 Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 22
VIEW 7a: Looking south over Hagley Oval from second floor of Umpires Building
VIEW 7b: Looking south over Hagley Oval from second floor of Umpires Building (panorama stitched)
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
Photo taken: 5th May 2013
Horticultural Hall
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Store Shed (to be demolished)
attachment 23
VIEW 8: Looking south over Hagley Oval from beside Umpires Pavilion Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
Horticultural Hall
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)Umpires Pavilion Store Shed (to be demolished)
attachment 24
VIEW 9: Looking south over Hagley Oval from carpark on Riccarton Ave. Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
Horticultural Hall
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)Umpires Pavilion
St Albans Pavilion
Groundsmans House
attachment 25
VIEW 10: Looking south over Hagley Oval from Line Walk Photo taken: 29th April 2013Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
Groundsmans House
Umpires’ PavilionSt Albans PavilionRiccarton Pavilion
attachment 26
VIEW 11: Looking south-east over Hagley Oval to the Port Hills
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished) Horticultural Hall
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
attachment 27
VIEW 12: Looking south through Line Walk and over Hagley Oval Photo taken: 29th April 2013
Umpires’ PavilionSt Albans Pavilion Groundsmans House Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
attachment 28
VIEW 13a: Looking south through the line walk and over Hagley Oval
VIEW 13b: Looking south through the line walk over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
Horticultural HallOld Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
Groundsmans HouseUmpires PavilionSt Albans Pavilion
attachment 29
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013VIEW 14: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval from Line Walk
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013VIEW 15: Looking north-west over Hagley Park South over Christs College grounds
Umpires’ PavilionSt Albans PavilionRiccarton Pavilion
Groundsmans House
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)
Horticultural Hall
attachment 30
Photo taken: 29th April 2013VIEW 16: The Line Walk entrance from Riccarton Avenue and carpark
attachment 31
Photo taken: 29th April 2013VIEW 17a: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval from near Christs College facilities
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)Groundsmans HouseUmpires PavilionSt Albans Pavilion
attachment 32
Photo taken: 29th April 2013VIEW 17b: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
attachment 33
Photo taken: 29th April 2013VIEW 18: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)Groundsmans HouseUmpires PavilionUmpires Pavilion
attachment 34
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
Photo taken: 29th April 2013
VIEW 19b: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval with dashed green line as indicative embankment height
VIEW 19a: Looking north-east over Hagley Oval
Old Boys Collegians Pavilion (to be demolished)Groundsmans HouseUmpires PavilionSt Albans Pavilion
attachment 35
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013VIEW 20a: Looking east from Deans Ave over Hagley Park South to Hagley Oval & Umpire´s Pavilion
Store shed (to be demolished)Umpires Pavilion Groundsmans House, grandstand & sheds
attachment 36
Photo taken: 23rd April 2013
Umpires Pavilion
Groundsmans House Groundsmans House, grandstand & shedsSt Albans Pavilion
VIEW 20b: Looking east from Deans Ave over Hagley Park South to Hagley Oval & Umpire´s Pavilion
attachment 37
VIEW 21: Hagley Avenue and Netball Association building (Atrium in the Park) Photo taken: 5th May 2013
attachment 38
VIEW 22a: From Hagley Ave over Netball court mound Photo taken: 5th May 2013
attachment 39
VIEW 22b: From Hagley Ave over Netball courts, across temporary carpark to Hagley Oval Photo taken: 5th May 2013
attachment 40
VIEW 23: Hagley Avenue’s Avenue Photo taken: 5th May 2013
attachment 41
Photo taken: 29th April 2013Looking east from Riccarton Ave over Hagley Park North
attachment 42
Photo taken: 29th April 2013Hagley Park North from Riccarton Ave looking over Rugby Fields through to Tennis Club
attachment 43
20
98
15
18
11
12
21
10
20
19
13
16
22
17
14
1565000
1565000
1570000
1570000
1575000
1575000
1580000
1580000
5175
000
5175
000
5180
000
5180
000
Info
rmat
ion
cont
aine
d in
this
dra
win
g is
the
copy
right
of G
olde
r Ass
ocia
tes
(NZ)
Ltd
. Una
utho
rised
use
or r
epro
duct
ion
of th
is p
lan
eith
er w
holly
or i
n pa
rt w
ithou
t writ
ten
perm
issi
on in
fring
es c
opyr
ight
.
© G
olde
r Ass
ocia
tes
(NZ)
Ltd
.
CHRISTCHURCH CITY COPPER, LEAD AND ZINC CONCENTRATIONS COMPARED TO ANZECC SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
1. Map image: Land Information New Zealand NZ Topo50 Series, Crown Copyright Reserved.2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.
25DECEMBER 20111078105525PROJECT
0 1 2 3 4 5
KilometresDatum: NZGD 2000Projection: Transverse Mercator
S:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2010\10781x\05xxx\1078105_525_ECanSedimentQualitySurvey\MapDocuments\SedimentSampling\Fig25_ChristchurchCopperLeadZincConcentrations_GIS.mxd
¯
Copper
!( < 65
!( 65 - 270
!( > 270
Lead
!( < 50
!( 50 - 220
!( > 220
Zinc
!( < 200
!( 200 - 410
!( > 410
Concentration (g/m³)
Legend:
Site no.
Cu PbZn
TITLE
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(20
19
18
15
1312
11
1566000
1566000
1568000
1568000
1570000
1570000
5176
000
5176
000
5178
000
5178
000
5180
000
5180
000
5182
000
5182
000
Info
rmat
ion
cont
aine
d in
this
dra
win
g is
the
copy
right
of G
olde
r Ass
ocia
tes
(NZ)
Ltd
. Una
utho
rised
use
or r
epro
duct
ion
of th
is p
lan
eith
er w
holly
or i
n pa
rt w
ithou
t writ
ten
perm
issi
on in
fring
es c
opyr
ight
.
© G
olde
r Ass
ocia
tes
(NZ)
Ltd
.
S:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2010\10781x\05xxx\1078105_525_ECanSedimentQualitySurvey\MapDocuments\SedimentSampling\Fig06_SedimentSamplingChristchurchAreaE_GIS.mxd
1. Aerial: Google Earth, Copyright Reserved. Image Date 15/02/2011 2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
KilometresDatum: NZGD 2000Projection: Transverse Mercator
¯
Legend
!( Sediment sample site
Waterways
SAMPLING SITES - CHRISTCHURCH (AREA E) 6DECEMBER 20111078105525PROJECT
TITLE
Okeover Stream
Heathcote River
Wa imairi Stream
Avon RiverIlam
Stream
Addi
ngto
nCr
eek
Cashmere Stream
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(20
19
18
15
1312
11
1566000
1566000
1568000
1568000
1570000
1570000
5176
000
5176
000
5178
000
5178
000
5180
000
5180
000
5182
000
5182
000
Info
rmat
ion
cont
aine
d in
this
dra
win
g is
the
copy
right
of G
olde
r Ass
ocia
tes
(NZ)
Ltd
. Una
utho
rised
use
or r
epro
duct
ion
of th
is p
lan
eith
er w
holly
or i
n pa
rt w
ithou
t writ
ten
perm
issi
on in
fring
es c
opyr
ight
.
© G
olde
r Ass
ocia
tes
(NZ)
Ltd
.
S:\GIS\Projects-Numbered\2010\10781x\05xxx\1078105_525_ECanSedimentQualitySurvey\MapDocuments\SedimentSampling\Fig06_SedimentSamplingChristchurchAreaE_GIS.mxd
1. Aerial: Google Earth, Copyright Reserved. Image Date 15/02/2011 2. Schematic only, not to be interpreted as an engineering design or construction drawing.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
KilometresDatum: NZGD 2000Projection: Transverse Mercator
¯
Legend
!( Sediment sample site
Waterways
SAMPLING SITES - CHRISTCHURCH (AREA E) 6DECEMBER 20111078105525PROJECT
TITLE
Okeover Stream
Heathcote River
Wa imairi Stream
Avon RiverIlamStream
Addi
ngto
nCr
eek
Cashmere Stream
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 67, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
source: clipped from Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 27, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY
January 2012Report No. 1078105525 65
6.6 Implications of Changes in Metal Concentrations in Sediments The ANZECC (2000) sediment quality guidelines are used in this section to assess the potential effects that sediment quality may have on biological communities inhabiting the stream. Increased concentrations of metals in stream sediments have the potential to adversely affect stream biota that inhabit these sediments. Toxicity arises through the exposure of organisms to pore water within the sediments. Metals adsorbed to sediment particles are in equilibrium with the metals in the pore water. The concentration in the pore water is a function of many factors including the redox state of the sediment (how much oxygen is present) and the rate of diffusion between the pore water and the overlying stream waters. Concentrations can in some situations become high enough to exert toxic effects on biota. It should be noted however, that toxicity may arise from constituents other than metals. Ammoniacal nitrogen is common in stream-bed sediments especially if organic matter builds up and the sediments become anaerobic. A number of studies have shown that ammoniacal nitrogen in sediments is often implicated as the prime causal agent of toxicity.
In Figure 25 and Figure 26 the concentration of copper, lead and zinc has been presented graphically in a traffic light system, where green denotes sediment metal concentrations were below the ISQG-Low, yellow denotes concentrations above the ISQG-Low, but below the ISQG-High, and red denotes concentrations above the ISQG-High. Table 9 provides a summary of the ANZECC (2000) ISQG exceedences.
Only two ISQG-High trigger values were exceeded across the entire survey:
Zinc in Addington Brook at Riccarton Ave (Christchurch)
Lead in Taitarakihi Creek at SH1 (Timaru)
All sites recorded cadmium, chromium and nickel concentrations below the ISQG-Low trigger value. This indicates that concentrations of these parameters would be unlikely to cause adverse effects on aquatic biota.
Arsenic concentrations were below the ISQG-Low trigger value at all sites except for Addington Brook at Riccarton Ave (Christchurch). Copper concentrations exceeded the ISQG-Low trigger value at one site (Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho at Annex Road).
Lead and mercury concentrations were below the ISQG-Low trigger value at the majority of sites. Dock Creek at Chamberlains Park (Amberley) and Avon River/Ōtakāro at Fitzgerald Ave (Christchurch) reported lead and mercury concentrations above the ISQG-Low trigger but as noted above, lead exceeded the ISQG-High trigger in Taitarakihi Creek at SH1 (Timaru).
Zinc concentrations exceeded the ISQG-Low trigger value at 10 sites and as noted above, zinc exceeded the ISQG-High trigger value in Addington Brook.
Table 9: Summary of sites where exceedences of ANZECC (2000) sediment quality guidelines were found in this study. Site No. Location Arsenic Copper Lead Mercury Zinc
3 Dock Creek4 Dock Creek10 Avon River/Ōtakāro13 Avon River/Ōtakāro15 Addington Brook
16 Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
18 Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
19 Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 65, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
Hagley Oval
Addington Brook sampling site 15
attachment 44
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY
January 2012Report No. 1078105525 49
Table 8: Metal/metalloid concentrations in sediment samples collected from Canterbury streams. Site Number Waterway Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc
1 Lyell Creek 6.4 0.32 17 27 27 0.094 16 160
2 Lyell Creek 5.4 0.12 14 14 17 0.065 13 81
3 Dock Creek 4.8 0.45 20 32 150 0.17 10 260
4 Dock Creek 2.8 0.21 12 11 17 0.078 9.1 220
5 South Brook 2.4 0.056 11 7.6 14 0.044 7.5 57
6 Middle Brook 3.4 0.12 12 27 48 0.071 8.6 140
7 North Brook 2.0 0.062 11 8.2 19 0.080 8.7 79
8 Avon River/Ōtakāro 7.7 0.15 30 20 32 0.11 15 150
9 Avon River/Ōtakāro 3.7 0.11 17 14 25 0.060 14 110
10 Avon River/Ōtakāro 4.4 0.52 19 40 110 0.17 14 380
11 Avon River/Ōtakāro 1.9 0.074 12 10 20 0.051 11 81
12 Avon River/Ōtakāro 1.0 0.12 11 8.9 27 0.047 8.9 120
13a1 Avon River/Ōtakāro 3.6 0.28 15 35 70 0.083 9.4 250
13b Avon River/Ōtakāro 4.0 0.30 15 38 70 0.077 9.4 250
13c Avon River/Ōtakāro 4.0 0.29 16 41 72 0.086 10 270
14 Dudley Creek 2.1 0.052 10 4.6 14 0.038 8.4 61
15 Addington Brook 21 0.24 16 16 39 0.047 14 500
16 Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
4.6 0.30 28 25 36 0.078 13 250
17 Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho
2.1 0.040 11 6.0 10 0.043 8.6 71
18 Heathcote 7.3 0.45 21 54 50 0.087 14 410
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY
January 2012Report No. 1078105525 75
Table 15: Trace element concentrations in biofilms from urban streams in Canterbury. Site Number Waterway Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc
1 Lyell Creek – Information Centre 9.2 0.2 35 85 16.5 0.21 27 115
2 Lyell Creek – u/s SH1 11.4 0.25 29 92 10.9 0.26 27 92
3 Dock Creek – Chamberlains Park 9 0.42 53 124 121 0.23 48 450
4 Dock Creek – d/s Lawcocks Rd 6 0.32 68 73 21 0.29 35 200
5 South Brook - u/s Railway Rd 7 0.25 68 96 23 0.34 35 2406 Middle Brook- Denchs Rd 12.5 0.27 42 74 108 0.19 28 390
7 North Brook – d/s stormwater pond 8.8 0.31 46 90 55 0.32 47 174
8 Avon River/Ōtakāro – Pages Rd 18 0.19 40 28 49 0.2 20 157
9 Avon River/Ōtakāro – Kerrs Reach 15.9 0.23 35 54 57 0.21 32 320
11 Avon Rivew – Antigua Boatsheds 10.3 0.41 38 92 79 0.33 30 460
12 Avon River/Ōtakāro – Carlton Corner 16.4 0.43 33 98 93 0.36 34 410
13 Avon River/Ōtakāro – Mona Vale 10 0.36 67 128 130 0.3 49 260
14 Dudley Creek – Banks Ave 24 0.61 41 62 129 0.21 29 780
15 Addington Brook – Riccarton Ave 90 6.0 39 121 80 0.23 91 7,100
16 Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho –d/s the cut 10.6 0.32 56 43 59 0.16 21 300
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 49, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 75, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
Addington Brook sampling site 15
Addington Brook sampling site 15attachment 45
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY
January 2012Report No. 1078105525 77
a) Arsenic b) Cadmium
c) Chromium d) Copper
Figure 27: Concentrations (mg/kg) of (a) arsenic, (b) cadmium, (c) chromium and (d) copper recorded in biofilms and sediments at stream sites sampled in 2011. ANZECC recommended sediment quality trigger values for ISQG "high" and "low" are shown. Site names and corresponding site number are listed in Table 2.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31Ar
seni
c (m
g/kg
)Site Number
Biofilm Sediment
ISQG - High 70 mg/kg
ISQG - Low 20 mg/kg
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Cadm
ium (m
g/kg
)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - Low 1.5 mg/kg
*ISQG - High 10 mg/kg
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Chro
miu
m (m
g/kg
)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - Low (80 mg/kg)
*ISQG - High 370 mg/kg
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Copp
er (m
g/kg
)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - Low 65 mg/kg
ISQG - High 270 mg/kg
CANTERBURY REGIONAL URBAN STREAM SEDIMENT AND BIOFILM QUALITY SURVEY
January 2012Report No. 1078105525 78
a) Lead b) Mercury
c) Nickel d) Zinc
Figure 28: Concentrations (mg/kg) of lead (a), mercury (b), nickel (c) and zinc (d) recorded in biofilms and sediments at stream sites sampled in 2011. ANZECC recommended sediment quality trigger values for ISQG "high" and "low" are shown. Site names and corresponding site number are listed in Table 2.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Lead
(mg/
kg)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - Low 50 mg/kg
ISQG - High 220 mg/kg
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Mer
cury
(mg/
kg)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - Low 0.15 mg/kg
*ISQG - High 1.0 mg/kg
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Nick
el (m
g/kg
)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - Low (21 mg/kg)
ISQG - High (52 mg/kg)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Zinc (
mg/
kg)
Site Number
Biofilm
Sediment
ISQG - High 410 mg/kg
ISQG - Low 200 mg/kg
*Biofilm Zinc Concentration at Site 15 continues to 7100 mg/kg
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 77, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
source: Canterbury regional urban stream sediment and biofilm quality survey p 78, report prepared for ECAN by Golder Associates, January 2012
Addington Brook sampling site 15
attachment 46
attachment P39
View from Titirangi Road over Melville Cove
Gannet Point
Sanford Pool Head mussel farm
Port Gore Saddle
Mt FurneauxMelville Cove
Tinui
Hagley Park South sign on Deans Ave. Photo taken: 29th April 2013
attachment 47
Appendix 1 - DI LUCAS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, CV
Director of Lucas Associates Limited, Christchurch, a Registered NZILA Landscape Architect and Fellow member of NZILA (1987), Di works in community -friendly planning and design processes for creative and sustainable solutions. Having skills in landscape assessment, landscape ecology and restoration, natural character analysis, community consultation, heritage values, sustainable resource management, creative problem solving and documentation, Di works on a range of projects around Aotearoa New Zealand. Projects vary in scale from broad frameworks for regions, districts and towns to planning development or restoration for specif ic sites, working for community, industry, landowners, iwi and government agencies.
Di has undertaken landscape assessments for a wide diversity of projects and locales, uti lis ing an holistic approach. She has undertaken assessments and prepared plans and proposals under various conservation statutes as well as the RMA.
The Lucas Associates team has twice been awarded New Zealand’s premier landscape planning award, the NZILA Charlie Challenger Award, the only recipient of this award in the decade to 2005. Di received a NZILA landscape planning 2008 Gold Award for evidence to the Environment Court.
Assessment and Planning Di Lucas is a qualif ied Resource Management Act decision maker .
Landscape assessment, reporting and preparation of evidence, including to council and Environment Court hearings, regarding landscape, natural and amenity value s of rural and urban areas, and sites, working variously for individuals, landowners, community groups, iwi, councils and government departments.
Community Plans Facil itation of rapid community-based workshops ranging nationwide, town and/or country, with on-site immediate follow up preparation of community plans and documentation - typically a week or a month from “go to whoa”.
Biodiversity and Land Collation and communication of complex scientif ic data through the interpretation of land, geomorphology and biodiversity, enabling restoration via easy to understand field booklets, brochures and plans.
Sustainability Sustainable management plans recognising natural and cultural values, land use practices and alternative markets, through enhanced landscape mana gement.
top related