News – 10 Shirley Road

Shirley Community Facility Plan v2

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Agenda for 11th December 2025
2. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes for 11th December 2025
3. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes Attachments for 11th September 2025
(No Attachments were included, even though the Board received emails).
4. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
YouTube Video of the 11th December 2025 Board Meeting
(No Deputations were allowed for this Item).
5. ‘Shirley Community Facility’ Written Submission by Joanna Gould
(including AI Summary of .pdf)

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Agenda for 11th December 2025
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/12/PCBCC_20251211_AGN_10741_AT.PDF
9. Updated Shirley Community Facility Design
– Pages 13-24: Council Staff Report
– Pages 25-31: Co-Studio Architects Developed Design for the Shirley Community Facility v2
– Pages 32-38: Co-Studio Architects Developed Design for the Shirley Community Facility v1.

2. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes for 11th December 2025
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/12/PCBCC_20251211_MIN_10741_AT.PDF
Pages 4-6
9. Updated Shirley Community Facility Design
– Community Board Consideration
The Board accepted the Officer Recommendations, except in respect of it selecting the option of having a raked ceiling for the facility, rather than a flat ceiling.
The Board also added resolution 7 below to enable the two meeting rooms in the updated facility design to be accessed independently of the function space via external doors that it requested the identified windows be replaced with.
The Board’s consideration confirmed that the authority given to staff to amend the updated design included determining whether the added doors be single or double.
Victoria Henstock foreshadowed moving the Officer Recommendations without change, but the addition of a raked ceiling, and external doors for the meeting rooms, was carried before the foreshadowed motion could be put to a vote.
– Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Updated Shirley Community Facility Design Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Approves the updated developed detail design, including a flat ceiling and associated project costings, incorporating the Board’s September 2025 directions, as shown in Attachment A to this report.
4. Instructs staff to proceed to tender and procurement following approval of the updated design and project costings.
5. Acknowledges the mahi of the Shirley Working Group and thanks them for their contribution to the project.
6. Notes that the total project remains deliverable within the Long-Term Plan budget of $3,705,000.
– Community Board Resolved PCBCC/2025/00074
Part C
That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Updated Shirley Community Facility Design Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Subject to resolution 7, approves the updated developed detail design, including a raked ceiling and associated project costings, incorporating the Board’s September 2025 directions, as shown in Attachment A to the report.
4. Instructs staff to proceed to tender and procurement following approval of the updated design and project costings.
5. Acknowledges the mahi of the Shirley Working Group and thanks them for their contribution to the project.
6. Notes that the total project remains deliverable within the Long-Term Plan budget of $3,705,000.
7. Requests and authorises staff to amend the updated design by replacing:
a. the external window in Meeting Room 04; and
b. the south-western external window in Large Meeting Room 03;
with external glass doors of the same style as the other external doors in the facility, to enable those rooms to be accessed independently of the function space.
– Pauline Cotter/Jake McLellan Carried
9. Updated Shirley Community Facility Design Voting:
– For (6): Pauline Cotter, Jake McLellan, Dr Sunita Gautam, John Miller, Mike Davidson, Simon Britten
– Against (1): Emma Twaddell
– Abstain (2): Ashleigh Feary, Victoria Henstock
TOTAL = 9

3. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes Attachments for 11th September 2025
(No Attachments were included, even though the Board received emails).

4. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
YouTube Video of the 11th December 2025 Board Meeting
(No Deputations were allowed for this Item).
Presentation & Board Discussions for Item 9. Updated Shirley Community Facility Design:
https://www.youtube.com/live/RRceb032Avw?t=5691s

5. ‘Shirley Community Facility’ Written Submission by Joanna Gould
.pdf: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/WaipapaPICItem9ShirleyCommunityFacilityDec2025JoannaGould.pdf
Includes information on the following topics:
– Shirley Community Facility | Developed Design | December 2025
– Proposed Shirley Community Facility | Feedback from September 2025
– Dudley Character Area, Richmond | Dudley Design Guide
– 10 Shirley Road & Original Building | Connections
– St Albans Community Centre | Concept Plan & Consultation
– Lancaster Park Community Centre and Changing Rooms
– Department of Conservation Email | Reserve Classification & Uses
– Shirley Community Reserve | Redevelopment Concept for Discussion
– CCC Community Facilities Network Plan | Principles
– CCC Community Facilities Network Plan | Best Practice Community Facility Design
– Christchurch City Council District Plan | Housing Intensification & Property Values
– Kāinga Ora | New Social Housing Developments
– Bookable Spaces & Local Activities Provided
– Shirley Centre | Ideas by Joanna Gould (2021)

AI Summary of .pdf:
“The document outlines concerns, feedback, and suggestions regarding the proposed Shirley Community Facility redevelopment at Shirley Community Reserve, as well as comparisons to other community projects and guidelines. Below are the key points:

Concerns with the Proposed Shirley Community Facility Design (December 2025)
– Building Placement:
Located at the back of the reserve, hidden from Shirley Road, and not aligned with the existing path.
South wall blocks the line of sight from Shirley Road to Dudley Creek, raising CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) concerns.
– Design Issues:
Meeting rooms are fixed spaces, not adjustable.
Access to meeting rooms is through the function space, which may limit usability.
The projector wall removes windows on the east side, blocking visibility to the playground and Shirley Playcentre.
The building lacks windows or doors on the south side, missing the best view of Dudley Creek.
Roof pitch, entrance location, and window styles do not align with the Dudley Design Guide for the area.
– Interior Design:
The new building is a single-room facility, unlike the former multi-room community center.
No clarity on whether items from the former heritage-listed building will be incorporated.
– Car Park and Paths:
Reduced car park spaces may impact Shirley Primary School and Shirley Playcentre.
The new car park is disconnected from existing paths, affecting accessibility.
The building is not connected to Shirley Road, the playground, or Shirley Playcentre.
– Toilets and Kitchen:
Lack of windows in toilets and kitchen increases electricity and ventilation costs.
Concerns about vandalism and maintenance of public toilets.

– Feedback and Advocacy:
The facility was designed without sufficient resident input and is deemed not “fit for purpose.”
Residents prefer a community-focused facility rather than a venue for hire or clubroom.
The facility should honor the area’s history and provide inclusive spaces for current and future residents.

– Reserve Classification and Legal Implications:
The land is classified as a “Local Purpose Reserve” for a community center, which limits its use to this purpose unless the classification is changed.
Mixed-use activities are permissible if compatible with the reserve’s primary purpose.

– Comparisons to Other Community Projects:
The St Albans Community Centre involved extensive public consultation and a community-led design process, which was not followed for the Shirley Community Facility.
Lancaster Park Community Centre has a larger building size and more amenities compared to the proposed Shirley Community Facility.

– Recommendations:
Align the design with the CCC Community Facilities Network Plan principles, emphasizing community-led design, inclusivity, flexibility, and integration with surroundings.
Incorporate local history and retrieved items from the former heritage-listed building.
Improve accessibility and connectivity to surrounding paths, playgrounds, and public transport.
Address concerns about the building’s placement, design, and usability.

– Additional Context:
The Shirley Community Reserve has been underutilized since the original community center was demolished in 2012 due to earthquake damage.
The area is experiencing housing intensification, with new social housing developments expected to bring approximately 198 new residents by May 2026.
The document includes links to resources, community groups, and design guidelines for further reference.

– Conclusion:
The document emphasizes the need for a community-led, inclusive, and functional design for the Shirley Community Facility that aligns with the reserve’s purpose and addresses residents’ needs.
It highlights the importance of integrating the facility with its surroundings and honoring the area’s history while accommodating future growth.”

Shirley Community Facility Plan v1

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Agenda for 11th September 2025
2. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes for 11th September 2025
3. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes Attachments for 11th September 2025
4. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
YouTube Video of the 11th September 2025 Board Meeting
(including Deputations by: Jennifer Dalziel, Margaret Stewart, Joanna Gould, Don Gould, Jo Byrne, Murray James from We Are Richmond & Jane Mitchell from Shirley Community Trust).
5. ‘Shirley Community Facility’ Written Submission by Joanna Gould
(including AI Summary of .pdf)

1. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Agenda for 11th September 2025:
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/09/PCBCC_20250911_AGN_9141_AT.PDF
Item 8. Shirley Community Facility
– Pages 26 – 35: Council Staff Report
– Pages 36 – 62: Co-Studio Architects Developed Design for the Shirley Community Facility.

2. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes for 11th September 2025:
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/09/PCBCC_20250911_MIN_9141_AT.PDF
Item 8. Shirley Community Facility
– Board Consideration
The Board considered the deputations on this item (refer 5.3 – 5.8 of these minutes) before accepting the Officer Recommendations with a variation on Option Two, increasing the footprint by at least 100 square metres to make the centre large enough to contain three separate or separatable meeting/activity rooms.
The Board also added requests that staff investigate including in the final design the building elements listed in resolution 6, and noted that the rotunda (or another form of shelter) will be investigated by Parks staff as part of their redevelopment proposal for the reserve.
– Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu
That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Shirley Community Facility Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the
Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Acknowledges the mahi of the Shirley Working Group and thanks them for their contribution to the project.
4. Notes the Shirley Working Group’s endorsement of the developed design for the Shirley Community Facility.
5. Approves:
a. option one, the developed design as endorsed by the Shirley Working
Group as shown in Attachment A, for inclusion in the detailed design phase and associated comprehensive project cost report.
Or;
b. option two, the developed design and extension to the building, as shown in Attachment B for inclusion in the detailed design phase and associated comprehensive project cost report.
6. Requests staff incorporate the proposed rotunda, as shown in Attachment C, for inclusion in the detailed design phase and associated comprehensive project cost report.
7. Requests staff to report back to the Board with the detailed design and comprehensive project cost report for approval.
8. Requests staff collaborate with the Parks Unit to ensure this project is integrated with the development of a landscape plan for Shirley Reserve, and to explore opportunities for delivery efficiencies.
– Community Board Resolved PCBCC/2025/00057
Part C
That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
1. Receives the information in the Shirley Community Facility Report.
2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. Acknowledges the mahi of the Shirley Working Group and thanks them for their contribution to the project.
4. Notes the Shirley Working Group’s endorsement of the developed design (as outlined in Option One and in Attachment A to this report) for the Shirley Community Facility.
5. Approves the developed design with an increase to the footprint by at least 100 square metres to make the centre large enough to contain three separate or separatable meeting/activity rooms, while remaining within budget, for inclusion in the detailed design phase and associated comprehensive project cost report.
6. Requests that staff investigate:
a. constructing the building with an internal exposed raked ceiling;
b. including solar panels and a battery;
c. including an office space;
d. including and fitting a large screen.
7. Notes that Parks staff will include investigating a shelter/rotunda as part of their redevelopment proposal.
8. Requests staff to report back to the Board with the detailed design and associated project costings for approval.
9. Requests staff collaborate with the Parks Unit to ensure this project is integrated with the development of a landscape plan for Shirley Reserve, and to explore opportunities for delivery efficiencies.
– Pauline Cotter/Sunita Gautam Carried
– Emma Norrish requested that her vote against the resolutions be recorded.

3. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Meeting Minutes Attachments for 11th September 2025:
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/09/PCBCC_20250911_MAT_9141.PDF
– Pages 16-26: 5.5. Deputation by Joanna Gould for the Shirley Community Facility
– Pages 27-30: 5.6. Deputation by Don Gould for the Shirley Community Facility

4. Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board
Youtube Video of the 11th September 2025 Board Meeting
– Deputations for Item 8. Shirley Community Facility:
https://www.youtube.com/live/4cCkAA7KvZg?si=xU09YWM8HoBE6ww4&t=1395s
5.3 Jennifer Dalziel
Jennifer Dalziel spoke regarding Item 8, Shirley Community Facility.
5.4 Margaret Stewart
Margaret Stewart spoke regarding Item 8, Shirley Community Facility.
5.5 Joanna Gould
Joanna Gould spoke regarding Item 8, Shirley Community Facility.
5.6 Don Gould
Don Gould spoke regarding Item 8, Shirley Community Facility.
5.7 Jo Byrne
Jo Byrne spoke regarding Item 8, Shirley Community Facility.
5.8 We Are Richmond and Shirley Community Trust
Murray James and Jane Mitchell spoke on behalf of We Are Richmond and Shirley Community Trust respectively regarding Item 8, Shirley Community Facility.
– Presentation & Board Discussions for Item 8. Shirley Community Facility:
https://www.youtube.com/live/4cCkAA7KvZg?t=6367s

5. ‘Shirley Community Facility’ Written Submission by Joanna Gould
.pdf: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/WaipapaPICItem8ShirleyCommunityFacilitySept2025JoannaGould.pdf
Includes information on the following topics:
Section A: Staff Report
Section B: Developed Design
1. Building Placement
2. Dudley Creek
3. Dudley Design
4. Interior
5. Car Park
6. Paths
7. Toilets & Kitchen
Section C: Additional Information
– Shirley Community Facility | Developed Design
– Dudley Design Guide
– Chancellor Street Heritage Houses (opposite Shirley Community Reserve)
– Heritage New Zealand Site Record & Photos of the former Shirley Community Centre building
– Shirley Community Centre – Landscape Development Proposals – May 1994
– Shirley Community Centre – 10 Shirley Road Retrievals – November 2012
– Shirley Community Centre | Ideas by Joanna Gould (2018)
– Shirley Centre | Design Considerations
– Shirley Centre | Design Inspiration
– Shirley Centre | Ideas by Joanna Gould (2021)

AI Summary of .pdf:
“The document outlines the agenda and concerns surrounding the proposed Shirley Community Facility to be constructed on Shirley Community Reserve at 10 Shirley Road. Below are the key points:

Section A: Staff Report
– Purpose of the Report: Approval of the developed design for the Shirley Community Facility.
– Timing Concerns: The report is presented at the last meeting before elections, raising concerns about fairness to the incoming board and lack of transparency in decision-making.
– Community Advocacy: Residents have been advocating for a replacement building since the original Shirley Community Centre was demolished in 2012. Progress has been slow despite its designation as a priority project.
– Working Group Issues:
The Shirley Working Group was established to advise on the design but lacked representation from key community stakeholders (e.g., Shirley Playcentre, Shirley Recreational Walkers, Shirley Primary School, and residents).
Endorsement of the design was divided, with some members opposing it.
– Budget Concerns:
The project budget is $3.7M, but the developed design is estimated at $1.6M, leaving $2.1M unallocated.
The new building is significantly smaller (236.9m²) than the original (1,500m²), raising concerns about its adequacy.
– Legal and Community Implications:
The land is classified as a “Local Purpose (Community Centre)” reserve, limiting its use.
High community interest in the project has not been adequately addressed, and residents feel excluded from the decision-making process.

Section B: Developed Design
– Building Placement:
The building is located at the back of the reserve, disconnected from Shirley Road and the existing paths.
Concerns about Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) issues due to the building’s placement and lack of visibility.
– Design Concerns:
The building design does not align with the Dudley Design Guide or the architectural style of surrounding residential buildings.
Lack of windows and doors facing Dudley Creek, which is a key feature of the reserve.
The interior design is limited to one room, reducing the facility’s functionality compared to the original multi-room building.
– Car Park and Pathway Issues:
Reduced car park spaces may impact Shirley Primary School and Shirley Playcentre.
The new building is not connected to existing paths or key areas like Shirley Road, the playground, or Shirley Playcentre.
– Toilets and Kitchen:
Lack of windows in the toilets and kitchen raises concerns about ventilation and energy costs.
The inclusion of public toilets is debated due to potential issues with vandalism and maintenance.

Section C: Additional Information
– Historical and Design Context:
The former Shirley Community Centre was a heritage-listed building with significant architectural and historical value.
The Dudley Design Guide emphasizes maintaining the character of the area, which the new design does not fully adhere to.
– Community Concerns:
Residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of consultation and transparency.
There are questions about the allocation of the remaining budget and whether it will benefit other organizations that endorsed the plans.
– Key Issues Raised:
Lack of community involvement and transparency in the decision-making process.
Concerns about the adequacy of the new building’s size and design.
Questions about the allocation of the remaining budget.
Exclusion of key community stakeholders from the Working Group.
Disconnection of the new building from the reserve’s existing paths and features.

The document highlights significant community concerns about the proposed Shirley Community Facility, including its design, placement, budget allocation, and the decision-making process.”

CCC Draft Annual Plan 2025-2026

1. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Joanna Gould
2. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Joanna Gould
3. Email/Letter to the Waipapa P-I-C Community Board (12th April 2025)
4. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board
5. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board

1. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Joanna Gould

2025-2026 Draft Annual Plan | Topics
– T.1. Shirley Community Reserve | Feasibility Study
– T.2. Shirley Centre | Business Case
– T.3. Emmett Street | Trees Removal

Topic 1: Shirley Community Reserve | Feasibility Study
In response to the ‘2023 Feasibility Study’ included in the Agenda for the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s meeting on the 13th June 2024, I have researched & written my own Feasibility Study, available here:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

Topic 2: Shirley Centre | Business Case
I do not agreed with the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s decision on the 13th June 2024, for ‘Item 9. Shirley Community Reserve: Proposed Community Facility’:
“3. Request that staff initiate the process to design an ‘on budget community building’ on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections.”
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_MIN_9127_AT.PDF Page 5-6
I have researched & written my own ‘Shirley Centre’ Business Case for the Shirley Community Reserve, available here:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

Topic 3: Emmett Street | Trees Removal
3.1. ‘Shirley Centre 10 Shirley Road’ Facebook Post:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AP2bFNwGY/
“I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

To tell the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ story, I did some research to find out when they were planted, by whom & why their story is an important part of our local history, landscape architecture in NZ, Christchurch the ‘Garden City’ & Shirley’s identity.

Below are four parts to the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ story:
1. ‘Emmett Street Trees’ (How did we get here?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/emmett-street-trees/
2. ‘George Brington Malcolm‘ (Who was G.B. Malcolm?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/george-brington-malcolm/
3. ‘Significant Trees‘ (They were, but now they’re not?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/significant-trees/
4. ‘Emmett Character Area‘ (Plenty of character, but not an Area?)
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/emmett-character-area/

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better it’s not.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss
UNLESS someone…cares:
George Brington Malcolm cared & we have benefited from his vision in the Emmett Street Oak Trees & MacFarlane Park.
Christchurch City Council please care…
‘Save our Trees’…’Save our Character Area’…’Save our History’…

3.2 ‘CCC Works Notice: Emmett Street and Riselaw Street – tree removals and road closures’
https://ccc.govt.nz/transport/works-3/show/1677
What: We’re removing 22 trees in the area, due to non-compliance with the NZ Electricity (Hazards from trees) Regulations and other safety concerns. Some road closures on Emmett Street will be necessary.
Why: These trees are within the prescribed clearance distances of overhead powerlines. While various solutions allow many non-compliant trees to be retained, there are no viable solutions for these trees.
Where: Emmett Street and Riselaw Street, Shirley.
When: 7 April 2025 to 24 April 2025. Monday to Friday, 7am to 5.30pm. (weather/site condition dependent).

3.3. Emmett Street Flooding Remediation
– Has the CCC considered the ramifications of removing “19 trees on Emmett Street”?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129394267/residents-on-floodstricken-christchurch-street-feel-forgotten–it-looked-like-lake-emmett

3.4. Emmett Street Replacement Trees
– Does the CCC consider the ‘2 for 1’ replacement tree deal enough compensation for these established significant trees?
https://ccc.govt.nz/environment/trees-and-vegetation/urbanforest

2025-2026 Draft Annual Plan | Questions
– Q. 1. When will our Rates & Development Contributions be invested back into the communities around Shirley Road?
– Q. 2. When will the CCC Equity & Inclusion Policy be applied to the communities around Shirley Road?
– Q. 3. When will Elected Members vote in favor of Capital Projects to benefit the communities around Shirley Road?

While researching I found this article from ‘The Press’ on the 5th May 1980, nearly 45 years later it is still relevant today:
“‘Funds for libraries’: The Christchurch City Council has yet to adopt the recommendation of its cultural committee to go ahead with the new Shirley library…Part of this expense is for the new central library.
It should not be forgotten that Christchurch people have been getting a central library service on the cheap because they have not had to pay for an adequate central library building for a long time past. Because the cost of books and of everything to do with presenting books to the public is going up at a staggering rate, it must be a temptation for those in charge of public money to restrict expenditure.
The central government has, after all, shown in the past that cultural expenses can be an early casualty in difficult times.
All times are difficult to some degree, and a case could always be made for standing still.
It is not the way of the Christchurch City Council to fail to consider a worth-while project just because the funds for it are hard to find.
The Shirley library comes into this class.
If the council were concerned only to shelter its ratepayers, some notable facilities would be wanting in the city today.
Vital as the new central library may be, the local suburban services must be given a high rating.
They are an essential extension of the central library’s service to readers of all kinds and it is to be hoped that the council will endorse the committee’s recommendation in the interests of a fuller service.”
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19800505.2.108

2. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Joanna Gould

11.04.25 – Item 3 – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 – Joanna Gould:
https://youtu.be/1hFy9hVBkUI
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CCCDraftAnnualPlan2025JoannaGouldPresentation.pdf
The Shirley Community Centre was demolished in 2012 after the earthquakes.
Last year the Waipapa Community Board, after receiving the long awaited Feasibility Study, made the decision to create a ‘mixed use’ reserve & are currently designing a small building.
Since this decision, I’ve been researching & writing my own Feasibility Study & Business Case, for a new fit for purpose building that includes relocating the Shirley Library to Shirley Road.
Our communities have lost a lot since the earthquakes: our schools, our Shirley Community Centre & now our Emmett Street Trees.
My submission is simple:
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.” The Lorax by Dr Seuss
“What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.” Jane Goodall
Your support can make a difference in the lives of those living in the communities around Shirley Road.

Question from Cashmere Ward Councillor Tim Scandrett
– Q. Sorry I thought the [Shirley] library based at the [Palms] mall was doing very well, was very successful?
– A. It is doing very well, but it’s very small. It’s only about a third of the space [36 Marshland Road building].
The rest of the space is used for office spaces for the library staff, the governance team for the other community board and it’s not adequate.
It doesn’t have a boardroom, doesn’t have meeting rooms, doesn’t have learning spaces. We’re limited in what we can actually provide for our residents there, and my feasibility study shows that it’s not what we actually need for our communities.

Question from Mayor Phil Mauger
– Q. The area [Shirley Community Reserve, 10 Shirley Road] that you’re looking to take it [Shirley Library] to, is large enough to put all that in?
– A. Yes, the Community Board have already done the site [selection] process and they’ve said that it’s got plenty of meterage to be able to provide all that.
The community centre was 1,500m2, and the building that they’re currently looking at replacing it with is 400m2, so it’s a significant decrease in size of what we had previously.

2016 Shirley Community Centre Site Selection
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2016/12/PICB_20161209_AGN_1197_AT.PDF Pages 72-73
The site at 10 Shirley Road met the following criteria including:
1. Sufficient space (9042m2) for both the community centre and necessary off-street parking plus other community activities.
2. Good access with road frontages to Chancellor Street, Slater Street and Shirley Road.
3. Appropriate zoning designation for the purpose of community facilities already in place.
4. Ownership is with the Council and is held in trust for a local purpose.
5. Community awareness of site as this was the site of the previous community centre.

Question from Deputy Mayor/Innes Ward Councillor Pauline Cotter
– Q. The reason for that is, I’m just wonder if you know that when the Board went out for consultation about what to do with that site, it was 50% of people wanted to retain it as just green space and 50% of people wanted a new centre, so what they’ve done is both…
– A. I’ve come back and done my own feasibility study and recalculated the feedback, and that data is incorrect. If you look at the information that I provided in Excel spreadsheets, the numbers are not right.
The second consultation includes information and votes from an event that was on the 6th of July, and the [consultation] submissions didn’t open until I think the 12th [17th] of July, so they shouldn’t have been included in my opinion.
– Q. You probably need to, because the community board has now embarked on the process, set up a working group and everything, to follow that decision they made to do 50% green space 50% centre, which means the centre will be smaller than the old one, you probably need to take that back through to the community board if you’re disputing the data.”
– A. Yes, I can do that.

3. Email/Letter to the Waipapa P-I-C Community Board (12th April 2025)

To: Emma Pavey, Mark Saunders & Elected Board Members
Subject: Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Update 2025 | Joanna Gould
Yesterday during my verbal submission for the CCC Draft Annual Plan, Councillor Pauline Cotter requested I provide an update to the Board, regarding my comments that the feedback data analysis for the Shirley Community Reserve consultations was incorrect.
Attached is a .pdf for the Board to review.
The first page is my written submission for the CCC Draft Annual Plan.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/WaipapaPICcbUpdateApril2025JoannaGould.pdf
I’m currently researching & writing my ‘Shirley Community Reserve Feasibility Study’ & ‘Shirley Centre Business Case’, available here:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

– I have not received any acknowledgement or response from the Board re my email/letter.
– My email/letter was not included in the Board’s meeting agenda for the 15th May 2025 under Item 7. Correspondence, as an attachment.
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/05/PCBCC_20250515_AGN_9137_AT.PDF

4. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Written Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board

3.1. Draft Annual Plan 2025/26
A – Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board: Presentation, Page 9
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2025/04/CAPL_20250403_MAT_10570.PDF
“Making community friendly spaces.
– Retain the current funding for: Shirley Community Reserve.
– Libraries are also vital as in high density environments.”

5. CCC Draft AP 2025 | Verbal Submission by Waipapa P-I-C Community Board

03.04.25 – Item 3 – Draft Annual Plan 2025/26
Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILQG3LE9JA&t=395s
– “It also is to be noted that our Council and Community facilities serve an important role in creating and fostering a sense of community.
– Libraries are key places for people to engage with the Council’s work, as well as to access the services that libraries offer.
– These facilities are increasingly important as high density housing continues to develop around key activity centres.”

– Q. 1. If this is the case, why has the Board not advocated for a new local suburban library for residents in the Innes/Central Ward, who do not have access to one?

– Q. 2. Why didn’t the Board support & advocate for the 1,200+ residents who signed the ‘Where is our Community Centre?’ petition?

– Q. 3. When residents from the suburbs around Shirley Road created the ‘Shirley Road Central Inc’ group, advocating for a new fit for purpose library at the Shirley Community Reserve, why did the Board not engage with & support this group?

– Q. 4. When the opportunity to ‘incorporate the Shirley Library’ into the proposed facility for the Shirley Community Reserve, why did the Board not advocate for this?

Dear St Albans News Editor

I recently read the below article in your latest March/April 2025 edition:
“Design work begins for Shirley Centre”
Council staff have started the process to design a mixed-use community building for the Shirley Community Reserve at 10 Shirley Road.
Emma Norrish, Jake McLellan and Emma Twaddell will join the Working Party for the project to represent the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board. Initial surveying works have already started on the site and Geotech consultants been busy.
The Shirley Community Centre (Christchurch’s first community run centre) ran in the former intermediate school building at 10 Shirley Road until the building suffered a similar fate to the St Albans Community Centre in the earthquakes.
Some residents there have been pushing for a replacement but have faced opposition from other groups in Shirley and Richmond also serving the community.
The St Albans Residents Association is helping support the Shirley Centre plan.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFY1xiHqwLrJAXlWzyhAOEU-ThiFahu7/ Page 8

I wonder St Albans residents, how you would feel if:
– a ‘Residents Association’ from another area,
– engaged with a ‘building company’,
– had meetings to create a ‘new proposal’,
– endorsed by a Councillor from another area,
– for land in your community classified as reserve, vested in the Council by the Crown to be held “in trust for local purpose (site for a community centre)”?

Is this what ‘community led development’ looks like in the communities around Shirley Road?

Is this how we ‘support’ another communities ‘idea’ by creating an opposing ‘new proposal’?

Let’s imagine & rewrite the ‘story’ so far…
To tell this ‘story’, details will be swapped regarding the communities from West/East of Hills Road:
– a local ‘Residents Association’: We are Richmond
– a local Ward ‘Councillor’: Jake McLellan, Councillor for Central Ward
– a local long awaited, many years advocated for ‘Community Facility’: Edgeware Pool
– a local historic section of land, that has been part of this communities identity & memories for many many years: 43A Edgeware Rd, St Albans.

Sidenote: This is a ‘story’ for demonstration purposes only.
Many years ago I randomly ended up at the Annual General Meeting for the St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc.
I listened to their plans, made some suggestions & have supported their project as a ‘neighbour’.
Many times we have ending up in the public gallery together, as we both presented our verbal submissions to the Christchurch City Council Long Term & Annual Plans.

The ‘story’ starts on the 22nd May 2024, while watching online the Christchurch City Council – Long Term Plan 2024-34 Information Session/Workshop
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/ccc-draft-ltp-2024-34-workshops/
In this ‘story’, ‘Edgeware Pool’ was being discussed.
Staff advice was to “bring back the existing budget for the ‘Edgeware Pool’ in the Long Term Plan.
“Staff are through the Board Chair currently negotiating with a ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’ to develop this facility in a Community Partnership through the Build and the Operation…
So yes that’s what the [Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community] Board has in mind.
We have a report going to the Waipapa Community Board in early June reflecting that, that’s on the cards and that’s how we’d like to proceed at this point in time…
but it needs community board decision making to ratify that and that’s scheduled for early June.”

What?!? Who?!? Why?!?
So I sent an LGOIMA request to the Christchurch City Council asking for answers.
– What happened to the long awaited ‘Feasibility Study’?
– Where was the feedback report from the last ‘Consultation’ in 2023?
– Why has the Waipapa Community Board made a predetermined decision based on an unsolicited proposal?

In this ‘story’, I messaged the ‘St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc’ members to let them know & was told:
“Cancel your LGOIMA request, it was us. Sorry we forgot to tell you.”
They (residents from the east of Hills Road, in this ‘story’ a few ‘We are Richmond’ members are also members of ‘St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc’) were the ‘prospective Community Partner’.
They had approached the ‘sympathetic Building Company’ & involved a Councillor from another Ward, in this ‘story’: Jake McLellan, Councillor for Central Ward.
Their ‘proposal’ for the land at 43A Edgeware Rd, St Albans would be a ‘Community Facility’ that is the opposite of ‘St Albans Pavilion and Pool Inc’ constitution…

‘Shirley Road Central’ Constitution: To support the development of a community hub including a modern library, and meeting rooms on the site at 10 Shirley Road for the use of the surrounding communities.
This group was created to bring together residents in the suburbs around Shirley Road to be a combined voice advocating for a new building at Shirley Community Reserve, that would benefit all the residents in these suburbs.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-road-central-group/

The ‘story’ continues on the 13th June 2024 at the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Meeting
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_MIN_9127_AT.PDF
There were four deputations regarding Item 9 in this ‘story’, ‘Edgeware Pool’: Proposed Community Facility.
My deputation was the only one that did not support the Staff Recommendations, aka the ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’ new proposal.
If you were unaware of this ‘proposal’, you wouldn’t have realised that the Board had already made a decision on the ‘Proposed Community Facility’, before this meeting.

The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board resolved:
3. Request that staff initiate the process to design an ‘on budget community building’ on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections.
This is subject to Council bringing back the budget for the facility to financial years 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 in the 2024/34 LTP.
4. Requests that staff identify an appropriate community partner/ operator to progress the development of the community facility at Shirley Community Reserve and report this back to the Board.

Pages 29-39, CCC Staff Report
Pages 40-41, CCC Staff Memo
Pages 42-81, Shirley Community Reserve Feasibility Study 2023
Pages 82-102 Shirley Road Central, ‘Where is our Community Centre’ Petition* May 2021
(over 1,200 signatures in total, *paper petition with 600+ signatures not included)
Page 103, Letter of Support from Dr Duncan Webb, MP for Christchurch Central
Page 104, Letter of Support from Hon Poto Williams, MP for Christchurch East
Pages 105-135, 2023 Consultation Feedback
Pages 136-140, Shirley Community Reserve Feasibility Study 2023 Supplementary Info
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/PCBCC_20240613_AGN_9127_AT.PDF

So now you know the history behind this ‘story’, back to the St Albans News article:
“Some residents there have been pushing for a replacement but have faced opposition from other groups in Shirley and Richmond also serving the community.”
As I said in my deputation, this ‘proposal’ is insensitive and insulting to the existing community centres & facilities already established in Shirley and Richmond.
“Other groups in Shirley and Richmond” haven’t supported a replacement ‘traditional’ community centre, as funding is already stretched to support all the existing community centres & facilities around Shirley Road.
– North of Shirley Road, we have the MacFarlane Park Centres, Rhombus & MacFarlane Park Community Garden
– South of Shirley Road, we have North Avon Community Centre, Delta, Richmond Cottage, Avebury House, Richmond Community Gardens & Riverlution Eco Hub
– West of Shirley Road, we have St Albans Community Centre & Community Garden, plus The Whānau Centre
– East of Shirley Road, we have Avon Hub & opening soon: All Saints Church & Community Centre
https://www.allsaintsburwood.nz/community-facility-fit-out
There is no need for another ‘traditional’ community centre at Shirley Community Reserve.
But there is support for a ‘contemporary’ community centre, Citizen Hub:
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/community-hub-support/

“The St Albans Residents Association is helping support the Shirley Centre plan.”
“…helping support”? No.
“…the Shirley Centre”? No.
The ‘Shirley Centre’ idea is not the community facility that has been proposed by the ‘prospective Community Partner’ and a ‘sympathetic Building Company’.
Since 2018, the ‘Shirley Centre’ idea has been to:
– relocate the Shirley Library to Shirley Road,
– add learning spaces &
– meeting rooms,
– with a new inclusive accessible playground,
located at 10 Shirley Road, Shirley Community Reserve.
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-what/
https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-overview/

So my question to St Albans residents after reading this…
How would you feel?
– if your ‘Edgeware Pool’ project was our ‘Shirley Centre’ idea?
Residents & Councillor from another suburb/ward telling you what you should put on the land in your area?
– if you were told that your replacement “on budget” facility would be 400m2, instead of 1500m2, only 26.67% of the original facility?
– if you were told the Board supported a new proposal (that is the opposite of your group’s constitution), presented by their preferred ‘prospective Community Partner’ (members of your group that was set up to bring residents in the different suburbs together)?

The Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan for 2025/26 is now out for consultation from the 26th February – 28th March 2025.
https://letstalk.ccc.govt.nz/annualplan

My submission is simple:
I do not support the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board’s decision to design/build: an ‘on budget community building’ with their ‘prospective Community Partner’, on Shirley Community Reserve that will enable a mixed use of the Reserve and support recreation, play and social connections.
This land is classified as reserve, vested in the Council by the Crown to be held “in trust for local purpose (site for a community centre)”.

I would appreciate your support.
Thanks,
Joanna Gould
Shirley/Richmond resident since 2008

P.S. I am currently writing my own Feasibility Study & Business Case for a new ‘Shirley Centre’ facility at Shirley Community Reserve.
These will be presented to the Christchurch City Council as part of my submission for the 2025 Annual Plan & uploaded to this page soon: https://www.10shirleyroad.org.nz/shirley-centre-report/

Emmett Street Trees

“I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”
The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

To tell the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ story, I did some research to find out when they were planted, by whom & why their story is an important part of our local history, landscape architecture in NZ, Christchurch the ‘Garden City’ & Shirley’s identity.

Below are four parts to the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ story:
– ‘Emmett Street Trees’ (How did we get here?)
– ‘George Brington Malcolm‘ (Who was G.B. Malcolm?)
– ‘Significant Trees‘ (They were, but now they’re not?)
– ‘Emmett Character Area‘ (Plenty of character, but not an Area?)

Once upon a time there was a dairy farmer named Arthur William Emmett (1846 – 1948). His 100 acre farm (Emmetts Block) in Quinns Road supplied milk to Shirley, Richmond, St Albans and Fendalton.

Emmett’s farm was subdivided for housing in the late 1940s. Part of the land was bought by the government for a state housing area “laid out on modern town-planning lines”.
Emmett Street was named on the 24th June 1948 & first appeared in street directories in 1950.

Macfarlane Park was developed on low-lying land in the Emmett farm not suitable for housing.
It was vested in the Christchurch City Council on the 14th June 1954.

https://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/PlaceNames/ChristchurchPlaceNames-A-M.pdf Page 174
https://christchurchcitylibraries.com/heritage/placenames/christchurchstreetnames-d-e.pdf Page 117
https://my.christchurchcitylibraries.com/early-residents-of-richmond/

In the late 1940s, part of the dairy farm [which spanned from Quinns Road to what is Emmett Street and MacFarlane Park today] was cut into sections for a housing development by order of the Housing Department. This was when Emmett Street was developed – it cut through the dairy farm and was named after Arthur Emmett – Leicester’s father.
Leicester watched them build the state housing – “one side of Emmett Street was developed into privately owned houses and the other into state houses. An area was retained in the centre as a park to service the community, it was named MacFarlane Park after the then Mayor of Christchurch – Don MacFarlane.”
Leicester Emmett’s Story, son of Arthur William Emmett, Page 17
https://www.lucas-associates.co.nz/assets/Document-PDFs/Shirley-Concept-Plan.pdf

Today Emmett Street curves its way through the Shirley suburb, from Shirley Road to Briggs Road, with a canopy of Oak trees.

https://propertysearch.canterburymaps.govt.nz/property?propertyAddress=2%20Emmett%20Street,%20Shirley,%20Christchurch
(Click on ‘Historical imagery’ at the bottom of this link, images from 1940 to today)

Eighteen years ago, as I turned off Shirley Road & drove through Emmett Street for the first time, I can still remember thinking ‘wow, what beautiful Oak trees’…
We shifted to Shirley after seeing Macfarlane Park would be our ‘front yard’ & ‘back yard’, plus having the Shirley Community Centre within walking distance…’what a great place for our son to grow up’.

For eight years, Emmett Street was my favorite street in Shirley to walk & drive through. As a preschooler, my son loved to stomp through the leaves & collected acorn ‘treasures’ to bring back home.

“From little acorns grow mighty oaks” is a 14th century proverb meaning that great things can come from small beginnings, essentially saying that even a tiny acorn can eventually grow into a large and powerful oak tree; it signifies the potential for significant growth from humble origins.

I’m sure many children living in Shirley have been inspired by their acorn ‘treasures’ being able to grow into one of those big Oak trees.
As an adult, these mighty Oak trees were a visual reminder:
– they went through seasons of change
– they struggled but stood strong against the winds
– they weren’t overcome by the many floodings
– they survived earthquakes, aftershocks & liquefication
– they have been part of our Shirley identity & community
But now many of them may be gone…

Emmett Street and Riselaw Street Tree Removals
20th January to 14th February 2025
“17 street trees on Emmett Street (14 due to non-compliance, 3 due to other safety concerns).
The non-compliant trees are located approximately adjacent to property numbers 5, 7, 9(x2), 19, 45, 91, 93, 95, 123/125, 139, 141, 149 and 151.
The additional 3 trees are located at approximately 10/12, 14 and 94.
https://ccc.govt.nz/transport/works-3/show/1677

Like many in our communities, I was unaware this was happening until I saw a post in the R.A.D.S. Facebook community group on the 16th January 2025.

“Hi team, We’ve been advised by the council of work starting on Monday to remove 20 trees along Emmett and Riselaw St due to interference with powerlines. This is the latest in a string of fellings over the past few years that have taken place with no community consultation or engagement whatsoever, and myself and a number of residents are very concerned that council has not been able to provide us with any sort long term plan or vision, or any reassurance that this won’t just keep happening til there aren’t any trees left. We’ll be down at the community garden at Macfarlane park off Jebson st to paint up some Lorax cardboard cut outs to attach to the trees earmarked for removal from 4.30 today to demonstrate to council that we’re not ok with how this has been handled. Media will likely be present, all welcome if you want to show your support.”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1543729305921005/posts/3742099382750642/ (1st Post by D.T.)

“That is odd that they want to remove the oaks just because of the power line. There are very large oaks on Dudley street nearby that also has power lines – channels for the lines get cut through the trees. There was also new footpath put in last year at great expense and complication to work around the trees to avoid damaging them. even carefully vacuumed the dirt from around the roots when laying pipes to avoid disturbing them.
Why the different standards for Dudley trees vs Emmett/Riselaw trees?” (Comment by J.H.)

“I’m wondering if the tree roots are widely spread, removing the trees and them dying off would have a difference on the flooding around here as the tree roots won’t be helping by sucking up the water? I like the trees even tho my gutters would disagree, it’s so nice to walk down on a hot day to get away from the heat.” (Comment by L.C.)

“Research shows how beneficial trees are to our environment, mental health & wellbeing.”
https://ccc.govt.nz/environment/trees-and-vegetation/urbanforest
(Comment by J.G.)

“Hi team, a quick update on the planned removal of 20 trees along Emmett and Riselaw streets next week. Council have agreed to meet with us tomorrow to discuss our concerns. 3pm, the community garden, Macfarlane Park off Jebson st. All welcome if you would like to contribute, show your support or just listen in.”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1543729305921005/posts/3742280782732502/ (2nd Post by D.T.)

“This is not right. I didn’t even know that this tree removal was going ahead until this afternoon. Just because alot of us are in state housing doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have our say in what happens in our suburb. These trees are special to us and we would hate for them to be gone.” (Comment by R.A.)

“I brought my home knowing full well it was a tree lined street-part of the beauty and attraction. As for the leaves-a rake or leaf blower soon sorts these and council do regular pick ups in the sucker truck. I commend your efforts to save these beautiful trees and fully support this. Totally agree we have had no consultation. The street will look bare and sad without them for sure.” (Comment by H.O’C.)

“If they take the trees away this area loses its character why are they doing this absolutely disgusting.” (Comment by K.B.)

“I’ve lived here for 35 years I was 5 years old when we came and even though we were moving into a state house in a poor area, I thought we were suddenly rich because of how beautiful the streets looked.
I can’t count how many autumns I spent jumping into leaf piles, then as I got older moaning about them while I raked them up. But I still love them. I love watching the seasons change through the Oak I see from the bedroom window. I think it would be a more boring area without them.” (Comment by K.B.)

“My dog and I appreciate the shade we get from the sun when out walking and they are beautiful and needed in so many ways.”
(Comment by I.K.B.)

“Move the f@&#ing power lines! Some things are more important for our wellbeing and standard of living. This ‘cost saving’ will kill us all.” (Comment by J.K.)

On the 18th January 2025, Reuben Davidson MP for Christchurch East’s Facebook post.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14WWbotKSQ/

“RIP garden city. CCC have already taken too many trees away.” (Comment by A.R.)

“That’d be criminal the trees are awesome.” (Comment by R.M.)

“There was a pre quake time when tourist came to Christchurch to look at the mature trees…St James Park has an outstanding Avenue of mature linden trees that those tourists from Europe, USA and Asia would marvel over. They would touch the trunks of the WWII Oaks, they would walk the 15 Memorial Avenues, they visited Emmett Street…Disease has ripped these trees out in their countries. Many USA veterans returned for ANZAC after learning the history bringing other veterans with them. (Comment by M.H.)

“The Emmett St trees are iconic, and a rarity in the east. As with the Linwood Ave trees. We definitely need to be very sensitive about how important and rare such large trees are in our part of town, and be clear about protecting them. Obviously some do have to come down, but it should always be after good community consultation. Glad to see the council staff acknowledging they got that bit wrong, and that they will work more closely with the community now.” (Comment by A.O.E)

“But the roots of those Oaks, paid for by the State Advances corporation at £1 per tree, have held the road and the surrounding land levels intact during the earthquakes. No better ground stabilization than mature tree roots.” (Comment by M.H.)

Another post in the R.A.D.S. Facebook community group about the ‘Emmett Street Trees’ on the 20th January 2025.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1543729305921005/posts/3745016799125567

“So who is going to pay for all the repairs that for the damages these trees are causing…oh wait all the ppl complaining are in state housing…maybe they should pay for the repairs from the damage of the trees if they want them saved that much.” (Comment by G.S.)

“G.S. It’s a lot less costly than climate change. These trees are storing carbon, when you chop them down the carbon is released into the atmosphere. Not to mention we could do with their oxygen making properties…” (Comment by E.V.Z.)

“G.S. you aren’t wrong there, almost half of the houses in the area are state houses.” (Comment by J.S.)

“J.S. what’s a lot of social housing in the area got to do with the trees?” (Comment by V.A.)

“G.S. another way to think about this. Reckon they’d do this to the tree lined streets in beckenham or merivale? I think they’d underground the lines before trying it somewhere else.” (Comment by N.R.)

‘Symbolic’ Trees Spared As Council Postpones Removal From Emmett and Riselaw Streets, 17th January 2025
“The Christchurch City Council has paused its plans to remove 20 large trees from Emmett and Riselaw Streets following opposition from residents.”
https://www.chrislynchmedia.com/news-items/symbolic-trees-spared-as-council-postpones-removal-from-emmett-and-riselaw-streets/

Christchurch Residents Rally With Lorax Cut-outs To Fight Council’s Tree-Felling Plan, 20th January 2025
“A plan to fell 20 oak trees, which some locals say would “gut the character” of a Christchurch street, has been postponed following community opposition.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360548899/christchurch-residents-rally-fight-councils-tree-felling-plan

20 Trees Live To See Another Day After Positive Community Meeting, 20th January 2025
“Work to remove 20 large trees in two Mairehau streets has been postponed after community and elected member feedback.”
“The first elected members knew of these trees being removed was on January 9th when a Start Work Notice (SWN) was sent to the community board telling us the work would start on January 20th.
When [Innes ward community member, Ali] Jones requested more information, the board members were sent a CCC memo dated November 11, 2024 outlining the works with much more detail.”
https://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?id=126689

Yet in the Christchurch City Council Information Session/Workshop on the 29th October 2024 for the Annual Plan 2025-2026 Briefing:
https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/10/ISCC_20241029_MAT_10002.PDF
– Page 16: Street Trees – Electrical Compliance
Focus on working with Orion to achieve 100% compliance.
To date approx. 190 trees (from original 850) left to resolve.
An example is the significant work in Emmett Street – may require the removal of several trees.
[The Start Work Notice (SWN) for 17 trees, is a lot more than ‘several trees’]
Re-phasing of opex budgets may be required.
Also see:
– Page 14: Street Trees – budgets
Opex – approx $2.6m + $0.65m for powerline compliance project.
Capex – approx $0.53m.
– Page 17: Street Trees – Urban Forest
Replacement trees:
Currently 2 for 1 replacement
New trees:
Currently no initiatives for new planting to increase canopy cover within the Transport corridor 15% over 50 years in line with plan.
– Page 32: Street Trees – Electrical Compliance
To date approx. 190 trees (from original 850) left to resolve.
This involves: Localised pruning, Tree removal, Modification to the electrical network
An example is the significant work in Emmett Street which may require the removal of several trees.
Future re-phasing of opex budgets may be required to ensure compliance.
– Page 31: Healthy Streets
https://www.healthystreets.com/what-is-healthy-streets
The 10 Healthy Streets Indicators
Our Approach is based on 10 evidence based Healthy Streets Indicators, each describing an aspect of the human experience of being on streets. These ten must be prioritised and balanced to improve social, economic and environmental sustainability through how our streets are designed and managed.
See: 3. Shade and shelter & 10. Clean air

When I asked Google “what difference do trees make“, AI Overview gave me this response:
1. Air quality: Trees remove harmful pollutants like carbon dioxide and particulate matter from the air, making it easier to breathe
2. Water quality: Trees filter water and reduce flooding by absorbing excess water and reducing runoff
3. Climate change: Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which helps to mitigate the effects of climate change
4. Mental health: Spending time in nature can reduce anxiety and depression
5. Habitat: Trees provide food and shelter for wildlife
6. Energy savings: Trees can reduce the need for air conditioning and heating, and regulate indoor temperatures
7. Community benefits: Trees can improve walkability, reduce traffic noise, and stormwater runoff
8. Property value: Trees can increase the value of properties

Residents on flood-stricken Christchurch street feel forgotten – ‘it looked like Lake Emmett’, 27th July 2022
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129394267/residents-on-floodstricken-christchurch-street-feel-forgotten–it-looked-like-lake-emmett
“Residents on one of Christchurch’s most flooded streets say they’ve been left to fend for themselves with no sign of help or support. Emmett St in Shirley is one of the city’s most commonly affected areas by flood whenever it rains.”
“Gleeson didn’t know if anything was being done to mitigate flooding on the street. “If it was in Fendalton it’d be sorted the next day… where are our rates going?””

Christchurch flooding: Investment in infrastructure needed – ECan councillor, 28th July 2022
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-christchurch/christchurch-flooding-investment-infrastructure-needed-ecan-councillor
“Environment Canterbury councillor Vicky Southworth said the sting felt by locals from this week’s flooding is only a hint of what’s to come. “We’re going be dealing with more frequent and more intense rainfall, the science is very clear on that.
There are various solutions, and they’re not being particularly pushed…
Even just simply putting more trees into our gardens. Trees are a fantastic way of catching rain before it hits the ground.”

Q. What affect will removing 17 Oak Trees on Emmett Street, have on the flooding levels in this area?
Christchurch City Council is there a plan in place?
How is this going to be mitigated to protect Shirley residents homes?

Slow grow: Christchurch’s urban forest will take decades to form, 10th February 2023
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/131175634/slow-grow-christchurchs-urban-forest-will-take-decades-to-form
“An ambitious proposal to cloak one-fifth of Christchurch in trees by 2070 recommends doubling the proportion of tree-lined streets and tripling tree numbers along the city’s rivers and streams…how to grow the Garden City’s “tree canopy” – defined as trees 3.5m and higher and measured by an aerial surveys.”
“The plan isn’t to compel owners to plant trees capable of reaching 3.5m or more. Rather, the plan is to plant public land much more intensively.
The tree canopy in public “open spaces” is about 23% now.
They want it to be 40% by 2070.”
“The plan also addresses ‘equitable tree coverage’. Basically, rich ‘leafy suburbs’ aren’t a myth…They are missing out on the many benefits of a tree canopy – more shade, lower temperatures, fewer pollutants, more biodiversity, less erosion, more climate change resilience, and better physical and mental health.”

“Shirley isn’t a flash part of town and we need things in this community to be proud of. And sometimes it feels like the trees are all we’ve got.“
Dominic McGurk

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better it’s not.” The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

UNLESS someone…cares:

George Brington Malcolm cared & we have benefited from his vision in the Emmett Street Oak Trees & MacFarlane Park.

Christchurch City Council please care… ‘Save our Trees’…’Save our Character Area’…’Save our History’…

Let us ‘Tell Our Stories’ to inspire the future generations living around Shirley by:

– looking at other options to save George Malcolm’s Emmett Street Oak Trees.

– if an Oak Tree can’t be saved, please save it’s wood, so that it can be repurposed in a new Centre building at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve or

– creating a carving/sculpture to be placed by the MacFarlane Park Community Garden on Jebson Street, to honor George Malcolm &

– create a new canopy of Oak Trees, either side of the MacFarlane Park path from Jebson Street to Acheson Avenue, to replace the Oak Trees that have been removed already from Emmett Street.

– create a new building at 10 Shirley Road/Shirley Community Reserve, where we can continue to ‘Tell Our Stories’ in a new Shirley Centre, that George Malcolm’s Oak Trees are still a part of Shirley’s character & identity, as we continue to protect our environment for Shirley residents (people & wildlife) to benefit from now & in the future.

Q. So who had the vision to planted these Oak trees in Shirley & why?
A. George Brington Malcolm