The developer of the Portlink Industrial Park in Woolston has run rough shod over the rules in the Christchurch District Plan.  It raises issues about how developers view the river, and how the City Council protects the environment.

When the Portlink Industrial Park was initially approved, an Outline Development Plan was agreed upon.  That plan, now incorporated in the Christchurch District Plan and co-ordinated with other planning rules, set out a landscape area that set back development from the river.  The rules indicated that this landscaping space was to contain “…no buildings, fences, outdoor advertising, vehicle parking or any other use other than landscaping, passive recreation, or ecological enhancement.”  You can see a plan of the area in question below with the green space clearly shown superimposed on an aerial photograph of the site.  The Christchurch District Plan rules indicate that the setback from the river for all development is to be 30m.

Intrusion of earthworks During the earthworks to create the flat container storage space at the end of this development, the contractors intruded up to 15m into this landscape area.  This was not an accident or mistake. The accuracy of GPS surveying equipment these days makes such errors almost impossible.  This was a deliberate land grab, reinforced by the erection of fencing and the laying down of a hardstand area within the landscape zone.  The developer was intent on maximising the area available for container storage and having established a fait accompli, intends now to have that fact accepted through a resource consent which has now been lodged.

Abatement Notice issued When shipping containers started to be stacked high in this area, creating a visual eyesore for all passing residents and visitors to the city, people started to take notice of what was happening in the Portlink Industrial Park.  As a result of complaints, the CCC Compliance team visited the development: there were two outcomes of note.  The first was a request to the operator of the container storage area to observe the 11m height restriction. You can read more about this here. The second outcome was that in November 2022, the developer was issued an Abatement Notice relating to the intrusion of the development into the landscaping area.  The Abatement Notice required the developer to “…remove, and do not recommence placing, any items – including shipping containers, hardstand areas and fencing…” within the landscape area. That is quite a strong step to be taken, but one that was totally justified.  The developer has complied to a degree with the notice: it has not completed the sealing of a strip of hardstand, it has removed most containers from the area but it has left fencing and hardstand in place.  

Why is there a 30m setback from the river? The whole intention of the 30m setback from the river is to ensure that activities and developments are managed in a way that protects and/or enhances flood management; water quality; riparian or aquatic ecosystems; the natural character and amenity values of the river; historic heritage or cultural values; and access where appropriate for recreation activities, customary practices including mahinga kai, or maintenance. Giving effect to all these aspects at the same time is difficult – it almost always means that a compromise must be achieved through choice, extent and management of vegetation and landform.  Obviously, the greater the extent of native plantings, the greater the ecological restoration with resultant improvements for the river and for recreation.

Why 30m?  Why not 20m or 50m?  Very good questions.  When the Portlink Industrial Park was going through its planning hearings in 2008, there were a significant number of people who requested that the setback be no more than 20m.  That almost all of these people represented business interests is in itself interesting.  A couple of residents asked for setbacks of 50m or 100m.  Even the CCC staff indicated that a 50m setback at the northern end would be best to create a visual and ecological buffer between the industrial activity and the residents on the other side of the river.  In the end, the hearing commissioner plumbed for a compromise of 30m and this figure was eventually incorporated into the District Plan as the consistent setback for all downstream rivers.

What happens next? The developer, Braeburn Property Ltd, has applied for a resource consent to permit it to stack containers higher than the 11m height restriction and to place fencing and hardstand areas within the 30m setback from the river. In other words, to be allowed to complete what it intended to do all along – to maximise its utilisation of the area.  An independent hearing commissioner will determine shortly if the resource consent will be notified which will allow others to have a say about it.  Then, the resource consent will be evaluated on its merits by the hearing commissioner.  

What is the problem with granting the resource consent? It really comes down to this: what is the real consequence of the extra land being taken by the developer. We are talking about approximately 5000m² of land that could be used either by the public, planted in native trees and shrubs to assist with reestablishing a self-regenerating ecological corridor or that can be used for container storage.  

But there is a wider issue.  Why have planning rules at all if unscrupulous developers just ignore them?  As ratepayers, we pay a great deal of money to establish good planning rules formed following extensive consultation with all interested parties.  The least that we should expect is that developers and contractors will abide by them.

Where a developer intentionally ignores planning rules for their own benefit, there must be consequential deterrence.  The environment cannot keep being the loser in such matters.