South Brighton Residents’ Association (SBRA) is calling for transparency and proper community engagement after Christchurch City Council voted on 3 September to grant a peppercorn ground lease at 81 Blake Street for the construction of 5–10 relocatable one-bedroom homes (five initially) for single people “living rough or hard.”

Council adopted officers’ recommendations unchanged (CNCL/2025/00311), classified the decision as “low significance”, and recorded that proceeding by direct negotiation was inconsistent with the Council’s Leasing Council Property Policy under section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002. Staff advice also noted the move could set a precedent for similar future requests — a risk Councillors accepted when they approved the lease. (Moved by Mayor Phil Mauger; seconded by Councillor Celeste Donovan.)

This proposal did not originally envisage Blake Street. On 6 August, the East Christchurch Housing Trust (ECHT) presented a small-homes concept in the Residential Red Zone (Admirals Way, New Brighton). The meeting then asked staff to “provide advice back… including whether other options might be available”, after which 81 Blake Street was returned as the recommended site.

ECHT’s 6 August slides (tabled to Council with the minutes) described the homes as “affordable housing for single people who are living rough or hard”. Council’s officer report acknowledges flood and liquefaction constraints at 81 Blake Street and promotes relocatable homes as the workaround. To meet freeboard requirements, the finished floor levels are likely to be significantly elevated — meaning the buildings will sit much higher than neighbouring properties, with upper-level sightlines that might overlook many immediately affected neighbours unless strong design mitigations (screening, window placement, setbacks) are required.

SBRA’s position: Housing people with high needs deserves public support. But moving a Red-Zone concept to an established residential street without any local consultation, while labelling it “low significance,” undermines trust. Residents would like Council to explain why a Red-Zone location explicitly proposed on 6 August was replaced by a flood-constrained residential site. Does this signal an intention to replicate the approach in other residential areas of the city?

What we are asking Council to do:

• Publish the full Significance & Engagement worksheet used to justify “low significance” for Blake Street, and the equivalent assessment for Admirals Way.

• Release the site comparison (Admirals Way vs 81 Blake St) and identify who proposed adding Blake Street. (Requested under LGOIMA.)

• Confirm whether this is intended to set a city-wide precedent for nominal-rent leases by direct negotiation.

• Explain the engagement approach taken with immediately affected households and mana whenua prior to the decision.

• Detail the expected consenting pathway (non-notified, limited, or public), given the acknowledged flood/liquefaction hazards and the effects neighbours.

Brief timeline

• 6 August 2025: ECHT presents a small-homes proposal in the Residential Red Zone (Admirals Way). A secretarial note asks staff to return with advice, including other options.

• August 2025: Staff prepare Item 20, recommending a directly negotiated lease at 81 Blake Street, assessing the decision as low significance but inconsistent with policy (s80 LGA).

• 3 September 2025: Council approves Item 20 unchanged (CNCL/2025/00311). Staff advice flags the precedent risk.

© Scoop Media