Two community workshops were held on 5 June 2025 – from 2:30-4:30pm and from 5-7pm. 28 residents attended the first, and seven attended the second session.

At these workshops, staff presented information about the project and what we’d heard to-date to ensure that all conversations started from the same knowledgebase. Following this, there were five table discussions hosted by Council staff, for residents to focus on the issues that were important to them or to move around as they wished. These were:

Indoor community hub:

Most seemed to agree that there is not a need for an indoor ‘community hub’ on the site.

Although, some residents mentioned the inclusion of prefabricated, bookable spaces for community groups.

Many mentioned that the current community facilities in Akaroa aren’t fit for purpose – whether that be bookability, cost, or the types of services within them.

Some also mentioned ensuring that the current tenants (who provide community services) on the annex have a space to relocate should it be removed.

Outdoor community space:

Many believed that some of the site would be well-placed for a ‘town square’ outdoor space, with ideas including places to sit, integration with The Common, a historic time walk, market stalls. There was some mention of the design by John Harding as a good option for this. Some others expressed that this site isn’t ‘central’ so doesn’t make sense for this use.

There were comments for and against having a community garden on the site.

Sense of community:

Most agreed that Akaroa’s unique sense of community should ‘come through’ in the future use.

Some mentioned ensuring that young people are part of the conversation.

Some felt that the community currently wasn’t part of the conversation enough, and that it felt like Council trying to sell-off assets or ‘do-to’ the Akaroa community.

Most seemed to agree that nothing permanent should happen on most of the site until more future-focused planning for the area has taken place – including for climate change and costal adaptation.

Temporary use:

Many suggested low-scale, modular or temporary structures as a suitable form of development.

These could serve as community-use buildings, relocatable housing, or facilities for educational or cultural purposes. This approach was seen as cost-effective and adaptable, allowing the site to evolve in response to changing community needs.

Some were concerned about temporary uses (such as prefabs) jeopardising other, more (perceived) important uses such as the relocation of buildings. They felt that it’s hard to change the use once the community is tied to it.

Supporting the community’s climate needs:

Some saw the site as a potential location for relocating or expanding key services noting the multiple hazard risks in Akaroa (landslides, coastal flooding and erosion, flooding from rainfall and streams, rising groundwater, and wildfire) which currently impact services/assets or are projected to impact them in the future due to climate change. Ideas included:

These suggestions reflect the desire to use the site to strengthen community connection and resilience.

Many expressed that more residential property is needed in Akaroa, but there were differing opinions on whether this site would be the appropriate location for it.

Most said that this would not be an appropriate site for residential.

Some said that the back of the section would be appropriate for residential. Types of residential solutions discussed included prefabricated relocatable homes, accommodation for seasonal workers, affordable housing targeted at families and/or older people, single level without a garage, multi-level with a garage, mixed-use, and restrictions on Airbnb or holiday homes.

There was consensus to retain the butchery in its current building and undertake maintenance to make it fit-for-purpose. Most believed that the annex should be removed. Some commented on ensuring that the current tenants have somewhere to go.

There was consensus that Akaroa currently has an adequate provision of commercial and retail spaces.

Some mentioned that Akaroa needs more attractions and believe that this site could house something.

Most expressed that the site should remain in public ownership to ensure that community needs, including in the face of a changing climate, are able to be met. Many felt strongly that the site should continue to serve public and community purposes rather than being sold or developed privately.

Most discussed the benefit of staging of any upgrades to allow for temporary solutions while a strong need is understood. Some mentioned that the site should be flexible and accommodate a range of uses over time.

Most mentioned keeping the site well-maintained.

Many mentioned retaining the historic street appeal of the butchery. Some expressed a desire for the site to reflect Akaroa’s heritage.

Many discussed having open space as part of the front of the site.

Many mentioned the inclusion of natural features and resilience in the development, including tree coverage. Some discussed expanding the stormwater treatment device to allow for more landscaping and nature-play.

Some mentioned flooding and fire risk on the site.

Most mentioned parking in some form. Most of this related the desire to turn some of the site into public parking, on a temporary or permanent basis. This suggestion was sometimes framed as a way of addressing a current need, while not investing too much money, and allowing the site to be reimagined in response to climate adaptation in the future, if required. There were some concerns about accessing said parking.

Some mentioned wanting to work alongside Ngāi Tahu and Ōnuku on whatever the future use looks like.

Some commented that Council needed to be more considerate of the unique needs of Akaroa in relation to this site. This included the town’s isolation, history, and sense of community. There was a worry from some that the site was being mis-viewed within the context of any other Christchurch suburb.