Eight Storeys high - however will they breathe up there?

Seagull has some thoughts on the debate over New Brighton Apartment Block with particular reference to the recent article by Anna Kirtlan in Pegasus Post dated October 24th.

In recent newspaper articles, local residents have been quoted as being first ‘for’ and then ‘against’ the proposal for an eight-storey apartment block. We will be directly affected by the apartments, but do not recall being asked for our opinion by any party.

The eight storeys will mean that the building will block the delightful morning sun that comes through our kitchen and bathroom window. Plus it will block our sea view. Yes, almost unbelievably, we can currently see a small section of blue sea and waves from just one part of our verandah.

Despite that, we are all in favour of seeing the regulations changed to allow apartment development along the waterfront.

New Brighton doesn’t need committees deciding what’s best for New Brighton with proposals for style of shopping precinct or entertainment in the mall. Let the apartment development happen along the waterfront and the restaurants and businesses that can meet local needs will follow. Our own preference is for a little Acland Street (St Kilda, Melbourne), but these things have a way of evolving that defies both planning and prediction.

Chrissie Williams was quoted in the article as believing that the three-storey rule was perfectly adequate and that she received a lot of feedback to that effect. However there are also many other residents who want the development on the beach front to proceed as soon as possible.

Let's just remind Chrissie Williams that her most recent feedback suggests that her opinion on this and other matters relating to development in Eastern Christchurch was valued less than that of candidates who were recently re-elected to Council. And while we're at it - who elected Mary McCammon as Brighton spokesperson?

While Community Board Chairman, Don Rowlands was for the most part enthusiastic and supportive of development in New Brighton, he then went on to make preposterous comments regarding those on lower incomes losing access to the sea front. Most of those on lower incomes that currently have access to the sea front only do so because they are living in substandard houses owned by developers waiting for the damn regulations to change.

Even so, I am not sure how appropriate it is for council to introduce policies of social engineering to keep property prices in New Brighton deliberately low so as to "make sure a variety of housing is available in New Brighton". As part of the so-called gentrification of New Brighton we thoroughly object to any suggestion that potential capital gain on our property needs to be controlled by Council. Imagine just for a moment that on that basis Council decided it needed to act on controlling property values around Boy’s High School so as to be sure that "a variety of housing was available to all people around the school". Unthinkable isn’t it!

Part of the need to build eight storeys is of course promoted by the need to see over the mountains of sand that are encouraged to build up along our beach in the name of so-called conservation. Even the latest attempt to get us all to plant trees (we have already done that without the need of committees and expensive brochures) is another step in the process of land reclamation to make the Brighton Spit more habitable for it’s 21st century inhabitants, the human population.

The management of the beach and sandhills via the District Plan is a set of regulations well overdue for a fresh look. Priority needs to be given to our beach as a recreational park for all the people of Christchurch, not as a 'conservation zone'.

It’s not committees and well-meaning but ultimately dopey regulation that will make New Brighton go ahead. It is people who are prepared to invest capital in development that will increase population density. All the rest will follow.