City-wide review of possible District Scheme changes

The council is about to look at District Scheme and prioritize areas that need to be to be reviewed. If Brighton doesn’t come to the top of the list this could mean further delays in potential development. And the review would need to be consistent with the intentions of NB revitalization goal of ‘encouraging development’.

What do developers need by way of ‘encouragement’? In a word: certainty. This comes in three dimensions.

1. Certainty of a sale of their developed residential units, homes, apartments etc. And this comes down to one factor: sea views. Without a single cent of Council promotion, as shown by the high prices paid for rundown properties, developers can already smell the salt laden air of our beach. But why would you invest in an apartment by the sea, with a stunning view of the back end of a sand dune? The policy answer to this question is equally simple:
height restrictions could be stated as a guaranteed number of storeys with a clear sea view.
This would give a developer certainty that ‘x’ floors times ‘y’ units per floor could be sold, and would avoid the eternal question of just how high those dunes in front actually need to be.

2. Certainty as to process. As the recent Ferrymead debacle has demonstrated, developers need to be confident that a plan submitted in good faith, conforming to current District Plan requirements, is not going to be side-swiped by a public which distrusts the approval process itself. Developers in NB will be committed to several million dollars in land acquisition before the plans are submitted, so any significant increase on their holding time to completion can mean financial disaster. Imagine the extra interest on $3m, if an unanticipated appeal drags the planning process out by a couple of years. The policy answer is simply to ensure that there is proper communication between Councils, developers and their publics, and (less simply!) that the public broadly speaking can live with any proposal conforming to current District Plans. For instance, the revitalization plan notes that ‘Residential development on the beachfront limited to 5 – 7 story apartment style buildings’ would be appropriate. With the proviso that Certainty #1 can be met (the ‘clear sea views’ principle), this does seem like a good start.

3. Certainty about design guidelines. This is a notoriously subjective and hard-to-get-right area: Sydney’s ‘Toastrack’ by Circular Quay happened despite planning guidelines and despite a proximity to the justly famed Opera House, and the architecturally acclaimed Sumner beach front apartments have not met with much public enthusiasm. It’s quite easy to nominate some of the jam-packed, tiny, apartment developments in central Auckland as examples to be avoided. But it’s much harder to provide positive guidelines. There is definitely one area where new design guidelines are needed, and that is Tsunami refuge provision – see below for a fuller explanation. Briefly, it means using a robust form of construction, and keeping the first couple of storeys relatively clear so that a tsunami wave could just flow straight through them. As the two lower storeys in these developments will likely have Glorious Dune Views anyway, devoting them to mundane uses such as car parking and amenities such as gymnasia or pools, is not much of a disincentive for developers.

These ‘encouragements’ are what the Council should be considering for the proposed changes to the District Plan for NB.

However, it doesn’t get us off to a good start when ECan Regional Councillors talk at local meetings about stopping some of the planned aspects, such as the artificial reef, or when the revitalization plan itself tries a bit of social engineering (‘Residential developments should cater for all age and income groups’).

Many locals surf, and an artificial reef has a great potential for generating more consistent waves. This would in turn feed into commercial surfing ventures, further visitors, and more events. There has to be serious, substantive arguments to accompany any ECan objection to an artificial reef: we haven’t heard any yet.

As for accessibility of beach front residential units to low-income people: let’s be frank: that train left the station at around the time waterfront sections hit the $300,000 mark. Was this guideline applied to Sumner? Does it apply to Fendalton? Is the Council prepared to observe its own design guidelines for the beachfront developments, and to put our rates money where its mouth is to acquire land and do the development? This aspect of the plan needs to be just quietly ignored.