Beach Surveyz In!

Sister Theresa Gull has many good qualities. Sharp eyes, great sense of humour, the ability to target a Porsche Cayenne right across the bonnet in a howling southerly. What more can you ask for in a gal? How about a Sneak Preview of the Survey we wrote about, oh, ages ago?

Yes, young gullz, the resultz of the Survey are in! You'll recall that several Intrepid (OK, starving) students were recruited by the Peoplez Republic of Christchurch GreenSpacey Unit to conduct a survey of people they met on the beach. The questions did not include anything about the height of the dunes, per se. (That's dog Latin for 'as such' - yes, even gullz can enjoy the benfits of an edumication in Classics.)

Yet, what do we find in the summary of the results? A pointed statement about how few people want Brighton dune heights altered. And not coincidentally, another statement about how 'natural' the Brighton beach experience is....

Now this is quite rich for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, survey respondents were mostly from Summner, by a ratio of 666 Sumner to 431 Brighton in the overall survey.

The survey was, so the letter sort of says, a Sumner one with Brighton cobbled on at the last minute. And it shows...

Now as most Seagullz know, as part of their Survival Kit, there are one or two differences between Sumner and Brighton Beach inhabitants. Especially those who actually walk on the beaches. Given that the Brighton Beach catchment of users included Aranui, Bexley, and the central part of New Brighton itself, one key difference will be what sort of food they can afford, and thus what they leave for Us, the ever-circling Gullz, to eat.

Now at Sumner, the diet is, shall we say, Refined. Salt-free pretzels, Organically Decafeinated chips, and of course everything, but everything, has at most 1.35% Fat Content per Serving. Now that's fine in the height of Summer at Sumner, but, (and I, Sister Theresa Gull can vouch for this,) if you expect to survive the depths of a Canterbury Winter on a sub 2% Fat Content, you're gonna be a Dead Gull. Or at least, a very thin, woozy, and unable to Fly gull. Not a recipe for Darwinian Success!

No, you really want to be at Brighton. The beachgoer demographic there is (thank the Great Gull Above!) decidedly different. For starters, they are, shall we say, less Refined and more Catholic in their food tastes. We can feast on pizza, chips, fish, burgers, Coke, those nicely spiced-up cans of stuff that taste like Coke but kick like Horse. Fat content is not actually listed Per Serve, (the Contents Disclosure text on the wrappers seems to mainly be newspaper articles) but is certainly north of 50%. You can happily survive even a snowy winter on that sort of fare.

Now, given this sort of difference in foody tastes, you'd expect a much wider general tolerance at Brighton. And so it is. Negative experiences were very low. Complaints were also low. People thought the beach was accessible, and parking was good.

Well, of course they would! Great gullz, they have over 10km of beach to wander along, versus scarcely 2 at Sumner.

It's free! They're, not to put too fine a point on it, not financially equipped for Chargeable Amenities.

They (at least 24%, anyway) walk to the beach!

They can't be seen from the road or the cliffs! That certainly gives a lot of scope for jollity.

What's not to like?

So the survey really just confirms the bleeding obvious: what in fact a Council officer was heard to say before the survey was even conducted, by another sharp-eared gull:

Brighton is Valued mainly for its Natural, even Wild Beach Experience.

Depending, of course, on Who you Ask.

So, this didn't need a Survey to figure out. We could have just sidled up to a Council Staffer and asked for the Party Line.

The second reason the Survey is an expensive joke (you Did remember I had two reasons!):

Given that many Brighton respondents would have been interviewed within a few hundred metres of the Pier, their definition of 'natural' must logically include:

- the Pier,
- the Library,
- the Bungee Rocket Towers,
- the New Brighton Working Men's Club,
- the New Brighton Surf Club premises,
- the Esplanade Hotel,
- the two paved carparks and stone beachfront wall for good measure,
- the Beachside Slum Block (Beresford to Hood Street - bought for development, still waiting, inhabited by - well - rent-a-Hoods)
- as well as dem old Sand Dunes.

All of which are clearly visible from those locations.

So their 'natural' experience is, shall we say, elastically defined. It does not seem to quite fit the definition used in the Revitalisation Plan - "attractions worthy of a ‘class’ seaside suburb."

(Yes, patiently listening Gullz, they used those Actual Words in the Plan! Must have slipped through the Peoplez republic's Content Filtering and Proof Reading section, eh?).

Now for those Sand Dunes!

As Gullz have observed before, there is a big difference between the earnest Plannerz of Christchurch, and the Developer Gullz:

Planners are salaried Council employees and know nought about Commercial Matters or the profit motive. Generally speaking, they would not recognise an Incentive if it came along and - er - Incentivised them.

Developers are Crafty Beastz who live by Profitable Enterprise and can spot a Nincentive from several continents away, who have access to Legal Eagles and other Birds of Prey, and who generally have an accumulated War Chest of bright shiny gold coins from which to fund Forays on Hapless Bureaucratz.

Now, as the pre-conceived Result of this Survey shows, the GreenSpaceys don't want their Beautiful Natural Sand Dunes to be tampered with. And they now have a Survey with which to prove it! However hopelessly skewed or interpreted the methodology or results, staff generally win. Over elected representatives and quite frequently, common sense.

But, the more they insist that Dune Heights are Fixed Forever, the more they are generating an Unintended Consequence.

Existing Dune Heights will simply be added to Developer Private Scheme Change Height Requests.

It's quite simple really.

As anyone who observes Gullz knows: you have to be able to See Over those Damn Dunes to get a sea view. That's why us gullz sit on powerlines, not kerb edges. We need to be able to See Far to survive.

As do Developers. How can you sell a ground-level or Level 1 (or, if you are particularly blessed, Level 2) apartment?

By using the pitch "get your Glorious Sand Dune View here!" - not.

So developers will do the obvious: add the unsaleable first x meters of their apartments, to the total height demanded.
Their equation is simple:

Total height needed = The Bit with a Real Sea View which will Sell to Punters
+ what the hell - space for a penthouse and a Rooftop Pool - for personal use.
+ Maximum height of Dunes in front at Present
+ Contingency of Extra Dune Height in case the Green Spaceys decide to plant Big Trees on Top

So, little Gullz, here we have a classic Perverse Incentive set up:

The more insistent the Council staff get about Dune Heights, the higher developers will demand their apartment towers can be.

Somehow, we Gullz don't think that this is what the Spaceys actually expected. Or what the Plannerz (a separate Council department, mais naturellement) would actually want, either. They're on record as wanting 5-7 storeys, not well over 10 (as it assuredly will be under this calculation).

Or, to take a wild guess, what the good citizens of Brighton would want. But to figure that out, we would probably need -

Another Citizen Survey.....Good Grief!