planning for growth submission - wordpress.com

ONSLOW RESIDENTS’ COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

O n s l o w R e s i d e n t s ’ C o m m u n i t y A s s o c i a t i o n ; c / o 1 3 S a t a r a C r e s c e n t ,

K h a n d a l l a h , W e l l i n g t o n 6 0 3 5 ; 1 / 7

e m a i l : o n s l o w c o m m u n i t y a s s n @ g m a i l . c o m ; T e l e p h o n e 0 2 7 4 5 1 1 3 6 6

The Convenor

Planning for Growth

Wellington City Council

PO Box 2199

Wellington 6140

PLANNING FOR GROWTH SUBMISSION

OBSERVATIONS:

1. Statistics NZ census shows that the growth in Wellington’s population actually

fell between 2006/2013 compared to 2001 / 2006. The statement that in the

next 30 years Wellington will be home to 50,000 to 80,000 more people is simply

a “projection”, not a given. Statistics NZ projects only 65,000 over the same

period of which 46,000 will live in the Wellington city area.

2. New homes need to be defined and related to actual need. Many Baby Boomers

want to downsize from the 4- bedroom home to a 2/3- bedroom maintenance

free town house or apartment. Many of the Millennials need similar

accommodation due to existing debt (student loans), long working hours, fewer

children and the prohibitive cost of buying a bigger home in the city.

3. Many major cities from Manila to Sydney are spending massive sums of money developing infrastructure/utilities and transport hubs outside of the existing city boundaries. The benefits include:

a. Reducing traffic congestion

b. Reducing pressure on existing utilities

c. Reducing inner city living costs.

d. Reducing pollution

mailto:[email protected]





OPTIONS TO CATER FOR PROJECTED GROWTH IN WELLINGTON

SCENARIO 1: Inner-City Focus

“This scenario has most of the growth going into the inner city. It involves apartments

up to 15 storeys high in the city centre and low rise up to six storeys high around

Newtown. It has town houses in the inner suburbs.”

Not the best option considering the potential for loss of life in an earthquake or potential

for sea level rise.

On the positive side a concentration of people within the city means they live close to

their work places with less need to use transport (lower carbon emissions and reduced

demand for parking)

The challenge with this scenario is how to determine when the Inner City reaches an

optimal saturation level. If you compare cities such as Singapore and Hong Kong, where

these densities are feasible and certain, it is difficult to see Wellington reaching these

saturation levels. As long as the infrastructure system (services such as water, storm

water, electricity and transport) is upgraded to handle the additional population the

seismic risks can be readily mitigated with technical and engineering solutions.

Considering the comments regarding the central city being susceptible to rising sea

levels, liquefaction and earthquakes, these factors can all be mitigated by focusing on

building on land at least 1.9 metres above high-tide level as mandated by the government

in 2017.

If an engineering solution cannot be achieved, then this land should necessarily be low-

rise development if it’s built on at all. With earthquakes risks, there’s an existing NBS

standard that is being continually revised. As long as buildings are built to comply with

this standard, it should allay any fears in building high-rise apartments.

It is neither necessary nor arguably desirable to increase the density in “character” zones.

Typically, these inner-city character sites are comparatively small and should be retained

by placing a minimum size section such as 800 square metres where redevelopment may

be permitted.






We wouldn’t support removing the pre-1930’s character protection designation ad-

hoc.

The suburbs that we believe are amenable to having denser housing are parts of

Newtown, particularly in lower Adelaide Road from the Basin Reserve to John Street

where there’s currently many old industrial sites that appear to have fallen into desuetude.






SCENARIO 2: Suburban Centres Focus

“This sees more town houses in most suburban centres, plus apartments up to six

storeys high in Newtown, Berhampore and around Kilbirnie. There would also be

some apartments up to 15 storeys high in the central city.”

Although this scenario would be more expensive than scenario one, it is the direction we

should move towards if we are to minimise the disruption caused by major emergencies

such as earthquakes and sea level rise. In an earthquake many areas could be cut off so it

would be sensible for suburbs to be more self-sufficient.

We would be supportive of increasing the maximum height of buildings in selected

suburban centres to accommodate 4, 5 and 6 storey buildings providing the infrastructure

is improved to allow this.

The number of storeys is to be determined by the terrain and contour of the site, health

and safety considerations and not by the developers’ economic return. We should also

be mindful of access to and provision of amenities like emergency services - police, fire

ambulances and hospitals keeping in mind our risk of earthquakes.

These areas need to be carefully selected. Whilst Newtown and Berhampore are on

higher ground, and as stated in the previous option, where higher buildings would be a

desirable utilisation of land, Kilbirnie and the flat areas in Miramar would be in danger of

rising sea levels as would any coastal housing such as in Seatoun, Lyall Bay, Evans Bay

and all small coastal suburbs.

For properties further out from these suburban centres, the existing right under the

District Plan to have a maximum of two dwellings should be rigidly enforced. As it is

now, Town Planners are approving large numbers of dwellings on a single section where

they see fit ignoring the provisions of the District Plan.

The statement “vibrancy and commerce would be boosted in the suburban centres.” is driven by the private sector and has nothing to do with simply more people moving into an area. At Johnsonville central, roads and amenities have recently been upgraded. However, Stride Property had stated that they were going to redevelop the Johnsonville Mall but over 12 years have done nothing.






SCENARIO 3: New Greenfield Suburb (Ohariu Valley, Upper Stebbings Valley, Marshall Ridge and Lincolnshire Farm)

“This scenario identifies a new suburb in Ohariu Valley. The scenario still requires

moderate growth in the inner city and some suburban centres.”

We support this option to develop this area.

To ameliorate the effect of extra traffic from this new development, encouragement may

be given to developers to integrate electric car charging in the houses that they build.

Note, the cost of providing this should be the responsibility of the developer and not

subsidised by ratepayers. A good public bus service will also be essential to encourage

commuters to avoid using private cars.

Mention is made of a big investment in infrastructure, particularly with public transport

and water systems. The cost of public transport will be recouped by greater patronage,

particularly in the peak hours with commuters going to and from work. The cost of water

reticulation should be incorporated into the developer’s cost, the same as building roads

and footpaths in this new development. The developer would recoup the cost of

providing this infrastructure into the sale price of the sections and houses. This would, of

course, increase the cost of the sections and houses. However, smaller houses and

sections could be built in this new subdivision as well as low to medium rise apartments

and town houses to give a mixture of different housing options. Ratepayers would be

responsible for the development of a small suburban centre similar to Churton Park with

supermarkets and small retail outlets.

As mentioned earlier in our submission, major cities around the world are decentralising

to take the pressure off from existing infrastructure, reducing congestion, providing

people with affordable housing options and in Wellington’s case, spreading the risk

should global warming speed up or we are subjected to a major earthquake.






SCENARIO 4: Greenfield extensions (Takapu Valley, Horokiwi & Owhiro Bay)

“The scenario looks at extending the urban area into Takapu Valley, Horokiwi and

Owhiro Bay. This still requires moderate growth in the inner city and some suburban

centres.”

We are supportive of this option in conjunction with Option 3.

The decision on the economic viability for both of these options would be assessed by

developers and it is the function of the WCC to encourage and facilitate these

developments but not to subsidise them.

New areas as proposed in Scenarios 3 and 4 will provide the following benefits:

a. New developments with affordable housing

b. Small business operations that mean workers do not need to travel into the city centre

c. Having an effective public transport system to reduce the use of cars entering the city

d. Risk mitigation in central Wellington by spreading the risk potentially caused by heavy flooding, sea level rise and liquefaction from earthquakes.






RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the plan considers a mixture of all four scenarios with due regard to the

following:

a. Keeping the character and street appeal of the developed older suburbs by

avoiding infill housing.

b. Setting generous minimum sizes for sections and living areas for

dwellings and apartments.

c. Provision for off street parking for all dwellings and apartments

2. We wouldn’t support removing the pre-1930’s character protection designation

ad-hoc.

3. Because of such a large disparity in population growth projections, the plan

should err on the side of caution and plan for growth of 45,000 to 65,000.

4. In the character built-up suburbs the resource consent should strictly adhere to a

maximum of two dwelling per section as per existing right under the District

Plan, to maintain the current character and street appeal of these areas. This

would guarantee a sufficiently healthy and safe living environment for two

families with a garden and adequate off-street parking. Excessive builds on a

single section does not provide for low house prices as developers are simply

leveraging off the prices in these suburbs.

5. The Planning Office / Resource Consent Office should strictly adhere to the

District Plan. Any non-compliance of the district plan should be notified to the

affected parties. The currently overused term “less than minor” should not be

used to cover up non-compliance.

Lachman Prasad

Convenor – Building and Infrastructure Committee

Onslow Residents’ Community Association


planning for growth submission - wordpress.com

Documents