All posts in the topic High Rises at the beach. Plan Change 27 (Short link)
Summary
- There are 7 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Dan Randow at May 07 06:24 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 'Just Blair' Anderson | Fulerumera.jpg | 2007 Sep 28 07:03 UTC |
Hello All, Marcus Puentener would like to change the subject from the Canterbury plains and Templeton and invite you out east to the beach. I would like to bring your attention to the closing of submissions on Plan Change 27,(which is today , so sorry about the late notice) which came about from a residential density report commissioned by the council. The purpose of the Plan Change is to alter the zoning within parts of central New Brighton to allow for an increase in residential density, whilst minimising the potential for adverse environmental effects.(in their words). New Brighton is still in need of revitalising. The clock tower reads three different times for a start. Without good time keeping, the world would be chaos (that could explain a lot out our way). I don’t think there are many who would disagree that something needs to be done to "revitilise" Brighton. However, the “all or bust” approach the council is pushing for with Plan Change 27 will result in a quick buck for some and an eye sore for generations. With one local councilor having her signs sponsored by a developer, it is obvious where her loyalties lie. There are not many, if any areas where you can walk along the beach and be totally separated from the city. Sea, sand, sky. It is unique and something that could be lost forever with the plan change likely to be accepted. The only comforting thought is the still low confidence of developers unwilling to take the risk. There are already opportunities for developers to build in some areas up to 7 storeys. My suggestion is to keep the plan as is and if there is any development let it be in these areas. If the impact is minimal, the plan could be looked at, say in 10 years. Details at www.ccc.govt.nz under have your say- sort of tucked away off the home page which could rouse certain theories. Or http://www.ccc.govt.nz/HaveYourSay/ConsultationSubmit.aspx?ConsultId=394 As with most issues I have been following on the forum, there seems an urgency to get these big projects signed off before people can really comprehend the consequences. Submissions close this Friday! The proposed changes have the following effect: •Change in permitted building height from 11 metres to 14 metres for the Living 3 zones • Change in zoning for some Living 3 land to Living 4C zoning with a permitted height limit of 20 metres • Change in zoning of the Business 2 land on the foreshore to Open Space 2 • Retention of the existing Business 2P zoning to the south of the Mall • Retention of the existing Business 2 zoning in the western part of the Mall area • Retention of the Business 2 zoning for the Business 2 land in the eastern part of the Mall but with a change in the zone provisions to provide a 30 metre building height limit • Introduction of a range of new rules including a design and appearance control for the Living 3, Living 4C, and Business 2 zones that includes an assessment of potential wind effects for buildings over 20m in height in the Business 2 zone. Kind Regards Marcus Puentener Burwood/Pegasus Council and Community Board candidate 03 940 8903 021 611 820 <email obscured>
Kia ora taatou, hi all. Congratulations to Dan and everyone who founded this excellent forum. It is apparent that this electronic sharing of views is the most advanced medium we have today for expressing local democracy. A development most welcome. Please excuse my lack of an introductory post at this point, because I have another ten days' work I must clear before I can fully engage with the CPI Forum. But there is a little I can add to Marcus's excellent summary of the situation facing the New Brighton community, to move the discussion forward. As a candidate for ECan Christchurch East - so having joined representative work there - I would like to support Marcus with the informational issue he raises: i) The development of New Brighton edges forward, with blocks of housing lined up for replacement. Developers aren't happy with the proposed plan - to spread low-rise in a medium-length block along Marine Parade only - because it would create a 'city wall' in front of an expanse of "peasant housing". This mix of values they see as undesirable. ii) The lowering of the dunes has begun. This may surprise many, but I'm told it has been permitted by the (City?) Council to a level of "eight metres above mean sea level to be effective against storms". http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Coast/Our-coastline/Pegasus+Bay/Peg-bay-environment.htm Residents near North New Brighton Surf Club are distraught at the sudden damage to grasses, habitat, tracks, and dune-protection structures built by the Council - with now wasted rate-payer funds - just last year. 'The road is three metres above mean sea level,' reducing dunes to a maximum of 5m above there, say developers. Yet 'Brighton Mall is just 2.5m above level,' say others. iii) $50,000 is added to an apartment's value when it gains a view of the sea, by this means, I am told. Hoping that this presentation of coastal housing issues has been entirely factual, I look forward to further discussions in due course. Kind Regards & ka kite, Richard Tindall SaveOurWater.org.nz candidate for ECan Christchurch East
Hi Marcus
I agree totally with your post re the development of New Brighton and the mad
rush approach. Firstly I should declare my own personal interest. I am a local
at North Beach and there is zoning for a four storey apartment style building
east of me (i.e. between me and the sea). My concern is that the developers are
holding onto land in an around New Brighton and as one resident told me,
"holding up the development of New Brighton". The reason they hold it up is
that the longer they wait the greater their developers margin. A planned growth
would help with infrastructure needs as the area develops such as schools and
so on.
As to the dunes I would prefer they stay precisely where they are - I'm not
interested in the value of my property but rather the shelter afforded from the
easterlies and the excellent recreation they provide and the biodiversity
attracted to the beach and dunes. Of course they might also protect us one day
from a tsunami but that's yet to be seen.
I have no signs sponsored by anyone and like Rik I have no interest in the CPW
project - however in a couple of weeks I will unveil an interesting development
I'd like to propose. Let's see what unfolds.
As to another issue in Brighton (Marcus and Rik are only interested in water) -
I'm sure you'll be perturbed to hear that the trees in Rawhiti Domain are to be
felled as they pose a risk to safety. Interestingly the argument that they are
unsafe is based around the belief the trees are diseased which if you take the
time to look at them you'll note that in fact they are not (or at least not
much). The same trees have for some years (80 odd) given Christchurch some
shelter (in their lee) to the easterly - not hard to see when you view their
shape. So much for being green in Christchurch!
I've heard Gary Moore propose the high rise (up to 12 storeys) concept for New
Brighton - he claims it will be like the Gold Coast - but as I have stated on
this site before in the UK these kinds of tenements ended up being ghettos
Lets learn from other's mistakes and develop Brighton in a sympathetic way -
try one level at a time!
Michael Campbell
Independent Citizens for ECAN (Regional Council)
Christchurch East
Ph: + 64 3 3838521
Fx: + 64 3 3838524
Mb: + 64 21 618615
E: <email obscured>
Vision takes action
Mission statements take commitment
Pride takes passion
Michael Campbell wrote:
> I've heard Gary Moore propose the high rise (up to 12 storeys)
> concept for New Brighton - he claims it will be like the Gold Coast -
> but as I have stated on this site before in the UK these kinds of
> tenements ended up being ghettos
Cool - a Gold Coast for Christchurch. Now all we need is for climate
change to accelerate dramatically and we really will have the Gold Coast
here (apart from the lack of actual golden sand).
Cheers, Andrew.
Ata marie, good morning and welcome to the opening of the polls everyone.
Michael, you're a prolific forum guest speaker, and I commend your dedication.
Notable that you've had a second CTV appearance already, which confirms your
backing as solidly rural and landed.
But we note too that Tories are so thin on the ground in East Christchurch that
they have to be imported. The least that could be done would be to confer
respect on this area by selecting a representative with good powers of
observation, logic, and reason.
Nowhere in our posts to this thread did Marcus or I ever mention water. Marcus
introduced himself as standing primarily against unrestrained development at
Brighton, which I back him strongly on. Now it is clear from just a little
experience in this campaign that the Citizens may be characterised as the 'Real
Estate Agents fronting for Developers (profiteers), Urban and Rural' party, and
that their main tactic is to disguise that fact - to 'garnish the truth'. Which
is why are you feeling that hoofprint on your tail just now.
But don't take just my word for this folks, test it for yourself. Track down a
Citizens candidate anywhere you can, and ask them a question of local concern.
You will find that every answer they give comes in two parts: the answer they
know the public want to hear, and the answer that they wish to see carried out
- coyly stated, like weighing the conflicting positions. Well guess which
remedy they will carry out if elected. A 'Bob each way' is the strategy of the
moneyed mob from top to bottom - suave and slippery in extremis.
Again, Michael would pose as green champion using paucity of fact, that "the
trees in Rawhiti Domain are to be felled as they pose a risk to safety".
Perhaps a third of the big macrocarpas are marked for imminent culling, using
questionable science (and mates ex Target Pest?), but will more soon follow?
Michael relays the common doubt as to disease in these trees, but their natural
longevity is blatantly misrepresented as a third or less of their 300 possible
years. Why is this?
As a local kid of sufficient years to remember, let me tell the story of Broad
Park - just up the road. What a tragedy. It is the iconic kiwi way of life that
is under attack, in the rampant and vile destruction of big beach-side shade
trees along with our swimming rivers. Dairy sludge pollution on the beaches
after floods too? Just wait and see. The fight is on to retain all these
public and tourism jewels, against the profit-gutter assault.
Broad Park was a hot summer picnic destination for people all over
Christchurch, where you could get your family and car out of the sun for a few
treasured seaside hours. The kiwi identity was built upon these memories, all
over the country. Can we even retain it, or will every last vestige be sold
off?
Broad Park has been stolen, transformed into a stark playground for the new,
neighbouring subdivision. A 'modest corner cafe/shop' has exceeded plan to
flood residential frontages with after-hours parking, with the complicity of
the incumbent local city councillor.
Most of the big trees came down - to allow for cell-phone use, apparently. The
price of progress - loved, embracing, green giants felled.
Be careful what you vote for folks. Beware those yellow and black hoardings.
Happy polling, and see you at bouncy New Brighton - haven by the sea.
The discussion regarding high rise (density housing) is that cannot be separated from transport. The required strategy for ANY enhancement of urban density is that it MUST not increase traffic. The transport corridors must be secured before lifting the density of housing on the eastern side of the city. Once secure, then developers can play their part in both provisioning the integrated building and infrastructure while the city increases the 'rateable' base to deliver a progressive transport network. Logically this required a rethink on locking the city into a 'future proofed' bus depot at 60mill and not considering the implications for UDS 'satellite village' (ie heavy rail network) integration. Where are the planners..??? Asleep at the wheel. There should be gnashing of teeth for even releasing this midstream. The Council choices have been hobbled by Moore fantasy 'just because there was 60mill allocated' doesn't make it a good ideas nor correspond to a retirement legacy. Like i said on NewsTalkZB early today... it entrenches and locks in road network failure while removing the possibility of growth 'out of rubber wheels and diesel exhaust '. Where is the integrity in the current bunch of 'media acceptable' apologists for vision er, candidates; who sit and say nothing? Come on out to play? Has "Mayor Blair" got it right again? Can the candidates everywhere respond or this a case of 2021 unable to think on its feet again. (First STV, now this). The challenge is open! Have you an alternative vision. Lets hear you all.... How will Mayor Blair improve Christchurch ? http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-will-mayor-blair-improve.html See image 'guided bus carriage way' attached
The following file was added to this topic.
- Name: Fulerumera.jpg
- Type: image/pjpeg
- Size: 188.12KB
Can any forum members report on the "regeneration of New Brighton" hearings that are occurring this week? http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4511544a6530.html