Christchurch Planning

[Brent George]

Fears Christchurch will ‘become the next Auckland’ without better planning

The Press - Chch: 27-Oct-2023

An aspirational plan for the growth of Greater Christchurch will fail unless improving transport choices is at its core, submitters say.

Fiona Bennett, a Christchurch resident who spoke to the Greater Christchurch’s spatial plan hearing panel on Thursday, said the city needed to grow “up, not out”.

“We need to protect our natural spaces, not build all over them,” she said.

“I'm really worried that we’re going to become the next Auckland, and we need to do something now to prevent that.”

The plan as a whole is about figuring out how Christchurch and nearby towns can cope with an expected 40% population increase by 2030. Greater Christchurch’s urban growth committee wants to figure out how to meet future housing demand, while connecting future residents to amenities, protecting the environment and reducing carbon emissions.

[Up and not out is all very well - but what about the resultant lack of sunlight; privacy; outdoor living space; etc when existing houses are affected by new 2-3 storey units right next door and 1.8m (or closer!) to the common boundaries?  Remember that the southern latitudes means that sun angles are critically different than Auckland in mid-winter.]

[FearTheShade]

I wonder what the ICS and any surveyor planners think of this issue?

Multi-storey luxury retirement village gets green light :
www.thepress.co.nz/a/home-property/350025870/multi-storey-luxury-retirement-village-gets-green-light

This is an example of the real effects of planning matters relating to a multi-unit, non-complying development in an urban location close to a city centre.
The development is described as a complex of five buildings on the site, three at six storeys tall, for a total of 219 units on a relatively small site.  Not a retirement village - a complex of luxury later living residences.

The first matter being an assessment of the affects by an "independent commissioner" reviewing the application. 
- Despite the single affected party - being an immediate neighbour - objecting about the impact on her property meaning they would only get one and two hours of sunlight a day, the Independent Commissioner (who knows better (sic)) said her loss of enjoyment was at acceptable levels (!).

The second matter being who and who is not considered an affected party.
- The article reports an interview with Jeremy Anderson who lives just across the narrow no-exit road on the south side of the development area.  Mr Anderson was not consulted - nor were any other residents on the south side of Hurley Street.  This despite the fact that a 6-storey cluster of buildings along the Hurley Street frontage would shade all of their properties - casting a shadow at noon in mid-winter some 50m beyond the road boundary.  No chance of any sunlight, passive heating, or Vitamin D exposure there!   

The third matter being a political one.  
- How can Council (and commissioners for that matter) sleep at night when their decisions to allow such developments affect existing citizens and ratepayers enjoying their private properties?  It must only be because the mighty dollar of Hong Kong based investors backing NZ based investment companies specialising in luxury retirement developments for discerning millionaires is just too good a carrot for a Council struggling to cover the costs of the many post-earthquake projects that are well over-budget, in conjunction with failing infrastructure requiring expensive repairs.

Afterword:  The landowner in the first matter withdrew the objection, and no longer lives there.  (You draw the obvious conclusion).

[Brent George]

I understand your concerns and hear your pain.

I also wonder how the local below ground infrastructure will cope with a complex of 200-odd units, plus all of the support service facilities (spa, restaurants, cafes, libraries, medical, etc). 
Then there is the pressure on parking for the workers 24/7 as they support the 'later living' occupants. 
And the other major issue - albeit short-term (2-3years?) - is one disruption to the adjoining community during construction - the constant de-watering (likely required for the engineering solution for the significant foundations for this TC3 land adjacent to the Avon River); the workers vehicles choking up the residential parking spots from 6am to 6pm Mon to Sat probably; and then the dust, vibration, and noise.

Unfortunately, surveyors are a small cog in the wheel of such developments, and have no say in the planning design or outcome of such a property.  We may be involved in the initial legal boundary definition of the extents of the property, or the site survey to define the land for design purposes early on.  Then we may be engaged to set-out the buildings, and check the foundation levels and building heights as part of a building location certification requirement (checking that the building height and positions match the consented plans).  And lastly, we may then be involved in the land titling of the properties - possibly a Land Transfer Unit-Title definition in this case.
There are some large survey consultancies that could offer civil and structural engineering expertise to this type of project, or even make a planning contribution as well.  But these specialist aspects will likely be the realm of a consultancy group that has a track record with the developer and/or designer.

A survey firm could decline to be involved in such an impactful development as this (or indeed, any development that may not fit with their ideals or morals), however there will always be other survey firms in town that have less of a social conscience, and who will be comfortable to undertake the survey work required.