Chrissie
Williams for Burwood Pegasus City Council
As a City Councillor I will:
Listen to you and take your views on board
Respect your rate dollar, and have Council budget wisely
Look after the environment
Strengthen our neighbourhoods by retaining community centres,
libraries, community gardens and council supported childcare
centres
Take responsibility for my actions
I will work for:
Pure drinking water
Clean waterways and Estuary
Restoration of wetlands
Development sensitive to its surroundings
A three-bin recycling and rubbish system
Providing clearways to give buses priority
Safe cycleways
Increased opportunities for recreation and leisure
Better consultation with and participation of residents in
Council decision making
Retention of Council assets in public ownership and management
I will bring:
Leadership
A commitment to teamwork
Community networks
Facilitation skills
A good understanding of council issues
Technical and scientific knowledge and understanding
Currently I am a:
Trustee of the Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust
Director of Red Bus Ltd.
Member of Lincoln University Council
Member of the Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board
Recent past chair of Sustainable Otautahi Christchurch
Director of Landcorp Farming Ltd.
Burwood Plan Change 27
Residential Density in New Brighton
Submission on a publicly notified plan change to the
Christchurch District Plan
Name: Christine (Chrissie) Mary Williams
Address: 122 Pine Avenue
South New Brighton
Christchurch 8062
Phone: 388 0798
Mobile: 021 330 789
Email: chrissie.williams@xtra.co.nz
My submission is that:
1. The consultation process in preparation of the Section 32 report
was unsatisfactory.
The scenarios presented for discussion were very biased towards
increased density, with some of them being absolutely ridiculous.
Scenario 1 was the existing zone with FULL uptake. There are no
scenarios shown of lesser uptake, or what a thoughtful and sustainable,
development could look like. It seems like the extreme scenarios
3 and 4 were presented to make scenario 2 seem more acceptable.
2. The Section 32 analysis does not demonstrate that the plan
change is a more efficient and effective means of achieving the
Plan’s objectives and policies than the current provisions.
In fact the S32 analysis and the Proposed Plan Changes are contradictory.
On Page 35 of the S32 report states:
" The conclusion reached from this analysis is that an
increase in residential density within the New Brighton context
could be achieved without significant adverse effects on the environment,
however the degree of increase in density should be kept moderate
as expressed in the scenario 1 or mixed scenario 1. Both in response
to the technical reports and community feedback, a modest, mixed
scenario with reduced development potential along the foreshore
is preferred.”
3. The proposed plan change is NOT in alignment with the Greater
Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS). While New Brighton
is identified in the UDS as an area for intensification, the density
proposed by this plan change is not envisaged by the UDS.
4. While the change from B2 zoning on the eastern side of Marine
Parade to O2 is positive, I ask that it be changed to Conservation
zoning, (C1A) and be gazetted as a Recreation Reserve.
5. I oppose the extent of building proposed in this O2 zone.
Any site or building in this area should only be used for recreation
activities, and not for community, administrative, social, professional
or retail activities. The height of any building should be no
higher than 3m. This area should be set aside for passive recreation
with seating and planting suitable for picnics and small gatherings.
6. The existing L3 and B2 zoning to the west of Marine Parade
should remain as in the current City Plan. Any buildings higher
than 11m should only be built in the B2 zone.
7. I strongly oppose the 14 m height in L3 zoning in the southern
and northern parts of the study area. 11m should be set as the
critical standard in the current L3 area, with building higher
than this being a prohibited activity.
8. I strongly oppose the introduction of the L4C zoning with
a 20m building height limit.
9. I strongly oppose the 30m height in B2 zone on Marine Parade.
20m should be set as the critical standard in the existing B2
zone, with building higher than this being a prohibited activity.
10. Mixed use developments in the current B2 zone should be encouraged,
and incentives provided by the Council to enable this.
11. Efforts should be made to work with land owners and developers
to ensure:
a. Titles are combined to enable high quality development
b. Buildings are designed to be sensitive to the surrounding area,
and a ‘wall’ of 11m/20m buildings is not built along
Marine Parade. Buildings need to be ‘staggered’ so
that any developments to their west still have views towards the
sea.
c. Sustainable development and best practice urban design building
practices are followed.
12. Council should work with Progressive Enterprises (Woolworths)
and other landowners to shift the supermarket from its present
site further west, away from Marine Parade.
13. No sand dunes should be lowered, except as allowed for under
the existing consent where dune stabilisation is required.
14. I support the new rule requiring design and appearance controls.
Reasons for my submission:
Development at the scale allowed for by the current zoning
would enable intensification of residential development while
maintaining the ‘village’ feel of New Brighton,
and ensure community cohesion.
The proposed heights are out of scale with the surrounding
area, the foreshore and Library and the buildings would create
a wall between the beach and the commercial centre.
Development that is controlled to produce high quality urban
design and sustainable buildings will ensure that New Brighton
has residential dwellings that are sought after, and does not
become a slum of the future.
Building any higher than currently allowed will cause shading,
shadowing, loss of sunlight, loss of privacy and wind effects
that are unacceptable. Shadowing of both the beach and of neighbouring
houses should be avoided or minimised.
High buildings affect the view from the pier and from the
sand dune tracks. At present views from these sites go to the
Port Hills and the Southern Alps. These aspects would be blocked
by the buildings under the proposed plan change.
The increased density would cause problems with the existing
road network. In particular there are already problems at Hawke
Street/Marine Parade intersection regarding safety and delays.
Pedestrian access across Marine Parade – identified as
an issue in the New Brighton Master Plan – will be compromised
by increased traffic.
Oram Avenue in particular has a number of grand old buildings
that will be threatened by this plan change. The seaside village
character will be lost with such extensive and high development.
I am doubtful that the market demand in Christchurch is such
that many, if any, expensive multi-storey apartments will be sold
in New Brighton. There is a high risk that apartments will be
purchased by absentee landlords and rented out, or left empty.
This will not revitalize New Brighton in the way envisioned by
the proposal.
Unless any development is carefully planned there will be a loss
of open space, gardens and biodiversity.
With increased impermeable surfaces which are put in place with
very high density housing (although are not necessary) there will
be an increase in stormwater run-off.
I seek the following decision from the Council:
1. Change the zoning of the land east of Marine parade from B2
to C1A
2. Retain the current L3 and B2 zoning, except make the 11m and
20m building heights critical standards, and building higher than
these heights a prohibited activity
3. Do not introduce the L4C zoning in central New Brighton
4. Retain the proposed Design and Appearance controls A Reliable Bus System
in Christchurch - Bus Boarders are Not the Answer!
Richard West attempts to justify the expensive bus boarder trial
in Hills Road. (7 August). He is certainly correct that buses
need priority on congested roads, but the bus boarder is not a
cost-effective or acceptable method to use on Hills Road. It is
also not prudent when introducing bus priority for the first time
in the city to choose a method which is not easily understood
and significantly disaffects other road users. It is puzzling
why the Council has chosen such an option.
A bus boarder allows a bus to load passengers away from the kerb
line. In Christchurch bus boarders already exist on parts of Fendalton
Road, but there they are on a dual carriageway so cars can safely
pass the bus when it is stopped. They are usually used in areas
where parking is at a premium and it is difficult for the bus
to get to the kerb – this is not the case in Hills Road.
They can reduce the time taken by the bus to rejoin the traffic
stream, but in Christchurch most car drivers are considerate and
give the bus space to re-enter the traffic with little delay.
Congestion is increasing Congestion is increasing as people are travelling more
for work, leisure and recreation, and we have a growing population.
Dispersed development in suburbs on the outer edge of the city
is exacerbating the problem. The result is a number of congested
locations particularly noticeable at peak traffic times. Building
more roads to meet demand is an expensive and short-term solution
to congestion – any new roads very quickly reach capacity
and little gain is made.
Bus reliability in Christchurch is compromised by this congestion.
For bus patronage to increase bus trips should not be much longer
than the car journey, and buses need to run on time. Congested
roads are causing wide variability in bus travel time, and hence
an unpredictable timetable. This is a real turnoff for bus users,
especially for commuters.
Increasing the numbers travelling on public transport is an efficient
and effective way of reducing congestion. While in the future
rail may be feasible, now and in the medium-term enhancing the
existing successful bus service will offer affordable and tangible
gains.
A reliable bus system Buses currently carry only 3.5% of the city’s commuters
at peak travel times. Buses must be more reliable to attract people
out of their cars. Giving buses priority on key arterial roads
is as an effective on-road means of improving reliability and
increasing public transport capacity. Some measures are easy to
implement with little impact, while others will have greater effects
on existing road users or property owners.
Importantly, attracting more people onto buses will improve the
level of service for private vehicle users. Bus priority is not
anti-car, but a move to improving mobility for a growing population
wanting to move about the city. Without priority, buses will always
be seen as a second choice.
What about Riccarton Road? In 2004 three corridors were selected for bus priority.
When Hills Road, Colombo Street south and Papanui Road were chosen
there was a glaring omission - Riccarton Road. Opposition from
retailers and local councillors during an attempt to introduce
bus lanes on Riccarton Road in 1996 scared the Council away from
another attempt. But clearly Riccarton Road should be first on
the list as it has nine bus routes experiencing the greatest delay
in the system.
It is also unclear why the Council has taken three years for
their first attempt at prioritising buses. The 2004 update of
the Christchurch Public Passenger Transport Strategy had a target
for the City Council to ‘implement bus priority on at least
three key corridors by June 2006’. A year late and we have
only one controversial trial on one of the selected corridors.
So if bus boarders are not the solution what other options
are there?
Bus lanes or Clearways The most obvious and well understood method for priority
is bus lanes or clearways which dedicate road space to buses,
give buses an uninterrupted priority and allow pick-ups and drop-offs
without disrupting other traffic.
Bus lanes usually operate all the time, whereas clearways are
restricted to peak times. Vehicles are not permitted to stop or
park on a bus lane or clearway during its operation so stringent
enforcement is required. Bus lanes may necessitate loss of parking
- clearways restrict parking at peak times only so are generally
more acceptable to adjacent shop owners.
Pre-signals and Signal pre-emption Pre-signals enable buses to go to the front of the queue
at traffic lights. An example of these is in place now for north-bound
buses on Colombo Street at Moorhouse Avenue.
Signal pre-emption uses an intelligent detection system to alter
the traffic signal timings in favour of the bus. It gives more
green time to the signal phase to get the bus through, or it will
shorten the red phase and bring forward the green phase for the
bus to minimise delay. A few seconds adjustment to the signal
timings can make significant travel time savings for the bus with
no real disadvantage or delay to other traffic.
Where to now? The bus boarder trial in Hills Road should be abandoned.
Creating and enforcing peak-time clearways, and pre-signals or
signal pre-emption, are the most acceptable ways of initiating
bus priority. These will be effective in most cases, but if a
more stringent level of priority is required bus lanes would be
the next step. As well, urgent work is required in the central
city to enable two-way bus traffic on Lichfield Street and to
increase capacity in the bus exchange.
Without these measures bus patronage cannot increase and all
our trips, whether by bus or car, will take much longer
