1) My name is Andrew Meehan, I am president of the Oriental Bay Residents Association (OBRA) and have been so for the past two years. I am an Oriental Bay resident.
2) OBRA has in excess of 160 members, been established for more than 30 years and serves as a forum for both residents of Oriental Bay and for Wellingtonians generally in matters pertaining to Oriental Bay. It has variously advocated on the major changes that have had an impact on the Bay including parking, the cycleway and most notably the preservation of the amenity value of the bay in the Foot v WCC 1998 Environment Court decision referred to by other submitters. We also concern ourselves with matters that preserve the integrity of the user’s experience, including rubbish collection, beach clean ups and dog control. We meet at least twice per annum to provide an open forum for those who have issues, opinions and/or concerns.
3) We appreciate the expertise being provided by the independent commissioners in determining matters that are fundamental to the future of Oriental Bay (OB) and therefore in so far as OB is recognised as the jewel in the crown, to the future shape of Wellington. It is fair to say that we have been critical of the lack of productive consultation with the WCC on a number of highly important planning issues over recent years, so the element of independence introduced by the commissioner framework is a welcome step forward.
4) We regard ourselves as proxy representatives to the tens of thousands of Wellingtonians who do not reside in OB but are regular users of its amenities. They have no voice per se; but we know through our daily interaction with them, they are vitally concerned about the aesthetics of, and continued access to their ‘playground’. In this regard we are talking about beachgoers, walkers, runners, families with young children who seek a boulevard, fishers and café users amongst many others.
5) There are a number of separate submitters we are aware of in respect of stream two of the hearings who are, correctly in our view, arguing that matters of law and precedent apply to the proposed densification of Wellington and it would be entirely inappropriate to increase the density of OB as if it were an entirely logical location to do so. This is clearly not the case, as the topography and access above the existing waterfront properties do not support densification.
6) If the argument for the densification of OB is about access to affordable housing (which appears to be the case from a number of submitters), then that argument is, in our view, invalid. It is well known that property values in OB are the highest in Wellington. To acquire a property for development therefore, with that fact as a starting point, can only suggest that development in OB will produce the least affordable housing in Wellington. If the rebuttal of that argument is that a state-owned entity would be able to acquire and redevelop, then this is equally a relative waste of taxpayers’ money and is no justification to allow the proposed densification in OB.
7) In the Resource Management Act (RMA), the concept of ‘amenity value’ is a fundamental tenet. The definition of amenity is: ‘amenity values means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.’ Notwithstanding that the RMA is under review, we contend that this description perfectly describes the current OB and is the reason OB continues to be the jewel in the crown of Wellington.
8) Under s.7 of the Act, it states ‘In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to… “a range of considerations from (a) to (j), including (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values”’. It is clear therefore that the intent of the RMA was and is to prevent irresponsible and damaging development.
9) We note that all great cities have disproportionately high levels of public amenity values, for example Sydney, London and New York, where scale, view shafts and space have been prioritised over many decades of town planning, whereas others (Auckland being a notable example) have not had the same degree of rigour, illustrated by the almost complete detachment of the waterfront to the CBD in Auckland. Densification of OB based on spurious logic will compromise the iconic (and most photographed) look of OB as seen from the CBD or on the water and undoubtedly over time Wellington will lose the iconic city status we currently enjoy.
10) Further, we reiterate the point made in the submission by Pukepuke Pari Residents Inc, where there is a very real health and safety issue in relation to further densification of properties in the mid to upper levels of OB. Even without further development, first responder access to mid/upper OB is currently compromised and further unfettered development will exacerbate this already unsatisfactory situation.
11) Ultimately the decision whether to allow wholesale densification of OB or not, will be a subjective one. We, as residents, are not objecting to development per se, nor are we trivialising the urgent need for further affordable housing in Wellington. What we are strongly objecting to is ‘a one size fits all’ approach to solving the problem as is currently being promoted. Successful cities of the future will balance growth and progress, together with appropriate public amenity values. In our considered view, it makes neither economic nor strategic sense to allow the development of OB to be required to be viewed within the same framework as the development of more suitable areas of Wellington in terms of topography and affordability.
12) We are available to meet ‘on site’ if that would be helpful in visualising our point of view.
Respectfully,
Andrew Meehan ONZM
President, Oriental Bay Residents Association
April 2023