Urban development

6.1 Urban planning, heritage and public spaces development

Whakahaerenga whare me te whanaketanga

Our focus is on enhancing Wellington as a compact, vibrant, attractive and safe city that is built on a human scale and is easy to navigate

What we do

Urban planning and policy development

Waterfront development

Public space and centres developments

Built heritage development

Our urban planning, heritage and public spaces development activities contribute towards us beingTop

People-centred – They promote the adequacy and safety of our homes and buildings and reduce the risks of injury and damage from earthquakes.

Eco-city – They encourage the incorporation of green design features and principles into urban development and promote the preservation and greening of character built landscape rather than destruction and redevelopment.

Dynamic central city – They contribute to Wellington being a safe and good place to do business through continuously reviewed and informed policy and cost-effective and timely service delivery.

What would Cuba Street look like in 20 years?

We co-ordinated an extension of the recent Victoria University student project on Cuba Street. Our Heritage and Earthquake Resilience teams collaborated with 80 fourth–year students from the Victoria University Schools of Architecture and Design, on a project called “What would Cuba Street look like in 20 years?” that focused on exploring options for the earthquake strengthening of Cuba Street buildings while retaining their heritage character and that of the street. An exhibition of the students’ work was held at the Schools of Architecture and Design in November 2012, and provided innovative and provocative answers.

Key projectsTop

During the year:

What it costsTop

Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2013
Budget
2013
Variance
2013
Actual
2012
6.1.1 Urban Planning and Policy Development1        
Expenditure 2,168 2,388 220 2,207
Revenue (4) (20) (16) (4)
Net Expenditure 2,164 2,368 204 2,203
6.1.2 Waterfront Development2        
Expenditure 11,534 2,275 (9,259) 1,876
Revenue (9,514) 9,514 (463)
Net Expenditure 2,020 2,275 255 1,413
6.1.3 Public Spaces and Centres Development3        
Expenditure 3,921 1,229 (2,692) 1,413
Revenue (17)
Net Expenditure 3,921 1,229 (2,692) 1,396
6.1.4 Built Heritage Development4        
Expenditure 899 1,168 269 802
Revenue
Net Expenditure 899 1,168 269 802
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2013
Budget
2013
Variance
2013
Actual
2012
6.1.1 Urban Planning and Policy Development5        
Expenditure 967 967 197
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A 527   N/A
6.1.2 Waterfront Development6        
Expenditure 6,307 4,042 (2,265) 4,700
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A 418   N/A
6.1.3 Public Spaces and Centres Development7        
Expenditure 2,259 2,220 (39) 1,492
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A 1,331   N/A
6.1.4 Built Heritage Development        
Expenditure
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A   N/A
  1. Under budget due to lower level of professional costs incurred this year on the District Plan.
  2. Variance relates to the impact of the annual revaluation on investment property and consolidation of Wellington Waterfront.
  3. Recognition of $3 million operating cost commitment to the National War Memorial project as approved by the Council on 26 September 2012.
  4. Under budget due to lower professional costs and the distribution of Heritage Grants.
  5. Delays on the Kilbirnie project, expected to be complete in August 2013.
  6. Council approved additional budget to complete earthquake strengthening work on Shed 6.
  7. Delays on the Laneways, Parliamentary precinct and Miramar projects.

How we performedTop

We encourage high-quality urban development that focuses growth in a way that makes the city more sustainable, while preserving its character. We monitor our District Plan programme and measure progress towards this aim through residents’ perceptions of development in relation to urban character.

To measure our effectiveness at facilitating high quality urban development

Residents (%) who agree the city is developing in a way that takes into account its unique urban character and natural environment

Residents (%) who agree the city is developing in a way that takes into account its unique urban character and natural environment.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

There has been an emphasis on concept design and planning throughout the period, and projects that were scheduled for construction, for example Opera House Lane, have been delayed for various reasons. This sense of slow progress exacerbated by the general lack of building activity within the city may have impacted on results.

District Plan change appeals

Result: 100% of our District Plan appeals were resolved (target: 90%).

Source: WCC City Planning

Residents (%) who agree the central city is lively and attractive

Residents (%) who agree the central city is lively and attractive.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Residents (%) who agree their local suburban centre is lively and attractive

Residents (%) who agree their local suburban centre is lively and attractive.

This drop may be influenced by the Kilbirnie Town Upgrade that has received considerable negative press due to delays.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Residents (%) who rate their waterfront experiences as good or very good

Residents (%) who rate their waterfront experiences as good or very good.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

The proportion of grants funds successfully allocated (through milestones being met)

Result: 100% (target: 95%). This was a new measure.

Source: WCC Community Networks

To measure our effectiveness at protecting the built heritage of the city

District Plan listed items that are removed or demolished

Result: 1 (target: 0). The one listed item that was removed was a heritage tree.

Source: WCC City Planning

Residents (%) who agree heritage items are appropriately valued and protected in central city and suburban areas

Residents (%) who agree heritage items are appropriately valued and protected in central city and suburban areas.

Heritage protection is a topical national issue. After the earthquake in Christchurch, public sensitivity to the safety of buildings is applying pressure on listed heritage buildings. Signals from Central Government and media, are that less value should be placed on heritage buildings when considered against public safety and economic viability.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013