Editorial: The battle for our own front yards

OPINION: A conspiracy theorist might suggest that Nelson City Council staff and councillors thought cooking up a couple of nice juicy red herrings – or rather, slightly greenish ones – would be a jolly good idea, with the local election silly season upon us. So, on to the political menu, in short order, come the notions that council staff, not councillors, will determine the details of a zoosh-up for Montgomery Square – and that the council knows what's best for city residents' front yards. One way to get the real election issues – transport, rates rises, performance-conference centre – off the agenda? Maybe.

The issues are interesting, nevertheless. Council planners, in their enthusiasm for ensuring that "streetscapes are people-oriented, not vehicle-oriented", and that they "maintain or enhance social, cultural and amenity values", should tread warily. The line between best practice, aimed at enhancing the city's overall appeal and appearance, and nanny state intrusion is fine and flimsy. A rule aimed at preventing gang fortresses appearing in residential areas is one thing. Telling the populace at large that they cannot build a fence or grow a hedge taller than waist height on suburban streets, and bringing restrictive new laws around positioning garages, is an overly intrusive and potentially costly nonsense.

The planning staff are suggesting that from now on, front yards dominated by permanent surfacing for parking and manoeuvring should be frowned on. They are urging that the rules should encourage the use of residential streets for these purposes instead. This seems a recipe for disaster. Previous rules requiring sufficient turning space so that cars would not have to be backed on to, or from, the street were sensible and safety-conscious. This apparent flip-flop, in the name of "urban design outcomes" is not.

Positioning of garages, meanwhile, also can be cost-related. The further from the street that garaging is located, the more expensive the driveway will be. Housing costs have already been pushed up disproportionately over the past decade, in part because of the leaky buildings fiasco. The building industry is facing tough times, and anything that pushes up costs further for little benefit ought to be challenged. "Guidelines" are one thing – but overly prescriptive rules threaten turning Nelson into an Anytown, Anywhere. If the council wants a higher "streetscape amenity", why not start with rules around commercial building colour schemes rather than picking off soft targets in the form of ordinary residents?

Meanwhile, the Mail supports the general thrust of the Heart of Nelson Strategy from which the tart-up of Montgomery Square has emerged. Cities around the world are becoming more "people-friendly", and it is generally much easier to embrace such change early. A central "pocket park", provided it can be achieved at a reasonable cost, is worth considering, and the loss of 1.7 per cent of the CBD parks to accommodate it is not excessive. However, a number of councillors at a meeting last week were clearly unhappy about aspects of the upgrade. The decision to leave it for staff to deal with is curious – perhaps more about politics than good sense – and suggests a new set of councillors might well opt to reopen the matter following the election in early October.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First