Bar and restaurant owners on and near The Strand are arguing against resource consent being issued for the new waterfront park, unless parking issues are addressed first.
Where will people park their cars if The Strand reclamation car park is replaced with an entertainment or business site?
'We represent a number of owners of businesses on or near The Strand, 14 submitters in all, and our issue is solely around car parking,” says lawyer Matt King with Sharp Tudhope.
'We are saying removal of the car parks and not replacing them elsewhere would create adverse effect on the environment, which should disallow the application.”
There are 300 car parks on The Strand reclamation that will be removed as the area is redeveloped into a waterfront park.
A council offer to extend hours on the Spring Street and Elizabeth Street parking buildings to 10.30pm is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough, says Matt.
'If people can park nearby, particularly at night when the car park building is now shut, then that offsets the effect of the loss of the parks from the strand,” says Matt.
'But our clients were seeking for the Spring Street parking building to be open seven days a week until midnight.”
That's because the Tauranga City Council's traffic assessors undertook no study at all of the parking demand from Thursday night through till Sunday night – the busiest portion of the week for the waterfront precinct, says Matt.
'The thing is with all the consultation they did before the proposed the new District Plan that changes all the rules – parking was raised as an issue,” says Matt.
'So what they have come back with is there's enough parking within the CBD to cope with the displacement, and to cover people coming to the site for events.
'We disagree because the CDB extends all the way up to 2nd Ave, it might even go across Cameron Road.
'Who's going to park on Elizabeth Street and come down to The Strand? They did a survey for the jazz festival at Easter, and they had to go all the way up to 4th Ave to assess it because the peak parking demand was higher than the number of parking spaces in the CBD.”
The council is not agreeing to what its own steering report recommended, says Matt.
'We are hamstrung because we can't force the council to accept a condition like they have proposed, because it is a condition being imposed on another site, not the waterfront itself.
'If they won't agree it's up to the commissioners to decide if they will accept the resource consent application on this basis or not – we are in their hands.
'What I would say is that the hearing report recommendation is a step in the right direction.
'It wasn't as good as what we would like and we have asked for more, but council's response in watering down the hearing report recommendation is a disappointing step backwards.”
The council will provide parking at Spring Street or some suitable alternative once they have dug up 150 of the car parks on The Strand, says Matt.
'The whole point of putting in the green space down there is to attract people to the site. But like I said right at the start, you do it on the basis of ‘If you build it, they will come' – but where are they going to park?”
'We have argued pretty hard at the hearing about what the displacement effect is likely to be. How far away is it reasonable to park to make their customers still want to come here – and not go somewhere like the Mount, or Papamoa, or Bayfair or Bethlehem.”
The Elizabeth Street parking building is over 500 metres from The Strand, Spring Street 250 metres. The distances are not ideal, says Matt. But The Strand businesses are happy if they are open seven days till midnight, are safe, and they can advertise the fact they are on The Strand.
'Restaurant and bar owners are prepared to accept a compromise where their customers have to change their behaviour somewhat in that they can't park right outside the door,” says Matt.
'But they have to be able to park somewhere nearby and not too far away, or they'll just decide they won't bother.”
27 comments
Pub owners
Posted on 31-08-2011 17:11 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
Why Matt, don't you and your fellow pub owners get together and put on courtesy vans for YOUR paying patrons, instead you turn off the lights, close the doors, tip the drunks onto the streets and expect the council yet again to pander to your requests. Let your patrons walk it might do them good. Why should you get such a big say in what happens with the Strand parking?
The Reason for the Reclaimations
Posted on 31-08-2011 17:12 | By tabatha
The area that everyone wants changed was an answer to the problems of inadequate parking in Tauranga. Our City Fathers of the time went through the process of seeking permission etc for the parking on the Southern side first. Later the Northern side was developed. Perhaps it is time to check some of the ideas of our earlier City Fathers and sit on our hands for a while. Seriously Tauranga seems to be cash strapped at the moment and should we be make big changes. (Hope this starts some thoughtful thinking) I wonder what the present City Fathers would think if in 20 years time the area is returned to parking! A lot of wasted money.
Parking ...
Posted on 31-08-2011 17:17 | By Murray.Guy
At the least, the Wharf Street entry point and the Northern (Dive Crescent) end must retain parking considerations. Convenient parking is the most critical element in the success of any public amenity, commercial business.
FAIR COMMENTS BY RETAILERS
Posted on 31-08-2011 19:11 | By PLONKER
It is all logical and common sense about what they have said here, but of course a BOFFIN at TCC would have no idea what that really means on any day in a lifetime. Common sense says that the carparks will be missed badly, and of course the TCC BOFFINS have a plan to build a carpark building to replace etc 6 years later in 2019 or so!!!
Helen
Posted on 31-08-2011 20:18 | By tabatha
I am not an owner, shareholder in the businesses you mention. However i believe it is the duty of a local body to provide adequate parking. If you do not like the services a business offers that is your choice, by the way I do not frequent these businesses. But remember everyone has rights. Right to speak but also a right to park.
Helen
Posted on 31-08-2011 22:08 | By basil65
You go girl. It's about time some of us walked a little bie more. Funny how we are becoming so much more like America. Fat useless slobs. "Oh, I can't drive there." "Can't be worth going to." Get over yourselves and your ever expanding rear ends. Walk from Wharf St or Spring Street or God forbid Cameron Road. Imagine having to run in the rain in the winter. I'm going to melt. If the end result isn't worth getting wet for or enjoing Mother Natures foibles, then don't bother going.
Greed is not good
Posted on 01-09-2011 07:54 | By Dreamey1
So the restaurant owners want council to open up Spring Street 7 days a week until midnight. Has anybody ever tried to get something to eat along The Strand after 7pm on a Mon, Tues & Wednesday, pretty much all the restaurants asking for this extravagance are all closed. Come on. lets get real, you cant have your cake and eat it all the time, sound like for once the council are being fair and logical with what they are proposing
Parking issue a symptom of a bigger issue...
Posted on 01-09-2011 07:55 | By the_fourth_estate
Like the issues surrounding Welcome Bay and its little underpass I feel this problem underlines the complete failure of the community to develop a cohesive approach for the CBD. I have said and will suggest again that the CBD is failing itself in the longrun it is not the councils fault although the TCC loves to involve itself, the CBD belongs to and exists for workers and shoppers alike. If the CBD wants to prosper it needs to organise itself into something that is attractive and functional. Who amoung us will step forward and take up the challenge? I think what needs to happen is that the CBD is remodelled into a precinct of modern and attractive shops some decent outdoor areas and of course some good access points and parking for transport. Afterall the proof of how succesful that approach can be is next to the roundabout at Bayfair. Malls are very good places to do business for all the reasons I have just listed and the CBD needs to adapt in that direction. Its not hard to work together but we are making it so all by ourselves.
and dont forget about active commuting
Posted on 01-09-2011 12:41 | By nothingwrongwithgreen
Yes, accessability is important for those that must drive but as Basil65 pointed out, dont forget you have other options. Walking, cycling, parking further away from your destination and busing means you get your exercise and don't have to pay for parking. Genius.
Carpark Issue.
Posted on 01-09-2011 12:41 | By Lois
@ Basil65. I am unable to walk that far now, my husband not allowed to drive (strokes) but I still want to eat at the Horny Bull!! Last time I wanted to eat downtown, I drove around town 3 times, up as far as Elizabeth Street and ended up at Cherrywood, where I could get parking.
Carpark Issue.
Posted on 01-09-2011 12:41 | By Lois
@ Basil65. I am unable to walk that far now, my husband not allowed to drive (strokes) but I still want to eat at the Horny Bull!! Last time I wanted to eat downtown, I drove around town 3 times, up as far as Elizabeth Street and ended up at Cherrywood, where I could get parking.
By nothingwrongwithgreen
Posted on 01-09-2011 14:36 | By tabatha
You seem to forgotten that buses are not running late evening when the premises along the Strand are being frequented. Security is necessary and being able to park handy to the area adds extra protection because of other users nearby.
Posted on 01-09-2011 14:44 | By CAUTION
The whole of the strand is close to being knocked down in the next two years so why bother with any of the waterfront park or more parking. 1st thing is to keep the strand as it is then complain about the parking situation or how to improve the look.
Posted on 01-09-2011 15:16 | By The author of this comment has been removed.
At pub close time the taxi ranks are packed. I wonder if I dare suggest that parking on the strand is mostly pub staff at that time on the night.
TAURANGA CITY CENTRE WATERFRONT
Posted on 01-09-2011 17:23 | By ROB PATERSON
As someone who took the time and trouble to attend the Waterfront Hearing over the past 3 days and presented a full submission, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on and canvass some of the issues as I saw them. It became obvious at the outset that the bases were heavily loaded in favour of TCC (the Applicant) and the evidence presented by the Council ‘experts' needed to be taken with a grain of salt. They may win this skirmish but TCC will not win the public popularity poll. The Tauranga City Council RMA applications comprised a Land Use Consent application from TCC and a Coastal Permit Consent application from Bay Regional Council: - 1. MAJOR ISSUES relate to compliance, parking, traffic, the environment, green space and intrusion of the redevelopment into and the effect it will have on the Tauranga Harbour. In addition, there is the matter of huge estimated cost of $20 million plus which will have an adverse economic effect on the Tauranga Community. 2. TRAFFIC often drives around looking for carparking and lack of parking causes traffic issues on The Strand at busy times. The Strand is a very poorly set out roadway which can get very cluttered and congested. The Strand road leads through from Dive Crescent to Devonport Road, a main arterial route running from the CBD across to the other side of the city. 3. PARKING space is at a premium in The Strand area - any events or activities held there have in the past and will in the future only exacerbate the parking problems. Until full replacement parking for what is proposed to be taken away, namely 300 carparks and more is provided, the current scheme for the Waterfront is not practicable or viable. The location of alternative parking is critical, people hate walking distances. 4. PASSIVE OPEN GREEN SPACE The land between The Strand and the railway line is important green space, as is the open space between the railway line and the Harbour foreshore which currently is largely used as a parking area. The area does not need to be cluttered with bits and pieces, keep it green with grass and suitable trees and open as far as possible. The removal of the Kestrel, Chatham and Coronation Pier makes the foreshore look good and clean at present. Trees and structures do tend to obstruct vision and need to be chosen carefully and placed to suit, not like some of the plans floating about seem to show. 5. PAST ATTEMPTS AT UPGRADES Many Waterfront proposals over past 50 years have been floated and promoted and apparently since 1960, there have been at least six upgrades and none have worked, partly put in place then left to wither. The Railway Bridge end of The Strand contains the most recent upgrade and still looks okay. Many other proposals put up along the lines of this current one over the past decade have come to nothing. We just seem to spend money on consultants and reports. 6. COMPARISONS Mission Bay in the Eastern Bays, Auckland is very similar - it fronts Waitemata Harbour /Hauraki Gulf, the businesses on Tamaki Drive are also mainly Bars and Cafés like The Strand. It has a beach, huge green expanse, no train lines, a fountain, a nice old stone cottage at one end but is spoiled by a large parking area smack bang in the middle to address the severe parking issues at Mission Bay as there is nowhere else for additional parking to go and that is The Strand's problem also, with around 300 car spaces currently provided. TCC should have kept its word and erected a 5-floor car parking building between Harrington House and Kingsview Apartments on Hamilton Street which could possibly have gone underground as well. TCC needed to spend $6 million 5 years ago and put this parking facility in place as it would have served the whole area well, particularly The Strand at nights and weekends. 7. RATIONALE FOR APPLICATIONS These are not very rational or cost effective in respect of the Waterfront upgrade proposed. All reports indicate TCC are basically flying a kite, rather than try to get the final plan right. Will obviously just try to get an RMA Consent(s) of some sort, then seek to vary them later, probably by way of non-notified applications on a de minimus basis. TCC Administration /Councillors just don't seem to know what they want so how would the public have a clue, it is not a fair or equitable way to approach the development of the Tauranga Harbour coastal environment in this way. How can anyone be properly informed when the goal posts keep shifting. A level playing field is needed. As presented, it is a very ‘rough' master concept plan without any real thought or purpose (see recent media reports). The Council attitude looks like just get something/ anything attitude, a shotgun approach. This is wrong and an abuse of the RMA process when TCC, know full well Council will probably never go through with much of what is being applied for now. It is misleading as far as the public are concerned. The shots appear to be called by the likes of Chamber of Commerce, Priority One, Creative Tauranga, Tourism BOP who seem to be running the show, not TCC itself or elected members who want a green passive open space. Cultural matters relating to local Maori iwi and the waka seem unresolved and if the parties can't agree, then simply leave the waka where it is. A waka pier is also envisaged which goes out into the Harbour for 30 metres and in my view, it is not an attractive look. No one seems to have got their heads around the cultural significance (if any) or otherwise of The Strand area. Perhaps we should give everyone some time to contemplate and no doubt someone will think up the answer. 8. The Glass Box on the Pontoon Saga This was supposed to be removed when the Kestrel went, now we learn someone in ‘Priority One' has arranged a 20 year lease from Scapens, purportedly to use it for assisting the likes of the proposed Jet Boat operations and similar things. There will probably be noise and disturbance of the Harbour bed issues that arise if the Jet Boat proposal goes ahead as Kaituna River Jet Boat operations have not been trouble-free. Does this type of activity need to have a Resource Consent? 9. CORONATION PIER This was reputed to be the jewel in the crown of any Waterfront Redevelopment and while it doesn't form part of the current applications, it casts a shadow over them. From information received recently, there are doubts whether it is even proceeding? The barge is moored at the Bridge Wharf owned by Council at Council's cost ($70,000 berthage spent to date) and TCC say it has no written agreement with Scapens, the developer for whom the Resource Consent was obtained by Council at TCC cost. The Tauranga Harbour foreshore and coastline currently looks very good without the old or new Coronation Pier at present and many people have commented on that, saying let's keep it that way. 10. ECONOMIC EFFECTS The huge cost of this project estimated at $20 million and possibly as high as $30 million that involves no significant structures and will undoubtedly result in adverse economic effects on the Tauranga Community having regard to Council's current indebted position, vital infrastructure and more worthy community projects may need to be shelved for little benefit derived from Waterfront for most of the people. Estimated cost of 400 metre Harbour Boardwalk at $5 million, Waka Housing and Pier at $3 million. The excavation of 14,000 m3 & replacement of 12,000 m3 plus 8,000m3 for an inner harbour are a huge undertakings and very costly. Will all have the appearance of construction sites with associated noise and dust problems. Dredging is also substantial and the replacement of the existing seafront retaining wall is an absurd proposal. CONCLUSION While there is certainly some support for a realistic minimalistic Waterfront Development properly thought out in a definite state, dealt with on an economic basis, the position outlined at the hearing was far from satisfactory. There needs to be a lot more certainty about the Tauranga Waterfront upgrade proposals and whatever happens, there must be total compliance with the NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010. Structures should never exceed permitted height levels, no tree screening, strict compliance with waste minimalisation requirements and temporary activites must be of limited duration, say 7 days and very strictly policed.
How sad
Posted on 02-09-2011 07:33 | By Dreamey1
Here we go again, it would be interested to know if there is actually anything that Rob Paterson does not oppose. yes it will be paid for from rates but surely this is money better spent thnan pulling up another road etc. Tauranga is no longer a sleepy fishing village and needs some great attractions like a waterfront, parking on our great asset is not the right way to go!!
Not getting the profile deserved, community needs ...
Posted on 02-09-2011 08:23 | By Murray.Guy
Posts such as 'TAURANGA CITY CENTRE WATERFRONT Posted on 01-09-2011 17:23 By ROB PATERSON' are not getting the profile deserved. For readers to make a comment on news items is great, but largely are of value for the same time as the print media as they quickly get buried. Posts such as that by Rob Paterson are 'news items' in their own right, well researched, and of huge community interest. Be great if the 'home page' could be reconfigured to provide greater exposure for a longer period for issues of significance, as does the editors picks but bolder.
Blowin' in the wind stuff
Posted on 02-09-2011 11:56 | By ROB PATERSON
Dreamey1 . Stay asleep and remain apathetic I couldn't care less.You obviously don't bother to read what is printed nor follow what is being said.The solution to your failure to comprehend is easy, simply identify yourself and lets have it out in a public forum and we will see who is the better informed.
DING BATS AND WIDGETS!
Posted on 02-09-2011 16:51 | By CRUMPY
What is obvious is that the likes of DREAMEY1 are just that, the only explanations for it are: completely devoid of any facts, evidence, clues and so on or on the TCC payroll, like spot a difference?
PARKING IS AN ISSUE !!!
Posted on 03-09-2011 10:06 | By PLONKER
To show you the importance to TCC and how much they understand anything ... they plan to build a car parking building to replace the Strand parking numbers six years after the parking is wiped out. Obvious from that is they expect the CBD to just shut down and wait for that to happen if ever? That is in the category of complete lack of understanding of what practically is needed when it is right under their nose!
CUSTOMERS
Posted on 04-09-2011 10:24 | By RASPUTIN
Like this is obvious: no parking = no customers = no sales = no business = no jobs = more out of CBD. End result ghost town!
CBD PLANNING ...
Posted on 06-09-2011 00:28 | By PLONKER
We all have to wear green trousers and jackets and ride a bike everywhere. Then of course car parks are no longer needed.
STOP THIS ROT
Posted on 06-09-2011 10:23 | By MINDER
Yes I agree an inexpensive passive green open space with a few trees and seating.Not the cluttered commercialised multi million dollar shambles that PRIORITY ONE a TCC pet parasite would foist upon us.Who is running the show Elected Members residents and rate-payers or the drones ?
GREENS SPACES
Posted on 06-09-2011 23:25 | By PLONKER
I want both parking and green spaces, and that can be done, how about painting the pavement green, then all are happy right.
BILL A BONG IS BETTER
Posted on 08-09-2011 16:42 | By CRUMPY
They are self sustaining and of course green as, weeds of course. Great stuff. Don't need to spend the money just let it happen. Could get a few of the boys from out back to get it started, make sure a few places to park the tractor when in town, she'll be right mate.
the truth
Posted on 09-09-2011 17:43 | By Secret Squirrel
The truth is that all these silly people need to realise that a promise given by a politician will always be subject to the No.1 rule of politics and that says "How do you tell if a politician isn't telling the truth?" Answer, The lips are moving! Everything else is subject to that, so what promise were you talking about?
Get Real
Posted on 14-09-2011 10:07 | By Becks
To all of the above,it is not the bars who will be dramatically affected by the loss of over 300 car parks but more the restaurants which cater for an older market of which we have the highest % per capita in NZ. It is called the CBD for a reason i.e Central Business District, the less parking in the CBD the more people will be forced away form the heart of the city which economically will be devistating. While we fully support the re-development of the water front area this is not a viable option at present. We have a history of making poor decisions (except Winstons Bridge) so need to proceed cautiously on this matter! @ HELEN rest assured the hospitality industry would love nothing more than the redevelopment of the strand but not at the cost of over 300 carparks!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.