1 / 26

St. Heliers Village: Residents' Beliefs and Preferences

This research report presents the findings of a study conducted by Incisive Consulting Group on behalf of the St. Heliers/Glendowie Residents Association and Save our St. Heliers. The report provides insights into the beliefs and preferences of St. Heliers Village present and future residents, with a focus on their views on the village's character, building guidelines, height restrictions, village development, and resident involvement in the planning process.

orphal
Download Presentation

St. Heliers Village: Residents' Beliefs and Preferences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. St Heliers VillagePresent and FutureResidents’ Beliefs and Preferences Prepared by Incisive Consulting Group Limited for St.Heliers/Glendowie Residents Association and Save our St Heliers.

  2. Research was designed to ensure credible results with a statistically significant sample which reflected the opinions and preferences of the resident population. A mix of qualitative and quantitative information was sought to provide both a generalizable and rich understanding of resident opinion. Questions were developed reflecting information needs with final wording determined by Incisive. 229 people were interviewed face-to-face across St Heliers, Glendowie, Kohimarama and Mission Bay areas using the questionnaire with primarily closed but also one open question. Questionnaires were also distributed to 8300 households in the St Heliers, Glendowie, Kohimarama and Mission Bay areas for self completion and return by mail or to the St Heliers Library. The total number of usable responses, including the face-to-face respondents, was 1611. Descriptive statistics were used as the basis for this report.

  3. Executive Summary • The very high response rate, the sheer number of responses, and the clear cut, decisive nature of residents’ responses indicates significant community concern for the village and its future. Future development is not opposed provided there are adequate restrictions on building so that the current character is preserved, that the community is consulted and that their voice is heard by decision makers.

  4. Key findings • Residents hold clear views on the village and its future and they want changes to the St Heliers village centre plan. • Residents want more input into the planning process and stronger building guidelines in place to protect the character of the village.

  5. The Village has special character • 92% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that St Heliers Village has a special character

  6. An overwhelming majority (92%) of respondents agreed or strongly 9.agreed that St Heliers Village has a special character. (5% disagreed.) 74% 18% Strongly Agree

  7. Building Guidelines 83% want stronger building guidelines in order to protect the character of the Village

  8. A large majority (83%) of respondents agreed that stronger guidelines on building style are required in order to adequately protect the character of the Village. (10% did not agree.) 66% 17%

  9. Height restrictions Over 80% want the height restriction lowered

  10. 83% respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the current 12.5m maximum building height permitted is too high. (16% considered it acceptable.) 83%

  11. More protection • 70% of respondents do not agree that current building restrictions adequately protect the character of St Heliers Village

  12. 70% of respondents do not agree that current building restrictions adequately protect the character of St Heliers Village. (11% agree.) 55% 15%

  13. Village plan • 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that all new development should be halted until a new Village Centre Plan has been formulated and agreed upon

  14. 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that allnew development should be halted until a new Village Centre Plan has been formulated and agreed upon.(15% did not agree.) 59% 16%

  15. Support village character • 92% agree or strongly agree that future development should support the existing Village character

  16. A very large majority (92%) agree or strongly agree that future development should support the existing Village character. (8% did not agree.) 77% 15%

  17. More involvement • 80% also disagreed with the notion that local residents do not need to be involved in the development approval process

  18. A large majority of respondents (80%) also disagreed with the notion that local residents do not need to be involved in the development approval process. (11% agreed.) 63% 17%

  19. Development allowed 84% agree or strongly agreed that as long as the character of the Village is preserved, future development should be allowed

  20. Most respondents (84%) agree or strongly agreed that as long as the character of the Village is preserved, future development should be allowed. (8% disagreed.) 67% 17%

  21. Verbatim Insights A very clear majority view emerges when analysing the quantitative data. The following three statements represent the majority of views expressed.

  22. Example 1 “While we need to preserve the character of the village, we also need to build for the future. St Heliers is a 'living village' that provides for the needs of the local community (library, butcher, bakery, post office, dentist etc) not a tourist destination to be preserved the way it is forever. However, it will improve the village atmosphere if St Heliers is developed in a uniform way, so I think having an overall plan like the Village Centre Plan is a great idea. We just need laws to ensure that everyone has to stick to the plan and more publicity so that everyone knows what the plan is”.

  23. Example 2 “[The] new three story building on Tamaki Drive […] is an absolute disgrace and should never have been approved by Council. The building is an eyesore and does not blend with the St Heliers Village character of small seaside village. Where was the public consultation? Aren't we paying Council rates each year to stop these types of poor designs from being approved? St Heliers Village is quickly going down the path of losing the very historical essence which attracted my family to living in this area in the first place.”

  24. Example 3 “More timely consultation with the community. No secret deals. No cheque book consents. Let's protect the unique character of what we have and build on it rather than destroy it. Make the council processes more transparent and accountable. Thank you for organising this survey.”

  25. Conclusions • Residents are in strong agreement that St Heliers Village has a special character • However, they do not believe that this character is protected by current building constrictions; nor are their views taken into account • Therefore, residents will strongly support future development being guided by a strengthened Village Centre Plan that preserves the special character of the Village

  26. Next steps • There are many good things about the existing plan • Missing main elements are: • lower height restrictions • style guidelines • an effective oversight committee • protections from attack by developers • Momentum for change is now supported by strong public opinion • Changes to the plan could be made without great expense or delay.

More Related