Arts Hub Debate

Economic Benefits - Costs

Option 2

Residents supporting Option 2 emphasize the economic advantage of adapting an existing building for the arts hub, highlighting it as a cost-effective solution that avoids the higher expenses associated with new construction. They believe that utilizing an existing structure provides improved facilities and greater certainty regarding long-term operational costs, which is seen as a prudent financial decision. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment among the comments that this approach minimizes environmental impact and aligns with a preference for sustainable development practices.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
12.8	It is important to have a hub but does not need to be a new building. Possibly in the long term, if the growth and impact of this service requires a more suitable hub.
872.1	PAGE 37-38 ARTS HUB
894.8	Make use of an existing building while improving capacity for the arts in nelson sounds good, doesn’t seem worth it to build a whole new purpose built hub i think there are plenty of spaces in nelson that the arts hub could function from
931.6	This option seems to be the less impactful to the environment and perhaps the least expensive?
945.8	Overview: ‘Basic Assumptions’a) Climate Change: It was of some concern to see the LTP document subtitled“Beyond the Storm”, as if the recent storm events were an exception. However, onfurther reading I was pleased to see climate change is acknowledged as affectingour climate with the probability of more extreme weather events in and aroundNelson. The LTP does recognise the vulnerability of much of Nelson’sinfrastructure to the effects of weather; sea (coastal) and earthquake plus theprobability of regular on-going cost to repair; replace and upgrade infrastructure.This will be an increasing and on-going cost to NCC.b) Demographics: It was good to see the likely ageing population recognised (from21% to 26% over 65). This was stated to provide more on fixed incomes and howthat might affect rate increases. However, it did not make mention of how thatmay affect the housing needs. Older people generally look to downsize to smaller,easy-care dwellings such as apartments or units. This could/should free up largerhouse for younger couples? Plan Change 29 does make provision for this change.Plan Change 29 also states: “Enabling the intensification of development onland…………….that is not within areas potentially affected by significant naturalhazards” [My highlighting] This provision has certainly not hindered, to date, theproposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valley development in the Maitai Valley!c) Vested Assets: These are assets paid for by developers and vested to Council. Theassumption is that “vested assets will remain the same over the term of the plan”.However, is this an accurate assumption? I do not think so!Firstly it is agreed in the LTP that climate events are likely to be more extreme asin a) above. Will not this potentially INCREASE the maintenance of these latervested assets? I would say “YES”Secondly, this assumption makes no provision for the possible/probabledevelopment of Mahitahi/Kaka Valley during the term of the LTP. Thedevelopment area has steep slopes; and a flood-prone valley floor. Back-up waterfrom a large flood can be damaging enough, but stormwater if not contained onsteep slopes can cause serious damage to infrastructure, let alone down-streamdamage. This would all become NCC’s responsibility. It could even create aliability for buying-out houses if the damage was serious enough. Has this beenconsidered? I do not think so!Thirdly, there will be accelerated run-off from the hillside development inMahitahi/Kaka Valley. As we saw in Atawahai in the recent storm events (andpossibly other places) even with holding tanks in place, these only provide a shortdelay until overwhelmed by the water! And what of all the down-stream effects?Pollution; erosion and perhaps more serious flooding along the lower Maitai?Conclusion: I do not want to see NCC take over responsibility for a high-riskvested asset in the form of the proposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valleydevelopment. We have enough infrastructure at risk. Why take on more?The on-going cost is hard to predict, but it has been dismissed as “similar tocurrent” However other parts of the LTP acknowledge that extreme weather is anincreasing risk. As a ratepayer, I DO NOT want Council to take on more risk if theycan avoid it. That is not smart management in my view!I have objected to the proposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valley development from thestart. It is the wrong place for an intensive subdivision. It will not enhance thequality of life in Nelson/NCC ; it will in fact detract. The adverse impacts havebeen well-documented such that around 13,000 people have petitioned againstthe development.The storm events of recent times have highlighted the fragility of much of the NCCenvironment.One of the NCC’s Long Term Plans is to phase out commercial forestry from theland surrounding Nelson, and why is that? It was found that the land under pineforest was far more prone to slipping in heavy rain events than under nativeforest. (I was involved in one of the workshops where it was explained anddiscussed). Perhaps this suggests that for consistency, much of the Kaka Valleyshould be replanted into native forest?The Mahitahi/Kaka Valley is a development with very high-risk environmentalconsequences both during its development and once vested to Council. They areforeseeable risks that can and should be avoided. My understanding is that todate, the developers have not provided any modelling to analyse these risks, sohow can NCC simply “accept” that eventually the development will be vested toCouncil?I object to NCC being seen to support the proposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valleydevelopment by allocating funds to provide supporting infrastructure to this highriskdevelopment in a highly sensitive area of the Maitai River.Graeme Ferrier
1036.8	27 April 2024
1083.7	lets use some of the empty space we have. If we determine we need to build. Then that is also preferable.
1093.8	Utilize buildings that are already standing.  Stop spending on new builds.
1263.5	But please be mindful of wasteful spending in doing so, who ever has this portfolio!
1390.8	Comment:
1484.1	Please see attached submission