Khandallah - housing choice & town centre plan

Summary of feedback received

We received 483 submissions from individuals and organisations in the Khandallah community. These comprised of:

• 475 from Khandallah community members via the feedback forms either posted, completed online, or emailed to the Council
• 8 submissions from organisations (Archdiocese of Wellington (relates to St Benedict's School); Architectural Centre Inc; Jewish Care of the Aged Society; Khandallah Business Improvement District; Khandallah Cornerstone Resource Centre Trust; Khandallah Residents' Group; Public Health Association of NZ Inc.; Victoria University School of Architecture).

The main messages received from the public consultation are as follows:

• The overall response generally opposed introducing medium-density housing in Khandallah. However, where supported, the suggestion was to locate this around Khandallah Village and along public transport routes.
• More meaningful consultation is needed on the standards for medium-density housing. Responses lacked detail due to the broad questions. Provision of open space, restricting building height to two-storeys, and limiting the scale of individual developments were key responses.
• Submitters are concerned with new housing compromising Khandallah’s local character.
• Car parking is important and needs more consideration. Medium-density housing projects should provide off-street car parking.
• Khandallah Village’s character and atmosphere is highly valued and some submitters are worried what impact medium-density housing will have on this.
• The scale and character, along with the range of shops and services, are what submitters like most about Khandallah Village.

The main themes that emerged from the consultation highlight what submitters consider important, what’s worth continuing or what needs improvement in Khandallah’s residential areas and within Khandallah Village.

Medium-density housing themes

• Generally people do not believe that Khandallah is suitable for medium-density housing (MDH). The impact on existing residential character is a key concern.
• Where specified, the most accepted locations for MDH are around the town centre and along main public transport routes.
• Submitters question the demand for medium-density housing in Khandallah, given the relatively slow population growth in recent years.
• Two storeys is the preferred height.
• Housing design controls are important, such as setbacks, heights, open space provisions, access to sunlight, and noise controls.
• High-quality design and materials are necessary to ensure new housing fits the local context.
• Future housing should respect Khandallah’s existing character – a place-based design guide should be compiled to take account of Khandallah’s character.
• Neighbours' approval should be sought where medium-density housing goes up next to them.
• Design controls should be the same as - or no less stringent than - the existing standards.
• Khandallah’s well vegetated and green nature is important to the community and should be kept.
• Submitters are concerned about an increase in impervious surfaces.

Khandallah Village themes

• There is a good existing community atmosphere.
• The existing village character and scale is highly valued.
• The community would like to see improvements to the public realm within the village, including more seating, trees and plants.
• There is a good range of shops, facilities and services, and the majority of submitters want the Village to keep its current scale and form.
• Good access to the village, public transport. However, improvements to the pedestrian network are needed.
• Open space needs to be kept and, where possible, expanded.
• Traffic safety and the availability of kerbside parking in residential streets need to be investigated.

Responses to each question

Here’s more detail on the responses to each question.

Q. Where should medium-density housing development happen in your suburb?

Where stated, submitters generally preferred medium-density housing to be located within 5 minutes of Khandallah Village and/or public transport.

By the numbers

• 54% of submitters do not support medium-density housing (MDH) because they are concerned about character, lack of infrastructure capacity, and/or inadequate demand for medium-density housing in Khandallah.
• 18% of submitters do not support medium-density housing generally and in Khandallah, and gave no reason; nor did they specify where they do not want it to go.
• 17% of submitters support medium-density housing around Khandallah Village or the main public transport links.
• 9% of submitters support medium-density housing generally and in Khandallah, but did not specify where in Khandallah they would like it to go (this percentage includes some submitters who made neutral submissions, and indicated in general terms that MDH could be viable in Khandallah).

Q. What standards should we have to manage the design of medium-density housing?

Common themes identified from the wide range of responses:

• Two storeys is an acceptable building height.
• Privacy, sunlight access and noise restrictions are important.
• Setbacks, site coverage and insulation requirements are necessary controls.
• Medium-density housing needs to be high quality design and materials.
• New housing should align with Khandallah’s traditional character.
• An alternative form to “medium-density housing” is needed in Khandallah to meet the needs of changing households.
• Neighbours' approval should be sought where medium-density housing will go next to them.
• Keep existing vegetation and provide onsite open space within each development, preferably a private space with some acceptance of shared spaces.

The numbers

• 38% of submitters seek provisions for building designs to be consistent with the existing character, and some request a Khandallah-specific design guide.
• 38% of submitters see setbacks, site coverage, sunlight access, privacy, noise and height as key controls.
• 38% of submitters want quality design and types of materials included in the controls.
• 34% of submitters specifically sought controls to limit height to two storeys.
• 27% of submitters recommend medium-density housing should include or have access to outdoor private, green or garden spaces.
• 23% of submitters suggest design standards should only enable small scale developments, as an alternative to “medium density housing”.
• 14% of submitters suggested minimum-parking controls for new development, commonly saying to provide off-street parking.
• 10% of submitters suggest using the existing rules and controls to govern medium-density housing.
• 8% of submitters support building above two storeys, with most of those preferring a maximum of three storeys.

Q. What do you like most about your town centre?

Submitters noted that Khandallah Village should not be referred to as a town centre. Submissions identified a strong connection to the urban character and the community atmosphere of Khandallah Village. Many submissions also noted that the village is compact and walkable and well serviced by public transport connections.

The numbers

• 56% of submitters like the existing urban character and community atmosphere.
• 45% of submitters suggest Khandallah Village has a good range of shops, facilities and services.
• 19% of submitters think Khandallah Village is convenient (size and access are good, although parking is identified as an issue).
• 11% of submitters highlight they like that Khandallah Village is not overcrowded.
• 11% of submitters highlight they like the open spaces and green character around Khandallah Village (suggestions to enhance open spaces also made).
• 5% of submitters think Khandallah Village has good car parking. This is because of the free car parking.

Q. What are the most important issues for your town centre?

Parking and transport issues in and around Khandallah Village are noted as the main issues for the community. Many submitters also seek to maintain Khandallah Village’s distinct character and have concerns that a change in housing in the surrounding locale may alter this.

The numbers

• 33% of submitters noted parking issues. The safety of the angle car parks, and the general lack of car parks are particular concerns. A concern around lack of commuter car parks near public transport is regularly noted.
• 18% of submitters raised concerns about the local road/street network, mainly about parked cars clogging the narrow streets and creating safety and efficiency problems.
• 15% of submitters have concerns about the village’s future character. In particular, submitters note that Khandallah has a distinct identity and community vibe, which medium-density housing could compromise.
• 6% of submitters specifically mention existing shops need to be upgraded, and concern was expressed about ongoing viability of earthquake-prone buildings.  

Q. Are there any improvements you would like to see in your town centre?

• Primary improvements sought for the village relate to keeping the character; the parking and road network environment; shop diversity; and public area improvements.
• 33% of submitters sought recognition and preservation of the village character. 26% would like parking improvements. 14% of submitters would like road network improvements and traffic safety measures.

The numbers

• 33% of submitters would like the character and urban form of Khandallah Village maintained/enhanced to reflect its village appeal.
• The transport-related issues attracted a range of suggestions and solutions:
  • 26% would like the car parking improved
  • 14% want improvements to the road network
  • 6% want non-vehicular transport improvement
  • 3% would like public transport improvements
• 7% of submitters want open spaces kept and even expanded upon, including the facilities within these spaces.
• 6% of submitters would like the existing shops to be kept and/or upgraded. Some, submitters sought redevelopment of some shops/areas, while others simply sought cosmetic upgrades.
• 5% of submitters want improvements made to the public areas, including more seats, hanging flower baskets and trees and plants.
• 3% of submitters want pedestrian improvements. They suggested creating better footpath networks along streets next to the village, and improvements on Ganges Road.
• 2% want more shopping and retail diversity in Khandallah Village.

All submissions are public documents and any person may request a copy of any or all submissions.

Next steps

• On-going
  Council officers will continue to investigate issues raised in submissions, and will liaise with the Khandallah Rsidents Group and other residents who expressed a desire to be involved with the project. We will continue to liaise with local business and landowners to progress discussions about future development opportunities in the village centre.

Background

Wellington’s population is growing and people’s housing needs are changing. There’s a greater need for housing choice to cater for one- and two-person households, a growing demand for lower maintenance properties, and a trend for people to want to move into different housing types in their existing suburb. We also need a greater supply of affordable good-quality housing.

The Council has a responsibility to give the community what it needs and to make it possible for a variety of housing types to be developed.