Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee and the Newcastle/Brechin Neighbourhood Plan Recommendation
Ron Bolin: Feb. 16, 2011
Following a brief report on the proposed new zoning bylaw this afternoon, PNAC began the thankless task of deciding whether to forward a recommendation on the Newcastle/Brechin Neighbourhood Plan to Council. I say thankless because rather than there being a Newcastle/Brechin Neighbourhood Association, the plan was set before three associations, The Newcastle group, the Brechin Group and the Stewart Avenue Group, each of which has relatively –and I stress relatively- homogenous goals for itself which are at some odds with the others. And each of them seems to be rather vague about their membership and authority in representing their neighbourhoods beyond having been charged by Council to come up with a council formed by three representatives from each.The Brechin group seems to be made up largely of home owners who, living on the slopes over the Newcastle Channel, find their property values to be highly enhanced by the views which they currently enjoy looking out on the channel and Newcastle Island.
The Newcastle group seems to be made up largely of the owners of property which already contains a great number of rental properties and who would like to see further density in the area, much of which has already lost its views to existing development.
The Stewart Avenue group seems to be made of several land owners along the channel which see maximum value from their holdings to come from high-rise development along the waterfront. This, of course, would spell the end of the views for the Brechin group.
While they do form three separate interests, those of the Newcastle and Stewart Avenue groups are not in essential competition and thus agree on many points. This leaves the Brechin group swinging in the wind.
The fundamental problems in this venture stem first from the terrain involved which descends from the heights to the water and secondly to the differences in economic outlook to which this landscape circumstance have given rise: the desirable views from the heights on the one hand and the desirability of waterfront property on the other and their incompatibility in this instance. While it was never directly expressed, the tension in the room seemed to me to revolve around who would gain in the plan and who would lose, with very high stakes on both sides. I would venture to say that without a very strong demand from Council that only one organization be formed and that that group be mandated to come up with one negotiated plan in which all could come out ahead, this attempt was doomed to failure from the start.
By allowing these three groups to go their own way, it is not surprising that they did so. A suggestion that the plan be sent back to the reps of the three groups was rejected by at least one of the representatives and by PNAC. As might be expected, a great deal is riding on the waterfront properties. It was noted that the current OCP calls for a maximum of three stories in this area as well as the preservation of Nanaimo’s marine values. This necessarily raised the issue of whether it is within the prerogative of a Neighbourhood Plan, which represents the aspirations of a neighbourhood, to trump the OCP which represents the aspirations of the entire municipality. This question remains unanswered and Council will have to grapple with it along with those relating primarily to building height and neighbourhood density in the Plan as it comes to them.
In the end, after many losing votes on various shades of the matter, many if not most of them lost on tie votes, PNAC decided to send the Plan forward as approved, but with serious reservations in the matters of both height and density, thus throwing the baby back to Council with the proviso that the PNAC Chair explain the situation to Council. It could equally well have been a recommendation to deny with provisos for action.
To close on a higher note, PNAC members noted that there were a number of excellent suggestions that came along with plan. The Planning Department cannot be faulted for doing what they could with what I would call a doomed situation and can be applauded for their efforts in almost meeting a next to impossible challenge.
The challenge now is up to Council. We can all wish them luck. I am sure that they will hear from all those affected by the plan when it comes to them, presumably at the next Council meeting on Feb. 28.
We welcome comments to this blog in response to this report from participants or visitors at tonight’s meeting and from the public in general about the waterfront and the OCP or about the issues arising in this neighbourhood plan which did not exist in those done previously.
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
It should be noted that the PNAC committee was split evenly on their decision and Councilman Holdom decided in favour of the plan.
Also, the planning department did a very poor job for the city. Intelligent, responsible planners would have married the population projections to expectations. This would have provided a measure of security for property owners in Newcastle and Brechin Hill; allowing them to proceed with the renovations, and infill developments so needed. This would also compel property owners on the waterfront to tone down their development plans to be realizable. The solution for both group would have been to impose height restrictions. This would allow development to proceed at pace with growth. Now, we have a situation where the residents have little or no incentive to remodel or redevelop. And the waterfront owners have a condition similar to the cable bay developer, an artificially inflated value for their property that has no particular attraction to investors. Quite simply, the market is going to do the planning the planners should have done. Thanks to our planning department this city continues to eat itself.
I have lived on the southern periphery of the Millstone/yacht club neighbourhood for over ten years.
I attended the Jan. 2010 Newcastle/Brechin charrette. This is my personal/professional take on the proceedings . . .
Click to access Newcastle.Brechin.pdf
My experience at the charrette was not encouraging.
Enthusiastic neighbours waxed eloquently on walkability. My extensive walking experience that area shows negligible, not even in the two green ravines, of any pedestrian traffic, summer or winter: only wishful thinquing!
All pedestrian traffic is on the waterfront. Period!
A developer, proposing waterfront towers, was given full reign to present his case for an hour: the neighbours sat in silence.
My small group looked realistically at the ferry terminal, expecting, one day, it will follow thru with the original intention: i.e. relocate (before massive 2008 renovations), to Duke Point or Nanoose.
We proposed to develop wealth creating multi-use tourist/marine facilities and low-rise residential on Pimbury Point.
Nanaimo shipyard’s standing order to hi-rise its waterfront came up and was rejected.
That up-zoning has come up at least three times. So far a tanking condo market has kept it in abeyance.
In such circumstances, despite talk-fest charrettes, council and planners ignore the neighours (tax revenue being the governing factor). One day it will proceed.
There is room for towers, in Millstone, following what is there now, and on Terminal.
I have no trouble with the three groupings, (as arbitrarily prescribed by the planning dept.), so long as zoning recognizes tailor-made, neighbourly requirements unique to each.
Ron,thank you for this thoughtful analysis of the Newcastle/Brechin Neighbourhood plan.I found it very helpful when trying to identify the interests that lead to alliances and the obstacles that prevent agreement. In particular, I appreciated your point about the need to balance the aspirations of the neighbourhoods and the city as a whole.
Neighbourhood planning is seldom simple and as your analysis shows why the nuances of differing interests make it a more complex task than some would have us believe. Blaming staff is easy, finding a solution is much harder.
Yes, Diane, solutions are very hard to find. While I was working on an alternative to the city plan I was often reminded of the great and immortal words of Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want.” It is so hard for people to understand that ‘getting what they want’ is not the purpose of planning. But oddly enough, striving to make all our lives easier is the purpose of planning.
As for blame. God knows we are all at fault. This is about responsibility. What the city staff are doing is wrong. Wrong ethically, wrong professionally, wrong in every way that can be wrong. If they are not held to account for that, they will continue to commit these same wrongs. I can’t blame them for being wrong when they feel no downside to it, nor is there any incentive to be right.
What this so called ‘plan’ involves, at its black little heart, is taking something from someone and giving it to someone else, without compensation, or consideration. It’s degrading and demoralizing. This makes victims of an entire hillside community just to inflate the value of a few properties.
And those property values will continue to be inflated only as long as someone is willing to blow hot air at them. In other words, its not a sustainable inflation.
Its not about towers. The towers won’t be built until long after most of us are dead. That big gaping hole on Front Street should clue you into that fact. Consider how long it took to build the Pacifica Tower. And then city wants to build a hotel tower, and then a tower on Port Place mall. Do you really think two twenty plus towers on that polluted piece of crap we call the shipyard is going to happen anytime soon? Really?
The only thing that will happen for sure is that neighbourhood will be a little less secure. They are minus a support that allows them to achieve some measure of confidence and sustainability.
There was no balance achieved. All our time, effort and money is going into inflating the value of a few properties. I’m not saying that there isn’t opportunity there, but we are shovelling so much bullshit on it, nobody is going to want to reach in and grab it.
In the meantime we are forgetting the real value of a few hundred people, who are, no doubt, starting to feel lonely, powerless and defeated.
If you think this is anyway to build a city, you’re wrong too.
Roger: Thanks for sending the link to your take on Newcastle/Brechin. Your exposition was insightful and could be particularly useful if Council has their wits about them and sends the plan back for a new review with stricter guidelines. I am particularly afraid that the planning process here may be judged a failure and set aside. If this happens we go back to spot rezonings and the constant undermining of the unwary poor by very focused operators. If I lived in Newcastle or in Brechin I would do my damnedest to get a plan that would give me some stability, even if it isn’t everything I might want. I found your points about the access from the top of the ridge to the bottom to be particularly thought provoking.