Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's Unitary Plan befuddlement
146 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Short response by council: http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2016/02/council-busts-unitary-plan-myth/
-
Marc C, in reply to
Thanks for that, I listened to the audio track on RNZ, and I cannot accept Penny Hulse's dishonesty, or misleading response (close to 18 min. into the interview or track), where she is asked by Lynn Freeman re the MHU (Mixed Housing Urban) zone. Penny goes on and talks about people in areas like Glendowie still being able to do what the legacy plan allows, and mentions building up to two storeys high. Now, we all know by now, that the MHU zone allows up to three storeys or 11 metres in structures. Why does Penny Hulse mislead the listeners and talks about only two storeys, when according to the new rules and zoning up to three storeys will be allowed. Those that do not know these details will feel misled by her, once they will be confronted with the new realities.
And she suggests that residents affected by out of scope up-zoning should contact and join groups like Auckland 2040 to be enabled to have their say, as Auckland 2040 is a major submitter and can take part in the hearing. She leaves out the fact that any evidence and hearing contribution is limited to the scope of the original submission of a submitter. So how does this address the concerns of those that have issues with the recently presented up-zoning by Council?
And yes, Generation Zero and some others submitted for wider intensification and zoning, but did not specify this for geographical areas as far as I am aware. So their submission being used by Council as a justification to up-zone areas that were not so under the notified AUP is also questionable.
It will be up to the Panel to make the hard decision re what to rule in or out, while still following natural justice principles. As I have followed the hearings, I am under the impression that the Panel is not quite as independent as we are made to think, in their majority they seem to favour what Council proposes, that is more and wider intensification through expanding zones for MHU and also by having no or less density rules for MHS zoned areas.
Their Interim Guidance shines light on how the Panel and its chair think, and it seems to support more rezoning. It will be very interesting to see their recommendations in July.
-
Marc C, in reply to
What a weak explanation, of course the re-zoning is not yet final, it is part of newly proposed evidence that Council presented. But that means they have with their evidence re-zoned properties. So this is playing with arguments what re-zoning may mean, is it only proposed or final, and this does not change the fact that many property owners were not given a chance to submit re the proposed changes. Of the 4,000 submission points that are mentioned, I wonder, what percentage was supportive of up-zoning and what for down-zoning, and how many submitters - not submission points, were supportive or opposed.
Yet it is right, Council notified the earlier prepared plan, and during the hearing is also a submitter, a technical legal separation, with blurred lines, I feel. It is still the Council that made the earlier notified plan, and it is Council proposing more changes in zoning, the same authority that is. In the end they will firmly be in the driver's seat to accept or not accept the Panel's recommendations.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I am under the impression that the Panel is not quite as independent as we are made to think, in their majority they seem to favour what Council proposes
I see the panel having to reconcile the proposed detail with the overall established intent of the Auckland Plan. Some of their conclusions will support council's submissions and some will oppose them. Panel not liable, and seasoned practitioners by the looks. Council then gets to decide which recommendations to accept or reject (and risk appeals).
I heard Penny Hulse being quite realistic about that process.
-
Orsman reports more councillors backing down on intensification before tomorrow's meeting (warning: contains Orsman).
-
There is right now a discussion on the Daily Blog, where 'Waatea 5th Estate' is live streaming, and Penny Hulse, Richard Burton and one other person are talking with Martyn Bradbury about the Unitary Plan and recently raised issues. I think there will be a downloadable version on that blog later on.
-
Metro's Simon Wilson offers a great clear summary of the twisted process accompanied by an open letter to Councillors before tomorrow's meeting.
-
Looks like Bernard is right about tomorrow's vote:
Councillors plan to remove council submissions from UnitaryPanel hearings on zonings. Good move guys, leave it to Govt to rezone. # owngoal
Far from usual wording from our Deputy Mayor - that's pure frustration.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Well, well, Simon Wilson has been supportive of the Auckland Plan and also of much what Generation Zero and some others want. So there are no surprises. He seems very worried but also passionate about what Council has proposed as the submitter, without allowing for sufficient consultation. He realises the natural justice issues. We can continue going on about that, we know the arguments from both sides.
As for his claim of “us” and “Aucklanders”, well, maybe we need to remember how many people bothered voting in 2010 and 2013, and how many of those voted for Len Brown and for his vision for Auckland. If I remember it was roughly half of those entitled to vote that bothered in 2010 and about 36 percent in 2013.
A sustainable Auckland would cover less area as it does now, and perhaps contain its population at what it is at present, given unresolved future water supply. But no, the Auckland Plan wants growth, that is growth in population, up and out, and pushing the limits and testing the sustainability of natural resources. Private enterprise developers will enjoy the construction and real estate selling boom, of units, apartments, terraced houses near centres and transport hubs, and of course single dwellings with or without attachments on suburban sections. Prices will not come down, as long as the population growth is not outpaced by building dwellings.
Where will the money come from? It will be borrowed from overseas owned banks, it will be coming from more returning and new migrants that have access to cash or bank deposits, and those that can now not afford homes will not be any better off at all, as nothing really affordable will be built.
The government cannot let home and unit prices drop, as that would create a fiscal and economic disaster, like a bubble that bursts, so face the stark reality, all growth will not really lead to improvements for those it is meant to deliver more affordable homes for.
And the central government wants to sell more Housing NZ land and properties, wonderful?!
-
Also the next tweet from Hulse where she blames the whole thing on the HNZ submission requesting massive upzoning.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the Auckland Plan wants growth
Again, population growth in Auckland is going to happen, whether we plan to cope with it or not. We have decades of evidence of what ignoring it results in. Time to grow up and plan ahead properly.
-
Transportblog notes the potential, if councillors wimp out today, for government agencies to prevail at the hearings panel and achieve higher densities than Council proposed. That's the 'own goal' Hulse referred to.
There's also the possibility that if councillors prove they aren't leaders, govt may just replace them like they did with ECan.
-
RNZ's Todd Niall says today's meeting will not end well, whatever happens.
-
Marc C, in reply to
It is allowed to happen due to central government failures (liberal immigration policy to maintain quantity based economic growth by simply increasing the population and by not developing other regions). To simply give in to such irresponsible laissez faire BS is a weak justification for having to do all this.
If this is continued to be allowed for years into the future, prepare for Auckland to hit the 5 million population , as there will be no shortage of people from an impoverished, increasingly polluted and overpopulated planet wanting to come here for better opportunities and whatever else. That is on top of also unsustainable natural growth.
You seem to be happy to fund a 3 billion plus desalination plant at some time, it seems.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Yes, future population is a government concern. Stop acting as if the council is *engineering* growth, is all I ask.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
You seem to be happy to fund a 3 billion plus desalination plant at some time, it seems.
Probably better it is state owned than paying market rates for privately owned desalinated water in the future... needs must!
I noticed in The Big Short that one of the key players now only invests in water related enterprises, and here in Chchch we are still denied any democratic input to Ecan's governance of our water resources, but in a sop to their Treaty obligations the Government has guaranteed Ngai Tahu two seats on the regional council.
-
Looking more and more like the revised plan and the out of scope changes were done to address the Housing NZ submission for spot re-zoning all over the place.
No mention of the IHP directing the Council to intensify more at all from John Duguid
This from Bob Dey
http://www.propbd.co.nz/plan-staff-put-5-options-on-rezoning-maps/
Tweet from Penny Hulse last night
@BenRoss_AKL Commissioners r not The issue. Govt submissions from HNZ v bullish and request huge up zoning. We will be cut out of discussion
It would interesting for someone with the skills and time to overlay the Blue Out of Zone changes with a map of all the spot re-zoning requests from HNZ.
-
Also specific mention in the 5 options presented to Councillors of the Housing NZ submission.
-
"Auckland Council votes against housing density changes"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11594924
I went there out of interest and followed discussions until close to 5pm. It was clearly stressed by most speakers, this was about process, not about intensification, heights and other issues, and so did the Mayor.
Various groups and some board members and councillors spoke, and there were of course diverse, contrary views. It was good this meeting was held, as it allowed the air to be cleared. The critics made clear, that in their view Council and their planners made a mistake and should front up to having proposed up-zoning at too late a stage in the hearing, without proper consultation. Many felt a plan change was more appropriate to achieve what they may have sought.
Younger representatives, also Generation Zero, stressed their concern about affordable housing, also of choice, and that was ok, but not really the issue to address.
So there must have been a lot of soul searching among some Councillors, and also considerations re future elections, hence the result.
The arguments by Council's representatives were nothing more than legal gymnastics, trying to stretch legal considerations, which made little sense. They should have gone about it differently, now they have to redraw their position and evidence, I suppose that they will feel a bit demoralised, having been put into their territory.
But all the claims that this would be a disaster are far fetched nonsense, as the hearing will go on, as stated positions and most evidence will stand, and will have to be weighed up by the Panel, who will have the final say as to what to recommend. Then it is back to Council anyway, and it will be interesting what will be accepted and what not, and how it will go from there.
It was in my view a bit rich of Council planners and representatives to try and argue that there was a legal remedy against what they proposed, should submitters not like it. They tried to suggest piggy backing on other submitters, which was nonsensical as evidence deadlines for the relevant topics expired by 10 Feb., and as there are disagreements as to whether out of scope new submission or evidence points may be considered anyway. Auckland 2040 made clear, they would not feel that they would be able to represent those that may at this stage want to raise issues and present evidence, due to lack or resources, and some legality concerns.
Also the explanation by Council that submitters or affected residents that were feeling they were not being heard, to go to the Environment Court, was received with contempt and anger, as few felt that they would have the resources to do this.
So we will have to see where this goes to from here.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Funny that, Penny Hulse sending that to Ben Ross, author of this post. He consulted Council on various occasions, has himself asked for very high levels of intensification and rezoning, particularly in Manukau, and seems to have some vested interests.
The whole hearing process, and the position of some Councillors, deserve to be more scrutinised, as to who is linked up with whom and who bears what kinds of interests in all this.
Of course Penny Bright raised her concerns, the "anti corruption campaigner".
-
What seems saddest is that we actually have some committed intelligent informed young folk willing to contribute to the future of our city
and then that happens to themI know Gen zero and transportblog are not strictly political organisations but personally this old white male would happily tick every fricken box beside a list of their candidates.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.