A Warning to The North Shore and Eastern Suburbs on Feedback to The Unitary Plan

I continue my jet setting around the city sitting in and observing community meetings on the Unitary Plan a.k.a The Clunker. Last night I was in St Heliers observing the proceedings and to be honest I was simply appalled at that meeting. I am sorry Councillor Brewer (although please do announce whether you are running for mayor or not), Desley and Simon but; while I give Desley absolute credit for her efficient chairing style (something the late Maggie Thatcher would have been proud of) that meeting left me sour. And to go further from the reactions on Facebook and Twitter last night and this morning, St Heliers might has just pissed off a very good portion of the city as well – our youth which I am one!

I will pass comments on why I found last nights meeting appalling through my warning to St Heliers shortly but first I did pick up some universal themes that are coming from right across the city. They were:

1. The Unitary Plan if notified in September as planned will not come into operative effect until 2016. Basically we are left in the lurch until then planning wise with the legacy plans in current operation
2. Terrace Housing and Apartments are still causing confusion. I made this point apparent in my recent “BACK FROM CIVIC FORUM” post and will make that point clear again here below.
3. Still seeing over intensification in town and local centres. Again I have covered this before and will be putting it in my submission to the Unitary Plan on scaling down the building heights in some centres
4. There is constant discussion on ‘What is Character?’ What is it? Is it static, does it change, should it change, and is all this a case of geographic ‘Place setting’ (which is a social construction)
5. Transport and Infrastructure, how will it cope with development over the next 30-years
6. And for those who think a bit more beyond their patch (South and West Auckland are good at this – probably because this affects them more) the consequences of the Rural Urban Boundary

These six aspects that keep coming up are fascinating and keep me busy in thinking (and writing) how does the city and the Unitary Plan deal with all the above. My Unitary Plan commentary often looks at these six aspects as well as treat them as framework in my Unitary Plan submissions and dialogue.

However while I would love to talk to death of those six aspects we have a problem from the North and East of Auckland. This problem brings me to a very stark warning to these communities as you through the Unitary Plan discussions so far have royally pissed off around one-third of the city at the minimum. This one-third consists mainly of our young professionals, parents, and youth (so those under 30-35) from across the city, but also in some cases (in right across the age brackets) those of South and West Auckland (and I am from South Auckland). The feedback I am seeing on Twitter and Facebook would basically prove that anger from this one-third of the city and I warn our civic leaders to pay attention REAL CLOSELY!

This brings me to the St Heliers meeting last night and why I was so appalled. I have made two comments so far in regards to this but I do note the following: My comments are reflective of the general situation and mood in regards to the Unitary Plan from The Shore and the Eastern Suburbs. I know there are individuals (Desley, Simon, Jan O’Conner, Calum Penrose, Angela Dalton, and countless others I haven’t named here) are doing their absolute best with the Unitary Plan feedback session in what is basically a “shit-hand” dealt to them – all things considered. This is not an easy exercise for our representatives nor individuals, families and businesses within our city. Believe the UP is taking a toll on me rather than Auckland Transport for once as it is not the best hand I have been dealt with either. But we all must hang in there together and united although our opinions might be different. United we stand for divided we shall fall! And I tip my hat to you individuals as actual true civic leaders here. I will pass note of our Deputy Mayor as well; Penny must have the worse job under the sun here being the UP lead. Admittedly she might not make things easy herself with some comments I have noted but I have to ask, if she is not the lead – then will YOU take the lead? Me personally – sorry pay me $100k for this exercise and I might consider it as I would be going on a nice holiday after all this – the batteries would just need to be recharged from this exercise.

So  my two comments serving as stark warning to the North Shore and more specifically the Eastern Suburbs

In regards to The North Shore – the warning is not as stark as what I am about to tell the Eastern Suburbs but I can not stress enough with these community meetings that you: must allow the Deputy Mayor to speak even if you hate her guts, and that alternatives people – where are your alternatives. The council officers are taking notes on the meeting feedback that the planners will consider – when an actual question or alternative is put forward rather than a personal attack.

So for the North Shore:

• Jan O’Connor Ben, what are your grounds?

   

  • Ben Ross NIMBYism and the comment I caught from Cathy Odgers (Cactus Kate). These community meetings do not seem to be representing a wider Auckland well. Twice already I have been to Shore and Eastern suburb meetings and I have lowered the average age of the room by at least half (although Milford was somewhat better as I did see younger professionals and mums – but NOT ENOUGH). St Heliers I lowered the age in there by about 2/3 and from feedback I am seeing St Heliers might have just and annoyed the youth section of our city.

    
    What I am not seeing is no one in the community (Local Board members don’t count if they suggest it first) and in these meetings are alternatives. Doing nothing because we dont want change is not an option. Where are the alternatives? In Milford I had already thought out at least three alternatives taking into account concerns on the height at the Town Centre. I even demoted Milford from a Town Centre to a Local Centre (using the UP definitions) which means the maximum Milford would face is either 3 storeys if you went with my Medium Density One Zone, or 4-5 storeys if you went with my Medium Density Two zone alternatives.
    
    But as with Cactus Kate and I agree, all I am seeing from these community meetings is people thinking about their little patch and not the entire city. For heavens sake the UP affects us ALL and patch thinking will get you rail roaded from people like myself go regional and think regional in our submissions.
    
    The UP is a regional document and has regional consequences. If I knock 8 storeys out of Milford I have to go place the people somewhere else and I am not willing to go beyond 160,000 homes in the greenfield zones at the moment.
    
    This is my warning to the North and East. Either give a viable alternative that also encompasses regional aspects or prepared to be pushed aside from had put forward that alternative that encompassed the region
    
    I will hate to see Milford stare down its first loss through the UP from someone in South Auckland pushing through a viable alternative the majority of the city agreed with

     
  • Jan O’Connor Ben, of course, a lot of people in Milford are older. The greatest change to Milford came when cross lease sections were introduced in the early 60s. The Franchi & Ion flats suit older people very well. There are hundreds of them around, on the flat, near the shops, no staris, no corporate body fees or leaky homes. Penny Pirritt said her parents lived in one. 20 years ago the Milford people rose up in anger at a packed meeting when the NSCC District Plan was introduced. On enviromental grounds alone more intensification doesn’t stack up-there is one only main arterial in and out-Shakespeare (it is at the western end of this high-rise is suitable), stormwater? Two options onto Milford Beach or into the Lake,. few parks, no community facilities!! How was this draft plan allowed to become so intensive? The two Nth Shore politicians who were on the Political Working Party I am sure will answer this. O

     
  • Ben Ross Yes, Councillor Ann Hartley do need to answer this properly. Although I am not amused with Ms Hartley at the moment due to Port of Auckland but that is another issue.George Wood needs to apply maximum pressure to Hartley in this regard then because there seems to be some odd things happening here against the will of locals and the city

    
    I drove through Milford for an hour before that Milford meeting last week to check the place out to see what you were in for. I can see 8 storeys will NOT work in the slightest for the Town Centre. This is why I suggested maybe 4 storeys for the Town Centre of Milford and 3 storey Terrace Housing and Walk-Up apartments immediately flanking the Milford Town Centre (no more than 1 or two streets over). This idea is much smaller in intensification that what is proposed and should not overburden the infrastructure in place. You would get at most 1,000 new residents to which I can hear someone say “What about Parks”
    
    I have no answer to that, that is something Milford needs to work out.
    As for the rest of Milford, just because it got zoned Mix Housing means it will happen. The Development Levies would be too high to try any thing for at least ten years. Myself I just got rezoned from single house to mixed housing here in Papakura. I am trying to get my head around that at the moment so I can understand Milford
    
    But I must stress this again and again, when there is a community meeting with planners and councillors present: present an alternative and have a debate with yourselves on it in a civilised manner. No alternative means you are vulnerable to someone else from else where in the city imposing a will you might not like
    
    In my submission I am going to request Milford be downgraded to a Local Centre (from a Town Centre) and be rezoned for Low and Medium 1 densities. This allows some intensification but nowhere near as much as what is currently proposed

As for the Eastern Suburbs this is my warning in a comment I sent to the Deputy Mayor.

It is the same as the one I gave to Milford above but with this also added:

• Penny Hulse Sorry Ben, had to leave at the end of the meeting as I had an early start today…. Good to have comments from someone like you who is looking at the regional issues.

   

  • Ben Ross

    I am doing my best trying to comment and cover both local and the regional issues and both are interdependent to each other. But I am going to pass this comment which will irk the North Shore and Eastern Suburbs to an extent but this is how I see it and from Twitter this morning the Youth (under 30 or even 35) are seeing it.

    
    

    
    
    It is in my opinion more got done with the planners at the Manukau Civic Forum last Saturday which I noted your presence at. While I would love those meetings to go for 6-8 hours, those forums seem to be more interactive and more willing to work on alternatives and solutions with the UP as it is not only for their home, but right across the city.
    
    I would recommend Council divert its efforts back to these Civic Forums – they seem to me more productive in getting through any large realistic changes on the UP. 
    
    And in saying this I am not going to be the most popular person out east or north for a while – but if that matters. What matters is my city more than ever and I will be writing a post on this today
    
    Chin up, this is rough will be rough. But the city can get through this

This photo might allude to the perception here of an imbalance:

That is my warning. And as I said many times above a good proportion of the city just got extremely annoyed from St Heliers. For further irony it also seems our under 35’s and those from southern and western Auckland when they do get going in a debate, will reflect on their local community but will also spend a considerable amount of time debating the consequences to the region as well. Quite interesting actually. The point I am making that Auckland is all of our city, not just one particular community’s out east somewhere. We see things often differently and we also inherit the city from you as well. So bear that in mind when submitting to the UP. A comment I saw from a particular individual on Facebook last night who could not even get his immigration verses natural births figures right illustrated a degree of selfishness in thinking it was his city and not mine. It is both our city and you best be reminded of that as we take it forward for the next thirty years. But his comment is reflective of my warning to the North and East.

This is me signing off from a rant but just remember – it is not all about you! It is about ALL OF US in shaping Auckland

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND