Hmmm…

 

For once it is not Orsman doing a piece on the Unitary Plan in the Herald. Meaning I might get a 10% chance (rather than a -100% chance with Orsman (although his last three articles were actually quite good (although did he actually write them or take his meds prior))) of it being balanced (to a degree we allow the media in some sway here).

This article from the NZH today: “Belmont intensification ‘madness’” has three themes running today. The first theme is an embed of a NewstalkZB interview on the Unitary Plan with Leighton Smith and the Prime Minister. The second theme was on Belmont, the UP and a surprising admission. The third theme was one I call ‘From the Files of the Loon Bin.’ The Loon Bin theme was also addressed by the Prime Minister in his ZB interview as well.

The First Theme

The Prime Minister was questioned on aspects of the Unitary Plan by Leighton Smith. The interview trundled along well enough looking at aspects of the Unitary Plan. Points made by the Prime Minister were:

• Recognise Brownfield and Greenfield urban development will happen
• People will choose to live in apartments
• Three year formal notification period
• We are not China thus will not cap growth (ties into the third theme)
• Auckland essentially has critical mass behind thus will attract growth – something I mentioned here: “Growing Up“
• Been concerns from the leafy suburbs of Auckland (North and Isthmus) – but Leighton Smith did point out correctly Papakura from the South with us facing down 18 Storeys being a Metropolitan Centre under the UP.

Just a note from the above: WILL PEOPLE STOP FORGETTING SOUTH AND WEST AUCKLAND PLEASE WITH THE UNITARY PLAN DEBATE. AUCKLAND DOES EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH SHORE AND CENTRAL ISTHMUS… SHESH… 

As for the Second Theme – Belmont

I recommend going and reading the article “Belmont intensification ‘madness‘” to see some interesting insights there. In short Belmont being constrained where it is with only one two-lane road in and out of the area (and serving Devonport as well) makes the area not suitable for much intensification. Even if Auckland Transport was bold and manage to get Lake road to be a 2 lane road with the shoulders allowing a high frequency (10 minute) buses on their own bus lanes, Belmont could support nothing more than a Local Centre (three storeys under my alternative) with surround areas classified as Low Density under my alternative to the UP:

• Low Density Zone: Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small-scale infilling as well). This also includes three storey super large houses with 5-8 bedrooms at the discretion of the Local Board through its Area Plan

What was more interesting was this admission made in the article:

It was possible the whole of the Belmont sector could be rezoned depending only on planners’ exercise of discretion in favour of a developer.

“No neighbour’s consent is required and there is no right of appeal to the decision,” Mr Keenan said. “We consider that to be undemocratic and abhorrent to us.

“I was 35 years in legal practice and a lot of my client were developers. I can tell you from experience: do not repose the character of our communities in the hands of the developers. It’s a very bad idea.”

Food for thought when you get ready with your formal submissions on the Unitary Plan at the end of the year.

As for the Third Theme which the Prime Minister commented on in his interview:

In East Auckland, Tamaki Housing Group spokeswoman Sue Henry took to the council 673 submission forms collected from residents.

“A lot of the forms have still not come back,” she said.

“We strongly object to the Unitary Plan proposal of uprooting existing communities and enforcing multistorey intensified slums on residents.

“We want Auckland’s growth capped and intensification proposals scrapped in their entirety, because there is a better way of doing it.”

Using the word “slums” will have me disinterested straight away. Despite some dodgy developments over time, Auckland does not have slums and will not be going down the path towards slums. So using the ‘slum’ term is hyper-sensationalist!

As for capping growth; what the PM said in his interview and what I say all  along. We are not Communist China. We are a Western Liberal Democracy and as such growth is going to always occur. I would recommend to Sue Henry to read my “Growing Up” post as Auckland is no longer a backwater village – but, an international city! I also see she put no alternative forward (although did the Herald leave it out).

So the Herald article? Balanced compared to what can be trotted out

Unitary Plan Feedback is due May 31, make sure you get yours in if you want a say on how your city, your home will develop over the next 30 years.

TALKING AUCKLAND