Category: Politics

The Politics behind the issue or of the day

Criticisms Towards the Council

·

Observers are noting increased Criticisms

 

budget

Note: This does not include reaction to the Air Quality debate as any resentment should be directed at Government where the order came from – not Council who are simply complying with central legislation

It was brought up in conversation over the Long Term Plan that criticisms and resentment towards the Council seems to be more naked, concentrated, and getting rather well-informed than the usual junk you can see often being flung. What makes the criticism more concentrated and naked is that once residents understand how the rating system works they hone their criticisms rather sharply back at the Council. So is such criticism warranted towards the Governing Body or is the City over reacting to the large and wider situation at play.

My own reaction (in-lieu of the discussion) was:

The City is openly critical for three reasons

  1. City Building – not seeing it unless you are in the City Centre or a community getting cut backs (85% of Auckland)
  2. People just want to be left alone, live, work play in a decent city without being rated to hell in back
  3. And the Council (that includes Auckland Transport, and Auckland Council Property Limited) perceived to be well, tone-deaf

 

What is fuelling the criticisms along is the 21 Local Boards send a sharp letter to the Mayor as we can see here: Local Boards Fire Shot Over Mayor’s Bow

If you are looking for a Councillor’s sharp criticism – with me replying back twice then I leave you this from Councillor Chris Fletcher:

Endless meetings and workshops are being held in a desperate attempt to reconcile the Mayor’s 10 year budget with Auckland’s community aspirations. The public were sold a pup during the unitary plan process. It did not duly consider the cost of meeting infrastructure investment with population growth. Furthermore planners were working on a different set of data from infrastructure providers. Now in desperation we are trying to ration sparse resources to ensure we can meet our responsibilities. This has translated into an unacceptable proposal to cut parks and sports investment by nearly 40% over the next 10 years. All of this could have been avoided if there had been leadership in managing the statutory processes bringing policy and funding together in the Auckland Plan, LTP and Unitary Plan.

  • Ben Ross Yes and No Councillor Fletcher. The Central Government can ware some of the blame through the statutory time frame set to the Unitary Plan as well as being too hands off unlike their New South Wales, Victorian, and Queensland counterparts as seen here: https://voakl.net/…/queensland-gets-it-right-auckland…/As for Council well I have seen the Mayor’s 10 Spatial Priorities being floated around. If funding is so limited then wouldn’t be wise to focus on those 10 Spatial Priorities. After five years we move onto another ten and so on and so on.

    Alternative sources of funding have been pointed out to the Council to supplement the rates stream also seen here:https://voakl.net/2014/10/21/questions-around-land-sales/ (you were absent Councillor – I believe at the late Mark Ford’s funeral?) More can be seen here:https://voakl.net/…/the-reaction-to-my-presentation-to…/

    The alternatives and way forward is all there for the Governing Body, whether the Governing Body advances into the 21st Century in thinking, planning and having to go outside the box is yet to be seen

    • Christine Fletcher It is totally irresponsible to commit to new developments knowing we are unable to care for our existing infrastructure with renewals etc. Council should have staged the unitary plan, carefully rolling it out in an orderly and financially sustainable manner with social and physical infrastructure in place. I am absolutely sure government would have supported this process if the issue had been properly presented to them.
    • Ben Ross I would safely the say the Government knows very full well what is going on otherwise the Environment Minister would not be approving SHA’s in North West Auckland (If Adams and now Smith were doing their jobs properly that is).

      Furthermore on that assumption the Government has no appetite to stage any part of the Unitary Plan otherwise the 2016 deadline would have been kicked to say 2018. Procedural Minute 10 from the Hearings Panel also gives weight to that the MofEnviron is again aware but choosing not to intervene in any great measure.      The Ministry for the Environment is about to use a senior analyst to review the Unitary Plan Hearings Processes thus far. What the review will find and whether the Government will intervene from that is yet to be seen.

      All said if the Minister and Ministry have no idea what is really going on since the Unitary Plan went out for notification then what the heck was in their submission and what are they honestly doing that does not involve blinkers.

      Impetus now lays with the Minister

 

Seems Central Government might be partly to blame for where we are if we take both the Unitary Plan and Long Term Plan in account.

 

So are the critiques too harsh, too soft, or about right as we come to the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan – the Council’s master budget document?

 

Calls for Balance on the Cultural Impact Assessments

·

Council calls for balance in-lieu of a public meeting by a protest group tomorrow

 

From Auckland Council

Cultural impact assessments: balance needed

 

“Protecting Auckland’s cultural heritage is a key part of Auckland Council’s job but so is making sure consent applicants don’t find themselves tied up in unnecessary red tape,“says Roger Blakeley, Auckland Council’s Chief Planning Officer.

“There is always a balance to be struck.”

Dr Blakeley was responding to public debate about the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions concerning mana whenua including a public meeting tomorrow organised by the group Democracy Action.

He says the rules in the proposed Unitary Plan regarding sites of significance or value to mana whenua were brought in following feedback the council had received on the draft plan asking for more protection for cultural sites and places.

The Unitary Plan hearings process is now underway and the Independent Hearings Panel will review the rules as people have their say.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) provides greater emphasis on the consideration of Mana Whenua values, establishing a framework for Auckland Council and Mana Whenua to work together.

It contains a range of provisions relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, intended to meet the council’s broad obligations under the Resource Management Act.

“In the meantime, we need to keep focusing on a balanced, workable approach. The ‘Cultural Impact Assessment’ that critics have been complaining about isn’t new – it’s been around for years.”

It is currently required in a very small number of cases where a property is near a site that is of value or significance to mana whenua and involves changes that could potentially impact those sites. This can include, for example, former burial sites or pa sites.

In the last six months, Auckland Council has processed over 6000 resource consents and less than 200 of them (3%) triggered a possible assessment. There have been 50 site visits and 12 cultural impact assessments formally requested in that time. 

“As a council we’ve worked closely with iwi to find ways to minimise the impact on landowners and have introduced a facilitation service to simplify the process.

“This involves the council contacting iwi on behalf of the applicant, and the iwi will say whether an assessment is needed. Most people are taking advantage of the facilitation service.

“There is a misconception that these assessments involve some kind of veto from iwi. They don’t. They are about iwi providing expert advice. The council takes that expertise into account, but it is the council that makes the decision.

“While we continue working towards the right balance, it’s good to remember just how important protecting our Māori heritage is to Aucklanders – including recent arrivals who really embrace this aspect of their new home. It is our point of difference in the world. Like other global cities, we want to retain our heritage, as an important part of our culture and identity.”

—-Ends—-

 

Quoting again: In the last six months, Auckland Council has processed over 6000 resource consents and less than 200 of them (3%) triggered a possible assessment. There have been 50 site visits and 12 cultural impact assessments formally requested in that time. 

 

Key to Look at the RMA Reforms

·

Reaching Out

 

From Scoop Business Desk

Key confirms review of most contentious RMA reforms

Monday, 6 October 2014, 1:58 pm
Article: BusinessDesk

Key confirms review of most contentious RMA reforms

By Pattrick Smellie Oct. 6 (BusinessDesk) – Prime Minister John Key has made his most explicit comments since the election that contentious reforms to the Resource Management Act will be reviewed and may not proceed.

Key appointed Nick Smith to the environment portfolio in his new ministry announcement today, returning him to a role previously held by Amy Adams.

Speaking to BusinessDesk after the Cabinet announcement today, Key said he expected Smith to “go away and have a very good look at” proposals to reform the RMA, which would have led to the merging of two crucial clauses, Sections 6 and 7. These clauses define the “sustainable management” principle in Section 5 of the RMA. Adams had led proposals to collapse the two interpretive clauses into one and to add economic development elements that would balance up environmental considerations.

Environmental groups and opposition parties were alarmed by the proposals, which stalled in the last Parliament after the United Future and Maori parties refused to back them. While the National party could count on the one vote available from the Act party to pass the proposals in the new Parliament, Key is signalling a willingness to hear alternative approaches, making good on commitments he made to environmental lobby leaders before the Sept. 20 election.

“The concern that the environmental agencies and lobby groups have made is a real concern about that merger of 6 and 7,” said Key. “The question is: do you need to merge 6 and 7 to deliver the outcomes that you want? There’s quite a mixture of views. Some people think it’s actually quite possible for us to not merge 6 and 7, allay some of the concerns of the environmental groups, and still deliver.”

Greater use of National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards, which are already provided for in the existing RMA, is being proposed as a simpler alternative. It would also avoid the potential for years of litigation to establish new case law around substantially changed RMA purposes clauses.

Key also outlined two further issues requiring Smith’s attention, saying a sunset clause in existing Special Housing Area legislation needed to be “embedded in the RMA”, and that there was an as yet unpublicised issue relating to industrial land that needed resolving.

“I’d expect Nick to go and have a look at his whole building and construction portfolio and see how that ties in ultimately with the RMA reform,” Key said. “He’ll obviously go and talk to the other interested groups on both sides, from business right through to the environment, and see how that looks.”

———-

Source and full article: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1410/S00187/key-confirms-review-of-most-contentious-rma-reforms.htm

 

I was talking to Green MP Julie Ann-Genter around the Section 6 reforms of the Resource Management Act to which Ms Genter stated that the Government could look around the National Policy Statements, and National Environment Standards rather than gutting Section 6 (and 7).

Well it seems the Government might just be doing that in embarking on the NPS and NES fronts with the RMA reforms.

It will be interesting to see how Key plans to go down this road. It will be a legacy for him but whether a good or bad legacy depends how Key pulls the RMA reforms off. Also it will be interesting to see if the RMA reforms affect the Unitary Plan Hearings and results in any way as well.