Category: Planning

Looking at all things planning.
Check the Sub Categories for more specific forms of planning

Council Submission on the Housing Accord

·

What Council thought on the Housing Accord

 

I am no fan of the Much-Ado-About-Nothing (aka the Housing) Accord as it short cuts the Rural Urban Boundary processes we are going through right now, and it also impinges on Council Sovereignty. I have made mention of this last month while the Unitary Plan was open for the first round of discussion.

Auckland Council, some Local Boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board have written draft submissions on the Accord which is due to go before Select Committee in Wellington.

I am still reading the submission Council has written myself and will comment on it on Monday. In the mean time some light reading for you and if you are inclined leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The Submission (Starting page 7) to the Housing Accord

 

Unitary Plan Update

·

Over 20,000 pieces of feedback?

Judging by the Auckland Council‘s release there was 20,200 individual pieces of feedback to the first round of “consultation” for the Unitary Plan.

From Auckland Council

Thanks for your feedback

Published: Tuesday 04 June 2013
Mayor Len Brown with some of the written feedback on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
 Mayor Len Brown with some of the written feedback on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
(Wonder where my one got put at 104 pages)

More than 20,200 Aucklanders have had their say on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan– the new planning rulebook that will help shape Auckland.

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse says the level of interest during the 11-week informal public engagement period, which finished on 31 May, was phenomenal.

“Developing a plan that covers all eight previous council areas is a mammoth task and we are taking on board the feedback from our communities to ensure we get the best plan possible,” she says.

“It has been fantastic to see so many Aucklanders taking part in the engagement and sharing their ideas as we plan for the next 30 years of Auckland’s development.”

To ensure communities understand the proposed changes, local boards held around 250 events across the region, including drop-in sessions, meetings in libraries and community centres, and community walks.

  • About 14,000 Aucklanders attended these events.
  • Auckland Council also sought the opinions of Auckland’s young people – via a youth video competition.
    • The competition was won by ‘The Future’, produced by four Orewa College students.
    • View the five finalist videos.

 

Aucklanders involvement

  • 20,200 pieces of individual feedback received
  • 14,000 people attended events
  • More than 88,000 people visited www.shapeauckland.co.nz
  • More than 15,000 people tried the housing simulator.

Next steps

Feedback will be considered in the development of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, which is due to be notified later this year.

On notification, the public will have a statutory right to make submissions and be heard by a hearings panel.

More information will be available at www.shapeauckland.co.nz and in future editions of OurAuckland.

———-

Of note the following developments have either occurred or being heard in the wind somewhere (but something to keep an eye on)

  • An independent review is under way with the recent 11-week feedback process. The review will be presented to the Auckland Plan Committee (“Wart n all”) at its conclusion
  • Caught in the wind that the current stacking of feedback is 60:40 “against” the Unitary Plan. HOWEVER and this is a big point here, the definition of “against” is wide open for interpretation. If I support the basic concepts of the UP but wrote 104 pages on how to clean it up through some large-scale alternatives, does that make me “against” the Unitary Plan. I think the better way in looking at it if the 60:40 point can be substantiated is that 60% are looking for some whole-scale changes to aspects of the UP rather than minor (which is where the 40% would go). In those regards then yes I would fit in there especially with the Special Character Zones and Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland

 

But, lets wait and see where things go with the UP and the review currently underway

 

Money for a Church but No Money for a Death Trap

· 5 Comments ·

Council’s Funding Priorities Wrong Again

 

I noticed this morning (well actually yesterday) that the Council Strategy and Finance Committee approved on a vote of 10-6 to give $3m of our ratepayer’s money to the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell so it can get an “upgrade.”

This is while Auckland Transport struggles to find $27m for a grade separation of the Walters Road rail crossing in Takanini and most likely the same amount for grade separating the Morningside Drive rail crossing that nearly killed a woman in a wheelchair earlier this year.

So would the councillors like to explain their logic in supporting $3m to the second biggest church in NZ (the biggest being the Catholic Church) that is exempt from most of our tax and human rights laws yet not give money to a death trap that nearly killed someone in Morningside where they had a human right for authorities to maintain a public crossing in such a way that the accident should have never happened.

And yes I know the crossing has Kiwi Rail responsibility to it as well but it is a shared responsibility with Auckland Transport thus Auckland Council. After the incident at Morningside, the council should have either stumped up the cash entirely or loaned Kiwi Rail a proportion of the money needed to remove the that death trap through a grade separation. But no it goes through the bureaucracy again and again and again and won’t be done for at least five years.

Yet at a drop of the hat Council approves money for a church (where we are meant to exercise absolute separation from Church and State) on the grounds of community facilities needs. Umm if it is for community facilities how about than dumping the money to Local Boards so they can maintain their own community facilities if the money won’t be going elsewhere.

Shame on the every single councillor who voted in giving money for the church while we have a live death trap still floating around (and a few more entering the category as we move to electrification and more frequent trains).

Shows where some have their priorities that need some readjusting in this upcoming election.

 

Auckland Transport Inducing Fare Evasion

· 3 Comments ·

AT causing induced Fare Evasion on its own accord?

 

We have heard much about Auckland Transport cracking down on Fare Evasion on our rail system, with Veolia Ticket Inspectors hard out on the trail trying to enforce what can be only described as a hopeless situation. Hopeless because in my opinion Auckland Transport is inducing actual Fare Evasion due to it’s beyond lacklustre technical support systems for both AT-HOP and the Rail Ticket Machines.

How?

This example in Papatoetoe today which I hear (the example) is quite common through feedback via Facebook and emails.

I caught the train from Papatoetoe and headed in to Britomart, repeating the exercise for the trip home. I have an AT-HOP card so I tag on and off and will top up either at home or a rail ticket machine if possible.

While waiting for the train at Papatoetoe I noticed people could not use any cash (even correct change) to get a paper ticket to head into town. The machine had no change and the coin slot was jammed meaning unless you had EFTPOS like I did (I topped up on the machine) you were pretty well stuffed in getting a ticket.

If you were getting off at Britomart or Newmarket you could still pay your fare, get off anywhere else and hello no ticket – a freebie for you.

So I sent a tweet to Auckland Transport alerting them to the machine basically down:

@AklTransport Rail ticket machine @ papatoetoe not accepting cash at all even correct change

That was sent about 10:10am today

I get back to Papatoetoe around 3:15pm today and the machine was still with no change and not taking coins. And no reply from AT either…

 

Come on Auckland Transport – where is your support services to keep these machines fully functional so good citizens can get their tickets? FIVE HOURS and no technician when the support for an “urgent” problem such as this is meant to be TWO HOURS in turn around (getting it fixed)!

Knowing my luck and I should go check it tomorrow the machine will still be down at 9:30am tomorrow morning after the morning peak!

So fare evasion? Yep – induced by Auckland Transport rather than the rail patrons themselves due to lack tech support services on the rail ticket machines. 

Do people out there know of any other rail ticket machines constantly down and if so how long before they are back up again.

Leave your comments below (AT do keep an eye on this)…

 

And Orsman got SERVED

·

Media3 – The Unitary Plan Debate

And a Nice Mention too

 

Tuesday night I made my up to Mt Eden from Papakura to watch a recording of Russell Brown‘s Media3 program. The show was broadcast last night just after 11pm and can be found either online at TV3 or you can wait for the repeat on Saturday morning.

The main topic I was there for was Russell interviewing three journalists (or an editor in the case with Metro Magazine) over the media’s coverage of the Unitary Plan. The three journalists were:

  • Simon Wilson of Metro Magazine
  • Todd Nial of Radio NZ
  • Bernard Orsman (yes Orsman) from the NZ Herald

The discussion trundled along and was covering the fact that Council did balls up the sales pitch of the Unitary Plan rather badly. I would tend to agree on that regard against the Council with having to run the blog hard in providing information more clearly than Council did or could. But, as Desley Simpson of Orakei Local Board; the Unitary Plan was written by planners for planners and 99% of the city are not planners. Well I am not a planner strictly by University qualification – I am a Geographer and Political “Scientist”. As a Geographer though I still understood the Unitary Plan and what it meant. Although the planning discipline could be argued it was born out of Geography and that Geographers dabble in the planning discipline quite a lot (go Geography as the mother of all sciences and arts with what it encompasses). That understanding would provide assistance to those in Auckland through the first round of Unitary Plan feedback

But I digress

And so Russell facilitated the debate on with the Main Stream Media covering the Unitary Plan and the panel of three journalists continued to make their points until…

Bernard Orsman of the NZ Herald basically having his backside served to him on a silver platter by Simon Wilson. If you have not watched the particular Media3 then I recommend doing so before continuing here.

While I have seen it in the States, having the Main Stream Media serve up one of their own in NZ is something not often seen here. And as I mentioned just earlier Orsman got served – on extremely biased coverage against the Unitary Plan that included blatant misinformation coming from some Right Wing quarters (which got heavily debunked here and in other blogs).

Orsman while looking shell-shocked at being served tried to justify himself through he providing “balanced coverage” and that others are entitled to opinions.

Cue from Russell his mention of myself and Auckland Transport Blog on our extensive, balanced and leading coverage on the Unitary Plan through our blogs. Coverage that would earn the praise of the Deputy Mayor even though some days I was harsh against the Council in some aspects of the UP!

Again Orsman said after the “cue” said “they are entitled to our opinion” after which I think there was silence from him. Soon after the debate session ended.

And so that was the Media3 recording on the Unitary Plan discussion to which it was time to mix and mingle.

I was joined by Ryan and Sudhvir of Generation Zero and were talking to Russell, Simon and Todd on a wide range of issues with the Unitary Plan including angles wanting to be covered but could not due to time limitations.

Orsman I think decided to snob us but not that I am particularly fussed.

Also I was talking to mayoral candidate John Palino who was watching the Media3 recording as well. A good discussion on all things Auckland

At the conclusion of the mix and mingle session  was time to head back home. A good night and a good discussion on the Unitary Plan

Thanks Russell for the mention and I can say Tuesday night was a good night in watching the recording (with its serves) and the mix and mingle afterwards

Experience from the Unitary Plan – Part Two

·

Part Two of my reflections of the last 11 weeks with the Unitary Plan

April: Community Meetings and THAT Bridge

 

April would prove to be the busiest of months for me in regards to clocking up the kilometres across the city attending community meetings on the Unitary Plan. By the end of it I would have attended around 14 community Unitary Plan meetings and a Civic Forum right across the city (apart from West Auckland).

April would also prove to me a more “heartbreaking” month as a folly from Auckland Council led to anger and upset for residents down in Southern Auckland. The cause? A (which ended up being called “THAT”) bridge that spanned from Karaka to Weymouth over the Manukau Harbour. That bridge had shown up in  the Unitary Plan – Rural Urban Boundary Addendum as a “possible option” needing to be built somewhere down the track.

The only catch was that the bridge showed up in all three southern RUB options and has not even been “vetted” by Auckland Transport and NZTA yet. When pressed and after a more heated meeting in Weymouth did the Deputy Mayor and Chief Planning Officer realise “oops” and got a new set of RUB maps out with the bridge removed. The only problem was that the horse had already bolted on the issue and was continued to be further fuelled by a group known as the Karaka Collective.

While the Collective would give a presentation in May on their options (and I have their literature as well), it was basically known that certain landowners were looking at having their land come under potential development options through the life of the Unitary Plan. It was also known that they were keen on the bridge to act as a short cut in skipping out State Highway One. However, the negative consequences to both the Karaka North and West development as well as the bridge would be deemed too high on existing Karaka and Weymouth residents. If the bridge was to be built it should have been done 70 years ago before Weymouth was truly established. But, now it is too late and alternatives must be found. In essence we await Council’s decisions on the southern RUB before formal notification on the Unitary Plan. Once known then the next stage of the “battle” begins…

 

While things were heated in Karaka and Weymouth over the Unitary Plan and THAT bridge, things were also running high in St Heliers.

It is of note that in these meetings I would usually sit quietly with my notebook and pen and take notes on the proceedings. These notes would form commentary here on the blog as well as any “battle plans” required in the Unitary Plan feedback round. After the meetings I would talk to people (ranging from the Deputy Mayor to planners, to Local Board members and councillors, to residents) in their thoughts and seeking out dialogue. This dialogue (especially in Weymouth and St Heliers) would form two battle-plans (or rather alternatives) that I later drew up. I would ask questions in the meetings later in the game but, were only done so at the Southern Auckland meetings.

The St Heliers experience was an interesting one. What would be deemed at first pretty much naked hostility towards to main Council and the planners became in fact a community giving a damn and trying to seek out a solution not only for their own place but also the wider city. What would give the initial reaction to St Heliers was a piece from Eye-On-Auckland on NIMBYism that would set the city off. It also woke the Main Stream Media up and set off some of the more shrill-aspects of opposition to the Unitary Plan. Those shrill-aspects would eventually lead to near daily debunking on not only my blog but, else where as well.

With the Weymouth and St Heliers experience though came two alternatives from here. The first was more widely publicised – the Special Character Zone, while the second in staving off THAT bridge was a more quiet and behind the scenes affair.

Both alternatives have landed in my feedback to the Unitary Plan with other people using the Special Character Zone concept as well. Again we await the council to point out what changes they have made to the Unitary Plan prior to formal notification to see what we essentially got.

 

While Weymouth, Karaka and St Heliers would be more “noisy” meetings I did attend the Civic Forum in Manukau which was a more tame affair. In saying that though the discussion was lively as the future of Southern Auckland through the Unitary Plan were debated at length. Four main aspects would come out of that forum which were:

  1. The socio-economic and demographic consequences behind the level of intensification indicated in the Unitary Plan
  2. Height on the Town Centres
  3. Zones and Centres needed a rework
  4. Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland

While all four points would end up mentioned in my own feedback to the Unitary Plan, Manukau as the Second CBD would be an idea that was picked up and ran with all the way to the Auckland Plan Committee last month.

 

So was April a busy month? In the terms of clocking up those kilometres it sure was. But the final month of the Unitary Plan feedback would prove to be the actual busiest month for me. How? Find out in my next “Experience from the Unitary Plan” post.

 

Experience from the Unitary Plan

· 1 Comment ·

Part One of my reflections of the last 11 weeks with the Unitary Plan

 

Writing this while listening to Q & A on TVNZ-on-demand is going to be an interesting exercise. Reactions on Susan Wood’s interview with Mayor Brown at the end of this post.

My own experiences with the Unitary Plan at this stage of the (long) game has been real interesting and an eye opener (and that is still being an underestimate as well) since the launch on March 15.

The Unitary Plan was launched on March 15 with the first round of engagement with the wider city having just closed (on May 31). I was in Australia on holiday when the Unitary Plan was launched and was not back until a week after the launch. But, once back in the country the extensive and leading independent commentary on the Unitary Plan would begin.

“Part One” in my experience journey of the Unitary Plan – essentially the first four weeks (March 27-April 2) was reading sections of the Unitary Plan and attending my first round of community Unitary Plan meetings.

The particular sections of the Unitary Plan are (and would be what I would submit on):

  1. Section 3 – The Zones and Centres
  2. Section 4 – The Rules and Definitions
  3. The Rural Urban Boundary Addendum (which includes the two new “taxes”)

The first round of community meetings would be on the North Shore and out in the East. However, a Council run Civic Forum was also run in Manukau which I attended.

 

This part of the experience with the particular three sections of the Unitary Plan will be the learning and networking part. Brushing up on what the Unitary Plan has installed for me personally and the wider city, seeing initial reactions from communities, and forging or strengthening relationships with both ordinary people and key players were occurring in this part. All this work in the part would be required later on as the UP debate became increasingly political and divisive from some quarters.

But keeping the commentary balanced (the Deputy Mayor has acknowledged my opposition to some aspects of “The Clunker” but also keeping mature through keeping the commentary balanced on both sides (what works and what does not work)) and running those thought-provoking alternatives – all starting from Day One is what kept me honestly sane as well as acting a moderator to a very hot reactor about to meltdown (the reactor being the city, the fuel being the Unitary Plan).

I suppose the question is; ‘Would I do this all again?’ Would I be a moderator plunging myself into a very hot reactor that could meltdown any time – again? The answer is yes I would and will actually be doing so again. Again being when the Unitary Plan goes for formal notification at the end of the year.

My next “Experience from the Unitary Plan” post will cover the month of April. The month where the commentary was running hot, the alternatives running hotter, the Rural Urban Boundary saga running white-hot, and the opposition finally getting a clue on the UP.

All here at Talking Auckland

Oh and as for TVNZ’s Q&A program. Note to TVNZ; get better interviewers who know how to interview. Oh and do your actual homework on the Unitary Plan and who is actually running for mayor. I want dialogue and critique, not Len’s predetermined PR spin and an ill-informed panel looking at our Super City elections…