Councillor Quax quoted in today’s Herald
Earlier today I noted how NZ Herald picked up the fact that the intensification program in The Draft Auckland Plan is a dud.
Today the NZ Herald picked up on Cllr. Dick Quax also commenting on the intensification program not working and the Chief Planner of Auckland stating his reply.
His reply was:
But the council’s planning chief, Dr Roger Blakeley, said the Birkenhead image should not be misinterpreted.
“These are scenarios that have been developed,” he said. “That’s not saying that’s what will happen. It’s like asking what-if questions.
“It’s saying that if the 75:25 split is in the final document, that’s the sort of intensification that will be needed to deliver that.
“You’re putting too much emphasis on what the future of Auckland will look like. That’s one input about the future ratio of intensification versus greenfields development of Auckland.
“You should not take anything in those documents as fixed in stone.”
Forgive me if I am wrong Dr Blakeley but that sounds either like a retraction or pile of spin-doctoring. Unless the mayor and centre-left councillors have rolled over recently, one could assume the following:
- The 75:25 ratio for intensification:sprawl was set in stone – regardless if the majority of submissions to The Draft Auckland Plan call for other wise
- The Draft Auckland Plan is actually the Final Auckland Plan with maybe a few tweaks around the edge
- The consultation period was a joke – which it was considering the very short time frame for concerned people to comment on – especially that the combined Draft Auckland Plan was 800 pages long
- The time of the consultation was during the Rugby World Cup, great place and time to distract the public
- Is Council really listening? Although we find out next month – I have also noticed apart from Cllr Quax and Wood, the rest of the Council and Mayor are quiet into this very damning report.
Yes the report I say is quite damning – damning in the fact Auckland Council could only achieve 90% of its intensification plans and that is with also maximum political resilience and capital required.
Also the fact the Port of Auckland saga throws a major spanner in the Draft Auckland Plan’s intentions especially if it is recommended to relocate the port.
Ladies and gentlemen – the Draft Auckland Plan is a lemon – and an extremely bitter lemon at that.
I hope Auckland Council gets this sorted before the Draft Auckland Plan becomes the Final Auckland Plan