Tag: Affordable housing

Unitary Plan Updates – Day 2

·

We Finally Move on from Residential Provisions

 

Two days later the Auckland Plan Committee finally got through Recommendations A-E, V, and W. Effectively 7 out of 69 recommendations have been passed since yesterday.

What happened on those two days? Some rather shameless (or is it shameful) politicking and lobbying via the now defeated Councillor Ann Hartley-slash-Auckland 2040 lobby group’s amendments. If some of the more dangerous ones passed, they would have held Auckland back towards 1950’s style planning for the next 30 years. There were a few amendments though that were needed to clear things up in which the planners supported any how (these were not wrecking amendments though). Councillor Hartley’s amendments had effectively grounded down the Auckland Plan Committee into spending two full days covering residential provision. The Committee has not even started yet on such topics as:

  • The Rural Urban Boundary
  • Business Zones and The Centres
  • Social and Physical Infrastructure
  • Port of Auckland
  • Heights in some centres

 

Despite what some representatives and others might think, I hold the liberal view that through defeating these amendments Auckland has stepped one bit closer a more liberalised planning framework. What does that mean? For every control the conservatives lug onto the Unitary Plan whether it be: 80m2 minimum backyards in the Mixed Housing Zones, minimum parking on the Terrace Housing/Apartment Zone and Mixed Housing Zones, minimum lot sizes (so opposite unlimited density in certain circumstances) and so on is a cost to the developer that is passed on to the end-user – the resident.

Furthermore the planning disasters we have had in Auckland are actually owing to two things:

  • The Building Act reforms of the late 90s and early 00’s which led to the leaking housing disaster
  • Over Planning (too many controls) which as an example led to the shoe box apartments we see in the city today

And so if the cost has to be passed on from the developer to the end-user what do we get? Housing Affordability and Choice out of reach even further for everyone, not just Anglo-Saxon nuclear families.

Now I do advocate quality urban design via the Auckland Design Manual and solid building of dwelling (such as treated timber, eaves, and good heating and ventilation of the house interior). But I will not advocate controls that interfere with a freer market to deliver the choices and price ranges to every single person whether they are in a collective or nuclear family living in Auckland. Controls as seen in Councillor Hartley’s amendments that were defeated today, and Councillor Brewer’s parking amendments that also need to be defeated.

 

I do give my absolute congratulations for Councillor George Wood for his reasoning, logic and sanity in voting down those Auckland wrecking amendments. Thank you George for allowing us to bring Auckland slowly out of 1950 to the 21st Century.

 

I have decided to be at tomorrow’s proceedings as the Councillors pass the recommendations on:

  • The Business Zones (including the Metropolitan, Town and Local Centres)
  • The City Centre which includes Port of Auckland
  • Social and Physical Infrastructure

 

Live Tweets and updates will occur as they happen.

Oh one last thing:

“Any urban plan thicker than one’s thumbnail length will fail and cost the city due to the said plan’s over complex nature which makes it beyond comprehension.”

Controls add to the thickness of an Urban Plan…

Remedy? DIET!

 

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

Related articles

Unitary Plan – Towards Notification #2

·

A Warning to the City

Slowing Down the Unitary Plan Will Come at a Great Cost to Auckland

 

As a part of a two-part mini-series I will be going over the Unitary Plan briefing to the media outlets (including Talking Auckland) that occurred yesterday .

In Part One (last post), Talking Auckland looked at: the Unitary Plan and where it has come thus far. Part One will also look at where next with the Unitary Plan – specifically August 28th to 30th and September 5th.

Part Two (this post) will look at one of the questions I asked in regards to the Unitary Plan: could it have been slowed down. Part Two will also serve a warning against those conservative Council candidates who think slowing the Unitary Plan down is a wise idea. Simply done in the name of a Better and Affordable Auckland, slowing down the Unitary Plan does nothing to achieve that. All it achieves is Central Government intervening – something the conservatives might be holding out for

 

Part Two: Could Have the Unitary Plan Been Slowed Down

 

The simple answer to that is NO! Now as this is meant to be running commentary I think I might need to give a bit more than the two letter simple answer.

I need not remind the City (as the Deputy Mayor has already done so countless times) that the Unitary Plan is different from the District Plans of old. With the District Plans the only time “we” – the City get a look and comment on a District Plan is when it was formally notified. Formal notification means formal submissions and a trip to a hearing – often the Environment Court. YUCK for 99% of the City that are not planners or RMA lawyers.

The Unitary Plan was different. We got given the “draft of the draft” where everyone could give feedback no matter who you were in Auckland. That means for the first time the City got to have a good look at the Unitary Plan and comment back on it. And comment back did Auckland do with 22,700 pieces of feedback, with independent commentary being led by this very blog!

As mentioned in Part One, the Council and Local Boards have since June 1 been going through our feedback and changing the Unitary Plan to reflect what we said. The changes that will be introduced to the Auckland Plan Committee and Local Boards will occur August 28th – although they and the media (including me) will have a copy of the tracked changes on Monday. And from there the formal decisions are set over three days (August 28-30th) with the Governing Body giving its final instructions on September 5.

 

This brings me to my warning to those conservatives who will try to slow down the Unitary Plan.

It was confirmed yesterday by the two Penny’s that there is nothing stopping a new Council after October 12 stalling or even withdrawing notification of the Unitary Plan, taking it apart and redoing it again.

Conservative Councillors and candidates, particularly those running in the Albert-Eden and the Tamaki-Maungakiekie Wards at the moment will try to hold out and see if they can get the numbers after October 12 to stall or withdraw the notification on the Unitary Plan (if the September 5 Governing Body meeting decided that the UP was to be notified – it still might not and order the new Auckland Plan Committee to review aspects again before notification).

If I had no confidence in the Unitary Plan as it is I would rally with the conservatives. However, as I do have confidence in the Deputy Mayor and the Unitary Plan I will be rallying against the conservatives who would stall the Unitary Plan out of interests of a small minority.

Yes, a very small minority in two ward areas that are trying to run conservative candidates in those areas. The other wards that could earn my ire have been more constructive. These Wards not attracting my ire include Orakei and most of the North Shore where Auckland 2040 is doing quite a bit of leg work with the Mixed Housing Zone split (to the benefit of the wider City).

If these conservatives get their way and stall the Unitary Plan this is what will happen. For every day the Unitary Plan is stalled is another day pushed back in the three-year notification process. For every day the notification is delayed is another day that fighting the Housing Affordability and Choice crisis is lost. And another day lost in fighting the Housing Affordability and Choice issues is another day of uncertainty in having the city progressed and us losing our best and brightest who want to stay but can not. I also need not remind the City that the Housing Accord’s Special Housing Areas do not come “online” until the Unitary Plan is notified. So stall the notification and you stall getting more houses and apartments being supplied to a growing city. Oh, and if the Unitary Plan is stalled for too long then the Minister for the Environment will intervene and the City really loses out to Wellington.

That is the risk the city runs if the conservatives get their way and stall the Unitary Plan. So, please, I ask you to be careful in the upcoming elections. If the Unitary Plan is stalled by these conservatives serving a small interest, it will come at a great cost to the city – especially the two areas that can ill afford it the most: The South and the West.

Also those who claim that they were shut out of the Unitary Plan process by being denied speaking rights on the UP over the last two months are dead wrong. As the Deputy Mayor confirmed yesterday and as I also know from experience, speaking rights were denied to those wishing to speaking on the UP during the last couple of months. The reason was uniform and straight forward from the Deputy Mayor on why. If one of us (the city) spoke after the feedback session then all 22,700 others could speak. Now 22,700 time five minutes of speaking plus five minutes of questions if the Councillors keep it brief equals – a three month delay. The Deputy Mayor did further say that speaking would be a duplication of what we said in our feedback. In any case I know two of us that did ask for speaking rights and were refused had a good chat or meeting with the Deputy Mayor (and planners) and both of us came away happy. Also  Auckland 2040 and myself have been busy advance both our causes on the side to positive results thus far – and a Better Auckland.

 

So we wait for the August 28-30th Auckland Plan Committee meetings as they set the decisions for the Unitary Plan, ready for September 5.

 

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

 

Local Government poster png mode

 

Dr Smith and the NIMBY’s

·

So a Fish Hook?

 

cats_fail-14143

I am getting the Herald delivered free on a five-week trial thanks to the AA. You can comment on the irony of the situation later but the word free and word worm-food have relevance here.

So upon reading the A-Section of the Herald (was looking for Orsman after a menacing Facebook remark he made last night on his page) I found this about Dr Nick Smith:

I wonder what he means “lower quality developments” for Auckland and affordable housing.

Would it be the quality like my ex-army house made of treated wood and brick built in the 70’s. It is basic with basic fittings provided in the house but huge potential to upgrade as the resident saves up and upgrades the dwelling (like what we are doing with our home).

Or (and most likely) something like the quality of the Hobson Street rabbit hunches that the NIMBY‘s bark on about that leak like a sponge and are of poor quality (forcing off an expensive virtual rebuild). History (and this hurts when it spells the truth) I believe tells us those rabbit hunches were “signed off” by the C&R dominated former Auckland City Council in 2004 (while the Mayor at the time – Banks wanted a stop to it before he got chucked out because of the Eastern Highway). Oh dear I see irony abound here folks…

For further irony I need not remind Auckland that it was the then National Government of the 1990s that removed the requirement of treated wood for new houses (saving costs to the consumer apparently) and now most of them leak worse than a sponge and have rotted away to such an extent that if your repair bill was not sky-high, your house was basically condemned. As for the old Auckland City and Manukau City Councils that signed off on these disasters as well, I believe both were Centre Right dominated as well in most of that period. If you want me to drive a further boot in the situation who do our conservatives (and NIMBY’s) vote for traditionally.

And before someone sends a flaming comment right back I ask you reflect upon yourself and remember you get what you either ask/vote for or deserve (to the point my generation have to pick up the can from your mistakes).

 

Now the onus is on the Minister Dr Nick Smith to clearly define what he means by “lower quality development.” Because unless you plan to return to building leakers and crap like those Hobson Street apartments, then under the current situation with constructions costs artificially high building a quality basic house like mine would be near impossible for under $300k all up (including land).

Hmm with Northern Regional National Party Conference this weekend, I wonder what is being schemed or parroted in the hallways and theatre rooms…

 

Off to Another Unitary Plan Civic Forum

·

Dialogue and Discussion Time Again

 

On The Clunker

 

 

Unitary Plan feedback is well under way between Local Boards and their constituents if social media and public meetings are anything to go by currently. The cut off date for your feedback for the Draft Unitary Plan is May 31 so make sure you get your submission in if you want to influence how your city turns out through the 21st Century.

 

I have been invited to another Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan to which I am going to the Manukau session this Saturday. By the looks of the invitation we will be looking at with the Unitary Plan team:

Key things are:

  • how we create housing choices and more affordable housing

  • how we enable businesses to develop and grow

  • how we protect our region’s environment, heritage and character.

 

 

So residential, commercial and industrial matters which I have covered previously in these posts: “THE UNITARY PLAN, AND THE CMCP AND SLPD’S,” “THE CLUNKER AND BUSINESS ZONES,” and “THE CLUNKER AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING“ are going to be feedback sort after as well as; environment, heritage and character.

 

As Rural Urban Boundary specific feedback sessions are coming up next month (I believe) it would be a waste of limited time to go into that detail in great depth. However; zoning, choice, urban design, and those two new taxes are open for debate as well as me most likely pushing for Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) as an option for consideration.

 

So off I go to the Manukau Civic building on Saturday (lunch is being served too) to discuss more Unitary Plan. 

 

Betterment Taxes And Inclusionary Zoning?

· 2 Comments ·

Some Homework for Auckland Citizens

 

As we await the release of the Draft Unitary Plan on March 15  I would like to bring to your attention two items being sort for discussion in the Unitary Plan by Council. They are called “Sharing Land Value Uplift from Rezoning” and “Inclusionary Zoning;” of which both come under “Additional Tools for Enabling Affordable Neighbourhoods” under the Draft Unitary Plan.

 

Now these two options can be found from Page 67 in the embedded document below (so you might need to scroll if Scribd does not automatically go to that page):

 

For you homework I would like you to read these two “Additional Tools for Enabling Affordable Neighbourhoods” then post for your feedback here at BR:AKL on them.

Wikipedia also has a nice piece on Inclusionary Zoning which you can see by clicking the respective hyperlinks in red. I noticed Inclusionary Zoning is a tool from the USA while Sharing Land Value Uplift is from the UK.

 

However, I am currently reading it and from what I interpret so far both tools are additional taxes to middle and upper class citizens in a wealth distributing exercise for the lower and working classes here in Auckland. In effect Auckland Council is going to be coercing either directly or indirectly (through developers having to comply and as a result pass extra costs on) citizens and developers through regulations and plans to at least set aside for “affordable housing” (which is often becomes social housing) rather than do the actual opposite and liberalise our regulations and plans allowing at least developers to act more freely in providing a range of housing without costing the citizenry in Auckland.

 

So either you get a tax slugged on top of your rates and maybe targeted rates for whatever the Council decides to do with that money, or coerced into providing social housing at the cost of a large bulk of Auckland citizenry who end up carrying the can for this provision (rather than the State undertaking the social housing exercises via Housing NZ).

Time to delved deeper into these two new coercive and taxation regimes lurking in the Unitary Plan draft.

 

Remembering I stand for a more liberalised planning and provision approach to building neighbourhoods in Auckland.

 

An Auckland Housing Redux

·

Battle on Housing Goes On

 

BR:AKL Has Viable Alternative Urban Land Use “Policy” Already

 

 

And I bet we are all sick of the Housing Affordability Debate swinging from one extreme to the other and back again; both at central and local government levels, both by the centre-left (social authoritarian section) and centre-right (neo-conservatism). The conservatives from both sides of the political spectrum are basically bashing each over the heads trying to score “up-man” points on one another with housing, yet really don’t offer what WE really want in housing (it is what THEY want in housing and telling US how and where to live). Interestingly Social Liberals (from the left), Neo Liberals (centre right) and even the libertarians (down the bottom of the political compass) have gone extremely quiet on housing and urban land use policy.

 

This is rather a shame as the liberals could very well offer some viable alternatives that we (the residents and businesses) could be very well-looking for. You know “US” making our own choices and working in a collaborative  manner and shape OUR CITY, OUR WAY (not the Government (Local and Central’s) way). Now before I post the “redux” on a social liberal‘s view for “housing” just a quick differentiation between how a social liberal and neo liberal would achieve similar goals.

 

What Social and Neo Libs share the same in housing:

  • Planning: Liberalising the planning rules and requirements (like ditching minimum parking requirements, setbacks, landscaping, etc. – basically getting planners out of the road)
  • No monopolies on construction goods (Fletchers would be “broken”)
  • Zoning: basically zone and let the people and developers do the rest (apart from Master Plans)

 

What Social and Neo Libs do not share the same in housing:

  • Provision of social housing provided by The State (not councils). Social Libs would allow it, Neo Libs not
  • Community Master Plans. Social Libs would allow a strict prescription based plan and development to occur in some areas (Town Centres), Neo Libs would still do the zone and let the people and developer do the rest right across the board

 

As for the “Redux” here it is; my social liberal (and well read) Submission to the (then) Draft Auckland Plan where extensive mention of land use was made out:

 

Unfortunately though despite the hearings and constant lobbying, this extensive submission gathers (digital and actual) dust sitting in the draw. So while the conservatives bludgeon each other and boring us with no actual solutions, this liberal document waits for some brave political soul to bring it into the light and see it through in execution.

 

Housing, Housing, Housing

·

Is The Housing Situation in Auckland That Hard to “Solve?”

 

I see the Main Stream Media and Central Government have  got on the bandwagon about Auckland’s housing affordability situation. Much as I hate to say it, the MSM I am having no issues with reporting the news (when they do) but I am having issues with Central Government interfering in what is a debate between Council and its ratepayers.

I say that as two particular articles have cropped up from the NZH in regards to housing affordability:

First article

Govt to open up more land for houses

By Adam Bennett , Kate Shuttleworth

Prime Minister John Key says fast-tracking the supply of land will help solve the housing affordability crisis.

The Government is to work with councils to open up more land for development as it seeks to rein in New Zealand‘s high house prices.

Finance Minister Bill English will unveil the Government’s response to theProductivity Commission’s inquiry into home affordability after the Cabinet meets today.

He said it would act to address one of the main issues identified by the commission – a lack of land for building new homes – but the package was a broad programme.

“There isn’t really one simple initiative that changes the way the housing market works.

“It’s a very complicated beast so I wouldn’t get expectations too high about changing the trajectory of house prices next week.”

The commission focused on the need to free more land on city fringes for home-building, but Mr English said some of the best opportunities for development, particularly for low-priced housing, were within cities.

 

And the second article – actually an opinion piece

National’s affordable housing package lacks any substantial detail

By John Armstrong

Package? What package? No wonder National avoided over-selling the contents of their plan to make housing more affordable. The plan looks more like a rough first draft.

As Annette King, Labour’s housing spokeswoman noted, the Government’s long-awaited announcement was a combination of “considering new ways”, “undertaking more inquiries”, “doing more work” and “undertaking evaluations”.

The lack of detail serves to illustrate one thing: when it comes to increasing the housing stock, there is not a lot central government can do unless it is willing to spend big bikkies.

 

The two parts I am going to raise were both in bold in the first article:

“Prime Minister John Key says fast-tracking the supply of land will help solve the housing affordability crisis.”

Opening up supply of the land will help and was mentioned in the Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan and the Civic Forum (that I attended) for the Unitary Plan. What it needs is Council to follow through with the plans and get opening up that land now rather than later. So no need to worry John, already ahead of you there mate.

 

And from the Minister of Finance:

“The commission focused on the need to free more land on city fringes for home-building, but Mr English said some of the best opportunities for development, particularly for low-priced housing, were within cities.”

Well that seems to be more hitting the point on the head there. And the easiest way to accommodate what the Minister is saying is to:

  1. Zone appropriately
  2. Lower the cost of construction
  3. Lower the regulation hurdles to build

Get on top of those three points via adopting the Keeping It Simple Stupid philosophy and you might find the above points going some distance (but not all) into helping get on top of our housing affordability and supply situation.

 

I was pondering over my coffee this morning a few things. First of all acknowledging that a house is deemed affordable when the price of purchasing your house is not more than three times above the total gross income of the people going to be paying the mortgage for that house. Four times above the income is indicating stress but still okay, but anything above five times the income (Auckland is at 5.3-6.0 times) is deemed unaffordable and the situation needs to be addressed FAST!

The second thing I was pondering over was; who is actually getting in the way of solving the housing affordability situation here in Auckland. Traditionally I would stick my boot into our planners, however after the Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan last Saturday I concluded that actually our Planners can and are redeeming themselves here are actually not the ones in the way for the most part. I told our planners at the Civic Forum that the biggest hinderance to urban development were our planners and they simply need to get out of the road. That point still stands in my eyes but to a lesser degree now after talking to them at length on Saturday. Planners have their shot at redemption if they can work with the Local Boards and ratepayers in a multi-way partnership as urban development occurs. Saturday showed the potential there from our planners in working with that partnership with the Local Boards and the ratepayer and I am hoping that potential can develop and flourish (rather than go backwards and me having to stick the boot back into them again – which I don’t honestly want to do as I do that enough with our beyond hopeless CCOs).

Now I know there are planners reading this who I talked too  on Saturday and my message is this: Lets work together (planner, ratepayer and Local Boards) in developing an outcome forward for Auckland and its development through to 2040. The foundations were laid on Saturday and a lot of good faith and will was set at that Civic Forum. I extend my hand as a ratepayer to you – our planners as I don’t want to stick the boot in no more to you guys. I have ideas, you have ideas, we all have the same outcome as the Civic Forum showed, lets work together rather than apart. And that I make as a serious genuine offer. As for the ideas I have, you can read my rather extensive submission to The Auckland Plan which I will translate over to submissions for the Unitary Plan in due time. Oh and even though I am advocating the decentralisation of the urban development processes, Planners will be still flat-out if not even more flat-out as they buddy up with the Local Boards in delivering and providing advocacy during urban development phases 😉 !

 

So then if Planners are not getting in the road, then who is?

Sorry hate to say it but it is our Councillors and Central Government Politicians and in my next post, I am dedicating my boot to you both and how YOU are causing the housing affordability situation…

 

For Auckland Council Planners Consumption – My Submission to the Auckland Plan, and due to be translated to the Unitary Plan submissions

 

 

Papakura Set for ‘Large’ Housing Development

· 5 Comments ·

Upwards of 500 “Low Cost” Housing to be Built – In Papakura

 

We all know housing affordability in Auckland sucks with the Demographia Affordability rating being around 5.3 or “severely unaffordable (affordable is at 3.0 meaning the total cost of a home purchase should not exceed three times the total annual income of the household living in it. Currently Rebekka and I sit around the 3.52 mark). All sorts of measures are trying to be taken to allow the average person to at least being able to afford their very own house to live in. In this particular case Housing New Zealand has put out a tender to the private sector for the construction of upwards of 500 new homes that are: state houses, social housing and full private houses. The NZ Herald explains:

 

From the NZH:

Big low cost homes job set to start

By Simon Collins

5:30 AM Friday Oct 12, 2012

 

 

Housing New Zealand is seeking a private partner to build houses on former Papakura army camp land.

Earthworks for Auckland’s biggest low-cost housing development in 25 years will start next month on land that used to be part of the Papakura army base.

Housing New Zealand is seeking a private sector partner to build between 450 and 500 homes on the 24ha site between Walters Rd and McLennan Park. Tenders close on October 16.

Its general manager of asset development, Sean Bignell, said the homes would be a mix of 10 per cent state houses, 20 per cent other social housing and 70 per cent for private sale at prices likely to be “in the high 200s to the high 300s” – putting most of them below the lower quartile mark of Auckland residential properties sold this year.

Finance Minister Bill English said recently that high land prices had skewed Auckland builders towards large, high-value houses, and there was “no housing being built for people in the lowest quartile of income”.

“That is clearly unsustainable,” he said.

A start on the Papakura project comes as Housing NZ bows out of another long-planned 10ha development next to the Weymouth child welfare home, which the new Social Housing Unit in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has allocated to “third-sector” social and affordable housing.

 

If you want to know where approximately, check the map below

 

Click for full resolution

 

So between 450-500 new houses are to be built in the vicinity to where I live. Hmm means its going to be noisy and dusty for a while but I am not particularly minding too much. Look we need more “affordable” housing and if Housing NZ can take the lead in offering this affordable housing then so be it. If I was to have any concerns it is not around the fact “low-cost” housing is about to be built in my backyard; my concern is around the urban design factor which sets the future for this large-scale project for life.

I assume the houses will be a mix of 2-4 bedrooms on sections between 400-600m2? I need to go hit up my Local Board and take a look at the plans as they are not easily found online at the moment. The plans would tell me what kind of urban design work is being done and whether the urban design method chosen will be a benefit or a total hindrance to the future of this development. And something tells me the urban design of this development is actually going to be a hindrance more than a benefit here. How so?

Quick crude maths tells me the following:

  • My house is 110m2 on 520m2 – and I have a 3 bedroom home, so that means I have a front and back yard
  • The new development site is 24 hectares or 240,000m2
  • Divide the 240,000 into 500 houses and you get 480m2, however take into account roads, paths and berms and the average lot would be around 400m2
  • Divide the 240,000 into 450s house and the figures move to 533m2 and 450m2 respectively
  • This does not take into account parks, green spaces or “alleyways”

If we want the kids to at least have a decent backyard to play in and maybe grow the vegetable garden as well (although that is a lost art in Auckland) I would suggest 450m2 sections for three and four bedroom houses would be a generous and comfortable size. Anything smaller and we get no yard space for the kids and that can generate problems if there are no parks nearby. And no Bruce Pulman Park does not count unless you want to cross a very busy Walters Road while the McLennan Park is often used for sports. From what I have also gleamed from the graphic for this new development, thankfully the roads inside the new development are grid which promotes easy of traffic (foot and vehicle) flow while mitigating against the Fear of Crime perception that often comes about in urban development. However there are only two ways in and out of the development (so connecting to main roads) which could be a bit of a pain and isolating factor to this new development. In fact the lack of access to the main roads could isolate this new development and lack of accessibility can mean crime can fester inside the development.

In all that regard, I am going to have to go take a look at the plans to see what is exactly proposed. As I said nothing wrong with new development even in my backyard (I knew things like this would happen in Papakura when we chose to move here), but piss-poor urban design that turns this much needed housing into a crime-bed will not go down particularly well with me.

 

Now as for public transport access. This development is somewhat isolated from the main bus network which runs up and down the Great South Road. Rail-wise you have Takanini and Papakura Station both within 5-minutes of each other although 450 new houses will put pressure on Papakura’s existing Park and Ride which is already short of spaces. This new development would be the perfect time for Auckland Transport to haul arse and get the new Walters Road Rail Station along with a Park and Ride (with 450 spaces) and shuttle bus bay to serve Papakura north, Addison, Takanini east and the new development soon to be built. Trying to encourage public transport with Walters Road Station and Park and Ride would be a good start in improving public transport accessibility, especially for our new residents soon to move in.

Papakura Local Board as well as myself support and are advocating to AT on the Walters Road Station, this new development PLUS the continued development of Addison would be the perfect catalyst into getting our new station by 2015!

I have written in previous submissions as well as the current submission I am writing (the AT Regional Public Transport Plan) for the construction of Walters Road Station, and am making it an election campaign pledge to continue to have the station built sooner rather than later in the Local Government Elections next year!

 

But in the mean time, I shall go search those plans for this new development.