Tag: Cathy Casey

Developments from the Unitary Plan Hearings

·

Contention around access to resources for Community Groups

 

I have seen this from Local Board Chair Peter Haynes in regards to a motion Councillor Cathy Casey put forward at the Unitary Plan Committee today:

Peter Haynes‘s status.
6 minutes ago
At the open meeting of the Council’s Unitary Plan Committee. Cathy Casey moved for a report to prolong the hearings process to assist community groups faced with a very unequal battle against major developers such as Eden Park. I urged the Governing Body to give serious consideration to resourcing certain community groups to engage expert witnesses. My colleague from Orakei, Desley Simpson also spoke about the difficulties the convoluted hearings process pose for such groups. Sadly, Cathy’s motion was lost on Alf Filipaina’s casting vote.

I have noted from a couple of Procedural Minutes from the Independent Hearing Panel for the Unitary Plan as well as the Committee Agenda (see: website down so will get the link when it is back up) that the Council nor the Hearings Panel are particular interested in making resources available to submitting groups so that they can front the Hearings Panel better equipped. Furthermore the Minister for the Environment has refused access to those resources as well.

 

It definitely seems so after my previous Unitary Plan Hearings Already Into Trouble? first pointed it out.

 

Local Boards Now Have Power to Oppose Liquor Licence Applications

·

Contentious debate but the amendment passed

 

And so after a contentious debate today at the Governing Body, Councillor Cathy Casey’s amendment with even support of Councillor Cameron Brewer passed which allows Local Boards to directly object to Liquor Licence applications.

From Stuff

Boards get say in liquor outlets

JAMES IRELAND Last updated 15:38 25/09/2014

Auckland’s local boards now have the power to oppose liquor licence applications.

At this morning’s Governing Body meeting, councillor Cathy Casey put forward the amendment which passed after an hour long debate.

Councillors Bill Cashmore, Penny Webster, George Wood and Penny Hulse voted against the amendment.

Council’s relationship manager Rex Hewitt said giving local boards the voice to oppose licences has the potential to cause problems.

“DLCs are committees of the council. Allocating or delegating local boards the power to object with subsequent appeal rights, creates a situation where two governance arms of Auckland Council could be opposing each other.”

His recommendation was for local boards to not be given this power.

Local board members can be appointed to the licencing committee but they cannot make decisions that affect their own area.

Casey’s amendment wiped out the original vote which would have allowed local boards to provide reports to District Licencing Committees on license applications.

Councillor Cameron Brewer said it is not necessarily a bad thing if two arms of council disagree.

“If the DLCs and the local board are going hammer and tongs over an application that’s highly contentious then I think that’s healthy. If the local boards think it’s so important that they’re going to go through an appeal process then I think that’s important.”

…….

Full article and source here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10544571/Boards-get-say-in-liquor-outlets

This post will be updates when the resolutions and vote numbers come out so stand by for the update on that one.

 

So that is how the votes fell and Liquor Licence application “control” just went down to the Local Board away from a more regional auspices.

More soon

 

Meetings for More Meetings

·

Was at Transport Committee Meeting Today

 

I finally managed to squeeze some time in my hectic work schedule to trundle along to a Auckland Council committee meeting today. And today it was the Transport Committee chaired by Councillor Mike Lee that I was able to rock up to and sit quietly down the back and observe around about two-thirds of the proceedings before I wanted lunch and carry on with other things.

I also saw for the first time although I did not introduce myself (bit shameful on me) to them were; MP Julie-Ann Genter and Principle Transport Planner Joshua Arbury. Both were due to give their respective reports or presentations in front of the Transport Committee today.

You can see the agenda (the hard copy was thicker than a piece of 4 by 2) in the embeds below. But from observations today out of that Transport Committee; the bulk of the resolutions were: “To Hold another meeting to discuss what was in this meeting which was about the previous three meetings WHICH was about the meeting last year.”

I say we are getting progress somewhere if today’s resolutions were anything to go by…

 

One thing that I will single out though was the immature behaviour of Councillors Quax and Morrison against Julie-Ann Genter and her first class presentation (which reminds me to email her to get a copy of that presentation). Councillor Quax raised a point of order as Ms Genter was explaining a finer point in her section of the presentation about abolishing ‘minimum parking requirements for a development’ due to “time.” While the Chair might of not been keeping time I certainly was and 10 mins was not up to the point anyone that passed a motion for extension of time (which Cllr Dr Cathy Casey did raise in the end) I would have been grateful so I could hear Ms Genter finish her presentation fully. What Councillor Quax was doing was trying to “stomp” on Ms Genter’s presentation as it would have been a direct affront to his flawed and dead ideology which Auckland is trying to shake the legacy from off.

I for one Councillor Quax do not support Minimum Parking Requirements and made that extremely clear in my submission to the Auckland Plan, and will make it even more extremely clear in my submission to the Unitary Plan.

As for Councillor Morrison and asking Ms Genter had she read the Auckland Plan. That to me was implying that the MP had no idea what she was talking about in her presentation when speaking on land and transport planning. Most likely also Councillor Morrison was also implying that he supported the extremely flawed ideology on having Minimum Parking Requirements. I’ll tell you want Councillor, I would be falling head over heels to get Ms Genter into a working party on the unitary plan as some of her ideas were pretty damn solid and much better than what I am seeing coming out of Unitary Plan discussions at the moment.

So to both Councillors – SHAME ON YOU! Then again both of you I would oppose and are in opposition to what you represent any how…

 

And on that note, I wonder if I rock up to the Governing Body meeting coming up – should be a lively debate in that meeting.

Oh and good to see my local Councillor Calum Penrose also participating in the Transport Committee today 😀

The Agenda

[update from Admin: Embeds now working]

 

 

Quay Street Nuts Ctd

·

Follow Up on Quay Street

 

 

After yesterday’s initial post on Quay Street Nuts, I had a few discussions with others as well as a general head scratching session last night on the Quay Street issue. Basically I came to the same conclusion as I did yesterday in which I said:

 

So from what I can gather unless my English and interpreting documents some what out of whack, these incoming changes have been signalled well in advanced in three sets of plans (The Auckland Plank, The City Centre Master Plan, and The Long Term Plan 2012-2022). Whether I agree with the changes or not is a different story although it can be seen above in my comments to the Facebook thread.

In short I have no issue with the Quay Street works, but as I said:

“I think the problem is that this part of Quay Street flipping over to a boulevard is somewhat too soon without actual alternative in place. Stanley Street and State Highway 16 is not somewhat of an alternative heading from the east seeming our engineers can not phase traffic lights for peanuts” 

 

Outside of that issue, I am not having major issues here with Quay Street (west) although I am looking at alternatives here (not whole scale Quay Street west – just some minor tinkering to smooth the works transition). As for Quay Street east, I already drew up a plan for that and submitted on it. However works in that sector are not due to after the CRL I believe, so still time to keep the dialogue going there.

 

Oh if you are wondering what I meant about sticking the boot in at that particular Hearings Panel; it means I strongly disagreed with Parnell and do not want that station built, was not overtly fond of Quay Street work so soon in the game, and as for the CRL – well you all know how I advocate for that mega project on a delayed timetable. But as I said, there was both constructive criticism and as I said singing the praises too. So I am not always a grumpy old fart :P

Due credit is give when it is due – such as Councillor Wood is about to find out.

 

George will still get his due credit tomorrow when he goes into bat for the 380 Airport buses at tomorrow’s Transport Committee meeting.

 

Just to provide clarification here on Quay Street-west and Quay Street-east as they are treated as two distinct entities by both Auckland Council and the CCO’s as well as myself. Quay Street-west is Quay Street from the Viaduct Harbour through to the Tangihua Street/Tinley Street/Quay Street Intersection (where the Z petrol station and port entrance is); while Quay Street-east is from that same intersection through to the Stanley Street/Tamaki Drive/Quay Street intersection.

 

Further explaining: with Quay Street-east; that is being “dealt with” in my Auckland Water-Frontier work as I create a boulevard and an expressway in that section of Quay Street. This run of commentary on Quay Street-west is where this post (and the current “angst” from Orakei) is focusing on (again mentioned above).

 

I also had a read of a few letters to the Editor in the Herald this morning which were somewhat scathing of basically Orakei (mainly the Councillor, Local Board Chair and the Tamaki MP), while one was supportive of light rail along Tamaki Drive. And again after a ponder I would also tend to be in agreement with Mr Sheehan of Milford and his letter to the editor as well as Mr Broome’s letter to the editor on Light Rail – although I would look into the timetable of that. I would look at the light rail timetabling plan (for roll out) due to the fact I had mentioned something similar in the Wynyard Quarter section of my submissions where a light rail line would run from Wynyard Quarter to (as of now after some progression post-submission) east end of The Auckland Water-Frontier project zone.

 

And where does all this bring me too? It brings me to politely disagree with Orakei and their assertions around Quay Street and offer support behind Ludo Campbell-Reid and the works soon to start on Quay Street-west (although I can withdraw that support too).

A respected former centre-right councillor did raise with me:  “I think its more the lack of communication than the vision.” My reply to that was: “The question though  is where (the lack of communication). I found it in three sections of the City Centre Master Plan, a section of the Long Term Plan and sections in the main Auckland Plan. Heck even I was aware of Quay Street west (although I paid little attention to it as I was focused on Wynyard Quarter and Quay Street east) when writing submissions and having frank discussions with Ludo, Cathy Casey, and George Wood in the hearings panel. I am of the current opinion Quay Street might have snuck up on some more quickly than first anticipated”

 

 

So the issue in my eyes with Quay Street-west is basically done and dusted with works soon about to begin – of which I have as said many times above and before, no problems with. I might email Ludo Campbell Reid around some minor “transitional” concerns with Quay Street-west to endure traffic movements are smooth and not heavily disrupted pre CRL however to seek some reassurances.

 

 

 

References

 

Letters to The Editor

 

Reference to City Centre Master Plan

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ccmp/Pages/home.aspx#ad-image-0