Tag: Civic Forum

Unitary Plan Updates – Our Feedback is Coming Through

·

Our Feedback for Our Auckland Slowly Coming Through

 

Slowly but surely the trickle of information – that is our feedback to the Unitary Plan is coming through to the #shapeauckland website for our viewing.

I noted on Twitter this morning that Auckland Council has made mention and updated its Shape Auckland webpage indicating the process of the Unitary Plan, as well as an electronic document dump for our feedback:

 

A Screenshot of the Shape Auckland website as of this morning

Shape Auckland screenie

 

 

Unitary Plan Civic Forum – South

On April 6 a group of stakeholders were invited to the Southern Auckland Civic Forum at the Manukau Civic Centre (old Manukau City Council complex). There with the Local Boards, the Deputy Mayor and Planners; we (the residents, businesses(?) and non-for-profit groups) discussed and debated on a series of questions asked in regards to the Unitary Plan for the South (which includes Botany and Howick).

 

Our feedback from the Civic Forum (South) can be seen in the embedd below

You can see the rest of the Auckland “sectors” at the Unitary Plan Feedback page.

 

Now we wait to see what weight and what progress will be made of the Civic Forums feedback from the entire city. And yes good old Manukau is in there folks as that campaign pushes on.

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

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.

 

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. 

 

A Question on Trees

· 3 Comments ·

Carrot or Stick?

 

When I was at the Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan, the discussion about trees on private property popped up. The basic question on trees that reside on one’s private property was: should a private property owner have to go through the motions with the bureaucracy to remove a tree from their property (so we could be looking at permits, restoration costs and even possibly having your decision in wanting a tree (especially if it is a protected tree)) – so the big stick; or should a private property owner be able to freely remove their tree providing it does not cause high detriment to the local environment (increased erosion being the main one) and that the owner replaces the tree with another tree either on their property or in a public park/reserve – so a carrot or rather incentive.

 

Councillor Penny Webster raised the idea of using the carrot rather than a stick at the Civic Forum where private property owners could freely remove a tree on their property if it was causing shading onto the house, or as a hazard to the house or surrounding utilities (power, water, sewerage) providing the fact the owner replaced that tree with another one on their own property or at a near by public park or reserve.

 

Right now I am about to go through the motions of removing a Bottle-brush tree from the front on my property. The tree blocks sunlight in the winter (thus chilling the house) and has branches interfering with power lines. At the same time the tree is also a home and feeding place for our resident Tui birds who enjoy making a racket in the morning before the sun is up (noisy buggers). Now I am going to be presented with two options here when removing that tree: utter bureaucracy (outside of the fact I need to inform Vector so the power can be isolated) to have the tree removed; or Council will let me just get on with the job removing the tree as I am going to replace it with a Kowhai at the other end of the property away from the overhead wires (as well as it won’t shade the house).

 

In replacing the Bottle-brush with a Kowhai, Mr and Mrs Tui bird won’t lose out – in fact they gain with a native tree (the Kowhai which is their favourite) replacing the Bottle-brush tree. And in replacing with a native I do my little bit for Green Society in preserving a habitat while getting some extra value onto my property valuation (just don’t tell Council or I might get a rates rise 😉 ).

 

 

And so I ask this question to readers: Status quo (the stick) when it comes to removing trees; or the replacement idea (so incentive) when wanting to remove a tree on your property.

 

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