Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's Unitary Plan befuddlement
146 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Infrastructure doesn't appear to have been considered at all in Unitary Plan, it's a just in time approach
-
a new site for the kindergarten
Except they're building a Day Care not a Kindegarden, but that's a whole other story...
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
I don't think there are any garages in the Six Sisters, they have parking pads out the front and a little storage underneath. They are not 3 storey homes.
-
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Yes, the young guy in basing his decision that the new zoning rules are not a threat he seems to be referring to the MHU from the Notified version of the plan, not the revised December 2015 version.
The 1200m2 has been revised to no density limits for MHU and to describe the development controls as "stringent" is a bit of a stretch.
Marc C has outlined the issues above, I won't repeat.
-
Swan, in reply to
The main problem with what Housing NZ is (still) seeking in our street isn’t height, it’s that there actually isn’t enough room in the cul sac. It’s already often only wide enough for one car to pass when residents are parked up.
I dont mean to be argumentative, and obviously you know your street better than I do, but I find the argument that we cant have any more development because unpriced kerb parking is already full (in general) a bit hard to swallow. Yellow lines on one side would fix this problem by the sound of it.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Herald has opinion posts for (young tertiary student) and against (old Ak 2040 guy) the plan changes.
I've always thought the Boomer-Millennial inter-generational conflict thing is more accurately a conflict between Generation Rent and Generation Rentier. Not all Boomers are rent- i -ers and not all millennials are renters - they just happen to skew towards their respective social strata.
(Is it possible to have bold/italic text bunched together with normal text?)
-
Sacha, in reply to
Is it possible to have bold/italic text bunched together with normal text?
Doesn't like punctuation characters. Long-standing simple bug in the CMS which for some reason remains unfixed.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Except they’re building a Day Care not a Kindegarden, but that’s a whole other story…
Latest situation is that it's going to be both. Which seems reasonable given that there was demand for both.
Not such fun for immediate neighbours of course, and it's going to considerably increase traffic in the surrounding area (which includes our little street and more especially the intersection with Meola Road) but it did have to go somewhere.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
dont mean to be argumentative, and obviously you know your street better than I do, but I find the argument that we cant have any more development because unpriced kerb parking is already full (in general) a bit hard to swallow. Yellow lines on one side would fix this problem by the sound of it.
Don't think I've ever seen a suburban cul de sac marked up like that.
But it's not just parking. Kids play in the street at the end of the cul de sac. Apart from half the duplex at the top, which is fairly itinerant, the HNZ tenancies are stable and well-integrated with the neighbourhood these days and we look out for the old people.
As I noted in our submission, I'm not confident of HNZ taking up the duty of care for potentially five or six times as many tenants, given that we almost never see them now. When old George across the road panicked because a neighbourhood phone outage disabled his medical alert button, it was me who called Telecom to see what they could do, me who loaned him a mobile that his number could divert to.
So this isn't some nimby zoning fear for the future, it's the reality of living with a landowner that wants its own properties given an anomalous zoning on which it seems likely to act pretty rapidly.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Yes, my sense is Kindergarden aspect will be incidental in the end thoigh, it certainly won't have the vibe of the old one that's for sure. Wonder what's happening with the old building on the existing site.
Heard claims that will it will be a $6m facility.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Many of them are Boomers thinking they are protecting their Millennial's inheritances.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Yes, that is fair enough, but MHU went up from 11 to 17 percent of total zoned residential areas, a 50 percent increase, add MHS, and there is significant intensification planned, according to Council's current position, which the Panel will have to review and make recommendations on, also considering the many submissions put before the IHP.
Housing NZ have their interests, and they push hard to get their submissions heard and considered, they want intensification on a large scale.
What should never have happened in Auckland was the massive sprawl we now have, and what should really happen is that the city SHRINKS, but as that would bring immense economic costs with it, and major losses for property owners, the Council has decided to nearly double the population.
That though is not sustainable for the Auckland region, as we will have very serious problems with funding for the needed additional transport and many other infrastructure and service needs. And I wonder if any person has considered that without another 200 million litres of water a day that Watercare is trying to get access to from the Waikato River, we will not have the water to supply the anticipated larger Auckland population.
Many reports have already shown that Auckland's water resources are limited, and the only feasible option seems to be to get that extra water from the Waikato, or else we will look at a desalination plant costing more than 3.1 billion dollars, I wonder whether anyone here has bothered considering that humble bit of stark reality?
The extra pipeline and treatment plant for water from the Waikato may cost 360 million instead, but the application by Watercare for more water from the Waikato RC is lingering on, still due to be decided, for over two years now, and there seem to be issues with over-allocation, as local Waikato applicants come first, and the Watercare allocation will lead to too low flows for the river.
All this planning, but few bother with the basics, I fear.
-
Re the water situation in Auckland, and what Watercare has done, trying to resolve future demand pressures:
https://www.watercare.co.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/AllPDFs/Waikato-River-Fact-Sheet.pdf
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/66519932/Auckland-water-application-could-take-up-to-a-year-to-process
https://www.watercare.co.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/AllPDFs/Tapped_In_Winter_2015.pdfIt seems there are limited opportunities to provide the additionally needed future water to supply another 400,000 households and another 700,000 to 1 million population, and it all seems to depend on access to the Waikato River, which so far has not been resolved.
In the meantime planning goes on, and hearings go on, and Council simply hopes that all will be resolved, but no assurances have been given, none at all.
How can you grow a population, intensify many areas and forget to ensure the water for the residents is going to be there?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the Council has decided to nearly double the population
They really are not that powerful. :)
Most of the increase projected by StatsNZ is through births in the region's existing population.
-
Sacha, in reply to
without another 200 million litres of water a day that Watercare is trying to get access to from the Waikato River, we will not have the water to supply the anticipated larger Auckland population.
that's a big problem.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Closely half of it by historic records, but likely to be less (natural growth) in future. But even if you try to defend that, you may sound like the Pope, trying to defend high birth rates. Look at how well that worked for the Philippines, or even Bangla Desh.
It is not a solution to simply accept and allow growth that cannot be sustained, no matter what arguments you try to deliver.
Birth control was not invented for entertainment reasons only.
-
Marc C, in reply to
And I suggest there is more space and potential in regions that have been neglected for years, if only a government would have the guts to pass laws and also invest into regional development. To encourage new migrants to get points by moving to regions is a humble start by this government.
Why do we have to simply allow most migration to head into Auckland, it makes NO sense.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Len Cook's presentation said more like two thirds. And councils have not historically been that involved in birth control.:)
Similarly regional economic development policy is central government's domain, yes. They still hold most of the cards in Auckland ultimately.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Why do we have to simply allow most migration to head into Auckland, it makes NO sense.
By a freak of infrastructure and economy of scale, Auckland handles most of NZ's long haul flights, which means it inherently gets most of the migrants. In Wellington there's been a bit of heated debate over extending its runway and the costs/benefits involved.
On top of that, there's been a lot of head office drift to Auckland in the past generation, supposedly on the pretext that globally-minded businesses need to be on the next plane to LA/London/Tokyo at a minutes' notice.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Migrants, like many young New Zealanders, are not attracted by the opportunities a small provincial town offers. They may seek enough people of their own culture to ensure they have access to familiar food, customs, etc here. That driver won't change.
-
Another Transportblog post about this.
-
Orsman summarises his slanted, deficient understanding of the whole process.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
-
For the keen, this 20 minute story from RNZ's Nine to Noon includes interviews with Richard Burton and Penny Hulse.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.