Posts by Swan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,
The irony of this is that the council sought to be "conservative" in determining what was in and out of scope in order to push more things out of scope to give people more appeal rights.
Now that this has happened the council may be forced to take a more balanced and correct definition of scope. This will render all these properties in scope and people would then lose those appeal rigths. Pretty much the opposite of what they were hoping for.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
Thanks Glenn,
It is a very interesting resolution and quite different to what had been conveyed to me. It is interesting that it refers to "out-of-scope", and not specifically the blue bordered areas on the maps. This indicates they are asking for things that are actually out of scope to be removed. The reality is out-of-scope hasn't been determined yet, but it is likely that most of the changes are actually in scope. In order for the council to enact the resolution, I am guessing they need to get a judgement on what is and is not in scope. It may turn out that 99% is in scope and so the whole thing is moot.
-
Hi Glenn, do you have a link to the wording of the resolution? Thanks
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
Glenn,
This is what was said by a Councillor:
"We could not easily partly withdraw our evidence with the IHP so the revocation withdraws it all. The planners integrated so much material that this was the cleaner way."
Remember, the blue isn't out of scope, the council used an incorrect definition of scope in determining that.
-
Glenn Pearce they withdrew the entire submission, I got clarification by a councillor.
Whether the proposed changes were out of scope or not is very relevant. If in scope (which they were) there was no secrecy, as it was within the scope of relief sought by submitters. If the council voted to revoke in scope change proposals, then it is nothing to do with process. They disenfranchised the submitters who called for the chamges (there were many who did).
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Russell Brown,
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.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to linger,
Im not saying it is its main purpose. But the Ministry of Ed owns a lot of property and has budget constraints. If it wants to sell off a slice of an underused field to pay for classroom renovations thats a choice they can make.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Marc C,
It sounds like you are trying to redefine house to mean standalone dwelling with a garden. Good for you but not veey helpful.
-
No justification? Surely it is up to the Ministry to decide if they need a particular piece of land for education purposes, not the council? Whats it git to do with the council they arent responsible for education.
I dont find mixed housing urban to be innapropriate in a suburb within a few ks on Aucklands CBD. The most important thing here is the fact we have a housing crisis, not the feng shui of gables down a cul de sac.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
Ministry of Ed is naximising the value of their land and fair enough. It gives them more flexibilty to efficiently use rheir capital. They have only asked for ths zoning to match adjacent zoning. As for HNZ they are one of the biggest developers in Auckland. Upzoning their properties will make it more likely they can use them. They are short of smaller units.