The Orakei and Eden-Albert boards have also taken a stance on this on behalf of constituents, Waitemata board appear to be silent on the whole issue.
She explained that the proposal put forward by the Council is only a preliminary position and that any out of scope changes are based on the feedback Council received from the public in the earlier stages of the process.
I don't think this is a correct statement, as I understand it the blue out scope changes are not based on feedback from the public at all but from the guidance from the IHP to the Council and "best practice" planning?
I heard Penny Hulse claiming that the blue out of scope changes were made because the feedback from the IHP to the council was that they hadn't upzoned enough in the initial draft plan to cope with the growth planned for Auckland.
Auckland2040 however claim there was no such direction from the IHP.
Could Ben (or someone) point to where exactly this feedback Penny Hulse refers to is documented as someone is wrong.
Putting the awful process that is being followed aside, perhaps if the blue "out of scope" changes maps were published with an explanation of why particular areas were selected for the out of scope changes they would be better received and understood by people.
Some of the changes appear to be random and bizarre to the average Joe.
The initial plan was (I understood) for the upzoning along major arteries and around transport hubs (seems fair enough and logical). The latest out of zone changes appear to have little science behind them at face value.
What it looks like to me is they have removed the pre-1944 heritage protection from areas they deem to be already stuffed because of the previous lack of protection having now done a proper review and once the pre-1944 protection was removed they upzoned everything by 1 or in some cases 2 levels irrespective of transport connections.
I also believe they have been influenced by the cynical submission by Housing NZ to have individual properties upzoned.
The removal of the special zone for schools and re-zoning them residential is also concerning as it allows the MoE to sell schools that are deemed to be "surplus to requirements"
In a Xmas miracle, McGowan gets new teeth
Righto, I'll make a point next time of going on a foggy day, skip lunch in Sausalito and make my kids ride the extra 15kms to Tiburon to avoid the Ferry queue. Sounds like a great day out :-)
Ask anyone in Sydney or SF how many tourists enjoy walking / cycling over those iconic bridges and the answer is – a lot and they are all happy.
Actually, having just done the cycle over Golden Gate bridge 6 weeks ago, I can tell you it's not as pleasant as you might think.
It's 3.5 metres wide, non-separated, with half allocated to cyclists and half to pedestrians, both pedestrians and cyclists bi-directional.
The cyclists are a combination on about 90% tourist who have rented bikes from Jefferson Street at Fisherman's Wharf and 10% serious sporting cyclists going (or trying to go) at speed.
There are no decent sized pull out bays, the pedestrian lane is the seaward side and most of the tourist cyclists try to cross onto the pedestrian side for the views/photo ops.
The steep road downhill into Sausalito has a single width cycle lane, non-separated from traffic.
Try navigating that with young kids riding unfamiliar bikes.
There are big issues on the Sausalito side too, the nearest free parking for bikes is about a kilometre from the ferry/shops/cafes, there is a pay and display bike park right by the ferry though which is not cheap.
The ferries can only hold limited numbers of bikes and it's a first come first served basis, it's routine to queue for 2 hours+ to get a return ferry.
It's basically too popular.
Thanks, hope a venue is found in Auckland at some stage. Smyth Galleries in Herne Bay had an exhibition of collection of the posters a few years ago that was fantastic.
Is there any information on when/where the Selling the Dream exhibition is coming to Auckland?