Well if that is what has happened (and I don't think anything has happened yet, the council issued a statement saying they are working through it) then they have taken an action contrary to the motion that was voted on.
Sorry, I see what you're getting at, yes because the motion specified 2 dates it would have included some in scope changes but the late alteration to the motion should allow those to proceed if they were error corrections.
It would interesting to know which councillor told you that.
The wording of the motion they voted on clearly stated all changes submitted on 2 specific dates (that I don't recall) and there was a late alteration during the meeting to exclude minor changes that were error corections.
It covered all the out of scope (blue).
Quite, the labelling "out of scope" is largely irrelevant. It's the "surprise" nature of it and the general lack of transparency that caused the problems.
As I've said before if the revised maps were issued with notes for each area indicating why each of the zoning changes had occurred and justifying they would have been better received.
I still don't think the revised maps are even available on the Council website? They only on the Stuff and NZ Herald sites I think.
The crowd was certainly hostile but Pirritt was poor when she started off talking about St Heliers Bay Rd and Riddell Rd which of course aren't in Glendowie.
Then when Brewer read the guidelines for MHU (near train, bus routes, town centre etc.) and then pointed out areas of Glendowie with MHU that have none of those she had no answer.
That's my humble opinion anyway.
I thought Shale Chambers example from West Lynn was enlightening too. A resident have made a passing comment in a submission that lead to a Neighbour's house being rezoned THAB which then because of the step down planning rules meant the surrounding properties were re-zoned as well. All because of a passing comment in a submission, when the submitter found out they were horrified and withdrew the submission according to Chambers.
because of inter-dependencies will collapse on itself.
Serious question, if the Out of Scope changes have inter-dependencies on other changes then by definition they're not Out of Scope surely?
What would be an example of an Out of Scope change that had inter-dependencies on other changes.
Well I did hear Pirritt rather than Duguid say it might be difficult to get the planners to defend the previous version of the plan knowing the work that had gone into the revised version (although she also said the subject hadn't actually been broached with them). I didn't catch them saying the planners would "refuse", but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
On that note I thought Pirritt/Duguid did a fine job of defending the Out of Scope changes in Takapuna when pressed by George Wood but they did a dreadful job of defending the Out of Scope changes in Glendowie when pressed by Cameron Brewer.
Slightly hyperbolic, they've only withdrawn the Out of Scope changes as I understand it, everything else stands and the Council will still be represented at the IHP
In that case, what happened to Canterbury will happen to Auckland. Government will appoint commissioners to oversee the plan and then the intensification happens anyway.
Possibly, but that's not exactly a vote winner for them is it? I'd say the Unitary Plan process will get extended by at least 12 months, apparently there is provision in the legislation for an extension.
They'll also probably push the line of "Auckland has rejected going up so they must go out" and yes, I'm aware of the associated infrastructure costs with that approach.
Also specific mention in the 5 options presented to Councillors of the Housing NZ submission.