Posts by Glenn Pearce

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,

    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).

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Wichid,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Wichid,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Wichid,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    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

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: So what now?,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…,

    Also specific mention in the 5 options presented to Councillors of the Housing NZ submission.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…,

    Looking more and more like the revised plan and the out of scope changes were done to address the Housing NZ submission for spot re-zoning all over the place.

    No mention of the IHP directing the Council to intensify more at all from John Duguid

    This from Bob Dey

    http://www.propbd.co.nz/plan-staff-put-5-options-on-rezoning-maps/

    Tweet from Penny Hulse last night

    @BenRoss_AKL Commissioners r not The issue. Govt submissions from HNZ v bullish and request huge up zoning. We will be cut out of discussion

    It would interesting for someone with the skills and time to overlay the Blue Out of Zone changes with a map of all the spot re-zoning requests from HNZ.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…,

    Also the next tweet from Hulse where she blames the whole thing on the HNZ submission requesting massive upzoning.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 469 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 47 Older→ First