That seems reasonable way to deal with the problem of locals not knowing what is happening. It also means that people who actually view the building will be in a position to act
Maybe when it comes to action those who wish to save our heritage should be able through by either putting their hands in their pockets or through cheap loans be able to buy the affected properties at an agreed valuation
It is easy to complain about changes but ownership (by Trusts and locals etc) does give better results, in my opinion
Surely one of the biggest problems with the Turua Street debacle was the way that the community were excluded from the consent process because Council staff were able to declare it non-notifiable. That's after a similar application for that site by the same developer had attracted public ire and been rejected. In between, the developer was able to lobby to get the District Plan changed, playing by the rules.
The planning system seems hugely biased in favour of those able to last the distance and with more resources whether it's money, political influence or strong networks. Sometimes that's community groups, but mostly it isn't.
The results are clear. Our urban landscape suffers and we have no history to show our children. This country (and especially Auckland) is like a brash teenager who only values the now. Time we grew up.
Couldn't agree more with Sacha's comments above. Community groups rarely have the resources to fight developers, even at the Council hearing stage.
In the end the side with the deepest pockets win most of the time, and from bitter experience the Council Commissioners and Environment Court do not value the input of locals. Developers will pay 'independent' experts to put their side of the story, and that can't be matched in most cases by community groups.
As someone who appeared, along with around a dozen others, at a hearing about a large and lovely pohutukawa - nearly a century old - which is getting in the way of car-parking in the new development in Rosebank Rd, I can certainly attest to the last two posters being so right. The developer in this case got the "right" to clear over 25 acres of ex-market garden, provided he kept two companion trees - an oak, and the pohutukawa. His lawyer, at the hearing to appeal the council's (non-notifiable prior) decision to allow the felling of the pohutukawa, which the developer applied to do once the site was devoid of any other foliage, actually said it was agreed Mr X would keep the trees if he could clear-fell the rest of the site, but that he didn't say for how long!
And now the man has appealed the decision yet again! Will that tree survive? Heaven only knows.