It's not even possible to find documents affecting a general area or suburb, let alone an individual property.
The search function appears to only search the document title, not the contents from what I can tell.
Not sure who is managing the document management, whether it is the IHP or the Council on behalf of them.
The IHP document website is absolutely hopeless with extremely limited ability to search documents and the overwhelming volume of documents would make it almost impossible for any individual property owner to identify submissions that may affect their property for starters.
Yes, but if you think that if the IHP magically declares they are all In Scope that the Councillors that voted for the removal will change their mind you're dreaming.
Over on TransportBlog they are seriously talking about how they should have made individual up zoning requests for every single property in Auckland if they had known to avoid the Out of Scope argument. That's hardly engaging in good faith is it?
I'd argue that the Housing NZ submission wasn't really in good faith either, they should have know that planning best practice does not advise spot zoning. Housing NZ have shot themselves in the foot that's why they are arguing the Out of Zone are actually In Scope because they know their spot rezoning requests won't be tolerated by the IHP.
Legally relevant perhaps but I still think the same level of uproar would have occurred had they been labelled Out of Scope or not
The phrase "Out of Scope" is sort of inflammatory in itself though, it implies not justified or secret it some way.
In/out of scope is kind of irrelevant it's the scale of the late changes that has people upset, most (including many of the Councillors) would have been expecting limited changes from the Notified version.
It's certainly a shambles
At 6 hrs 11 minutes in the Video linked to above it is displayed on the screen.
Just re-read it actually, it only mentions the "out of scope" changes, I believe there was an alteration to allow out of scope that are error cortrections to proceed.
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.