Posts by Glenn Pearce
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Duncan McKenzie,
Could the "Timid" apply to the Councillors and the "Bold" apply to the Planners?
How much involvement in the process to the Councillors actually have, I assume they are briefed at various stages? Or were the new maps in December with the large scale out of scope changes as much a surprise to them as the general public?
-
It should also be noted that had it not been for the leaking of the revised plans in December the council had no intention of releasing them to the public until after they presented to the IHP and it was too late.
Regardless of where you stand on intensification, it's an unconscionable process.
-
Not just Casey, the Eden Albert Local, board too, not exactly the hard right of local body politics.
It would be good for someone from the Waitemata board to state their position, I know they read this blog, they’ve been silent either way far.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Duncan McKenzie,
Seriously, Point 9 seems to the only thing vaguely suggesting to the council they should have another look. Is that what Hulse is hanging all the out of scope changes on?
This whole thing is going to end up in the Environment Court
-
I'm sorry I don't see the bit where the IHP directed the Council to upzone more?
-
As to the concerns of the folk who have belatedly become aware – I do have some sympathy but as someone who has taken a close interest in the process from the beginning, I would be annoyed if that process was to be disrupted by people who have just woken up.
I've been following it pretty closely too, can you point to anywhere that it was made clear to the public that if you didn't submit on the notified Proposed Plan you would be excluded from the process henceforth (and that large scale "out of scope" changes were possible in the final version). I certainly missed that memo.
-
Deputy Mayor Hulse is correct in regards to the Blue Out of Scope changes regarding residential growth shortages.
Thanks, could you point me (link) to the directive from the IHP to Council that Hulse refers to? Auckland2040 claim there was no such directive.
In regards to the Pre 1944 Demo Overlay, with the Panel scaling that back significantly it meant the Council could no longer defend applying the Single House Zone so upzoning will occur.
So it's correct that the initial premise of upzoning along arterial routes and transport hubs was basically dis-regarded in this respect then? Effectively no regard for infrastructure to support the upzoning, anything where the pre-1944 overlay was removed was upzoned (in some cases 2 levels) and now no ability to submit feedback on that. Can you seriously not see why people are upset about this?
My take is the council messed up the 1st version of the plan and are now using the "out of scope" process to attempt to correct it. The "out of scope" changes may be legal, but they certainly aren't the spirit that the out of scope changes were intended for.
-
When Cathy Casey and Mike Lee are lining up with Cameron Brewer, George Wood and Dick Quax against the process, you probably should take a long hard look at the process.
-
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?