Elderly Targetted as Elected Members Enter Campaign Mode

Auckland Council has started to hit the most vulnerable in our communities and yet the high-end extravagant projects go untouched. Today I was contacted by some residents of a local Council owned housing for older persons flats (formerly pensioner houses). They told me that their garden bins had sat unemptied for about six months and then yesterday they were removed completely. The residents were advised that the garden waste service, which had been collected by Council for as long as they could remember, would be cease. They were not informed and (as a Board member) the Local Boards do not appear to be informed of this cut in service either. These older residents maintain the Council's gardens to a very high level and this is penny-pinching at its worst. A cynical person would suggest that Council has waited until its local board had finished its final meeting for the term before conducting this sort of action on some of our most vulnerable residents. To top it off, we were all promised that there would be no loss of service under the amalgamation to Auckland Council. That promise will ring hollow in the ears of our older folk as they struggle to dispose of Council garden waste. yours sincerely,

Biased Articles that no one reads anyway really

Dear sir, A more balanced article about Auckland's Unitary Plan would have been overly optimistic I suppose. But a cynical, sneering poorly informed article appearing in the June issue depicted an ideological bias not seen since the writing of the Draft plan itself. I attended most of the meetings discussed and saw only concerned residents seeking answers unable to be found in either the Council's text nor its maps. Even if one was able to access the clunky website, purchase a copy for $1800 or attend a PR meeting most would have been left bewildered. Hence it was important to arrange more open meetings where the community could speak rather than be spoken to. The meetings were arranged after local board members were told there was no budget for such meaningful consultation. It is interesting that a budget was suddenly found after a group of us started to arrange our own meetings. Not only was a budget found but the Local Board timetabled their meetings at the last minute to coincide with our local community meetings. Coincidence? Maybe. But, the funding of young people to leaflet outside some of the community meetings, apparently on a Local Board budget was not. The issue is that Auckland Council based as it fundamental assumption that Auckland would have to accommodate $1million more people in 30 years and panicked. However, Statistics NZ have a recommended projection of 300,000 less than Auckland Council's figure. If the basic assumption is wrong then Council should review their planning. It is important for the Unitary Plan to be shaped at this stage rather than relying on the more formal, technical submission stage. But, the hopes of many who thought that the submission stage would allow the chance for meaningful engagement were dashed when it was made public that Council was lobbying hard to get the Resource Management Act amended to make it legally operative in September (earlier than currently lawful). This action and more recent comments from the Deputy Mayor undermined faith that the Council will heed feedback. But, if nothing else the community is now talking about the Unitary Plan and the Council appears to be talking with communities. That in itself must be something worth celebrating.

Our residents started to receive their rate notice this week. I have had a number contact me expressing outrage and deep concern about the massive rises they are confronted with. Rarely has a trip to the letterbox been such a traumatic experience for some. But of course, one doesn't have to go far to see the reason. The Auckland Council owes over $7 Billion in debt and plans to increase this to well over $8 Billion in the next few years. Interest payments are $1 million per day and absorb about 20 cents of every rates dollar collected. This debt equates to $4,883 of debt per every man, woman and child in our fair City. This debt per person has almost tripled in the time of Auckland Council. A family of five has had nearly $25,000 racked up against their good name. Every man, woman and child owes about 66 cents in interest payments every day of the year. That means the same family of five owes about $23 per week in interest payments on Council's debt. All this is due to increase and is madness. At some point people are going to cry "enough". At some point local people are going to demand a fairer proportion of their rates be returned to their community instead of being sucked into the corporate centre. This weeks trip to the letterbox might see that point arriving in October

Nasties were out in force last night. I lost two billboards on Onewa Rd. Our Team of Independents must be having an effect!

Chatswood Finally gets Smooth

After years of community lobbying, Chatswood is finally getting smooth seal on its roads. For years locals have had to tolerate noisy roads and tar on their carpets and chewed out shocks and brake pads because of the appalling chip surface. Now Auckland Transport has agreed to upgrade the seal to a smooth coating. Yay for safer quieter neighbourhoods!

Milford Plans are over the Top: Down with Up!

The government has it terribly wrong when it suggests that the Milford plan change decision is an example of "costs, delays uncertainty and poor outcomes". The decision was entirely appropriate in reflecting the will of the community. Unfortunately, Auckland Council has slipped a nasty eight storey blade, into the heart of Milford, during the distraction over 17 storeys. Council's soothing tones fail to accept that eight storeys are far too high for Milford and the community objects to that grotesque height as well. Also, lost in the discussion is Council's planned additional staggered heights and densification in the surrounding roads. Milford's experience is a prime example of ‘community beware’ when assessing the implications of the Unitary Plan. Eight storeys are also planned for Northcote, six for Glenfield and Highbury along with neighbouring streets impacted by six and four storey intensification, without any thought of the social impact. I have been told that the Political Working Party decisions were made in apparent illogical and random acts of selection. The density proposals of the Unitary Plan should not be imposed on communities without a comprehensive community impact report so that the true effects can be carefully assessed by the community.

Takapuna Campground

It is great that Councillor George Wood has sided with the community over the Takapuna Beach campground. I have noted with concern that since the formation of the Auckland Council, the pervasive direction is the commercialistion of community activities. Too often community events or projects are furthered only if there is a financial return that matches some forecast on a Council spreadsheet. I applaud decisions made in a businesslike manner but some community activities are well loved and hard to measure in an economic sense. We are seeing an increasing and alarming focus solely on economic return for the city. This measure has triggered discussions of whether neighbourhood parks should be sold if not used by formal groups or sports bodies. Local contractors have lost out to regional conglomerates, and local events to regional extravaganzas. The economic focus seems to take precedent over cultural, environmental or social returns to the community. The community has to be vigilant to ensure that an holistic view of its wellbeing is considered in Council’s decision-making processes. Takapuna Beach campground is a fabulous example and it seems as if in this case, the community view might just prevail.

Narrow Neck land update

A recent (3rd April)newspaper report implied that the Narrow Neck land should be sold because there are sections of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act that allows land to be used for Treaty settlement.
Section 14 (and others) in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act determine that “Nothing in this Act limits or affects the ability of any person to bring a claim … arising out of the application of the Treaty of Waitangi...

However, this sort of section is not unusual as similar ones abound in examples such as State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, Conservation Act 1987, Crown Minerals Act 1991, Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998, Education Act 1989, Environment Act 1986, Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011, Fisheries Act 1996, Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 to name but a very few.

Settlements are between the Crown and the particular Iwi and that reserves are often part of the agreement and community consultation is rarely if ever conducted because of the nature of such settlements. But, even though legal this action is unethical.

This case is unique in its history of community action, which led to a Bill being introduced into Parliament, a successful High Court action and a subsequent Act of Parliament designed to protect the potential of reserve status. The High Court determination of 1998 did not require that the land be set aside forever but it certainly informed the legislation and serves to illustrate the deep and strongly held desires of the community to determine that the complete headland be retained and/or vested as reserve.

My concern is not about the settlement per se, but it is an issue about private ownership and development of reserve land; the land is being removed from Reserve status by an Act of Parliament to enable it to be sold and is being offered to Ngati Whatua for purchase under commercial not cultural redress. This indicates that future intentions are for commercial development of this part of the reserve. It is reprehensible and inappropriate that such a change is being introduced without any formal consultation with the local board and / or community and the Auckland Council.

Interesting Article in Stuff today about Takapuna Head

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6650693/North-Shore-fights-30m-treaty-land-claim#comments
Its a shame people are mixing up a settlement issue with the removal of a piece of land from the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, by amendment to the Act.
This is not a Treaty issue; it is an issue about private ownership and development of reserve land. The land is being removed from Reserve status by an Act of Parliament to enable it to be sold. The land is then being offered to Ngati Whatua for purchase under commercial redress.  This indicates that future intentions are for commercial development of the reserve. I am not opposed in the land being handed under Treaty settlement if it stayed in reserve status as part of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Apartment Sizes and Intensificatio Dialogue Article

Peter White argues that Takapuna can become the intensification show home for Auckland and articulates the many benefits of intensification.

However, many reports over the last six years have identified several serious concerns with apartments that had been built in the Auckland Council area. A report produced by Aaron Sills van Bohemen for North Shore City Council pointed out that it is clear that density alone does not deliver benefits unless other issues are addressed as well. These include adequate open space and pedestrian friendly streets.

So, yes there was fearful reaction to the Studio D4 and Jasmax proposals that two of the three heritage zoned areas on the North Shore, (Birkenhead and Northcote Points) be subject to intensification but this fear was rational and justified. Communities have for too long suffered from the effects of bad planning decisions and short-term development politics as examples well illustrate.

North Shore City had suffered under numerous examples of poor residential developments built with little regard of their effect on the public domain
Concerns have included poor amenities such as a lack of provision for disabled, elderly and children. For example in some developments, residents' parking is mingled with the area in which most children play. Also, residents struggle up several floors with shopping, washing and young children. Affordable maybe, but certainly not always pleasant living.

European apartment lifestyles are often held out as the inspiration for duplication in this country. But while most European countries have regulated sizes for apartments, New Zealand is unusual in the developed world by not having minimum housing size standards.

Auckland City residents found this out to their cost. Apartments of only 18 square metres and even 12 square metres were reported in Auckland back in 2005. This led to a report to Auckland City advising that there had been significant community concerns with the size of individual units and the lack of internal and external amenity including matters such as natural lighting, ventilation, noise attenuation, and separation distances. There was a "lack of control to require quality built form design".

As a result Auckland City implemented a plan change (Appendix 12) that introduced minimum apartment standards. This change effectively required new apartments to be a minimum of 35 m2 for studio apartments, 45 m2 (single bedroom, 70 m2 (2 bedroom) and 90 m2 for three bedroom apartments.

But when North Shore City attempted to introduce similar minimum apartment sizes some politicians (presumably the same political leaders mentioned by Peter White) argued for smaller ones (Strategy and Finance Committee 20 July 2010). After a long, divided and sometimes difficult debate the North Shore City Council eventually decided upon introducing minimum standards (larger than those proposed by officers), similar to the new Auckland City ones, to ensure some control over size and design.

But, even 'The London Plan 2009' (with the smallest minimums in Europe) and Sydney set minimum standards higher than Auckland and North Shore.

As van Bohemen pointed out in the report for North Shore City, good design is crucial for apartment living (i.e. intensification) to be a viable long-term option for us. Unfortunately there is no practical way to legislate for good design. But minimum apartment sizes are a useful start. I hope that the new Auckland Council sets minimum standards for across Auckland that are not standardised but are appropriately adapted to the needs of particular suburbs.