This is Belmont, Devonport, North Shore City, Auckland. It's one of the areas targeted by the Draft Unitary Plan for intensification - terraced housing and apartment buildings to 4 storeys. (3 more than what you see here - including many hectares of residential land). And to the right of the photo is Lake Road - the only road in and out of Devonport. Poor for cars, and poorly served with public transport.... .jpg)
On Sunday, a public meeting was convened by concerned residents at the Rose Centre. The guy with the microphone is Tony Keenan. He explained they'd received a leaflet from Grant Gillon (a member of the Kaipatiki Local Board), outlining what the Unitray Plan might mean for the Belmont area. That led to a few neighbours talking, another leaflet drop, and the meeting itself....jpg)
They were very organised - maps on stands and a data-show with power point presentation. Submission forms were also available. Tony Keenan summarised a number of the concerns of residents. Near the top of his list was the fact that Lake Road is bad now, and there are not credible plans to fix it; that there was no evidence of Master Planning by the council - it would just be a developer buying up 2 or 3 adjoining lots and then being able to develop high-rise as of right..jpg)
Here a neighbour explains some of the concerns. The meeting heard the viewpoint of those organising the meeting: that the unitary plan encourages construction to 4 storeys (14.5 metres); puts no limit on density but encourages high-density development, and effectively discourages the retaining of single dwellings in the zone; would lead to more people living in Belmont but with no provision for improving public transport or roading access along Lake Road, or more schooling, or for better shopping and services in Belmont.....jpg)
Grant Gillion chaired the meeting. He spoke to the power point presentation and dealt with what he described as the various myths behind the unitary plan. First up was his critique of the million extra people in 30 years assumption - using Govt statistics to rebut that. He also challenged assumptions about whether the intensification would genuinely lead to the development of affordable housing. He cited the comparative example of Vancouver Housing. .jpg)
He put up some images of how 4 storeys could look - and there was debate from the floor about this - some arguing that good quality terrace housing might e attractive - but that it would need to be carefully planned. Grant also made the point that to do this well - across Auckland (because it's not just a problem from Belmont or Devonport), is that it requires careful staging and planning. It should not just be left to the market..jpg)
The meeting was full of familiar faces, all interested. This was the first opportunity for this area of Devonport to hear about and discuss the implications of the Unitary Plan for their neighbourhoods. I got the strong sense that for them it was rushed. That this scale of change takes time to get right. Local people have lived here for several decades. It's home to them. One man said he felt a split was being driven between young and old - they say the young ones want apartments and affordability and we are the ones that are stopping them. (ED: This was an interesting comment. Young people do support intensification and apartments. There is a generational change. Rather than a split, this change will need to be managed community by community. One single unitary plan zone change is part of the mechanism for this - but it's only one part.) .jpg)
Some excellent points came from the floor. One was that Te Atatu and Devonport share similar geographic character - they are peninsulas, with one central main road in and out. Assuming the same intensive zones will work across Auckland - without regard for geography and difference was a nonsense, one man said. Another pointed out what a joke it was to refer to Belmont as a "town centre". A few shops, liquor outlets, a chemist and pizza hut - does not a town centre make. Requires a lot of imagination, one woman said.The meeting ended with a resolution opposing the unitary plan as it applied to Belmont. In discussion there were conflicting views about whether the resolution should apply just to Belmont, or to Devonport as a whole. Some saying they felt they couldn't make a decision for the whole of Devonport when it was a Belmont meeting. Because of the media coverage many attended from further afield. They said they felt the points made at the meeting applied to the whole of Devonport - not just Belmont.
A useful meeting. Probably should have happened a year ago...
4 comments:
Judging by the photos, the crowd was very representative of the general community. I would have liked to attend but didn't hear anything about it. I don't think it would be appropriate for that group present at the meeting to oppose the Unitary Plan on behalf of "Belmont", they only speak for themselves. It could be argued that the low turnout (in comparison to the population of the area) indicates most people are comfortable with what the Unitary Plan is doing.
I was there, and it was NOT a low turn-out. The place was packed, literally to overflowing. Joel's photos don't show what I could see: people standing outside with umbrellas, craning to hear the speakers. To say that this meeting indicates that people are comfortable with the Unitary Plan would be a wild distortion of the truth.
Lawrence
Well Belmont has an approximate population of 3,300 (at 2006). Only 20% of that population are over the age of 65. "Packing" out a relatively small community centre with 100 or 200 people, predominantly from older generations out of a population base of 3,300 does not indicate widespread dissatisfaction.
You might like to forward this to Joel and others you think would be
concerned.
Take a look at the UP section 3.2.2 Public Open Space zones objectives
and policies which sound good, and then take a look at 4.3.2 Public Open
Space zones rules, which do not sound good at all.
The UP Zone 2 Informal Recreation allows 26 Permitted activities out of
43 = about 60%.
The North Shore District Plan equivalent Zone 2 (Neigbourhood
Activities) allows 9 permitted activities out of 46 = about 20%.
The UP also has a large number of activities as Restricted
Discretionary, which means that the public won't have a say on these
either.
It does say somewhere in the text that Reserve Management Plans will
prevail, but we've had a couple of experiences already in Little Shoal
Bay where the RMP has been ignored, and the public given no formal say.
In any case, many reserves don't have management plans.
Here's an example: Although 3.2.2 states that buildings and structures
in Informal Rec Zones "are generally limited to playground equipment,
skate parks, informal hard courts and toilets and changing facilities",
these activities are covered in separate categories on the 4.3.2
Activity table, but then that table also allows "construction of
buildings" as a permitted activity in the Informal Rec zone. That could
mean anything. Clubrooms? Boat storage? Ice cream vending stalls?
"Community facilities" are also a permitted activity in Informal Rec
zones. The definition of community facilities in the UP Part 5 is:
'COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Sites where the primary purpose is providing facilities for the
well-being of the community, generally on a not for profit basis.
Includes:
- arts and cultural centres
- places of worship
- community centres
- halls
- libraries
- marae
- recreation centres
- CABs
- RSA
Any of these things could be constructed as of right on most North Shore
reserves.
Also, retail is a permitted use where it is accessory to a permitted
activity. Have a look at the full list on the Activity table in 4.3.2!!!
To summarise:
1. the objectives and policies in 3.2.2 are not supported by the rules.
2. The public is being shut out of decisions on development on
(so-called) public open space.
Please forward this information to anyone you think would be concerned
about it.
Post a Comment