This is on land known as "Wakakura". A big piece of land that used to house low cost two storey homes used by Navy ratings and their families. On the corner of Ngataringa Road and Lake Road. Great views out over Ngataringa Bay, Stanley Bay to the City of Auckland.
It's been used as a local park for the past 10 years or so. Since the Navy housing was demolished. The land is part of the settlement that was done with Ngati Whatua.
The leaflet describes plans for development of the land. One side of the leaflet (carrying the Auckland Council's logo) shows 3 different "Areas".
Now - without going into the rights and wrongs of the proposals - which I understand are for a mix of retirement homes, affordable housing, and I imagine high amenity penthouse apartments - I question the process that is unfolding.
I am aware that Devonport and much of the North Shore lacks diversity in housing types. There is a shortage of smaller homes - for retired people, for individuals, for young people. Their housing needs would be met in a more "complete" community.
Pieces of land like Wakakura, and others like it on Bayswater present an exceptional opportunity to provide a diversity of housing types which are smaller than the typical North Shore detached home which comes with private lawn and garden (a hassle for many), and which are therefore more expensive because of land costs.
So there is a real local demand for affordable and smaller homes.
However, existing residents are concerned that they may lose out. Their worries include traffic, views, noise, new neighbours. These worries are understandeable - especially when the process that is unfolding appears "secret" and does not include them or involve them. Now - I am not saying that the land owner is acting "secretly". The land owner is following the rules. The draft unitary plan has been notified and submissions have been called for. The land owner is making a submission. A local resident has learned about that submission, and is suggesting that locals should put in submissions - presumably counter-submissions. To protect their own interests.
This is probably counter-productive. But it is totally human and understandable. And predictable.
Appropriate implementation strategies and processes are key to the success of density done well.
It may be that the developer of this land has ideas and proposals that include a local park (which can be enjoyed by the local community - not just those who live in the new housing units). It may be that there will be a children's playground - with equipment for example (there are a lot of children in Ngataringa Road and locally). It may be that the developer proposes some commercial activity like a cafe or equivalent. (Amenity that can be enjoyed by existing community.) Perhaps there will be a cyclepath and walkway through the development that everybody can use (there is a well used informal pathway through the land now).
Interestingly - the plan seems to have eliminated all of the trees that presently grace Wakakura. Perhaps that is a mistake. But you see what I'm getting at.
Unless the developer's proposals are seen in whole - and show how the local community can all benefit - how the new homes will meet local needs as well - then there is likely to be opposition. It will look like a gated community. Something separate. Something that's not very neighbourly.
Not good process. We can do better. We need to do better.
2 comments:
I personally submitted on the draft UP for upzoning of the land to THAB (as a young local who would like to be able to stay in the area and maintain my links and social capital within the community when I decide to purchase a home) - so pleased that Council did provide a greater intensity of development on the site via a precinct approach.
Maybe I'm reading a little too much into the leaflet but the 'accenting' of affordable homes seems to be trying to perpetuate the sense of others or undesireables being able to live in the area. Its also probably worth pointing out that the leaflet is full of factual errors around the application of the Unitary Plan.
I wrote that leaflet and I can assure you, no 'them and us' mentality was intended in the 'affordable housing' accenting. Rather, I question how affordable this housing can be, given that the properties built will be leasehold and ground rent is usually calculated at a standard 6% of the land value. Affordable for how long? How intensive does the development have to be to allow for it to be affordable to most? Will there be space for that playground and park?
Furthermore, the infrastructure issue is a genuine concern and there are no immediate plans to remedy that.
Most of us in this area have no objection to housing development on that site, the question is merely how and what and as your article points out: we have no idea apart from this map.
A more transparent and open process would be very welcome. As it is, we are pretty much in the dark and have to submit on what we would like to see there.
Post a Comment