Woodhouse Road speed limit changes – AT feedback opportunity

Note: All feedback is due by 28 April 2016

Auckland Transport has requested community feedback on the proposed speed limit changes proposed by the Franklin Local Board for Woodhouse Road, leading into Patumahoe from the north.

If you wish to visit the Auckland Transport site for information or to place feedback, you can visit the South Auckland road safety consultation page up until the 28 April.


From Auckland Transports site:
“AT is seeking feedback on a proposal to install safety improvements at Woodhouse Road, Patumahoe.

AT proposes the following improvements:

Changing the speed limit from 100km/hr to 80km/hr on the rural part of Woodhouse Road.
Relocating the existing 50km/hr signs on Woodhouse Road, approximately 100m northward. As a result of this change, the 50km/hr zone would be extended.

AT received requests from residents and the Franklin Local Board to reduce the speed limit on Woodhouse Road.

Woodhouse Road is experiencing traffic growth due to recent land development. As the transition from a rural road to a semi-rural road is happening, it is suitable to change the speed limit from 100km/hr to 80km/hr.

The proposed 80km/hr zone is consistent with criteria prescribed by NZTA for the setting of speed limits, and will help improve road safety by better providing a transition between the standard open road environment to the semi-urban road environment at Patumahoe.

The proposed relocation of the 50km/hr signs will improve their visibility, as their current position behind a crest is not ideal for drivers approaching from the north. Shifting these signs approximately 100m northward will make them more visible for drivers existing the bend outside No.65 Woodhouse Road. “

You can provide feedback directly to Auckland Transport either online, or by printing and posting the document below.

Alternatively, you can add comments to this post by 26 April and they will be sent unedited to Auckland Transport as feedback from the community.

Woodhouse Road – Speed Limit Change – Feedback Form by PatumahoeVillageInc

Additional information:
Auckland Transport letter to stakeholders.

Update on Rural Broadband


Have recently received an email from Auckland Council, who are touching base with rural stakeholders regarding the UFB (UltraFast Broadband) rollout across Auckland.

If you recall, Patumahoe is down on their rural communities list as number 12 of 17 rural communities in Auckland who have been identified as best locations for upgrade.

“This is a quick follow-up on our email from late last year we are touching base with our rural stakeholders about the survey linked in the below email. This is a great opportunity for Auckland council to hear more from rural Aucklanders about the state of broadband connectivity and access, and helps us better engage with central government and the telecommunications industry.

We would be very grateful if you can assist us by circulating the link to the Rural Broadband Survey below to your local networks.


Please take some time to fill out this survey, if you would like to ensure that Patumahoe retains its place on the list.

Previous posts:

UFB Rural project – Auckland Council submission update

Rural – Ultra Fast Broadband initiative for Patumahoe



UFB Rural project – Auckland Council submission update

rural broadband

Thanks to all who took the time to fill out the respondent form in the last post: Rural – Ultra Fast Broadband initiative for Patumahoe

Despite the short time frame, we gathered enough information to support our indication of interest to Auckland Council.

On Friday, I received the full 134 page Auckland Council Registration of Interest to the project, and can report Patumahoe has been included on the council’s priority rollout list of 17 rural communities.

Patumahoe is placed at 12/17 of the identified rural communities.

A copy of Auckland Council’s Registration of Interest can be downloaded from their website.

Media release from Auckland Council:

16 July 2015

Council puts rural communities’ case

for improved broadband access

Auckland Council has submitted a Registration of Interest – Support (ROI) in response to government’s announcement to extend its investment in rural broadband, ultrafast broadband and mobile black spots.

An additional $100 million for the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI), $210 million for Ultrafast Broadband (UFB) and $50 million for mobile black spots, is regarded by the council as the best opportunity to address the lack of reliable broadband in many of Auckland’s rural and remote communities.

The ROI represents the needs of more than 42 communities across rural Auckland that would benefit from better broadband.

With more than a third of the affected communities, the Rodney Local Board area is the hardest hit, but by no means the only local board area to suffer, says Councillor Penny Webster. “Not having reliable broadband access in these areas is not an option in this day and age.”

The ROI also sets out what the council can do to help maximise the benefits of any available government funding, particularly in assisting the building of infrastructure.

The council acknowledges the additional funding is for improvements nationwide and not all communities will benefit. As a result, the council has committed to exploring alternative solutions addressing the ongoing issues of broadband access in rural and remote Auckland.

This work will continue to be led by a political working party including Councillors Arthur Anae, Bill Cashmore, Linda Cooper, and Penny Webster.

The council’s ROI document can be downloaded from http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/responsetogovernmentufbrbimbsf.pdf


Rural – Ultra Fast Broadband initiative for Patumahoe

First and foremost, thanks to Alan Cole who saw a further $150 million investment in the rural Ultra Fast Broadband initiative come through in March this year, and registered interest for the communities of Clarks Beach and Patumahoe.

For a quick look at the current state of affairs, visit the Chorus Broadband Capability Map.

Auckland Council have contacted me and the more information we can provide, the more they are able to assess whether Patumahoe would be a suitable recipient of this fund.

Given the increasing residential growth in the community, the existing ADSL system may be less than adequate in the future for providing consistent, reliable and high traffic internet access.

Please take a couple of minutes to fill in the form below, so that we provide a collection of reliable data along with our register of interest.

Patumahoe vs Craddock Farms


(Resident submitted notice – Thanks!)

Craddock Farms who own intensive egg layer farms applied to build a new intensive farm for 310,000 more hens in the village of Patumahoe. In late 2014 there was a hearing for the resource consent application where three opposing submitter’s fought vigorously to prevent this.

With the weight of the local community and the Animal Rights groups behind them the submitter’s managed a successful defence and the independent commissioner’s declined the application in full on the 13th of January 2015.


Craddock farms having already purchased a significant property are not willing
to let this go without further fight and have now appealed the commissioner’s

The appeal will be heard in the Environment Court and will be very costly – more than double that of the original hearing. We have created a givealittle fund to provide financial backing so that we can continue the fight with legal and other expert representation to keep hens out of cages and out of Patumahoe. If you would like to donate or help with the fundraising please visit our page


Attend A Community Meeting 7:30pm Tuesday 3rd March At The Patumahoe School Hall To Find Out How You Can Help

If the decision is reversed this alone will account for 10% of New Zealand’s total egg production and the egg layer facility will be a total of ten sheds with 31,000 caged chickens in each shed, five cages high.

This will affect our community – noise, pollution, flies, odour, additional traffic
on an already busy road and of course property values.

If you want to know more contact www.facebook.com/banchickenlayercages
or phone 027 419 0413

We need your help!

Community Conversation – Patumahoe Road new chicken operation


Many of you may have received the above flyer in your letterboxes sometime in the last couple of weeks.

PVI has been contacted by a few residents and one has stepped forward to hold a community meeting, where this proposal can be openly discussed and residents be given the opportunity to have their views and concerns aired.

This meeting will be held next Thursday 3 July 2014.

Venue: Patumahoe Primary School Hall
Time: 7pm – 9pm

At present there is no way to make a formal community submission, but this is intended to allow interested community members and residents an opportunity to share information, concerns, ideas and solutions. Please read through the information provided by Auckland Council below, and printout to bring along to the meeting if you are going to attend. This will ensure that everyone has the relevant information and eliminates waste.

Auckland Council has decided that the effects of this proposal are “no more than minor” and so, only submissions from four properties identified in the limited notification can make formal submissions – which are due by next Thursday 3 July 2014.

This decision can be challenged, and formal processes would require a challenge to go through the High Court.

However, we do have local representatives, and given that formal submissions and presentations have been made to Auckland Council over the last few years regarding an existing operation, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the community has already indicated that they are very interested in the development of any new operation.

(Note: Over the course of eighteen months, hundreds of residents were involved in the identification of concerns regarding the adverse effects of a chicken farm on Patumahoe Road. Discussion with the existing landowner, resulted in a solution of proposing a change of landuse for this property. This solution was then conveyed to community in face-to-face contact over the years, publication on the website, and direct mail to 1600 residents. Any comments received were in favour – absolutely none received in opposition to this solution. This request for landchange has been presented to the Franklin Local Board more than once, and in formal written submissions during Unitary Plan change process. The most recent submission being made on 28 February 2014.)

Two posts written by a Patumahoe resident – Peta Berry – have been posted online:
Council decides you are not affected!
Birds of a feather stick together

Peta Berry also created a Facebook page – Ban Chicken Layer Cages – which contains some of the information that she has collected and distributed so far.

An open invitation is issued to the property owners to contact us if they wish to provide information, or to publish their own articles or notes on this matter. Apologies for not getting in direct contact, but the lack of volunteer time and short timeframe have lessened the amount of work that can be achieved.

The copy of the information released by Auckland Council with permission for public distribution is below:
If you intend to participate in the meeting next week, please printout a copy of the consent to bring along. If you do not have a Scribd account you may use the following.
Login: patumahoeprint Password: patumahoe2011

Patumahoe Road – Proposed Intensive Poultry Operation by PatumahoeVillageInc


Please use the comments below to add your thoughts…

The story of a Patumahoe Hill Community Lookout….

I was speaking to someone this week and after a while understood that I could not explain to them effectively the amount of work that goes into trying to inform and engage community even before a proposal is presented to community.

I decided to try and concisely track how just one project – a community-led design for the Patumahoe Hill Community Summit came into being.

While I have been involved in the Patumahoe Hill summit proposal, I have not been the primary driver and going through the process systematically have gained even more admiration for the amount and effort put in by Andrew Sinclair.

For those, like me, who are compulsive readers, there are 14 pages of timeline there. For skim readers, pick and choose. But remember, this does not include the detail of the number of documents, conversations emails, meetings, events or processes that have been undertaken to get to this point.

And, as always – feel free to comment at the end of this post.

And though I would love to pretend otherwise – any errors are my own, and please contact me if you have corrections or clarifications you wish to be made.

Download pdf: The story of Patumahoe Hill Community Summit proposal

The Story Patumahoe Hill Community Summit Proposal

Previous posts on this particular topic can be read by clicking on the links below:
Patumahoe Hill Community Lookout
Views from the summit
Community Meeting – 13th September 2012
Private Plan Change 37 – Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan
Patumahoe Hill – Community Amenity proposal
Patumahoe Community Meeting – 19 March 2014

Patumahoe Hill Community Lookout

Thanks to all who attended the initial public discussion of a community amenity on Patumahoe Hill – WHEN – the proposed change to residential use takes place.

Previous posts on this particular PPC (Private Plan Change) can be read by clicking on the links below:
View from the summit -Patumahoe Hill
Community Meeting – 13th September 2012
Private Plan Change 37 – Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan
Patumahoe Hill – Community Amenity proposal
Patumahoe Community Meeting – 19 March 2014

If anyone who stood up and spoke is willing to share their words with the wider community, please post them as comments below or alternatively send them through, and I will add them to the post.

Emma Murtagh, our Looking After Locals community development coordinator kindly provided notes from the meeting which can be read below.

Also, a previous clarification on points raised was sent to a number of the attendees that night in order to allow them the right of reply. This post can be found here.

We believe that information should be shared within the community, and everyone be allowed the chance to have the discussion on how their community is shaped.

The meeting had several people stand up and state their personal preference for no mound on the buffer reserve, and unfortunately, the meeting was closed before there could be discussion that addressed their concerns, but we appreciate the time taken to make their views heard. It was a good indication of some of the concerns that others may have. Due to time restraints, not all of these points were answered at the meeting that night. However, some of those answers may be found in the previous post.

Current indications of support:

  • Of those at the meeting: according to the notes provided 5 were vocal in their opposition – but it is fair to say that more than that may have been opposed, there were also several in favour,
  • Of those who chose to cast a paper ballot at the meeting: – 5 were in favour of the proposal, 0 were made in opposition
  • Of those who commented on the online form: 19 in favour – 1 in opposition.
  • Update: Paper ballots collected at Butcher Shop Cafe/Weck’s ITM – 22 in favour – 0 in opposition

We acknowledge that there may be some who do not take the time to vote on this forum, but we believe that this process is the only one available (at present) for all community members to comment and discuss in a way that is comfortable and informative.

There is no need for urgency in this discussion, there is time for the community to discuss possibilities and alternative design options if that is what is favoured.

The current landowners have indicated that they would prefer to not engage as landowners in these discussions, but remain welcome community members to any ongoing conversations.

At present it is unknown whether this buffer zone will be:

  • retained by the eventual developer – this is unusual but can happen especially if further development is planned. We have no indication that this is the case,
  • paid for and maintained in perpetuity by the eventual residents of the development – this would be unusual with a community access over the land given ongoing safety and maintenance requirements,
  • a price negotiated with Auckland Council and the developer which passes ownership to Auckland Council – this is the usual route.

While there may be opportunities for community ownership in the future, at present it is the last option which is commonly used. If this is the case, the community – as ratepayers – pay for this reserve. If we are willing to work with Auckland Council to develop it, then this is a possible win-win scenario for everyone involved.

To do that, we believe the best results require everyone to take time to inform, allow ideas to develop and discuss possible options within the community.

We have been advised by some to wait until formal community consultation is given by the subdivision process, but we believe that this often leaves very little time for the community to come up with informed consent, objections or alternatives.

As a community group, originated on transparent and comprehensive consultation, PVI have committed to give voice to everyone and promote discussion when it is possible to do so. We welcome any comments or suggestions to be raised either here online, or at any future community conversations.

It is also worthwhile to talk with your friends and neighbours not only about a Patumahoe Hill Community Lookout, but also some of the other community spaces that are under-utilised or require development.

Previous consultation with residents resulted in a Draft Structure Plan and a couple of proposed options for redevelopment of the central village area. Those options can be found hereand a video of one of the options is below:

Notes from meeting 19 March 2014 – Emma Murtagh:

Mound Meeting Notes From 19 March 2014 – Emma Murtagh by PatumahoeVillageInc

Patumahoe Community Meeting – 19 March 2014

Firstly, a big thank-you to everyone who attended this meeting which allowed a variety of views and concerns to be aired.

Previous posts on this particular PPC (Private Plan Change) can be read by clicking on the links below:
View from the summit -Patumahoe Hill
Community Meeting – 13th September 2012
Private Plan Change 37 – Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan
Patumahoe Hill – Community Amenity proposal

If anyone who stood up and spoke is willing to share their words with the wider community, please post them as comments below or alternatively send them through, and I will add them to the post.

Three clarifications on points of order raised during the meeting, which will be answered point by point:

1.  Concern was raised over the fact that the mound proposal did not refer to a walkway over the buffer zone even though it was the intention of the current landowners for this to occur.

2.  No fundraising had taken place or offers of payment for any extra land or accommodations had been offered.

3.  That the opportunity for community input had been completed when the decision was made not to appeal the approval of the Private Plan Change.


It is worthwhile, to examine those concerns and allow further discussion:

1.  Concern was raised over the fact that the proposal did not refer to a walkway over the buffer zone even though it was the intention of the current landowners for this to occur.

Correct: The options for the mound do not have any mention of a proposed walkway on the buffer zone, even though it was included on the PPC overview structure plan graphics.

PVI apologise if there is some confusion over this, but the decision document we received had the following changes made by the regulatory committee after the hearing.

This includes reference to the removal of the planned summit area:

The text of the Plan Changes in terms of our decision is attached. We note that most of the changes made to the provisions of the notified version of PPC37 were identified at the hearing (and largely agreed by the Applicant). We set out below those changes that we accepted – which include the majority accepted or offered by the Applicant at the hearing. However further changes have been made by us. We set these out in summary here so that the rest of this decision can be read in context.

The main changes we have made, that were not already ’agreed’ at the hearing by the Applicant, include:

• The deletion of the proposed commercial zoning (1750m2
• The removal of the restriction of no private open space between the
• The removal of the words “Potential Summit Viewing Area” from the Landscape Concept Plan – Diagram 54 D(VIII). The reasons for this are set out below.
• The addition of the following assessment in Discretionary (RA)
Activities – “Cultural and Heritage Values”   – Private Plan Change 37 Decision FINAL.pdf Page 1.

This decision document also makes reference to the 20m buffer zone, and the inclusion of walkways in the built subdivision area, but makes no reference to the necessity to include a public access/walkway along the buffer zone.

If we are incorrect in concluding that the next owner will have no requirement to provide this despite the intention of the current landowners, could someone with suitable authority please point out this in the decision document that we have received.

As far as we can see the text in the decision does not spell this out, and we understand that this change may be a result of the regulatory committee rather than the landowners.

We apologise for any distress this may have caused the current owners, but as it stands – after the stated removal of the words regarding the summit area, and no reference in the decision document – it is reasonable to expect the next owner/or developer may choose to ignore previous owner’s good intentions.

In the effort to be strictly accurate, this omission will stay in until we receive advice and evidence that the requirement for this walkway has been included.


2.  No fundraising had taken place or offers of payment for any extra land or accommodations had been offered.

Once again, this is at the community consultation stage.

We understand that we were not effective in communicating that we would be prepared to fundraise and meet costs in order to get a community supported amenity achieved.

This is a necessary requirement – as funding options from Auckland Council are constrained at present and likely to be for some time.  We consider that part of our community is the current landowners, as will be the final developer and residents.  We consider that their views are just as legitimate and valued as others, and do not believe they should be required to pay any extra for any community work that takes place – unless of course – they wish to do so on their own accord.

It has always been our intention to raise the funds and sponsorship to meet the costs, IF the community supports the idea, for this or any other proposal.  This has been a constant statement of intent from the beginning of PVI, and has not changed.


3.  That the opportunity for community input had been completed when the decision was made not to appeal the approval of the Private Plan Change.

As stated below, this is not the case:

“A number of submitters raised the issue that it was inappropriate on landscape and
visual amenity grounds for this part of Patumahoe Hill to be developed. While we
understand submitters’ concerns; that this Hill has been ‘undeveloped’ and is
considered by some as a ‘rural/landscape visual amenity’, we have already said that
Patumahoe Hill has no special status in any policy and planning documents. We
further accept that if the PPC37 land is developed as set out in the structure plan, it will
change the ‘visual landscape’ of Patumahoe. The Applicant (and Ms Gilbert) accepts
this; however we accept Ms Gilberts evidence as set out above.

As partial mitigation, Patumahoe Village Inc, sought a viewing platform/mound at the
top of the cone within the area of the buffer strip (to be public open space once vested
in the Council). We acknowledge the considerable effort and commitment by these
submitters; however for the reasons below we do not support the submitters’ request.

Ms Gilbert did not support viewing platform/mound at the top of the cone from a
landscape/visual perspective and considered it could be “contrived” and /or impact on
the visual screening ‘function’ of the buffer area.   As stated, we have not incorporated this aspect into the plan change and have deleted the wording as suggested by Ms Gilbert if it were to be included – “Potential Submit Viewing Area”.

The deletion of these words does not mean we did not support the concept, and clearly some parts of the community would like it. However there is nothing that we can see that would preclude this from occurring. It is matter that should be discussed with the Council if this land is to be vested – or with the Applicant should the land not be vested.” Private Plan Change 37 Decision FINAL.pdf (Page 15-16).

It is apparent from this text that the regulatory committee considered that the proposal was viable, and they considered that options to have the mound proposal implemented were still on the table.

The reasons provided for not including this in the PPC were solely in regards to evidence from Bridget Gilbert, and her subjective view of the mound.  No community consultation was undertaken by her in regard to this assumption – and to be fair – none was required.

This meeting in part, was to provide this opportunity to the community to be part of an open discussion that is not provided by council processes.  An opportunity for community to give feedback without adversarial approaches or extra costs bourne by community members.

Below is the full document received by Patumahoe Village Inc regarding these points of order.

Please comment as you wish, guidelines regarding the usual courtesy and common sense apply.

Patumahoe Private Plan Change 37 Decision FINAL


Patumahoe Hill – Community amenity proposal

Feedback is wanted from the community about the development of a community amenity located within the newly approved Private Plan Change 37 – Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan.

For those who are uninitiated into regulatory speak – a private plan change resource consent- when approved – changes the landuse zoning of the proposal property/properties. In this case, landuse has changed from Rural to Residential allowing for the development of a subdivision on the hill which is currently cropped. Private Plan Changes are initiated by private landowners.

Previous posts on this particular PPC (Private Plan Change) can be read by clicking on the links below:
View from the summit -Patumahoe Hill
Community Meeting – 13th September 2012
Private Plan Change 37 – Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan

Background to this proposal.
1. The summit has been identified in the Draft Structure Plan and advice from all our planners has pointed out the ecological significance of this site – as it is the highest point in the current village and expected development area.
2. Cultural significance is documented by historical maps showing this to be the centre of the Native Reserve, despite confiscation dispersing local iwi populations to other areas over 150 yrs ago. Their connection can be recognised, and documented in a beneficial and sensitive manner.
3. Alternative transport – planners are recognising the benefits of walkable neighbourhoods, and this proposal adds that benefit to its concept.
4. Community amenity – provides everyone (especially those in higher density homes) access to a natural amenity with view to our local rural and populated landscapes – as well as direct sightlines to other Franklin volcanoes.

Andrew Sinclair has put together a powerpoint presentation on this concept which contains much more detail, and we hope to be holding an open community discussion day soon on this very topic:

Please take time to have a look, and then fill out the form provided or comment on this post to provide your views:

Patumahoe Hill Presentation March 2014

Indicate your preferred option here: