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 54.9.5.2.8.1 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:
Loading…

PVI submission to Unitary Plan

The submission made to Auckland Council on behalf of the community, relied solely on the information that was taken from community consultation events and activities held over the last three years.

In particular this relates to the adoption of a Patumahoe Spatial Plan for the community spaces that will allow the extra residential development to be accommodated without negative impacts on the current community. We ask that this is done during the planned spatial planning allocations for Franklin District.

The full Draft Structure plan can be viewed on this website, and the three page submission can be viewed below:

PVI Submission to Unitary Plan 28 February 2014 by PatumahoeVillageInc