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…

Comments

  1. Kay Carter says:

    I am disappointed to see that the misleading A or B tick boxes accompanying the proposal for a mound (which comes outside the approved plan) on Patumahoe Hill have not been amended yet. The B proposal, which has been approved by council, includes a 20 metre buffer with pathway between houses and rural activity running right across the hill, and it is planned for public access. If Patumahoe Inc uses its considerable skills WITHIN THE CONSENTED PARAMETERS to lead a community/developer/council project, it may be surprising what positive and innovative ideas are suggested for this area.

    • Patumahoe Village Inc says:

      Hi Kay,

      A couple of posts will be released regarding the meeting within the next two weeks.

      One has been forwarded to allow for right of reply before publication, and we are waiting on the transcription from another independent recording of the meeting. You may find your comments are answered then, and points clarified. Any corrections needed to be made will be made at that point – and noted as an edit.

      The meeting was a discussion opportunity rather than a detailed dissection of minutae, and as a first engagement effort allowed for vigorous debate. We appreciate that some feel very strongly on this issue, and needed to have their voices heard immediately.

      The brief to the landscape architect WAS to stay within the 20m guidelines, and that result is shown on Page 14 above. The following slide was an alternative option, that was drawn up in order to come up with a range of options to discuss with the current landowners. For accuracy – this (Slide 15) is NOT the option supported by the committee simply because of the imposition on adjoining landowners. I have a feeling it was used because it provided a professional close-up drawing of the summit area rather than a photoshopped composite. That is misleading. However, for transparency and historical reference the presentation given will not be amended, but your comment and my reply will maintain the dialogue and record of corrections and clarifications.

      Lastly, a gentle reminder that advising other people about how they use their volunteer time and efforts is not justifiable, and comments that do this may be moderated or the reply function used by the moderator to note this occurrence. For clarity, this applies throughout the whole of the patumahoe.org.nz website, and includes comments on your history articles as well.

      Regards,
      Paula

  2. Kay Carter says:

    I composed a reply, but deleted it. I have decided not to engage in further dialogue. My purpose was to put a positive spin to moving on, considering the overwhelming opinion of those who made the effort to attend. Love the website facility, Whangamaire walkway, playcentre , and lack of abutments into the roads, support for history. Cheers .Over and out. Kay

    • Patumahoe Village Inc says:

      Kay,

      You are welcome to post a reply even if you believe it is contentious. That is the only way people can have informed conversations.

      Any courtesy requested, has been and will always be extended.

      My previous reply responded to those aspects of your comment that have not been given to others while awaiting a right of reply. As mentioned, a post will be up in the next couple of days AND edits (and record of edits) will be made then. This will allow the timeline of corrections and clarifications to be shown. I am loathe to answer these specific points while awaiting clarification, but did endeavour to answer those where information was to hand.

      Please reconsider posting your thoughts.

      Positive or supportive comments are not required (or useful if they are the only ones posted), and your comments have been useful in drafting the post which is awaiting right of reply.

      Regards,
      Paula

Speak Your Mind

*