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

Comments

  1. Patumahoe Village Inc says:

    In order to preserve privacy for those who commented on the form, the comments from contributors have been replicated here. Comments as to today’s date are as follows:

    “In short, once housing is built and no provision for public access to the summit, any future opportunity to provide public access will be lost for ever. The Planners of the subdivision must plan accordingly for the sake of the community. By adjusting Lot sizes by a minimal amount public access ways can easily be created. ”

    “Option B please. It would be nice to have a view over the village rather than houses.”

    “I think it is a fantastic initiative that will only make Patumahoe and even better place to live , it is important for our children the future generation, to preserve these historical sites so they can be enjoyed by all. ”

    “as a resident of Kingseat Rd (number ***) I would like to be able to utilise our features within our community, share the natural outlook with my children.
    we have already started to see the destruction of our small community rural outlook with the addition of a sea of house roofs behind us in the Searle Drive sub-division.

    views of houses is not the reason I moved my family to Patumahoe 10 years ago, it was more for the peace and quiet, and the small rural community aspect”

    “I generally support the option of ensuring views from the summit are preserved. All options should be considered before deciding whether this is best achieved by a mound. Also development and maintenance costs will need to factored in and the cost weighed up against potential community outcomes that could be achieved in other Patumahoe reserves.”

    “I support the effort to retain views and to promote a community space at the summit or somewhere within the subdivision. If the mound proposal is not supported by Council or the developer, then promoting easy access public space within the new subdivision telling the stories of Patumahoe and the significanct of the summit would be good. Ongoing maintenance should also be factored in as well as pedestrian safety while in the public spaces.”

    “Option A Does include a pathway for public access and a 20mtre wide planted buffer zone between the rural use side and the housing side (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m sure if Patumahoe Inc put their considerable skills and energy into leading a community/developer/council development WITHIN THE CONSENTED PARAMETERS the variety of feasible ideas for beautification/enhancement could be surprising and exciting: ie neither A nor B necessarily.”

    “The only reason I could see that any one would objected to to the mound is for their own finacial gain ie they may want to lease the space to one of the telecommunications companies to build a cell tower on it ( the perfect spot with uninterrupted signal for many miles.) They only care about how much money they can make, not about the community in which their families and them selves live.
    Being part of a community is about caring for the community and contributing, for example you should be asking your self what can I do to make this a better community to live in, not what can i get out of the community.”

  2. Andrew Sinclair says:

    “The Community Summit Uutlook area provides an opportunity to provide a significant treasure for the community to enjoy forever. Not only will it restore some of the significance of the site that has been lost since development over 150 years ago, but it will also recover some of the further loss of significance that is about to happen with the proposed subdivision. This is especially if the summit height is at least that of any house roofs that exist now or in the future”.

Leave a Reply to Andrew Sinclair Cancel reply

*