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 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

Patumahoe Village Welcome Signs Questionnaire

Patumahoe Village Inc has many projects planned and underway.

One project is to develop ‘welcome signage” to be erected on the four main roadways into the village. This is to help promote the village and to communicate what our Patumahoe represents as a village. Before a design brief for the signs is written, it is important that we understand what people feel Patumahoe “represents to them” now and into the future so this can be woven into the design.

Working on this design brief are PVI committee members – Julie Evans & Simon Bennett.

PVI will be distributing copies of this questionnaire around the community, and you can download and send the completed form to Julie via email: julie.evans101@yahoo.co.nz

Progress on this project will be discussed at the next PVI meeting scheduled for November 12 2013.

Alternatively, while here you can take a few minutes to fill in this online form, and then rest easy knowing that you have taken this opportunity to have your say and perform your civic duty for the day.

Loading…

Community Development Grant – Patumahoe

For those who didn’t get a chance to view the application, here is the final application made to the Department of Internal Affairs along with an one page amendment of the Budget that was submitted to the DIA, after the grant was approved, and meeting with Anna Parsons from the department was held.

Attending that Budget amendment meeting on 30 July 2013:
Anna Parsons (DIA liaison)
Ron Gordon, Margaret Stormont (Patumahoe Primary School)
Glenn Hunter, Andrew Sinclair, Paula Crosswell

Application submitted March 2013

Application to DIA CDS Funding 2013 by PatumahoeVillageInc

Budget Amendment: Updated 30 July 2013

Application to DIA CDS Page 18 Only – Updated Budget 30 July 2013 – Copy by PatumahoeVillageInc

PVI success in gaining Community Development Grant for 3 years

lets celebrate

With the much appreciated support of Ron Gordon and Margaret Stormont, and the Board of Trustees at Patumahoe Primary School, PVI is delighted to report that we have been successful with our application for a three year community development grant administered by the Department of Internal Affairs.

Margaret Stormont received a letter just before the close of last term, and this has since been confirmed directly to PVI by phone. More details on what this will mean will be posted after the initial meeting with our DIA advisors, but it is an exciting development. This grant is purposely given for the payment of salaries and expenses for an employed community development worker.

For details on the application that was made, please visit this previous post.

Draft Unitary Plan submission to Auckland Council

Submission from Patumahoe Village Inc to the Draft Unitary Plan. Consultation for this stage closed on 31 May 2013.

Due to the lack of changes to the zoning etc from the Franklin District Plan, and lack of information regarding Rural Villages, only items that had been previously discussed with the community have been included. Although, we have also asked to be notified when changes are to be made regarding Rural villages.

Submission to Draft Unitary Plan – Patumahoe Village Inc

Note: If you do not have a Scribd account you can login to Scribd using the following username and password.

Login: patumahoeprint Password: patumahoe2011

Patumahoe Project Ideas night!

Where: Patumahoe Primary School Hall

When: Monday 22nd April 7.30pm

Who: Everyone welcome

This will be a fun night and you are welcome to bring along some drinks and nibbles.

The format is simple with people to come along and share and discuss great idea projects big or small. There is a simple projects one page form that has been developed, (enclosed). While there will no doubt be many great ideas it is important that we end up with a good way to convert a few of these into ‘can do’ projects and really make a difference. With a projects form completed it identifies those leading the project and provides a plan that allows funding to be arranged as required.

To get you thinking here are some that have been bandied about over the last 3 years:

  • Create entrance signs on roads leading into Patumahoe encouraging planting along the Mauku Stream, (Auckland’s longest stream).
  • Planting fruit trees and native trees around Patumahoe and other places to beautify the area and enhance the paddock to plate theme
  • Develop a community notice board that is attractive and well used. Also small attractive stands for location in local stores for the likes of community newsletters.
  • Enhance entrance ways to Te Ara O Whangamaire Upgrade Henry’s Bush walkway to be accessible to an all weather, year round walkway surface
  • Target possums in the wider area to get below 1% equivalent of a residual trap catch monitor in by 2015, (currently around 5%)
  • Eliminate all mature Woolly nightshade from the wider area by 2016 and control all seedlings.
  • Enhance Patumahoe Schools ‘Trees for Survival’ and work with Te Whangai Trust to make more native plants available for local revegetation.
  • Renovate the Mauku tennis club building. Perhaps develop a template for replicas as well.
  • Arranging visits to other Villages with good central planning features, Village Squares / Greens and well shared resources such as Community Centres
  • Identifying opportunities for securing on going income generation for local Community Development

Simple Projects Builds a Community-1

by PatumahoeVillageInc

Note: If you do not have a Scribd account you can login to Scribd using the following username and password.

Login: patumahoeprint Password: patumahoe2011

…. Franklin’s first village planning meeting???…

For those of you who have attended any of the Open Days, street parties, open community meetings or engaged with us by email or phone during the last three years, you may have been surprised to read in Tuesday’s Franklin County News (9th April 2013) the following article:

Copy reproduced with acknowledgement to copyright owner Franklin County News

Of particular interest may be the fact that after two years work  that included considered consultation with those who chose to engage, using a variety of methods, we have had several meetings with the Franklin Local Board asking for precisely those planning resources that have been given to Kawakawa Bay and Hunua.  They seemed to have achieved these results with a three page document and one meeting.

Our submissions and considerations are very similar to what have been proposed – and supported by Franklin Local Board – but we have been much more comprehensive in our consultation methodology and final considerations.

While we do not begrudge either of these communities this resource, it is of interest to us how these communities were chosen, and before contacting Franklin Local Board on this matter would like to hear from Patumahoe first.

We invite anyone in the wider community to comment on this matter, and will answer any questions that are put forward.