Drury to Paerata upgrades – Feedback wanted

SH22 Drury to Paerata

Posted below is a message received from Safe Roads NZ.

Public meetings to be held:
Pukekohe Town Hall 26 August 2017 10 am – 2 pm
Ramarama School 29 August 2017 3 pm – 7pm

Tēnā koe

As you are probably aware, the NZ Transport Agency is working on making SH22 between Drury and Paerata safer. Over the last 10 years nine people have died and 36 seriously injured.

Earlier this year we sought community feedback, to hear where the key safety issues and concerns were for this road. This has helped us shape the proposed improvements. It has also highlighted some extra ideas for improvements which we have incorporated, now we’re letting people know where we have got to with these plans and checking to see if we have the plans right. This will also give anyone who missed the previous open days an opportunity to have their say.

We are teaming up with the wider NZ Transport Agency SH1 Papakura to Bombay team for public open days to inform the public. We are keen to ensure that key stakeholder and community groups are aware of the update and have an opportunity to share their thoughts. Please see attached for the details and an update of the solutions we are investigating to make this area safer.

We encourage you to attend the open days, share this in your network, and submit feedback (form attached). Feedback can be given in writing via letter or email, or online via nzta.govt.nz/d2p/have-your-say.

Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions.

Cheers, Kathy
Kathy Chinn
Community Engagement Manager
Kathy.chinn@saferoads.co.nz
64 21 064 4777″

Information below:

Community information and questionnaire – SH22 Drury to Paerata by PatumahoeVillageInc on Scribd

Sports Facilities Investment Plan – Due 21st April 2016

From Auckland Council “Have your say” pages:

“Auckland Council is looking to develop a coordinated approach to the investment in sports facilities.

A discussion document is the first step. It will seek stakeholders’ views on the following two questions:

  1. How should Auckland Council invest in sports facilities given funding and land supply constraints and a growing and changing population?
  2. How can the sports sector, including Auckland Council, respond to increasing demand for sport facilities with the same funding and land supply constraints?


Supporting information

Sports Facilities Investment Plan – discussion document (PDF 2.2MB)

The feedback that you provide will inform the Sports Facilities Investment Plan which will detail our investment framework and priorities.

Online feedback

Our online feedback form will be available from Monday 21 March until Thursday 21 April 2016.

Sports Facilities Investment Plan – online survey  


Workshops

A series of workshops have been scheduled in March and April 2016 with local boards and other stake holders.

Please note that Auckland Council intends to publish a summary of feedback. If you do not wish your name and/or organisation to be associated with your feedback in the engagement report, please indicate this in your feedback.

You might also be interested in viewing the Golf Facilities Investment Plan consultation.”

This issue is of particular importance to Patumahoe according to work undertaken to create our  Draft Structure Plan in consultation with community members.

It may be of interest to have a look 3. Multi-use community centre which was based on a community of similar size and demographic in Nelson, which was successful in turning a profit within five years and is able to sustain the employment of a full-time manager.  The success of this centre can be attributed to it’s community size, the flexibility of use, and the availability of affordable and available hiring options.

Also, in line with this is the 8. Parks & Recreational Land section, which itemises the expected growth needs of the community as identified by the current local sports clubs.

The expected requirement for further large sports fields has limited options.  An agreement for a conversation with local landowners was undertaken, and options were limited.  The best case scenario at the time, provided not only further rugby fields, but retained the existing number one field and stand in place, and allowed for continued use of the Patumahoe Rugby Club in the War Memorial Hall.

It also provided for the multi-use centre in a walkable village location, and created a space for further commercial and social areas that were not located on increasing high traffic roads.

For more information view the proposal for reconfiguration of the council owned land on Google Maps – AND – the options investigated of the further sports fields that would need to be acquired.  (Further information can be viewed by clicking on various items on the maps).

A Youtube video of a mockup of that proposal can be found here:

 

 

 

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.

road-safety-consultation-woodhouse-road

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.

Auckland Transport – Feedback requested

 

There are three community meetings to be held in Franklin in the next couple of weeks. So go along if you want to have a say on the transport plans for Franklin.

Received from Auckland Transport – request for community feedback:

“We’d like to invite you to give us your feedback on what transport infrastructure needs to be built in the future housing and business areas being built in Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Drury-West, Paerata and Pukekohe.

These areas have recently been approved for development over the next two decades, and this early knowledge provides us with a unique opportunity to thoroughly plan for a great mix of transport options to be ready when people move in.

It also allows us to help guide the development of more imminent special housing areas in a coordinated way, by looking at the long term picture.

Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and the NZ Transport Agency are working together to ensure we create well-connected, accessible and safe urban areas in these places, and we want to hear your ideas.

We are holding a series of events in your community over the next few weeks where you can meet members of the project team, discuss your aspirations for these areas, examine maps with some of our ideas, and give us your own. (See the attached flyer for event details).

Alternatively you can supply us with written feedback using an online survey tool (Note – opens Thurs 18 Feb 2016. Submissions must be received by 5pm, Thurs 3 March, 2016).

You can also help us to spread the word by letting your colleagues and other community organisations know about this consultation.

Find out more about our events or the online survey in the attached flyer or by visiting our website at: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks

 

Transport for Future Urban Growth 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…

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

Draft of application for Community Development Grant

We are a bit further down the track – on the Community Development Grant initially discussed in this post.

Due to the tight deadline, and Ron’s absence (but welcome return this week) we are still in draft mode on the application which needs to be submitted in hard copy by 20 March 2013.

To meet our intent of transparency with the community – the draft application can be viewed below.  Please feel free to download and comment on aspects of the application, and we will endeavour to take all suggestions on board.

Of immense value is indication of support from the community. If you agree with the wider scope of the proposal please take time to write us a letter of support – or alternatively – take a couple of minutes to fill out this online form.

Draft Application 2013 by PatumahoeVillageInc