Caroline

Knew it took a lot of effort, didn’t realise it was that much.

Appreciate the time and care taken to treat everyone with respect.

“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.”

In the matter of timeliness, it was advised that the post would be published on Sunday evening, 23 March 2014.

However, if any corrections or further information on these points is received or discovered this post will be updated – and marked accordingly.

Right of Reply was sent to the following people who spoke at the meeting and who were most likely to have the information to hand:
Bruce McMiken (current landowner),
Bill Cashmore (Franklin Councillor)
Alan Cole – (Franklin Local Board representative)

An independent report on the meeting will also be posted during the next week.

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

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