Auckland Unitary Plan

[Davo36]

Lol, and Len says he's building the world's most liveable city! Finances left to one side that is...

[flyernzl]

Plus, if the city goes bankrupt it will be years from now . . .

and all those responsible will have long since retired to the Gold Coast on their fat cost-of-living-linked pensions.

[speights boy]

Beware the purple dot.

Maori history undermines home renovations

Aucklanders must now think twice before digging a swimming pool or doing a large alteration if their property is one of thousands near Maori heritage sites

Thousands of homeowners will be forced to seek iwi approval before making alterations to their properties in a little-known change to Auckland's proposed unitary plan.

The plan outlining the future shape of the country's biggest city f is yet to come into force, but 3600 sites of cultural and heritage value to Auckland's 19 iwi groups are already affecting the plans of homeowners. About 50 applications for earthworks have so far been considered.

[eri]

why am i not surprised

that the Len + Penny council response to auckland's housing affordability crisis

is greater cost, more red tape and less certainty for developers

after all it's not their time or money

so why not give it away freely

for short term warm + fuzzies

at the expense of long term economic health

[Wayne]

Why are midden so important? Surely it is just a rubbish pile?
Pa sites and especially burial sites I can understand but middens?

[sidinz]

Sounds like quid pro quo to the people who voted him in.....

[sidinz]

Why are midden so important? Surely it is just a rubbish pile?
Pa sites and especially burial sites I can understand but middens?

One definition for 'midden' is 'cess pit'.

So it seems as though not only are iwi so special that their 'sh!t don't stink' it is now also apparently a national treasure worth preserving!

[eri]

unitech prof

puts the boot

into unitary plan

“I am not against compact urbanism as such, and I do believe Auckland needs more of it.

But about 30% of all future growth would be just about right. In other words, I could support an exactly reverse ratio

– 30% of future growth by intensification, 70% by greenfield, satellite & upper North Island centres

– as opposed to the council’s ideology-driven, no-evidence-whatsoever-based fantasy.

“The council’s vision is not only unrealistic – for a host of spatial, legal, financial, economic, cultural & political reasons – it is also unnecessary.

“But worse of all, the council’s 70% vision is dangerous:

Auckland is one of the most exposed cities in the world to natural hazards.

Add to this the growing global warming-associated uncertainty over weather systems, and put it on top Auckland’s tricky physical geography

“Again, I am uncomfortable with my institute supporting an urban planning vision which is

not based on science but ideology, and cannot become a reality even if it was a good idea.

http://www.propbd.co.nz/bogunovich-d...ba75-284800325

[Wayne]

and I'd expect many people here to decry him as out of touch with reality - he is an academic after all.

[eri]

seems a rare academic in touch with reality

trying to get his "fellows"

in touch too

[Davo36]

Heresy! Burn him! Burn him!