Archive for category Greg Presland
Waitakere Ranges Regional Park redux
Posted by Greg Presland in Greg Presland, Waitakere Ranges on December 20, 2011
By Greg Presland
Thanks everyone for your comments concerning the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. The Board has reconsidered the issue and at its last regular meeting passed the following resolution:
That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board:
1. Confirms that the Board’s view is that the Waitakere Ranges parkland should remain part of the Regional Parks network
2. Invites discussion with the Governing Body to ensure that the Local Board and community have meaningful input into the governance, operational and funding decisions relating to the park
3. Supports the current environmental baseline established by the Auckland Regional Parks Management Plan
4. Works to ensure that information concerning the park be made regularly available to local residents.
I hope and trust that this will meet everyone’s expectations.
Can I emphasise that the original resolution was in response to a clear statutory test and that the Board was somewhat “straight jacketed” in the way that it could respond. The decision that we had to make effectively was that either we have no say in the parkland or complete say. A hybrid model was technically not an option.
I think the feedback has been very helpful and trust that the new resolution is more acceptable to everyone. I also wish to personally thank Sandra Coney for her input into the issue.
A related issue that has arisen is how the Board relates to local residents and local groups. Some are concerned at what they feel is a lack of consultation. My response is that the information is readily available. There is far too much information, it is difficult to find and digest and the timeline between release and consideration is only a matter of days but it is there.
Feedback would be welcome. The Board now has a Facebook page, and I attempt to blog on matters of interest from time to time. There is an email loop for the local community groups. But any suggestions on how to to speed up and simplify the dissemination of information and also ease the ability for locals to have input would be welcome.
The Trees are safe for now …
Posted by Greg Presland in Environment, Greg Presland on May 25, 2011
By Greg Presland
The Environment Court has struck a blow for tree protection.
The Government through changes to the RMA enacted in 2009 removed the ability for District Plans to contain blanket tree protection rules. This really worried me. If my worst fears were realised then all trees on private land in Titirangi and Glen Eden that were not specifically scheduled could have been clear felled from January 1, 2012.
While the chainsaws may not have been started on day one the provision could mean that over a gradual period of time huge changes could have been made to the area. Almost inevitably there would have been “death by a thousand cuts” as tree after tree was felled.
Waitakere City Council and North Shore City Council decided in their final year to seek a declaration on what effect this change would have to their District Plans. Waitakere Council in particular was worried that areas it had designated as “managed natural areas” should if at all possible be preserved and the application was to see if they could be classified as “groups of trees” under the Act and thereby avoid the cull of protective tree rules that the District Plan contained.
Thankfully the Court has agreed.
The Court held that “groups of trees” included
a cluster of trees identified precisely by location; all trees of one or more named species in a defined area or zone; all trees in a class with defined characteristics in a defined area or zone; [and] all trees in a named ecosystem or habitat or landscape”.
So landowners in the area will not have unfettered ability to cut down trees. They will continue to have power to trim up to 20% of any tree on their property each year as long as the trimming will not kill the tree. To construct a dwelling and driveway permission can be obtained to clear 500 square metres of bush. Resource consents can be obtained for further clearing and felling of trees but then proper considerations such as the effect on stability and stormwater run off can be taken into account.
For an unknown reason Auckland City did not join in the application. I am sure that the new Auckland Council is reviewing all of the regions District Plans to see what protective measures can be preserved.
The original proposal was rather strange and made me wonder what the Government had against trees. After all trees perform a number of very important roles:
- They provide land stability and hold together banks and cliffs.
- They contribute significantly to the scenic beauty of the area. Imagine if your neighbour decided to cut down every tree including those kauri that you had always admired.
- They provide a habitat for local flora and fauna.
- They are carbon sinks. Global warming because of human activity is an almost universally accepted phenomenon and we need all the trees we can grow.
- They enhance health by protecting humans from prevalent vehicle emissions.
- They absorb stormwater and prevent excessive runoff putting additional pressure on the reticulated system, as well as preventing erosion.
We fell them at our peril.
Thanks should be extended not only to the Councils but also the Environmental Defence Society, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, the Tree Council and the Grassroots Action Group who all played effective roles in highlighting the issue and in helping to achieve what is the best possible outcome in the circumstances.
Penny Hulse is right about Super City
Posted by Greg Presland in Greg Presland on May 15, 2011
By Greg Presland
I have known Auckland’s Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse for a while now. We were foundation members of Team West, a progressive coalition that successfully contested the Waitakere City local body elections in 2001 and we were both elected to the Council. While we were on Council we did not always see eye to eye. We clashed about the speed of implementation of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. I thought that it was important for meaningful protection to be implemented as soon as possible, Penny thought that the process should be much more gradual.
On most other issues we did agree, especially about the importance of Eco City and the importance of community.
Penny has recently been criticised for comments about super city that were reported in the Herald. She was attending a meeting of West Auckland community activists called to discuss the centralisation of much of the functions of the Waitakere Family Court into downtown Auckland. She made what I thought was the very appropriate comment that “[t]he Super City is expensive, it’s unwieldy, it’s unfriendly to communities. To take that model and impose it on something as sensitive as the Family Court is just senseless.”
She also made the following comment:
“The way the Super City is currently set up is not working for all our communities.”
There are a number of reasons for this. Staff numbers are down. It was planned that numbers would total 8,500 but there are 700 vacancies. Work is not being performed as well as it should. Also some of the best and brightest have either moved overseas or into the private sector, burned off by their treatment during the reform process.
Redundancy payments to axed staff and other costs of creating the Super City were put in March at $200 million. These costs do not include time spent trying to find out who has responsibility for particular aspects of Council activity. The reforms were meant to be about the saving of money but to date all that has been achieved is a significant extra spend.
Penny also said more resources should be devolved to the 21 local boards as has occurred in other “Super Cities” such as Brisbane. This is important. My strong impression is that currently the Council itself is struggling with its workload while the Local Boards could be doing more.
I agree whole heartedly with Penny’s comments. Super City is struggling. Too much institutional knowledge has been lost and there is too much uncertainty amongst new staff about who is responsible for what. And there is a clear danger that supposed savings will not be achieved.
As an example of organisational problems I have been very keen to find out which programmes are going to be cut to achieve Len Brown’s goal of $62m in savings. Local groups are concerned that long standing funding arrangements may be cut in the need to save money. So far no one has been able to provide me with this information even though Annual plan hearings have finished.
It is clear that the super city formation process has been rushed and should have been taken at a more careful pace. The amalgamation should have been incremental. Such services as Libraries and publications could have been amalgamated immediately but the rest, particularly computer systems, should have been merged over a three year period.
The role for all elected representatives should and will be to make the current system work. I am sure that councillors and local board members will be able to make the structure function and prove over time. But this should not hide the fact that Rodney Hide’s and the Government’s reorganisation of super city has been poorly handled.
The Spatial Plan unleased
Posted by Greg Presland in Greg Presland, Waitakere Ranges on April 1, 2011
Auckland’s Spatial Plan has now been launched.
The document is an impressive collection of ideas but short on the technical details which everyone is looking for. It is definitely aspirational and economic growth and environmental protection targets are referred to without really attempting to work out the tensions between the two.
The proposals that will be of most interest to westies are the possible change to the metropolitan urban limit (“MUL”) especially around the Waitakere Ranges area and the future of the compact city concept that has been central to Auckland Planning since the formation of Auckland’s Regional Growth Strategy in 1999. In simple terms the MUL is a boundary that is intended to halt urban sprawl.
The Spatial Plan suggests that the MUL is replaced by “greenbelts”. There is no detailed description of them but the report contains the following comment:
Greenbelts are used to pursue a number of policy goals in Europe and the U.K. These include identifying clear definitions of boundaries between town and country and maintaining the landscape setting of towns. They have more recently also been used to try to reduce the need to travel by promoting a compact urban form and promoting and steering development to inner city sites and thus limiting urban expansion. While they have a role in protecting ecological, landscape and agricultural values, they do not necessarily restrict all development.”
At this stage greenbelts sound like they will do the same thing as the MUL. I am not sure why there is the desire to change things if the only thing that will be changing is the terminology.
From the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy:
“Metropolitan Urban Limits … are used in the RPS as a technique for minimising the adverse effects of urban development on regionally-valued resources. They were designed primarily to distinguish the major urban areas of the region from non-urban areas for the following reasons:
• to protect identified most highly valued and sensitive environmental areas
• to limit the extent of adverse environmental effects with new urban development
• to promote an urban form which maximises the opportunities for access …”
The MUL does not restrict further development. For instance I understand that in the Ranges Heritage area there are 1500 potential lots that are either vacant or capable of subdivision where further houses can be constructed. The essence of the MUL is that it should provide a clear line outside of which further urbanisation should not occur but that existing development entitlements are preserved.
The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 should provide some protection against the Spatial Plan process being used to advance softening of environmental protection. Section 18 of the Act (as amended by the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010) states “[t]o the extent of any inconsistency, this Act prevails over the Auckland spatial plan prepared under section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.” This was a late alteration, before it was made it appears that the intention of the Government was that the Spatial Plan would not be subject to the Heritage Act.
Under the Waitakere City Council there was previously an effort to “soften” the edge of the MUL in the Henderson Valley area. This should be resisted. Dr Morgan Williams’ famous dictum of the Ranges suffering “death by a thousand cuts” must rule against any softening.
The compact city concept is still generally supported. The benefits are a more environmentally sustainable city, it is easier to maintain public transport and the need to drive vehicles is lessened. Central Government does not currently like this and seem to think that unfettered growth should be the norm.
One other issue caught my eye. A question posed was “[w]hat do you think about the idea of allowing more intensive development in areas where people particularly like to live, such as coastal environments?” From the map provided it does not appear that the report is talking about the Manukau Coast and West Coast beaches but if locals are asked then I am sure the answer would be a resounding “NO”.
The Great Radio New Zealand Mayoral Debate
Posted by Greg Presland in Greg Presland, Mayor, Uncategorized on September 13, 2010
by Greg Presland
I attended the Mayoral Debate this morning hosted by Radio New Zealand. Present were the three leading candididates, Len Brown, John Banks and Andrew Williams.
Before the debate started the body language was fascinating. Len and Banksie shook hands warmly. The chill between Banks and Williams was evident.
Len spoke about his transport plans. They included rail to the Airport, completing the rail network look by construction of the Queen Street tunnel, a possible road tunnel to the North Shore although he acknowledged that the Anzac Bridge project had some promise. When asked for a timeframe he said 5 to 7 years for the Queen Street tunnel.
Banks was asked a similar question. He talked about the need for world class infrastructure and how he supported passenger transport but did not come up with any dates.
Len Brown became passionate when he talked about the neglect that Otahuhu has suffered from the Auckland City Council. Despite 30 years of inaction and despite the promise of a swimming pool Otahuhu had been ignored. He also commented that the money that could have been spent on the pool had been spent instead on putting sand on Judges Bay.
Banks countered by saying that South Aucklanders used Judges Bay as well! This could be the Melissa Lee moment of the campaign. It spoke volumes of his mindset. “The good people” live in places like Remuera. “Other” people such as those from South Auckland could also use Judges Bay. I cannot imagine anything that would be more enraging to the good people of South Auckland.
Rating was discussed. Banks made a comment about the “wild promises of my opponents” which brought the wonderful response by Williams noting that Banks “was promising to bring the Olympics to Auckland”.
Banks also read a supposed verbatim comment made by Len at a previous meeting that Banks was not at where it was alleged that Len had advocated for income tax to replace rates.
Len replied that Banks should have been there. He also made it clear that he was advocating for a full review of funding for Local Government and that to do it properly all options should be on the table. It is clear from his comments that his primary interest was fairness, particularly for the poor. I am not so sure that Banks sees this issue in the same terms.
Len was on top of his game. He was quick with responses, very effective with his jibes and was very funny. Banks in contrast was wooden and although he delivered his selection of quotes well, he floundered when dealing with a debate of the issues.
All in all to my mind it was a clear win to Len. If course I could be accused of being biased …
Why Local Government is important
Posted by Greg Presland in Central Government, Greg Presland on September 6, 2010
By Greg Presland
Our hearts and best wishes go to the people of Christchurch who are obviously struggling with life changing events. After seeing the photographs and video all that I can say is that I am astounded that as far as I am aware no one has been killed as a direct result of the earthquake.
New Zealand will have to fall behind the rebuilding of Christchurcn and the surrounding areas. I hope that the Government shows the same amount of largesse and generosity to Cantabrians who may not have insurance as it has shown to wealthy investors of South Canterbury Finance.
For me the weekend’s experience sums up why Local Government is important.
Firstly it must manage and enforce building standards. Some think that the standards are too high, but after you see the effects of a 7.1 grade earthquake you tend to be very grateful that the standards are set where they are.
Secondly I am impressed by the Civil Defence response. The impression I get is that the organisation slipped quickly into gear and that basics such as water and sewerage are already being addressed.
Thirdly the earthquake shows how important basic infrastructure such as roads, water supply and sewerage are. They are expensive to establish and maintain but as soon as something happens to them their absence becomes stark. I understand that most of Christchurch’s power and water is up and running. Obviously the priority for the area is to reestablish fully these systems.
If the cheap option had been chosen in any of these areas then the results could have been entirely different. Cheapest is not best.
Save Waitakere One
Posted by Greg Presland in Greg Presland, Henderson-Massey, Mayor, Public Transport on August 26, 2010
By Greg Presland
The formation of the super city is supposedly motivated by achieving efficiencies and saving money. For westies this does not appear likely. C&R appear to be determined to push through bulk wastewater charges, despite the opposition of some of its more outlying candidates. This will mean a significant increase for most Westie families. There is also the cost of a new computer system, the cost of reorganisation of 8 significant organizations into one and Auckland City’s neglect of its wastewater systems will become a regional expense.
So I was surprised to hear that the Auckland Transition Agency has indicated that it wants to build new premises for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board in the Glen Eden area, presumably at significant cost.
I thought that we could be spared the expense and share Waitakere’s former Council Chamber with the Henderson Massey Local Board. Sharing occurs now. Waitakere Community Board and the Henderson Community Board both currently use the Chamber along with the Council. If Len Brown is elected he has promised to circulate Council meetings throughout the region and the Chamber would be ideal for meetings out west.
I have a certain affinity with the building. Denise Yates and I were part of the Council that decided to build it. There was intense debate at the time and we both voted against a prior proposal to build new premises on Ratanui Street, essentially on the basis that it would cost too much and that we could not see it working or the claimed economic benefits materialising.
The site where the current Chamber is situated then came on the market. It was a cheaper option and offered also the benefit of integrating a brand new Rail Station into the development. By building there we were making a statement that public transport especially rail is vital and that developments like the Council building should be on transport hubs, thereby reducing the need to drive and increasing the desirability of public transport.
The ATA intend to turn the Chambers into offices for use by Council officers. Retiring chair of the Waitakere Community Board Kubi Witten Hannah intends to oppose this. I for one will be supporting him.
Len Brown embraces Eco City
Posted by Greg Presland in Community, Environment, Greg Presland, Mayor, Public Transport on August 17, 2010
It is good to see that Len Brown has decided to embrace the concept of “Eco City”. Future West supports his election and hopes that Waitakere City’s “eco city” concept can be applied to the Auckland super city if and when he becomes Super Mayor.
The Eco City concept is based on the Agenda 21 document formulated at the Earth Summit conference held in Rio de Janeiro during 1992. It involves taking a holistic approach to sustainable development, and in particular recognises the inter-relationships between people, the environment, and the economy.
It encourages a cautious and long-term view on future development and present activity and encourages community-led initiatives in the areas of economic and social development, environmental protection, and community involvement in decision making.
It is structured around 7 key focus areas:
- community empowerment,
- urban consolidation,
- involving local people in the protection of their environment,
- promoting a holistic view of health and safety,
- reducing the need to travel and encouraging public transport, cycling and walking,
- encouraging resource use which results in using less energy, generating energy from renewable resources, using resources more wisely and producing less waste, and
- facilitating economic development by targeting and attracting economic activity while working with the existing business base to encourage more sustainable practices.
As can be appreciated there are a wealth of approaches that are anticipated by these focus areas and it is important that these are at the forefront of thinking when local decisions are being made.
As well as the environmental benefits there are very sound practical reasons why these concepts are important. Reducing traffic makes towns more enjoyable to live in as well as reducing our dependance on overseas oil supplies. Enhancing community activity has a strong beneficial social consequence as people’s lives are enriched. Reducing the need to travel through encouraging local businesses increases the amount of free time that people have. And the wiser use of resources has a direct beneficial financial effect as we reduce our material needs.
The concepts are complex. But they are ideas that will improve people’s way of life.
It is great that Len agrees with this. He deserves our support for doing so.
Waitakere Ranges protection – why this election is important
Posted by Greg Presland in Greg Presland, Waitakere Ranges on July 27, 2010
Greg Presland
Protection of the Waitakere Ranges has been a major issue out west for decades. Back in 1975 then MP Jonathan Hunt introduced into Parliament a bill that would have provided for effective protection. Unfortunately with the change of Parliament the bill failed although the issue never went away.
The issue resurfaced in 1999 after the election of the Go Waitakere council. Attempts to loosen up subdivisional rules failed however and the Go Waitakere councillors were voted out of office. The next Council was dominated by members of Team West. I must admit that I was a proud member of that Council. One of their policies was the meaningful protection of the Ranges. After a great deal of discussion and consultation the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 was formulated and enacted as a local bill by Parliament with the sponsorship of Lynne Pillay.
The Act was not especially radical. It attempted to hold current District Plan provisions in place and prevent the gradual erosion of protection in the future, the “death by a thousand cuts” talked about by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams.
There has already been a possible attempt to undermine the protection offered by the Heritage Act. Under the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill an attempt was made to have the new Spatial Plan the New Auckland Council will have to complete not have to take into account the protective measures of the Heritage Act. The Spatial plan will take the place of the Regional Growth Strategy and will have a big influence on the setting of the boundary of the City. The Government said it was a mistake and the problem was “fixed” in the final version of the Bill but one wonders if it was a mistake or intentional. When in opposition National had promised to repeal the Act.
The relationship between the Spatial plan and the Act will be of huge importance. If a developer friendly Council is elected the temptation will be to try and reduce the protection offered by the Act.
The consultation for the Spatial Plan will be all important and I cannot imagine how the Super City Council will be able to manage it. There are likely to be thousands of submissions. I suspect that the Local Board may have an important role to listen to submissions and to present the views of Waitakere residents and villages. Eternal vigilence will be required to maintain protection.
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Greg Presland category.
Recent Comments