The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - October 2005
This panegyric blog is about political
and community issues in Porirua City and the Wellington Region. It
is the view of one person, and you are not hearing the other side! For
current material please visit The Porirua Wellington
Web Blog - Current Material
Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw
TILTING AT WINDMILLS - DR TONY JACKMAN TO COUNCILLOR CHRIS LAIDLAW
Memo: To Chris Laidlaw
Re: Your Initial Response to my Letter; “Tilting
at Windmills” I have been inundated with replies from the circulation
of both the letter above and the South Island High Country one from right across
the political spectrum hence this rather tardy reply. You clearly missed the
main points of a 200 word letter so I expand: 1. Why should GW just be doing
the wind site assessments for common (public) land within its regional territory?
It is GW’s statutory RMA job to do it and given the fact that I am recognised
as the “grandfather of GIS” in NZ dating from the mid 1970’s
and having introduced the Wellington Regional Authority to GIS in the early
1980’s I am appalled with the quality and the lack of integrity of the
GIS mapping particularly the visual catchment stuff presented in the Puketiro
case. In 20 years GW staff at the information systems helm have achieved little
and politicians should be aware of that and clearly politicians need education
in its use and what it is conveying. Hence, I offered to show my validated
and applied research to politicians. The intention is to do that using the
Environmental Centre here in Pukerua Bay when it is completed which itself
was botched up by GW staff incompetence. Perhaps, it will be finally completed
early next year [?] 2. The inferences in the letter about wind farm proliferations
was that you are actually encouraging that on private, often private land.
Take the Perkins case at Middle Run which is in private land ownership; no
sooner was Puketiro launched in the media the Perkins thing came along. And
where is the regional authority in this with no comparative regional assessments?
It chases its tail like in the Makara hearings by one department cross-objecting
with another, because of little integrated departmental connection and thinking.
This is far too common and I could give you many examples. Again the competence
of both GW staff and politicians is being questioned – hence the “quixotic/
tilting at windmills” reference because bureaucracies are far to easy
to create; again at rate and tax payer expense. Think of why it was so necessary
to politically demolish the Ministry of Works – which became a haven
for the average saprophytes of state. There is little regional planning competence
in GW; and I have made the point to many connected with and within GW before
and you needs a clean out of the drones of MWD years who have just jumped across
into safer bureaucratic vessels. And PC oriented social planners who have rather
questionable ability, particularly when it comes to integrating quantitative
and qualitative methods of regional planning. That can be done using GIS correctly.
For one instance, there is little understanding of the hierarchical yet interconnected
role that allows “bottom-up” local authority inputs to be fed into
the regional whole. All is possible using GIS if you all knew how! So nothing
has changed since the institution of the RMA in 1991 – an Act with which
you were personally acquainted in its Bill stage. And little has changed, in
spite of huge rate payer expenditure on GIS at local and regional levels and
marked improvements in the hardware in that 15 year period. The understanding
of the relational intelligence available to competent users of GIS is abysmal
throughout local bodies and so we spin on and on and on actually wrecking the
environment and wasting tax monies in thoroughly energy and money in wasteful
processes involving pseudo-public participations in the likes of the Environment
Court. Have you ever been to mediation session – its PC gone mad? 3.
The only commendable regional mapping product in the last ten years that GW
has produced was the Earthquake Hazard/Risk Assessment. I praised the staff
responsible at the time living in the false hope that at least a regionally
consistent visual land and seascape assessment was on the way! How wrong I
was - and consultants often using marginally-honest qualifications and self-styled
designations make hay in inconsistent appearances by switching their landscape
allegiance dependent on the client and the purse. Using, but not proving the
subjective and fashionable word “landscape icon” before planning
committees and the Environment Court has been the selfish, protective role
of the landscape architect rather than commitment to the landscape itself.
There are no land or landscape ethics involved and as implied in the letter
there is a lot of “wind” about and not only within GW. The Ministry
for the Environment as minder of the RMA, and the Parliamentary Commissioner’s
role, both need to be inspected in a wholesale re-jig of the resource management/environmental
thing for why is there not a singular national regional example of real eco-systematic
planning? Methods of assessment have been random and non-comparable. For one
local example, think of the differences between classifications of “outstanding
landscapes” between Wellington City and Kapiti District, transfer that
to comparative regional assessments and then to national comparative level.
No wonder we have political mayhem and constant erosion of coastal seascapes
and stupid words like “iconic”! They should all be classified consistently
according to integrated quantitative and qualitative assessments - the latter
involving the public in more than public/politically motivated ravings. That
there is a “power” to do this using the relational capabilities
of GIS has been totally missed and most run from the prospect of greater personal “empowerment” in
knowledge because a few words they should know the process behind but dismiss
as “computer jargon” Most of the key words are really self explanatory
if time is taken to have a stab at their meaning. Ask yourself what a “co-occurrence” of
aspect and solar receipts as they occur on the land in a given combination
and then ask where else does that combination occur elsewhere. GIS can find
it for you without having to go round in cars wasting tax and rate payer money
looking for it! We could have lead the world in this aspect of Information
Technology and made millions - but we remain an ignorant lot, more often than
not preferring to buy overseas by travelling overseas to get it, when in fact
the know-how has actually been invented here by New Zealanders! 4. This final
point refers more to the letter about the South Island High Country sent to
the Christchurch Press about the “square-wheeled” arguments about
the pastoral lease/freehold debate which is actually proving to be a land abuse
rather than wise use outcome because DOC is just as totally ignorant as farmers
are of GIS potentials to create a landscape of tomorrow which speaks of wisdom
and care - rather than a “Friar Tuck Haircut” in this a landscape
of regional to national importance. Reference was made to the clause in the
Principles and Purposes of the RMA and the need to consider both native and
exotic components in the energy component of the vegetated landscape- that
is, total bio-energy or total biomass. The nation still relies on exotic introductions
for the bulk of its overseas trade earnings, meaning farming and forestry and
increasingly fun (foreign tourism). Yet the “nativisms” which support
so many bureaucrats in DOC - and GW - actually rely through subsidy from the
exotic farming and forestry components for their existence. Trees of any kind
are important capturers of carbon dioxide and nitrogen – think global
warming – and total accumulated biomass under tussock is no match for
that within Douglas fir and Contorta pine yet DOC spends millions eradicating
the latter. That to me is OK in some areas which require preservation on native/biodiversity
grounds but the total biodiversity is the sum of both native and exotic components
and the concept applies equally. That is why I am absolutely disgusted with
both staff and political appointees in GW with respect to what has happened
at Battle Hill Farm Forest Park. It was a Cultural Farming Heritage Landscape,
the only one of high regional value west of the Tararuas dating from the transfer
of English pastoral landscape ideals to the New Zealand landscape stemming
from the mid to late 1880s and was of very high value for education, scientific
studies, and accumulated bioenergy. That was until the PC native-brigade at
GW wrecked it and even intend to plant natives as replacements for the great
variety of macrocarpa provenances in the woodlots were felled – and therefore
no longer a contributor to bioenergy/carbon storage in which they excel compared
with kahikatea etc! The late Regional Councillor Ken Gray after whom the education
centre is named (I was the instigator of the concept) will both turn in our
graves given the exotic cultural heritage landscape vandalism that has occurred.
Those trees were to be the core of an extended concept aimed at regaining the
parts of the old Battle Hill Station to the south so that a new botanic garden
(none have been created since Wellington City’s in the 1880s) could be
developed associated with regaining public access to the Horokiri Stream East
Branch and so that better farm/forest park access could be gained than currently
occurs. Anybody with real site planning nous knows that the present entry is
actually a cul-de-sac and not really suited to multipurpose use! At the same
time an arboretum of primarily exotic trees would be started adjoining the
proposed Transmission Gully route so that the beginnings of national arboretum
would begin. Lakes would be large to entice highway tourists back and a national
arboretum and inventory, naturally a state of the art Information and Education
Centre would be housed in the botanic development. This to be a national and
international attraction of benefit nationally, regionally and in the local
sense the only national attraction other than the national wildlife value of
the Pauahatanui Inlet within PCC boundaries. Something to attract and satisfy
the recreational and tourism needs of Mr and Mrs Everybody of all ages and
capabilities - and the southern hemisphere’s equivalent of the Arnold
Arboretum in Massachusetts. Approaches had been initially made to endowment
and family trusts which all recognised the importance of the overall concept.
But to no avail. Staff dis-continuities and the consequent lack of regional
to national capabilities and all the product and failure of the RMA have seen
that only cosmetic landscape native fripperies are being shown off - as if
to advertise just how good the GW is (at duplicating a lot of what DOC could
better do with the same monies)! Despite trying to resurrect the concept two
years before the millennium with collective gatherings of PCC and GW staff
of the time at my place, the ideas were too big for them – as perhaps
were the lunches provided. For that cooking effort all I got was a few so-called
wetland mud pies and puddles. Never one to take prisoners, I hope this assists
in answering your query in respect to explaining some of the inferences in
my first letter and your dilemmas particularly in your role as Regional Land
Care Chair.
Keep in contact ……………………..……………………………..
Dr. Tony Jackman
Copies To: Jenny Brash, Robert Shaw, Chris Findlayson, Peter
Dunne/Gordon Copeland, Ron Flook
Monday, October 31, 2005
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSMISSION GULLY
Jenny, Roger and Others,
I note from Roger's email to Mark Dacombe
that PCC still plans to advocate for effectively a staged Transmission
Gully - "northern stage first to be immediately followed by the southern stage" . I
think I need to explain my display of anger at last week's TGAG meeting and
my suggestion that we are being "sold out" by the PCC yet again on the SH1/Transmission
Gully issue. Basically, the Paremata Residents Association (and Transmac)
have led the fight on this issue for about 4 decades. Perhaps the most significant
recent efforts went into our appeal to get rid of restrictions which would
delay construction of Transmission Gully and our appeal (in conjunction with
Plimmerton RA) against the current "reduced upgrade" through Paremata and Plimmerton
- but I also think we had a big influence in forcing continued recognition
of the PCE's recommendations and in getting TG included in the current RLTS. By
contrast, the position of the PCC over the years has been confused at
best and, whenever its support has really been needed, the PCC has tended
to panic and cop out. Nonetheless, by the time the Environment
Court approved the "reduced upgrade" through Paremata and Plimmerton in 2001,
the various authorities (Transit, Transfund, GWRC and, arguably, the Govt) had
been forced to make commitments or adopt strategies which provided a clear
expectation that:
In fact, I suspect that building the northern section might be worse than
doing nothing - at least if nothing is done now, there may be a chance of getting
the real thing sometime in the future. I appreciate the reasons for your stance
- a perceived need to counter the arguments that (1) the coastal route can be
done in stages and (2) there is not sufficient money for TG. However, I think
those arguments have been blown out of proportion and would now be better countered
by simply pointing out that (1) if the will is there, TG could be built faster
than any of the coastal route stages anyhow (9-10 years according to their own
technical reports) and (2) there is not sufficient funding committed so
far to do either of the options, but there is a clear obligation based on past
commitments to construct TG - so that is what should be happening. In
other words, I see no reason for PCC to be advocating for a staged TG at this
stage. If that was necessary to garner the current level of political support,
I suggest that a continuation of that line is no longer in Porirua's interest.
In my view the PCC should now be advocating for an immediate start on a full
Transmission Gully and emphasising the obligations of the various authorities
to find the funding. Only if it is really necessary (and it's too early to be
conceding that at this stage - it would be pre-empting the review process) should
we be discussing a staged TG and then only in the context of cast-iron assurances
of funding and timing. I don't necessarily expect a response to this
- maybe our only difference is the way in which we would present our argument.
Besides I should be concentrating on getting a submission done! However, I
thought I should be clearer about my position than I probably was last week.
Regards,
Russell Morrison
(PS. ADRIAN - I would be happy for you to forward this
on to other TGAG addressees for their interest, if you would.)
Monday, October 31, 2005
ROBERT COMMENTS
When I was a member of the Regional Land Transport Committee I asked for an
assessment of the cost of research into the options. The answer was that we
had spent over $3 million. Today that figure must be over $5 million. To suggest
that there is a new and different option worth work, at the 11th hour, is foolish.
We have to work with the professionally devised and assessed options. When
I was on the Committee we signed off on the third regional strategy (it is
a part of the 4th strategy that is being developed at the moment). The debate
was not about whether or not there should be Transmission Gully but whether
it should be within 6 years or 14 years. The decision was "within 6 years".
Hence, properties were purchased (11 in total I think from memory), trees planted,
the route decided, Court cases fought, and the Pukerua Bay bypass designation
was removed. The clear advice of Transit NZ has always been - 2 years to plan,
plus 2 years to build. This is from when the money is assured. I still believe
the two regional managers who told me this,and the many staff from many organisations.
Once the major road is in place the rest will follow around it. We cannot continue
with a number of small projects in the hope that they will all work together
when Transmission Gully is built one day after we are all dead.
Regarding the lack of focus within the Porirua City Council, what we see with Transmission Gully is pretty much what we saw with the Kenepuru Hospital debate. The Council begins well, then some people decide they should head out alone, key points are lost or confused, and the local population becomes divided. The result is Wellington snaps up the money and the facilities. We have already seen this with the Granada Bypass Road - the Hutt and Wellington Councils outmaneuvered us. Indeed, Porirua did not seem to know what was going on at the critical moment, let alone the longer importance of reducing the money by deciding to do some non-vital things ahead of the main strategic project (TGM).
I strongly supported $200,000 of the ratepayers money going into the work
that must be done to convince the Regional Land Transport Committee. There
are two things that must be "proved". First, that strategically, Transmission
Gully is superior to the Coastal Road. Second, that the region is willing to
pay to close the funding gap.
r
October 31, 2005
IWI AFFILIATIONS IN PORIRUA CITY
In the Census of 2001, 6.1% (618 people) of Porirua residents who indicated an iwi affiliation were Ngati Toa. Over 22% of all Ngati Toa in New Zealand and 50.4% of Ngati Toa living in the Wellington region were living in Porirua in 2001.
Iwi affiliations other than Ngati Toa accounted for 93.9% of total affiliations in Porirua. Ngati Porou accounted for 21.4% of the total and the next largest iwi in Porirua were Ngapuhi (12.3%) and Ngati Kahungunu (5.4%). These four iwi accounted for 46.1% of all affiliations in Porirua.
Of the 120 different iwi represented in Porirua in 2001, there were 30 with at least 100 people. The remaining 90 iwi accounted for 24% of all affiliations.
AOTEA BLOCK WORK OUTSTANDING
Robert
Re your questions below:
Q1 "What rates income is expected from the Aotea Block in the present financial year?" This year's rates are $135,000 GST excl and excluding GWRC rates
Q 2 "What plans have we to develop the recreation areas? What length of walkways has been established? What are the plans for the walkways?" The CDP outlines the reserves network for the Aotea Block and they are being implemented closely in line with that document. We don't have the length of the walkways but suffice to say they cover the block and connect with Bothamley Park and the CBD - You would have received the presentation from the 29 September workshop which showed this very clearly.
Q 3 "What is the plan for the traffic problems on Whitford Brown? What is the date for the completion of the link road to Cannons Creek?" I am still waiting for a reply from Peter Bailey on this. I will chase it up again.
Q 4 "Is there budget provision in the LTCCP draft for these things?" The
reserves and walkways are being implemented in accordance with the CDP. We
don't have a draft LTCCP yet. We will be presenting bundles of initiatives
for Council's consideration for the draft LTCCP early in the new year. One
initiative discussed with you at the Council workshop on 29 September on the
LTCCP projects was Bothamley Park which would connect to the walkways on the
Aotea Block.
Regards, Roger
-----Original Message----- > From: Robert Shaw [ mailto:robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz ] > Sent: Saturday, 8 October 2005 6:58 a.m. > To: Roger Blakeley > Subject: Aotea block - a few quick questions > > >
Hi Roger
Overview on the
Aotea suburb:
What rates income is expected from the Aotea Block in the
present financial year? What plans have we to develop the recreation areas?
What length of walkways has been established? What are the plans for the
walkways? What is the plan for the traffic problems on Whitford Brown?
What is the date for the completion of the link road to Cannons Creek? Is there
budget provision in the LTCCP draft for these things?
thanks
r
ROBERT COMMENTS
We need to have a budget and a timetable for this work. There should have been development levies charged to the developer to cover everything, so it should be cost neutral. Then there will be extra work required to make the place more pleasant. The roading costs are a major worry. Transit NZ in their big push for the Coastal Highway have the Whitford Brown / SH1 interchange as one of their project for about 2016. We will have total gridlock before that year, indeed we are having major problems at the moment right through Whitford Brown and involving Omapere St, Papakowhai Road and the incredibly dangerous single entrace to the Aotea Block. It is an unfortuante truth that the Council gave away the idea of the developer paying for necessary road works in an incredibly confused and confusing fire-sale process to get a developer in place, and hence many of the road costs will be a hit on the ratepayer. There is the second entrance that will be sortly needed and that is to be paid for by the ratepayer with a contribution from the developer. That arrangement was the only contribution to the roading needs required of the developer.
As
an aside, let me tell you that the traffic engineers said that new provisions
would not be needed below Aotea Block because the stretch of SH1 from Whitford
Brown to the town centre is a single lane and can operate as the defacto
link from the Block to the town centre. It is incredible what supposedly qualified
advisors say. And, incredible also is the fact that the council acceped this
view and gave up its attempt to get the developer to fund the obviously necessary
road works. As one who drives on the road mentioned every day, I smile when
I am held up in traffic and remember their words - if that is a smile. Oh
well, the Porirua ratepayer loves making developers rich. In these things
you see some of the reasons why our rates are right up there with the highest
in New Zealand.
r
Sunday, October 30, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS - HOMESTAY
Frequently people from outside New Zealand find this blog when they want practical
information on Porirua City. People ask mainly about suburbs, schools, and
transport. Today it is "where is a good bed and breakfast place?". I recommend
John & Elaine Oldfield http://www.oldfieldshomestay.co.nz/ohlocal.html and
Randall & Jenny Shaw
http://www.friendlyconnections.co.nz/pages/Wellington/HO_45.html.
Backpacker style Helen and John Chipper http://www.kiwiaccommodation.com/accommodation/details/1152.php.
I am sure there are other good places, but I just do not happen to know them.
r
IS A LOST SIGN A SIGN OF THE TIMES? - TITAHI BAY
Hi All
We are having great difficulty getting any co-operation from Greater
Wellington Regional Council over enforcement of their beach rules. For the
past year there has been a problem getting them to maintain a sign at each
end marking the boundaries of the car-free area. Over the past month there
has been no sign at the south end. Without signage we have no enforcement.
GWRC keep reporting there is no problem with cars on the beach because they
have recorded only one complaint this year & that was from me!
Please EVERYONE
CALL THE 24 HR HOTLINE 0800 496 734 every time you see any car on the beach
not obeying the rules!
EMAIL GWRC DEMAND SIGNAGE TODAY Compliance Manager : john.sherriff@gw.govt.nz Chairman: ian.buchanan@gw.govt.nz LOBBY
PCC GET DAILY BEACH BARRIERS & WARDENS PUT BACK IMMEDIATELY !
G M Leisure & Rec: gsimpson@pcc.govt.nz CEO: rblakeley@pcc.govt.nz Mayor: mayor@pcc.govt.nz DEMAND
THAT OUR BEACH BE MADE SAFE.....TODAY! Graeme Ebbett Chairman Titahi Bay Residents
Assn Inc C/- 37 Terrace Rd, Titahi Bay, Porirua. Work Ph 568 6377, Fx 568 2374
Home Ph 236 8574, Fx 236 8591 Email ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz
THE QUALITY OF ADVICE - A COMPLICATED DRAIN (PUN) - PAREMATA
Dear Cr Shaw
Sent to you also as supporter at the subsequent Council meeting on 10 August 2005 .
Regards
Brian Warburton
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Warburton [mailto:brian.warburton@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:22 PM
To: mayor@pcc.govt.nz; john.green@paradise.net.nz; emurrell@leaders.co.nz;
suedow@paradise.net.nz; fagaloavaili@xtra.co.nz; tamnagh@paradise.net.nz;
naureenp@familystart-porirua.org.nz; twaters@paradise.net.nz; liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz
Subject: Decision of Infrastructure Committee 20 July 2005
Dear Councilors
I have just become aware that the Committee recently granted approval to create an easement in favour of 51 and 53 Bayview Road , Paremata over the adjacent drainage reserve.
As I was the applicant for the previous resource consents (on behalf of my parents who then owned the property) to which the officers’ report referred I am fully cognisant of the background and the details of the resource consent applications and the situation with the drainage reserve. \
I write to congratulate you in making a reasoned and fair decision despite the adverse recommendation in the officers’ report.
I also write to express some concern because I see the officers’ report as being subjective in its analysis, selective in its discussion about legal matters, and incorrect with its reference to some of the past events. I could go into much detail but really only want to make the following points for the record.
During the nine years I was employed as a council officer I always worked on the basis that the role demanded the presentation of complete and unbiased information to the relevant decision maker. As you may gather, if I had been in Mr Vorster’s position I would not have written the report he did.
Once again I congratulate you on your sensible decision. I have more faith in our governmental system as a consequence.
Regards
Brian Warburton
ROBERT COMMENTS
It is nice to be congratulated, but the email raises several difficult issues for the Council.
One of the issues is the quality of advice and the public nature of the advice given to Councillors. The chief executive is rightly sensitive about staff being brought into public debate, and he is free to provide comment here. Issues like this have to be seen in the wider context of what a council is: it is a public body, and a part of that is that the advice that goes to the councillors is public, and thus to be criticised by the public.
Local government officials are in this way in a more difficult position than their central government counterparts. The officials that give advice to Ministers and Cabinet do not have immediate public scrutiny of their work. They do however often have public strutiny after the event. Newspapers like to use the Official Information Act to find out what Treasury advised on particular hot issues.
Regarding the public nature of the advice to the Council: a part of the officials'
job is to use their best judgment and to sign off policy advice. The public
nature of the advice is related directly to the right of people to know what
is going on in a public body, and to participate. It is also a part of the
accountability of officials. In central government the quality of advice is
maintained by the con testability of advice provisions. When a government department
advises Cabinet, other departments have the right to comment - that produces
a competitive environment and hence the quality of advice is maintained by
its being contested. There is a checking system within the local government
system, whereby General Managers must countersign all policy advice papers.
In addition, the chief executive should operate a quality control system on
the advice process and the products of the advice process. For all that, the
system is far from perfect.
r
Sunday, October 30, 2005
AT LAST WE READ IN THE MEDIA THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GRANADA LINK ROAD DECISION
I recycle my statement from June 2005 as it appeared on Scoop.
For immediate releaseThe debate on the Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy has become confused on one key issue, says Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw.
Few realize the reasons behind the plan to build a Hutt - Granada link road.
Cr Shaw says the Hutt to Granada link road is designed to lessen traffic on the Melling to Ngauranga section of SH2. "It simply cuts off a corner for 25% of the traffic that now heads from the Hutt to Wellington."
"That road is irrelevant so far as Porirua and transmission gully are concerned" he said.
"The best link from the Hutt to SH1 would be the direct link from Belmont to Pauatahanui.
This has a high cost benefit ratio and would integrate the Hutt and transmission gully.
In an earlier examination of the Belmont link it was rejected in favour of the quick fix to Granada.
Now we are forced to again examine the whole strategy, the Belmont to Transmission Gully route should be considered.
It is very much in the interests of business in Hutt City that a direct road to the north is established.
It would also enable the Hutt and Porirua business districts to operate together. The travel time between them would become an incredibly short 12 minutes!
The road would also facilitate the opening up of Belmont Regional Park to the public."
ENDS
WIND POWER - TOW YOUR TOWER INTO PLACE
The strong level of public support for wind farms around the Wellington region is welcomed. I have one caveat. We must see the new turbines as temporary structures. The land they occupy must be returned to its original state after a number of years, say just 30 years. The challenge of this is the large blocks of concrete upon which the towers sit.
Work is well advanced on the next generation of wind turbines.
Innovative
wind turbines with greatly improved efficiency will be sited off-shore
where visual and noise pollution are less of a problem. The new turbines will
float downwind from New Zealand. We must push this wonderful technology,
and see the present land based structures as just a step along the way.
r
Saturday, October 29, 2005
WHERE IS THE SITE OF FIRST HUMAN HABITATION IN THE WELLINGTON REGION?
I learnt last night that the leading contender for that special recognition is the Ngati Toa Domain. This is based on radio carbon dating that takes the site back to the 14th century. Should anyone be able to provide more information on this I would be most interested.
I do know that bones in peat have revealed Moa and Kiwi as being common in the area. The Council some years ago gave a commercial operator the right to extract the peat without first having any investigation done. I cannot remember the details now, apart from its being in some way associated with the removal of the bricks from the old Winston' site. What I do remember is finding the references to the richness of the area in earlier times.
Incidentally, if you want to peer at it, you will need
to be quick for Transit NZ may bury much of the Domain under a state
highway - I kid you not! It is unlikely we will do the research that we
should before we destroy it.
r
Thursday, October 27, 2005
THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION (COUNCIL'S NEED TO WORK DIFFERENTLY)
Talofa all
Just trying to catch up with the happenings and come across this garbage. If
you think that sitting around a table having an informal chit chat over a few
drinks and snacks is going to solve what ever problem has been raised regarding
council issues, your bloody dreaming. First and foremost you have to
identify the problem? Stop wasting peoples time with this bullshit. Robert,
if your really interested in whats happening at council and it's problems attend
those committee meetings.
Litea
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Green" <john.green@paradise.net.nz>
To: "Maureen Gillon" <mgillon@rnzcgp.org.nz> ; <robertsh@paradise.net.nz>
Cc: <jbrash@pcc.govt.nz> ; <robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz> ; <emurrell@leaders.co.nz> ; <twaters@paradise.net.nz> ; <liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz> ; <marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz> ; <t.fagaloa@whitireia.ac.nz> ; <jbrash@pcc.govt.nz> ; <litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz> ; <naureenp@familystart-porirua.org.nz> ; <rob.rangi@xtra.co.nz> ; <suedow@paradise.net.nz> ; <tamnagh@paradise.net.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:50 PM
Hi John Roberts suggestion was higher level than personal problems. His suggestion proposed information sharing on opportunities and issues that affect the city and enable us to discuss various activities we are involved in, rather than problems to do with councillor relationships. Maureen
Subject: RE: RE: SHOW AND TELL
Dear All
As indicated last evening there seems to me to have been a degree of talk
behind the scenes about performance and behaviour - I am not a fan that we
meet weekly to naval gaze but we do need to have a face to face in my view
and table, discuss and try to resolve the purported problems or they will
simply continue.
Thursdays are not generally suitable for me.
John.
-----Original Message-----
From: Maureen Gillon [ mailto:mgillon@rnzcgp.org.nz ]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2005 02:15
To: robertsh@paradise.net.nz
Cc: jbrash@pcc.govt.nz ; robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz ;
emurrell@leaders.co.nz ; john.green@paradise.net.nz ;
twaters@paradise.net.nz ; liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz ; marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz ;
t.fagaloa@whitireia.ac.nz ; jbrash@pcc.govt.nz ; litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz ;
naureenp@familystart-porirua.org.nz ; rob.rangi@xtra.co.nz ;
suedow@paradise.net.nz ; tamnagh@paradise.net.nz
Subject: Re: RE: SHOW AND TELL
I support Roberts idea it sounds sensible. Thursdays would be better than
Friday.
Maureen
robertsh@paradise.net.nz writes:
- the session proposed here has more structure, direction, and purpose.
It would
entail one speaker at a time, not, a social gathering.
r
Quoting Jenny Brash - PCC <JBrash@pcc.govt.nz> :
Good morning
Jenny asked me send a reply back reminding Councillors that she already
hosts drinks from 4 pm to 7 pm on the first and third Fridays of the
month
(CE and GMs invited on the 3rd Friday) for the same purpose to allow a
relaxed discussion of issues of interest. Next get together is Friday 4th November.
She would welcome Coumncillors joining in this session.
Regards
Caroline
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Shaw [ mailto:robert.shaw@paradise.net.nz ]
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2005 1:27 p.m.
To: Roger Blakeley - PCC; Euon Murrell ( emurrell@leaders.co.nz );
John
Green
( john.green@paradise.net.nz );
Tracey Waters ( twaters@paradise.net.nz );
Liz
Kelly ( liz@kellyhygiene.co.nz );
Ken Douglas ( marilyn.ken@xtra.co.nz );
Taima
Fagaloa ( t.fagaloa@whitireia.ac.nz );
Jenny Brash;
litea.mufasa@xtra.co.nz ;
Maureen Gillon (E-mail); Naureen Palmer (E-mail); Rob Rangi;
suedow@paradise.net.nz ; TAMNAGH@paradise.net.nz
Subject: SHOW AND TELL
Hi everyone
I have been looking that the committee structure paper and although it
covers all the points we all raised and looks practical, I still have
one big concern: communication between us all, and the problem of
knowing what is going on. Hence, I would like to suggest that we have a weekly "show
and tell" session,
with wine of course. The idea would be that whoever wants to come is given
up to a minute to say what they are doing and any council worries. Each officer
would also have up to a minute to tell us about towers being built etc. A different
councillor would chair the session each week. Absolutely no pieces of paper
would be involved. Food and drink to be available. Informal, relaxing etc.
Lets face it, reading the new bigger Bulletin might be a struggle and a bore!
The idea is to bring us all together equally, to share information, and explain
things we want. It is not a debate of any kind. Inevitably there would be some
discussions - but short - we raise things, we do not try to resolve them. What
do you think? when might such a session best be held?
regards to
all,
Robert
PAYING FOR THE PAST TO LIVE IN THE FUTURE
Human beings are very strange creatures. They live for their own futures. We are forever trying to do things for the future.We cast ourselves ahead. We are stuck in the present but we are always doing things for the future. So why would we take any interest in the past? Because it is with us in the present and contributes to our plans for the future.
In every aware moment of our living, we race back to what we know of the past to bring forward our plans for the future. The more we know of the past, the more we have to work with for the future. The richer and the better becomes the future.
In all communities the past is lost. It is not accessible as the past. It is only accessible as the constructed past of the present. It takes effort to construct the past and to bring it into the present for each and every one of us. That is what the Council's Heritage Review project is about.
Ratepayers will have to pay to have more things preserved and, most important,
explained to us all. Knowledge of the past must not be inert. It must be brought
forward into the lives of all Porirua people. This sort of project is sometimes
considered to be an optional extra for councils, it is not as vital as building
roads and getting rid of the rats. Local government should be small with focus
and frugality. This view of Councils, associated today with the Act Political
Party, leaves out the real purpose of councils. This purpose is to advance
the quality of life of those who live in our City. As you can see from the
argument about human beings above, this requires insight and understanding
of the past. Only through community action can such understanding be achieved.
Individuals, small organisations, local government, and central government
all have responsibilities regarding these things. "Good grief" you say, why
does local government have to be so complicated and expensive?
r
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
A READER RESPONDS
Dear Blogger
You are concerned that council should design a decision-making system that is efficient and that such a system must clearly determine the interface between councillor and officer as a matter of principle.
Your response followed from the comments by one councillor during a committee discussion on Mainzeal’s application for a rates break. Apparently he said he wanted to be directly involved in helping Mainzeal, so that he could claim to them that it was his goodness that brought about the favourable decision.
This is not the first time that councillor has desired to be directly involved in decision-making affecting a developer. The last time he ended up being debarred from voting as he had accepted an election expenses contribution from the principal of the company hoping to be chosen as the developer of the Aotea Block.
I don’t think councillors should sail quite so close to the wind. Once should be enough!
Monday, October 24, 2005
DUPLICATION AT THE RATEPAYERS' EXPENSE - THE WAY TO BUSINESS SUCCESS
Great news, we have just received the the business plan and annual plan for Positively Wellington Business. This is Wellington City Council's business development agency. We also have the business plan and annual plan for Business Porirua, and an invitation to their AGM. Business Porirua is Porirua City's business development agency.
The Wellington City Council funds their agency but does not fund ours. But the Porirua City Council? Well it funds the Porirua agency and the Wellington agency as well. Porirua ratepayers would be disappointed if they did not pay for healthy duplication and confusion - they have come to expect this sort of stupidity from Council. We have to make up our minds - are we going to advance Porirua City and our people, or are we going to subsidise others for the fun of it. At a more profound level: do we believe in our City or do we not? Are we committed to our people?
And, you think that Positively Wellington Business is looking after our interests?
We are a part of a regional care program? Look at their website. How do they
define Porirua? "Porirua City is nestled in a stunning harbour-setting
just 15 minutes north of New Zealand's capital, Wellington". They define
Porirua in relation Wellington. That shows how they see the world. Still not
convinced? Look at the Porirua "business links" on their website
- the only link that appears is to those that pay them - the Porirua City
Council.
r
Sunday, October 23, 2005
CONSULTATION JOKES OF THE YEAR
From the expensive consultation you paid for, and done by the Regional Growth Forum:
"We should not let excessive concern for the environment prevent economic growth". How can anyone disagree with this for "excessive" means "excessive".
"Better wireless access to the internet in our region would be most welcome". Actually, anything that is "better" must be welcomed. That is what "better" means.
"The region needs more jobs, even if they are not well paid". This is disguised way of saying "I support more low paid jobs". Let us not have any plain English in a survey.
And, so they charge on.
They only had 432 submissions from the whole region (about 0.14 percent you might say)- about the number the Porirua City Council gets for a decent Annual Plan.
And, would you believe it, those who think they would benefit by more spending say it is great, and those who must pay say they are to busy to analyse it, cannot understand it, find it contradictory, or would prefer that it just goes away. I did like the comment from one submitter who said the weather was the worst aspect of the region. The Paremata Residents Association thinks any strategy will be abused by being used as a debating point, as has already happened in the Transmission Gully debate. Many of the submitters were noncommittal.
The submission from
Ara Tahi (Greater Wellington's Maori Committee) is excellent. Well written
and with plenty of points of substance. However, I am left wondering if they
support the strategy or not - they do not seem to reach any sort of overall
conclusion. Do they want to pay to bring migrants to our region or not? They
do suggest it is called Te Reka O Te Upoko O Te Ika A Maui - and I will support
that.
r
Saturday, October 22, 2005
BIRDS
The night before last, at 3.10 am I heard a morepork call. It went on for over an hour. It seemed to be in the Eskdale Road reserve. This is the first time that I have heard a morepork (ruru, Ninox novaeseelandiae) in Papakowhai. When I mentioned this to John Watson from Titahi Bay, he said that this year was the first year he had heard the tui at his home in Opapa Street. To those who are working to bring back the native vegetation to Porirua City - congratulations. To those who want to turn the Plimmerton Domain into a golf range - shame on you.
Some years ago when the Council was considering performance indicators for
the advance of the City (as is required in the Strategic Plan), I proposed
the extent of birdsong. Everyone laughed or looked at me with derision. Well,
actually, I was, and still am, serious about that measure!
r
Saturday, October 22, 2005
TITAHI BAY MEETING
Titahi Bay Residents
"Seaside Village" plan
for the the future of the Bay
Tuesday 1 November 2005
7.30 pm
The Gospel Chapel Hall
Mana Ave, Titahi Bay.
All Welcome
Phone Claire 236 5476 Gail 236 7112
Ruth 236 7381 Graeme 236 8574
Draft For Community Approval.
Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
SECOND CELLPHONE TOWER ON THE CORNER OF POPE ST AND TREMAINE PLACE
Councillors from Titahi Bay are upset that their community blames them for the cell tower that sprang up in Jillett Street. Now we have one in Pope Street, and as a northern ward councillor I shall get in first and tell you I knew nothing at all about it - cold comfort to the residents of course. The Council must see the amendment of the District Plan as urgent and proceed in a practical way. As blog readers know I was horrified to learn that the ratepayers' money was being spent to discover how the District Plan related to "regionalism". How about we try to make it relate to Jillett and Pope Streets?
I am grateful to Mr and Mrs Nicholson who wrote to the Council on 18.10.05
concerning towers in Camborne and the lack of consultation. What is our
Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee doing about all this, I wonder.
It is Councillor John Green's responsibility.
r
October 21, 2005
REVEALING STATEMENT OF THE MONTH
I quote from the minutes of the Wellington Regional Strategy Forum:
"Responding to questions from members, the Chairperson suggested including some words on page 7 of the document to reflect that there is not sufficient population in the region to sustain the infrastructure, and also asking people what they think the population should increase by in the research to be undertaken."
So we learn: (a) it is evidently impossible for a community of our size to provide a water supply, roads, sewerage and other infrastructural items; and (b) we are about to pay for research to decide by how much the population must grow.
This, from the group that has not contributed in any practical way to the Transmission Gully debate, which has produced a confused and internally contradictory consultation document, and which is being grandly ignored by all who do not share in its foolish, ideological, self-interested crusade.
Mayor Guppy, to his credit, asked about the proposed bus tour to launch the
Growth Framework - but it does not say what he asked about. Perhaps he
wanted to know if they were to visit the poor, the Salvation Army,
the churches, the Pacific Island communities, the academic institutions, the
district health boards (all three of them), the residents' associations, and
so on. Actually, according the newspaper reports the bus tour took them to
see only those who well benefit by population growth - and they all supported
the strategy. These are not people who care about the requirements of local
government.
r
Friday, October 21, 2005
AN EFFICIENT COUNCIL
With great efficiency a Porirua City Council Committee approved the rates
funding statement, the capital expenditure report, and the financial activity
reports, all for last year. The motion was carried. Just one problem, the reports
were not actually in the papers presented to the meeting. Oh well, who needs
the numbers? Besides, the variance on the capital projects was only $1.363
million from a budget of $2.405 million, mere peanuts!
r
October 21, 2005
HEALTHLINKS UP WITH THE PLAY
On the 23 February 2005, Cr Noreen Palmer and I
were elected by the Porirua City Council to be Council representatives
on HealthLinks. HealthLinks is funded by the taxpayer to the tune of about
$180,000 a year (from memory, I read their constitution and accounts a few
years ago). They are said to speak for the community on health issues.
Now the chief executive of the Porirua Council, being efficient, wrote to HealthLinks
and gave them the names and addresses of the Council representatives. I know
this because I asked for a copy of the letter. Noreen and I waited for our
welcome letter and induction, and prepared ourselves to work at the new task.
We are still waiting eight months later. If they are not doing their administration,
how can they be doing anything else, I wonder.
r
Friday, October 21, 2005
I AM GOING TO PLAY WITH RED TRUCKS AND BLUE TRUCKS - POLICY-MAKING 101
At the council table I tried to lead a discussion on the distinction between policy making and the implementation of policy. I used as my example the current Mainzeal application for a rates break. This Rates Remission Policy has been in place, and used, for many years. My point was that the policy should be sufficiently robust as to allow the officers to simply implement it without each case having to come to the Council to be considered.
There was some useful talk about the role of discretion, which is the gap where judgment must be used, whenever decisions are made under rules. Discretion is inevitable and no bad thing. We pay the officers well and part of that is to buy their judgment. Officers of course, naturally enough, like the safe road - put it to the Council and thus they move the responsibility from themselves. (A few of them might wish they had adopted this strategy regarding the cell tower in Titahi Bay).
However, the most daunting aspect of the short debate was the support one councillor received when he said that he wanted to be directly involved if we are to help Mainzeal, so that he could claim to them (and presumably others, although he did not say that) that it was his goodness that brought about the decision. He wanted to meet them. Some councillors have a real problem seeing anything from a perspective that is not directly personal to themselves. It is like saying "I am going to play with red trucks and blue trucks" and the whole of the trucking business is going to have to be built around my personal demands. Well we cannot accommodate such ideas. The business we run at Council spends $41 million a year and the money is not ours.
We have to
design a decision-making system that is efficient. Such a system requires
that the role of the councillor and the role of the officer must be determined
as matters of principle. To be a little crude about it: the Councillors decide
the policy and the officers implement that policy. This is the framework
of delegation.
r
October 20, 2005
HOW WE DO BUSINESS
The Porirua City Council desperately needs to change the way it does things. Good progress has been made on this broad agenda. At the Strategy and Finance Committee last night we decided to move to a "committee of the whole" system. That means there would be in effect only two kinds of meetings and superficially they would be similar. All councillors would be involved in everything - first at a committee meeting and then at a full council meeting. This structure will, I believe, dramatically improve the quality of decisions if it is associated with a whole raft of other changes. These include training for the councillors - at least one last night revealed that she did not actually know what a delegation is. For those of us plunged into management and council theory it is all second nature now, but we have to remember (or perhaps I should say, I have to remember) that councillors have very different backgrounds. There is an agreement to have some training on meeting procedures, but the needs are well beyond that - for example, what is a delegation and what are the qualities of good delegations.
The move described above is being associated with discussions and proposals
about the meeting times and days for the council. The leading proposition is
that there be an all-day committee meeting once every six weeks. This has a
range of implications, not the least of which is ensuring public access to
the meetings. Personally, I think we can come up with some innovative moves
in this area. The whole business of consultation as unfolded in Porirua City
is dated, ineffective, and frustrating for all involved.
r
October 19, 2005
FORMER MAYOR JOHN BURKE'S REAL ESTATE WEBSITE
CREEKFEST PLANNING
Malo lava - awesome start to planning for next year.
Welcome to our community folks. Notes are attached. Key opening message from notes: Wiremu Taurima, Manager, Porirua Recreation Centre spoke to the beginnings of CreekFest. Remember CreekFest catering for people. Cannons Creek belongs to people here. This is the third year. This year, it was huge with a wider catchment. CreekFest has grown and is being recognised as an iconic event. What’s up for CreekFest’06?: KEEP OUR FEET & HEADS ON THE GROUND, AND NOT DRIFT AWAY FROM ORIGINAL FOCUS – HEALTH MESSAGES/THEMES AND CELEBRATING CULTURE. IT’S ABOUT PEOPLE TURNING UP AND TAKING PART THU A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES IN CANNONS CREEK! There is strong agreement this remains the focus, and to strengthen both components: ‘Health’ and ‘Cultural’. Dates: · Friday 17 March 2006 (evening - North Rugby Club) · Saturday, March 18 2006, 9:00am to (tbc) – Field has been booked - Thanks Stephen · Marquees/Tents – health providers etc to book now Next meeting: Thursday, 27 October 2005, 10:00am - Cannons Creek Opportunity Centre – 10:00am Ia manuia Louis
MAINZEAL RATES BREAK - OPPOSITION FROM PLIMMERTON
Memo to Northern Ward Councillors 16 October 2005
With a background of constant annual rate increases the Plimmerton Residents Association is gravely concern ed over the application of Rate Remission recommended for Mainzeal and set down for discussion by the S&F Committee on Tuesday 18 October.
* Th e report on this issue is dated 20 September . It appeared on the Council website 3 days before the meeting when there is little opportunity for public awareness. It would appear that residential ratepayers are excluded as stakeholders in such decisions.
* T his is an investment with unknown ownership and use. The timing of the proposed stages is also unknown with employment opportunities un clear. Mr Miller also states “because the development is to be carried out in stages, the speed at which those benefits are released to the City is also uncertain”.
* The PRA have reacted quite negatively over time to these rates remissions dating from a DAP submission in May 1999 when Council g ave a rates holiday to Harvey Norman for $300,000 over 3 years.
* Council has outlined for us their parlous financial state yet they see fit to minimize the rates levy on some large, well-established profitable businesses.
* W e understand the IRD considers that a remission of rates is a grant, and therefore Council w ould be liable to pay to IRD the GST that otherwise would have been paid had the rates concerned not been remitted. This is an extra cost to ratepayers.
* Carrus Corporation we understand has also been given rates relief on the understanding their work would bring employment to the area. We understand that their contracts with prospective purchasers of new homes require them to accept tradespeople recommended by Carrus. We also understand those same tradespeople come from Tauranga. Indeed it has brought employment to the area but the benefit is largely felt outside the area. A dubious financial decision by Council.
* We suggest that to give on-going residential rates relief to rest homes is also a poor financial decision as rest homes operate as profitable entities and as such should pay commercial rates as do all other businesses. To our best knowledge owners of rest homes do not run them as charities.
The support Council gives to business has a worthy motivation but there is now a growing concern that this particular policy has now opened the door to flagrant abuse at the expense of the residential ratepayer and suggest that the policy may need to be re-examined so that it is robust in its application.
Pip Piper, Plimmerton Residents Association
Monday, October 17, 2005
I AM ASKED HOW IS IT THAT I OPPOSE THE WELLINGTON REGIONAL STRATEGY, BUT SUPPORT GW?
Do I support regionalism or do I not? The concept of regionalism is multi-dimensional and it has been taken over by a particular group with a particular commercial interest. I oppose the Regional Growth Strategy for reasons I have set out in a polemical way elsewhere in the blog. That is not to say that there are not legitimate regional perspectives and policy needs, examples being the regional landscape strategy, water supply,and the land transport strategy. GW can develop such things, and other things, through proper consultation and vote, and funding by regional rates which are their accountability, and not ours at PCC. Should that mechanism toss up the idea that GW should fund regional economic development to a greater extent, then that is fine by me. Of course GW already funds region economic development work, and we read the reports produced regularly, so this would just be an extension.
Footnote: How ad hoc groups work
Ad hoc groups always develop one imperative: to maintain themselves. So it will be with the ad hoc regional growth group - wait for them to begin discussions on how they can be funded on a more permanent basis (by ratepayers, most of whom have never heard of them). They will talk about the need for a strategic focus, a ginger group, and capacity building both theirs and the region's. They will develop more expensive documents and more jargon and "feel good" statements.
They will use the techniques of marketing to support the cause of their own funding. They will further build in the words of their opponents, and potential opponents - as they have with the new focus on Maori, and the new focus on "quality of life". Their main effect will be to undermine the people who should be doing any work that is needed at a regional level business development. Namely, the regional council, Greater Wellington.
Already we have seen Murray Kennedy from Greater Wellington writing
a letter to the DomPost to set to rest all the fears about a water shortage
generated by this ad hoc groups foolish statements. Mr Kennedy knows more
about Wellington's water supply than any other person except perhaps the current
ceo of Greater Wellington. The ad hoc group had to make alarmist statements,
otherwise they have no justification for their own existence, and this is
what they did regarding Wellington's water supply. Suddely we were not looking
ahead enough, not investing enough, going to run out of water. But, there was
not one new fact that I had not heard when I was on the Utility Services Committee
of Greater Wellington. We all need to understand the population of the region,
like the population of the country, will grow at exactly the rate Statistics
NZ says it will grow, and no amount of spending will change that fact - no
matter how desperately some people want to profit by population growth. And
it is that population growth forecast that must determine when we spend more
money on the development of the water supply, the roads, and everything else.
r
October 16, 2005
BLOG PEOPLE HELP THE RED CROSS
The Liberal
Blogosphere Hurrican Relief is a site that is helping to raise funds
for the Red Cross. I hope people can help.
r
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
PLIMMERTON RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE - DECISION-MAKING
"Roger,
Your last unfortunate email has given me an opportunity to reflect on participative government as over time I have given a great deal of thought to how the decision making process is managed at Local Government level. You will be pleased to know that I haven’t yet got a definitive solution. However from my reading there are models which seem to deliver greater benefits than those we currently enjoy.
What I do know is that the village strategy in Plimmerton, Titahi Bay and Porirua East have revealed a real willingness for people to be involved in the decision making processes. They have shown they want to be involved. They actually want to help. They do have opinions and they are delighted when asked for them. They are even more delighted when notice is taken of their opinions.
What people find hardest with the current structure is that the system appears to be set up for communities to have to play cat and mouse.
As of right now, 3 days before a meeting, an agenda is posted on the internet with all the relevant attachments. People in local communities have 3 days to scan them and see if anything may be an issue for them. They then have maybe 24-48 hours to decide whether they need to be involved, to attend the relevant meeting, make a submission, respond to it, think about it, relay it to other interested parties etc etc.
It’s an exercise in futility really and more specifically real frustration as we are constantly on the back foot.
It seems that issues are put out for public consultation on a weekly basis! In this weeks public consultation questionnaire I was expected to waste my time answering questions like ‘Whose responsibility is it to pick up dog poo?”
It is another box in the process to tick! Whether Council gets a lot or a little feedback doesn’t seem to be an issue as long as it can be said that the public has been consulted.
We have policies coming at us like rabbits out of a magician’s hat. It is hard for lay volunteers to know where they’ve come from, where they fit in the big picture, what the impacts will be on their communities and whether the process to be followed for one, will be the same process for the next. How many policies have been put before Council in the last 12 months? I’ve lost count. And are we moving forward as a result….
My impression is that we are all working harder not smarter - communities, officers, councillors and workers. If it is a central government requirement causing the problem then maybe that needs to be addressed but if it is an outmoded systemic structure which no longer fits the vision then that may benefit from a review as well.
The public is not responding because the public has had enough - not of the vision or the aims for Porirua - but for the processes currently in place to achieve them. 49 people to 5 meetings for a project valued at $12.9m surely must tell Council something.
I still have major concerns about the Reserves policy but am happy to be enlightened.
Helen"
Monday, October 10, 2005
I WAS ASKED IF I WAS CONSISTENT REGARDING MY OPPOSITION TO THE DISTRICT PLAN ROLLING REVIEW
The paper "District Plan Rolling Review" to Environment
Committee of 3 December 2003, Minute 193/03 of that meeting records
that I requested that my dissenting vote be recorded, and Council minute
320/03 where the committee's recommendation was carried shows that I voted
against the motion. I did support other earlier things that related to this
project.
r
Sunday, October 9, 2005
LOST LEADERSHIP - READ TO THE END PLEASE
It’s now almost a year since the new council was elected and people just keep on asking me, “What the heck is going wrong with Council?”
I must admit I had nigh hopes for the new council - it should be an excellent council. There was a good mix of enthusiastic fresh faces and experience, and on the face of it the mayor was a popular choice. Unfortunately I, and many others, have been sadly disappointed.
If I were to point to a single failing, I would have to say the council lacks leadership. As a result it lacks unity and direction.
The result is a council that is probably the worst I can remember, certainly much worse than two other councils, which at least had mayors that had a sense of direction and purpose. This new council does not have that. There are three critical aspects to a mayors role.
As a ceremonial mayor the incumbent does a great job. In the other two areas she is abysmal.
The meetings are shambolic, and there is little regard for proper process. Quite simply, she appears to lack a grasp of quite basic meeting procedures and the advice she receives from support staff does not make matters any better.
On leadership, even the public are sensing the problem. I notice the letters to the editor are regularly commenting on the “waffle” coming from our mayor. I admit, that most of the time I find it extremely difficult understanding what the mayor is saying or where she stands on an issue. If I ask a direct question I usually get two answers expressed as an assemblage of jumbled and cluttered thoughts. Early on in the term I asked the mayor to say what she wanted to achieve in her three-year term. I never received a straight answer and still have no idea what she wants to achieve. I suspect it is because she does not know what she wants to achieve!
Personally, I think our mayor realises she is out of her depth. That would not in itself be the tragedy it is becoming if she was able to build a team around her. On the contrary she appears to be paralysed by fear that others will undermine her to advance their own mayoral ambitions. While it is true, that there are at least two councillors that will challenge her next time round, she has not been able to gain the respect and build trust generally. She has instead, divided councillors by making inappropriate commentary about certain individuals to other councillors, and does not cope well with conflict, even when that conflict is as benign as a difference of opinion.
At the risk of being accused of being negative, I am not expecting things to improve over the next two years. The indications are that matters are getting worse as senior staff fill the leadership void. In my view, council’s senior staff have little regard for the boundary between governance and politics and that in the end will be the undoing of this council. (1 October 2005).
ROBERT'S COMMENT
You thought I wrote the above, did you not? Shame on you. It was actually
written by Councillor Frank Newman (Dr Murial's husband) who is
a member of the
Whangarei District Council. Whangarei's situation and ours, alerts us to a national
problem. When most people vote for a mayor they do not give much regard to
competence. This is hardly a suprise for many of the contenders have only the
slightest notion what local government is about - there is a silly notion that
anyone with a bit of common sense can do the job. The result is we end up with
people trying to do jobs for which they are obviously unsuited. One answer
to this is to have the elected councillors elect the mayor. Or have the mayor
as a figurehead elected by the people, but have the elected councillors elect
the chairperson of the council. Both these approaches are used elsewhere. Our
own regional council elects its own chairperson and there is no "mayor" of
the region. I would like the Porirua City Council to consider the "Chairperson
of Council" job along with some definition of what is expected of an elected
mayor. Incidentally, Frank Newman is another chap doing a PhD, but at least
his topic is understandable, it is about how to beat the sharemarket.
r
October 8, 2005
WHITBY RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION AGM
Dear Mayor and N. Ward Councillors, The WRA is holding its AGM on Wed 19 October in the Anchor Church starting at 7.30pm. We would be very pleased if you could join us. After the formalities of electing a new committee etc, we propose to have four short updates on:
Your input on these topics would be valuable and appreciated I am sorry we have not given you more notice but my absence overseas and other circumstances meant that we had not finally agreed on format etc until Wednesday last. Please attend if and when available. Best regards Jim
ROBERT COMMENTS
People say there is apathy in regard to local government - but that is just not true in Porirua City. Large numbers of people want to be involved in their Council's decision-making and to contribute to the community in a practical way. Different people contribute in different ways. There is not much point having me on a kindy working bee, unless it is to make the tea. But others are great - and everyone contributes their particular skills. Also, I have noticed that people come and go, meaning that they contribute to an issue or two and then go away, only to return years later. A few people make a contribution over a long time and that brings important community memory, but others just pop up when the spirit moves them. The community spirit and the generosity of people in Porirua City is one of our outstanding features.
Council needs to recognise that the residents' associations are in practice
another tier of local government. They have an important task because so many
people want to be involved and because of the intensity of local issues. Elsewhere
in this blog, and at the Council table, I have suggested things that could
be done to improve the liaison between the Council and the associations.
r
Saturday, October 8, 2005
AOTEA SUBURB
The new Aotea suburb is being revealed. I had a good look round yesterday.
The Council's special District Plan provisions are obviously working. The blocks of land (sections) look very small to me and most dramatic of all the houses are so close together. Some might call that good communication with neighbours. The houses being built in many cases turn out to be very modest - now I know what "mixed" housing means. The minimal provisions for reserves are in place but they are not being developed, and there are no walkways being constructed that I could find.
The whole suburb has only one entrance and there are already traffic jams on Whitford Brown Drive where the traffic from Whitby, Waitangirua and Aotea must merge. The promised second entrance that is now to go to Cannons Creek (originally meant to be to the town centre) is "on hold" and the Council has no budget provision for the road works needed. Nor is there any planning or budget for the development of the rough and difficult areas that were given to the Council by the developer for the recreation reserves. Ratepayers are one day going to have to pay to straighten this lot out. Do not expect Porirua's horrendous rates to come down. Remembering that the whole 246 hectares was owned by the Council just two years ago makes me despair.
I understand progress is being made on the industrial development of the area, and the building of the major rest home and potential hospital.Council adjusted its rates definitions to allow rest homes to be exempt of commercial rates and thus to facilitate this development (I still have not seen a list of the companies that benefit from this policy - as I have a few shares in the sector I hope I am to benefit). The industrial development has implications for the Council that we should address. I have asked the chief executive some questions about the current situation to assist my thinking, although it seems a bit pointless for me to worry about this for there is a blind determination in the Council to exploit the area with scant regard to wider issues.
The only good aspect I can
see is that the rolls of Aotea and Porirua Colleges will increase to safe
levels. As a member of the Aotea College Board of Trustees I was involved
in the establishment of the zoning for the schools. Those problems now look
much easier with the Aotea suburb extant.
October 8, 2005
INFORMALITY AT WORK AGAIN - I SUSPECT
"The key imperative for this review is a concern that the District Plan creates unnecessary barriers to the ... use of the City's recreation areas" See item 11 in analysis of agenda>. On the basis of this statement an expensive project is being run. I ask, please, when did the councillors ever decide that there is a concern about unnecessary barriers to the use of recreation areas - and specifically, the interpretation of that statement by officers that it means the commercial use of recreation areas. I have always held strongly the opposite view. It has been far to easy for streetwise people to appropriate public recreation areas for their private use. Reserves are looked on by some as very cheap available land.
I have asked the chief executive
for a copy of the motion that indicates that councillors' drew the conclusion
officers claim.
r
Saturday, October 8, 2005
PCC MEDIA RELEASE WITH A CREATIVE HEADING - IT SHOULD READ "DISASTER AVERTED FOR 2 MONTHS"
"PCC AND VODAFONE WORKING TOGETHER TO IMPROVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE IN PORIRUA
Work on a mobile phone site on the corner of Jillett Street and Kapiti Crescent in Titahi Bay has been suspended for two months in an agreement struck between Porirua City Council and Vodafone New Zealand today.
The meeting, chaired by Porirua Acting Mayor Euon Murrell, was attended by chief executive Roger Blakeley, Western Ward councillors Tracey Waters, Ken Douglas and Liz Kelly, infrastructure chairman John Green, three Vodafone representatives and two community representative.
Dr Blakeley called the meeting after a number of Titahi Bay residents had raised concern over the location of the mobile phone site in their neighbourhood.
At the conclusion of the meeting it was agreed that:
• Work on the current site ceases for two months while Council and Vodafone:
• Look for an alternative site that both addresses community concerns while satisfying technical requirements, or
• consider a re-design of the proposed facility
“Each party will reserve their position as to what to do at the end of the two month period. But we are both entering this in good faith and recognise the value of working together with the community to develop the City's telecommunications infrastructure,” Mr Murrell said.
• Because on the increasing demand for mobile services it was also decided that Council will develop a new process based on a model used successfully by Christchurch City Council that will address future applications for these sites.
“This new technology needs support by infrastructure like cell sites. The new process will provide an opportunity for the public to be informed about proposals and to provide feedback,” said Dr Blakeley.
“It will also detail the way that Council and telecommunication companies work together in the future to develop the infrastructure we need in Porirua for technical development.
A report on the matter will go before the Infrastructure Committee at its meeting on November 23.
Media inquiries to Moana Kousal on 237 1411; Roger Blakeley on 237 1401; Euon Murrell on 027 445 8191.
Vodafone spokesperson Veronica Ruddenklau on 021 484 402. "
AND A COMMENT
"From: Graeme Ebbett <ebbett.automation@clear.net.nz>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:32:32 +1300
To: Victoria May-Jakobs <victoria@homebuildhomes.co.nz>,
News DomPost <news@dompost.co.nz>, Matt Dillon <news@kmananews.co.nz>,
Melanie Drummond <melanie.drummond@capitalnews.co.nz>
Cc: TBRA Committee
Subject: Vodaphone Cell Phone Tower Installation Jillet St Titahi
Bay - Put On Hold For 2 Months
Media Statement
"We are encouraged by the agreement of Vodofone to halt installation for 2 months
while alternative sites are considered.
The Environment Court has declined to issue an interim Court Order to stop works
so they could have proceeded regardless.
We appreciate their gesture of goodwill."
Ends
...................................
Further information from
> Victoria May-Jakobs
> Homebuild Homes
> ph) 236 7692 m)027 286 2222
> victoria@homebuildhomes.co.nz "
WHY OUR TOWN PLANNING GOES SO WRONG
The basic reason is that the principles that would be relevant in London and New York are being applied in Porirua City. Go for high population density and business development models that depend on population (consumer) growth.
We saw this in the special rules made for the Tauranga developer who now owns the Aotea Block, and we are seeing the same ideas applied throughout the City. The City disappears in this - totally destroyed. Remember the lovely beach and green space next to the Paremata Bridge - walk there now and it is all a car park for boaties. Funny how it looks just like the car parks in Wellington, and Auckland, and LA. Look at the cheap houses on the Aotea Block and tell me how that suburb differs from Botany Downs in Auckland or a hundred other places all the same?
Tell me also how the mental health of people is advanced by having them in this sameness. Tell me, please, why should Porirua City just follow along when we could with care and effort do so much better for our people? I am starting to become like Councillor Don Borrie. He often said "all I can do is ask questions". We are helpless against the machine. Only the mayor, chief executive, and committee chairs, can do anything.
And what of the council officers in this machine? I think they would like
to be released from purgatory and go either to heaven or hell.
r
October 7, 2005
POSTSCRIPT
According to a blog reader the last line above needs some explanation. It
means that our officers need to be given a clear and single direction for the
City. They need to know what they are aiming at. At the moment, all the planning
documents are compromises that say everything, and thus say nothing. The one
success that I can claim in local government is that I had the 3rd Regional
Land Transport Strategy end with a list of specific projects in priority order.
This is what I mean by planning in the concrete (pun). We must plan to that
degree of specificity so that what is meant becomes clear. Avoid abstract nouns
- they never work in the policy arena.
r
WHY IS THE COUNCIL SO FAR OFF-SIDE WITH ITS COUNCILLORS AND THE COMMUNITY?
Much valuable officer time is going into the Titahi Bay fiasco, and it is just like the Buxton Garden fiasco, and the Aotea Block fiasco, and the Plimmerton Village Plan fiasco, and so it lurches on like episodes from Coronation Street.
The worst part of this method of management is that it costs us years when we could be developing the City to unheard of standards. We could be world leaders, my ambition for Porirua City goes well beyond our being the best in New Zealand.
So why are we lurching along? The basic reason is the way the decision-making processes fail.
Look at the position of councillors now we have the "discussion document" on open spaces. First, it is going out in the name of the councillors, with an endorsement by Committee decision. (Personally, I object to my name being put on policy proposals when I have not even had a chance to vote on them, but that is a different issue.) Most of the councillors will not be aware of the rocket being launched in their name.
Second, at the very last meeting of the Plimmerton Residents' Association there were strong pleas for fewer consultations and documents - there is dramatic community overload and exhaustion. Several councillors carried this back to the Council table - but it has not stopped another unneeded, troublesome, controversial, set of semi-defined policy proposals being launched.
The councillors like myself, who think the document is a disaster, now have to put our energies into killing it. I would much rather be able to do something positive and useful for the community. Having to oppose all this nonsense, all the time, is very tiresome and tiring. It wastes my few years on the council and I resent that for I would like just once or twice to see things develop as I wish them to develop. However, I do recognise that only the chairpersons are in a position to mould the council, so I should not complain too much about this matter.
The "discussion document" and its consultation form, must have taken time to produce. There will be an analysis of the "results" (as deficient as they must inevitably be), and there will be conflict between the officers, the community and the councillors. All this costs ratepayers their money and it costs us all time.
This "discussion document" debacle could be avoided. How? First, work must be done to get the councillors plans for the future of the City (some call this the "vision", but that is far too religious for the context) established in the base documents and directive of the flow of officer effort. Second, Council must confine consultations to those within the statutory framework, and heavens knows there is more than enough of them.
We have never used mechanisms that have any chance of success so far as the bringing together of the councillors is concerned. Basically, council processes are modeled on those of Parliament. It is a confrontational model - councillors and officers are cast as the government or the opposition. The government in the Porirua Council turns out to be the officers because the councillors are not able to take the leadership role. And, here I am now seeing success in terms of stopping the officer initiative, that I never asked for, that the community will hate (apart from a very narrow range of business interests who see personal profit it it, and these people have never ever taken that much interest in the business of the city anyway, with about 2 exceptions).
Of course you might say, but the legislation makes it perfectly clear that the officers give advice (well, the chief executive, actually), and so on: but what I am describing here is what does happen. Not what should happen.
These problems within the council have strong parallels with the problems
of the Family Court. Traditional confrontation procedures are being used to
settle matters that are best considered in other ways. Now having gotten that
off my chest, I am going back to my analysis of Wittgenstein in relation to
Heidegger, or is that Heidegger in relation to Wittgenstein?
r
Friday, October 7, 2005
113 MORE UNITS PROPOSED FOR THE WHITBY RETIREMENT VILLAGE
Submissions closed for this proposal on 28 September and now it must
deal with it. The officers' recommend the Committee (which has delegated power)
appoints a commissioner and two councillors to decide the application. The
Committee with the delegation is Councillor Sue Dow and Mr David Rolf (General
Manager). Judicial committees these days in Porirua City have very few members.
r
Thursday, October 6, 2005
HEAVY AGENDA FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION COMMITTEE - RUBBISH!! BUT THE STING IS IN THE TAIL - AND WHAT A STING
It takes the average councillor up to two hours to work through an agenda in advance of a meeting. Assuming they do the work they should do. I have just read the agenda for the Environmental and Community Protection Committee. Blog readers will know of my comments on how we might make the Council work better, and now I provide my views on the agenda as an example.
1 Apologies - ok
2 Notification of General Business. As motions cannot be moved in General Business the whole exercise is pointless. If councillors want to find something out they should approach an officer directly. Should take 1 minute to check out which councillors want to grandstand late at night.
3 Minutes of previous meeting - ok
4 Deputation from Alex Mathewson of Atom Hire Ltd re Plimmerton Quarry - good. Should take 15 minutes with questions included. He gets 10 minutes of right. If there is any follow-up action the chairperson should ask for an officers' report to the next meeting.
5 Traffic Bylaws - standard stuff the committee does (this lot is bus shelters), should take 2 minutes. Councillors must check the officers have consulted and take their advice on the traffic needs.
6 Traffic Bylaws - another 2 minutes this time on signs. Remember the councillors are not traffic engineers and their role is governance.
7 Report on Administration of Dog Control Policy - Councils must by law report on the dog policy each year. This report should be a couple of pages each year in the Annual Report. The EEO policy is the same, and a heap of other things. They do not need to be special stand alone items - it just creates work.
8 Resource Management Act Amendment - basic information for councillors, should not go to a decision-making committee.
9 Draft street naming policy - the motion is that Council consults the Ngati Toa and the Residents' Associations. Some confused thinking here - the motion should be to adopt the draft policy and then consult. We need to consult everyone, not just two specific groups. The motion as drafted has the wrong focus and cuts people out. Time: allow for say the moving of up to 2 amendments, decisions should take 15 minutes. The real decisions come after the public has made comments.
10 Information on the Pauatahanui Inlet Restoration Plan - does not need to go the the Committee. Evidently, they are supposed to "note" it. Pointless .Interesting read.
11 A review of How the District Plan Addresses the City's Recreation Areas and Open Spaces. Good God! Read the blog this very week for information about the Vodafone tower in Titahi Bay and ask yourself how the Council is doing in its protection of open spaces. The report attacks the second order targets. It goes the wrong way. It begins "The key imperative for this review is a concern that the District Plan creates unnecessary barriers to the ... use of the City's recreation areas". We desparately need to tighten up specific policy in this broad area. Ask the people of Plimmerton about the great golf fiasco, ask others about the Buxton Garden fiasco, ask Pukerua Bay about their experiences. WHAT WE WANT THE DISTRICT PLAN TO DO IS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND ADVANCE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE - AND NOT FACILITATE THE ENVIRONMENTS BEING RIPPED OFF. The paper also moves into the dangerous policy area regarding the coverage of building sites and earth work provisions. Ask the people around the Aotea Block about this disastrous policy and reflect that the policy proposed could make things worse. Notice how this serious and complex paper is the last on the agenda. The most important and disastrous item comes after a night of absolute futility about papers that that are not so important. The chairperson needs to take the Committee through this very carefully, and will need great insight into what is the current situation and what the changes proposed actually mean. The report should never have been written like this in the first place, and now we face the job of deconstruction. The chances of the committee getting anywhere near what is required is not great. I will have my say at the full Council meeting. But no! The motion is that the report is released - WITHOUT ITS EVER GOING TO THE COUNCIL. That practice is manipulative, dishonest, and a disgrace. The paper actually makes proposals, it is not just an asking of the public about the current situation. Its name "discussion document" does not reflect its contents, proposals, or its consultation instrument. I expect the chairperson of the Committee and the Mayor to now protect the interests of councillors, that is their job
12 General Business - pointless because no motions can be moved.
13 Public to be Excluded - normal motion, but it is important the councillors check the reasons relate to the items.
14 Minutes of previous meeting - ok
15 An appeal to a Plan Change notice must be considered in relation to Council's stance at the Environment Court. This is important and there is a good paper on which to base decisions. This is the sort of paper that has to be long. Should take the Committee about 15 minutes. Unlikely that the officers' recommendations will not be accepted.
So there we have it. Much fuss about nothing, one important action, and work
on the District Plan that is overkill and going the wrong way.
r
Thursday, October 6, 2005
CEO ON THE CELL TOWER AT TITAHI BAY - UPDATED
"Following are arrangements for the meeting with Vodaphone tomorrow
regarding the cell phone tower on the corner of Jillett Street and Kapiti Crescent,
Titahi Bay. Three Vodaphone executives are flying down from Auckland for
the day to meet with us. The arrangements are: 11.00am meeting between Vodaphone
Representatives, Roger Blakeley and Peter Bailey for "Officer level discussions".
12.00 noon meeting is joined by Euon Murrell, Acting Mayor, Cr John Green,
Chair Infrastructure Committee, and three Western Ward Councillors (Cr Waters,
Cr Kelly, Cr Douglas) and two Community Representatives (Graeme Ebbett, Chair
Titahi Bay Residents' Association and Victoria May-Jakobs) (attendance of the
above named subject to confirmation). 1.00pm Finish. Note that the meeting
of Residents last evening (attendance of 75) passed a resolution that: 1. Called
on Vodaphone and PCC to do everything possible to find another site. 2. Asked
PCC to review the District Plan provisions in relation to cell phone towers
as a permitted activity. Following discussion with the Chair of the Infrastructure
Committee, there will be a brief paper prepared for the Infrastructure Committee
meeting on Wednesday 12 October 2005. There will not be time to prepare written
advice from officers. However, this will allow the matter to be on the agenda
for the Committee, for oral advice to be given by officers, and for the Committee
to discuss the issues and direct further action. I am forwarding this to all
elected members so that you are all fully informed. Regards, Roger Roger Blakeley
Chief Executive Porirua City Council".
Thursday, October 6, 2005
EARLIER ITEM WAS:
Vodafone New Zeal and is in the process of installing a new facility at the intersection of Jillett Street and Kapiti Crescent in Titahi Bay . The facility includes:
• Cabinets with a resulting footprint of 1.6sq metres and height of 1.2 metres; and
• Replacement of the existing timber pole which was located on the footpath.
The cabinets have been screen planted.
The construction of the telecommunication facility of this nature is a permitted activity under the District Plan (see section D3.1.1).
Section 176A RMA required approval from the Utilities Policy Group of Porirua City Council as Requiring Authority. This has been given for the cabinets and is in regard to whether the telecommunication facility would prevent or hinder the function of the road. Note the mast was replacing an existing pole. We are still investigating if Vodafone has a legal right as a utility company to occupy the road reserve with this facility.
There are a number of residents that have contacted Council and some Councillors concerned about the construction of this new Vodafone facility.
We have arranged a meeting with Vodafone's manager, Justin Rae, on Friday (October 7) to discuss a number of issues bearing in mind the concerns of residents.
There are a number of questions that these residents have asked and Peter
Bailey and I plan respond to these at the meeting tomorrow night because they
relate to technical issues and operational decisions. "
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE CELL TOWER AT TITHAI BAY?
I have been waiting for information from the ceo all day, and wondering about what might now be done. The land is Council land and hence this must have been through the Infrastructure Committee with Council in its "ownership" role. If the District Plan allows such structures "of right", I might start building something outside my house at Papakowhai. As a radio amateur I have a need! More seriously, Councillor John Green is the Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee and thus the Council's spokesperson on this matter. Cr Green has a meeting with the officers scheduled for 4pm on Wednesday the 5th. He may be supported at the Titahi Bay public meeting by an officer or two: Wednesday 5 th October at 7pm, Titahi Bay Golf Club.
This comes from Don Borrie.He was much involved in radiation issues re the Bay and Radio NZ.
"This is of great concern for reasons of health and the democratic process.
Clearly we need a Community Board through whom the PCC are obligated to consult
rather as in this case thumb their noses at us as if we don't count. In the
meantime action to holt the construction must be taken, Don "
October 4, 2005
GATHERING OPINIONS ON TITAHI BAY - GREAT PUBLIC SPIRITED WORK
"Several public meeting and consultations have identified what many people in the Bay value about living here. There has been widespread agreement that our ideal Bay will be a seaside village which:
• Preserves its beach, harbour and other natural and historical features
• Maintains its socially, economically and ethnically diverse character, and
• Offers its residents and visitors a safe and caring community
The elements that are central to maintaining the bay as a very desirable place to live have been identified as:
• Our beach
• The shopping centre
• The rocky coast
• The harbour
• Whitireia Park
• A wide range of recreational facilities
The meetings and consultations which have been held have thrown up a lot of specific ideas, concepts and suggestions. Please help us to evaluate these and to set priorities by completing the attached questionnaire. This is your chance to help to shape the way the Bay develops over the next several years. As you will see, the questionnaire is in two parts. We are seeking to find out what level of support there is for some specific proposals and what priorities should attach to them. There are other more general concepts about which we should like to find out what level of public support exists. The preparation and circulation of this questionnaire has been undertaken with the support of the Titahi Bay Residents' Association Inc.. The findings from this survey will be incorporated into an action plan which the association will submit to the Porirua City Council.
For more information or spare copies of this questionnaire, please phone Andrew
or Claire 236-5476 or Ruth or Bob 236-7381.or Gael 236.7112" (full questionnaire
available from these people)
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
SUPPORT FOR THE COASTAL ROUTE
Media release: Coastal Highway Group
"The Greater Wellington Regional Council and Transit have got it right with the latest proposal for development of transport along the western corridor. The consultation document presents a balanced programme of works along the whole corridor. A staged development promises early benefits as each project is completed. The programme can be afforded from the funds available. The programme will deliver a safe and reliable road from Wellington to Kapiti over a reasonable time scale.
Motorists will welcome early improvements of traffic flows from both the Pukerua Bay bypass and the Paekakariki interchange. Contrary to the emotive statements of the Transmission Gully Action Group those two projects will also benefit those two communities. Improvements at the southern end of the corridor which will relieve congestion in Ngauranga Gorge
A most important point is that the Coastal route is affordable. The funds available are not sufficient for twenty seven kilometres of completely new Transmission Gully motorway for which the Transmission Gully Action Group are agitating. Even if the $1,000 million required to build TGM was available it would not be sensible to squander it all on one huge project which duplicates the existing road.
The Transmission Gully Action Group expresses concern at the effect of a Mana bypass on residents in the area. They show no regard for the effect which a major interchange at Linden would have on that residential area. There are no detailed plans for a Mana by pass and it will not be required for many years. Worrying about the effect on beaches and other amenities are baseless scaremongering.
Coastal Highway Group, 4/10/05"
WHILST OUR MONEY IS SPENT ON HOW WE RELATE TO REGIONALISM, THE DISTRICT PLAN REMAINS HOPELESS
Dear Councillor
A 12 metre high cellphone base station tower is under construction on the corner of Jillett St & Kapiti Cres, Titahi Bay . It’s right on the footpath, metres from the front door of the dairy, and amongst our homes. Local residents have not been consulted or notified about this. However, word is spreading and there is real concern about the impact of the tower on:
How could this be allowed to happen? It appears that the District Plan offers no protection to residents & ratepayers – and this potentially affects all ratepayers not just Titahi Bay as the ‘loophole’ being exploited by Vodafone could be implemented anywhere in the city. Written in the ‘early 1990s’ it is clearly outdated and in need of a substantial overhaul.
Concern is so great that an Interim Injunction Order has been filed with the Environment Court against Vodafone - and Porirua City Council, as we believe Porirua City Council has failed to adhere to the Resource Management Act, 1991.
A public meeting is being held this Wednesday 5 th October at 7pm, Titahi Bay Golf Club. Your presence is requested at this meeting. We strongly urge you to attend as this issue will not go away
We ask that you listen to our concerns, and come prepared to the questions outlined below:
· Why in an area with huge tracts of parklands and reserves, light industrial areas is a base station located on the footpath of a residential area?
· What steps did Vodafone & Porirua City Council take to find a site with the least impact on the local community?
· What steps has Vodafone & the PCC taken to ensure the safety and health of local residents?
· Will Vodafone & PCC provide a guarantee that there will be no adverse health effects (short or long term) from the siting of the base station in Jillett St ?
· Will Vodafone & PCC provide a guarantee that there will be no adverse impact on property values from the siting of the base station in Jillett St?
· In the event the siting of the base station in Jillett St does have a negative impact on property values, will Vodafone & PCC accept liability for the difference?
· The Resource Management Act (1991) requires a consent authority to have regard to potential effects of low probability but high impact in considering an application. Did this happen?
· PCC gains financially from leasing the roadside site to Vodafone. The residents and ratepayers of Titahi Bay lose.
· Why does the PCC provide legal protection for it’s land capital under the district plan, but not for it’s residents or the capital value of their land?
· Why has the District Plan (under which this has been allowed to happen) written in ”the early 1990s” not been revised when technological and other developments continue?
I have attached a document summarising research to date, including studies on the impact on health & property values for your information.
Regards
Victoria Jakobs
Jillett St resident & ratepayer
BRIAN MOSEN - INVISIBILE PUKERUA BAY
The Editor
Kapi-Mana News
It has taken about 30 years for Pukerua Bay residents to see themselves as true citizens of Porirua City – to “get off the motorway” - participate and take advantage of all the facilities/opportunities that our city has to offer us. To finally acknowledge the reality that Pukerua Bay is a suburb-community-village of Porirua City
It hasn't always been this way and at the time of joining Porirua City in 1973, Pukerua Bay could have gone the same way that Tawa went with Wellington, only north into Kapiti rather than south into Mana. The reason for this at the time was more financial and geographical location rather than political, e.g.rates and t he condition of SH1until just recently, with a two lane bridge at Paremata and a narrow dangerous road just south of Pukerua Bay it was often quicker and safer to travel north.
However, we finally have a four-lane bridge over the harbour and the highway just south of us has been improved to near motorway classification. The water and sewage issues of the Kapiti Coast has also certainly endorsed the decision to become the most northern suburb of Porirua City.
For this reason it was so disappointing to see that we were not included in the Kapi- Mana News souvenir issue recently printed to celebrate 40 years as a city. Was it because we haven’t done the full 40 years or was it just an oversight that we were not mentioned once? Even Aotea, an area not fully developed got a good half column in “The Villages of Porirua City” article. Pukerua Bay however, which certainly does have its own identity, even though divided into East and West by SH1, and does have residents who contribute daily to the beauty and cultural vitality of our city, was not included.
I hope that this omission can be rectified in some way.
Brian Mosen
Chairperson of Pukerua bay Residents Association
TRANSMISSION GULLY WORK IN PROGRESS - MEMO FROM PORIRUA CEO RE THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
HWTM AND COUNCILLORS Here is the summary of the consultation document on the Western Corridor transportation study. It is officially released tomorrow morning. Full documents will be available on the Greater Wellington website from 10 am tomorrow-see link below. You will note on p 18 it makes a scant reference to Transmission Gully variants including "northern Transmission Gully only" which is probably an inadequate reference to PCC's proposed "principled" approach including an alternative strategic route into Wellington along Northern Transmission Gully/SH58/SH2/SH1 to Wellington. It is summarily dismissed in 2 sentences! I have taken it that Council sees this issue as a top priority because of its wide potential impacts on the city and the Council's wish for a comprehensive submission on this document. I have already established an in-house project team which is calling on specialist consultants in areas covering transport modelling, economic, ecology, Maori cultural, Emergency Management, Natural Hazard,Landscape , Noise, planning, and legal advice. I have established a budget ceiling of $200,000. This is extra to current budgets and I will be seeking authorisation at the Strategy and Finance Committee on Tuesday 18 October 2005. Note that submissions are due by 4 November. Council has already given delegated authority to the CE to make a submission in consultation with the Mayor and Crs Murrell, Douglas and Green. I will keep you informed as this work proceeds. Regards, Roger Roger Blakeley Chief Executive Porirua City Council
ROBERT COMMENTS
As predicted on this blog, Transmission Gully is being largely cut out of
the consultation. As I have said before - we must demonstrate that the Region
is willing to pay the sum that is needed to make up the difference between
the cost of TGM and what the Government will pay. There is no other way to
handle this situation. Unfortunately for us, it means petrol taxes, tolls,
and rates increases.But, only for a limited number of years and then we could
actually get our money back with interest! I
am pleased the ceo is on an action footing and that we are going to fight with
some real money an expertise. We need good finance people, and some roading
experts probably from overseas. Wars are won by fighting.
r
Sunday, October 2, 2005
More information:
"I encourage you to read the document and to make a submission. Further information will be available on www.gw.govt.nz/westerncorridor from 10am on Monday 3 October 2005. Yours sincerely Terry McDavitt Chairperson, Regional Land Transport Committee"
QUICK AS A FLASH, I AM ASKED WHY MY APPROACH TO PLANNING IS NOT ADOPTED
Quick as a flash I am asked by a blog reader, why is it that my approach to planning (as set out immediately below) has never been adopted. It is a question I have asked myself over several years. It is a challenging question, but the answer is as follows, I think.
We are actually defeated by the competence of our officers. I mean this in the best possible way. It is a complement to them, but ironically there competence works against us. They know that the law requires certain decisions be made and they rightly seek to expedite things. They know how difficult the process is and how long it will take. Accordingly, they develop detailed plans to get us through everything and to have the councillors consider everything. This means education sessions for the councillors must be included. We end up being driven by legal requirements and time constraints.
An example might demonstrate this. Just last week some very key decisions about goals were considered in a workshop. The material provided was complex, professional, and interesting. It was also lengthy, open to wide interpretation, and procedural things (the process) became hopelessly mixed in the minds of the councillors with issues around the direction they want the City to go. Given the timeframe, and the amount of preliminary work that officers had done, there really was not a realistic opportunity to say "no". In fact, to keep the process going, I moved one of the key motions myself, knowing that the whole enterprise was fatally flawed.
It is as if we are trapped within the machine, and unable to get out, and we cannot expect the officers to get us out, because they are the machine.
I did conclude once that only the chairperson of the committee that is
responsible for the planning is actually in a position to address these issues.
That person has the opportunity to work with the officers to bring about
a different understanding of what is required (before the mountains of paper
are written), and to take from them the worry, real or imagined, about legality.
At one time I thought it was the legislation itself that was the problem -
but it is not, because it is mainly suggestive of practice and onlyt mandatory
in a few sensible things.
r
Sunday, October 2, 2005
PLANNING DOCUMENTS - HOW TO MAKE A SMALL COUNCIL UNDERSTANDABLE AND PUSH IT IN DESIRABLE DIRECTIONS
Off we go again. Council is busy agreeing to complicated, complex, and unnecessary plans for all sorts of things. Just the papers that set out the plans to have plans are horrendous. None of it will do anything much - it never has in the past.
So what do we need as a set of documents to record the high level decisions that will set the direction for the Council and the City? This is a really key question. To put it bluntly: how do we make the Council what people want? The documents needed are: