Point England Development Enabling Bill

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Point England Development Enabling Bill

1 | 2 | 3

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1710676 27-Jan-2017 13:49

Torque:
Dynamike: As far as I understand, the land is part of the treaty settlement with Ngati Paoa. The iwi are the ones undertaking the development, not central or local government.
This - it's part of a treaty settlement. Not sure how that is 'short sighted non-thinking from the Government in Wellington'? If the Iwi then own the land, what they do with it is up to them. Furthermore, 20% of it will be social housing, another 20% will be affordable housing. God forbid.

If it's a reserve, I'm against it.

If it's privately owned Maori land they can build whatever the like.

....so which is it? Requiring legislation to make it possible suggests it isn't ordinary private land......

I'll re-read the top post.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1710765 27-Jan-2017 17:29

Linuxluver:

If it's a reserve, I'm against it.

If it's privately owned Maori land they can build whatever the like.

I had a quick glance over the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and it makes reference to the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, and as far as I can tell from a 5 minute look, it is reserve land, but it's also treaty settlement land, and so as soon as it's not reserve land, it reverts to the tribe or something along those lines.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

hattrick123

71 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1710916 27-Jan-2017 23:11

Lias:

Linuxluver:

If it's a reserve, I'm against it.

If it's privately owned Maori land they can build whatever the like.

I had a quick glance over the Point England Development Enabling Bill, and it makes reference to the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, and as far as I can tell from a 5 minute look, it is reserve land, but it's also treaty settlement land, and so as soon as it's not reserve land, it reverts to the tribe or something along those lines.

Thank you Lias, there is 3 references for "Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau" in the bill that I could find. One is:

"These interests include a licence to the Tāmaki Model Aircraft Club and a right of first refusal under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Redress Act 2014 and the deed that it gives effect to."

To me, and I am no expert, but that just means if the land ever gets to a stage where it can be sold(what i think this bill is) then Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Redress Act 2014 has right of first refusal.

The other 2 are under section 7 and as far as I can tell are to do if this bill gets passed or when the land gets split up, into development land and the remaining reserve land. But again I am no expert.

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#1711040 28-Jan-2017 14:20

I live in Point England and have been to the reserve twice. Not particularly interesting and only went to walk the dog. By the looks of it there will still be plenty of open space.

However, I eagerly anticipate news of what will be happening with the Auckland Council owned Remuera Golf Course. A much more central and far larger waste of space catering for paying rich people :)

hattrick123

71 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1711236 29-Jan-2017 08:18

bmt:
I live in Point England and have been to the reserve twice. Not particularly interesting and only went to walk the dog. By the looks of it there will still be plenty of open space.

I recently went to a new development of new houses.Not particularly interesting and only went to walk the dog.By the looks of it there will still be plenty of unaffordable homes

I am not against housing.I am against reserve land open to the public being rezoned for housing. I am against any rezoning that wants to skip all the existing laws(2 acts) on such rezoning.I am against skipping laws to achieve targets that are not necessarily achievable.

Thank you.

Goosey

3016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 871

Subscriber

#1711248 29-Jan-2017 09:30

Looks like a swampy marsh to me, although could be a bit of volcanic rock in there too.

I think the real question is the land quality i.e. liquifaction risks and is the land going to slump and /or split into pieces if theres a volcanic erruption or earthquake !

Dont be like Christchurch... where a quarter to half of homes were built on marshes, swamps and waterways.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

hattrick123

71 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1763836 13-Apr-2017 14:23

Just want to follow up on this.
When I first posted this, alot of this was new to me, and I have learnt alot in the process.
I really got to see how ugly a country can be when you get more familliar with it's politics. Granted I knew a bit, but it is true, ignorance is bliss. From the extreme side of maori to wanting all there land back to the other extreme of pakeha who think maori have no claim whatsoever.
Now some people will probably label me leftie,greenie,tree hugger, racist(for apposing a treaty settlement), but I don't really hang with any one tag really
Anyhow this site probably expresses my point of view better than I ever could, and may answer some peoples questions saveourreserves.org.nz/

Also, here is the select committee report that has come back without 1 single amendment to this bill. Have a read and see what you think. The majority on the committee is National. But I am not aligned to any party, but I stronly oppose this policy/bill.

https://goo.gl/JKXs9D

Also I answer some peoples comments below:

Bad planning. This will be more short-sighted non-thinking from the government in Wellington.

Agree with this as it is central government imposing itself on auckland. Should this sort of stuff not go through the auckland unitary plan, for at least to be considered good planning?

Sorry but I see this as another case of NIMBY

I hear what you are saying here, but to simply lay it as NIMBY without knowing the info is pure labeling without knowing the facts. Sometimes nimby's have a point sometimes they don't. In this case they have a point from what i have read, particularily in the case of revoking the reserve act. What reserve will be next?

As far as I understand, the land is part of the treaty settlement with Ngati Paoa. The iwi are the ones undertaking the development, not central or local government.

This bill allows the land to be sold to a develeloper. Iwi will have right of first refusal in this case, but they can decide not to purchase, then another developer can come it.

If a private group are willing to take some of that and build housing to relieve some of the pressure up in Auckland and this is not at the behest of the council or government then I can't see the problem with it. At least someone is thinking about others and planning for the future.

Auckland Council and the local board is against this Bill. This is entirely central government.

Looks like a swampy marsh to me, although could be a bit of volcanic rock in there too.

That will be interesting to see, but they can, or do build anywhere now, But longterm it will be interesting to see, if this ever gets the go ahead, how it pans out. Thank you

hattrick123

71 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1786492 23-May-2017 10:20

for anyone that is interested in reading up more in this land grab from govt ....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11860967

The outcome is one debate but I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the process being used to achieve that outcome.

tks

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1807953 27-Jun-2017 22:32

Press release from NZ Government today:

The passage of the Point England Development Enabling Bill through Parliament this evening will benefit Auckland with additional housing, help resolve Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty claim and improve the local environment and recreation facilities, Building and Construction Minister Dr Nick Smith says.

“The current Point England Reserve is not good use of public land, with 18 hectares fenced off for over 30 years for grazing cows, the Okura Creek being one of the most polluted in Auckland and old, rundown recreational facilities. The Bill requires the cows to be evicted, uses 12ha for housing, 2ha for a Ngāti Paoa marae and increases the recreational and amenity space by 4ha. All of the Crown proceeds from the housing development are to be invested in the local community, with enhanced recreational facilities, improved playing fields and for cleaning up the Okura Creek.

“The 300-home development on 12ha of the land is a significant contribution to Auckland’s housing needs. The next step will be finalising a development agreement with Ngāti Paoa that will require a minimum 20 per cent social housing and 20 per cent affordable housing. These new homes are particularly important because of their close proximity to the city and the role they can play in accelerating the redevelopment of thousands of new houses in the adjacent Tāmaki Redevelopment Project.

“I commend Ngāti Paoa in initiating this project in the negotiations of their Treaty settlement. This is ancestral land that had one of the largest Māori settlements anywhere in New Zealand in the early 19th century. It is quite appropriate that 2ha be provided for a marae on this iconic, central city, coastal site.

“The Government is keen to engage with the community, Auckland Council and Ngāti Paoa on the detailed plans for enhancing the recreational facilities, amenity and environment of the remaining reserve. The Bill specifically requires the current 8.4ha of playing fields is retained and the intention is that they be enhanced, with proper drainage and lighting. We also want to ensure areas are protected for coastal birds like the New Zealand dotterel.

“The primary solution to Auckland’s housing challenges is building more homes. We have made great progress in lifting the house build rate from 4000 a year to 10,000 a year. Practical initiatives like this partnership with Ngāti Paoa at Pt England will ensure we maintain this momentum.”

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1807968 28-Jun-2017 00:05

It sounds eminently sensible to me.

Don't waste too much time 'engaging with community' though - tell them what is going to happen and get on with it.

hattrick123

71 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1810852 3-Jul-2017 12:44

freitasm:

Press release from NZ Government today:

The passage of the Point England Development Enabling Bill through Parliament this evening will benefit Auckland with additional housing, help resolve Ngāti Paoa’s Treaty claim and improve the local environment and recreation facilities, Building and Construction Minister Dr Nick Smith says.

“The current Point England Reserve is not good use of public land, with 18 hectares fenced off for over 30 years for grazing cows, the Okura Creek being one of the most polluted in Auckland and old, rundown recreational facilities. The Bill requires the cows to be evicted, uses 12ha for housing, 2ha for a Ngāti Paoa marae and increases the recreational and amenity space by 4ha. All of the Crown proceeds from the housing development are to be invested in the local community, with enhanced recreational facilities, improved playing fields and for cleaning up the Okura Creek.

“The 300-home development on 12ha of the land is a significant contribution to Auckland’s housing needs. The next step will be finalising a development agreement with Ngāti Paoa that will require a minimum 20 per cent social housing and 20 per cent affordable housing. These new homes are particularly important because of their close proximity to the city and the role they can play in accelerating the redevelopment of thousands of new houses in the adjacent Tāmaki Redevelopment Project.

“I commend Ngāti Paoa in initiating this project in the negotiations of their Treaty settlement. This is ancestral land that had one of the largest Māori settlements anywhere in New Zealand in the early 19th century. It is quite appropriate that 2ha be provided for a marae on this iconic, central city, coastal site.

“The Government is keen to engage with the community, Auckland Council and Ngāti Paoa on the detailed plans for enhancing the recreational facilities, amenity and environment of the remaining reserve. The Bill specifically requires the current 8.4ha of playing fields is retained and the intention is that they be enhanced, with proper drainage and lighting. We also want to ensure areas are protected for coastal birds like the New Zealand dotterel.

“The primary solution to Auckland’s housing challenges is building more homes. We have made great progress in lifting the house build rate from 4000 a year to 10,000 a year. Practical initiatives like this partnership with Ngāti Paoa at Pt England will ensure we maintain this momentum.”

I have watched this closely and there is alot of spin/errors in there:

the Okura Creek - the name of the creek is wrong. If they got this basic thing wrong it makes me wonder what else they got wrong.

2ha for a Ngāti Paoa marae and - This is not mentioned in the Bill.

increases the recreational and amenity space by 4ha. - How you can take something away and then somehow say you are increasing it? more spin!

300-home development on 12ha of the land is a significant contribution - would argue it is a negligible contribution

We also want to ensure areas are protected for coastal birds like the New Zealand dotterel. - How are they going to ensure this when they are going to put houses or playing fields on their habitat?

How the parties voted:

Ayes 62: New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 41: New Zealand Labour 29; New Zealand First 12.

Abstentions 14: Green Party 14.

I will watch this closely as it seems a vote for nats will get more of this! But will it really solve the so-called housing crisis?

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80654 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41050

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1810853 3-Jul-2017 12:45

Greens abstained? What a laugh of a party.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#1811003 3-Jul-2017 15:15

@hattrick123 what is your proposed better solution than this bill?

hattrick123

71 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#1811113 3-Jul-2017 17:10

UHD:

@hattrick123 what is your proposed better solution than this bill?

Re the Tsettlement part - One alternative is offer iwi the whole reserve as a reserve and housing land nearby for their economic redress as Labour has suggested. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11831700

But that won't get the extra ~300 homes. To get these extra homes, in general build on other brown field sites before building on public reserves/kids playing fields/bird sanctuary. I don't think this govt has done this here. Specifically, there is a 4-hectare site nearby that is sitting idle zoned for housing. Incentivise this to be built before going near public green space. This is just 1 of many I am sure. The frustrating thing is alternatives have not even been looked at. It's the National way only!

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 298
Inactive user

#1812408 4-Jul-2017 10:50

hattrick123:

UHD:

@hattrick123 what is your proposed better solution than this bill?

Re the Tsettlement part - One alternative is offer iwi the whole reserve as a reserve and housing land nearby for their economic redress as Labour has suggested. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11831700 But that won't get the extra ~300 homes. To get these extra homes, in general build on other brown field sites before building on public reserves/kids playing fields/bird sanctuary. I don't think this govt has done this here. Specifically, there is a 4-hectare site nearby that is sitting idle zoned for housing. Incentivise this to be built before going near public green space. This is just 1 of many I am sure. The frustrating thing is alternatives have not even been looked at. It's the National way only!

I think that response lack foresight of any kind. Iwi are happy with the settlement offer as proposed and if they wanted 11ha of TRC and the entire reserve as redress then they would have fought for that instead. I'm interested to see why you think you know better than the original caretakers of Aotearoa.

The government has to consider housing in Auckland as a whole and that means significantly more needs to be provided (in the order of tens of thousands of new homes) in order to relieve pressure on the housing market while at the same time introducing a range of measures to lessen demand.

If you halt house building at this site you only remove the possibility of another 300 homes being built. You can't "make up" the lost homes elsewhere because plans are already in motion for building at a number of brown sites and I would wager even TRC will be strategically made more dense as time and funding permits.

The key factor in this decision is that the reserve is effectively garbage land at present. Anyone who lives in the area has to agree with that. Sure there are a few people walking dogs presently but no one has actually cared about the site for as long as anyone can remember. There are plenty of parks and walkways within a stone throw of the reserve as well so it is not as if the development will transform Pt. England into a metropolitan concrete wasteland.

In reality, any opposition to this is pure NIMBYism or ideologically motivated against National appearing better on the housing issue come election day.

1 | 2 | 3