(Not yet in date order ed.)
The Editor
The Chronicle
We were told that height isn’t in the Revised Proposed District Plan because we didn’t ask for it. That has been the Council’s mantra for nearly a year and a half. We have tried unsuccessfully to find out how it vanished from the District Plan. Now we know it is because the last Council took it out and that the motion was moved by the Mayor herself.
Now The Mayor says height is to go back in the District Plan because of changing times – unexpected growth “which nobody could reasonably have foreseen”. The goal we are told then was to encourage new development by the private sector but having no height limit does not reveal carefully thought through public policy or awareness.
An alternative explanation for this change of direction is the consistent community pressure in the last 18 months from Vision Kerikeri supported by The KK Ratepayers & District Ratepayers Association, the Kerikeri Business Association, a Colmar Brunton poll, other citizens connected with none of the above, and a record 250 submissions at the last TTTCP round asking for height reinstatement and a plan for Kerikeri to deal with this growth which has long been obvious to the community but which the Council has been slow to comprehend and act upon. Councilor Gary Weeds has also been a consistent advocate at Council for improved planning for Kerikeri.
Nonetheless we compliment the Council in rethinking its way of doing things and we now have a submission process for reinstating height. It is a pity that we did not have a public submission process for taking the height out in the first instance which has cost so much community effort to argue for reinstatement.
We look forward to putting this matter behind us with FNDC indicating that it is moving to a new era of improved planning. A Kerikeri Structure Plan is urgent now to deal with development pressure; lack of infrastructure such as sewage, which contributes to dispersed sprawl across our valuable soils; traffic issues and urban design. Real community input at an early stage of policy and planning should prevent an issue such as height happening again.
Rod Brown
Chairperson
Vision Kerikeri
Far North now "coming of age"
The Northland Age
The Far North District Council's overall solid performance in the 2004-2005 financial year confirms that, after a number of difficult years, the Far North district is now coming of age, according to Mayor Yvonne Sharp.
Mrs Sharp makes the comment in the council's annual report, which has just been released, showing an operational surplus of $20.7 million.
The surplus is actually up by $5.9 million on projections made at the start of the year in the long -term council community plan.
Mrs Sharp says the financial result also acknowledges that the sound strategic plans put in place by the council are beginning to pay off.
"Invariably, ad hoc decision-making does not lead to sustainable growth," she said.
"This is why the council has made a concentrated effort to develop plans and policies on which we can move forward with confidence."
She said legislative changes which created added responsibilities had financial implications for councils generally. But because of its improving financial base, the district council had been able to absorb those costs while maintaining forward progress, ending the year with both operational and nett financial surpluses.
As for the next year, Mrs Sharp said the emphasis would be on infrastructural enhancement to provide for growth in an achievable and sustainable way, and to progress debt recovery processes.
Chief executive Clive Manley said it was the third consecutive year the council had been able to consolidate financially, with positive outcomes across most operational activities.
To some extent, the encouraging financial performance was caused by the continuing growth in private sector development on the east coast, but it was also due to better financial monitoring and performance due to fine tuning of internal structures and practices.
The Far North's development growth was reflected in the additional $700,000 received by the council in fees and charges, and an additional $2.8 million in revenue through development contributions.
"But while growth is producing an increase in revenue streams, it also means there is pressure on overheads and a matching growth in demand for expansion of infrastructural services," Mr Manley said.
"There is no room for complacency if growth demands continue at the current level."
Kerikeri down at heel
The Bay Chronicle Friday November 18 2005
The neglected state of the Hook corner site development site, is encouraging vandalism in the rest of the town, warns a Kerikeri commercial property owner.
John Matthewson believes the appearance of the site is harming the town.
Kerikeri landlords have been criticised in the past for neglecting the back of their buildings but the state of the business district has reached a new low with broken windows, scattered rubbish and graffiti covered walls at the former Keri Kids Day Care Centre, site of the new complex.
Responding to John Matthewson's concerns, Butler Holdings Ltd director Chris Hook said, "This is the opinion of one person and we will not jump at the whim of one person. We have someone living on the site and we are working through the process. We need a demolition permit. The situation is in hand. We are not going to see the site sitting idle any longer than is essential."
The Far North District Council Communications Officer Rick McCall said, this week, he couldn't find any application for demolition consent.
Kerikeri District Business Association President Trixie Newton said this week she would like to see the site cleaned up and Kerikeri's Police Sergeant Peter Masters also voiced concern about the state of the site:
"It is sad to see it in such a state and the target of vandals. The sooner the property owner can have the building removed and the site tidied up, the better."
The multi stage Hook corner site will occupy four titles, occupied by the Central Motel, the old Keri Kids Day Care Centre and three houses.
Mr Hook said his company aimed to start construction in the second quarter of next year: "We will be releasing Stage One of the development to the market and talking to potential investors later this month."
The recent spate of graffiti in Kerikeri peaked last Wednesday night according to Sergeant Masters. Police have since since spoken to a 12-year-old local boy, who has been referred to Youth Aid.
Sergeant Masters said, "We are confident that we know a few others who might have caused damage and we hope we can bring this to an end. We are happy to receive information leading to the identity of the offenders."
In an unrelated incident vandals smashed 65 windows at Kerikeri High School last week. Police are keen to receive any information which will help them in this investigation.
Survey: majority ‘NO’
The Bay Chronicle
Findings of a Colmar Brunton telephone poll of 400 Kerikeri citizens, shows strong concern about height of buildings in the commercial area.
The majority of those polled felt growth of the Kerikeri business area should go outwards or elsewhere, with upwards being the least desirable option.
And more than three quarters of respondents felt the council should have more control of the height of new buildings in central Kerikeri.
Of the 71 percent who expressed concern about height, 71 percent want a change to the District Plan. For most, the height threshold was less than four storeys.
The margin of error for the survey was 4.6 percent.
The public call for reinstatement of a height restriction arose from an application by a developer to build an eight level block of units in Butler Road .
At its meeting on Wednesday, the Eastern Community Board received the Colmar Brunton report and voted unanimously in favour of a recommendation to the FNDC that it introduce a height provision.
This should be in line with a proposal shelved earlier this year, when Council opted to verify a community consensus on the need for height restrictions,'as the first step towards initiating a formal process to manage the visual amenity of the town'.
At Wednesday's meeting some community board members still felt a height restriction could not be reinstated until the major issue of town growth was addressed but others, and representatives of Vision Kerikeri and the Kerikeri District Ratepayers and Residents Association, urged council to take control urgently.
The random telephone poll was carried out to establish community views to help the FNDC in its decision making.
The Council's decision to embark on a consultation programme, rather than act immediately, had disappointed some, including Eastern Ward councillor Gary Weeds and Deputy Mayor Laurie Byers, who initially recommended the introduction of height provisions in the Kerikeri Commercial Zone, ranging from 10m (permitted), 12m (restricted, with discretion exercised in relation to adverse affects) and more than 12m (discretionary where Council could impose conditions of consent or refuse consent).
The discretionary provisions were to take into account visual domination, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and daylight and the ability to mitigate adverse effects.
Vision Kerikeri chairman Rod Brown said this week the survey results should now convince the Council about community views that that uncontrolled height was really not in the best planning interests of the community.
The Eastern Board's recommendation is expected to go to the full Council for a decision on October 24.
More action, less spin
The Bay Chronicle Friday October 14, 2005
FNDC has now had confirmed from its own Colmar Brunton Poll that 79 percent of the community wants the Council to have height restrictions in Kerikeri.
That is, the community wants Council to restore to itself a control it previously had and that every other community in NZ has, as far as we are aware, except Queen Street , Auckland which has a number of other planning controls.
The Community Board, although it finally voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that it introduce a height restriction, appears to have had difficulty in understanding or hearing these Kerikeri views over a considerable period of time. Some elements of the Council have also appeared resistant.
What Vision Kerikeri and the community now wants from Council is:
Immediate action to implement height rules.
A "can do" not a "can't do" attitude.
Not how long it will take but how quickly it can be done.
~ Less spin from the Council.
We do not want to hear again that "the reason we don't have a height limit is because the community didn't ask for one", unless the Council also states that it took the height limit out without consultation with the community, without using transparent means, names who was responsible, and explains why it was done at all.
Rod Brown
Chairperson Vision Kerikeri
Balloons demonstrate the looming shadows over Kerikeri - 20th October 2005
In a novel approach to the issue of building heights in Kerikeri’s main street, helium-filled balloons were raised to demonstrate the height of the publicly notified Hook development at the entrance to the town, recently.The height and proportions of any structure is difficult to envisage when one is gazing into mid air, so the balloons certainly made the picture clearer for those present and immediate neighbours, who took a lively interest in the proceedings.
Four balloons were planned, but in the event, windy conditions meant that only two could be raised marking the rear boundaries of the proposed structure. Shadows were cast and caused immediate concern for
Bill Haigh of Haigh Consultants Ltd.,
‘It will make quite a significant difference, especially in winter, to our working environment. I am concerned about the affect on our building. I think the (proposed) building should be lower.’
He felt also that such a structure, especially at the entrance to the town, ‘landscape-wise, won’t add anything beneficial to the town’.
The effect of wind flow and the swirls and eddies that such a building will generate is also a matter for concern, in his opinion.
A Colmar-Brunton opinion poll regarding the issue of building heights in Kerikeri is currently being undertaken by the Far North District Council. A representative sample of 400 people taken from a catchment area encompassing all of Kerikeri and wider environs( Paihia, Waimate North,
Vision Kerikeri, the lobby group who have raised the public awareness regarding the issue of building height restrictions in Kerikeri are holding a public meeting tonight Thursday 22nd at 7.30pm at Riverview School Hall. Submissions regarding this issue are set to close on September 28th
PRESS RELEASE for 14th Sept 2005
REINSTATEMENT OF HEIGHT
As a result of community pressure, FNDC tried to get agreement to reinstate the former height limits in the Proposed District Plan at a meeting on 7 September. Representatives of the main stakeholders attended including the KK Ratepayers Association, KK Business Association and Vision Kerikeri, all with large constituencies, and a number of developers, businesspeople and residents.
With unanimous agreement, FNDC would have reinstated the former height rules by a variation to the District Plan but three developers did not agree and wished to retain the status quo of no height rules. As the Council has given the same weight to these three persons as a near-consensus from the remainder of the attendees, the Council has decided to implement a random telephone poll of 400 citizens to establish community views over the next few weeks.
One developer argued that the checks and balances of the District Plan should be sufficient to control commercial development without a height rule. Vision Kerikeri would be perfectly happy if reasonable checks and balances actually exist but the Commercial Zone is a near rule free environment. The Council has so limited its discretion that effectively only two matters – parking and traffic circulation - restrict construction. In this weak planning environment, a building of any height can be built, without notification, providing those criteria are met.
Reinstating height rules would restore a control, which Council formerly had. Buildings taller than 10 metres (the height of the Clock Tower) could still be built because Council would have the discretion to notify if it saw fit. “The Centre” is a taller building, one the community should be proud of, and is an example of what the Council would still be able to do. It is also incidentally in a setting well below the ridge line, and does not dominate the town.
Some believe there is no alternative to increasing height in the Commercial Zone other than gobbling up more of our rich horticultural land (much of it already subdivided for residential property). This is not so. There is considerable land in the CBD zoned “Commercial”, but not yet used commercially, being used for residential housing, and many of the single and two storey older commercial buildings are due for redevelopment with some existing top floors being unoccupied. Nor is there a need to have unlimited height since three storeys (10 Metres or 12 Metres under some circumstances) would enable retail at ground level and mixed use above for commercial or residential purposes.
The growth of Kerikeri depends on an attractive commercial centre with quality and vibrancy. Indeed it is our goal to encourage developments to meet those aims. The Urban Design Protocol which FNDC recently adopted needs a partnership of Council, developers and the community to move the town forward, not someone from out of town, attempting to define our town’s future, by a single out of scale development.
We trust that the 400 citizens randomly picked from the area, for the Telephone poll will collectively convince the Council that uncontrolled height is really not in the best planning interests of the community.
We also note that the Council did not have a telephone poll to remove the previous height limit from the District Plan. How this happened within Council is a great and as yet unsolved mystery.
Rod Brown
Chairperson
Vision Kerikeri
Kerikeri sees hope in Paihia’s victory
Bay Chronicle
An environment court finding in favour of the Paihia District Residents and Ratepayers Association, Paihia District Citizens Association and individuals is seen as significant for Paihia and Kerikeri.
Judge L J Newhook ordered that the FNDC amend its District Plan to insert building height clauses and setbacks.
The court decision is hailed as significant for Paihia and of interest to Kerikeri where Vision Kerikeri and residents have been urging the reinstatement of height in the FNDC District plan
Vision Kerikeri chairman Rod Brown said this week
‘‘ The district plan naively appears to believe that few rules are all that is required to control commercial development in our townships and the market will provide what a town needs.
Notwithstanding that we may have waited for a long time for the District plan to become operative, clear inadequacies need to be and should be corrected before townships are ruined by inappropriate development.
Judge Newhook’s judgement was both appropriate and timely, we would expect that the reinstatement of the height rules in Kerikeri will be expedited by Council and that the promised community consultation will not be delayed’’.
SAY NO TO BAD DESIGN
The Bay Chronicle 10th June 2005
The anonymous writer "onward and upward" (who advocated wholesale uncontrolled development. Ed) does not appear to understand tourism and the accomodation industry.
It has broadly five accomodation sectors; hotels, motels, hosted accomodation, backpackers/hostles, caravan parks/camp grounds.
They serve different sectors and are complementary and not competative as he appears to believe. Boutique accomodation is not threatened by a hotel.
The hotel sector is not represented in Kerikeri which is a market weakness.
Vision Kerikeri has consistently and publically stated that it would welcome a hotel which is is in context and scale of the town. A modern motor hotel for example would be of considerable benefit and consistent with the Kerikeri environment.
Because a hotel may be a good idea, that is not a reason for adversely impacting on the town. An 8 level building is quite out of scale.
Uncontrolled development can have adverse economic and other effects, as Auckland and towns elsewhere have discovered.
This can affect the vibrancy which this anonymous writer supports. Auckland is trying to reverse the effects of an inadequate town plan which has permitted poor quality apartment development and has belatedly created an urban design task force. Kerikeri needs to consider where it is heading before the horse has bolted.
'Onwards and upwards' advocates enlightened self interest -developing anything, anywhere of any size. This is a mindset and culture that needs to change. We should say no to bad design. Quality not quantity consistent with a plan of what outcome we want for the future should be encouraged for the continued vibrancy of Kerikeri.
Rod Brown
Vision Kerikeri
Paradise present
The protest against the Crystal Waters bridge at Cable Bay has not waned. The protesters do not want to see a Hawaii-type development in the Far North. The road to perdition in Hawaii was down a gentle slope that was soft underfoot, one little concession after another until that most beautiful of places were covered with concrete.
The Crystal Waters' bridge is such an outlandish encroachment on Cable Bay that it has awakened the Mangonui community from its normally easy-going, laid-back attitude.
On Friday November 4, the protesters had a public meeting on the bay. A cross-section of the community was present and the message was that "THIS LAND MUST NOT GO UNDER THE DEVELOPERS' DIGGER TO BE LOST UNDER CONCRETE."
Future generations will recognise that a brave stand was made on Cable Bay in the year 2005, a stand by one people, not Maori, not Pakeha, but Kiwis who stood together in the rough to demand that "OUR LAND MUST BE TREATED AS SACRED."
Some people were noticeably absent from this gathering: clearly the newly-elected Maori MPs and the Greens share a mandate to protect the foreshore and preserve the environment. This bridge impinges on the foreshore and, therefore, is a direct challenge to the founding platform of the Maori Party.
The Greens certainly won't stand by and let the Crystal Waters bridge blight the landscape and destroy the pohutakawa in its path. Hone Harawira did drop by for a photo opportunity, and he is now starting to call for Parliamentary support in opposing the bridge. Sue Bradford should not let her own back yard be desecrated. Soon the Maori Party and the Greens can be expected to front up at the protest.
If the Crystal Waters digger does not back down, the alternative is far too bleak. The world news services will pick up scenes of Clean and Green Kiwis being mowed through and possibly arrested. Arrests could foment civil disobedience, turning this gentle protest very ugly. The prospect of ruining our world image as a caring society will bring Labour into the fray, and then Dover Samuels can join in.
As we contemplate the bridge at Cable Bay , we have to ask what could have motivated the Far North District Council to permit the building of such an obvious monstrosity. Was the failure to confer with the community and the iwi just an egregious oversight on the part of the council? Or was the FNDC motivated by the rates bonanza that it and Quotable Value would reap from the commercial development of that barren hill top?
Helen Clark will visit the Far North tomorrow for a "new" Economic Summit at Omapere. Her Ministry of Education acts decisively when a school fails to comply with the educational guidelines or gets off-side with its community; just recall the response to the recent NCEA fiddling at Cambridge High School . The ministry sacked the principal and dismissed the board of trustees. When Prime Minister Clark chairs her new Economic Summit, she should have some questions about the FNDC permit procedures.
The protesters have drawn a line in the sand at Cable Bay . The Crystal Waters developer, Chris Hook, should now salvage a bit of goodwill in the outraged Mangonui community by packing up his digger, rolling up his bridge plans, and then designing a path down the hillside to a long-overdue and much-needed Cable Bay cross walk.
Thank you for covering this protest, for without media coverage, we would not be heard.
Mike Ward
Mangonui
Private land
If this bridge is to go from private land to Transit road reserve, what the hell has it got to do with the Far North District Council?
Julia Brown
Victoria Valley
More rubbish
The Far North District Council's statement, printed in Tuesday's Age (November 1), is a bit like that printed by the New Zealand Herald a couple of weeks ago. They are both rubbish.
The NZ Herald headlines said that NZ's total nett mean debt to overseas leaders was $12 billion. It didn't say what sort of dollars, and of course total nett mean debt doesn't mean total debt, although a casual reader may assume it to be total debt.
The statement was rubbish, and the statement by the FNDC is rubbish too. They say "No part of the proposed bridge structure would impinge upon publicly-owned reserve as the whole structure is contained within the road reserve". Sounds OK, but does the road reserve impinge upon the Queen's chain reserve?
Anyone with half an eye and without the registered surveyor's jiggery-pokery can see that the 12-metre pole that is to be dug into the Cable Bay sand is within 22 yards of the mean high water mark, and therefore falls within the Queen's chain reserve.
Don Smith
Paranui
Who’s driving?
I am following the Cable Bay bridge saga with interest. The letters to this paper on the subject have been well-written and highlight a number of issues.
Of particular relevance was the letter from Mike Ward, with stark reminders of what happened in Hawaii . Scary stuff, and the way we are going, about where we will most likely end up.
Almost as scary in The Age November 1 was the council's response to the bridge impasse, in which Clive Manley defended their efforts by saying that 90 percent of resource consents were processed on a non-notified basis and that the bridge had met the requirements of the Resource Management Act accordingly. Further, he sagely predicted that the only recourse for the opponents was for a High Court review, which alas he did not think would be successful.
If the council members and staff were so dumb and out of touch with the people who elected them, and pay their salaries, to think that people would not be up in arms over such a decision. and that as long as they satisfied the Resource Management Act it was enough, they should not be in the job.
The Resource Management Act is but one thing to consider. The council's own plan is also a guideline. There are countless references to communities, their well-being, safety, and just about everything one can think of in the plan. It has been put there at great expense, and if anyone should abide by it, the first should be the council itself.
With regard to the development at Cable Bay , one cannot help but ask for whose benefit is it? Is a condominium complex the thing Cable Bay needs? The beach is not that big, and if the bridge was in place, as the developers want, how much room is there going to be on the beach if the condo crew and the locals all converge there together?
Even worse, what if half of them wanted to get an icecream at the store across the road. Maybe another bridge, or the unthinkable - walk across the road?
Unfortunately it is all just another example of what is happening in New Zealand with big money and developers putting enormous pressure on the coastline and premium areas, Shania Twain in the south, Young Nick's Head, Mataka Station in the north, just to name a few. The rich Americans, for instance, are not here on a foreign aid mission. If aid was the motivation, they need never leave home and instead help the people of New Orleans .
Part of the problem is the New Zealand psyche of being in awe of people with money. They tend to trip over themselves to accommodate the rich, and generally wag their tails about the place like a dog hoping for a pat on the head. Councils, and the Overseas Investment Commission, are particularly good at this.
The problem is also that when the developers have gobbled up all the available coastline, that is it. God isn't making any more land.
It is time for New Zealand , and Northland in particular, to decide where we are going and who is in the driver's seat. The developers or the people? It would be great to think that, just as the recently died Black lady, who by refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, became the catalyst for race relations reforms in America, the debacle at Cable Bay could be a catalyst for a change in the way things happen in Northland.
Wake Up NZ
Pikenui
Unchecked rampage
"Cable Bay Resident" (letters November 8) should be excused for not signing their letter as she or he has stumbled upon the heart of the matter.
Let those actually affected by the overbridge have a vote on it says CBR. Brilliant! Thousands of people agree, a vote in this case of course meaning the developer should have been issued with a notifiable consent so the community could have had full input.
The people sitting-in at Cable Bay all have other things to do in life, but as the old saying goes, bad stuff happens when good people do not act. Chris Hook (Crystal Waters director) is on a substantially unchecked Northland rampage at the moment, as the people of Kerikeri can confirm. Our communitites and environment are going to pay too high a price if we let this behaviour from council go on.
A few weeks of beach action is insignificant compared with the alternative of a permanently disfigured Cable Bay .
Alec Morgan
Tokerau
Favoured few
Building that bridge across SH10 would be sheer vandalism. Under the 2002 Act the FNDC is responsible for, among other things, the environmental and cultural well-being of all its population, not just a favoured few.
That the councillors responsible would quietly fastrack this monstrosity is not only incredible, but will inevitably fuel speculation about their motives and their integrity.
One of the Far North's greatest assets is a long, relatively unspoiled coastline. The council has now, by its example, placed all this at risk from developers.
The council has a duty to reverse its decision. If not, the councillors involved in this mess would be well advised to seek other employment.
LR Martin
RD3 Kaitaia
Community wins battle over bridge
The New Zealand Herald Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Contractors withdraw for now after 20-day standoff at Far North beach
by Tony Gee
A small Far North community has succeeded in stopping a developer building a pedestrian overbridge from a $50 million coastal subdivision to a local beach.
Contractors trying to build a steel footbridge above State Highway 10 onto east coast foreshore at Cable Bay , north east of Kaitaia, agreed yesterday to pack up their equipment and take it away.
Their move follows a 20-day stand-off on a beach-front reserve between bridge objectors and contractors who had until November 25 to complete the structure which would link a hillside condominium, Crystal Waters, with the beach
‘The contractor can take the taniwha out of there’ says Niki Tauhara
Many Doubtless Bay residents were angered by a Far North District Council decision in 2003 to approve the footbridge via a non-notified consent and without consulting the community or local iwi.
Concerns included potential adverse visual impacts on a popular beach significant to Maori, and legal issues over the right of a private developer to build a permanent structure on Transit NZ road reserve and foreshore land.
But the council said the consent process was legal and robust.
Yesterday police and security guards were present as about 60 community and hapu objectors faced contractors' representatives who made it clear they wanted to get their digger onto the beach and working.
The site of a 12m bridge pile to be sunk about 100m away had earlier been occupied by a protester-built wooden pole and tin shelter under the highway.
Protesters told Kaitaia police senior sergeant Gordon Gunn yesterday that they intended to use passive resistance to stop the digger.
After a peaceful five-hour impasse, objectors' spokesman Niki Tauhara announced that contractors had agreed to load up the digger and pile driving gear and take it away.
"We can now sit down and be consulted. The contractor can take the taniwha out of here. Let them pack up and go," he said.
Some objectors would remain to monitor the withdrawal.
Mr Tauhara praised the unified and peaceful action of Maori and Pakeha within the local community.
The group would continue discussions with the developer, Crystal Waters, and the district council, but it would oppose any extension or renewal of the Northland Region Council's temporary foreshore work permit allowing pile driving on the beach, he said.
Maori Party MP Hone Harawira, who visited the scene yesterday, told protesters it had been "a dumb move by the [district] council to try to put, something on the foreshore without consultation".
He congratulated Maori and Pakeha for their stand against it.
Senior Sergeant Gunn said it was good outcome from a law and order point of view, but the agreement to move on was between the contractors and local people - police had simply facilitated that.
Main contractor's representative, Larry Eade, of McBreen Jenkins, said it was still intended to pursue options for constructing the bridge because it still had building and planning consents.
Cable Bay wins a reprieve
The Northland Age, Tuesday, November 14 2005
Opponents cannot yet say they have defeated developer Crystal Waters over its plans for a pedestrian Bridge over State Highway 10 at Cable Bay, but they scored a major victory yesterday when the contractors began packing up their gear, Crystal Waters having declared that it would seek a renewal of its Northland Regional Council consent (which expires on November 25) allowing it to take machinery on to the beach.
The council has said, and the company apparently accepts, that a renewed application will be publicly notified.
The Northland Age was unable to obtain a response from the objectors who continued to occupy the site yesterday in time for today's publication, but Kaitaia's senior police officer said the resolution had been reached after a great deal of discussion.
Earlier in the day Senior Sergeant Gordon Gunn said a lot of reasonable people were talking to the contractor and sub-contractors, and he hoped the impasse would be resolved, without confrontation, before the end of the day. And at 1 p.m. the contractors announced that they would be packing up.
"They've said it will take them maybe two days to complete that process, but the protesters are happy," Senior Sergeant Gunn said.
"It's taken a lot of talking but it seems that common sense has prevailed."
Chris Hook puts up $10,000 for planning
The Bay Chronicle Friday October 14, 2005
It is interesting to see that the majority of those polled would prefer to see the commercial centre of Kerikeri made larger rather than go higher ‑ that is also the high cost option, but in the long run Kerikeri will do both. One only has to observe what has happened over the last 25 ‑30 years in what were at the time, popular, but strong growth small population centres in various NZ locations.
Kerikeri's geographical location makes it almost inevitable that it will become a city in Northland, and whether the local population like it or not economic necessity will dictate that the town (city to be) centre develops with larger and higher buildings. Land values and the scarcity factor will dictate ‑ not what some local residents for the time being think is the best.
What is the projected population of Kerikeri and its surrounding residential area in 20, 30, 40, and 50 years? That is what needs to be planned for by the FNDC and the real visionaries, not what is going to happen in the next 3‑5 years. I think it is very timely for the FNDC and the community at large to debate the issues and develop a long range blueprint for Kerikeri. Excellence in planning and urban design are the keys, not the size of individual buildings.
Achieving the best outcome will be a time consuming exercise and expensive. I hope all good citizens of Kerikeri and particularly those in Vision Kerikeri are sufficiently passionate to put their hands in their pocket and contribute to a special fund for this project to be undertaken by a selected group of professionals supported by representatives of the FNDC and the community at large. Only by doing so will the members of Vision Kerikeri demonstrate that they really have their community at heart.
I think a fund of at least $200,000 is required. I will personally start this off by committing $10,000 to the project, provided each member of Vision Kerikeri, who seem to be so passionate about protecting the future of Kerikeri, each contribute a like sum.
I did not anticipate our project becoming the catalyst for the debate and formulation of a long range District Plan, but as I intend living in the area, and have interests in property I will gladly make my contribution to development of the plan.
I am also pleased to see that there is a commercial ratepayers association being formed by interested persons which our company has decided to join.
As for the John Butler Centre is concerned, I happen to think it will be very good for Kerikeri. The developer will finalise its plans for the Stage 2 building once it knows the outcome of its application for resource consent to build it.
We are moving forward with our plans for Stage 1 and would like to be able to commence construction by mid 2006 at the latest.
Chris Hook
Auckland
Are they listening to the strong voice of community concern?
Northern News Wednesday October 19, 2005
Excuse me.
Did I read your article "Upwards and Outwards" (Wed, Oct 12th issue of Northern News) about the survey results on the Kerikeri CBD height restrictions correctly?
Community board members Paul Gorringe and Belinda Ward claimed that "the survey results did not show unanimous support for height restrictions and were therefore inconclusive."
Inconclusive? Wait a second! The survey showed that 71 percent were concerned about building heights in the CBD. That seems like a pretty sizable majority to me. Trust me, in the election for their community board positions, if either Paul or Belinda ever got 71 percent of the vote, they would be claiming a landslide. Should we review what percentage they did get, and conclude that since their election to the board was not unanimous, it was inconclusive?
Our community board members, by making such blatantly biased statements, cast great doubt on their willingness to listen to the strong voice of concern in the community. Maybe they should step aside, since we now know, by their own standards, their election was not conclusive.
Marvin Van Horn
Upwards and Outwards
Northern News Wednesday October 12, 2005
Vision Kerikeri has welcomed the results of a Far North District Council survey to gauge the level of public concern over the height of buildings in Kerikeri's central business district.
Colmar Brunton presented the findings of a telephone poll, it carried out on behalf of the council, at the Eastern Community Board's monthly meeting last Wednesday.
Of the 400 Kerikeri residents that Colmar Brunton surveyed, 71 percent said they were concerned about the height of buildings in the town's CBD and 71 percent of these wanted the council to reinstate height restrictions in the District Plan.
Vision Kerikeri chairman Rod Brown said the survey endorsed what VKK had known all along ‑ that the wider community shared its members concerns about building heights.
Mr Brown said he was pleased the board had asked the council to introduce height control measures in the District Plan, which would make buildings under 10‑metres a permitted activity and impose discretionary controls over taller structures.
However, he was disappointed at comments made by board members Paul Gorringe and Belinda Ward who had claimed the survey results did not show unanimous support for height restrictions and were therefore inconclusive.
"Vision Kerikeri led us to believe everyone was in favour of height restrictions. Not true," Mr Gorringe had said.
"It appears that some of the community board who don't live in Kerikeri fail to understand the strong community sentiment against having the character of the town spoiled by uncontrolled development," Mr Brown said.
Responding to Mr Gorringe and Ms Ward's concerns about where exactly the CBD would expand if development was limited to outward growth, Mr Brown said it was a misconception that growth had to be either outwards or upwards.
He said there were 23 hectares of commercially zoned land around the town centre that could accommodate expansion of the CBD, while there was also scope for limited upward growth.
He noted that the majority of people surveyed had said they would be happy to see buildings as high as three storeys built in the CBD.
The council will consider the board’s request on October 27.
Key findings
Survey: majority ‘NO’
The Bay Chronicle Friday October 7, 2005
Findings of a Colmar Brunton telephone poll of 400 Kerikeri citizens, shows strong concern about height of buildings in the commercial area.
The majority of those polled felt growth of the Kerikeri business area should go outwards or elsewhere, with upwards being the least desirable option.
And more than three quarters of respondents felt the council should have more control of the height of new buildings in central Kerikeri.
Of the 71 percent who expressed concern about height, 71 percent want a change to the District Plan. For most, the height threshold was less than four storeys.
The margin of error for the survey was 4.6 percent.
The public call for reinstatement of a height restriction arose from an application by a developer to build an eight level block of units in Butler Road .
At its meeting on Wednesday, the Eastern Community Board received the Colmar Brunton report and voted unanimously in favour of a recommendation to the FNDC that it introduce a height provision.
This should be in line with a proposal shelved earlier this year, when Council opted to verify a community consensus on the need for height restrictions,'as the first step towards initiating a formal process to manage the visual amenity of the town'.
At Wednesday's meeting some community board members still felt a height restriction could not be reinstated until the major issue of town growth was addressed but others, and representatives of Vision Kerikeri and the Kerikeri District Ratepayers and Residents Association, urged council to take control urgently.
The random telephone poll was carried out to establish community views to help the FNDC in its decision making.
The Council's decision to embark on a consultation programme, rather than act immediately, had disappointed some, including Eastern Ward councillor Garry
Weeds and Deputy Mayor Laurie Byers, who initially recommended the introduction of height provisions in the Kerikeri Commercial Zone, ranging from 10m (permitted), 12m (restricted, with discretion exercised in relation to adverse affects) and more than 12m (discretionary where Council could impose conditions of consent or refuse consent).
The discretionary provisions were to take into account visual domination, overshadowing, loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and daylight and the ability to mitigate adverse effects.
Vision Kerikeri chairman Rod Brown said this week the survey results should now convince the Council about community views that that uncontrolled height was really not in the best planning interests of the community.
The Eastern Board's recommendation is expected to go to the full Council for a decision on October 24.