Stop Government intensifying every suburb in our cities before it's too late.

Comments

#201

The government is not providing the required infrastructure to support this legislation change. The impact on the neighbouring properties for any high intensity housing has also not been considered and this would reduce their house prices and cause adverse impact on their mental health.

Lance Waters (Auckland, 2022-06-18)

#204

The lack of forethought and consultation with every electorate will hopefully lead to the downfall of this government

Mike Redmond (Warkworth, 2022-06-19)

#205

Government needs to create new jobs and infrastructure in many other parts of NZ, Auckland is now overpopulated

Gillian Stringer (Auckland, 2022-06-19)

#207

Investment companies shouldn't be allowed to own large swaths of land, driving demand up and lowering supply. Eat the rich

Dominic Tomlinson (Akl, 2022-06-19)

#209

I hate the changes that already happening without the latest inforced changes

Judy tee Tee (Auckland, 2022-06-19)

#211

This is an undemocratic process by Labour. No consultation with Key stakeholders. In Auckland the Unitary Plan caters for sufficient housing.
severe impacts on neighbours’ sunlight, privacy and peace.
lack of freedom of choice for average-income people as to how they live
a major acceleration of the de-greening of our neighbourhoods, as what remaining green spaces in city sections disappear under houses, tarmac and decks, with the consequent negative environmental impact of higher summer and lower winter temperatures
potential building of 12-metre-high, low-quality, featureless, dormitory-type structures metre off neighbourhood boundaries increased
anxiety levels from the constant threat of this randomly occurring next door to your home
local infrastructure stretched beyond capacity; increased road congestionExcessive
rate hikes to cater for reactive/inefficient infrastructure spending.
no on-site parking required, and little available street parking
a significant reduction in the value of one’s home, as soon as it is known these structures are to be built next door

Trevor Lund (Auckland, 2022-06-19)

#213

If legislation is required to assist in providing for housing then central Government should ensure this is achieved in a planned manner with all the infrastructure provided in advance.

Sarah Gordon (Warkworth, 2022-06-20)

#215

I believe that a major change (driven by central Government and not by local Councils) to the democratic property rights that citizens have over the future development of the areas that they choose to live in, must go through full consultation processes before being implemented and any eventual changes must/should reflect the findings coming out of that consultation. To arbitrarily impose the proposed changes, in such a short timeframe, is a dramatic change to established citizens rights and is wrong in a democracy such as New Zealand.

Ken Baguley (AUCKLAND, 2022-06-20)

#216

The roads are already overwhelmed in my suburb and there is already inadequate facilities including car parking. This massive intensification drive will eclipse sunlight to existing homes and create student ghettos.

Keith Ward (Auckland, 2022-06-20)

#223

I have vacant single use housing land on my boundry. I dont want 3 level housing 1 metre from my north facing boundry we would have shadows cast over our property for half the day.

Murray Picot (Auckland, 2022-06-21)

#228

Whilst I support intensification done well, this bill has far less thought put into it then regional unitary plans and delivers only the negative impact of intensification to a community.. There is no consideration for community development and infrastructure for example roads, access to schools, GP increases to meet the increase in population etc. etc. I strongly oppose this bill in its current form

Beth Beard (Auckland, 2022-06-22)

#230

There are major unintended consequenses associated with the governments intensification plan, including widespread environmental destruction of urban tree canopy coverage and robbing existing residents of the right to sunlight and privacy.
There are other significant environmentally damaging consequenses, including greater traffic conjestion resulting in greater volumes of greenhouse emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, less greenspace, more impervious paving resulting in greater volumes of polutant rich stormwater being pumped into the delecate ecological systems in our waterways.

Greg Partridge (Christchurch, 2022-06-22)

#231

We don’t need any more appartments block private housing. Devonport has one road in & out Traffic is so bad now & they won’t widen the roads as our money went to help Auckland city. No more appartments

Sheron Arvidson (Auckland, 2022-06-22)

#234

This law will cause untold misery to hundreds of thousands who will have to live with the fear of adjacent property being developed and the consequent substantial decrease in value of their only asset.

GEOFFREY MAWDESLEY (AUCKLAND, 2022-06-24)

#237

I totally object to this intensification. There is absolutely no infrastructure in place to support this. Cities/towns will become slums! People come to NZ because of the open green space. No-one in N Z wants to live cramped like London etc.

Cheryl Barnett (Auckland, 2022-06-24)

#238

I like old houses way better than new ones, and I think that the old houses should be protected. New houses will ruin the look of the areas

Nathan Gonzales (Auckland, 2022-06-25)

#242

This legislation was rushed without proper assessment and consultation and the horrible properties being built in many areas are already exceeding thetraffic and infrastructure capacity, destroying the environment, generating friction and stress, blocking sunlight, invading privacy, don't provide basic quality of life and are more expensive. No more than a good business for developers and investors! At the price of destroying the best of our beautiful country.
Every country worth visiting prides on and looks after their precious environment and beautiful suburbs. Are we going to destroy ours?

Raquel Francois (Auckland, 2022-06-25)

#243

It is very short-sighted and will not make any of NZ cities or towns attractive and pleasant places to live.

Jillian Barclay (Matakana, Warkworth, 2022-06-25)

#256

Auckland has already had an unworkable Council imposed on us by central government; has gone through a long, arduous process to produce a unitary plan that would satisfy Wellington politicians more than people who live here, and is suffering from over-burdened, aging infrastructure and lack of amenities from the ongoing intensification already allowed. If this legislation proceeds, we will end up in a city looking like North Korea, with no open spaces, no trees, no sunlight.

Karen Cleary (Auckland, 2022-06-26)

#258

There appears to be very little thought gone into how this. i.e…The effect light into homes and possible wind tunnels between building just to name a couple of things

Helen Clelland (Auckland, 2022-06-26)

#259

I do not agree with intensification in Auckland at the cost of our green spaces and removing peoples ability to be self reliant by having space to grow vegetables etc. You are creating ghettos!

Erin Grimshaw-Jones (Auckland, 2022-06-26)

#260

This Government has bulldozed so many laws through during its term, without consultation, without consideration for tax payers and house owners or future house owners. It has an idealogical anti-home owners, anti- business, anti taxpayers policy which it is following through.

Lesley Gauntlett (17c Walmsley Road St Heliers, 2022-06-26)

#261

I’m signing this petition because I’m appalled at the destruction of our city by removing heritage houses and building huge eyesores that will be the slums of the future. The Unitary Plan Is decimating our once beautiful city.

Janine Nathan (Auckland, 2022-06-26)

#266

Proper design considerations need to be implemented when intensification occurs. This is one of the trade offs. Neighbours shouldn’t be blindsided by 3 stories being built on the boundary. Passive solar heating should be front of mind when planning a new build including the passive solar affect on the neighbours.

Libby Bourke (Auckland, 2022-06-26)

#275

All suburbs are not suited to high rise. One objection not raised is some high rise developments with no parking also have no driveway. My property next door provided this Williams Corp development with their driveway and destroyed our combined block wall. Getting in and out of my driveway was a nightmare with contractors taking over the driveway. As the development gets occupants, guess whose driveway they will use to furnish their apartments/town houses???

Carla Salinger (Auckland, 2022-06-26)

#279

The proposed zoning is flawed and inappropriate for many suburbs

John Goddard (Auckland, 2022-06-27)

#280

This is a stupid policy, this Government is out of control.

Steve Automotive (Auckland, 2022-06-27)

#295

I strongly disagree with the Housing Act 2021

Dean Revell (Auckland, 2022-06-27)

#296

The number of character homes being demolished to be replaced by boxes is disturbing. The current infrastructure cannot cope with the extra housing and our quality of life will decrease. The new boxes will be the slums of the future!

Dinah Eichmann (Remuera, 2022-06-27)

#305

Sick of this government railroading legislative changes in without consultation with the people they should be working for. Densification is about lining the back pockets of developers and will not be built for the people who can't afford housing. Total joke

Angela French (Auckland, 2022-06-27)

#308

I object to the thoughtless restructuring of suburbs.
People buy houses in areas *because* of the neighborhood, the houses and the community.
By recklessly allowing high intensity building the essence of a suburb is destroyed

Suzanne Brade (Auckland, 2022-06-27)

#313

I’m a home owner and like my privacy. I pay a premium to own bushland and have neighbors out of sight.

M O (Auckland, 2022-06-27)

#320

I am signing because I am very concerned that this intensification will have an extremely negative impact on the environment in NZ. In Auckland in particular there has already been a huge loss of mature native trees as development has been promoted at the expense of green spaces.Intensification will only make this worse.
This intensification will add to the loss of habitat for native flora and fauna.
NZ cities will become ugly concrete jungles with poor design and worse congestion with this intensification.
It is about time that the environment is considered by Labour,National and the Greens for a change The above political parties in their promotion of this legislation are not environmentally friendly and this intensification will only add to climate change.

Kirsty Gudex (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#321

It will be damming to the lifestyle we have become accustomed to and the infrastructure will not keep up. Mental health issues will abound.

Christine Avery (Foxton Beach, 2022-06-28)

#322

Cities need variety and broader appeal in housing to maximize diversity of its population. High density buildings needs local planning control to ensure amenities and infrastructure are ready and, avoid piecemeal development that does not stand the test of time

Esther Scammell (Wellington, 2022-06-28)

#323

There is already provision for intensification in the Unitary plan. Going further than this will ruin our beautiful city

Jenny Bainbridge (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#326

dont want to lose sun and privacy

john wright (auckland, 2022-06-28)

#327

I'm signing because this is a real threat to any house/people living in the house(s), on next to these new builds. Shocking legislation.

Simon Cope (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#332

I am opposed to the way this decision was made by Labour, National and Greens without any consultation with the public, Councils etc. Totally undemocratic. The implications for all of NZ will be huge for all. NZ cities are already poorly designed and design of NZ homes is often poor quality. The impact on present infrastructure, which is already failing, and not likely to be fixed in a hurry, will impose a huge burden on Councils and ratepayers. It is just poorly constructed legislation with little thought to the consequences.

Elizabeth Luyk (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#335

I am already horrified at the massive ugly tenement looking boxes being built. Built to boundary-=future squalid slums.
Children raised in these no grounds "boxes" have nowhere to play - so will sit in front of their screens all day.
Yet another expensive social horror on its way.

Anne Beetham (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#336

Our infrastructure can't handle problems now. I'm against 3 waters, I'm against doing away with the DHB's and when is someone going to front up and explain Mrs Mahuta's predicament for giving thousands of dollars to family members for government dealings....

Christine Storey (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#339

It's ruining suburbs. They remove the trees and shade single storied homes. Ghettos of the future.

Jocelyn Partridge (Christchurch, 2022-06-28)

#340

I am concerned about lack of consideration for environmental issues, and for the actual human need for livable homes with sunlight and warmth which has already been established in our past building codes. Building high rise buildings in areas which do not have the infrastructure in place is alarming, especially as in other countries, high rises are being demolished as they are centres of crime and gather together people who are not able to connect with their community. Why do it? To follow the ideologues and ignore the ratepayers?

Enid Wardle (Auckland, 2022-06-28)

#342

I have lived in a country where over densification happened under a corrupted council who cared nothing about people's property rights and everything about kick backs (under the table payments) from property developers. I am appalled that this legislation was sneaked through Parliament without the media - whom I consider to be our public watchdog - making barely a mention of the gross negative impacts that will affect hundreds of thousands of property owners throughout N.Z. The fact that we, the tax and rate payers - the glue that holds everything together in this country - were not even notified, much less consulted, is reprehensible. This MUST be reversed.

Lianne Mylie (Hamilton, 2022-06-28)

#343

I agree with all the points made. Absolutely incredible and stupid and misleading legislation!

Lorraine Lord (Whangaparaoa, 2022-06-28)

#348

I'm signing because it's possible to manage the shading and loss-of-privacy issues, as Hamilton and Queenstown have done in the past, but this National Policy Statement is silent on such necessities.

Desmond Darby (Lower Hutt, 2022-06-29)

#349

I hate the congestion around these buildings especially in town, there is often only one parking allowance for 4 tenants and none for visitors, and on a lot of busy roads there are yellow no parking lines, so visitors and other tenants are forced to park illegally on grass verge. Building quality poor also, some are sweltering hot in summer, obviously someone cut corners with insulation. And we wont mention noise, privacy, play area for kids, nowhere for tenants to go be outside, only communal cooking and laundry shared between 4 tenants etc etc!! How did these buildings ever get approved??

Elizabeth Win (Fitzroy, Hamilton, 2022-06-29)

#351

Auckland has already lost too much of its heritage and needs to protect what remains.

Paul Forder (Auckland, 2022-06-29)

#355

I intend to move back to a large city to be nearer family in retirement and I don't want to be stuck in British type housing subdivisions.

William Cronin (Cambridge, 2022-06-29)

#356

I believe anyone who chooses or needs should be able to access affordable housing with a backyard or front yard or both, garage and off street parking. Developers are buying homes like this because first home buyers can't afford them pricing them out of the market and building multiple dwellings. Street parking will be necessary and not cyclist friendly.

Patricia Johnston (Hamilton, 2022-06-29)

#359

I VERYI strongly object to govt. enforcing the new RMA housing intensification measures on councils.

Gay White (Auckland, 2022-06-29)

#367

While being for intensification it has to be planned and sympathetic. Building 12 story buildings on top of each other is not going to make a great city.

Iain Fenwick (Auckland, 2022-06-29)

#375

I don’t want three townhouses built on every section in my suburb. I paid a lot to
live in my area and I don’t want to lose all that if someone’s builds townhouses next door. Plus the infrastructure including local schooling is already maxed out and bursting at the seams.

Mel Mason (Hamilton, 2022-06-29)

#380

The houses are ugly, I want to buy a decent sized house in the future not one with no backyard for my kids to play, more greenery in Auckland.

Jordaine Marsters (Auckland, 2022-06-30)

#384

I own a bungalow in a area that they have only just changed to medium density.

Lance Kennedy (Hamilton, 2022-06-30)

#385

No consideration has been given ro quality of life for existing residents

Brenda Claridge (Auckland, 2022-06-30)

#386

The intensification ordered by Government will turn our cities in future slums. Each city should set its own rules ensuring that there is room for plantings and greenery around the buildings and that the buildings are set back from the street to allow for plantings.

Warren Whyte (Auckland, 2022-06-30)

#388

There are so many disturbing negatives to this hastily and quietly managed bill. It feels so wrong that residents and home owners are being so shoddily treated by those in power. What is happening in this country under a government I once trusted to do the right thing?

Colleen Bassett (Kings Garden, 2022-06-30)

#389

I agree with all the issues raised.
Knee jerk reaction.
Happy to share my original submission - let me know

Daniel Robert (Auckland, 2022-06-30)

#391

The proposed changes are being rushed through and the ramifications are very unfair on existing households.

Elizabeth Cowie (Auckland, 2022-06-30)

#393

Christchurch does not need this. Many properties will be negatively impacted due to neighbouring developments, with owners having no say over these detrimental effects. Just a win win for developers who will build poorly designed, imposing structures that do not add to the sense of community within neighbourhoods.

Alison Fairweather (Christchurch, 2022-06-30)

#394

I'm signing because of the shortsightedness of this with the impact it has on neighbours’ sunlight, privacy and mental health. It is creating cold damp existing houses. it is also destroying NZ heritage homes and neighbourhoods

Julie Ramsay (Auckland, 2022-06-30)

#397

Building up is not the answer to a housing crisis,all developement properties that I have seen in Hamilton DO NOT CATER for people who are disabled like me. I cant climb stairs, batrhrooms the have toilets next to the shower means I can use the toilet nor get into the shower. The answer is more housing in the suburbs and building the infrastructure to suit such as roads services including' shopping etc.

Brian Webb (Hamilton, 2022-06-30)



Paid advertising

We will advertise this petition to 3000 people.

Learn more...