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

Comments

#601

There is no evidence that it will provide affordable housing, and the implications for existing residents in a satellite township would be insurmountable.

Anne Waddington (Warkworth, 2022-07-16)

#602

The Medium-Density Residential Standards (MDRS) has no supporting evidence it will provide affordable housing and unintentionally may have far reaching negative social and infrastructure implications that have not been properly considered. This submission provides positive solutions to address these current oversights.

The legislation should:

Be repealed in its entirety so communities can better determine for themselves how and where to provide for housing density, or
Exclude Warkworth and Pukekohe for the reasons given below, or
Be modified to limit the MDRS intensification to within 800 meters (walking distance) of satellite township’s public transport hubs.
This is not a case of NIMBYism in relation to Warkworth. The two Auckland townships of Warkworth and Pukekohe should both be excluded from the Medium-Density Residential Standards (MDRS) for the same reasons.

Although these two Auckland townships achieve the stipulated 5,000-population threshold, they are uniquely identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan as growth satellite townships already, providing substantial numbers of new houses and have formal Structure Plans already being implemented to provide the required infrastructure along with tens of thousands of new homes, including medium-density homes as the government is seeking.

For example, Warkworth has 1,000 hectares of greenfield land zoned as Future Urban growth. Within the Structure Plan there is identified Single Housing zones (1,700 houses), Mixed Housing Suburban zones (3,200 houses), Mixed Housing Urban zones (1,900 houses), and Terrace Housing & Apartment Building zones (400 homes). This caters for an overall population increase from 5,000 to 25,000 people over the next 30 years – plus it provides for new town centres, job creation in industrial and retail zones, along with all of the required investment required for the necessary new infrastructure.

Similarly, Pukekohe has 1,300 hectares of zoned Future Urban land providing 14,000 new dwellings over the next 20 years which is also being administrated correctly through a formal Structure Plan.

As a result, further intensification of “brownfield land”, as per the MDRS, is not required for Warkworth or Pukekohe. These are unique outliers within New Zealand and special consideration should be given to exclude both townships from the MDRS. Both townships have Structure Plans in place ensuring the required infrastructure will be in place to support the new housing, including ample medium-density housing options.

If legislation is required to assist in providing for housing, then Central Government should ensure this is achieved in a planned manner where infrastructure – wastewater, water supply, public transport, parks and open spaces, including social infrastructure (schools, medical facilities, libraries etc), can be provided (ie: be fully funded in advance of the housing occurring) for the people living in the higher density residential areas. Existing communities and the health and wellbeing of existing residents will be dramatically affected by the MDRS as the process allows for no notification or resource consents which are desired processes wanted to be retained to allow the public to identify any unintended consequences from a particular development.

Should the Act not be repealed, or the townships of Warkworth and Pukekohe not made exempt, then the MDRS should ring-fence/ stipulate that any housing intensification is limited to occur no further than 800 meters from a transport hub. That is the housing should be within walking distance of a frequent public transport hub. Warkworth only has one such transport hub located at 80 Great North Road (SH1).

Thank you for giving these requests your serious consideration and please modify the Medium-Density Residential Standards (MDRS) accordingly particularly the exclusion of Warkworth while also giving the same consideration to Pukekohe.

Thank you.

Glenys Wild (Auckland, 2022-07-16)

#604

I’m signing to voice the need to protect Kiwis from the blatant theft of our residential rights and freedoms by unfettered and un-mandated government overreach.

Kevin Crowe (Auckland, 2022-07-17)

#605

I’m signing because I’m sick of government making decisions that affect my lifestyle. High density housing is not contributing to a lifestyle that ordinary New Zealanders have been used to. Living on top of other people (in my opinion) does not contribute to healthy living. It only contributes to eventually living in ghetto type living in the long term.

Mike Wilton (Auckland, 2022-07-17)

#607

I'm signing because this law will enable the 'Favelas' of the future right here in NZ unless some common sense prevails.
Property and democratic rights of existing owners are being shamelessly trodden over by an ill-considered and knee-jerk policy.

Mark Munns (Auckland, 2022-07-17)

#608

Existing rules under the Unitary Plan already allow for housing intensification. This blanket law is unnecessary and unwarranted

Michael Locke (Auckland, 2022-07-17)

#609

I am opposed to a rural town like Warkworth being included for intensive housing - we are not an Auckland city suburb. We are a rural town. The town has a structure plan which allows for future growth and housing development. The plan has been developed in consultation with the community and allows PLANNED housing development including intensive housing and associated infrastructure. The plan allows for structured growth of housing stock of various types. While increasing housing stock (especially affordable housing) is important we must not lose our current community amenities through lack of planning.

Jo Haswell (Auckland, 2022-07-17)

#611

This is happening everywhere. Living in high density places is bad for mental health and conducive to crime. Back off Labour.

Carol Keelty (Timaru, 2022-07-18)

#617

In

Tara Moreton (Auckland, 2022-07-19)

#619

It’s devastating watching properties filled with town houses and apartments with no lawns or trees or parking. Not a good way for our children and communities to live.

Abby Soares (Auckland, 2022-07-19)

#620

Infrastructure for yet more people in Auckland ISN’T there - this legislation was rolled out WITHOUT regard for any Councils town planners years and years worth of work. It will destroy Auckland.

Deborah Burnside (Napier, 2022-07-20)

#623

This legislation does not take into account absolutely necessary urban planning needs.

Gareth Roberts (Auckland, 2022-07-23)

#634

This rule will have more of a negative impact

Bryn Davis (Waihi Beach, 2022-07-28)

#636

I'm signing because despite the personal financial benefit I could get out of this change, I recognise that the infrastructure on the penninsula (wastewater,sewerage) would not cope. The roading is inadequate and with no onsite parking requirements cars will narrow the road more so emergency services would struggle to get through. Whangaparoa is a special area and community and should be preserved and the beaches protected from pollution. We do not need or want the intensity of housing the developers would build.

Linda shepherd (Auckland, 2022-07-28)

#637

I think the whole process for intensification has been rushed through without the proper consultation and without any thought for what the Unitary Plan already allows for in Auckland

Martin Keys (Auckland, 2022-07-29)

#642

I am totally opposed to the to the manner of the proposed intensification . The Unitary Plan in Auckland is a well considered document which allows significant intensification over the next 20/30 years

Stuart Bode (Auckland, 2022-07-31)

#643

This legislation is is totally flawed . The Unitary Plan allows significant intensification and is a well constructed document .

Jan Hewitt (Auckland, 2022-07-31)

#646

I'm signing this as it is just a blanket policy and does not take in indivually suburbs.

Katie Clark (Manly, 2022-07-31)

#648

In my opinion, this legislation has been rushed through with very little thought and no Public Consultation with those who may be adversely effected by these new proposals.

Michelle Brackebush (Pukekohe, 2022-08-01)

#650

I strongly disagree with the way that intensification will destroy our Heritage areas, which are spread all over Auckland. Bus and bike lanes are no replacement of our History.

Karen Torkar (Auckland, 2022-08-01)

#653

I believe this legislation was rushed through without Councils being included in its formulation and not one of the select committee considering the submission was an elected MP from a Tier1 city.
Not acceptable!
This severely impacts my neighborhood and personal anxiety levels with negative environmental and privacy consequence.

Garry Oliver (Hauraki, 2022-08-03)

#655

This is a sloppy, blanket provision that will destroy our cities.

Dennis Simpson (Auckland, 2022-08-03)

#657

Auckland city does not have the infrastructure in place to cope with the intensification, nor does it have the money or resources to deal with having it in place before intensification takes over.

C Barbarich (auckland, 2022-08-03)

#662

The Auckland unitary plan already more sensibly and adequately provided for housing needs without the hideous loss of light and privacy that this plan brings with it.

Al Armiger (Auckland 1011, 2022-08-03)

#666

This is radical change to life in NZ being dictated without due legal process which is hugely unjust , as well as unwise, further because it is untested and unproven as a housing strategy plus very impacting, adversely affecting amenities, changing physical and social environments everywhere irreversibly and without the people’s consent being given.

Victoria Lowe (Auckland, 2022-08-04)

#669

its madness

michael moros (Auckland, 2022-08-05)

#672

This happened too fast with no consultation with city planners and the outcome will be to the detriment of the fabric of society.

Janice Bernard (Timaru, 2022-08-07)

#677

Because we should have the right to space, and our property value

Courtney Manukau (Auckland, 2022-08-14)

#678

Because I do NOT 💯% agree with what they are intending to do to our city.
They want to rip its heart out, and remove anything that has any sort of colonial history.

Pat Stoini (Auckland, 2022-08-14)

#681

This is an appalling piece of legislation that contradicts every good urban planning rule creating dark,damp useless spaces and devaluing the urban areas. This is contradictory to healthier living and has detrimental effect of the well being of residents. A greenfield development that is properly designed for light, air and vies along with access to greenery is a far more sensible way to tackle the problem and there are plenty of examples around the world. This senseless, appalling design must be halted!

Leigh Nicholson (Auckland, 2022-08-16)

#685

This is just another approach at destroying, the standard of living, recreating the errors of many countries before us, cramming people into compromised standards and over crowding living.
greed, destruction and manipulation, money and power falling into the wrong hands at the expense of a community.

Julie Haslam (Matakana, 2022-08-20)

#691

Because this legislation will make Auckland an unpleasant city to live in

Neville Hill (Auckland, 2022-08-27)

#696

The Unitary Plan provided for an acceptable intensification using widely accepted planning principles. In enabling developers to over-ride this with no criteria other than that of maximizing profit is to invite future infrastructural and social problems.

Caryl Dimery (Auckland, 2022-08-28)

#698

Stop ruining our cities with overdwelling,not enough parking and a strain on services that are struggling to cope now.

Janet Olla (Auckland, 2022-08-28)

#701

Because it damage Auckland beauty, also losing privacy

Basil Allos (Auckland, 2022-08-30)

#703

I heard you the other day at a meeting and thought you had very cogent arguments. This council is ruining our city and we are all praying they get thrown out

Dulcie Tombleson (Auckland, 2022-08-30)

#704

lack of ability for ratepayers to protect family sunlight needs and long term wellbeing, and no provision for character inclusion and off street parking

Geoff Burgess (Auckland, 2022-08-30)

#705

I'm signing this because I don't want infill high rise housing (Most don't even come with parking space) This is not the environment where I want my kids to grow up. Kids should be able to have a backyard to play. Land being sold to these sort of developers who don't save an once of greenery on the sites. These developments, block sun and privacy to their neighbors. This is not the NZ I wish to live in. We have plenty of land that we can continue to develop on the boarders of the city's. Let the growth start there where people can still have a free standing home and quality of life

Amy Richardson (Auckland, 2022-08-31)

#707

I agree with it

Vicki Burgess (Auckland, 2022-08-31)

#708

This policy will trigger a major adverse change of the historic 'look and feel' of most suburbs in Auckland. I especially resent the fact that there is no right of objection to the imposition of a large 12M building right next door that could potentially adversely affect any outlook, view, personal privacy, and access to sunlight among other considerations. Strongly oppose.

Mark Shotbolt (Auckland, 2022-09-01)

#709

I’m signing because I do not want a 3 storey building blocking all my sun + ruining my life in a property we have owned for 23 years. This will devalue our property + surrounding houses! Poor design + poor legislation!

Lesley Ward (Bucklands Beach Auckland, 2022-09-01)

#710

In signing because I do not want an unconsented 3 storey house built next door that would block my sunlight + devalue my property

Kevin Ward (Buck lands Beach Auckland, 2022-09-01)

#711

My neighbour’s houses are already too close to mine!

Anita Ballantyne (Auckland, 2022-09-01)

#713

I have a strong urge to protect our suburbs!!!!

Sandra Scott (Auckland, 2022-09-01)

#721

Housing intensification should be properly planned and managed, with sensible rules to mitigate impacts on neighbourhoods, whilst still allowing appropriate more intensive development.

Aaron McGlinchy (Lincoln, 2022-09-05)

#722

This will be a long term disaster for many places and is effecting places that do not need more houses of this type. There are much better ways of designing a wider variety if homes fir everyone and this is just a huge sledgehammer to fix a problem that needs a much more intelligent and well thought out design solution.

Denise Carrick (Christchurch, 2022-09-05)

#724

We don’t have the inferstructure for high density housing in ur rural area & we are losing good farm & agriculture land. Crops need to be grown

Lyn Braxton (Christchurch, 2022-09-05)

#727

I'm signing because I fear that the removal of vegetation and lack of permeable land will overstretch our infrastructure, causing widespread flooding as rainfall increases. I grieve for the loss of character homes and mature trees, that in many of the best cities of the world are preserved and treasured, and are not only a tourist attraction, but make them an attractive place to live, hence encouraging skilled people to stay and fill much needed work shortages. The grass is becoming so green on the other side, we are facing a work force crisis. Many of the houses being built are still beyond affordability, and there are an unacceptable number of houses sitting empty, as people use inflation of their value as a way to increase their wealth. The Government should be looking at ways to mitigate this, rather than enforce these rules on us, which is the opposite of democratic.

Sarah Meikle (Auckland, 2022-09-06)

#728

The leadership of this country sickens me and this underhanded socialist crap is a disgrace to our basic freedoms.

Toby Raine (Auckland, 2022-09-06)

#729

I believe the councils proposal is damaging to the living environment in the suburbs

Anneke van den Haak (Auckland, 2022-09-06)

#732

I am signing because I feel there are much better ways to increase housing than enabling existing sites to be built up to 3 storeys, right to the boundary, with no need for a resource consent or thought about how this could negatively impact neighbours.

Anna James (Christchurch, 2022-09-06)

#735

We already have 2 story new builds on one side and has adversely affected us with less sun, less privacy and parking problems. We definitely don’t need 3 story builds going up.

Jo Campbell (Auckland, 2022-09-06)

#736

This might be useful in central cities, but not warranted in suburban areas. Christchurch has vast areas of empty land in central city. What suits Auckland does not suit Christchurch.

James Broadbent (Christchurch, 2022-09-06)

#737

I hate seeing productive land for food going to housing!

Angela Barclay (Christchurch, 2022-09-06)

#738

To stop high rises being to close to existing homeowners.

Ray Sykes (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#739

I live in the Auckland and are over the worsening traffic, flooding, drains bursting etc due to poor infrastructure when these condensed housing projects are built.

Tammy Court (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#749

Risk of a 3 storey house being built next door to me. Poor drainage and flood of propert due to intensity of housing near by. Cars parked on each side of roads causing traffic jams and risk.

Susan Mountier (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#750

It is every home owners right to have their section & home space not invaded by another homes shadow or shaded because of a new build. Basic decent human common sense to respect another persons personal space. There is no need to increase house density in NZ. Just stop immigration if not enough houses for immigrants. It is criminal to pull down our heritage buildings so a few can gain profit such as t HD e developers and councils!!

Jill Donaggio (Lincoln, 2022-09-07)

#753

The high density law is flawed

Colin Brown (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#754

Because it's happening all over Auckland and it's disrupting all areas(no parking,less space,and de valve our properties.

Albert Nukanuka (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#756

High density housing a quiet suburb will turn the area into a ghetto as time will pass.

Rabindra Sharma (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#759

This is poorly thought through legislation, kneejerk reactions to a housing crisis that deserved more thought. The extremist views of the new urbanist evangelists will destroy cities and their quality of life. Simply put, the problem is not that easy to fix. Unintended consequences will define the effects of this legislation and they will not be pretty.

Richard Dunbar (Auckland, 2022-09-07)

#760

Because I agree ,!

Barbara Tiky (Chch, 2022-09-07)

#762

what a miserable life would that be, no privacy, hardly any sunlight, noise, too crowded!

Edit Zigon (Auckland, 2022-09-08)

#768

I am disgusted that people who are happily living in their house can have there privacy, happiness, peace of mind, and property value destroyed by those wishing to make a quick buck.

Brian Schlaadt (Auckland, 2022-09-08)

#769

I live in Lincoln and love my neighborhood and don't want a three story house to build next to me.

Claire Mckee (Christchurch, 2022-09-09)

#773

Our property rights are being eroded and the essential character of our historical neighbourhoods will be destroyed.

Scott Wilson (North Shore City, 2022-09-09)

#774

I’m signing because I am fed up with the way citizens are being run rough shod over on multiple fronts. Devonport and other historic suburbs are being decimated by a government set on invoking one world ideologies on an unwilling and unhappy population. Once the character of these suburbs has gone, it can never be recreated. New Zealanders have no wish to live in the equivalent of high rise slums that so many immigrants come here to escape.

Felicity Wilson (Auckland, 2022-09-09)

#775

I don't wanna see 3 stories buildings by my property. It's uncomfortable life when somebody watch in your windows or buildings shutting the sun 🌞

yury shamonin (Auckland, 2022-09-09)

#777

I am concerned that this plan is going to increase the stress on roading, water, school, community. There will be an over supply of houses and neighbourhoods ruined unnecessarily. Our small village will become a suburb of the city.

Gill O’Connell (Prebbleton, Selwyn, 2022-09-09)

#779

This is an environmental catastrophe. Our region has terrible infrastructure that can’t cope already. How dare they cut down more trees - Auckland has lost so much. This needs proper strategic thinking.

Kathryn Avery (Auckland, 2022-09-09)

#780

I want to see quality home ownership with wide boundaries and green spaces for children to play in especially with large trees which are carbon soaks.

Ann Brabant (Auckland, 2022-09-10)

#781

I am against the unplanned and rushed legislation of this intensification. It will kill the very character of our cities.

Dinesh Bansal (Auckland, 2022-09-10)

#783

No privacy, no sun, parking is going to be a problem. Noise.

Gayle Shaw (Te Atatu South, 2022-09-11)

#784

I want the community to be involved with these massive impact decisions.

Jackie Holmes (Auckland, 2022-09-11)

#788

I believe this change to the Resource Management Act will severely impact neighbours of these new developments, and change forever the quality of life in our cities to a very detrimental level.

Christine Cook (Auckland, 2022-09-11)

#789

This Act will have a negative effect on people's quality of life and further undermine social cohesion.

Nigel Smith (Auckland, 2022-09-11)

#790

this will destroy the style of living people want in NZ . Not to mention raising so many other issues around infrastructure, transport and enjoyment of life

Neil holmes (Auckland, 2022-09-11)

#791

The ill-considered law will ruin our cities. It needs a re-think.

Warwick Brown (Auckland, 2022-09-12)

#794

If a sunny yard is important to you a one/two-storey zone makes sense. If you're too busy for yards, apartments make sense. However, allowing 3 x 3-storey apartments to pop up randomly among one-storey dwellings ensures maximum uncertainty and frustration for the most people. Who are the halfwits making these decisions? Don't we have town planners anymore?

Steve Pound (Auckland, 2022-09-12)

#800

I am signing this petition because the intensification act overrides the will of the people; it is destroying our suburban lifestyle; it will inevitably create ghettos; and intensive housing creates a hazard for citizens' health.

Dianne Scouller (West Auckland, 2022-09-12)



Paid advertising

We will advertise this petition to 3000 people.

Learn more...