Further submission in support of or in opposition to, submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
Click Unitary Plan further submission for a PDF of the following form information.
Return your signed further submission to Auckland Council by 22 July 2014 5:00pm
Further submissions may be:
- posted to Attn: Unitary Plan Submission Team, Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300 Auckland 1142. Freepost Authority 237170
- lodging your further submission in person at any Auckland council office, library, service centre or local board office
- or emailed to email@example.com
Note: online further submissions can also be made at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
1. Further submitter details
Full name of person making further submission:
Contact name if different from above:
Organisation or company (if relevant):
Address for service of person making further submission:
I live in the following Local Board area (if known):
2. Interest in the submission
I am (delete one):
A person or organisation representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or
A person who or organisation which has an interest in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that is greater than the interest the general public has
The grounds for saying that I come within the selected category are:
3. Request to be heard in support of further submission (please delete one):
I do/I do not wish to be heard in support of my further submission
If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing
Yes / No
4 Signature of further submitter (or person authorised to sign on behalf of further submitter): (Note a signature is not required if you make your submission by electronic means, but please type your name below)
(Name of organisation or person) supports original submission no. 7391 by the Little Shoal Bay Protection Society, P.O. Box 340-235, Birkenhead.
The particular parts of the original submission I/we support relate to the Public Open Space zone provisions:
1. A large number of the permitted and restricted discretionary activities in the Conservation, Informal Recreation, and Sport & Active Recreation zones are incompatible with open space.
2. Most of the built development listed as permitted activities is inappropriate for public open space.
3. It is inappropriate that the permissive rules proposed in the PAUP will be administered by Council officers without any input or consultation from the public.
4. Widespread public demand for more built development in reserves has not been demonstrated.
5. Intensification will require more public open space, not less.
6. A large number of the permitted and restricted discretionary activities in the Activity table should be non-complying or discretionary, as listed in the LSBPS submission.
Provision number of Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan: Part 3, Chapter I, 2.1 Activity Table
The reasons for my/our support are:
1. Public Open Space is just that: open space. Any buildings or structures on public open space have traditionally been restricted to only the very essential uses that directly enhance the community’s use of the particular open space, e.g. cricket clubrooms for a cricket ground and, of course, public lavatories.
2. Many of the permitted and restricted discretionary activities listed in the PAUP activity table Part 3, Ch.I, 2.1 are incompatible with the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. They are almost certainly also incompatible with the provisions of most reserve management plans, including the Little Shoal Bay and Le Roys Bush Management Plan 1997.
3. Some of the activities are suitable only for other Public Open Space zones.
4. The activity table contains extraordinary anomalies listed as permitted in the Conservation, Informal Recreation, and Sport & Active zones e.g. dwellings under “new development”.
5. As intensification occurs, the protection of public open space will become ever more important: less private open space will mean a greater dependence by the community on public open space. The PAUP Public Open Space zone provisions, however, allow for and encourage infill of public open space.
6. The PAUP Public Open Space activity table warrants a complete revision, to restrict the alienation of open space to only those buildings and structures that are allowed in a reserve management plan. Where there is no reserve management plan, public participation in decisions regarding the construction and siting of any buildings or
structures must take place, within statutory limits and that can be justified as being essential to the community’s use of the open space.
(Name of organisation or person) submits that submission no. 7391 by the Little Shoal Bay Protection Society should be allowed in its entirety.