That any new build or modification to any existing build requires the approval of all properties that the new build may restrict.

There are a number of existing rules that were in place that allowed some properties to be 1 storey, and some 2 storeys.  The proposal should just allow for the increase of one extra floor (i.e. 1 to 2 and 2 to 3), but before any modifications / new builds are initiated they need to be approved by all existing properties that will be affected by their height (e.g. building a 3 storey in front of a 2 storey house, obstructs the view, reduces the resale value, could create shadows and reduce temperature for the existing property and so forth. 

The plan needs to be modified to make sure this doesn’t occur.

A large number of people bought property specifically in an area where they were assured that there would never be a another property built taller than 1 story.  This proposed plan breaches that assurance and is thus unfair and unjust.

Submitter has no issues with this plan for completely new area, though any 3 storey property should be thoroughly earthquake resilient and perhaps all properties 3 storeys and above need an EQ assessment before building starts.

Strongly supports the government’s direction to enable medium and possibly high density housing in Porirua City.

The higher residential housing goes, the more green space remains available for native forest, green recreation areas, growing food and other aspects of healthy living.

Accepts such increased density could occur in own neighbourhood. Others may not be as accepting but unfortunately intensification is necessary to ensure more and more green space is not lost to housing.

Comments/concerns raised in relation to:

• Accepts need for some change but has concerns about impacts on character and amenity.
• With Council having been directed to do this, it does not provide enough allowance for what is appropriate to a local community. Provides example of General Residential Zone substituted with Medium Density Residential Zone.
• Need to balance housing intensification with other objectives in local plans (such as maintaining or enhancing the level of community well being, quality urban design and adequate infrastructure).
• How new subdivisions, e.g. the proposed development of the Northern Corridor, should only be granted resource consent under proposed guidelines for MRZ with existing subdivision remaining under GRZ guidelines. Similarly, development of a Master Plan Regeneration Process, as proposed for Eastern Porirua can deliver increased housing intensification.
• Having lived in Aotea is supportive of the developer following guidelines in the Porirua Operative District Plan, with regards to amenity and character. Refers to a recent home purchase in Aotea with a quality of outlook and is concerned investment could be destroyed (from having 3-storey houses and up to 3 dwellings on each lot).
• Refers to residential and commercial development/character in Aotea including how 1 and 2 storey homes in Aotea maximise access to views and light shafts. Also how a recent townhouse development does not dominate/adversely or impact amenities.
• Pressure on infrastructure.
• Impact on property values.

[Refer to original submission for full reason, including attachment]

Comments/concerns raised in relation to:

• Accepts need for some change but has concerns about impacts on character and amenity.
• With Council having been directed to do this, it does not provide enough allowance for what is appropriate to a local community. Provides example of General Residential Zone substituted with Medium Density Residential Zone.
• Need to balance housing intensification with other objectives in local plans (such as maintaining or enhancing the level of community well being, quality urban design and adequate infrastructure).
• How new subdivisions, e.g. the proposed development of the Northern Corridor, should only be granted resource consent under proposed guidelines for MRZ with existing subdivision remaining under GRZ guidelines. Similarly, development of a Master Plan Regeneration Process, as proposed for Eastern Porirua can deliver increased housing intensification.
• Having lived in Aotea is supportive of the developer following guidelines in the Porirua Operative District Plan, with regards to amenity and character. Refers to a recent home purchase in Aotea with a quality of outlook and is concerned investment could be destroyed (from having 3-storey houses and up to 3 dwellings on each lot).
• Refers to residential and commercial development/character in Aotea including how 1 and 2 storey homes in Aotea maximise access to views and light shafts. Also how a recent townhouse development does not dominate/adversely or impact amenities.
• Pressure on infrastructure.
• Impact on property values.

[Refer to original submission for full reason, including attachment]

Comments/concerns raised in relation to:

• Accepts need for some change but has concerns about impacts on character and amenity.
• With Council having been directed to do this, it does not provide enough allowance for what is appropriate to a local community. Provides example of General Residential Zone substituted with Medium Density Residential Zone.
• Need to balance housing intensification with other objectives in local plans (such as maintaining or enhancing the level of community well being, quality urban design and adequate infrastructure).
• How new subdivisions, e.g. the proposed development of the Northern Corridor, should only be granted resource consent under proposed guidelines for MRZ with existing subdivision remaining under GRZ guidelines. Similarly, development of a Master Plan Regeneration Process, as proposed for Eastern Porirua can deliver increased housing intensification.
• Having lived in Aotea is supportive of the developer following guidelines in the Porirua Operative District Plan, with regards to amenity and character. Refers to a recent home purchase in Aotea with a quality of outlook and is concerned investment could be destroyed (from having 3-storey houses and up to 3 dwellings on each lot).
• Refers to residential and commercial development/character in Aotea including how 1 and 2 storey homes in Aotea maximise access to views and light shafts. Also how a recent townhouse development does not dominate/adversely or impact amenities.
• Pressure on infrastructure.
• Impact on property values.

[Refer to original submission for full reason, including attachment]

Retain and strictly enforce this SASM height control for all the properties which have it assigned to them. 

This SASM height control is reasonable for areas of cultural significance. It respects the value of these locations, not just for tangata whenua but for the wider community. It helps ensure built structures do not completely dominate these culturally important areas.

Amend the variation so that only new developments can build to this height.

Amend the variation so that buildings of up to 22m are not permitted in areas of established housing. Keep the lower current height level for these established areas.

Existing property owners with low-level houses would be adversely affected by multi-level buildings in adjacent properties.

The proposed increased height will affect people’s privacy, sun levels, noise levels, street parking, mental health and their overall quality of life.

High density multi-storey housing is not consistent with the current character of many established Porirua villages. It will detrimentally change the appeal of neighbourhoods for existing residents who bought and invested in their properties and local communities on the basis of their current features.

Having a mix of low and multi-storey homes will create a disjointed unpleasant streetscape for residents.

The proposed increased height allowance would disadvantage those rate-payers who cannot afford to match the height of imposing neighbouring buildings, affecting their property values and decreasing their overall quality of life.

Amend the wording for the map legend for the Hazards and Risks Overlays, specifically that for the ‘Coastal Hazard – Current Inundation’.

For the average person, the wording makes it seem like these areas currently have coastal inundation on a regular basis. Has lived at 1 Sunset Parade since 2008 and knows that this is definitely not the case. Seawater has never even breached the seawall at this point, let alone crossing the street into properties.

Having talked to a PCC staff member, understands that this overlay is in fact just referring to events which are classified as 1 in 100 year storm surge events. This is not currently clear at all. It disadvantages rate-payers who have this showing for their property, as the average person/potential buyer/insurance company could interpret this to mean regular weather/storms do affect these properties, i.e. not just when it is a one in 100 year event.

Some simple changes to the wording would clarify this.

In relation to 139 Airlie Road, Plimmerton, seeks a change to the district plan to allow for subdivision of the section and to build a smaller home.

[Refer to original submission for full decision requested, including attachments]

Provides an introduction to previous work undertaken at the property including in the garden and outlines a number of comments in relation to:

• Increased planting undertaken at the property and there is increased birdlife and wildlife at the property.
• Desire to subdivide and build a smaller home as current home is too large to maintain.
• Presence of wildings and pines on a triangle of land and how access would not create problems for road users.
• Changing designation of property when it was once considered as a continuation of urban Airlie Road.
• Commercial viability and building costs.
• Subdivision as a chance to enhance/beautify the area and an opportunity for wildlife to prosper.
• Subdivision would not intrude physically onto the area Nor West now dedicated to the Manuka/Kanuka forest or the stream.
• Previous discussions with PCC about subdivision.
• Costs of servicing.

[Refer to original submission for full reason, including attachments]

This provision totally changes the outlook along Mana Esplanade into a high rised residential area. It changes the outlook for many in the area into a built up environment.

The development of high buildings in this area will change the environment for ever. At present the infrastructure cannot deal with intensity and increasing the overflows into the harbour jeopardizes that natural environment.

Provide a healthy living environment and connection with the real world.

Having lived through Covid, considers that it is important that individuals and family units have sufficient space to isolate outside without risking the health of others by being too close. This also provides green space, a healthy living requirement.

Amend the designation of the strip along the beach side of the railway line at Plimmerton Beach to Medium Density Residential Zone.

Plimmerton Beach has characteristics which make it unsuitable to be a HRZ: its recreational use, its position relative to the sun and the area adjacent to the beach being an inundation zone. The block next to the beach is also part of the Plimmerton Heritage Trail.

1) Plimmerton Beach is the main recreational space for the area, so sunlight access should be retained there. 22m high buildings would shade the beach for most of the day in winter and for a good part of the day in summer. They may also bounce wind onto it.

2) Access to views and sunlight would be more fairly shared if height limits tapered back from the beachfront. The 22m height limit of the HRZ could be on the inland side of the railway line. 

3) Sites adjacent to Plimmerton beach are in an inundation zone and so are unsuitable to be designated as a HRZ.

4) The area at present has predominantly 1 and 2 storey houses, and is part of the Plimmerton Heritage Trail. 22m apartments blocks would have a significant negative effect regarding shade, wind and visual dominance, on the existing built environment. 

It is essential to protect and restore the natural environment to support future generations and develop communities that are as resilient to climate change as possible. This requires a better balance between paving and buildings and natural areas. A recent report https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220823-how-auckland-worlds-most-spongy-city-tackles-floods showed Auckland was 50 % green (vegetation) or blue (ponds and streams) excluding harbours.  If this proportion is possible for Auckland it should also be possible for a greenfields development in Porirua.

It is essential to protect and restore the natural environment to support future generations and develop communities that are as resilient to climate change as possible. This requires a better balance between paving and buildings and natural areas. A recent report https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220823-how-auckland-worlds-most-spongy-city-tackles-floods showed Auckland was 50 % green (vegetation) or blue (ponds and streams) excluding harbours.  If this proportion is possible for Auckland it should also be possible for a greenfields development in Porirua.

Muri Road is currently one lane for much of its length and is completely unsuitable for any increase in traffic volume. Even the supposedly two-lane section between the Sea Vista drive intersection and number 9 is barely wide enough, with a steep bank on one side. The road surface is also breaking up in this section because vehicles have to drive off the side of the seal to avoid oncoming traffic.

The supporting document report from Tim Kelly transportation planning says that an upgrade of Muri Road is planned as part of the Stage 1 Muri Road development. Residents have not been provided any information about this plan. Any changes need to be carefully planned to minimise disruption of SNAs and limit environmental impacts as well as addressing road safety.

In relation to high density zoning for Motuhara Road property/ies, seeks feasibility study by professionals:

• on environmental impact;
• existing vegetation;
• geographical suitability eg, stability, steepness, drainage and water overflow, soil type, expansive clay;
• infrastructure such as current water and sewage system capability to handle higher density (age and location); and
• whoever else is needed to determine the practicality and issues of high density buildings in this location.

An assessment by a geo-engineer on the current stability of Motuhara Road itself and on the steep bank below and on the capability of the road to structurally manage any increase in traffic, and car parking. As this zone is designed to be close to transport systems there may be very little if any increase – but the demand and capability still needs to be determined not assumed.

Determination of the increased shading effects of the height of the buildings as the road is steep which effectively increases the shading effect on the buildings down slope. 

Comments/concerns raised in relation to:

• Steep topography and soil type (clay).
• Land eroding and land stability.
• Slips resulting from last rainfall. 
• A few years ago the road was subsiding in the middle and needed repair.
• Wear and tear on road since large heavy trucks allowed to use Motuhara Road. Ability of road to manage the current traffic loading and further increase.
• Rain causes slips and overflow down the properties.
• Old age of waste water and sewage pipes and have broken several times already. They drain steeply down to the back of the property by the school.
• Sections initially meant to have two houses on them but this was apparently abandoned when it was determined that they could not provide adequate infrastructure for the volume of waste needed.
• Could be similar problems with the increased length, and the siting of the tap water pipes to provide the volume of water needed.
• Two storey houses in the street already cause some shading on neighboring houses. Houses are close to each and at a significant slope - what would be the shading effect of 6 storeyed multi buildings on one section? 

[Refer to original submission for full reason]

The Natural Hazard – Ponding Overlay be removed from Lot 4 DP 54351 and that part of the adjoining road reserve which slopes down to the carriageway.

Relates to the proposed inclusion of the Natural Hazard – Ponding overlay over Lot 4 DP 54351 (unnumbered Okowai Road, on the corner of Okowai Road and Whitford Brown Avenue). The inclusion of the Natural Hazard – Ponding Overlay over Lot 4 DP 54351 (and the adjoining road berms) is opposed.

Recognition that the Natural Hazard – Ponding Overlay may have been determined through a desk-top analysis of LIDAR data and a site-specific assessment not undertaken due to time constraints. The Council assessment may therefore not have identified that the ponding is occurring on a developed platform.

The subject site is currently undeveloped. The site was used as a Ministry of Works yard and for filling during the construction of the Motorway network during the 1960’s/1970s and the site was levelled in preparation for future development. No stormwater drainage infrastructure was installed at that time. Since then, the site has remained undeveloped and is now covered in a range of mainly pest or wilding species. Contamination remediation was undertaken on the site in 2018 in preparation for its development.

Resource consent for the development of a Meetinghouse on the site was obtained in 1998 but this was not progressed. A team has been appointed to undertake the design and obtain resource consents for a new religious facility on this site.

The site at its southern end is at grade with Okowai Road. Okowai Road then descends to the north and, along the Whitford Brown Avenue boundary, the Church site is elevated some 10m above the carriageway. The steep bank from the Church boundary down to the Whitford Board Avenue carriage is partly covered in mature pine trees. The latest topographical survey of the site is attached [to the submission].

Given its elevated position and that there are no waterbodies within the site or immediately alongside it, the site is not within a flood plain. The proposed Natural Hazard – Ponding Overlay on the site covers part of the existing formed platform. Near the northern and north-eastern boundary, the overlay then appears to cover an area that drops steeply towards the carriageways. The ponding is shown on a currently undeveloped platform, it is not a natural hazard. Ponding only occurs because this part of the site has been formed and left flat, ready for development, and the stormwater drainage which would occur at the time of building development has not yet been installed. The ponding is not a “natural” hazard. Ponding would not occur in those areas which slope down towards the carriageway.

Awareness that stormwater drainage will need to be considered as part of the detailed design process. The ponding which is currently occurring on the platform will be addressed as part of the site design and stormwater management on this site can be practically installed. • It is  unreasonable for Council to impose a Natural Hazard overlay on an undeveloped urban site when that site has been modified ready for development, but that development has not occurred to date.

[Refer to original submission for full reason, including attachment]

• Views in the street are some of the best in the Wellington district. These may be ruined by 6 storey buildings. This in turn will affect property prices negatively.
• There is already totally inadequate parking up the Crescent. This will only be exacerbated by the proposal.
• Plimmerton village is valued by its residents and visitors for its village atmosphere and retention of heritage buildings. This may be lost with high-rise apartments around.
• The infrastructure (eg sewerage pipes) is 60 or more years old. It would not withstand a huge increase in population.

Feedback on the following topics;
1. Insertion of the medium-density residential standards (with some modifications) into all residential zones.
2. Identification of qualifying matters which modify the medium density residential standards in some areas.
3. Creation of a new residential chapter containing mandatory objectives and consequential policies.

Opposed to this form of building. Knows of people in Lower Hutt who are experiencing this form of building firsthand. Photos provided of what medium-density housing looks like. Two houses were purchased and demolished to erect 21 medium-density houses. Opposed to this form of intensive housing with such limited scope of what the consequences are for the neighbours, the whenua (Land) and the flora and fauna that this form of building ignores. In the identified case, an old Totara tree was cut down and disposed of without consideration for the Piwakawaka that lived in that tree and with zero regard for recycling such old and rare wood, which ended up at the dump.
While this doesn't have any relevance to building houses in Porirua, it does have relevance to the impact on the people and land. Jamming these types of houses into existing neighbourhoods is an act of futility and highlights the council's shortsightedness toward long-term problems. If this form of construction is allowed to occur in areas like Plimmerton Farms the environmental impact would be disastrous for the native land, birds, flora, fauna, and people. This is a great opportunity that PCC has to create
housing, in harmony, with the land. Imagine if the council took the initiative and approved a plan for Plimmerton Farms that worked with the area as opposed to the pictures above and not just jamming people into houses for more rates money. While these problems are not new and include the added effects of more people, more cars, reduced green space, impacted shared community areas, increased sewerage operations (which currently can't cope now) and depleted resources which again are not new problems. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a community that is future-proofed for all generations.

In conclusion, the submitter is opposed to medium-density construction in existing neighbourhoods and Plimmerton Farms.

While this doesn't have any relevance to building houses in Porirua, it does have relevance to the impact on the people and land. Jamming these types of houses into existing neighbourhoods is an act of futility and highlights the council's shortsightedness toward long-term problems. If this form of construction is allowed to occur in areas like Plimmerton Farms the environmental impact would be disastrous for the native land, birds, flora, fauna, and people. This is a great opportunity that PCC has to create
housing, in harmony, with the land. Imagine if the council took the initiative and approved a plan for Plimmerton Farms that worked with the area as opposed to the pictures above and not just jamming people into houses for more rates money. While these problems are not new and include the added effects of more people, more cars, reduced green space, impacted shared community areas, increased sewerage operations (which currently can't cope now) and depleted resources which again are not new problems. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a community that is future-proofed for all generations.
In conclusion, the submitter is opposed to medium-density construction in existing neighbourhoods and Plimmerton Farms.

Supports the high density plan for Plimmerton for the following reasons:

More affordable for those needing to downsize and wanting to stay in the village.

Affordable for those wishing to live in a seaside village.

To be able to take advantage of the nearby facilities, buses, trains, medical centre, supermarket to name a few.

High decile primary school.

More affordable to a wider social mix.

Considers these points are relevant to support high density. 

Supports the high density plan for Plimmerton for the reasons being:

• More affordable for those needing to downsize and wanting to stay in the village.
• Affordable for those wishing to live in a seaside village.
• To be able to take advantage of nearby facilities, buses, trains, medical centre, supermarkets to name a few.
• High decile Primary School. More affordable to a wider social mix.  

Adjust the residential zone boundary of NGA to include two portions of land shown as areas A and B in submission.

[Refer to original submission for full decision requested, including attachment]

The draft structure plan shows two places of roading connection and two places of walkway connection on the southern boundary of the Pointon land. The topography of the Pointon land is not too dissimilar to that shown as proposed residential on the structure plan. Due to the land similarities’, submitter considers that it would be appropriate at this stage to have the two land areas A and B in submission included in the proposed residential zone of the Northern Growth Area Plan Variation. While submitter understands that it is convenient to make zone boundaries coincide with underlying property boundaries, they consider that in this situation a better zone boundary can be defined by the site contours as shown.

Strongly support housing intensification in the city centre. The city centre is a wasteland at night and having more people living among it and close to it will be transformative. The city centre has infrastructure and services already in place and the environmental impact of significant housing intensification in Porirua CBD would be limited. 

Strongly opposes the proposed plan changes as they will severely impact the whole Mana and Plimmerton suburbs. The 22m height is too high and not needed. There will be adverse environmental and social effects. Part of PCC reasons for High Density housing in our area is the proposed PFZ is within walkable catchment of the Plimmerton Train Station which meets the definition of a rapid transit stop and to comply with Policy 3 of the NPS-UD and s77G of the RMA. This has been based inappropriately on a well-functioning urban development environment criteria – this is probably appropriate for urban areas like Porirua City CBD or Wellington City but certainly not for the village of Plimmerton.

6 storey buildings will destroy the Plimmerton village heritage and community vibe. It will create lack of privacy for existing low-rise residential properties, with flow-on effect of reducing property values.

Most houses in the area rely on northern aspect to provide warmth (as many houses already shaded on the eastern side due to hills) which will be blocked by 6 storey apartment blocks. There will be negative impacts on schools - there are only 2 existing primary schools in the area which are already at maximum capacity and cannot handle a major increase in local population. The proposed HDRS zone is next to busy SH59 on one side and James Street on another. Already we are seeing increased truck traffic choosing not to use the new Transmission Gully route to save on fuel costs. James Street is a narrow street at the Plimmerton roundabout end. This will create safety issues to residents of the high-rise buildings and St Theresa’s school children – parking on James Street is already heavily congested at school drop-off/collection times, funerals and Catholic Church activities.

There could be up to 2,000 additional people occupying the proposed HDRS in the southern end of Precinct A – say 18 families of 4 people in each apartment of a 6 storey block of 3 structures on 30 sections. As most new high density developments are discouraged from providing vehicle garages, the residents would be required to park on the existing roads, as it is inconceivable that the residents will only rely on public transport or bicycles to get across the Wellington region.

There will be substantial varied housing already planned for by the current Plimmerton Farm developers (recent media coverage suggests up to 6,000 sites), and therefore there is no justification for this part of the development to be zoned for High Density housing just because of the train station and some nearby shops.

The area proposed is already subject to climate change issues including sea level rise and internal flooding, and there will be adverse effects from huge structures covering areas not allowing sufficient rainwater to soak into the ground. This will also negatively affect Ta Ara Harakeke (Taupo Swamp). Retain the proposed area as green space.

It is also unclear as to whether Porirua City Council plan addresses up to 6 storeys or minimum of 6 story developments. If regulations state minimum of 6 storeys and PCC implements up to 6 storeys (max 22m) then we could argue that PCC could not be trusted not to change it to suit at a later date.

Strongly opposes the proposed plan changes as they will severely impact the whole Mana and Plimmerton suburbs. The 22m height is too high and not needed. There will be adverse environmental and social effects. Part of PCC reasons for High Density housing in our area is the proposed PFZ is within walkable catchment of the Plimmerton Train Station which meets the definition of a rapid transit stop and to comply with Policy 3 of the NPS-UD and s77G of the RMA. This has been based inappropriately on a well-functioning urban development environment criteria – this is probably appropriate for urban areas like Porirua City CBD or Wellington City but certainly not for the village of Plimmerton.

6 storey buildings will destroy the Plimmerton village heritage and community vibe. It will create lack of privacy for existing low-rise residential properties, with flow-on effect of reducing property values.

Most houses in the area rely on northern aspect to provide warmth (as many houses already shaded on the eastern side due to hills) which will be blocked by 6 storey apartment blocks. There will be negative impacts on schools - there are only 2 existing primary schools in the area which are already at maximum capacity and cannot handle a major increase in local population. The proposed HDRS zone is next to busy SH59 on one side and James Street on another. Already we are seeing increased truck traffic choosing not to use the new Transmission Gully route to save on fuel costs. James Street is a narrow street at the Plimmerton roundabout end. This will create safety issues to residents of the high-rise buildings and St Theresa’s school children – parking on James Street is already heavily congested at school drop-off/collection times, funerals and Catholic Church activities.

There could be up to 2,000 additional people occupying the proposed HDRS in the southern end of Precinct A – say 18 families of 4 people in each apartment of a 6 storey block of 3 structures on 30 sections. As most new high density developments are discouraged from providing vehicle garages, the residents would be required to park on the existing roads, as it is inconceivable that the residents will only rely on public transport or bicycles to get across the Wellington region.

There will be substantial varied housing already planned for by the current Plimmerton Farm developers (recent media coverage suggests up to 6,000 sites), and therefore there is no justification for this part of the development to be zoned for High Density housing just because of the train station and some nearby shops.

The area proposed is already subject to climate change issues including sea level rise and internal flooding, and there will be adverse effects from huge structures covering areas not allowing sufficient rainwater to soak into the ground. This will also negatively affect Ta Ara Harakeke (Taupo Swamp). Retain the proposed area as green space.

It is also unclear as to whether Porirua City Council plan addresses up to 6 storeys or minimum of 6 story developments. If regulations state minimum of 6 storeys and PCC implements up to 6 storeys (max 22m) then we could argue that PCC could not be trusted not to change it to suit at a later date.

The concept of three three story dwellings crammed on to one typical residential site is absurd. To increase the density, three units on one site might be manageable but the height limits should remain as at present, generally limiting dwellings to two stories.

Fears for the squalid results that this new approach will produce. Planning medium and high density housing developments requires a high level of skill and experience, and unfortunately in New Zealand much of this development will be carried out by speculative developers and  designers inexperienced in this work, and particularly the social  and amenity  aspects. This will result in slum-like conditions, where daylight, privacy and general living amenities will be sub standard.

The early British settlers, and the more recent settlers from Asia, came here to get away from high density housing with its uncomfortable cramped and dingy living conditions. Why re-create this?  There have been many failures with type of development, and social  problems continue in Europe and other parts of the world. Extreme care is needed.

There are examples of two-storied multi-unit developments under construction in Grays road in Plimmerton, without the need to build up to three stories.

Submitter supports deleting this variation.

Submitter considers the concept of six storied apartment blocks in this neighbourhood is strange. Generally all the sites are small residential sites suited to single unit dwellings. It will take many years before the houses in question are demolished, and sites amalgamated to allow for economically viable apartment blocks to be built (they will need lifts) , to the detriment of adjoining owners. There may be some sense in greenfields developments to the north of Plimmerton, but even that is questionable.

Why the land between Steyne Avenue and the beach is zoned High Density is puzzling. There are restrictions on the land relating to rising sea levels and tsunami areas, and I understand that getting building consents for any new buildings  in this area will be almost impossible. Questions why it is zoned for High Density.

Ko Simon Barber toku ingoa. I tipu ake ahau i Pukerua Bay. He tikanga motuhake enei puke ki ahau. Kei te harikoa ahau ki te whakapuaki i tenei waahi ki te katoa o te hapori.

Extremely encouraged by the proactive engagement with Tangata Whenua and Ngati Toa Rangitira’s willingness to build a collaborative approach to this development. Looks forward to further engagement throughout the consenting phase and as we enter the construction programme enabling the iwi’s ongoing involvement.