City councillors will this evening give their final approval for a long-term “sustainable village community” in the Mangaroa Valley.
The Maymorn Structure Plan, which, during the next 20 years, could realise a community of 1800 properties of various density and housing more than 4000 people, will be sited on the north-eastern corner of the Mangaroa Valley and bound by the river and surrounding hills.
The detailed plan, which already has been more than five years in development under the umbrella of the city’s Urban Growth Strategy, will now be available for public input and consultation, with submissions and hearings in late August.
“This is an exciting concept for Upper Hutt. We are creating a village in a rural environment that will be the envy of a lot of other local authorities in the … region,” councillor Nellie Gillies said.
“It’s a whole new way of looking at development,” she said, asking people to read it “thoroughly and impartially” even though the project was years away from a start “and has to be seen in that light”.
Pat Christianson said Upper Hutt was fortunate it was able to promote such a development.
“Not many councils in New Zealand could do this like this.”
Others spoke of the importance of the city’s commitment to the sustainability of the long-term planning project.
“My concern is we really push the sustainability [of it] … so that it’s not just a word,” Mary Archibald said. Dean Rabbitt agreed. “This is a great opportunity to signal our commitment to sustainability, development and standards.”
Just what is exciting and sustainable about a money-driven plan to destroy a unique and beautiful valley? Is it only a year (or thereabouts) since Malcolm Gillies’ plan for intensive urbanisation in this same valley, under the title of “The Lanes” was thrown out? What is his involvement in this project? How much are the financial “gifts” he has to pay the UH City Council to bulldoze through his plans? He already has the Mount Maruia project under his belt, with unsightly buildings creeping along the hilltops and ruining the clean green outlook for trampers and other recreational users. He is currently cramming cheap “Golden Homes” housing on ex-mayor Rex Kirton’s land by getting the Council to bend the “interpretation” of the District Plan to put 14 building sites on what was first advertised as three rural sections by the Professionals. The smallest will be around half an acre compared with the district plan limitation of 1 hectare on the valley’s hills. He must be feeling really smug that this never went to resource consent. How can we trust any plan put forward by this Council, when they so readily bend the rules for their favourite developer? Once this Valley is destroyed and gone, we can never get it back. This should be preserved as a genuine rural community, accessible for additional recreational use. Who will want to come out to visit a built-up urban sprawl? Your heading almost got it right – “Far-reaching” – Yes… “Sustainable” – NO!
Tony thanks for your views and informing the debate.
My own personal view is that “eco” (god awful term) communities that can do less harm than conventional suburbia, are a better prospect for greenfield developments. One of the impacts of restricting urban growth to protect rural areas is that it pushes up the cost of housing in the condensed urban areas, making them less and less affordable for all who need housing. A brownfield development is theoretically most ideal but in practice that land is rapidly snapped up by commercial interests. I agree there are rigid guidelines which should govern any development like this irregardless of how it markets itself. However whilst we miss the opportunity to show environmentally sustainable solutions on a decent scale (like Maymorn has the ‘potential’ to), we will never break the habit of commodity housing, unaffordable housing and environmental disasters in urban areas and not just where people like to hike. I have seen very old communities in remote parts of Europe where people can successfully live in harmony with the wild as custodians. I acknowledge it might not be everyone’s cup of tea. Thanks for your views and stimulating an important debate.
Thanks for your comments “Admin” – do you have a real name? Please visit this site to see the depth of opposition to this plan. http://www.maymorn.org.nz/ This plan is flawed, based on erroneous statistics, unwanted, unnecessary. And, it’s not greenfields development. Cheers, Tony