- 28 Apr 2012
- Wellington Scoop
- Accepted from Wellington Scoop features 55 weeks ago by feedreader
- Tagged as:
This newsitem has 10 comments.
- ‘I agree that the public should be consulted to a certain extent, and opinions noted. But they should never be allowed to make the decision in entirety, as this tabloid style article is implying should be the case. The simple fact is the general public, generally, know nothing about designing public space or buildings. The consultation process for Waitangi Park, for instance, had some very talented and well informed people on the committee that knew a lot about urban design. I trusted them to make a good, informed decision just like you would trust any professional person to do a job you are not trained in. And yes it wasn’t the public favourite, but it was streets ahead of the public favourite in terms of urban planning, design and future development. That is if you knew what you were looking for. ’
- ‘Thanks Michael, That means ‘consultation should include every interested party’ particularly citizens when decisions are being made about public land; public assets; rates etc. This has not been the case to date, including decisions made on the Waterfront, Town belt and rates rises. How can we comment on fiscal savings when we don’t have full accounts to examine? Too complicated, yet most of us run housekeeping budgets at least. And Maximus, who are the three talking about new buildings on the waterfront? ’
- ‘WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID Extracts from Environment Court Decision dated 24 April 2012, “………….while Wellington Watch has an extensive history of involvement with decision-making at the waterfront, the Council did not consult directly with Waterfront Watch. The Council held the view that general public consultation is not a requirement….. “ While the RMA sets out a minimum consultation requirement, it certainly does not preclude wider consultation. Given the history of this particular organisation in the planning of the Wellington waterfront, we find it rather extraordinary that the Council chose not to consult it. The attitude that the Council … knew what they were going to say anyway … is presumptuously dismissive. Engagement with Waterfront Watch would have informed the Council of matters clearly missing from its own analysis, as we have come to learn through this hearing and which we discuss elsewhere. (Emphasis added.) “ …………Underlying (Waterfront Watch’s) position is an unspoken but readily discernable view that the Council cannot be relied on to get it right, and that only public opinion and action, litigious or otherwise, has averted poor planning and design outcomes on the waterfront in the past. “………….Much has been said about the public participation philosophy of the Act, and we need not review that here, save to say that we see it as a cornerstone of the Act’s processes which should not be dispensed with unless the reasons are cler and compelling. “………….We find that the s32 report is deficient in that [a] It is founded on a misconceived conception (about height) [b] While consultation was undertaken to meet the statutory minimum, a key party to the formulation of waterfront policy was excluded from consultation, [c] (It) does not consider the environmental outcomes associated with the specific proposed rules.” ’
You can view the remaining comments and submit your own here.
This item has had the following tags applied to it:
- waterfront by autotagger
- places (automatically derived from ancestor tags)
- media (automatically derived from publisher's tags)
No geotags have been applied to this item.
Add tags to this items: