Are Engineers & NZTA collaborating to 'gold-plate' roading projects?

Today a constituent complained to me about the $4.5M cost of removing a roundabout in front to Hamilton's 'The Base' and replacing it with a full traffic-signalled intersection. His complaint is quite justified, and I replied....

   In this case, both myself and one or two other Councillors suggested 'ramp metering' on the current roundabout, rather than the full, expensive signalised intersection. However, our traffic engineers, in their wisdom, have agreed with    NZTA's traffic engineers (who have masses of experience and never cock anything up) that the only solution is the gold-plated one.

   Interestingly, a number of people, including Councillors, raised the need for a signalised intersection here right back near the start of The Base – however the collected wisdom of the traffic engineers said this was not necessary at the time (when it would have been both cheaper and more affordable). 

   On our Council, with its current structures (including the disbanding the Transport & Infrastructure Committees), we do not usually have the expertise or focus to convince the majority of Councillors that the engineers are not necessarily right. An added complication is that on a number of occasions, NZTA has said to us – so our staff report – that their subsidy for roading works (I was going to say 'transport works' but remembered roads are the only part of transport NZTA funds nowdays) is only available if HCC agrees to go with the gold-plated solution. The general line from NZTA is "Have we got a deal for you!" or something similar.

   Needless to say, Councillors who are not so familiar with transport issues (which is most of us now, under the current structure) feel stuck between a rock and a hard place, and end up agreeing to go with NZTA and our traffic engineers, with what they consider to be the only deal on the table.

   You might be interested to know that it is not just The Base intersection where we are contemplating spending megabucks to achieve a gold-plated roading solution, when something lesser would do, at least for some time:

• Extension of Wairere Drive south from Ruakura Rd to Cobham Drive – 3 or more years ahead of schedule: for 12 years Council has had a policy that we don't support completing the ring road (this is the last section) until the Hamilton Bypass on the Expressway is completed – because we don't want Wairere Drive, an internal city road designed for city traffic – to be used as a de factor state highway for through traffic (like Avalon Drive was for many years). Our staff tell us that NZTA is refusing to guarantee the normal subsidy for this stretch of the road unless we start it immediately the section through to Ruakura Rd is completed (next year) - this is at least 3 years ahead of schedule.
• 4-laning of Wairere Drive from River Rd to Resolution Drive – this may become necessary when Resolution Drive is hooked up to the Expressway via exit and entry ramps near Horsham Downs (and a significant increase in traffic entering the city from the north happens). But this work (which Council may have to pay towards) is not in our 10 year plan for construction at all, yet staff are planning to expand Wairere Drive in this area next year, and have told me that NZTA have agreed to provide their subsidy for other parts of Wairere Drive only on the basis that this work is part of the deal. With the new traffic lights being installed at River Rd/Wairere Dr intersection, it is not necessary at this stage to expand the road east of there.

But then who am I to question the engineers?

Minister should think more carefully on asset sales

   Local Government Minister David Carter needs to think carefully before advocating sweeping asset sales by local councils, as he seems to be doing at the moment. The lessons of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia have not been learnt by Governments that think you can balance the ledger with one-off asset sales.
   When the Lange 'Labour' Govt flogged off KiwRail for a pittance (after campaigning in 1984 to save it - yeah, right!), it clearly didn't have a clue about the downstream costs of doing so - line closures, price rises, job losses, station closures and, eventually very expensive Government bailouts and buy-backs.
   Here in Hamilton, the 1990's City Council corporatised its power company, losing effective control for 99 years, and condemning its community to years of sharply rising power price rises. it was only narrowly prevented from completely flogging it off, with community trustees being forced to raise megabucks to buy out foreign corporate raiders.
   Selling airport shares can sound attractive at first glance, but if you think an airport is a strategic asset that a community or region needs for reasons like economic development, tourism, convenience of local residents, etc. then you would need to make sure any purchaser was willing to forego market returns on investment in order to keep the strategic asset as a going and affordable concern. Of course there are some purely commercial assets that Councils can, and probably should, sell - in Hamilton's case, it is time that the Novotel/Ibis Hotels shares are sold - the investment has done its job of ensuring sufficient quality visitor accomodation is available, the market conditions are reasonable, so lets sell that one, and use SOME of the proceeds to pay off debt, while ensuring vital social and community services continue.
   But don't sell pensioner housing, and community recreation facilities like the YMCA, unless you can be guaranteed their new owners will stay in the game for which those assets were intended. And if you do, make damn sure the proceeds of social asset sales like these are re-invested for the purposes they were originally intended!
   Finally, its all very well for Mr Carter to say the V8s was an event Hamilton CC shouldn't have funded (isn't 20/20 hindsight a wonderful thing?), and that the Ellerslie Flower Show in Christchurch is a "good" event for a Council to run - if he checked all the facts, he would know HCC tried to 'purchase' the Flower Show when Auckland decided to can it, only to be outbid by Christchurch City. Had Hamilton put up the $1-2 million Christchurch CC forked out, we might have had the 'good' event and Christchurch might have been left with the V8s - to add to their CEO's salary!

Council community services lack creative thinking

   Listening to submitters today opposing the sale of Hamilton City Counil's pensioner housing units, I was struck by the contrast between the way the local government system, including our own, creatively and strategically supports the funding and development of corporate projects and big sporting and other events, while being strangely quiet and un-strategic when support is needed for important community services and even amateur sport services targeting our youth. 
   Council management, egged on often by Council leadership, regularly come up with creative concepts for spending relatively vast amounts on infrastructure needed for industrial and commercial developments, or funding packages for events like world cups of professional sport or stadia and theatres servicing the high-end needs - but when faced with keeping a local pool open, a few pensioner flats upgraded, community centres open, or sports centres for schoolkids available; the creative juices of local government management and leadership, not to mention much of the corporate community, inexplicably dry up. 
   There is a crying need for professional and political leaderships within local govt to get into the game - in these trying economic times - of advocating for social and community needs to be met, and proposing creative funding and development packages that will address those needs. 
   We cannot rely on central govt - of any stripe - to meet these needs; at best they can help local communities meet these needs, but their one size fits all approach is unlikely to cut the mustard in most communities.

Council's Floodgate debacle - can we learn some lessons?

   Of 28,000 letters sent to Hamilton ratepayers warning their property was a 'flood risk', it seems that well over half were in reality incorrect and should never have been sent; and all lacked the detail needed to substantiate the Council claims. As a result of the letters, hundreds if not thousands of ratepayers have been worried and upset unnecessarily. To add insult to injury, another 450 letters were sent only 5 days later warning ratepayers in the eastern suburbs that their properties were 'affected' by nearby high voltage powerlines and would have new restrictions placed on them - again without details. Neither of these letters were seen by elected members in advance.

   Why have these debacles occurred? And what have we learnt from them?

   Hamilton City Council's elected members have been focussing so much on a 'pure' governance model taken from the pages of the corporate structure handbook, that we have forgotten that we live in a real world where staff and management do not know everything, but where Councillors and Mayors are elected for their knowledge of the real world, and their experience (which in many cases is greater than that of staff, in my humble opinion).

   We no longer have specialist Council committees dealing with Transport, Infrastructure, Planning, Parks & Gardens, etc, but have gone to the corporate model of 'Strategy & Planning', 'Operations & Performance' and 'Finance & Project Monitoring' - all fine-sounding titles, but all in reality meaning elected Councillors are kept miles away from the details of Council's operations until far too late.

   We over-reacted after the V8's fiasco by chucking the baby out with the bathwater. We always had a Finance Committee, but it hadn't been given complete information, and hadn't sought it until too late. We have set up an Audit & Risk Committee now which is a useful 'check & balance' tool, but again not something that will automatically spot key missing components until well down the track.

   In a Council like ours, with high management turnover, the collected institutional knowledge of Councillors is  greater than that of management, and of many staff in key positions - but is frequently undervalued by the current 'leadership'.

   Some Councillors are suggesting that by giving the new CEO and his management all the day to day power we have taken our eyes off the ball, leaving elected members 'at the mercy of someone's incompetence' as one put it to me.

   Staff have technical training and some (but not complete) technical knowledge - that does NOT translate automatically into them getting everything right, and there is no amount you can pay them to guarantee 'completely right'. We should not put them in the position of being assumed to be always right - so the sooner we reinstate the checks and balances of the previous governance structure, the better - in my opinion. The sooner the whole Council starts acting like a partnership - staff and elected members, each with their own complementary roles - also the better.

   Part of the solution is to return to more specialist oversight of key operational areas of Council - where the big bucks are being spent, and the big problems could occur - we need a Transport/Infrastructure Committee, a Community Services Committee - and we especially need a Planning Committee where District Plans, and Structure Planning for new areas get the attention they deserve from those elected to be responsible. These will complement the current necessary Finance and Audit & Risk Committees, which should be retained.

What will it be like in 20 years if we do nothing?

  After 3 weeks in England, it is blindingly obvious that every local and regional (County) Council is asking itself the question: ‘what will our cities and towns be like in 20 years if we just do ‘business as usual’ and don’t seriously address the growing car problem?’

  Not one of the ones I’ve seen has taken the ‘build more roads’ option – the political colour of the local and national administrations seems to make liitle difference, except round the edges. I’ve seen Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat and even one Green city administration – they are all working hard on public transport and cycling & walking solutions to ensure their communities are liveable in the future.

   One transport innovation that has the Brits justifiably enthusiastic is the newly opened ‘Cambridgeshire Guided Busway’ – the longest such in the world, with a total length of over 32kms. In an area similar in size and population to the central Waikato, the Conservative Party-led equivalent of the regional Council has developed a dedicated bus network, partly on old railway lines, linking 2 outlying commuter towns and 2 new development areas (one not yet built) to the old centre of Cambridge, the well-known University town with a 90,000 population.

  The buses travel up to 90kmh out of the city, but just use the normal bus routes and bus lanes inside Cambridge. In every respect bar the small mechanical guide wheels they are normal new buses similar to the Hamilton Orbiters (except for a couple of double-deckers, but in the first month recorded a 92% increase in passenger numbers over the last month of the routes they replaced.

  Well-used shared cycle/walkways parallel the guided busway out of the towns, linking also to a nationally important wetland area that was previously run down and almost inaccessible to the public.

First impressions - after 3 days 'On the Road'

Visits to Winchester, Brighton and Portsmouth in my 1st three days in the UK have shown a few common threads.... [Pic: on-street cycle parking in central Brighton]

  1/. how much more safety-conscious in the cities people are here - all three have extensive areas of 20mph (=30kph) road speed zones in residential and central city commercial districts - something that is clearly widely bought into by the travelling public, with almost zero enforcement needed. Portsmouth - with 94% of the city covered by these slow speed zones - has recently turned off all their speed cameras, while the police are at the same time saying they don't have the resources to police the lower limits - BUT there is still no obvious speeding problem, and average speeds have dropped;
  2/. how the 1980s and 1990s privatisation of public transport has led to really high fares and an almost complete inability by local councils and communities to have any control over bus, rail and tram services, and their pricing. Already I'm hearing a common thread of complaints by staff and elected members in councils here about how difficult it is to plan for future land use and transport needs;

  3/. how much more cycling, and cycle facility provision, there is here - while the weather and traffic volumes are noticeably worse - I'll have to find out the secret of this!

  4/. How proud staff and Councillors have been about their transport initiatives, and how keen they have been to discuss them, and show them to me.

Hong Kong & Zurich transport report

  Two vastly different cities on the way to the UK, but a day spent in each showed some similarities in the area of modern transport planning..... [Pic: double-decker buses, and trams (!) in Hong Kong]

  Hong Kong (6M population) & Zurich (a bit over 1M, similar to Auckland) both had modern, frequent, quick and reasonably cheap rail links between the airport and their CBDs, and other major centres - both also used effective new light rail links within the airport to shuttle people around between terminals, arrival halls & baggage claims, etc. The effect of these services kept traffic and resulting congestion on the roads in and around the airport within manageable levels - Auckland could learn a lot from them [Heathrow in London had similar services & it appears Auckland may be the odd one out!]
  In terms of large city CBD planning, both also had extensive underground walkways (especially Hong Kong) linking transport services with shopping areas, and in Hong Kong's case enabling these areas to have multiple usage, freeing up a surprising amount of above-ground land for aesthetically pleasing parks, gardens & piazzas. 
  There was a clear effort to ensure major transport systems did not detract too much from the quality of residents' and visitors' city experiences  - again more lessons for Auckland and perhaps the rest of us.
  Zurich also had an excellent 'Zurich Card' - for about NZ$30/day, transfers between the airport & downtown, all local travel on buses, trams, trains, ferries and the tourist cable-car were covered, as well as providing free entry to the city's 35-odd museums, and discounts at various restaurants and retail outlets - something all NZ cities could usefully copy!
  Both cities also had pretty good transport information displays, signage and electronic ticket self-service systems - both at stops, major stations and in other public areas - even a newbie like me was finding his way around without help within an hour or so of arriving in each place.

On the Road - first of a series of columns from Europe

Dave Macpherson is the recipient of a 2011 Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship – for as study trip to the UK & The Netherlands looking at what New Zealand can learn from practical examples of good public transport systems and cycling and pedestrian facilities in medium and smaller cities and towns.

  Last month Cambridgeshire County in England saw the opening of a ‘guided busway’ network between the central city of Cambridge and the ‘necklace’ of smaller towns surrounding it – an area similar in population and structure to the central Waikato.

  The network is the newest and most advanced example in the UK of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, where public transport links significant employment centres with suburbs and towns that the staff live in. Bus routes are typically separate from the main roads, or (when part of them) have dedicated bus lanes, and bus priority measures at intersections.

  In a couple of weeks I’ll be experiencing the Cambridge BRT first hand, and seeing what we can learn from both the successes and delays and cost overruns they experienced!

Brighton and Hove, on England’s South Coast, won national awards for its network of ‘home zones’ where residential and suburban streets have 20mph (30kph) speed limits, and ‘shared space’  road corridor designs that encourage pedestrian and cyclist priority use of the streets, and cars – while not ‘second class citizens’ – have to negotiate roads with care and consideration for more vulnerable users.

  In the Netherlands, I’ll be looking at the same type of place, in towns like Haren, Houten and Drachten (where the ‘shared space’ concept was born), and at the amazing network of cycling facilities that country has built up.

Some of these have been in place for 30-40 years, and have helped the Dutch develop, and accept as part of their everyday life, a whole new culture around safer use of roads, and acceptance of walking and cycling as healthier, cheaper and very often quicker means of transport.

  In Hamilton and the wider Waikato, we’ve been trialling 40kph zones outside schools, and better methods of slowing traffic in suburban streets than the old ‘hump in the middle of the road’. Until two years ago, we also had nation-leading growth in bus usage, but which has stagnated or even gone backwards recently.

  If we want to continue to be leading lights in New Zealand of transport innovation, including safer roads for all users, it is important that we learn from best practice wherever it happens – I hope my study trip will bring back a lot we can learn from.

Community organisation wins the day!

  I've attended two great events in the last two days that show the great value in communities organising for things they want or need......
  On Thursday 14th October, the Mardon Rd community successfully stopped plans for yet another suburban liquor store being plonked (so to speak) in their midst. As a successful community protest march was starting up, news came in that the public opposition to the liquor licence had caused the applicants to withdraw their application to the City Council.
  Over 1200 submissions in opposition had already been organised, and will still be delivered to the Council to reinforce a very widespread community view that there are far too many local booze shops, and that they are far too accessible for communities already suffering from the effects of a booze culture.
  Today (Friday 15th Oct) I was at the opening of the 4km Horsham Downs to Hamilton cycling/walking track - not something that either Waikato District or Hamilton City Councils had installed FOR the community, BUT a facility that the local Horsham Downs community had itself planned, fundraised and organised for, with work and materials provided by the local community.
  Hundreds of primary schoolkids from both Horsham Downs and Te Totara Primary schools attended, and showed their support for both the project (a winner of the inaugural Celia Wade-Brown active transport award) and for the Cancer Society, which the opening was fundraising for.
  Congratulations to both communities - motre power to your arms!

Eastgate legal opinion vindicates community stand

  A high-powered legal opinion received by the Hamilton City Council has shown staff should NOT have issued a 'Certificate of Compliance' (resource consent) for the Eastgate development on the corner of Clyde and Grey Sts in Hamilton East.
  The opinion - by Paul Cavanagh QC - also states that a 'consent notice' preventing access by the Eastgate developers onto the busy Grey St should not have been removed by Council staff.
  Both actions by Council planning staff - supported by well-paid lawyers - were strongly opposed by the Hamilton East Community Trust, who were at a total financial disadvantage throughout the battle, with both the millionaire applicant, and the Council opposing them at every stage. HECT's 'expert' witnesses in the end refused to attend the Environment Court on behalf of HECT, when HECT ran out of cash to pay their appearance costs, thuse severely damaging the community's case. Both Council and the Ministry of the Environment had earlier refused to fund any of the community's legal costs.
  The opinion is a complete vindication of the community's stand, as represented by the HECT.
  This whole case is a sad and unfortunate indictment of the way in which a number of planning consent issues have been handled in Council (and probably not just in Hamilton). Developers - with every advantage of funds, experience, access to decision-makers, and familiarity with the legal/planning fraternity - are often on a different (and vastly superior) playing field to the community.
  Councils and their staff must change the way they look at planning consent issues when there is a strongly-expressed community viewpoint - they may not be required to take into account the community's interests, but if they are doing their jobs they damn well ought to, in my humble opinion!
  Recent concerns expressed by the Templeview community over the proposed demolition of Church College buildings by the US-based Church hierarchy were another case in point. It was extremely difficult to get Council staff to agree to seriously consult with the local community over these plans.
  The fact that two Hamilton City Councillors had to pay towards the legal costs of the HECT, just to ensure a genuinely independent legal opinion was accessed, is not good enough - I hope everyone has learnt a lesson from this.

Lower school speed zones campaign gains momentum

The unanimous decision by Selwyn District Council last week to reduce speed limits outside 7 schools in their District is a sensible one, made in the interests of safety for our most vulnerable road users.
The fact that some schools may not meet the normal NZ Transport Authority criteria for lower speed zones shows up at least two issues:
1. How out of date and potentially ‘unsafe’ NZTA criteria could be; and
2. How little control ‘Road Controlling Authorities’ like District and city councils really have over roads in their areas.
Hamilton City Council has progressively introduced lower (40kph) speed zones outside 48 of its schools over the last three years, but is having trouble convincing NZTA that the remaining 7 schools without these zones deserve and need the same treatment.
At the next meeting of the Hamilton City Council Transport Committee we will be discussing how our Council and the affected communities in Hamilton can break through the same NZTA barriers to achieve a safer environment for all of our children.
We hope that the Government’s transport agency will see sense and help, rather than hinder, this move.
Good work Selwyn District Council, and the Selwyn communities who have fought for this for so long.

Simple rating fix for CBD = wishful thinking

   The Waikato Times (18-8-10) has suggested that Hamilton City faces a choice of a residential ratepayer $300 'subsidy' of CBD commercial properties in order to reduce CBD rates.
   The truth is that the issue is far  more complex than suggested by the Times... they have proposed reduced rates for the CBD would come about by introducing a capital value rating system (rating on the value of both land and buildings, as opposed to the current land value-only rating system) - a number of Councillors have jumped on this bandwagon, including Mayoral candidate Roger Hennebry, who should have known better.
   And it is interesting to see Gordon Chesterman calling the current Council 'gutless' for shieing away from the issue - I don't recall him putting any sort of alternative rating proposition forward during the whole of his 6 years on Council, but then its election time!
   The facts (although you shouldn't let them get in the way of a good story!) show that if you introduced capital value rating, many CBD commercial premises would actually face massive rate increases - so that would be no solution for them, would it?
   In 2000 a previous Council actually proposed a partial introduction of capital rating, with the balance remaining on land value - even under that cut-down version, I recall one small CBD cafe/lunchbar facing a rates increase of several hundred percent; clearly not sustainable. That suggested change involved about 8-10,000 ratepayers getting an increase in rates, and about the same number getting a rates cut....of course most of the 8-10,000 in line for an increase vigorously opposed the change, and almost none of those getting a cut submitted in support - so it died a quick death.
   The same would happen again if any Council was foolish enough to try and bring in capital value rating.
   What I suggested to the Times, but they didn't report, was that Council look at reducing the 'commercial differential' (the percentage loading that is put on all commercial prioperties when compared with residential ones) for CBD properties -rates income lost on this should be spread across other commercial properties outside the CBD as there is currently an uneven playing field with most non-CBD commercial property having significantly lower land values (and therefore rates) than CBD commercial properties.
   Under this scenario, The Base and Westfield Chartwell (who pay miniscule rates compared with similar developments elesewhere) would pay a slightly larger share, while CBD properties would pay less.
   There need be no increase on residential rates in order to do this - this and other alternatives also ought to be canvassed by the Times.
   Of course, this suggestion is by no means the complete answer - parking, promotion, CBD activities and sprucing up the CBD shops will also all need to play their part.

When is an 'independent' opinion not independent?

   This is the question opponents of the proposed Eastgate development on the busy Hamilton East corner of Clyde & Grey Sts have been asking themselves, after City Council management sought an 'independent' opinion on the legality of questionable Council planning processes from the very same lawyer Council management had paid to represent the Council in the April Environment Court hearing over the development.

    The Hamilton East Community Trust had discovered that strong restrictions on vehicle access to the Eastgate site had been listed on the property title at the time Council planners had approved the development - limits that meant the development plans could not have been legally approved. Then, days after the development was approved, Council planners retrospectively removed the restrictions without the normal consultation, allowing the Eastgate proposal the vehicle access it needed.

   When the Trust complained to Council management, and asked for an independent legal review of this abuse of process, Council management amazingly sought an opinion from the same solicitor who had run Council's case in the Appeal by the Trust against Eastgate, someone who had received information about this process 'problem' months earlier, but not advised Council management.

   Apart from completely changing the character of this former convent site, the development will add traffic chaos to an already highly-congested route, which is also part of the flagship Orbiter bus route and the main route between the city and the University. The people who want to build the development, and those who approved it, using shonky processes, need their heads read!

Traffic Problems at the Base to worsen before they improve!

   Residents of the northern suburbs will be acutely aware of the traffic problems both inside and outside The Base at certain times of the week – Saturdays regularly being a problem.
   Original calculations of the number of vehicles using the Base and the access roads to it – provided to the City Council and the NZ Transport Agency at the time consents were applied for - were obviously inaccurate, and roads and intersections were therefore not built to cope with the volumes we see on occasions.
   This problem is likely to worsen in the near future as the following developments – none of which can legally be stopped – get built and start operating:
• Farmers Mall at The Base (with nearly 1,000 extra carparks)
• New development at the Base to the north of Mitre 10
• Countdown Supermarket across the highway from The Base entrance
• 5 new office blocks at the corner of Church & Maui Sts
• Large petrol station on the corner of Te Kowhai Rd and the Highway
   In addition, Council is aware that The Base intends to put further developments in the north east corner of their site (in front of Mitre 10), the owners of the Eagle Spares site across the Highway are looking to develop that, and a number of new smaller developments are happening down The Boulevard past Harvey Norman.
   The new Te Rapa Bypass, taking the current highway from Horotiu to Avalon Drive, to the west away from this area is 3-4 years away from completion, and will probably only help the Council mark time with traffic growth in the north.
   One of the major causes of the problems in the area has been the unwillingness of The Base owners to inform Council as to their full plans for the whole site – they are ‘drip-feeding’ development applications segment by segment without ever giving the full picture. This has meant that it is impossible to properly plan for traffic growth and other transport options in the area, as The Base is the major player, and what it does affects everyone else. While they contributed in a small way to the cost of new intersections outside The Base when it first started, traffic growth generated by their development has outstripped capacity of the roads and public transport services.
   The City Council is grappling with how to get this problem area under control, so residents and businesses travelling through the area are not adversely affected more than at present – watch this space!

Cowboy developer given green light for Clyde St debacle

The Environment Court this week predictably turned down an appeal by Hamilton East community representatives against Council approval for a retail building and carparks in the old convent site on the corner of Clyde and Grey Sts in Hamilton East.

The 'development' (to very loosely use the phrase) will cause traffic chaos on what is already the busiest intersection of the highly-congested route between the CBD and the University, and on the key Orbiter bus route for the whole city, not to mention putting up an ugly 2-storey square block, complete with asphalted carparks on a former historical site (I say former given that the developer bowled the trees and the iconic brick wall on the corner in the early hours of the morning, and was called a 'cowboy' by Council management for doing so).

The appeal predictably lost after not one of the professional witnesses the Hamilton East Community Trust lined up was willing to come to court to give evidence, because the Trust wasn't able to pay them in advance - they had already been paid $thousands for preparing written material which the Court then refused to allow to be discussed in court because the authors were not present.

For the record, both the Government's community legal aid fund and the Council refused to assist with the Trust's legal costs, even though the Trust was promoting Council's own strategies.

In the hearing, the developer's and Council's lawyers attempted to belittle the evidence of the two non-professional community witnesses to make sure nothing they had to say about community aspirations were taken account of - reading the 'judgement', this clearly worked. The judge and panel were not from the area, and clearly have no interest in whether Hamilton develops to the benefit of its residents or not!

The traffic impact reports prepared by both the developer's and Council's consultants were pathetic, to put it kindly, making zero acknowledgement of the Council's own transport strategy to REDUCE congestion in this busy precinct, where two schools and two existing shopping centres already contribute to the traffic chaos.

The whole case shows Hamilton City Council's planning processes in a very bad light - we have all the wonderful strategies in the world to promote transport access, safeguard heritage precincts and encourage good urban design, but follow archaic planning practices that move the city in completely the opposite direction.

STOP PRESS: The City Council CEO, Michael Redman, has decided HCC will NOT be pursuing costs against the Community Trust.

Church College Buildings to remain?

Its looking increasingly like the LDS Church top hierarchy has moved to pull their property arm into line, and halt or slow down their mad rush to demolish the historic Church College buildings.

The word coming out of Templeview is that the buildings will remain, and that appropriate alternative uses are being looked at for much of the school.

If correct, this is a good thing, and a great reminder that communities sticking to their guns can eventually win the day!

David Bennett should remember he's there to represent Hamilton

City Councillor Peter Bos is absolutely right to lambast the Ministry of Education and, by inference, Hamilton East MP David Bennett for delays to the building of the long-promised Rototuna High School. David Bennett needs to remember he's been put down in Parliament by Hamilton East residents to represent them, and to advocate for their needs - NOT to explain away why the Government is going to back off on providing this much-needed community facility for another 5-6 years.

Bennett's reluctance to go into bat for his own electorate might win brownie points in Wellington, but will go down like a cup of cold sick in Hamilton. It comes on top of his attacks on the proposed passenger rail service between Hamilton and Auckland (see 11,500 can't be wrong below), and his support for the Huntly Bypass section of the Waikato Expressway to be built before the Hamilton Bypass. Whose side are you on, David?

LDS 'US property tycoons' slammed

The LDS Church hierarchy in Auckland, Sydney and Salt Lake City is way out of line in appealing against Hamilton City Council's decision to protect buildings and the general heritage 'character' of the Church College and Mormon temple precincts in the Templeview village.

Local residents - and several generations of Church College former students - are clearly opposed to the wish by the LDS property tycoons to demolish the College buildings. There is also evidence that these same people had initially proposed to demolish at least part of the iconic Mormon Temple, and they have certainly called for the removal from the Council's District Plan of the heritage 'overlay' for the Temple precinct - which if enacted would make it harder for anyone to change this structure.

Templeview, its Temple, the Church College buildings and the row of staff houses on Tuhikaramea Rd, have been an iconic part of the Hamilton community for over 50 years and deserve the protection that the City Council has proposed for them. It might be alright for the US businessmen running the LDS church's property division to rip in and bust old buildings in the USA - affecting whole communities, but they will have to come to grips with the fact that New Zealand is different, and they can't just do what they like with a community that is as special as this one.

These LDS US property tycoons - not to be confused with the church's religious leaders, who have had no say in this decision - have appealed against ALL of the City Council's decisions to provide heritage protection under 'Variation 7' to its District Plan. There is great consternation in both the city's Mormon community (11,000-strong), and the general community - many Mormons feel constrained about criticising decisions by any of their leadership, but many others are openly saying that the decision to close the College, demolish the buildings, and oppose any heritage protection arrangements is wrong, and is counterproductive for the LDS Church.

Variation 7 - Hamilton's District Plan supports heritage & special character areas in Templeview

The Hamilton City Council has today unanimously supported changes to its planning regulations (District Plan) that provide stronger protection for the special character of the Templeview village, including the Church College of NZ campus (slated for closure & demolition by the Salt Lake City-based LDS Church hierarchy) and the iconic LDS Temple.
This marks a great move forward for heritage protection in Hamilton City, with Templeview now joining Frankton's 'Railway Village' settlement, Hamilton East's 'Hayes Paddock' and the Claudelands West area as deserving of recognition and preservation of their special characters. The main Hamilton East block is next to be looked at, early in 2010.