No room for high-density ‘hovels’
The Government introduced new legislation at the end of last year requiring councils to make changes to their planning rules to enable more housing to be built.
Te Puke is one of two towns in the district that fit the brief for the new law.
The proposed new rules would allow sites to have up to three buildings of up to three storeys.
We asked, on Facebook, whether the changes are something people should be worried about. Here are some of the responses:
Yes . . . and totally unnecessary as the green fields already allocated for housing have the capacity to more than cater for the extra growth (3000 more people) .
The present upgrade to the wastewater only provides for an extra 3000 people anyway so unless we pay for a further upgrade (God help the Kaituna) we are limited by our infrastructure.
Not to mention I don’t know any developer who would not chop down an established tree if it meant they could make more profit. Our big trees are no longer protected especially on private land . . . Don’t start me on the potential loss of our villas and bungalows when Kainga Ora comes to town. I know people need housing and some areas of our town could be appropriate for intensification, but there are other solutions that could be explored.
Te Puke barely reached the threshold for this rule and council did not challenge the ruling even though they know our infrastructure (both horizontal and social) are not able to cope with exponential growth. For goodness sake we have to wait years for any improvement to the library/ swimming pool and meanwhile our social infrastructure is being inundated by people from Pa¯ pa¯ moa.. Raponi Te Rangika¯tukua
I support going up rather than out, we need to lessen our footprint in terms of spread as this is adversely impacting on our natural environment more so than intensification. We need to leave our green and natural areas and improve our current infrastructure i.e. wastewater management etc to support the urban intensification these new rules will bring. This is a positive move, we need to stop thinking about ourselves and our comfort and think more sustainably.
Mereana Te Pere
Going up is a much better option. Urban sprawl is a waste of space and resources. Shared parks and green spaces and communal living is the way of the future. It’s projected that by 2090, around 60% of Earth’s land mass will be urban areas. So we need to future-proof for that.
Great. At the expense of neighbours who will lose all their sun and light into their homes.
Their privacy in their yard with 3storey homes close to their boundaries.
Yeah it all sounds great for existing homeowners and neighbours but too bad for the locals as long as the council can collect more money by jamming more people into smaller spaces, hence why they are allowing 3-storey homes with at least 3 to an original section that only had one home previously.
Go do it in new subdivisions but not in existing properties.
And guess what, as a neighbour there is nothing you can do about it.
It’s sad. One thing about Te Puke is how pretty it is with wide, treelined streets and homes with lawns and gardens. It’s a beautiful little township that locals are very proud of
Can we like-minded folk form a group? I feel this has been imposed on us — it’s OK if you buy into a subdivision or development where the three-storey three-buildings rule operates, but not when you are sweet- talked into selling to a rip-off agent who wants to develop using the new rules. I’d be happy to host a group of activists — non-violent — just verbal.
Elizabeth Howell, its already been put in place by central government. No amount of discussion is going to change it unless you can convince the council to improve the services where they can.
Paul J. Hickson
A solution that could rob neighbours of sunlight and amenity. When you invest in a home and choose it because you love its outlook and patios or rooms that are sunny, then this could detrimentally affect lifestyles. OK if the three-storey buildings sit on larger sections and do not shade neighbours. However, having observed the closeness of new houses in new subdivisions, I think us nimbys will be outdone by the sunrobbers.
Paul J. Hickson, sunrobbers doesn’t sound like a life-or-death situation compared to homelessness, get your point tho but there’s plenty of sun just go outside.
Unfortunately Alex Chen, the apartments that developers I have spoken to that are wanting to build, will be too expensive for those desperate for homes. It’s going to be a case of the developers getting richer
while the poor get poorer again.
Gonna need 3-storey roads as well. Trish Keen Bailey
Also happening here in Rotorua. Rob daylight and views from singlestorey homes already built. Devalue single story. Worst part they won’t need resource consent or permission from neighbours; I am going to put in a submission.
There is so much land around Te Puke, but you can’t subdivide below 20ha. Fix that rather than build highdensity hovels. If the infrastructure can’t cope with subdivisions less than 20ha how will it cope with highdensity housing??
Pete Pat Sanders
A large proportion of families today own 2 cars, so we will end up with possibly 6 cars per section. Good luck trying to park that lot each night.
I hope they also plan to ensure that these buildings have soundproof walls and floors because people will lose their nut when they can hear their neighbours . . . coming from someone that grew up in this kind of “triplex” environment. And with building materials so scarce, when is this going to go be able to actually have an impact?
And what about the thousands who have purchased for the views offered & probably paid extra to have those views whose properties will now be devalued if someone chooses to build in front & completely block them — not to mention the entire reason for choosing that property has been stolen away from them!? I’m OK with developing more properties for population increases, but those already established with views must be protected!!