Tauranga City Council have rejected developer Bob Clarkson's request to have his Tauriko development declared a ‘Special Housing Area' under the affordable housing accord.
'This town does not encourage entrepreneurs and visionaries and I apologise to the people of Tauranga because it looks like in this town, you are going to lose your change for discounted houses for working class people,” says Bob.
Bob Clarkson has seen his request to have his Tauriko development declared a ‘Special Housing Area' rejected.
'Working class people in this town haven't got a dog's show in hell of buying a house.
'You've had your chance and I believe you are going to blow it,” says Bob to the councillors. 'Once again I apologise to the people of Tauranga whom I have failed in my efforts.”
The discussion exposed flaws in the SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern Review which has not identified the 200-plus hectares of land Bob Clarkson has available for development on the city boundary.
The housing accord is the agreement the city council signed with the government to fast-track housing development, in order to bring prices down. There will be about 400 houses built in the city over the next year as a result of the accord.
The settlement pattern review is a ten-year housing land supply study the city is locked into through its adoption of SmartGrowth.
Councillors Matt Cowley, John Robson and mayor Stuart Crosby voted against the recommendation to deny Bob's special housing area, and for council staff to report back on fast-tracking land development outside SmartGrowth.
Before the meeting Andrew Collins spoke on Bob's behalf saying Bob accepted the Tauriko land was probably not suitable for a special housing area under the accord.
But he supports the fast-tracking of the settlement review process.
He agrees with the need for forward thinking integrated land use and transport planning, says Andrew. His frustration is with the time that it takes.
Future state highway alignment options have been under assessment at Tauriko for a good five years now.
Finding future route options suddenly popping up on his land after they were originally considered dismissed by the New Zealand Transport Agency some years ago, is a concern, says Andrew.
They appreciate the request for staff to fast-track structure and plan change processes for additional greenfield land development outside the SmartGrowth settlement pattern review.
He also mentioned that city council staff are stretched because they also have to work on the government housing scheme.
32 comments
how sad
Posted on 20-10-2014 16:56 | By hapukafin
Many of us will never get into our own homes thanks to the council.They have forgoten that they bought a piece of land and cost the ratepayers heaps.They want to have expensive homes built so that they can reap in the rates
Arise Sir Bob
Posted on 20-10-2014 16:58 | By BullShtAlert
But the question remains should Bob's project jump the queue? I've got mixed feelings because I think council bureaucracy holds up a lot of stuff in this city, along with all the moaners who have to be "consulted" on everything. On the other hand I don't want to have to cough up for sewerage roads etc there if it has to be paid back.
Incorrect
Posted on 20-10-2014 17:21 | By Steve Morris
There was no resolution to reject a Tauriko Special area. Three out of 10 is not a majority. Rather a meeting is going to be held with NZTA to see whether SH29 will be realigned and potentially go through the middle of the potential subdivision.
Hang on a minute
Posted on 20-10-2014 17:24 | By chatter
The Councillors are voted in by the community? If so, they are essentially employees of the community. Referring to the elected members code of conduct - one of the items states: • Public interest. Members have a duty to make decisions in the public interest. Members should serve only the interests of the city as a whole and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any one person or group. - Why have the Councillors not asked what THE COMMUNITY want instead of allowing selected 'employee' planners to make this decision. Further: Objectivity. Members should make decisions on merit including making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits. This means fairness to all and impartial assessment. Elected members should also note that, once elected, their primary duty is to the interests of the entire city, not the ward that elected them.
Bullshitalert and Steve way off beam.
Posted on 20-10-2014 21:12 | By Murray.Guy
The Lakes was a queue jumper that TCC and WBOPDC bend over backwards to facilitate. Steve Morris is too easily led by the nose on this issue me thinks, 'Rather a meeting is going to be held with NZTA to see whether SH29. ..'. This is a new red herring!!! In regards costs and risk to the ratepayer, Bob Clarkson has made is quite clear that the development will meet all internal costs and contribute to the roading enhancements external as required, PLUS meet the costs to hook into the Southern Pipeline. TCC has NOT told us what the cost to ratepayers is likely to be in regards their preferred pet Papamoa projects having been discussed in secret meetings. Skip the bull and give the guy the go-ahead with the proviso all costs are met by the development! Appreciate this will impact on preferential promises to preferred developers!
Least we forget ...
Posted on 21-10-2014 01:23 | By MISS ADVENTURE
I have no time for Smart Growth and the failed projections that they have "created" for "official-land" where figures.can.be.anything you want. On the other hand I also have no time for the average developer in Tauranga, simply because the largest part of the city debt comes from the wild and wacky schemes that have been ill-conceived and grossly under funded to date. Having said that ... and from personal experience the decision that Councillor's have made here is the best decision by far that could have been made. The project is a failure before it starts because Council does not have a penny to pay for anything for it. As for SH29 passing through the middle of it, no surprise with that plan, the developer concerned has a history of being able to anticipate what NZTA are doing in advance of the public. Such is life for a wealthy developer.
Really!
Posted on 21-10-2014 08:35 | By Raewyn
I can't understand why Council is so negative re this subdivision! It would seem that this is a much better option than spreading out more of Papamoa . Tauriko is much closer to the CBD and work opportunities!
SMART GROWTH ?
Posted on 21-10-2014 09:08 | By Colleen Spiro
From where I was sitting in Council yesterday.....the flaws are that Smartgrowth seemed to be peed off, that Council if supporting Bob, would be breaching their agreement/alliance, they had with TCC, THEMSELVES, the Regional Council and WBOP Council..... I left wondering if they are waiting for amalgamation, so that land would be opened up for their MATES to jump in......Bob Clarkson, you tried, you cannot win against this lot...and yes I accept your apology to the people of Tauranga and the people to whom, you where extending the hope of becoming home owners. I do not think Smart Growth, is very SMART.
ALL
Posted on 21-10-2014 09:17 | By Capt_Kaveman
these current Councillors are all a bunch blowing hot air and finding themselves to be very weak
@Murray Guy
Posted on 21-10-2014 11:21 | By BullShtAlert
Before telling me I'm way off beam please give us a categorical assurance that all internal costs of the subdivision (roading, water, sewerage) will NEVER be a cost to the general ratepayer. Also that if problems arise in the future, way after Bob's gone, the ratepayer won't be bullied into paying for maintenance on these things. And also that developers who pay upfront for roads and sewerage CAN'T apply for the money back from Council. Finally this land seems to be rural land, so what consultation has taken place with the Tauranga community over making it housing. Or is consultation only important when it suits?
Unbelievable!
Posted on 21-10-2014 12:23 | By DAD
Cant see why Council hasn't let Bob go ahead! This Smart growth obviously has not a smart person in it. Have some common sense Council we need people like Bob to help this City. Tauriko subdivision would help the CBD to perk up keeping the population closer together instead of it spreading further out!
Puzzled.
Posted on 21-10-2014 14:37 | By Lois
How sad ....hit the nail on the head. There is something not quite right here.
Bullshit alerts seeks clarity ..
Posted on 21-10-2014 23:07 | By Murray.Guy
As my comments say, Bob Clarkson gave an absolute assurance the development would meet all costs, including the necessary road improvements where it accesses the highway. This will be (hopefully) on record audio at TCC. All Bob asked at the time was to be treated by TCC and the WBOPDC similar to the way they treated The Lakes development, NO special favours, just stop putting up fences. Extensive community consultation still would take place BUT why bother says Bob if both Councils are going to oppose and obstruct from the outset! The rates collected off developments into the future then meet costs associated with the publically owned assets within those subdivisions. The location of Tauriko and it's highway, Southern Pipeline access and Route K access adds value to existing infrastructure, unlike Papamoa that requires NEW ratepayer investment.
.
Posted on 22-10-2014 08:54 | By maccachic
How many of these homes buyers actually want to live in Tauriko?
@Murray Guy
Posted on 22-10-2014 10:20 | By BullShtAlert
You haven't commented on the part of my question that asked if developers can get their upfront costs for things like sewerage and roading back from Council later? To me that is crucial to this argument. Because if they can that means ratepayers are up for the costs, aren't they? And by the way, I think the community should be consulted before the Council, so I'm disappointed this doesn't seem to have happened.
Crying all the way to the bank
Posted on 22-10-2014 11:17 | By Councillorwatch
Bob was going to be the saviour, But it looks like it mightn't happen. But he built Baypark and I guess that hasn't cost the city much. Then again?
Bay Park!
Posted on 22-10-2014 13:22 | By DAD
The Council didn't have to buy it! I think they thought they were missing out on money, then Bob offered to build the events centre much cheaper than Council paid for it but they went ahead with the more expensive contract!
Who pays for roads
Posted on 23-10-2014 10:07 | By Murray.Guy
When a residential development is undertaken it is a varied and complex arrangement. The assets that are to service the sites created are vested to the City Council and the developer is paid for those assets. It is the new ratepayers that effectively are paying for the roads that specifically service their homes. Ratepayers in the wider sense get stung with developments, eg: Southern Pipe Line, at Papamoa when the City has to upgrade and or construct new roads, bridges, sewer mains, OUTSIDE of the proposed development area. Bob Clarkson's Tauriko land puts no external pressures on the City Council, just the opposite. However, Development Impact Fees, Building Impact Fees paid by the developer and the new home builder go some way to meeting those external costs unless Smartgrowth get it wrong - and unfortunately they do!
the word special??
Posted on 23-10-2014 12:59 | By rotovend
its just another subdivision making it cheaper is a selling ploy, there is already cheap areas around or very close to Tauranga and people choose not to live in those areas.Is the subdivision going to have easy access to public transport to Rotorua and Tauranga as part of its plan?? etc etc
what smart growth
Posted on 28-10-2014 21:26 | By mike harman
It seems to me that we ratepayers are paying a bunch with not a smart brain between them to run this city. Here's a man with a vision that is not going to cost the ratepayer to build the subdivision and they turn him down it's beyond belief
Mike Harman
Posted on 29-10-2014 12:52 | By YOGI BEAR
Yes it will cost TCC ratepayers a heap, because Smartgrowth, TCC went and spent hundreds of millions of borrowed money on grandeous schemes for roads, water sewerage and so on, because the predictions were so wrong TCC does not have the development fee income to pay the existing debt. End result of this TCC can not afford to allow any new areas to be opened up until the existing over cost ones already borrowed for and setup have been sold off and the debt repaid. The TCC decision needs to be made so as TCC does not shoot itself in the foot, Good idea at Tauriko or not is not important, TCC just cant allow it to happen. Add to that also that this proposal is in WBOP anyway, will be interesting to see how this all unfolds or perhaps "implodes".
yogi bear
Posted on 30-10-2014 19:32 | By mike harman
The point I was making is just what you have said that this smartgrowth and others in the past have not got much sense when it comes to infrastructure and planning for the future,if they had some sense then we wouldn't be paying a levy to fix their mistakes
paying a levy?
Posted on 31-10-2014 15:35 | By YOGI BEAR
Debt and rates and they are ever increasing, no sign of slowing down in the crazed world of TCC officials dreaming up new and grand schemes to put new name plates on.
Misguided
Posted on 01-11-2014 09:28 | By Mary Faith
The council in its lack of wisdom has hailed Omokoroa as the next location for its all out housing push. Tauriko and Te Puna are the obvious areas for development. Not Omokoroa - way out on a limb as it is, miles from anywhere!!
@ Mary Faith
Posted on 03-11-2014 12:47 | By YOGI BEAR
The same applies to Te Tumu, so far away, the development needs to be a lot closer than is being pushed for.
No Tauriko special housing area
Posted on 05-11-2014 16:51 | By YOGI BEAR
Yeah, that means only flash houses down by the river can enjoy the rising waters in the next storm or three. PS flood waters don't qualify as a leaky home.
The whingers
Posted on 07-11-2014 15:30 | By robin bell
The moaners moan,meanwhile good old Bob is on his own.Never mind the young people,they don't need houses do they. Raise the Rates in the City and the District,create a self sustaining fund,and build 'affordable'houses.
Who cares what the whingers think or say. Its houses the kids need. Robin Bell.
Who pays asks BullShtAlert
Posted on 11-11-2014 00:03 | By Murray.Guy
The home owner pays, one way or another. The developer puts in the infrastructure that is 'vested to the City Council', they become the owners. The developer is reimbursed for the associated costs of those works and it is the new home occupiers who pay rates who are in reality meeting the cost. The alternative is for the developer to include all of the infrastructure costs into the price of each house site, which, on top of the City Council's Development Impact Fees, Building Impact Fees which are all paid by the new home buyer, the additional cost would be crippling to any resemblance of affordable housing. A very complex business but not to be confused with any suggestion that the ratepayer(s) are subsidizing developers. At the end of the day consumers meet all costs and suppliers take all the risks (mostly).
Whingers personafied
Posted on 11-11-2014 10:59 | By YOGI BEAR
Robin just does not seem to understand, the facts are that the city can not afford more developed areas as they have borrowed and spent every penny available already on 'nice to haves'. Anyway Bob's land has little to do with TCC most of the land is in WBOP, he is all their problem to sort out.
There you go,yogi.
Posted on 11-11-2014 19:35 | By robin bell
Passing the 'buck' again.Your parsimonious attitude,ensures your position as the champion of nothing. To hell with the disenfranchised,who can no longer afford a decent home. To hell with the young people,who can no longer house their families.It's not them who have failed.Its people like you,the whingers. Robin Bell.
Good call
Posted on 17-11-2014 07:12 | By marshamaxw
This project would have ended another social ghetto.Rob is only interested in the bottom line, he is a businessman. It is just an angle for him to save costs by having the council meet the internal costs.I applaused the council for their decision not to interfer in the private sector. But it unnecessary to build an further on Papamoa. The 1989 transfer of Papamoa inside of Tauranga was a cynical land grab.Papamoa was rural and had no historical ties to Tauranga.The houses there are all going to be expensive ones for top buyers, retirees not families needing homes.Hoping to capitalise on a place near the sea.In the light of climate change, it makes not sense to build there, especially on top of a sensitive beach ecosystem.
residential segregation
Posted on 17-11-2014 08:37 | By marshamaxw
Tauranga is unimpressive city. It needs to develop it's own economic base to stand alone against Auckland.The last two decades the city has sprawled out, building houses to meet the demand for retirees. This is artifical growth. A lot of flash harries have come down from Auckland, people who want to be big fish in a little pond. The UK has done well in preserving a lot of green space in the country in spite of it's large population.The council could make suburbs where there has been urban decay occurring like Merivale, make more homes available for first time buyers. Give people already in Tauranga first priority in buying.New outer suburbs create social problems and costs,through residential segregation and spatial mismatch.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.