Stop Government intensifying every suburb in our cities before it's too late.
#2I don’t want an apartment block going up next to my house blocking sunlight and leaving me with no privacy. The area I live in, in particular should not be further developed as there is one road in/ out and there is not sufficient public transport in the area.
Angelique Ward (Auckland, 2022-06-03)
#3Beautiful classic NZ homes will be destroyed, wonderful neighbourhoods ruined. They did this in London after the war and it was a disaster
David Slough (Auckland, 2022-06-03)
#7The single roadway into and out of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula is congested already and struggling to cope with traffic. Intensification could mean up to a 3-fold increase in traffic and load on other infrastructure such as sewerage and waste water. THis is not a sensible policy
Robert Brown (Red Beach, Auckland, 2022-06-03)
#10As a designer with years of experience we are not getting the sort of housing we need at the detriment of others.
There are better ways to provide more housing or better yet check the need for housing.
Lynn Ryder (Auckland, 2022-06-03)
#11It's the ruination of heritage areas, and an decrease in sunlight within neighbourhoods due to tightly packed high buildings. The other problem will be the infrastructure which is already old and overloaded.
Ross Sale (Auckland, 2022-06-03)
#14I don't want the fabric of NZ cities destroyed with ugly high intesity housing.
Ceidrik Heward (Auckland, 2022-06-04)
#15This law has to be the worst example of bad law in New Zealand's recent history. Both needless and thoughtless
Michael Kampkes (Auckland, 2022-06-04)
#16I don’t want my neighbourhood further destroyed by intensification. Soon we will be the only original bungalow on the street and the only single level home. I would like to still have some sun.
Susan Jackson (Auckland, 2022-06-04)
#20This is bad legislation and will ruin communities,not provide proper housing.
Lisa Davis (Auckland, 2022-06-04)
#21The government is planning to overrule a democratically elected council who spent years and millions of dollars developing the Auckland unitary plan
Martin Spinks (Auckland, 2022-06-05)
#22This is an ill considered piece of legislation that is contra to what the people of New Zealand need and want. Government has not thought through all aspects of the effects on the environment of the way people live, the costs it will make due to the stressed environment people will live in, the lack of provision for the future that for example, even as we talk about electric cars, where are they to be plugged in, there is no parking and houses 3 to a section with no kerb parking out front was obviously, like so many other flow on effects, not in consideration. This act will create cost of living increases for those who cannot afford it who will also not be able to afford this slum housing anyway making them renters with very little buy in to New Zealand as a caring country.
Peter Fitzsimons (Auckland, 2022-06-05)
#25I live at Red Beach and I do wsnt to see the environmet destroyed with intensive housing
Laura Gao (Red Beach, Auckland, 2022-06-06)
#30this is a very unfair propsition to established home ownwers .rather develop our rural area s but not high rise . we do not need this type of intesive builing
val sinfield (AUCKLAND, 2022-06-07)
#32I’m signing because I value our heritage suburbs, mature trees and space for people to grow vegetables and children to play
Maria Heron (Auckland, 2022-06-08)
#36This is poorly thought through. The Auckland Unitary plan allows for significant affordable housing which will take 30 years to be fulfilled there is no reason to destroy Aucklands beauty from those in Wellington who don’t care … Government is not seeking consultation as they aren’t listening or even attempting to do so. This is undemocratic & we are supposed to be living in a democracy.
Jo Harlick (Auckland, 2022-06-09)
#37I am signing this petition because there will inevitably be severe impacts on neighbours’ sunlight, privacy and peace; an acceleration of the de-greening of our neighbourhoods; natural drainage disappearing under houses, tarmac and decks, with the environmental impact of increased flooding, storm water pipes being overloaded and greater waste polluting our oceans; neighbourhood boundaries decreasing to ridiculous closeness; anxiety levels from the constant threat of this randomly occurring next door; local infrastructure stretched beyond capacity; increased road congestion,
no on-site parking required, and little available street parking; and significant reduction in the value of one’s home, as soon as it is known these structures are to be built next door.
Corinne Kirkham (Manly, Whangaparaoa, 2022-06-10)
#38"Committed" Kiwi,s work extremely hard all their working years to buy their home....a family home what was bought for many reasons: be it the "quiet suburb"...the morning (and/or) the evening sun....the view....the privacy etc.
How the Government voted in a new law to take this away from private home owners is a disgrace to put it mildly!!!!
Not only that, in the Peninsula of Whangaparaoa, we are already having serious issues with the infrastructure re Sewerage/Storm-water/Roads/Flooding/Water System & supply/Transport/School etc.
All these are under stress due to running at full capacity or beyond.
There are recent events of sewerage overflow/spillages on the Peninsula...a system basically built 50 years ago, that is taking all the sewerage from the Millwater & Milldale developments plus Orewa.
The Peninsula is already over-developed and to allow further abuse of the above infrastructure is madness and totally irresponsible.
john kirkham (Auckland, New Zealand, 2022-06-10)
#40These plans will turn our suburbs into characterless, dark slums. In our street there is already no parking and the drains flood every time it rains.
Karen Carson (Auckland, 2022-06-10)
#42This policy which allows unregulated development is detrimental to the environment. It will also create great stress and mental agony for many home owners, just as happened with the leaky home crisis.
Angelika Eberhard-Evans (Whangaparāoa, 2022-06-11)
#43I want to stop intensification on the Hibiscus Coast as there isn’t any infrastructure to support it
Tiffanie Daniell (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#44This change would allow new housing development with little control, which is not suitable or sustainable in many areas, and would benefit only developers and builders. I think that this proposed change to the law is being pushed through with little publicity, and little opportunity for objection. In existing communities with limited infrastructure it is just not feasible to allow intensification of housing and expect sewers, water supply, roads, space for car parking, etc to cope.
Marie de Lambert (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#45I'm against this poorly conceived piece of legislation
Phil Szaszy (Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#46I disagree with blanket intensification without regard to infrastructure or transport, or the rights of current residents regarding their views, sunlight, privacy.
Julie Land (Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#47Auckland has adequate planning for nearly a million extra homes, no need for large numbers of three story blocks crammed onto a site with no control. Where is the democratic process?
John Stillwell (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#48A mad idea to all high density 12m high3 story blocks without control
Patricia STILLWELL (WHANGAPARAOA, 2022-06-11)
#50I'm signing this petition because the legislation does not take into account that some areas (suburbs) do not have suitable infrastructure (roads, sewage disposal, stormwater collection, schools, medical facilities, etc) for housing intensification. Councils should be able to decide where housing intensification occurs. That way, they can plan the infrastructure beforehand, and not have to react to providing it wherever developers choose to build. There are heaps of other reasons why the Amendment Act should not proceed in its present form.
Eric Spurr (Whangaparaoa, 2022-06-11)
#53Our infrastructure can't support any more housing in Whangaparaoa
Maree Edwards (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#56I totally disagree with the intensification in my area because the infrastructure isn't there to support it and can never by expanded because Auckland City doesn't have the funding for it and has too much debt to afford to do it across the city.
Kerry Hart (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#58The NPS is an over-reaction to our housing shortage and will destroy the amenity and unique heritage of our cities. There is sufficient development potential along main transport routes and elsewhere in the city to accommodate sufficient incremental housing within the existing Auckland Council unitary plan. The NPS approach to heavy suburban infill housing will place significant pressure on local amenities including schools, medical facilities, parking and traffic congestion. Existing Auckland UP rules enabling townhouses in the suburbs provides more development potential already to satisfy demand for many years. Aucklanders elect our city council and national government should respect local democracy and decision making.
Dougal Swift (Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#59I object to this proposal. It is rushed and should have gone to Referendum
Gill Wild (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#64I do not want to see this type of housing being built.
Duncan Ellis (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#65We do not have the infrastructure to accommodate more medium residential intensification on the Hibiscus Coast, especially Whangaparāoa where I live.
Maria Haturini (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#70I am signing because of the lack of strategic thinking or management of intensifying housing in our communities. Target areas that are also the strategic public transport corridors that will have funding to build capacity. Consider the social and mental impact on existing property owners who will find themselves boxed in. Bring transparency to existing property owners currently the lack of public information leads to mistrust of council and developers.
Bruce Reid (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#73I’m signing because these changes are poorly considered, unnecessary and could lead to the detriment of neighbourhood/community interests.
Geoff Evans (Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#75We need to preserve what heritage New Zealand has.
Mary Cousins (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#84I agree implicitly. Without corresponding infrastructure this is a disaster waiting to happen. It’s bad enough already
K Love (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#87I am totally against the new law, I do not want NZ becoming lime other countries overseas and having high density housing at every corner!
Michael Oliver (Christchurch , 2022-06-11)
#89"Unitary" plan will ruin irreplaceable Heritage neighborhoods. Other countries eh Singapore did this and have regretted, it can never be turned back.
Leave the Heritage areas alone.
Rixt Brownlow (Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#91I want to maintain the historic character of some suburbs in Auckland
Sarah Morton (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#96Changing residential densities across the whole city at once, without any increase in infrastructure is madness! Why not stage growth areas and upgrade infrastructure prior or in conjunction with development.
Neil Wild (Auckland, 2022-06-11)
#97I do not want more densification in Hibiscus coast because sewerage infrastructure is already loaded up and seepage into our beaches and sea is ruining our environment and affecting sea life. This IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. No more houses should be built on Whangaparaoa to preserve the environment.
Ishtar Presnell (Whangaparaoa, Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#98Zoning changed a couple of years ago so our property is zoned 4 level apartments.
Also we have a 110 year old villa that the government would rather have destroyed for apartments!
We weren’t informed of the zoning changes
All beautiful Auckland areas with lovely bungalow’s and villas will be destroyed for the sake of high intensity apartments. We are losing our rights as property owners!!
Phil Stafford-Bush (Auckland , 2022-06-11)
#104I live in a street where every section has been sub divided and sub divided again. The Auckland Unitary Plan provides forthe housing needed. Why don't we use it ratherbthan this half baked rushed idea.
gillian austin (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#108Auckland is losing trees at the rate of 1000 per week and this law will allow even more to go. We need trees to give us cleaner air.
Colleen Stairmand (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#110It's an abomination!!
ALEX ROSS (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#114Aucklands current unitary plan has allowed for enough intensification already, we don’t need this badly thought out plan, not only will it devalue our properties but it will make Auckland an ugly, unappealing city to live in.
Donna Schofield (Auxklans, 2022-06-12)
#117I feel strongly on this as the council has not improved stormwater or any other service. They are forcing people to use a non-existent bus service in Auckland. They are taking away all permeable surfaces which is why flooding is so bad. Houses are built right up to the boundaries with concrete / buildings on every cm of land. Cramming houses in in Auckland does not create affordable homes.
Karyn Spinetto (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#119This will downgrade the environment we have lived for and brought into turning it into a plethora of different styles and less emjoyable. We are not Malthusians but this is too much. Why can’t we do what Melbourne does.
Malcolm Bloor (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#125Govt has lost its common sense
Amandeep Singh (Auckland , 2022-06-12)
#127This is a ridiculous change to the rules and will ruin our beautiful city
Phil Pease (Auckland , 2022-06-12)
#129The infill proposal is not well thought out. It’s destroying neighbourhoods. It’s ugly and thoughtless ( mostly).
Esther Vernon (Auckland , 2022-06-12)
#130It’s too close to the boundary, too high to be that close and will block out light and sunlight from neighbours
Di Francis (Auckland , 2022-06-12)
#132According to two of our councilors Auckland already has the capacity for another million people. So I don't believe there is a need for this level of development that will ruin the character of the peninsula (Whangaparaoa). And I am very suspect of why the Auckland Council long term housing plan is virtually a copy of the United Nations Habitat guidelines? Do we need this body influencing us like this? They are after all wanting us all to live in 'smart' cities of at least 15,000 people per square kilometre. Something I don't believe any kiwi wants to see in the suburbs.
Darag Rennie (Whangaparaoa, 2022-06-12)
#135The legislation circumvents sound planning principles and is a knee jerk reaction by politicians to past failings that will inevitably lead to heartache and loss of enjoyment for the local residents to those values that identify us as Kiwi’s
Chester Buller (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#141I do not want intensification in Devonport
Linda Whitcombe (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#143I don’t agree on this type of building, especially what his happening in Belmont and the impact on Lake Rd
Kathy Long (Auckland, 2022-06-12)
#144I believe intensification of housing will have negative effects on the environment, will create traffic congestion and negativity impact on lifestyles. Furthermore I do not believe such intensification is necessary as the unitary plan already provides sufficient housing for our needs.
Diana Bassett (Auckland, 2022-06-13)
#147The legislation was drafted and passed without appropriate stakeholder consultation and input. It's effects will be detrimental to the quality of living in NZ cities.
Louise Bull (Auckland , 2022-06-13)
#151Nobody should be allowed WITHOUT consent to build a structure that will impact my property, impinge on my living in my home. Reduce my light in my home, put additional infrastructure stress in the local community. Wendi Neilson
Wendi Neilson (Devonport, 2022-06-13)
#158I live in a special character zone on top of a hill. Likely the highest house in auckland. Now my property and all even numbers down to Mt Eden Road are close multi dwelling with no charter. Beautiful 1910 built houses now going tkk on be ruined! My neighbour can put 14x houses on their 1420sqm section! No parking and our street is already so narrow that car always lose their wing mirrors! Will absolutely ruin this beautiful green tree area with really prestigious, historic houses!
Bruce Obrien (Auckland, 2022-06-13)
#160Disagree with removing character zones.
Trilby Palmer (Auckland, 2022-06-13)
#164Both the NPS-UD & EHS Act are badly ill though-out NZ Central Govt impositions on local government jurisdiction which will produce irrevocably ugly, crowded, uncomfortable-for-living mirco residential divisions which detract from and destroy all sense of neighbourhood design and amenity.
T J Coffey (Auckland, 2022-06-14)
#166I’m signing because I love our Whangaparaoa peninsula and don’t want to see it completely spoilt! Secondly, the recent Auckland Unitary Plan made available over 1 million possible property development sites, which means we don’t need any more. That is enough for the next 30-40 years of demand. Also, there is no logic to permitting these developments in Whangaparaoa when there is insufficient infrastructure, roading and schooling in the area - not to mention the environmental impact this would have. This must be stopped!
Mark Presnell (Auckland, 2022-06-14)
#167Because I don’t want to lose my sun and privacy and all the other reasons outlined in the petition.
Christine Morey (Auckland , 2022-06-14)
#168We need to keep the community and heritage areas. There is plenty of land around transport hubs to do intensification.
Margaret Boreham-Colven (Auckland , 2022-06-14)
#173I am signing because this is an ill-conceived idea by Government and Councils without any thought to proper infrastructure to cope with intensified housing developments.
Leigh Robins (Auckland, 2022-06-14)
#175I don’t want our beautiful costal area to built with ugly 3x3 story dwellings , I didn’t buy my property to have my neighbors built such housing which will not fit into the environmental landscape!
Viv Burnett (Auckland , 2022-06-14)
#176Infrastructure insufficient for the population we already have on the Hibuscus Coast (and AKL in general). I personally witness sewage overflows. AKL Council $10.5 billion in debt, how would infrastructure be paid for to support an even larger population?
Rebecca Schipper (Hibiscus Coast, 2022-06-14)
#177I am a born and raised New Zealander of 49 years who has lived in Auckland most of my life but have travelled enough to listen to people who say what a beautiful country we live in. Having a backyard to play in for the children would be awesome and all that greenery. Fruit trees in your own backyard and gardens. My friends in the USA cannot believe we would start building what they describe as "built up suburban ghetto slums" that by the way intensify crime. So I ask why are we destroying the very things that other countries only dream of having?
Rachelle Payne (Auckland, 2022-06-14)
#180Take a look how its worked overseas - building ghettos!!!
Sonya Baldwin (Auckland, 2022-06-15)
#181I think this is devastating for Wellington.
I am not sure if that is through too blanket a policy at the central government level, or just a failure of the Wellington City Councillors to add qualifying matters and fairly represent the wishes of Wellington citizens.
Matthew Underwood (Wellington, 2022-06-15)
#182The senseless destruction of suburbs is disturbing. Many people will be negatively affected. There is another way
Hélène Roelants (Auckland, 2022-06-15)
#183This has been rushed, and the infrastructure isn't in place to support this intensification. The current unitary plan was generous enough especially when the council is approving consents which breach the rules in the current unitary plan. There's already immense pressure on our roading and waste water systems where investment isn't keeping up with housing development.
Brendan Smith (Auckland, 2022-06-15)
#184I live in the area and will be directly impacted
Kirsten Copley (Auckland, 2022-06-15)
#189We do not have enough infrastructure such as roading, water and sewage to support our current requirements on the Whangaparaoa Penla, so having more housing will only create more problems with no money to fix them!
Mike Pignéguy (Auckland, 2022-06-16)
#190Foodstuff supermarket, going to build a 5 levels apartment right beside our 1 level Villa.
My sunlight will be gone by 2-3pm in the winter...
Miya Tsai (Auckland, 2022-06-16)
#191On-street parking is already rare and not incorporating mandatory on-site parking is not responsible. Intensifying with up to 3 dwellings will increase dramatically the number of cars in each area will create more traffic jams. Let's be smart about this!
Letti Brooke (Auckland, 2022-06-16)
#192I am completely opposed to the law change in this form. The law change lacks detail and will allow developers to create incredible harm to existing communities and their life style. No requirement for on-site parking will congest streets and endanger pedestrian safety. The congestion of the only road in and out of Whangaparaoa will increase to a point that Penlink will not offer enough relieve (once it is finally built).
Our schools won't cope with the increase in students; there are already schools on the peninsula that are operating at the highest level of their capacity, yet the Ministry of Education waits until operation is impossible before they react and build new classrooms.
Lastly, the impact this will have on natural assets like trees and gardens, noise levels etc is devastating.
Dagmar Goodall (Auckland, 2022-06-16)
#198I do not want to live in a slum, which is what will happen, I cannot believe the two major political parties in this country are in favour, this is a disgrace.
Jeremy Cox (Auckland, 2022-06-18)
#199I'm very concerned about the government compelling the councils to allow intensive housing in established housing areas of NZ cities.
Sandra Donovan (Auckland , 2022-06-18)
#200It's outrageous legislation with no rights of property owners to conteste
Grahame Brown (Auckland, 2022-06-18)