Copy of My Submission on Whakatakapokai

Dene from Weymouth

Here is my actual submission on Whakatakapokai. This represents many hours of work for the betterment of Weymouth. I am uploading it here so that anyone can read it and learn from it or use parts of it in their own submission.

Perhaps some of my critics would also like to upload their submssion so that people can judge the quality of their work and their capabilities for bettering Weymouth.

********************************************************
Submission on Oranga Tamariki, Weymouth
1. My name is Dene Andre. I am a local Weymouth resident.
2. I am making this submission on behalf of:
• Dene Andre, myself;
• Dr. Alageswary Vasanthi Andre, my wife;
• Fred Buck, 34 Settlers Cove. Weymouth; and
• The Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association
3. We support the current designation for Whakatakapokai. We oppose the proposed change.
4. Our reasons are set out below. I present such reasons in a first person format for the sake of ease and convenience. These views represent the thoughts and opinions of all persons on whose behalf I make this submission.
I support Care and Protection
5. I understand and support the need for Care and Protection of vulnerable children. I do not agree that the current systems is necessarily the best system for providing Care and Protection.
6. Am I alone in my views? No.
7. Children’s Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft, in his report State of Care: A focus on Oranga Tamariki's secure residences, says "For the care and protection residences, it may be we should consider phasing them out. I think the tide has gone out on that sort of approach. We need smaller, securer, well-supervised community-based residences."
8. Nevertheless, I am happy with the current centre, at its current location, continuing with the same kind of work it has been doing in the last decade or so, though I would like to see it phased out over time in favour of a more community and kinship based approach.
My Background
9. I was born an unwanted child and experienced child neglect that left me with life-long adverse effects. I feel a great deal of empathy for, and identify with, children thrust into a position of need that is not of their own making. There but for the grace of god go I.
10. I am familiar with youth justice and youth offenders. My eldest brother was a youth offender who made his living dealing in drugs and committing crimes. He was also a bully and frequently violent, especially towards me.
11. I have lived in Manurewa virtually all of my life and worked in Weymouth since the late 1980’s. I currently reside at the end of Weymouth Road. My family arrived in Manurewa in 1902.
12. I am a qualified Political Scientist with years of experience working with communities to make their views known. Community views are a matter of National Importance.
How the Current Proposal Affects Me
13. The current proposal for Whakatakapokai directly affects my life and that of my wife (and not in a good way).
14. I live and work in the Weymouth area.
15. My mail is held at the Clendon Post Shop where I have a PO Box. The Clendon Town Centre is less than half a Km from Whakatakapokai as the crow flies and around .73 of a km by road. So I am often in close vicinity to Whakatakapokai.
16. My wife and I each pass by the front entrance of Whakatakapokai almost every day. Traffic volume data indicates that I am only one of a thousand people that pass by the centre each hour with an average daily total of 15,000 cars per day approx. www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz...
The immediately Impacted Community and the Wider Community
17. Whakatakapokai is located in Counties-Manukau area, broadly within a 25 square kilometre block that includes Clendon North and South, Burbank, Rowandale, Homai West and East, Manurewa Central, Hillpark, Wiri and Manukau Central. I consider this the immediately impacted community.
18. Standard practice at the centre sees children from the centre making trips out into this community for shopping, for girls to go out and get their nails and hair done, and trips to generally help residents assimilate into the communities in which they will live out the rest of their lives.
19. There is also a “wider impacted community”, one which follows the boundaries of the Council’s Manukau and Manurewa–Papakura Wards (extending from Mangere Bridge and Otahuhu in the north, to Otara and Flat Bush in the east, and to Papakura and Hingaia in the south.
How do we know that the proposal is really for a youth prison?
20. At no time before now was Whakatakapokai ever envisaged by the community as a youth prison. The agreement the Crown has with the community is that this is to be a Care and Protection facility with up to 20 beds and an age ceiling of 16. This is what the current designation provides for.
21. So how do we know this is really going to be a youth prison? It says so on page 18 of the Notice of Requirement (NOR) at the bottom of the page. There it states:
22. The proposed future site will operate:
• A Youth Justice residence comprising:
Providing for up to 20 children/tamariki or young people/rangatahi up to and including the age of 19. The amended designation would allow for this to grow to 24 (or up to 30 in the event that the Care and Protection hub is relocated) if additional accommodation is built.
Oranga Tamariki Residence 398 Weymouth Road | Notice of Requirement and Assessment of Environmental Effects – page 18 bottom of page
23. In plain English, that’s a Youth prison.
24. Judge Andre Becroft, shares the view that Youth Justice Residences resemble youth prisons.
The residences are bleak and prison-like, Children's Commissioner Judge Andrew Becroft wrote in his introduction to the report.
"Make no mistake: the youth justice residences look like prisons - youth prisons.
www.newshub.co.nz...
25. You will note that the proposal provides for relocation of the Care and Protection Hub, in which event there will be up to 30 young persons in the Youth Justice residence.
26. In my view it is highly likely that the Care and Protection aspect of the centre will continue to move to community based care, in which case Whakatakapokai will become exclusively a Youth Prison located in the heart of our urban area.
27. I accept that this is a worst case scenario but in my view it is also the most likely outcome given the current state of Care and Protection Services and the trend towards community-based, kinship based care.
What does my community think of the proposal and what is the relevance of this?
28. My wife and I are opposed to the proposal as are Fred Buck and the Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association. In fact, every person in the community that I have spoken to about the Crown’s application for a new designation for Whakatakapokai has spoken against that application.
29. The Waimahia Residents Association opposes the application. They met with the Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association to discuss their opposition and enlist help and support for their opposition to it. In my view, the Waimahia Residents are angry and feel betrayed that the Crown is now endeavouring to establish a Youth Prison right next door to their new homes.
30. The Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association is opposed to the proposal. The Association fought the Crown when it first tried to run Youth Justice Services from the centre (see below for further details).
31. Community Views are a matter of national importance. I wrote a submission to the Environment Court on this matter for the SH20 Waterview Connection appeals. That submission was accepted by all parties and was not challenged in any way.
32. The Government has applied for a change of designation before properly seeking community views.
What will happen to my Community if you put a Youth prison in the middle of it?
33. What will happen to my Community if you put a Youth prison in the middle of it? I can list these effects and I have the language and skills to explain these effects. There will be
• Traffic effects
• Lighting effects
• Acoustic/Noise effects
• Construction effects
• Open space effects
• Visual amenity effects
… and property values will drop and it will become difficult to sell.
34. Inevitably, there will be escapees and runaways. When that happens the risks escalate. An expanded list of effects, whether actual or potential, will then include:
• Trespass
• Theft of clothing (especially from washing lines)
• Theft of fruit and vegetables
• Break-ins and burglaries
• Car thefts
• Threats and intimidation (verbal assaults)
• Assaults
• Potential for stabbings and murder
• Potential for sexual assaults and rapes (young offenders raging with hormones)
• Shoplifting
• Vandalism
• Driving offences (usually with a stolen vehicle)
35. The Department of Corrections acknowledges that there are escapes from NZ prisons. They classify the types of escape, admit there is a level of escape, and detail procedures for dealing with escapes.
36. No matter what security is provided at Whakatakapokai as a youth prison, I consider that it is reasonable to conclude that there will be escapes.
37. Escapes cannot be avoided completely and nor can they be remedied or adequately mitigated.
What is the existing agreement that I, and my community, have with the Crown?
38. We have an agreement with the Crown that the land at Whakatakapokai shall be used for Care and Protection purposes and that there shall be no Youth Justice Services located there.
39. How did we get to this agreement? Well, at every stage of development at 398 Weymouth Road (now called Whakatakapokai) our community has negotiated with the Crown over the nature and scope of activities to take place at the centre.
40. At every stage of change, we have participated strongly and made our views known. You will, however, find no mention of this in the summary of History provided by Beca Carter.
41. At the beginning, the land comprising Whakatakapokai was Crown land held under the Housing Act 1955 for State Housing purposes. This fact in of itself represents a statement of intent for the use of the land.
42. At that time the site was located in an area that is best described as rural or semi-rural.
43. In 1967 it was agreed that the centre should be a Girl’s Training Centre and that’s what it became.
44. Subsequently the use of the centre changed significantly and its purposes expanded to include youth justice and accommodated boys as well as girls. The Crown engaged in this expansion without community agreement and, indeed, without Council approval.
45. In 1992, Council took the matter to the Planning Tribunal. The Planning Tribunal found that the use of the centre as a youth justice facility was a breach of the designation and that an agreed use of the site as a Girls Training Centre did not authorise the use of the site for males.
46. Subsequent to the Tribunal’s finding, The Minister of Social Welfare sought an alteration to the designation. The Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association fought the application. The Crown negotiated a new agreement and this included a sunset clause for the provision of Youth Justice at the centre and a series of restrictive conditions.
Was the Sunset Clause ever Rescinded or does it Remain in Force?
47. The sunset clause is an agreement by the Crown that Youth Justice Services at the centre would cease by an agreed date. When the Crown agreed to this clause, they gave up any right, or potential right, they might have to provide Youth Justice Services at Whakatakapokai. Beyond the “sunset date”, those rights ceased to exist.
48. In 2002 the Crown applied for a new designation and this is the designation in place today. It was granted on the basis that the sunset clause was observed and obeyed. The new designation reflected the fact that Whakatakapokai became dedicated solely to Care and Protection services.
49. In applying for the new designation, the previous designation was rescinded. The Crown appears to have assumed that the Sunset Clause was also rescinded but there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Indeed, since the sunset clause was put in place in part to resolve the opposition by the Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers Association, I don’t see how the clause could be rescinded without agreement by the Association and, as a Committee Member of the current Association making this submission on behalf of the Association, I know that the Association did not, would not and does not agree to that.
50. So the sunset clause remains in force and is still binding on the Crown.
51. I acknowledge that the Crown does have the right to seek a new designation and is entitled to act on the basis that it has that right.
52. I say that what it does not have, is a right to provide Youth Justice Services at Whakatakapokai, even supposing a new designation is granted.
The Crown has a further agreement with the people of Weymouth that when the land at Whakatakapokai is no longer suitable for Care and Protection Purposes than it shall be turned into Residential Housing.
53. The existence of the Waimahia Inlet subdivision is proof of our agreement. Let us consider the facts that lead to this conclusion.
54. At the time the project for Waimahia Inlet development was conceived, the sunset clause was well known and the matter of Youth Justice Services at Whakatakapokai was settled such that there would be no Youth Justice Services provided there. In compliance with the sunset clause, the new designation had been granted on the basis that the centre would provide Care and Protection Services only.
55. In 2006, the Government decided that Whakatakapokai contained land that was surplus to requirement for community care purposes and that there was a great need for affordable housing. So the Government made a large portion of the previous Crown land available for sale as a site for affordable housing.
56. Child Youth and Family sold off a portion of that land to a partnership between the Crown, Tāmaki Makaurau Collective and three community housing providers (Auckland and Onehunga Hostels Endowment Trust; Housing Foundation Limited; and, Community of Refuge Trust) to develop affordable housing.
57. It is reasonable to conclude that the purchasers would never have bought the land for housing if they had expected Whakatakapokai to become a Youth Prison.
58. It is further reasonable to conclude that they were well aware of the sunset clause and bought the land in the expectation that they would build their new subdivision next to a Care and Protection Facility (and not next to a Youth Prison).
59. The Minister for Housing agreed to provide an initial seed fund to scope out the project. The outcome of this proposal led to the approval of $29 million of government funding, with an agreement that 60% of the development would be provided for social and affordable housing.
www.makinghomeshappen.co.nz...
60. The subdivision was built as a Special Housing Area. Once the project was declared a Special Housing Area it was fast tracked. It was the first ever consent lodged with Auckland Council’s Housing Project Office under the Unitary Plan.
61. Thus, the Waimahia Inlet subdivision was built adjacent to Whakatakapokai. Today Waimahia Inlet is a thriving subdivision consisting of 290 homes on an area comprising 16 hectares and it sits right next door to Whakatakapokai.
62. A total of $120 million was invested into the Waimahia Inlet subdivision in the expectation that Whakatakapokai would no longer provide Youth Justice Services and would continue as a Care and Protection facility.
63. Since then the community has built up around the site. Whakatakapokai is now located in the heart of a densely populated community complete with schools and a play centre, which is about to open.
64. Do you think that if the Crown had said to the developers that they would turn Whakatakapokai into a Youth Prison that any reasonable person would have wanted to build there or live there? I think not.
65. As noted earlier, the existence of Waimahia Inlet is proof of our agreement that when the land at Whakatakapokai is no longer suitable for Care and Protection purposes than it shall be turned into residential housing.
66. In addition to the foregoing, as it stands, the proposal is an inefficient use of valuable residential land that is appropriately zoned for housing.
67. It is, after all, land that was acquired under the Housing Act 1955 for State Housing purposes.
68. The proposal is not consistent with section 7 of the RMA as overall, it is not an efficient use of land and fails to maintain or enhance amenity values (see section 79 onwards for further explanation of this).
Consultation for The Social Impact Assessment is inadequate and could not possibly meet the test of Genuine Consultation
69. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as undertaken could not possibly meet the test of consultation as derived from Wellington International Airport Limited and others v Air New Zealand [1993] whereby consultation is concluded to mean (and I paraphrase):
• Sufficient information
• Sufficient time; and
• Genuine consideration
70. Notice of the proposal was sent out late with tight time-frames for responses. The distribution of notice was very limited.
71. The geographical scope of the assessment was limited to houses located within 500 metres of the site. In some instances houses on one side of the road received notices whereas those on the other side did not. Some adjoining properties did not receive letters.
72. Detail contained within the notice is not in plain English and is convoluted and confusing, especially to residents with a relatively limited education.
73. Thus, in my view, the Social Impact Assessment provided by the applicant is inadequate.
74. I am not criticising the people who undertook the assessment, they were working to a narrow brief and undoubtedly undertook their work in a professional manner.
The Environmental Impact Assessment concludes there will be no significant adverse effects of the proposal but the Social Impact Assessment says there will be
75. Form 18 Notice of Requirement by Minister for Children for Alteration of Designation Sections 181 Resource Management Act 1991 states on page 3 that, “The effects that the proposed project will have on the environment, and the ways in which any adverse effects will be mitigated, are: The proposal will have no significant adverse effects. “
76. The Social Impact Assessment, on the other hand, says “The SIA concludes that there is the potential for high adverse impact on sense of place and how people live their lives, for local residents and for residents in wider Weymouth. “Oranga Tamariki Residence 398 Weymouth Road | Notice of Requirement and Assessment of Environmental Effects p22
77. Given what I know about the project, my view is that the SIA is more likely to be right and that there will be significant adverse effects of this proposal. In fact, I have already provided an overview of expected adverse effects.
78. The AEE indicates that the change in designation could have moderate to high social impact effects on neighbouring residents. The mitigation proposed for these effects is vague, insufficient and largely flawed given the extent of change and redevelopment allowed.
Will the Proposed development for Whakatakapokai meet the Objectives and Policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan and will it improve the liveability of Weymouth?
79. The declared purpose of the Auckland Plan is to improve the liveability of Auckland.
Auckland’s time has come. We now have a shared vision to be the world’s most liveable city and, for the first time, a single comprehensive plan to deliver this vision – the Auckland Plan
www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz...
80. I consider that the Proposed Development fails to achieve the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan (“Auckland Plan” or “Plan”).
81. As previously stated, the proposal is not consistent with section 7 of the RMA as overall, it is not an efficient use of land and fails to maintain or enhance amenity values.
82. To decide whether the proposal will maintain or enhance amenity values and to decide whether the proposal for Whakatakapokai will improve the liveability of our part of Auckland, Weymouth, we need to ask a relevant series of questions. Key questions to ask and help us decide include the following:
• Will it make our neighbourhood a safer, more attractive and more desirable location?
• Will it provide us better access to community centres, adequate local retail, community amenities and quality public parks?
• Will it make the street network surrounding our school sites more highly connected and will we get lower levels of traffic to create safe, short, and direct walking or cycling trips for our school children?
• Will it offer our neighbourhood increased connectivity for increasing walking?
• Will it provide more route choices, more direct routes and good proximity to core destinations?
www.policyforum.net...
• Will it improve traffic flows?
• Will it improve the visual amenity of the area?
• Will it improve the practical and physical amenity of the area?
83. The answer to all of the above seems to be no. Accordingly, it will not improve the liveability of Weymouth and, in our view, is far more likely to actively decrease our liveability.
84. For example (but not limited to) the proposal does not sufficiently provide for the health and safety of the neighbouring community. This is contrary to the B2.3.1.(3) which requires the health and safety of people and communities to be promoted.
85. The proposal is also not consistent with the objectives and policies of Mixed Housing Suburban Zone particularly those that provide for residential amenity (H4.2(3)) and those requiring non-residential activities to be compatible with the scale and intensity of development anticipated in the zone (H4.2(4)).
86. From this, I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the purposes and principles of the Auckland Plan.
Given the Alternatives, and Given Agreements entered into by the Crown, is the Proposal necessary to meet the Objectives of the Minister?
87. Before an application for change of designation is lodged with the Court, an assessment of alternatives should be undertaken. This assessment should adequately and responsibly consider the significance and size of adverse effects on the people, and communities affected. In particular, whether the adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated better at an alternative site, such as at Korowai Manaaki in Kiwi Tamaki Road.
88. So we must ask the question, has the Minister adequately assessed alternative sites or methods of undertaking the work? And has the Minister adequately weighed the impact of adverse effects upon the environment, including upon immediate neighbours and the wider community, especially in terms of the anticipated adverse effects? (both actual and potential)
89. A consideration of alternatives can be ongoing and typically will be undertaken prior to any notification of proposed change of purpose (of Whakatakapokai). It is also relevant to consider whether the actual or potential adverse effects would arise at an alternative site such as at Korowai Manaaki in Kiwi Tamaki Road, Wiri.
90. I say that the proposal is not necessary to meet the objectives of the Minister because the location of the site is not suitable for youth justice placements given the close proximity of residential development, especially given agreements entered into with the community by the Crown.
91. I say that the proposal is not necessary to meet the objectives of the Minister because the Crown has already given up any right it may have had to locate Youth Justice Facilities at Whakatakapokai. That right, or those rights, expired on the sunset date.
92. I also say that the proposal does not promote the sustainable management of resources in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) or otherwise achieve its purpose;
What other deficiencies are there with the proposal?
93. For a Youth Justice Facility to run successfully, the Crown must address the:
• potential for chronic staffing woes;
• sufficiency of resources to secure its juvenile prison, even in the event of a change of government and a change in funding priorities;
• dysfunction arising as a result of rampant turnover, staffing shortages and budgetary constraints (which appear to be common flaws with juvenile prisons in other countries);
• staffing levels frequently falling out of compliance with required ratios; and
• an influx of young offenders who will not be tried as adults.
94. The proposal does not adequately address these matters.
95. In fact, the application provides insufficient detail on the means of security and level of security to be provided at the facility or whether such security is to be provided at all. The Crown says “the proposed new designation will involve only minor works to enhance some security features and internal work within the Wharenui to make it suitable…” Notice of Requirement and Assessment of Environmental Effects Prepared for The Minister for Children, 22 February 2019 - Page 6 para 10
96. The notice of requirement is very vague on the extent of new development that may be necessary to accommodate the Youth Justice placements now and into the future. The increase in security measures such as increased security fencing within the site to accommodate such placements will be incompatible with residential amenity values.
97. The extent of rebuilding potentially allowed by the amended designation is wide, and will enable development much closer to the boundaries of the site adjoining residential development.
98. The changes proposed to the designation will allow significant changes to the visual amenity of the residence as it could be rebuilt or significantly altered and extended.
99. The community liaison committee is required to be established for too short a period to have any long-term effect. The committee will also lack any statutory weight and power. The current community liaison committee is not permitted to disclose to the community any matter discussed by that committee, which rather defeats the purpose of community liaison. The requirement of the Trust is that discussions undertaken are confidential and are not to be made available to the community at large.
What decision do I want the Court to make?
100. I seek the following decision from the Court
1. That the Notice of Requirement be rejected in its entirety.
2. That if the Notice of Requirement is confirmed I seek the following conditions: That
A. A sunset clause be put in place for Whakatakapokai.
B. No youth justice placements are accommodated on the site.
C. Whakatakapokai continues to separate out Youth Justice from Care and Protection Services due to the significantly different client groups and their complex needs.
D. The age of residents be limited to a maximum of 15 years old.
E. Residents accommodated at Whakatakapokai be limited to safe, non-criminal backgrounds.
F. Alternative facilities be located at an expanded Youth Justice Residence, Korowai Manaaki, in Kiwi Tamaki Road, Wiri. The expanded care and protection facility shall be purpose-built to meet the welfare, education and health needs currently proposed for Whakatakapokai.
G. The exterior fence to the property be replaced with a new close-boarded acoustic fence together with at least 1.5m of tree landscaping along the fence line.
H. No new buildings to be developed outside of the existing security fence on the site and the existing buffer areas be maintained.
I. Any new buildings do not contain windows that face towards neighbouring residential properties.
J. The maximum number of people accommodated on the site be limited to 20 (as currently agreed with the community).

Dene André
Dated at Auckland
25 March 2019