Whakatakapokai Submissions

Dene from Weymouth

Submissions on the Whakatakapokai proposal are due in by 29 March 2019. The Local Board has kindly provided a list of things you might want to say to help make it easier for you to do your submission. You can copy these things into your own submission but it is better to say them in your own words and to speak from your heart. I am copying this list here for you to use.
The current proposal seeks to have 10 beds for Care and Protection and 20 beds for Youth Justice (aka Youth Prison).
Your submission should say what you think is fair and what is not. And you need to give your reasons why you consider things fair or unfair.

********************************************************************************

The reasons for my views are:
• The introduction of youth justice placements into the facility will result in additional security and safety concerns for my family. For example the potential for people to escape from the facility is real and the impact of escapees and the general potential danger that the proposal poses to the neighbourhood is significant, particularly given the close proximity of our houses to the site. I am also concerned about visitors to the site. The centre will be a continuing cause of stress and anxiety for me and will impact on the amenity of my neighbourhood.
• Many people in the area directly adjoining the site have families and the proposed changes to the centre are not compatible with maintaining a safe and pleasant family environment.
• There is lack of clarity about who may be accommodated at the centre, particularly the ability of the centre to accommodate people up to 19 years old that have been referred by the court or police. Potentially the entire site will be a youth justice facility/ prison as the proposed changes to the designation will inevitably result in a change in emphasis from care and protection to youth justice placements.
• There are already 3 prison facilities within the Manurewa area. The changes proposed to the facility effectively introduce a fourth prison into the suburb. It would be preferable to locate the additional youth justice placements within the existing Korowai Manaaki residence in Wiri (which has been purpose built and located) or construct a new facility in another location away from residential areas. Other youth justice facilities in New Zealand are located away from residential neighbourhoods. A youth justice facility is not compatible with an established residential neighbourhood.
• The site is located on the main road into Weymouth. The use of this site as a youth justice facility will have negative impacts on how I and other see our neighbourhood and live our lives. For example we will want to avoid travelling past this site, but will be unable to do so.
• Noise is currently generated by people on the site including when staff shifts change. The increase in the number of people to be accommodated and increase in staff will increase the comings and goings from the site with additional noise impacts on the amenity of neighbours.
• I consider that the proposed changes will have unacceptable adverse effects on the now established character of the neighbourhood centre and the surrounding residential neighbourhood which has changed considerably since the centre was first established. Since the centre was first established intensive residential development has established in close proximity to the centre. It is no longer located at the edge of the urban area. It is now not appropriate to increase the scale and intensity of use or change to focus to a youth justice facility centre due to the close proximity of new development. The proposed changes to the designation provide no certainty over the design of any new facilities, and increased security measures will lead to institutional and utilitarian buildings and features (i.e security fencing and surveillance cameras) that are not compatible with a pleasant residential environment.
• 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 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.
• 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. This will significantly impact on our amenity including a reduction in privacy and increased overlooking and by removing the green space buffers that currently exist on the site This will also exacerbate the security concerns of residents. The proposed conditions will enable direct overlooking of neighbouring properties by occupants of the centre and are insufficient to provide for amenity of neighbours.
• The changes in security protocols outlined in section 7.5 of the AEE do not equate to the extent of change that will be allowed under the revised designation. For example in page 20 the AEE states that no physical changes will impact the visual amenity of the residence. 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.
• 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. The community liaison committee is required to be established for too short a period to have any long term effect.
• The use of the site as a centre for youth justice placements is an inefficient use of valuable residential land that is appropriately zoned for housing.
• I consider that the Proposed Development fails to achieve the objectives and policies of the Auckland Unitary Plan (“Plan”). 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.
• The proposal is not consistent with the objectives and policies in B2.8 Social facilities as it fails to address the effects of facility on the adjoining residential neighbourhood.
• The proposal is 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)).
• 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.
• It does not promote the sustainable management of resources in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) or otherwise achieve its purpose;
• It 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.
I seek the following decision from the Court
• That the Notice of Requirement be rejected in its entirety.
• That if the Notice of Requirement is confirmed I seek the following conditions
- That no youth justice placements are accommodated on the site.
- That 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.
- That no new buildings be developed outside of the existing security fence on the site and the existing buffer areas be maintained.
- That any new buildings do not contain windows that face towards neighbouring residential properties.
- That the maximum number of people accommodated on the site be limited to... (make your own suggestion here)