Sign In / Register
The projected expansion of Warkworth will require significant future additions and upgrading to transport corridors around the town. Auckland Council is considering eight Notices of Requirement (NoRs) lodged by Supporting Growth, a collaboration of Auckland Transport (AT) and Waka Kotahi, aimed at protecting the land needed for eight specific transport projects. Together, the eight proposals will affect an estimated 19 full properties and parts of a further 217. Submissions were invited earlier this year, and hearings are scheduled for November.
In this edition, Mahurangi Matters takes a closer look at NoR7 – a plan for a new two-lane road linking Matakana Road (at the roundabout where Matakana Road meets the new Te Honohono ki Tai Road) to Sandspit Road, with separated cycle lanes and footpaths.
The route option favoured by Supporting Growth cuts eastward from the roundabout, looping around the western side of the lime quarry and then down to Sandspit Road, near the existing access road to Northland Waste’s Re:Sort transfer station.
Supporting Growth is proposing that it runs east from Matakana Road and curves south to avoid key environmental features and the existing quarry. It will then continue towards Sandspit Road, connecting with a new roundabout.
Submissions have been lodged by private property owners impacted by the proposed road, as well as retirement living and care provider Arvida and Northland Waste.
Arvida owns the 55ha Paddison Farm, and will make a private plan change application ahead of the planned building of a “modern and vibrant retirement community” in the next few years (MM 11 Sept). In its submission, Arvida opposes the extent of the proposed works on its land, and also the 25-year time lapse date sought by Supporting Growth, which it says will unnecessarily blight the subject site for a substantial amount of time.
Northland Waste, which runs the transfer station at 183 Sandspit Road, says in its submission that although the proposed road misses the site, it does impact the driveway and would require temporary use of the land during construction.
Like Arvida, it opposes the 25-year lapse period, saying AT should be made to buy the land sooner rather than later. It says it is not acceptable for the landowner to have to wear the cost of holding the land in the meantime.
Our home and place of identity for our parents, us, and our children and grandchildren, essentially our turangawaewae, will be demolished as it is in the middle of the proposed road.”
Rodney Macdonald
Several private landowners affected by NoR7 want the route moved further east – to run north and then east of the quarry, cutting across rural land until joining Sandspit Road at a point further east than the route favoured by Supporting Growth.
Landowner John Bryham said in his submission that five years ago, a group of landowners had met with Supporting Growth officials, and suggested the alternative route that would not affect their properties.
They felt the proposal had been well received, and heard nothing for years, until he found out almost by accident that a line had been drawn across his property indicating a future road.
“I was pretty sure that this is not the way things happen in NZ, after all this is not China, where the state can just ride roughshod over the general populace,” he wrote.
“How can they put a line across your land and not notify you?” Bryham tells Mahurangi Matters, looking out from his home at the rolling landscape where the future road could be built. “That is just shocking.”
He is unimpressed with the engagement process and is not expecting much to come out of the hearings in November.
“I think they’ve made their minds up.”
Bryham argues that the route favoured by Supporting Growth not only impacts private property, but traverses slip-prone land, whereas the suggested alternative route could use a worked-out section of the lime quarry, and benefit from a bedrock limestone base.
While NoR7 cuts a line across a corner of the Bryham property, a neighbour, Rodney Macdonald, is affected even more significantly – the proposed route would mean the demolition of his near-new family home.
In his submission, Macdonald writes that, if Supporting Growth’s preferred route option is retained, “our home and place of identity for our parents, us, and our children and grandchildren, essentially our turangawaewae, will be demolished as it is in the middle of the proposed road”.
“Our house is three years old, and used regularly for community events, including pony club meetings, children and youth events, and large family gatherings,” Macdonald says.
“Were Supporting Growth aware that the proposed road goes directly through the middle of our home, and gathering place in our community?”
Macdonald says the landowners who met with Supporting Growth in 2018 have been surprised and disappointed at the lack of meaningful engagement since.
“Nevertheless, we would like to extend our offer to help provide local perspective to deliver better outcomes for our community and explore constructive alternatives to preserve our turangawaewae for future generations.”
Macdonald says a route further east would make much more sense, avoiding the loss or impairment of four or five residential properties, and yielding better results for ecology and local infrastructure.
Supporting Growth referred queries to AT. Invited to respond to criticism about the engagement and consultation process, AT spokesperson Blake Crayton-Brown provided a brief statement:
“Te Tupu Ngātahi (Supporting Growth) has engaged with potentially impacted landowners and community throughout the indicative and detailed business case phases and Notices of Requirement process. This consultation process has been comprehensive and included individual meetings with landowners at local community venues, online and onsite.”
