captain09 发表于 2016-8-15 15:47
25. Deleting the density control for sites of less than 1000 metres squared in mixed housing zones, ...
东西太多我就不翻译了，大家英文都应该不错
What council staff are not okay with
1. Deleting ambient air quality standards, because it will remove limits for air pollutants, undermine other objectives, and create uncertainty in the resource consent process.
2. Deleting provisions to protect sites of value to mana whenua, because there is evidence the scheduled sites are significant and face the risk of ongoing degradation.
3. Deleting the Regional Policy Statement value to manage heritage values, because it will create a disconnection between the statement and the mainland district plan.
4. Deleting policies to prevent inappropriate subdivisions, promote indigenous biodiversity and allow only lifestyle blocks, because it could lead to subdivisions in productive land.
5. Deleting policies which encourage land use and transport to be aligned, because land use and transport in synch is key to an efficient transport network.
6. Deleting policies that focus growth within the existing metropolitan area, because focusing intensification in the existing areas will lead to a more compact and efficient city.
7. Changing policies on expanding the urban-rural limit, because it doesn't take into account the need for a compact urban city, and synching up land use and transport.
8. Enabling of commercial activities within centres and near corridors, because corridors isn't defined and the council wants to allow commerce outside centres only where appropriate.
9. Changing subdivisions in the Future Urban Zone from a prohibited activity to a discretionary activity, because it could facilitate the fragmentation of land.
10. Changing landfills in the Future Urban Zone from a non-complying activity to a discretionary activity, because landfills can have long-term adverse irreversible effects over a wide area.
11. Introducing a single set of rules for cleaning biofouling off the hulls of boats, because different rules should apply based on the risk of the biofouling.
12. Counting sea walls as a type of marine or port facility, because seas walls are hard protection structures which are subject to different rules.
13. Deleting framework plans that affect the height and gross floor area controls in Wynyard Quarter, because it will reduce development potential, especially on Jelicoe Street.
14. Deleting the pre-1940 building demolition control in the Queen Street Valley Precinct because it is integral to maintaining its special character, built form, architecture and streetscape.
15. Removing minimum dwelling/apartment sizes in the city centre and business zones, because it isn't addressed by the Building Act and could affect wellbeing and social cohesion.
16. Adding boundary height controls in mixed use zones near general business zones, because it could constrain development.
17. Adding a recessions plane indicator diagram for boundary heights in business zones, because it appears to have been an error.
18. Deleting standards to manage natural hazards at Auckland Port, because it would prevent port activities from taking place around natural hazards.
19. Deleting addition, height and gross floor area threshold standards for new builds, because open space and neighbours need to be considered.
20. Allowing integrated residential developments (retirement villages) as a restricted discretionary activity in a single house zone, because neighbours should be notified.
21. Allowing three or four dwelling buildings in mixed housing suburban and urban zones to be built without a resource consent, because it would lead to low quality design.
22. Deleting minimum dwelling/apartment size standards across the city for the same reasons as 15, because it isn't addressed by the Building Act and could affect wellbeing and social cohesion.
23. Deleting front fence rules and streetscape rules for residential zones, because allowing fence up to 2.5 metres high would result in ugly streetscapes.
24. Allowing an alternative boundary height controls without a resource consent, because the non-alternative controls should apply in those cases.
25. Removing height and alternative boundary height controls for road boundaries, because it would lead to upper floors being set back from the street.
26. Deleting water and wastewater capacity standards, because septic tanks can't be built in serviced urban areas and capacity in multi-unit developments needs to be assessed.
27. Deleting the definition of building coverage, which excluded eaves, because this could discourage or prevent people from building eaves.
28. Including objectives, policies and rules to allow sporadic rural subdivision, because it would undermine productive rural areas and a compact city.
28. Allowing rural divisions for minimal environmental benefit off-setting, because it would allow inappropriate subdivisions for minimal gains.
29. Removing recommended specific site sizes for lifestyle blocks on Caldwels Road in Whitford, because the subdivider agreed to the sizes.
What council staff are okay with
1. Deleting a vehicle emission buffer around childcare facilities, because it could be introduced later through a plan change.
2. Deleting a 500 metre buffer between heavy industry zones and residential areas, because those issues could be addressed through other policies.
3. Deleting the pre-1944 building demolition overlay, which there are other protections being introduced for special character areas.
4. Retaining the special character overlay for Howick business area, because it is historic as one of Auckland's oldest settlements.
5. Removing the Puhoi precinct and creating a Puhoi special character overlay, because it will allow new developments to follow the area's existing character.
6. Adding Hill Park in Manurewa and Pukehana Avenue in Epsom as special character areas, because of proven historic signficance.
7. Removing any reference to 1940 to demolition rules, because it will require demolitions of newer character buildings to be subject to the same criteria.
8. Changing the rural objective of "security of food supply" to "making a signifcant contribution to food supply" because it will have a similar effect.
9. Including the rural objective of landscape and biodiversity values, because it will strengthen the importance of those values in rural areas.
10. Removing protections for prime soils that apply for elite soils, because removing protections of potentially unfertile soils may not be pragmatic.
11. Moving the rural-urban boundary from regional policy to the mainland district plan, because boundary changes on Waiheke Island would still require plan changes or resource consents.
12. Deleting the urban-rural boundary in rural and costal settlements, because other rules will prevent the inappropriate expansion of these settlements.
13. Introducing stricter criteria for removing mangroves, because it will retain mangroves that are important for ecology and safety but still allow other mangroves to be removed.
14. Removing rules for living on houseboats, because they will still need to follow sewage rules, obtain permits and not block public access.
15. Treating any more than minor reclamation at Auckland Port as a discretionary activity, because it will require the effects of that reclamation to be fully assessed.
16. Treating any new wharfs or alterations to existing wharves at Auckland Port as a restricted discretionary activity, because it will allow appropriate matters to be considered.
17. Removing a viewshaft protection from the end of Queens Wharf out to the harbour, because it can be reintroduced through a plan change.
18. Deleting standards for building work and internal design, because they can be reintroduced through a plan change.
18. Deleting design standards and addressing design issues through the resource consent process, because it will be adequate.
19. Deleting framework plans around the Quay Park Precinct because they would be relatively minor.
20. Deleting urban design standards in business zones, because the plan will still try to achieve the same design outcomes.
21. Deleting internal design standards, because they could be introduced later through a plan change.
22. Increasing the height in Newmarket Metropolitan Centre from 32.5 metres to 72.5 metres, because protections of volcanic viewshafts will still apply.
23. Using single house zoning for special character areas, spacious avenues and coastal settings, because it provides for a range of living options in the city.
24. Allowing minor dwellings in single house zones, because they were already allowed in many places and will provide more housing choices.
25. Deleting the density control for sites of less than 1000 metres squared in mixed housing zones, because it will provide greater housing capacity and choice.
26. Deleting development standards for the garages and dwellings fronting streets, because they are usually not an issue for standalone houses.
27. Deleting the retained affordable housing provisions, because allowing more homes to be built is a better way of making sure homes are affordable.
28. Changing subdivisions in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area from prohibited to non-complying, because the area is protected by legislation anyway.
29. Changing the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area from a precinct to an overlay, because the area is protected by legislation anyway.
29. Changing the Waitakere Ranges precincts into a Waitakere Ranges zone and a Waitakere Foothills zone, because limited development in the foothills is okay.
30. Rezoning these areas, because it will still allow subdivision to be controlled around Titirangi and Langholm.
31. Removing restrictions in the Waitakere Ranges which are managed by bylaws or other rules, or are unnecessary, because the area is protected by legislation anyway.
32. Adding these zones to the Regional Plan, because it will change how they are enforced and could be outside the law
资料源：http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news ... lands-unitary-plan/
captain09 发表于 2016-8-15 15:47
25. Deleting the density control for sites of less than 1000 metres squared in mixed housing zones, ...
boyis 发表于 2016-8-15 15:28
求翻译后说重点... 谢谢, 看不 懂.
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-15 16:06
舊聞 今天大部分都通過了
現在就等19號大會正式通過 然後就等上訴了
Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-15 16:39
yes, that is right, despite density control is gone, you are really still allowed to do two house ...
Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-15 16:39
yes, that is right, despite density control is gone, you are really still allowed to do two house ...
AcuraR 发表于 2016-8-15 16:58
So what may stop people from building another house on a 770 sqm section in a mixed house urban zo ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-15 17:02
老兄也是planner？ 我不用你help啦 呵呵
Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-15 17:17
lol yeah i am a planner as well, working private though, anyway my system is English and my chines ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-15 17:28
哈哈 同行握個手 其實新UP 對我們來說某些程度是個威脅 發展規定一切都放寬了 人們還需要申請RC 嗎？呵呵 ...
Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-15 17:36
yeah, graduated on UoA Bplan, i guess its alright, consultation is always required, and we are pro ...
校草 发表于 2016-8-15 20:27
新政下：不管土地面积是1000平以下还是以上的MIX ZONE，1变2，不需要RC，1变3or4需要RC，当然这些都是水管O ...
chankeung 发表于 2016-8-15 20:04
764平米 6A区， 分割建2个房子就不需要RC, 1000平米6A区， 建三个或以下的就不需RC, 是这么理解吗？ ...
校草 发表于 2016-8-15 20:30
如果我有2个房子相互相连。面积超过1300平。是不是理论也只能分4块？再多就需要RC？ ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-15 23:47
你要分地首先就要拿RC 土地分割本身就是RC的一種
另外還要看所屬zoning 沒有密度限制的只局限於市區最 ...
校草 发表于 2016-8-15 20:27
新政下：不管土地面积是1000平以下还是以上的MIX ZONE，1变2，不需要RC，1变3or4需要RC，当然这些都是水管O ...
校草 发表于 2016-8-15 20:30
如果我有2个房子相互相连。面积超过1300平。是不是理论也只能分4块？再多就需要RC？ ...
校草 发表于 2016-8-16 09:32
我现在谈的都是在ZONING里的地。
COUNCIL NOT OK WITH
21. Allowing three or four dwelling buildings in ...
Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-16 10:06
no, there is still subdivision controls on lot sizes, there is just less control in terms of the n ...
校草 发表于 2016-8-16 09:32
我现在谈的都是在ZONING里的地。
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-16 11:47
注意 樓上的說的是VACANT 一般人分割都連帶房子設計圖紙的 那就不是"vacant" 就不受這個最低面積約束了
...
MIX HOUSING SUBURBAN地足够大，1000平，缺少雨水管道的话，是不是还是不能分呢？新政下~Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-16 10:02
yeah, to my understanding, the actual number of the dwelling is still limited, but you could alloc ...
林中飞渔 发表于 2016-8-16 11:54
MIX HOUSING SUBURBAN地足够大，1000平，缺少雨水管道的话，是不是还是不能分呢？新政下~ ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-16 11:57
雨水管這些是最基本要求 和Unitary Plan 沒直接關係 卻是Resource Management Act 的問題
如果沒有雨 ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-16 11:54
沒有了 至少mixed housing 兩個zones 人家開宗明義說沒有density control了
雖然其實根本不可能真的隨 ...
Ryukai 发表于 2016-8-16 12:04
i think i heard it somewhere that household number is still going to be limited, or at least limit ...
林中飞渔 发表于 2016-8-16 12:02
也就是说基础设施要求不变的基础上，分割出现了一种新的形式？一种是V。S。一种是看房屋设计？
UP中有没 ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-16 12:42
Vacant Site 由於Council 不知道你要建什麼 不能隨便就給你分過三尖八角的不能發展的土地出來 所以會要求 ...
林中飞渔 发表于 2016-8-16 12:45
也就是说现在房屋设计很重要咯，港人有没房屋设计要求的链接哈？或者说能放几套房的政策去哪里看？ ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-16 13:08
房屋設計一向都很重要的啦 要求有房子設計否則分割申請中土地要有一定面積和寬度等從來都是Council 要求 ...
陌生的香港人 发表于 2016-8-15 16:06
舊聞 今天大部分都通過了
現在就等19號大會正式公佈決定版本 然後就等上訴了
Arhleks 发表于 2016-8-29 20:40
请教陌生的香港人：780的地在mixed housing urban里面，如果各种设计排水条件都满足可以分三块吗？这个‘分 ...
bubugu 发表于 2016-8-29 21:41
780平米的地 mixed zone 可分两块土地(net site)就可以subdivision有独立freehold ，但是780平米的地不可 ...
| 欢迎光临 新西兰天维网社区 (http://bbs.skykiwi.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X2 |
