Displaying
221 - 230 of
438
| Number | Name | Submission | Change type | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N20-647 | Dr Mary Hedges | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Dr Mary HedgesCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Dr Mary HedgesMy basic objection is that the argument makes no logical sense. The Labour Party submission argues that contiguous suburbs shouldn't be split and then the suggested solution splits Mt Wellington right across the middle. Furthermore their proposed boundary on this Eastern side of the new electorate is extremely unclear in their submission. The only way to get a good guestimate of where the new boundary may be is at mesh block level which means nothing to 99.9% of the population.In addition, their proposal focuses on the Eastern boundary of the electorate and makes no reference whatsoever to the addition on the Western side of the electorate. This has major implications based on the premise that electorate review takes place to ensure ongoing balance between electorate size - Labour's suggestion totally ignores/undermines this premise based on the following calculations. Changes proposed by panel: Moved into MKK (ex Mt Roskill) +9152 (112 mesh blocks) Moving out of MKK (to ME) -10877 (191 mesh blocks) Net change -1725 However, Labour's proposal results in: Moved into MKK (ex Mt Roskill) +9152 (112 mesh blocks) Retained Pt England etc. 6245 (99 mesh blocks) (not counted in net change) Loses part of Mt Wgtn -4280 (48 mesh blocks) Net change +4872 Working at this mesh block level highlights the other difficulty with their plan – it splits streets as it doesn’t follow any natural boundary (such as train, motorway, river, coast). It appears to split the following streets: Penrose Road Panorama Road Barrack Road Bertrand Road Malone Road Mt Wellington Highway Ireland Road For all of these reasons I argue that the proposed boundaries suggested by the panel are much cleaner, better future proofed against population growth and focused around clear, natural boundary lines. Suggested solutionFocus on the underlying principles of electorate review - balance! |
||||
| N20-648 | Ainsley Siegel | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Ainsley SiegelCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Ainsley SiegelThis submission poorly separates the suburb of Mt Wellington and unnecessarily splits a community of interest. Mt Wellington has no common interest with Manukau East nor any major common geographic features that ties the two together. I find it difficult to accept that half of Mt Wellington residents should be in the Manukau East electorate, while the other half remain in Maungakiekie. Mt Wellington residents have also not been separated from Maungarei before. Why change this when it's a major identifying feature for many? Mt Wellington as a community should be kept intact and represented by a single MP, therefore the Railway Line is a better boundary to use.Suggested solutionKeep to the Commission's proposal and use the Mt Wellington Railway Line as the boundary separating the new Maungakiekie electorate to the new Manukau East electorate. |
||||
| N20-649 | Ainsley Siegel | Counter-Objection | Boundary, name | |
Ainsley SiegelCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, N20-015, N20-016, N20-019, N20-018, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-026, N20-024, N20-063, N20-030, N20-031, N20-001, N20-056, N20-002, N20-035, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-004, N20-058, N20-059, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-047, N20-050, N20-052, N20-007, N20-008, N20-055, N20-057, N20-027, N20-010, N20-009
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change
Ainsley SiegelThese submissions highlight Panmure's lack of history, common interest, or identification with Manukau East. However, the name of the Manukau East electorate contributes to this disconnect. If you're moving new communities into an old established electorate, it's common sense to change the identity of that electorate to cater for everyone. A name change is the first step.Suggested solutionChange the name of "Manukau East" to a new name that represents all communities in the electoral boundary. "East Tamaki" is a suggestion or "Panmure-Otahuhu". |
||||
| N22-001 | New Zealand Labour Party | Objection | Boundary | |
New Zealand Labour PartyObjection
Manurewa
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
New Zealand Labour PartyThe area in the south-east corner of the existing Manurewa Electorate is a long-standing part of the original Manurewa suburban area from the days of the Borough in the 1950s and 60s, through to the Manukau City Council Ward and now as part of the Manurewa Local Board area of Auckland Council. This south-east area includes long-standing local Manurewa schools and is served predominantly by the Manurewa main-street and Southmall shopping and service area and includes the new Manurewa Fire Station and Te Mahia Railway Station.The boundary proposed in the south-east of Manurewa cuts across and bisects cohesive local communities and extracts them from long-term inclusion in Manurewa. This affects strong church and school communities. The Weymouth area over the same historic period was a more separate community and now includes that long-term Weymouth community along with relatively new and very new housing subdivisions. It has retained a sense of independence as a community and supports a vocal and effective Residents and Ratepayers Society. The Weymouth area has remained relatively separate from Manurewa and is served predominantly by the Clendon shopping mall and service area which borders on Palmers Rd–one of the boundary lines proposed here. Moving Weymouth into the proposed Flat Bush Electorate would include in the proposed new electorate a whole distinct area which would not be divided or otherwise fragmented. This would also serve to unite the three similar and adjacent areas in the south of Manurewa (Weymouth, Heron Point and Wattle Downs, each being a peninsula into the Manukau Harbour) within the proposed Flat Bush Electorate and thus add a cohesion to this part of the new electorate that the proposed extraction of communities from the south east of Manurewa does not have. Suggested solution• We oppose the removal of Greenmeadows and Manurewa South from the Manurewa electorate and urge that the south-eastern boundary of Manurewa remain at Mahia Rd and SH1.• We recommend instead the inclusion of the Weymouth Peninsula into the Flat Bush electorate. See attachment for map of new proposal for the southern end of Flat Bush |
||||
| N22-002 | Jacinda Prattley | Objection | Boundary | |
Jacinda PrattleyObjection
Manurewa
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Jacinda PrattleyWattle Downs is part of Manurewa, and nowhere near Flat Bush. In Wattle Downs we are proud to be part of Manurewa and you should keep us in the south, not put us in the east. Manurewa town centre is literally minutes from our door. Flatbush is ages away and on the other side of the motorway! It just doesn't make sense.Suggested solutionLeave Wattle Downs in the Manurewa boundary! |
||||
| N23-001 | Harveys Real Estate Papakura | Objection | Boundary | |
Harveys Real Estate PapakuraObjection
Papakura
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Harveys Real Estate PapakuraI'm the proprietor of Harveys Real Estate Papakura. Our expertise lays in Project managment, marketing and selling of newly developed subdivisions in the area's of Karaka, Hingaia, Papakura, Clevedon and now Drury. These areas have experience extraordinary growth over the last few years. Drury in particular based on what is proposed in the areas 5-10 year plan will see this suburb fast become the mega centre of the South. With this in mind having the Papakura Electorate boundary's follow the same path of growth would make sense. It is our opinion that following the commissions proposal be a sensible one providing an eye to future proofing the area through consistent representation in order to tackle the pressures of this regions future growth challenges.Suggested solutionNone required... We support the proposed changes |
||||
| N23-002 | Mrs Adrienne O'Connor | Objection | Boundary | |
Mrs Adrienne O'ConnorObjection
Papakura
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mrs Adrienne O'ConnorThe commission has done a great job, in my opinion. I would like to thank you for all the research and work that you must have done to sort out an extra Electorate in the Auckland area. We all have to lose constituents to make this work and you seem to have done this in a very balanced manner.You seem to have taken into account the growth that we are going to see in the current Papakura Electorate. We accept that Drury and the current area around that is likely to become a highly built up area and should stay with Papakura. To keep this in balance Ardmore, Clevedon, Maraetai and Beachlands seem to be ideal to add to the mix. Kingseat and Karaka have always been thought of as part of Papakura. I have been a resident of Papakura for over 40 years. My husband and I have had a significant rental property portfolio in Papakura and Manurewa. I have previously sold Real Estate in Papakura for 5 years so feel that I understand this area really well. Suggested solutionI ask that you make no further changes to the Electorate Boundaries. You have done a great job. |
||||
| N23-003 | Mr John O'Connor | Objection | Boundary | |
Mr John O'ConnorObjection
Papakura
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr John O'ConnorFirstly, let me thank the commission for the work that has been done on this, and the opportunity the commission has allowed me to make this submission:Your research has confirmed the tremendous growth that is taking place in this area, and the fact that this is going to continue in the future. By taking into account this growth, particularly in the Drury area, the commission has identified that electoral boundaries need to adapt to accommodate it. Papakura City is, of course urban, and should largely remain within the Papakura electorate, however by bringing rural areas such as Beachlands, Maeratai, and Clevedon, along with the current rural areas of Kingseat and Karaka, I suggest that you have created a near perfect electorate in terms of balance. While I am not professionally qualified to comment on the future growth of this area, I know that it will be significant, and I believe that the proposed boundaries are sufficient to allow for this growth without modification of the proposed boundaries for some years. I have been a resident of it for 40+ years. My wife and I have owned a significant portfolio of properties in the area. We understand it! We believe it is well served by the proposed boundaries. Suggested solutionI respectfully recommend that this proposal goes forward unchanged. |
||||
| N23-004 | Mr Peter O'Brien | Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Peter O'BrienObjection
Papakura
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Peter O'BrienI support the proposed change to the Papakura Electorate boundaries. I have lived in Papakura for over 50 years and find the proposed boundaries as the most acceptable as a Papakura centric Electorate. It includes the fast developing areas in Karaka and Drury as well as our close rural areas. It should be demanding of an elected Member of Parliament to represent a good mix of new and established urban dwellers, industry, education, sports & recreation and rural constituents. |
||||
| N23-005 | Mr Daniel Nakhle | Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Daniel NakhleObjection
Papakura
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Daniel NakhleI am a resident of Papakura with large scale residential and commercial developments as well as industrial properties and businesses in Papakura, Karaka and Beachlands as well as The Gardens and Clarks Beach. Having lived in the area for over 35 years and worked specifically within it for over 25 years, I can say in both my personal and professional viewpoints, that the proposed boundary is a well-thought and appropriate solution to the growth that the area in and around Papakura has experienced in the past six years and further, takes into account the community of interest which has Papakura at its town centre. Although there will be disruption to communities, I note that the proposed boundary is very much in line with the old Clevedon seat (minus the Botany area).The consolidation effect and the logical nature of these changes can only be seen as positive and the Commission is to be congratulated on such a sensible approach. Suggested solutionNone required. I support the proposed changes. |
||||