The District Plan review continues – sometimes it's almost like a recurring bad dream.

To many of you it will appear to be a non event having little effect on your day-to-day lives. But to others, who will be coming to Tauranga in the future, it may have far reaching effects. As I see it, the planners are touting for more and more regulation to create a ‘good' environment for future residents. Of course ‘good' is a relative term largely determined by the eye of the beholder. It was somewhat alarming to be told that if council doesn't get its yield of sections up to between 15-20 lots per hectare that the city won't be able to afford its growth – meaning paying for the cost of infrastructure and services. Well that's not news – some can't afford it now.

Man's home is his castle
Elected members can resist all or some of this planning thrust for detailed control in determining the direction of future growth a hundred times. But the planners only have to win it once. It's my view that the process will continue just like a continual drip until one day soon, the planners will win and they only have to win once. Then there's no going back.
That's not to say that there shouldn't be a plan. Of course there should be; just not drilled down to the level of detail proposed; regulating the style type and height of fences facing road frontages for example. Planners tried to have a rule requiring clear visibility from the road to the house. A good idea in some instances but not in others – why not leave it to the home owner, after all a man's home is his castle – yeah right!
Another example was an attempt to force any wall of a house or other building of over 30m to be stepped by 600mm minimum; again a good idea in some instances and irrelevant in other situations. I see the greenies are promoting painting roofs white. It's not so far away when you will be told what sort of front door knob you will have. As I've noted before if you have even remote interest in how you may be told to live in the future you need to have a look at the impact the District Plan may have when its draft goes out for public consultation.

Dedicated determination
In full council we heard submissions mainly from people associated with Papamoa Progressive and Mount Maunganui Progressive Associations in relation to Council's representation review; a triennial government requirement that recommends the makeup of the council for next year's election; a dedicated group of people who are determined to hold onto their ward representation – and its easy to see their point of view. Council's draft proposal had been to have no wards with 10 councillors elected at large.

Present council make up
A wide ranging debate saw council's original proposal for 10 councillors elected at large carried seven votes to four. Of the seven, three were councillors elected from a ward. Mayor Stuart Crosby jumped ship changing his vote from the original draft. Final determination will be made by that bastion of democracy the Local Government Commission, which previously flew in the face of a city wide referendum and imposed the present council make up on Tauranga. I was shocked to hear that Grant Kirby, a former Labour government appointee, is back on the commission and he just loves dividing up democracy in my opinion. For my two bobs worth, everyone should have the option of voting for everyone who is going to represent them and set their rates/user fees/taxes. No taxation without representation and don't muck around with that.
Murray Guy raised the matter of a Tangata Whenua ward which he said was no different to a geographical ward. Murray joined Mayor Stuart, Wayne Moultrie and Rick Curach in supporting the status quo.

Quick fixes not cheap
A notice of motion tabled by Catherine Stewart seemed to have murky origins. It required, 'An independent efficiency audit of internal core services with the aim of reducing costs. Part two required ‘an independent review' is carried out on major projects such as the Southern Pipeline and Indoor Sport and Exhibition Centre to assess what cost savings and efficiencies can be achieved.” At face value a laudable task. But without basic detail some of us saw this as an opportunity for another consultant's report on consultants with an open cheque book. The Southern Pipeline has already been peer reviewed at a cost of over $400,000. CEO Stephen Town told elected members to pass these resolutions as they stood as they could expose council to costs ranging from 'six figures to $2 million.” Council is proposing a ‘procurement' review which will determine and possibly change how it goes about employing contractors and projects. In the end it got watered down to a staff report in conjunction with elected members and we will look at it again after the procurement review. For my part I want best value for ratepayers, which is not always the cheapest quote. There's been too much in the past being done on the cheap and it comes back to bite council and ratepayers on the bum every time; sometimes when you need it least – like the lease on the Mount Action Centre (a cheap quick fix at the time) now turning into a $41 million solution. For the next 10 years as things stand now I don't see council being in a position to do anything outside what is noted in the 10 Year Plan and with the budget reductions achieved this year some of that will have to fall by the wayside.

Predictable outcomes
It looks like the saga surrounding Councillor Hayden Evans has run out of steam. A predictable outcome as time went by and council dilly dallied. From my discussions only Mike Baker, Wayne Moultrie and myself thought firm action was required. Councillor Evans has said he won't do anymore secret recordings in the Councillors' Lounge again; but won't apologise. This sorry saga highlights that elected members are their own master, responsible and accountable only to their electorate and the elected members code of conduct is a worthless exercise in futility.