Planners are grinding our cities to a halt

Media Release from the Centre for Resource Management Studies.
Planners are grinding our cities to a halt.

Economic growth and development is driven by many people making investment decisions and developing businesses to serve markets
and satisfy people's needs.

Every voluntary transaction increases wealth because both parties to the transaction end up better off as a result of the transaction.

Planned economies perform poorly precisely because they close off the opportunity for a multitude of transactions operating at all levels of society.

While we worry about the negative impact of congestion on economic growth and development in our cities we need to be aware that an equally negative, and more pernicious form of "congestion" is stifling growth and development in and around our cities.

The history of central planning is almost entirely a history of an elite standing in the way change. When cities were growing the planners were opposed to cities, and tried to boost the regions. Now that the people are moving out into the countryside or to regional centres the planners are anti countryside living and want to crowd the people into cities even at the expense of increased congestion and pollution.

Urban economists and historians are agreed that the boundary between urban and country is blurring or indeed disappearing. Modern technology, and especially communications and transport technology is making this decentralisation possible.

But the central planners are determined to prevent people setting up homes and business outside the city "walls" as though we could, or should, recreate medieval towns.

While searching the web for the agenda item dealing with the Ah Chee house I came across this report which should chill the blood of anyone who wants to see New Zealand grow and develop and stay wealthy enough to pay for our health and education and the other trappings of civilisation.

AGENDA – MONDAY 15 MAY 2006
REGIONAL STRATEGY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
43 Section B
Territorial Local Authority: Franklin District Council
Applicant: Lava East & Co Ltd
Proposal: To establish and operate a retail outlet for the sale of indoor and outdoor furniture and furnishings with
café premises on a Rural zoned property on Great South Road, Runciman.

Action Taken: Submission lodged in opposition.

Reason for Action Taken:
The proposal represents urban development outside of the Metropolitan Urban Limits. The
proposal is likely to result in adverse cumulative effects associated with urban activities locating in
rural areas, particularly in close proximity to the site. (ie. along State Highway 1).

Decision:
The Franklin District Council resolved on the 7th April 2006 to refuse consent.
The ARC submission was accepted.

The decision cited the following reasons for refusal
of the application:
That the proposal was an urban activity with no functional connection to the rural land resource;
the proposal is contrary to the objectives and policies of the Franklin District Plan that seek to safeguard the versatile soils, and minimise adverse effects of development on rural amenity;
the application is inconsistent with the ARPS and Plan Change 6;
that the application will result in effects that are more than minor.

This proposal is in close proximity to the Ballantyne motel proposal which was recently heard by the
Environment Court.

Further Action: No further action is necessary at this stage.

There may be no need for action at this stage but at the next election these councillors should all be voted out.

Since when did the RMA require activities to be functionally connected to the rural land resource?
Actually, with the rural dwellings, and small farms being set up in peri urban areas there is a great demand for indoor and outdoor furniture.

There is of course no requirement in the RMA to protect versatile soils.

Such a retail centre with a nice cafe actually contributes to rural amenity. Good coffee is still hard to find in many rural areas.

Plan Change has been advertised and has received powerful objections and has yet to be heard. So it carries no weight.

And it is plan change 6 which introduces this weird idea that urban activities have no place in the countryside. (Obviously I should not be here because running this centre must be an urban activity.)

The ARC objected to the Ballantyne proposal on the same grounds. Their planners have decided that the only visitor accommodation allowed in the rural zones are Bed and Breakfast establishments. Presumably because they are run by yoeman farmers with yoewomen in the kitchen.

How did we come to governed by such madness?

What happens to presumably sane people when they get elected to our councils that they can sit and agree to such nonsense in the agenda?

ENDS

© Scoop Media