Tauranga City Council have backed away from a stance over the Smith's Farm special housing area in Bethlehem that threatened a conflict with the area's neighbours in Westridge Drive.
Councillors today agreed to sell the land and to proceed with the special housing area option.
The farmland in question. Photos: File.
But it also voted not to use Westridge Drive as the main access, and to create a buffer zone between Westridge Drive and the area in question.
The development land is around 15 hectares, located between Takitimu Drive and Cambridge Road. Access is either from the end of Westridge Drive or via Richards Way.
Upgrading Westridge Drive to provide access was expected to cost $500,000 according to a staff report.
Access via Richards Way is thought to cost between $2.4 and $3.5 million, but when council chose the Westridge option, concerted opposition from Westridge residents was encountered.
More than 200 submissions attacked the decision and questioned the basis on which the decision was made.
Westridge Drive is a semi-rural sub division off Cambridge Road and a narrow service lane accessing sections on large lots that are on septic tanks.
Smith's Farm is around 41.7ha in area. About 14 ha is part of the Kopurererua Valley reserve on the eastern side of Takitimu Drive.
About 5.4ha on the western side is too steep for a housing development and about 5.5ha is designated for the future State Highway 2 northern link.
Cllr Steve Morris says he wants to provide some certainty for residents that access to any housing development would not be via Westridge Drive.
'The residents' submissions made a difference,” says Steve.
Voting was in two parts – the decision to apply to government for a special housing area on the land was carried 10-1, with Catherine Stewart voting against it.
The option to provide access other than Westridge Drive was carried 8-3, opposed by councillors Stuart Crosby, Matt Cowley and Gail McIntosh.
The option to provide a buffer zone between the two developments was also carried 8-3, with Gail McIntosh, Kelvin Clout and Catherine Stewart voting against it.
Smith's Farm was originally bought by the council for additional sports fields, but it is no longer required for that purpose.
10 comments
Westridge gentry win
Posted on 15-12-2015 17:09 | By BullShtAlert
No surprises that the moneyed people of Westridge have got these weak councillors onside. So now I want a guarantee that no vehicles from new housing developments will ever use the roads in my suburb. Unlikely because I'm not from Westridge and us swampdwellers don't have the same clout???
Gutless and ill advised
Posted on 16-12-2015 08:18 | By CC8
Pandering to the likes of the Woods and other loud and whinging is typical of this gutless council. They are there to serve the whole of the Tauranga community not just a few NIMBYs. Steve Morris, shame on you, you have shown yourself to be as limp wristed as all those councillors, on previous councils, whom you criticised when you campaigned for your seat on council...If this was in Papamoa your stance would be different. 200 opposed..sure but there are NO CURRENT RESIDENTS of Smiths farm to submit in the positive..so the decision has no balance.
Democracy
Posted on 16-12-2015 08:39 | By s.a.mcroberts
No it is not the same. Putting 2500 vehicles down Westridge would create a safety hazard and overide Section 15 of the district plan for Rural Residential areas which prevents people creating a traffic nuisance. If you want this protection for yourself, buy a section in a Rural Residential zone.If they did not get this protection, what did Westridge residents pay for when they bought into this zone. You can't blame people for exercising their rights. It is called democracy.
Disgusting.....
Posted on 16-12-2015 09:28 | By Smilarkie
.........you want a "BUFFER ZONE", why don't you just put up a fence and say us and them. TCC and the people of Westridge, you make me sick. Looks like money really does talk.
@ s a mcroberts
Posted on 16-12-2015 10:44 | By BullShtAlert
Surely when Westridge was built it overode the district plan for rural areas. It would have to have been changed from rural to rural residential. That change alone would have put more vehicles onto the local roads and by sheer numbers that would have meant an increased safety hazard. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I once stayed in a rural zone where new housing just like Westridge overode the rural environment enjoyed by the neighbouring rural residents. The publically owned and funded roads of Westridge should be available for anyone to drive on, not just the landed gentry.
Pft
Posted on 16-12-2015 10:59 | By Politically Incorrect
I don't know what you're all so shocked and angry about. Isn't it council policy to look at all options and go with the most expensive, no matter if it's the best option? I'm not sure of the geography, but wouldn't an entrance off the toll road work, and give the residents special toll permits? Maybe the land doesn't support that, but dumping 2500 cars on to a highway makes sense to me.
@ Politically Incorrect
Posted on 16-12-2015 14:25 | By Crash test dummies
Toll road entry would be logical and obvious, that is why TCC are not doing it. Just six months ago they could have done it before "selling out" to NZTA. Regardless the idea is sound, the best thee is and as usual no interest at all in it at TCC.
Get over it
Posted on 17-12-2015 02:26 | By Sunrider
It's got nothing to do with money doing the talk. Get the facts right before you all people sounding like the sour grape criticizing the decision thinking it's because of the moneyed people. The fact that putting 2500 extra cars on that road with only one exit and the right turn to Cambridge road is a real serious safety issues, not forgetting making the road queue much longer on Cambridge road. And the bus stop for the children are dangerous, and so many more facts that TCC didn't even think about when proposing to use westridge road as opposed to a better option. They chose the cheapest option at the expense of the safety of road users and young children, not to mention that the report was questionable. people from other area also submitted the opposition so go read up to understand more before you criticize.
@ Sunrider
Posted on 17-12-2015 10:23 | By BullShtAlert
So let's say you are correct and there will be all these extra cars on the road and that is potentially dangerous. When Westridge itself was built it imposed residential development on a rural area and increased traffic greatly on the surrounding roads. Therefore it too decreased safety in the area, including the safety of children. Too bad about the neighbours eh? But for the good burghers of Westridge that's ok because it was their big houses and their cars. But now when it comes to a neighbouring area being developed they play the safety and think of the children card. The word that comes to mind is hypocrisy and I dislike hypocrisy.
Common Sense
Posted on 17-12-2015 12:23 | By MrT
The problem here isn
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.