2022-11-04 Special Meeting Agenda

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA                                                         4 NOVEMBER 2022


that because there wasn’t development on a site it didn’t mean it was not serving an important
purpose. See section 0 below for further detail.

7.1.4 Not Council’s role
A theme mentioned in 11 written submissions was that this is not the role of Council and taking on
the role puts undue financial strain on ratepayers and distracts Council from its key duties. See
section 8 below for further detail.

7.1.5 Compromises Town Plan
In addition to population capacity there were other concerns that various elements of the planning
scheme were being compromised. Primarily these addressed density but also character elements.
The need to amend such a new scheme was particularly questioned.

7.1.6 Granny flats are density by stealth
Some submissions were totally opposed to any use of granny flats (secondary dwellings) beyond
the household members and sited concerns that it would greatly impact low density neighbourhoods
with many more cars, noise, overlooking, and general degradation of low density residential amenity.
There was also concern that Councill would not be able to prevent them being used for short-term
letting. One submission went to great lengths to explain social and economic reasons why such an
arrangement inherently favoured the property owner and did not necessarily provide secure
accommodation for the secondary dwelling tenant. See section 13 below for further detail.

7.1.7 Partnering with developers
A number of submissions were concerned that the housing strategy favoured land developers/
property investors and that any move by Council to partner with them through provision of land or
money, or even subsidising development costs was not appropriate.

7.1.8 Social housing causes social problems
There were a few submissions opposed to any additional social housing for reasons that it leads to
undesirable social elements such as crime, vandalism and general reduction in local amenity and
ultimately property values.

7.1.9 Tiny or Relocatable homes
Tiny homes or cheap relocatable structures on public or community lands were opposed by a few
on the basis that they would be unattractive and create health and social concerns.

7.1.10 Staff housing responsibility
There were a few submissions concerned the community is being asked to assist businesses by
subsidising or otherwise supporting employee housing. They suggested businesses should either
pay staff more or provide accommodation for them.

7.1.11 Ageist undertones
A couple of submissions suggested there was a lack of respect for older residents who may no longer
be in the workforce, and who may be living solo or as couples in large homes, but whom still
contribute to the community. They felt it was implied older residents were monopolising local houses
and should free them up for younger working families.



                                                                                      Page 8 of 20