At a public meeting on 24 November 2010 the association changed its name to the Campbells Bay Community Association to better reflect the new focus of speaking with and for the whole community, not just residents and ratepayers. The association is actively communicating with businesses and groups in Campbells Bay (such as churches, clubs, shops, etc.) in developing a vision and plan for the future of Campbells Bay.
The blog is no longer being kept updated as the webmaster has moved out of Campbells Bay. Any resident wishing to volunteer to maintain a web presence should email the association.
Max Thomson (Chairman)
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Meet Our Local Board Members, Wed 24 November at 8pm
We have invited our Local Board members and our two (Albany Ward) Auckland Councillors to meet with Campbells Bay residents on Wednesday 24 November at 8pm at All Hallows Church hall, 218 Beach Rd. Six LB members and one councillor have accepted our invitation so far. Bring a plate of finger food or koha so we can get to know them over an light meal.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Committee Meeting - Wednesday 20 October 2010
A committee meeting was held on Wednesday 20 October. We are making good progress with the collation of the Community Survey returns. Around 150 returns have been received.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Meet the Candidates
A successful public meeting was held with 22 local election candidates and 53 in the audience. Candidates were asked to address the following question (or similar for Local Board candidates):
"As you know, while councillors are elected on a ward basis, their role is to make decisions about the ‘big picture’ – the major strategic issues facing Auckland, concentrating on the major growth, economic and environmental issues regionally and determining the council’s priorities.
To do this, if you are elected, you will need to communicate and engage with both the communities within the Albany ward and with the two local boards to be able to consider their views when making decisions.
To do this, if you are elected, you will need to communicate and engage with both the communities within the Albany ward and with the two local boards to be able to consider their views when making decisions.
What ideas do you have for connecting with Campbells Bay people in fulfilling those responsibilities and what commitment will you give us that we can hold you to if you are elected?"
Several of the candidates remarked it was the best meeting they had been to and were impressed with the turnout.
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Campbells Bay Community Survey
Why a Survey?
On 1 November 2010 our community board and North Shore City Council (NSCC) cease to exist. The functions currently controlled by them and the Auckland Regional Council that relate to Campbells Bay get distributed to an Auckland Mayor, an Auckland Council, a host of Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. In light of these changes, we want to create the opportunity to coordinate our planning and work together to influence our future.
Your Residents and Ratepayers Organisation, with the encouragement and support of the NSCC and its CEO, John Brockies, has been taking a lead with other North Shore Residents groups in being proactive to develop a “ground up” approach to planning our future. We have identified some excellent examples, including the prize-winning Porirua City “Village Planning” model www.pcc.govt.nz/Community and the North Sydney Council Community Precincts scheme www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au . There is also the 2010 prize-winning Sustainable Paremoremo development www.parepublisher.co.nz .
There are two parts to this initiative:
• Working with other community groups to help the new Auckland Council and its local boards recognise and accept local community participation in district planning.
• Developing our own Campbells Bay Community Plan so we have authority from you, the residents, to ask for what we want for our future “social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being”.
A Mandate for Planning
The survey responses will give us - your community plan group – some of the information we need to prepare a plan for the Campbells Bay Community. We would grateful if you took a few minutes to do the survey. Please deliver it by one of the methods given on the back page. We are not limiting our vision to traditional “Council” issues. We want to understand our community's desires for the future of our families, neighbours and environment.
We look forward to working together.
Max Thomson
Chairman, Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association
On 1 November 2010 our community board and North Shore City Council (NSCC) cease to exist. The functions currently controlled by them and the Auckland Regional Council that relate to Campbells Bay get distributed to an Auckland Mayor, an Auckland Council, a host of Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. In light of these changes, we want to create the opportunity to coordinate our planning and work together to influence our future.
Your Residents and Ratepayers Organisation, with the encouragement and support of the NSCC and its CEO, John Brockies, has been taking a lead with other North Shore Residents groups in being proactive to develop a “ground up” approach to planning our future. We have identified some excellent examples, including the prize-winning Porirua City “Village Planning” model www.pcc.govt.nz/Community and the North Sydney Council Community Precincts scheme www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au . There is also the 2010 prize-winning Sustainable Paremoremo development www.parepublisher.co.nz .
There are two parts to this initiative:
• Working with other community groups to help the new Auckland Council and its local boards recognise and accept local community participation in district planning.
• Developing our own Campbells Bay Community Plan so we have authority from you, the residents, to ask for what we want for our future “social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being”.
A Mandate for Planning
The survey responses will give us - your community plan group – some of the information we need to prepare a plan for the Campbells Bay Community. We would grateful if you took a few minutes to do the survey. Please deliver it by one of the methods given on the back page. We are not limiting our vision to traditional “Council” issues. We want to understand our community's desires for the future of our families, neighbours and environment.
We look forward to working together.
Max Thomson
Chairman, Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Community Survey
Your Community Plan Team is finalising a survey form for a letterbox drop so expect one in your letterbox in the next few weeks.
Any questions or thoughts, email campbellsbayrandr at gmail dot com.
Any questions or thoughts, email campbellsbayrandr at gmail dot com.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
New Auckland Council Website
For information about the new Auckland Council you can now go to www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz (by clicking on the link at bottom right of this page).
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill - Submission
This bill nearly kept below the radar because it isn't specifically about Auckland. It applies throughout New Zealand but has very significant implications in the way it changes the democratic process in our local government. Our thanks to Peter Aimer for preparing the following (Submission Ref PJEI67R) for us:
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill
Submission on behalf of the Campbells Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association.
To: Local Government and Environment Select Committee
As a local community organisation representing the residents and ratepayer living in the Campbells Bay (North Shore, Auckland) district, our primary focus is on the opportunities for people in the community to articulate local concerns, and the channels to do so within the framework of local government structures and processes. As a community group, we are also aware of the vast array of services and benefits deriving from active local government.
Consequently, there is much in the LGA 2002 Amendment Bill that we cannot support. There are two areas of particular concern to us: first, specific clauses of the Bill diminish the requirement of local governments to consult with their communities. Secondly, the range of activities within the ambit of local government is constrained by the Bill's prescriptive list of 'core services'. This emphasis on 'core services', which smacks of a 'one size fits all' approach, will greatly reduce the potential for local governments in different areas to respond to the different demands and needs of their communities.
While the Bill's general aim of improving 'transparency, accountability, and financial management' are laudable in the abstract, it is not clear that the substantive clauses of the Bill always promote these aims; or, indeed, that the Bill's aims and means are consistent with each other. How, for example, do fewer opportunities for citizens to have a say in the on-going processes of local government improve accountability?
Arising from these general remarks, we make the following recommendations:
(1) Clauses affecting consultation and engagement with the community:
Clause 4: we oppose this as it removes the opportunity for community input into a Council's identification of community outcomes, provided for in s91 of the original Act.
Clause 8: we oppose deletion of all four stages of consultation and recommend retaining two stages, viz s78 (2) (a) and (c) in the original Act.
Clause 11: we oppose this as it has the effect of freeing a Council from the obligation (s88 of the Act) to consult before changing 'the mode of delivery of significant activities', i.e. despite the acknowledged importance of such 'activities', it diminishes the role of citizens in the guiding of a Council's decisions.
Clause 12: we oppose this because the deletion of s91 and s92 reduces the opportunity for local voices to influence the pursuit of community outcomes.
Clause 14: we oppose this as removing items required to be included in the long-term council community plan also reduces the scope of public input into Council decisions.
Clause 16: we support the inclusion of new s99A introducing pre-election reports 'to provide information to promote public discussion about the issues facing the local authority', as these are consistent with our concern for a robust community role in the functioning of local government.
Clauses 31 & 32: we oppose these as they permit the contracting out of water services for up to 35 years, thus in effect privatising a vital public resource, which further reduces the scope for democratic participation in an important issue within the sphere of local government, and one which will become even more a major concern for communities.
Clause 47 and Schedule 2: which 'amend the principal Act to change the name of a long-term council community plan to long-term plan and to make other consequential amendments'. We are opposed to any consequential lessening of a Council's statutory requirement to engage with the community, as specified for example in s75 (c) oft he Act.
(2) Clauses relating to the scope of local government:
Clause 5: we oppose this as the listing of 'core services' is both prescriptive and limiting when in practice the activities of local governments extend, and are expected to extend, beyond the five categories named.
Clause 6: we oppose this addition to s14 'Principles relating to local authorities' as it has the effect of narrowing a Council's judgement of what is a justifiable investment. We believe the normal processes of political accountability are a sufficient constraint on a Council's decisions, along with the original Act's requirement that 'commercial transactions' should follow 'sound business practices'.
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill
Submission on behalf of the Campbells Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association.
To: Local Government and Environment Select Committee
As a local community organisation representing the residents and ratepayer living in the Campbells Bay (North Shore, Auckland) district, our primary focus is on the opportunities for people in the community to articulate local concerns, and the channels to do so within the framework of local government structures and processes. As a community group, we are also aware of the vast array of services and benefits deriving from active local government.
Consequently, there is much in the LGA 2002 Amendment Bill that we cannot support. There are two areas of particular concern to us: first, specific clauses of the Bill diminish the requirement of local governments to consult with their communities. Secondly, the range of activities within the ambit of local government is constrained by the Bill's prescriptive list of 'core services'. This emphasis on 'core services', which smacks of a 'one size fits all' approach, will greatly reduce the potential for local governments in different areas to respond to the different demands and needs of their communities.
While the Bill's general aim of improving 'transparency, accountability, and financial management' are laudable in the abstract, it is not clear that the substantive clauses of the Bill always promote these aims; or, indeed, that the Bill's aims and means are consistent with each other. How, for example, do fewer opportunities for citizens to have a say in the on-going processes of local government improve accountability?
Arising from these general remarks, we make the following recommendations:
(1) Clauses affecting consultation and engagement with the community:
Clause 4: we oppose this as it removes the opportunity for community input into a Council's identification of community outcomes, provided for in s91 of the original Act.
Clause 8: we oppose deletion of all four stages of consultation and recommend retaining two stages, viz s78 (2) (a) and (c) in the original Act.
Clause 11: we oppose this as it has the effect of freeing a Council from the obligation (s88 of the Act) to consult before changing 'the mode of delivery of significant activities', i.e. despite the acknowledged importance of such 'activities', it diminishes the role of citizens in the guiding of a Council's decisions.
Clause 12: we oppose this because the deletion of s91 and s92 reduces the opportunity for local voices to influence the pursuit of community outcomes.
Clause 14: we oppose this as removing items required to be included in the long-term council community plan also reduces the scope of public input into Council decisions.
Clause 16: we support the inclusion of new s99A introducing pre-election reports 'to provide information to promote public discussion about the issues facing the local authority', as these are consistent with our concern for a robust community role in the functioning of local government.
Clauses 31 & 32: we oppose these as they permit the contracting out of water services for up to 35 years, thus in effect privatising a vital public resource, which further reduces the scope for democratic participation in an important issue within the sphere of local government, and one which will become even more a major concern for communities.
Clause 47 and Schedule 2: which 'amend the principal Act to change the name of a long-term council community plan to long-term plan and to make other consequential amendments'. We are opposed to any consequential lessening of a Council's statutory requirement to engage with the community, as specified for example in s75 (c) oft he Act.
(2) Clauses relating to the scope of local government:
Clause 5: we oppose this as the listing of 'core services' is both prescriptive and limiting when in practice the activities of local governments extend, and are expected to extend, beyond the five categories named.
Clause 6: we oppose this addition to s14 'Principles relating to local authorities' as it has the effect of narrowing a Council's judgement of what is a justifiable investment. We believe the normal processes of political accountability are a sufficient constraint on a Council's decisions, along with the original Act's requirement that 'commercial transactions' should follow 'sound business practices'.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Committee Meeting - Wednesday 26 May 2010
The committee met on 26 May to review progress with the trial pilot survey. With 11 returns to date it was decided that we had enough information to set up a work group to progress the development of a community-wide survey. We expect some more returns this week and will work on the format during June.
We also caught up on participation with:
* Neighbouring R&R groups - regular contact between representatives
* ACDA - 28 April
* Auckland Social Policy Forum workshop - 17 May
* Len Brown's discussion on environment 24 May
We also caught up on participation with:
* Neighbouring R&R groups - regular contact between representatives
* ACDA - 28 April
* Auckland Social Policy Forum workshop - 17 May
* Len Brown's discussion on environment 24 May
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Auckland Social Policy Forum Submission
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments with respect to the proposed Social Policy Forum on behalf of the Campbells Bay Residents and Ratepayers:
- We would encourage the Forum to focus beyond social "issues" and problem fixing (deficit models) to address social development and wellbeing across all of Auckland’s diverse communities.
- We would like to see central government priorities aligning with those of the Auckland Council and communities – not the other way around.
- We believe the Forum’s success will depend on effective collaborative relationships being built with communities and community groups. It will not, in our view, be effective if it relies on a chain of communication through Local Boards, Council and/or CCOs. We encourage the Minister and her officials to engage directly with regional communities to creatively explore the most appropriate and effective processes and mechanisms for community engagement and participation in the Social Policy Forum process.
- We recommend the involvement of other Government Ministers with key social wellbeing portfolios - especially Health, Education, Police, and Housing. The "buy-in" of these Ministers is critical to the success of co-ordinated social wellbeing dialogue, planning and resource allocation for Auckland.
- The inclusion of social principles into the vision, policy and action plans of all local and central Government arrangements is critical to shaping how the Forum will achieve its objectives. Decision making should be transparent, inclusive, collaborative and based on independent, practice-informed advice.
- There is an amazing volunteer resource in the existing social wellbeing infrastructure in Auckland and it must be encouraged and supported as it adapts to the new local government regime. It is most important that the new governance does not destroy any of the good work and good will that has been developed during the life of current local government setup.
- It is important to develop a medium to long term (10 year or so) plan underpinned with sound social development principles, but it is equally important to regularly review progress and learn/change/adapt as required to ensure the Forum and its work is effective and relevant. Key social measures should be established and reported against to communities and the public in general. We (Auckland) perform extremely badly on many international measures and we would expect the forum to target major improvement.
- We expect to see a process of Forum appointments that emphasises skills, demonstrated competence and understanding of social wellbeing issues and approaches, in balance with any geographical and/or demographic representation that may be deemed desirable. The forum must mix people with social wellbeing skills and knowledge with those who have the authority and ability to make things happen.
- To expand on a previous point, specific processes will need to be set up to enable a two way dialogue and information sharing between local communities and their Local Board, CCOs and Social Service providers (government and voluntary) in order to ensure that there is an effective mechanism for communicating local social issues/opportunities and developing strategic solutions. We are convinced that Local Boards will not be able, on their own, to provide an effective mode of funding or driving social development.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
AGM - Wednesday 14 April 2010 - 7pm "What’s great about Campbells Bay and how can we improve it?"
At 7pm we had tea and coffee before a short AGM at 7.30pm. Following that our Mayor, Andrew Williams, shared his perception of what has been achieved in Campbells Bay and the North Shore in the past few years and commented on his fears for the future of our "Village" and the North Shore in general with the move to "Supercity" governance.
John McGowan, Principal of Campbells Bay School, shared his view on how the school contributes to the community and how fortunate we are to have such well supported schools in the Bays.
We launched our theme for the year "What’s great about Campbells Bay and how can we improve it?" and the meeting provided the initial ideas for our Campbells Bay Village Plan which will be developed over the next few months.
If you have ideas please add them as a comment on this blog posting or email them to the Chairman.
John McGowan, Principal of Campbells Bay School, shared his view on how the school contributes to the community and how fortunate we are to have such well supported schools in the Bays.
We launched our theme for the year "What’s great about Campbells Bay and how can we improve it?" and the meeting provided the initial ideas for our Campbells Bay Village Plan which will be developed over the next few months.
If you have ideas please add them as a comment on this blog posting or email them to the Chairman.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Committee Meeting - Thursday 1 April
The committee met at 7.30pm at All Hallows Hall on Thursday 1 April to firm up details for the AGM and and the process for development of our "Village Plan". The next committee meeting was set for Wednesday 26 May.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Improving Our Neighbourhood - Public Meeting - Wed 10 March
John Brockies, CEO of North Shore City Council, gave us an update on progress with the implementation of the Auckland supercity legislation and shared an insight into how we can work positively within the changed infrastructure. Rebecca Harrington, Community Development Worker, talked about the potential to improve our Campbells Bay Neighbourhood.
The meeting gave the committee a mandate to proceed with a pilot Village Planning programme following the workshop on Monday 15 March along with a Know Your Neighbour initiative, possibly linked to Neighbourhood Watch.
The meeting gave the committee a mandate to proceed with a pilot Village Planning programme following the workshop on Monday 15 March along with a Know Your Neighbour initiative, possibly linked to Neighbourhood Watch.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill - Submission
The following is the submission made on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill by the Campbells Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association:
This submission addresses provision for volunteer community participation under the proposed Auckland law reform.
The proposed reform weakens “representative democracy” (the population represented by elected council/board members) and therefore needs to be balanced by an increase in “participative democracy” if it is not going to weaken overall democracy in Auckland.
The intent stated in the “Explanatory Note” General Policy statement that the “changes to the governance arrangements aim to create one Auckland, which has ….. greater community engagement” is applauded. The concern is that the Bill does not appear to adequately legislate for that. There are two specific areas of concern:
1. Removal of the majority of infrastructure management (some estimates suggest 90%) to council-controlled organisations (CCOs) without adequate legislation to ensure (not just allow for) local input to planning and implementation by legitimate local groups of residents/ratepayers is a concern.
There is both a real and perceived loss of ownership with the establishment of the CCOs. The potential for control to move further and further away from local input/influence is scary when it relates to basic provision of infrastructure like water and transport. Recent history provides adequate precedent that this is not idle fear when one reviews the track record with our national rail and telecommunications privatisation.
We submit that legislation should specifically prohibit the selling of Auckland infrastructure assets (without future law change) and particularly prohibit overseas ownership and control until such time as we contract out our armed forces to overseas control.
Legislation like clause 43 (1) “The Auckland Council must not exercise any transport-related power or function conferred on a local authority under any en-actment that this Act has conferred upon Auckland Transport” illustrates very negative legislation. It should be balanced by positive legislation forcing the CCOs to incorporate local desires in their plans so that they are kept “front of mind” by planners in those organisations.
Again we state that when “representative democracy” is removed (as it is with CCOs) “participative democracy” must be increased in order to retain an adequate level of democracy to remain a real democratic country and not an imaginary one.
2. There needs to be provision for Local Boards and Council to incorporate local desires/aspirations/ideas in their plans, where these have been developed by legitimate local groups representing, say, 20 or more local residents/ratepayers, when they are not “non-regulatory activity” and when they are not “provided by the Council within the local board area”. If the select committee members consider this to be a cuckoo-land proposal we would encourage them to study the prize-winning legislation (bylaws/modes of operation) applying in Porirua City (Council) and adapt it to the Auckland situation. Legislation should mandate three-way communication between local representative volunteer groups, local boards and CCO planners, where the local groups desire it on issues impacting the local area.
This bill is an opportunity for progressive legislation to empower local volunteers to achieve the “greater community engagement” stated in its aim. Our understanding of its present form is that it falls far short of that for most of the infrastructure impacting on residents.
This submission addresses provision for volunteer community participation under the proposed Auckland law reform.
The proposed reform weakens “representative democracy” (the population represented by elected council/board members) and therefore needs to be balanced by an increase in “participative democracy” if it is not going to weaken overall democracy in Auckland.
The intent stated in the “Explanatory Note” General Policy statement that the “changes to the governance arrangements aim to create one Auckland, which has ….. greater community engagement” is applauded. The concern is that the Bill does not appear to adequately legislate for that. There are two specific areas of concern:
1. Removal of the majority of infrastructure management (some estimates suggest 90%) to council-controlled organisations (CCOs) without adequate legislation to ensure (not just allow for) local input to planning and implementation by legitimate local groups of residents/ratepayers is a concern.
There is both a real and perceived loss of ownership with the establishment of the CCOs. The potential for control to move further and further away from local input/influence is scary when it relates to basic provision of infrastructure like water and transport. Recent history provides adequate precedent that this is not idle fear when one reviews the track record with our national rail and telecommunications privatisation.
We submit that legislation should specifically prohibit the selling of Auckland infrastructure assets (without future law change) and particularly prohibit overseas ownership and control until such time as we contract out our armed forces to overseas control.
Legislation like clause 43 (1) “The Auckland Council must not exercise any transport-related power or function conferred on a local authority under any en-actment that this Act has conferred upon Auckland Transport” illustrates very negative legislation. It should be balanced by positive legislation forcing the CCOs to incorporate local desires in their plans so that they are kept “front of mind” by planners in those organisations.
Again we state that when “representative democracy” is removed (as it is with CCOs) “participative democracy” must be increased in order to retain an adequate level of democracy to remain a real democratic country and not an imaginary one.
2. There needs to be provision for Local Boards and Council to incorporate local desires/aspirations/ideas in their plans, where these have been developed by legitimate local groups representing, say, 20 or more local residents/ratepayers, when they are not “non-regulatory activity” and when they are not “provided by the Council within the local board area”. If the select committee members consider this to be a cuckoo-land proposal we would encourage them to study the prize-winning legislation (bylaws/modes of operation) applying in Porirua City (Council) and adapt it to the Auckland situation. Legislation should mandate three-way communication between local representative volunteer groups, local boards and CCO planners, where the local groups desire it on issues impacting the local area.
This bill is an opportunity for progressive legislation to empower local volunteers to achieve the “greater community engagement” stated in its aim. Our understanding of its present form is that it falls far short of that for most of the infrastructure impacting on residents.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Committee Meeting
The committee met on Wednesday 10 February 2010. It next meets on Tuesday 30 March 2010. Email any issues for discussion to CampbellsBayRandR at gmail dot com by Monday 22 March.
Note that submissions on the “Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill No. 3." closed on 12 February.
Note that submissions on the “Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill No. 3." closed on 12 February.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance Submission
The following is the submission made to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance by the Campbells Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association.
http://www.royalcommission.govt.nz/rccms.nsf/0/CC2573E80010C73BCC257432000F455B?open
http://www.royalcommission.govt.nz/rccms.nsf/0/CC2573E80010C73BCC257432000F455B?open
Monday, 26 October 2009
Chairman’s Message
Taken from the Campbells Bay Times October 2009
Welcome to the first issue of Campbells Bay Times – the official newsletter of Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association.
Welcome to the first issue of Campbells Bay Times – the official newsletter of Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association.
With the Super City start-up just a year away, we are entering a time of significant change in the way Campbells Bay and all Auckland’s suburbs are managed by local government. We will lose our current small community board and will have to work through a larger council, or board, in dealing with the new Auckland Council. In terms of leverage and getting things done your local Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association is going to be an even more important voice for the bay. With this in mind, we want to improve our communication with local Residents. This, our first printed newsletter, is a trial. We welcome your feedback on whether you like it and would like it to become a regular feature of life in Campbells Bay.
Your association holds regular public meetings but we also maintain an email list of members - and interested non-members – which allows us to communicate rapidly with those interested in local issues. We are careful not to flood email in-boxes but instead send out relevant information from time to time. If you would like to be on this list, please email campbellsbayrandr(at)gmail.com giving us your name(s). We will not pass this information on to any other person or group.
If you are not a member and would like to be, please internet bank $5 per household into the Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association ASB account 12-3050-0390530-00. Write ‘subscription’ and your name in the payee statement details; or post/deliver $5 to 16 Sandford Street or 100A Park Rise. We do not deliver receipts but will acknowledge your subscription by email - as long as we have your email address.
I look forward to a challenging time ahead with your committee - helping to enhance the quality of life in Campbells Bay.
Max Thomson (Chairman, Campbells Bay Residents & Ratepayers Association)
Neighbourhood Watch Needs Action
Taken from the Campbells Bay Times October 2009
Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinator John Stewart, who spoke at the Residents & Ratepayers AGM in June, would like a bit more action in Campbells Bay. Stewart says police statistics record an average of 21 residential burglaries on the North Shore each week – the lowest rate in New Zealand - “but this does not preclude residents being vigilant and taking a common sense approach to security and safety.” Campbells Bay has eight listed co-ordinators on the Neighbourhood Watch data base but none of these groups is considered active under the new criteria - which stipulate each group must have provided an updated member list within the last six to nine months. “We are moving towards a more accountable organisation and more accurate statistics are being gathered, in collaboration with the Police. This will only be of value if Neighbourhood Watch groups are recorded as active.” Stewart’s other concern is theft from vehicles: “Don’t leave items on view in parked vehicles. Not even sunglasses or umbrellas. The results are vehicle damage and inconvenience. It’s just not worth it.”
Email those Neighbourhood Watch member lists to John on: admin(at)neighbourhood.org.nz
Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinator John Stewart, who spoke at the Residents & Ratepayers AGM in June, would like a bit more action in Campbells Bay. Stewart says police statistics record an average of 21 residential burglaries on the North Shore each week – the lowest rate in New Zealand - “but this does not preclude residents being vigilant and taking a common sense approach to security and safety.” Campbells Bay has eight listed co-ordinators on the Neighbourhood Watch data base but none of these groups is considered active under the new criteria - which stipulate each group must have provided an updated member list within the last six to nine months. “We are moving towards a more accountable organisation and more accurate statistics are being gathered, in collaboration with the Police. This will only be of value if Neighbourhood Watch groups are recorded as active.” Stewart’s other concern is theft from vehicles: “Don’t leave items on view in parked vehicles. Not even sunglasses or umbrellas. The results are vehicle damage and inconvenience. It’s just not worth it.”
Email those Neighbourhood Watch member lists to John on: admin(at)neighbourhood.org.nz
Broadband Blues
Taken from the Campbells Bay Times October 2009
Thirteen years after the launch of Xtra, all Campbells Bay Residents can finally get broadband. While Telecom has made large profits over the last few years, we have had to suffer either complete non-availability or very slow and unreliable broadband. The lines from the Browns Bay exchange were installed around 1940, using old stock which was insulated not with plastic but with paper and tar. As many residents know, when it rained there would often be a complete loss of broadband and sometimes telephone services as well, due to water entering the cables. Sadly, the new ADSL2+ technology that Telecom has installed is not performing. ADSL2+ should deliver 24 Mbps and Telecom promised 7 Mbps. This writer is only getting around 5 Mbps. The reason, according to one Telecom installer, is that the rest of the network is still highly deficient. To make matters worse, we are paying far more than world prices for this inferior service. The only bit of comfort is that dial up access runs, at the most, at 0.5 Mbps. At least we all can have broadband now and it is around ten times faster than dial up.
David Haysom (Residents & Ratepayers Association committee member)
Thirteen years after the launch of Xtra, all Campbells Bay Residents can finally get broadband. While Telecom has made large profits over the last few years, we have had to suffer either complete non-availability or very slow and unreliable broadband. The lines from the Browns Bay exchange were installed around 1940, using old stock which was insulated not with plastic but with paper and tar. As many residents know, when it rained there would often be a complete loss of broadband and sometimes telephone services as well, due to water entering the cables. Sadly, the new ADSL2+ technology that Telecom has installed is not performing. ADSL2+ should deliver 24 Mbps and Telecom promised 7 Mbps. This writer is only getting around 5 Mbps. The reason, according to one Telecom installer, is that the rest of the network is still highly deficient. To make matters worse, we are paying far more than world prices for this inferior service. The only bit of comfort is that dial up access runs, at the most, at 0.5 Mbps. At least we all can have broadband now and it is around ten times faster than dial up.
David Haysom (Residents & Ratepayers Association committee member)
All Aboard CBUS
Taken from the Campbells Bay Times October 2009
Campbells Bay is blessed with large areas of native bush and a fabulous beach. Centennial Park is the bay’s green heart - a 28-hectare native forest restoration project that has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Weeds and weed trees, such as pines, have been controlled and thousands of native trees planted and fostered. As a result, the bay’s bird life is bountiful - tui, kereru, morepork and about 30 other species are regularly observed. Centennial Park Bush Society is working on a pest control plan for the park - rats, possums and cats kill wildlife. Outside the park, the bay has good green cover including significant stands of native trees along the north branch of the stream and at the northern end of the beach.
Campbells Bay Urban Sanctuary (CBUS) project, launched earlier this year, aims to extend the “remove weeds, encourage natives and control pests” concept to the entire catchment. The integrity of native bush areas is under threat from weed invasion, including aggressive weed trees such as privet and monkey apple. Mature native trees may come under threat from the RMA simplifying and streamlining amendment which became law in September. CBUS also encourages landowners to manage animal pests such as rats. CBUS accord members include the Bush Society, Residents & Ratepayers Association, Pupuke Golf Club, Campbells Bay Tennis Club, Campbells Bay School, Forest and Bird, the Wilcox family, Mairangi Walking Network and All Hallows Church. We’d love to have you on board. For more information: www.campbellsbayurbansanctuary.org.nz
Richard Hursthouse (Chairman, Centennial Park Bush Society)
Campbells Bay is blessed with large areas of native bush and a fabulous beach. Centennial Park is the bay’s green heart - a 28-hectare native forest restoration project that has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Weeds and weed trees, such as pines, have been controlled and thousands of native trees planted and fostered. As a result, the bay’s bird life is bountiful - tui, kereru, morepork and about 30 other species are regularly observed. Centennial Park Bush Society is working on a pest control plan for the park - rats, possums and cats kill wildlife. Outside the park, the bay has good green cover including significant stands of native trees along the north branch of the stream and at the northern end of the beach.
Campbells Bay Urban Sanctuary (CBUS) project, launched earlier this year, aims to extend the “remove weeds, encourage natives and control pests” concept to the entire catchment. The integrity of native bush areas is under threat from weed invasion, including aggressive weed trees such as privet and monkey apple. Mature native trees may come under threat from the RMA simplifying and streamlining amendment which became law in September. CBUS also encourages landowners to manage animal pests such as rats. CBUS accord members include the Bush Society, Residents & Ratepayers Association, Pupuke Golf Club, Campbells Bay Tennis Club, Campbells Bay School, Forest and Bird, the Wilcox family, Mairangi Walking Network and All Hallows Church. We’d love to have you on board. For more information: www.campbellsbayurbansanctuary.org.nz
Richard Hursthouse (Chairman, Centennial Park Bush Society)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
