The article mentions that Laurieton should be a hero town which is economically sustainable.
A hero town ... really?
Maybe the article should have mentioned what is wrong with Laurieton, because given the events of the past 12 months I don't consider there is much wrong with it.
The plan is for the next 50 years.
What a "pie in the sky", "feel good" time line.
There are many factors involved in looking forward for the next 10 years, let alone 50 years.
For the council to allocate $100,000 now to the development of a Laurieton Town Centre Master Plan is a waste of money, considering all the outside factors.
For example, COVID-19, future electricity and water availability, and current economic conditions, to name a few.
When these get sorted out and there is some certainty in the future, then some "shaping our future" can take place - but not for the next 50 years.
To commence planning in the current hypothetical environment is a waste of time and money.
I realise any time can be good to have visions - however these must be sensible and achievable within time lines.
Or conversely have a mechanism built into them which can take into account a rapidly and constantly changing world which we now live.
There seems to be a fixation in council or elsewhere that future planning has to be for the next 50 years.
I would like somebody to explain to me why, and have a debate about it.