DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment Four

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment Four ATTACHMENT FOUR MAP OF SUBMITTER LOCATIONS Location of Submitters proximate to the application site 403 Notes: Numbers correspond with the Submission number from the body of the s42A report. Submitters 4, 11, 13 and 25 are not located within close proximity of the site and are therefore not included in the above figures. 404 ATTACHMENT FIVE SUBMISSIONS From: Auckland Council To: Resource Consent Authority Subject: Resource Consent submission for Pukekohe / Franklin - 11-17 paerata road pukekohe, Pukekohe Date: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 7:39:42 p.m. Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser. Auckland Council If you have any queries about this request, please hit 'reply' to email us back, or send an email to [email protected] 1. APPLICATION DETAILS I/we wish to make a submission on the application of (name of applicant): Food stuffs north island Who proposes to (description of application from public notice): To construct and operate super market APPLICATION SITE ADDRESS FROM THE PUBLIC NOTICE: Street number and name: 11-17 paerata road pukekohe Suburb: Pukekohe Application number: Luc60302970 2. CONTACT DETAILS: Full name: Aleisha sullivan and jeremy sullivan I am a: Property owner Street number, name and suburb of the property, you are acting on behalf of: 6a kayes road pukekohe Mobile phone: 021 126 5686 Email address: [email protected] Address for correspondence: 6a kayes road, Pukekohe, Auckland, 2120 3. SUBMISSION DETAILS: I/we: Support specify aspects of the above application you are submitting on: Im really expressing my support for this submission for the supermarket to go ahead The reasons for my/our submission are: I think pukekohe is such a growing place and opens up jobs and opportunities as pukekohe is only getting bigger The decision I/we wish the Council to make is (include any part of the application 405 you wish to have amended and any conditions of a general nature): To go ahead and let foodstuffs use the land to produce a new supermarket I/we wish to be heard at the council planning hearing: No Uploaded documents: Head office: 1 Greys Avenue | Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142 | 09 301 0101 Powered by Ubiquity Engage. 406 Auckland City Council To whom it may concern, This document is our submission to the resource consent application for the proposed New World supermarket development at 11-19 Paerata Road and 3 Comrie Place, Pukekohe (development site) by the Foodstaffs North Island Ltd (the developer). Located at 8 Paerata Road which is directly opposite of the 11-19 Paerata Road, we believe that we and our property will be greatly affected by the proposed development. The development (during the construction phase and after) will introduce significant changes to our surroundings, some of which will have significant negative impact on our lives. Those changes are as follows: 1) Increased noise for a long period of time during the construction phase – Although it is reasonable to expect that developments occur in the Business - Light Industry Zone, the proposed development is way out of proportions as it is larger in scale then it would normally be expected in this zone and on this location. Due to the scale of the development, the construction phase will certainly last for a very long time and the proposed work (rock breaking, truck movements, construction of the large building and similar) will introduce high level of noise. This long-lasting high-noise operation will be a major disturbance to our lives as our property is just 20m away from the site and our windows are in the same level where the noise producing operations will be carried on. When assessing the compliance to the Standard E25.6.27, the author of the desk-based Acoustics Assessment supplied with the resource consent application did not assess the effect of the construction phase sounds to the residential area across the Paerata Road. We believe that the level of noise produced during the construction phase will exceed allowed limits and be in breach of the Standard E25.6.2 (please view Standard E25.6.22 as a reference). Although it can be argued that the residential area is already exposed to the noise from the passing traffic on the Pearata Road, the construction work will certainly introduce different, more intense and longer in duration sounds produced by rock-breaking, heavy vehicle movements, heavy machinery operations and similar. This more intense and longer in duration noise will have detrimental effect on our wellbeing and enjoyment of the property 2) Vibrations from rock-breaking and/or blasting during the construction phase – 8 Paerata Road dwelling is 50+ years old and just 20m away from the rock breaking/blasting location. It is very likely that its foundation/walls/roof will sustain some damage if exposed to the planned vibrations. The damage might be structural and shorten the life of the dwelling. The assessor does not assess the effect of vibrations on 8 Paerata Road, despite the location of the proposed storm-water structures where most of the drilling and possibly blasting is planned to occur, is directly opposite to the address. The assessor does conclude that the vibration limits allowed in the Standard E25.6.30 will possibly be exceeded during the construction phase 3) The length and the extent of the disturbance of the traffic during the construction phase and its effect on vehicles getting in and out of 8 Paerata Road driveway - Due - 1 - 407 to the significant changes in the traffic flow directly in front of the 8 Paerata Road, vehicle movements in and out of the 8 Paerata Road property will be greatly affected. This makes us concerned for our safety when merging with the traffic and we estimate that the length of time that we will be spending waiting to merge with the traffic will increase considerably. This particularly in the mornings when we go to work and during the rush hours. 4) No mitigation for dust in the construction phase – The assessment does not provide a solution for mitigation of dust created during the construction phase. The Ground Contamination Assessment shows presence of lead in the ground and lead is known for its negative effects on health if it enters the body. Also, drilling of basalt is known to produce silica, which is known to negatively impact respiratory health. 5) Increased noise when the complex be fully operational – We disagree with the desk- based assessment provided by the Chiles Ltd as it fails to take in consideration noise generated from all sources when deciding on the level of noise that we will be exposed to. The assessor says that “The residential zones on the opposite side of Paerata Road are in the order of 20 metres from the car park so the sound level without mitigation would be approximately 40 dB LAeq”. This assessment does not take in consideration that the sounds from the car-park are not the only sounds that this development introduces. The assessor does not take in consideration the sounds produced by the “primary” and “diverted” supermarket customers as defined in the Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA). This traffic is new and introduced by the Supermarket and does not normally occur on the Pearata Road. The estimate in the ITA is 354 vehicles per hour during peek times. This will greatly exceed the noise limits defined in the Standard E25.6.2 6) Overspill parking – Shoppers coming from the south and buying one or two items in the supermarket will find it easier to park on the western side of the Paerata Road and walk to the supermarket then to turn right through the line of south-bound cars into the supermarket parking and then wait to merge with traffic (again having to break the busy south-bound traffic for that) on the way out. This will cause two issues for us: a) cars parked to the south of our driveway will block the view to the south to the cars getting out of our driveway and b) there will be less space for parking for our visitors. Although b) is just an inconvenience, a) could pose a serious safety risk for us and our visitors as the cars going out of our driveway will be unable to see incoming northbound cars 7) Carpark illuminance at night time – As the result of the lighting placed on the supermarket carpark, the illumination will overspill to our front lawn area and the windows located on the east of the dwelling. This will make the content of our front yard fully exposed to the passers-by at night increasing the chance that the items left in the front yard overnight be stolen. Also, the light coming through the window of the bedroom located in the east of the dwelling will be a disturbance. We are against the proposed development unless the above issues are fully mitigated to our satisfaction. We are open to further discuss this with the developer. Aleksandar Zivaljevic and Snezana Milicevic 8 Paerata Road, Pukekohe 021-161-1671 - 2 - 408 From: Melanie Sopoaga on behalf of Resource Consent Authority To: Quentin Budd Subject: FW: Resource Consent submission for Pukekohe / Franklin - 11-17 Paerata Road and 3 Comrie Place, Pukekohe Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2017 10:18:43 a.m. From: Auckland Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 14 August 2017 8:08 p.m. To: Resource Consent Authority Subject: Resource Consent submission for Pukekohe / Franklin - 11-17 Paerata Road and 3 Comrie Place, Pukekohe If you have any queries about this request, please hit 'reply' to email us back, or send an email to [email protected] 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southern Structure Plan Area Neighbourhood Design Statement Revision B
    Southern Structure Plan Area Neighbourhood Design Statement Revision B Drury-Opāheke and Pukekohe-Paerata August 2019 Contents Section A: Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 A1. The need for a Neighbourhood Design Statement ................................................................. 2 A2. Scope of the Neighbourhood Design Statement .................................................................... 2 A3. Structure of this Document .................................................................................................... 4 A4. Key Terms ................................................................................................................................ 4 A5. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 4 Section B: Visions, Themes, Structure Plan Context .................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5 B1. Vision Statements .................................................................................................................. 5 B2. The Five Themes ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Paerata-Pukekohe Structure Plan
    Paerata-Pukekohe Structure Plan Landscape and Visual Assessment Background investigations for Auckland Council PAERATA-PUKEKOHE STRUCTURE PLAN: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT – BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL Contact Details Name: Catherine Hamilton Opus International Consultants Ltd Auckland Environmental Engineering The Westhaven Building, 100 Beaumont Street PO Box 5848, Auckland 1141 New Zealand Telephone: +64 9 353 2960 Mobile: +64 27 244 7849 Document Details: Date: 04 August 2017 Reference: 3AL240.00 Status: Final Prepared by: Catherine Hamilton | Principal Landscape Architect Reviewed by: David McKenzie | Technical Principal – Landscape Architecture Approved for Release by: David McKenzie | Technical Principal – Landscape Architecture www.opus.co.nz ©OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS | DATE PAERATA-PUKEKOHE STRUCTURE PLAN: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT – BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Background to the Project .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Attachment 1 RLTP JUNE 2021 at Board
    VERSION TO AT BOARD 28 JUNE Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 The Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2031 sets out the land transport objectives, policies and measures for the Auckland region over the next 10 years. It includes the land transport activities of Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, KiwiRail, and other agencies. VERSION TO AT BOARD 28 JUNE 1 Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 Contents 01. Introduction from the Chair 3 02. Context 5 03. Feedback from consultation 13 04. Purpose and scope 21 05. Transport funding 29 06. Auckland’s transport challenges 33 07. Responding to Auckland’s transport challenges 47 08. Measuring outcomes 77 09. Inter-regional priorities 85 10. Funding and expenditure 91 11. Appendices 99 VERSION TO AT BOARD 28 JUNE 2 Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 01. Introduction from the Chair VERSION TO AT BOARD 28 JUNE To come 3 Introduction from the Chair Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 VERSION TO AT BOARD 28 JUNE Introduction from the Chair 4 Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021–2031 02. Context Auckland, Tāmaki Makaurau, is home to 1.7 million people – one third of all NewVERSION Zealanders – and TO is forecast to grow by another 260,000 overAT the BOARD next decade, reaching around 2.4 million by 2050. This 28rapid JUNE population growth presents a number of challenges in our quest to be a liveable, climate-friendly and productive city. Growth represents opportunity but Evidence tells us that Aucklanders Auckland needs a well-coordinated when combined with Auckland’s like the improved experience, and integrated approach to help challenging natural setting and particularly on rapid and frequent people and freight get around urban form the outcome has bus and train services where quickly and safely – one that been increased congestion and the number of trips has almost significantly reduces harm to the limited connectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Wesley College Trust Board and Grafton Downs Limited on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (‘The Unitary Plan”)
    Before the Commissioners of the Auckland Unitary Plan Hearings Panel IN THE MATTER: of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act AND 2013 IN THE MATTER OF a submission by Wesley College Trust Board and Grafton Downs Limited on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (‘the Unitary Plan”) Submission Number 4767 Topics 017 RUB South – Paerata North. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JANINE ANNE BELL Dated 11 November 2015 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Grafton Downs Limited (“GDL”), in conjunction with the Wesley College Trust Board (“WCTB”), own approximate 320 hectares of land at Paerata North bounded by State Highway 22 to the north and west (Karaka and Paerata Roads respectively) and the North Island Main Trunk (NIMT) rail line to the east (the ‘Wesley Land’). GDL is comprised of a 50:50 shareholding between the Wesley College Trust Board and the PACT 2086 Trust, a trust of the Methodist Church. A locality and ownership map is included as Appendix A. 1.2 The majority of the Wesley College land is included in the Wesley College Special Housing Area (Wesley College SHA) under the provisions of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHA Act). Pursuant to the provisions of the HASHA Act, GDL lodged and was granted consent for a private plan variation (PV 3) request that has rezoned the Wesley College SHA from Future Urban Zone and Special Purpose School zone to Mixed Housing Urban and Local Centre zones. In addition the land was identified as a precinct (the ‘Franklin 2 Precinct’), with its own objectives and policies and tailored set of activity and development controls.
    [Show full text]
  • Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan
    19-PRO-0364 Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan August 2019 Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 August 2019 Table of Contents 1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Update since 2019 consultation .............................................................................. 9 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 What is the growth challenge? .............................................................................. 11 2.2 What is structure planning? .................................................................................. 11 2.3 What is the structure plan study area? ................................................................. 12 2.4 How does the plan relate to the existing land uses and other features in and around Pukekohe? ......................................................................................................... 14 2.4.1 Existing urban areas ...................................................................................... 14 2.4.2 Existing rural areas ........................................................................................ 14 2.5 What is the structure plan process? ...................................................................... 14 3 The Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan 2019 .............................................................. 16 3.1 Vision ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KIA PUĀWAI a PUKEKOHE Unlock Pukekohe High-Level Project Plan
    KIA PUĀWAI A PUKEKOHE Unlock Pukekohe High-Level Project Plan November 2019 ABBREVIATIONS AT Auckland Transport BID Business Improvement District CCO Council-controlled organisation the Council Auckland Council HLPP High Level Project Plan LTP Long-term plan Panuku Panuku Development Auckland 2 PUKEKOHE HLPP CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 THE KEY MOVES – WHERE WE WILL 43 APPENDICES 83 Planning to unlock Pukekohe’s potential 7 FOCUS OUR ENERGY AND EFFORTS Appendix 1: 84 Mihi 8 Three precinct redevelopment key moves 45 Property map of town centre sites Panuku – who we are 9 Three public realm key moves 49 (excluding sites outside of the programme boundary) What we do – shaping spaces for Aucklanders to love 10 Two placemaking key moves 54 Appendix 2: 85 A range of partnering opportunities 56 ABOUT THIS HIGH-LEVEL PROJECT PLAN 13 Property map of all sites and the What’s in the plan 14 HOW WE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROJECT 59 full extent of the programme area investment boundary Why Pukekohe? 15 Our approach to delivery 60 Appendix 3: 86 Developing the Kia Puāwai a Pukekohe story 16 Development of key properties 60 Property schedule Working with mana whenua 17 Funding 63 Our partners 18 Other resources 63 ABOUT PUKEKOHE 21 INFORMATION USED TO DEVELOP THIS PLAN 65 A strategic location 22 Other plans and policies 66 A diverse and growing community 24 Transport infrastructure 70 The Kia Puāwai a Pukekohe area and properties 26 Infrastructure capacity 71 Property market dynamics and demand 72 VISION 29 COMMUNICATING WITH THE COMMUNITY 75 THE PRINCIPLES
    [Show full text]
  • Council Parks Comments
    Parks Memo 8 June 2021 To: Dough Fletcher, Principal Project Lead, Premium Team, Auckland Council From: Lea van Heerden, Senior Parks Planner, Parks Planning, Auckland Council Subject: REQUEST FOR PARKS PLANNING ADVICE ON FAST TRACK CONSENT FOR THE ELECTRIFICATION OF MORE THAN 19KM OF THE NORTH ISLAND MAIN TRUNK LINE (NIMT) BETWEEN THE PAPAKURA AND PUKEKOHE STATIONS AS PART OF THE KIWIRAIL PAPAKURA TO PUKEKOHE RAIL ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT (P2P) - LUC60378393. 1. PROPOSAL KiwiRail is seeking resource consents for works between Papakura and Pukekohe Stations, including installation of the overhead line equipment (OLE) along the length of the rail corridor (approximately 19km), track replacements, and upgrades at both Pukekohe and Papakura Stations to accommodate electrified locomotives. Other works include the construction of platforms for three new stations at Drury, Drury West and Paerata. A map of the major works for this project is provided in Figure 1 below. Works that may be relevant to parks planning involves the removal of riparian vegetation from riparian areas of various streams and removal of vegetation and earthworks within riparian margins and wetlands. Specific work includes: • Bulk earthworks across the entire project footprint, including with the riparian margins of 11 wetlands. • The removal of up to approximately 34,750m² of vegetation from the riparian areas of 35 streams. • The removal of up to approximately 9,120m² vegetation within 10m of 11 wetlands. Temporary access tracks are proposed across the course of the route for enabling construction vehicles. 1 Figure 1: The extent of Auckland Railway Improvement from Papakura to Pukekohe. 2. BACKGROUND COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 P2P is a regionally significant transport project, providing for improved rail services and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Growth Themes Background Paper -Transport
    Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Growth Themes Background Paper -Transport Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 2 Study area, location and description ............................................................................. 3 3 Existing Transport Environment .................................................................................... 8 4 Plans, Projects and Initiatives ..................................................................................... 12 5 Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan – Opportunities and Constraints ............................ 22 6 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 24 3 1 Introduction This report provides an outline of existing information and previous planning relevant to transport planning for the Paerata-Pukekohe structure plan area. From this, a preliminary list of opportunities, constraints and gaps in information have been identified. This topic paper draws on information that is known or currently in progress. It has been informed by the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (FULSS 2017), Supporting Growth Programme (Transport for Future Urban Growth) and preliminary structure planning processes including workshops with a variety of planning and engineering specialists from Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Watercare and the New Zealand Transport Agency. An integrated transport assessment
    [Show full text]
  • Auckland's Urban Sprawl, Policy Ambiguities and the Peri
    Article Auckland’s Urban Sprawl, Policy Ambiguities and the Peri-Urbanisation to Pukekohe Cristian Silva School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand; [email protected]; Tel.: +64-9232829 Received: 10 November 2018; Accepted: 17 December 2018; Published: 21 December 2018 Abstract: Urban sprawl has been discussed extensively with regard to its negative impacts. On this basis, regulations have been put in place to control sprawling suburbanization, including the establishment of restricted areas for expansion defined by administrative urban boundaries. Overall, these measures have not been at all successful, considering that city-regions continue to expand inorganically, often reinforcing urban sprawl patterns. As clear evidence of the weaknesses of planning regimes of control, these unsuccessful attempts are partly explained by a series of policy ambiguities that contradict the meaning of planning as a prescriptive discipline. This ambiguity is justified by the need to frame flexible regulations that allow adaptation to unforeseen events over time. In this paper, using the case of Auckland, New Zealand, it is demonstrated that instead of planning flexibility, there is planning “ambiguity” accompanied by weak opposition from rural regimes, which deliberately contributes to urban sprawl. This is relevant considering that the inorganic encroachment of rural lands diminishes the huge environmental potential of the peri-urban space of Auckland, its ecosystem services, and agricultural activities—all elements that encourage the creation of more environmentally sustainable peripheral landscapes as a counterpoint to traditional sprawling suburbanization. Keywords: urban sprawl; planning policy; peri-urbanization; rural lands; Auckland; Pukekohe 1. Introduction Urban sprawl has been discussed mainly in terms of population growth, suburban inertia and improvements to transport infrastructure [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Pukekohe / Paerata Structure Plan Process
    Summary report – September 2017 Draft Pukekohe / Paerata Structure Plan process Have your say in shaping Auckland’s future together. shapeauckland.co.nz [email protected] 09 301 0101 Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Process September 2017 Pukekohe-Paerata Structure Plan Process September 2017 Table of Contents 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................... 4 2 The Pukekohe / Paerata structure plan area ......................................................... 5 3 Pukekohe / Paerata structure plan process and consultation ............................ 6 4 Auckland’s growth challenge................................................................................. 8 5 Opportunities and constraints ............................................................................. 13 5.1 Introduction..................................................................................... …………….13 5.2 Transport ........................................................................................ …………….13 5.3 Stormwater and management of the freshwater environment ........ …………….17 5.4 Water and wastewater servicing ..................................................... …………….19 5.5 Geotechnical .................................................................................. …………….20 5.6 Ecology .......................................................................................... …………….21 5.7 Natural character, landscape and visual ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Ngati Te Ata (Waiohua) Cultural Values Assessment Report
    NGATI TE ATA (WAIOHUA) CULTURAL VALUES ASSESSMENT REPORT Auckland Metro Rail Programme – Papakura to Pukekohe Electrification (P2P) “Kia whakatōmuri a Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua ki te haere whakamua.” “Ngaati Te Ata Waiohua walk backwards into the future, with our eyes fixed on our past.” PREPARED FOR KIWIRAIL HOLDINGS LTD (FEBRUARY 2021) “Ko nga kahupokere ko nga kurirangaunu e kore e ngaro i te hinapouri” “Our chieftainship in Tamaki will never be lost to darkness” (Ngati Te Ata Chiefs Te Rangihahautu and Te Rangikaimata) Te Kahupokere, The Deeply Tattooed Hawke representing Chieftainship 2 Table of Contents 1.1.1. WHAKATAUKI ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ ............................................................................................. ................ 555 2.2.2. FOREWARD ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ ..................... 555 3.3.3. INTRODUCTION TO NGATI TE ATA ..................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Young People's Perspectives on Youth Employment in Franklin
    Young People’s Perspectives on Youth Employment in Franklin, Auckland Scoping Research for Auckland Council August 2015 Fouche, C. Kim, H. 2 Executive Summary Rising youth unemployment coupled with the need to generate more local employment opportunities have been key issues for the Franklin Local Board. A gap in local knowledge towards developing sustainable solutions to these issues was identified and the perspectives of local young people sought regarding: barriers in the local employment sector opportunities in the local employment sector thoughts on being ‘work ready’ preparing young people for employment preparing local employers to employ young people A survey exploring these five issues was undertaken by 110 young people (aged 16-19 years) from Waiuku College, Pukekohe High School, Clevedon Presbyterian Church, Waiuku Youth Group, and Pukekohe Youth Centre in June and July 2015. Survey findings indicate that in terms of barriers, the majority of participants did not have any paid work, and felt finding local paid employment difficult. This was partly attributed to not enough work being available and ‘unsuitable’ employment – i.e. work opportunities did not match a young person’s skill set, and/or hours they were available to work, and/or were not accessible. With regards to opportunities, most survey participants indicated a wide interest in jobs - especially those which increased their skills and were linked to career prospects. Managing the challenge of non-flexible work hours was noted amongst many survey responses. Work readiness: the majority of participants felt confident to ‘start’ a job, but ‘finding’ a job seemed difficult. In being prepared for paid work, participants saw the importance of having work experiences and skills, a driver’s licence and getting timely information about available jobs.
    [Show full text]