Source: lit_018_kumar-2016-eco-community-mount-roskill
Overview
Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood, Ranui, West Auckland — a resident-initiated, cooperatively developed cohousing community completed in 2008 after approximately 15 years of development. 1.68 hectares, approximately 32 dwellings, 70 residents (~11 dph). The community was initiated, developed, funded, and managed entirely by its future residents — a cooperative development model unusual in the NZ context. LIT_018
Earthsong scored 28/45 on the Beacon Pathway Neighbourhood Sustainability Observational Tool, placing it above Stonefields (18/45) and comparable to Hobsonville Point (29/45), but below the Swedish precedents Bo01 (33/45) and Hammarby Sjöstad (35/45). LIT_018
Site selection
Before settling the Ranui land (Nov 1999), the founding group — then the Waitakere Eco-Neighbourhood Cohousing Project — screened candidate sites against a written Site Development Feasibility checklist covering six dimensions: Size (area, zoning, theoretical units allowed), Title (clear title, no covenants), Physical aspects (access, topography, orientation, ground bearing capacity, flooding/overland flow paths, soil percolation, microclimate, soil fertility/toxicity, ecology, Council issues), Services (sewer, stormwater, water, electricity, gas, phone), Other issues (supportive neighbours, iwi clearance, “good earth energies”) and Financial (asking price, estimated units, $/unit, Council fees, development costs, residual land value, vendor terms). The surviving copy is a blank template — a documentary record of the group’s site-acquisition due-diligence method rather than the Ranui site’s filled-in values. OT_148
Amenity context (annotated district-plan map, OT_241). The community’s public document collection includes a Waitakere City Council “Proposed District Plan - Human Environments” map sheet (Ranui 28, “Proposed October 1995 / This version December 1998”, scale 1:8000) hand-annotated to circle the Earthsong site off Swanson Road and label the surrounding everyday amenities - Shops, Library, Playcentre, Park, School and Train station - inside a drawn walking-catchment circle, with “Swanson” marked to the west and “To the city + Henderson” at the eastern edge beside Swanson Road. It is the map-based counterpart to the site-feasibility checklist (OT_148) and the documentary artifact behind the Interviewee account of a deliberate connected-urban siting (Interview VI [INT_006]). The annotations are undated (use during the pre-November-1999 site search is consistent with the map’s 1998 version but not established), the drawn circle carries no stated radius, and the site’s own zone code is not legible on the scan. OT_241
Design features
- Central common house for shared community activities
- Car parking isolated to site edge — pedestrian-priority internal layout
- Solar hot water systems
- Roof rainwater collection
- Construction materials: rammed earth, untreated macrocarpa, recycled timber
- Commercial space within development for local employment
Materials schedule (OT_093, Stage II(b) 2006). The build’s actual spec: 350–400 mm rammed-earth walls (galv steel rods at 1200 mm, no horizontal rods), untreated Heart cypress/macrocarpa framing, 100 mm concrete slab, macrocarpa joinery and floors, natural tung-oil finishes throughout, Western Red Cedar cladding, Colorsteel roof. Insulation is pre-2008 modest (R1.8 walls; R1.8–3.6 ceilings). Services: Beasley Prestige solar water heaters (180 L 1–2-bed / 330 L 3-bed) and 2/16 mm cabling pre-run to the roof for future PV — the documentary confirmation of INT_006’s design-for-later-solar account. OT_093
Dwelling typologies (as-designed plan set, 10.8.00 — OT_144). The community’s 32 dwellings resolve into four unit types across the plan set. Standard two-storey four-plex buildings stack two single-storey ground-level units (units 1, 4, 21, 24 — two bedrooms, and explicitly “ground floor only and wheelchair accessible including bathrooms”) with two upper-level units (units 2, 3, 22, 23 — two bedrooms plus a loft reached by a steep stair/ladder, a living/dining/kitchen level and a deck with pergola). A southern block holds smaller units — one-bedroom/studio (units 27, 30; optional extra bedroom) and two-bedroom four-plex variants — at ground level (units 27, 30, 31) and upper level (studios 28, 29 and two-bedroom unit 32). Terrace houses (units 5–20, 25–26) use an A/B/C/D room-part system to make two-bedroom (part A or C), three-bedroom (A+B or C+D) or four-bedroom (C+B+D) homes, with optional second WC, optional north-facing pergola, and gable-or-flat dormer variants; all kitchens face the common side. The four-plex elevations label the common side south and the private side north. ⚠ The drawings are scale 1:100 but carry no printed dimensions or floor areas, so they establish the dwelling-type mix and room programs, not per-dwelling m². The 32 enumerated units (1–32) match the 32-dwelling count in OT_098 and LIT_018. OT_144
Original design intent (Design Brief, 6 Aug 1999, OT_143). Earthsong’s founding resident-consensus design brief (compiled over four weekends, May–July 1999) records the community’s own pre-construction targets: a car-to-periphery, pedestrian-dominated layout of 28–30 clustered units (4–7 per party-wall cluster) on the back 80–85% of the site; a 400 m² common house; solar water heaters as standard, rainwater collection, on-site greywater (and “if possible” blackwater / compost-toilet) treatment, on-site stormwater management, and an explicit “aim towards zero waste”; all buildings passive-solar to a BRANZ Green Home Scheme ‘Excellent’ rating; permaculture site design and “grow some food on site”; and a studio-to-3-bed unit schedule (30–125 m²). This is the documented intent baseline against which the measured Earthsong outcomes read — water only ~50% on-site-self-sufficient (OT_092), waste ~1/3 of the Waitakere average (OT_094), PV dropped at build then later added on carports (Interview VI [INT_006]) — several ambitions (on-site blackwater/compost toilets, full rainwater self-sufficiency) scaled back at build. OT_143
Site land allocation (URL_031, permaculture page — thin ingest, data_quality: low). The community’s permaculture page allocates 50% of the site as common open space and 20% as private gardens — i.e. 70% unbuilt, a striking figure for an urban cohousing development at ~11 dwellings/ha, and consistent with the design intent recorded in OT_143 and Interview VI [INT_006]. ⚠ The split implies a ~1.2 ha site, against the 1.68 ha carried in this page’s frontmatter (from LIT_018). Not resolved, and land_area_ha is NOT changed: the page states no area, it only implies one. URL_031
Common House room program (OT_142 — revised floor plan, doc 2010)
The as-designed spatial program of the common house, from Earthsong’s annotated “Revised Common House plan / Floor Layout” (produced 2010; building completed 2005). A two-level shared building for the ~32-household community: a covered entrance porch + lobby to a central gallery, a domestic-style common kitchen (“ergonomically designed for team cooking”, pantry + air-cooled storage + servery) opening to a large dining room for the cohousing shared meals (“two or three shared meals per week… a roster of small teams… cook every 4-6 weeks”), a sitting room, a semi-outdoor rotunda (dancing/performances/outdoor eating), a children’s room (in sight/sound of the kitchen) and a separate teen room (each with its own porch), a guest suite (mezzanine + en-suite — “saves every home having a spare room”), and a common laundry/craft room explicitly replacing “32 washing machines” and sited by the “meeting at the well” principle; an upper level holds an activities room (yoga/meditation/study/guest overflow), an office for body-corporate administration, and a balcony. The room-by-room design intent operationalises core cohousing principles (shared meals, shared services removing per-household duplication, passive-supervision adjacencies, casual-encounter design). ⚠ The plan states no floor area, room dimensions, or scale — it grounds the program and scale of the common house but does not quantify its m² (see OT_142 on RT_327). OT_142
Primary site-visit evidence (Interviewee V [INT_005], 3 Jun 2026)
First primary data on Earthsong, from a resident on the community energy review group. Treat as lived-experience testimony; some figures are approximate resident recollections.
Energy — correction to founding-era record. Earthsong now has solar PV (resident estimate ~8–10 years old, i.e. ~2016–2018) in addition to the solar hot water (with electric boost) present from early on. No batteries were installed, so surplus PV is exported to the grid. This updates the founding-era documents (which record PV being dropped on cost grounds and never installed). The interviewee account (INT_006) clarifies that the PV is mostly on carports rather than house roofs — RT_187 is resolved; see the Interviewee account below. Interview V [INT_005]
Energy direction. The community energy review group is moving toward more self-sufficiency — battery storage, using EV car batteries for storage/balancing, and replacing solar-hot-water cylinders with heat pumps to free prime roof space for more PV. Driven partly by poor grid-export economics (“we get very little for it… then buy it back at the same price”). Decisions are made collectively. Interview V [INT_005]
Self-sufficiency framing. A resident view that Earthsong was never intended as a closed self-sufficient community — the goal is resource use below average NZ values plus shared interests and resources. Self-sufficiency is seen as “necessary but insufficient”: resilience comes from relationships and reciprocity, and visible self-sufficiency in a low-socioeconomic area “just makes us a target.” Interview V [INT_005]
Social cohesion & governance. Strong, consciously cultivated cohesion centred on the common house (experienced as the community’s “home”); deep mutual knowledge between neighbours. Cohesion was damaged during COVID and has since healed. The consensus process across 32 households has matured — diverse views are now sought at the outset rather than a proposal being developed by a few and promoted. Interview V [INT_005]
Interviewee account (Interviewee VI [INT_006], 3 Jun 2026)
The definitive primary account, from an interviewee. An interviewee trained specifically to work on sustainability and led the project from idea to its 1999 land settlement.
Origins & vision. ~3–4 years from idea to land; settled November 1999 (≈26 households signed, 20% deposit, 9-month settlement); building from end of 2000. Earthsong was conceived as a published demonstration model of environmental and social sustainability — “to contribute to our society… learn how to be a neighbour with the other species” — which is why its systems are documented so openly (an interviewee also wrote a book on it). The hardest part was people dynamics, not finance; a shared written vision was the aligning device. Interview VI [INT_006]
The resale-value-to-commons problem (an interviewee’s main regret). The development company built houses and sold them at cost to shareholders, but when early residents sold at market value, individuals captured the cost-to-market gap as private profit. An interviewee holds that this uplift should return to the commons, since a significant share of house price funds the common house and land. Other NZ communities that tried to write such a clawback into their constitution were refused bank finance — an institutional barrier that forces the traditional individual-ownership model. Interview VI [INT_006]
Energy (resolves RT_187). At build, PV was evaluated but too expensive (and would have priced out less-wealthy members), so 16 mm cables were pre-run to roofs for future PV and solar-thermal hot water (thermosiphon, low-tech) was installed instead. As PV cheapened, PV is now on some carports, with more planned; limited north-facing roof slope — mostly taken by the solar-thermal panels — constrains house-roof PV. Energy decisions are collective (no individual may add PV unilaterally). There was no off-grid intent by design: a deliberate dense-urban choice to stay connected to city facilities and transport “rather than trying to be self-sufficient in a little bubble.” (an interviewee is sceptical of the energy review group’s idea to replace solar-thermal with PV + heat pump — a live internal debate; cf. Interview V [INT_005].) Interview VI [INT_006]
Water & wastewater. All roof water is collected to tanks and reticulated to houses for non-potable use; city mains supplies drinking water because regulation treats rainwater collection for more than one household as a public-health issue. Greater water self-sufficiency was wanted but dense-urban land limits tank volume (4–5× more needed). Tanks run dry several times each summer, switching over to city supply. On-site wastewater treatment was engineered and desired but Watercare refused consent; the three sewer connection points sit near the planned on-site sites, leaving a future conversion option. Interview VI [INT_006]
Food. ~180 fruit trees in common land (excluding private gardens); organic + permaculture; strong on fruit and leafy greens, little/no potatoes, root vegetables, or grains. Full food self-sufficiency was never intended — “we don’t need to be because we’re part of the wider society.” Interview VI [INT_006]
Size & contribution. 32 households was deliberate — an interviewee’s reading and visits pointed to a ~15–30 household window as most likely to work (enough diversity, not so large it fragments into factions); the group started at ~25–26 and added a few for viability. Contribution runs on expectation + invitation + mild peer pressure (no formal hours), with a small core doing much of the work. Interview VI [INT_006]
COVID. A major disruption: the community had to act as individual households (health vulnerabilities, medical workers, legality) — common house shut, common meals ended, meetings online. Several older/vulnerable residents moved out as closeness became a vulnerability; two lockdowns brought turnover “all at once,” overwhelming integration. ~2 years to settle; now more connected than before. Historic turnover ~1–2 households/year, “in waves.” Interview VI [INT_006]
Water-system cost (OT_078 — IA grant final costs, 2008)
The audited cost of Earthsong’s water-sensitive design: six communal rainwater tanks 101,110.50 incl GST** (2002–07), dual-plumbed to toilets; the full stormwater/WSD package **663,296 incl GST, half-funded by an Infrastructure Auckland grant (final payment $93,471). This is the costed counterpart to an interviewee’s water account (INT_006). It covers the water/stormwater scope only — there is no whole-build cost in the record. OT_078
Whole-project capital cost (OT_098 — World Habitat Award submission, costs 2000–2008)
Staged development cost of the full 32-dwelling community + common house/Earthsong Centre (as paid): Stage I (2000–02, 17 houses + major siteworks) 4,850,000**; Stage II(a) (2004, 7 houses) **1,920,100; Common house/Earthsong Centre (2005) 1,402,000**; Stage II(b) (2006, 8 houses) **2,369,000; siteworks completion (2008) **187,200** → **total ~10,728,300 ≈ 335,000/dwelling all-in** (~291,000 excl. the centre; ~466–536k/dwelling at 2026 CPI). Houses 100% purchaser-funded (20% equity + National Bank / Prometheus Ethical Finance loans); common house 85% owners / 15% grants. Grants: ASB 203,000, Waitakere CC 300,000 interest-free loan + 10,000, Infrastructure Auckland $93,400 (stormwater — matches OT_078). The real NZ community-build cost anchor for the model’s CapEx headline — but grid-connected, so it excludes the off-grid systems premium. OT_098
Reserves-contribution objection (OT_239 - open-space evidence, 2002)
Reserves-contribution objection - the community’s open-space evidence (Cohousing NZ Ltd, March 2002). When the reserves financial contribution on the Earthsong consent was assessed at the standard rate, the development company contested it, and this is the evidence it filed: a first-principles framework of ten reserves criteria and five quantitative open-space measures, applied via CAD measurement to four Henderson-area developments. Earthsong’s analysed extent divides 12% car space / 16% built footprint / 72% open space (290 m²/hh of total open space), with 125 m²/hh of dedicated usable common open space (method 2b, incl the common house) - roughly 4-9x the medium-density comparators (Coroglen 31, Westwood 14, Edwin Freeman 29 m²/hh), i.e. over 5 ha/1000 people provided on-site against the 4 ha/1000 planning guide and the 6.6 ha/1000 citywide average the document cites. It leans on the district plan’s own pay-or-provide clause (Citywide Rule 1.5(f)(ii)), attacks the 6%-of-lot-value formula (‘no firm correlation to on-site provision whatsoever’), and argues non-vested commonly owned open space achieves the reserve effect. Advocacy-side authorship (the community’s own case), methods stated and CAD files offered for verification. The quantitative counterpart to the case page’s car-free-interior and shared-open-space design features. OT_239
Reserves-contribution decision (OT_240 - WCC s357 decision, 12 Aug 2002)
Reserve-contribution reduction granted. After an objection process running from at least October 2001 (two adverse written responses, then the applicant’s analytical letter of 15 July 2002 and a council site visit to the finished first stage), Waitakere City Council reduced Earthsong’s subdivision reserve contribution (consent RMA 20002585 / SPW 21216) from the standard 6% to 3.5%, cutting the cash contribution by 29,698.24** and amending condition FC6 to **41,577.54 (inclusive of GST @12.5%) under RMA s407. The grounds are the cohousing design itself: substantial on-site common open space meeting a significant part of residents’ recreational needs, passive surveillance from the layout, the complete absence of motor vehicles from the open-space areas, indefinite upkeep secured by the communal ownership arrangements, and the common house as a further recreational facility. The city’s previous minimum was 4.5%, levied only three times; Earthsong’s 3.5% extended below it. The Council declined a full waiver (on-site open space “would augment rather than replace” public reserves). ⚠ The letter’s address line reads 449-455 Swanson Road (held verbatim) against the 457 Swanson Road of later documents. OT_240
Water-system performance (OT_092 — metered 2005–08)
Four years of metered dual-reticulation data quantify what INT_006 described. Average use ~174 L/p/d (range 144–193) — 58–80% of the Auckland region (~240–247 L/p/d) and 72–96% of Waitakere City (~180–214, the region’s lowest-use city). The design targets — 50% of “normal” use and 70% of needs met on-site — were both missed: the actual reduction was ~20–42% below regional, and on-site rainwater met only ~50% of needs (6 × 32,000 L tanks = 192,000 L for 32 homes, ~6,000 L/home, still leaves ~half on mains in Auckland’s climate). Drinking water stays on city mains (potable compliance); the tank line serves hot water, shower, bath, WC, laundry and outside taps, with a manual switch to city supply when a tank runs dry. A candid real-world benchmark: even a purpose-built, water-conscious dense-urban community lands near the BRANZ median demand and only ~50% rainwater-self-sufficient. OT_092
Waste performance (OT_094 — WCC audit 2010)
A Waitakere City Council waste audit found Earthsong sends ~2.80–3.65 kg of landfill refuse per household vs the Waitakere average of 9.61 kg/household (~a third). The driver is on-site composting + source-sorting: only 24.4% of Earthsong’s refuse was still divertable (organic 14.3% + paper 9.3% + recycling 0.9%) versus 73% for the city (organic 51% + paper 10% + recycling 12%). Where the water and energy targets were only partly met, the waste result is Earthsong’s strongest measured resource outcome. OT_094
Building energy rating (OT_146 — HERS assessment, one dwelling, unit number redacted, interim 2008)
A Home Energy Rating (HERS) assessment of one Earthsong dwelling (457 Swanson Road; unit number redacted) — AccuRate NZ (CSIRO software), ABSA-accredited assessor — gives the unit an 8-star (of 10) building rating on a modelled heating demand of 44 MJ/m²/yr (45 total). A strong passive result achieved with single-glazed windows (U 5.232) and largely uninsulated rammed-earth walls / concrete slab / metal roof — i.e. the thermal mass (OT_093) and passive-solar orientation doing the work. Water heating is solar-thermal with electric boost (150 L low-pressure thermosiphon), rated 5½ stars, ~$225/yr — the per-unit confirmation of an interviewee/OT_093 solar-HW account (other units run 180/330 L cylinders; this one a smaller 150 L LP tank). Modelled upgrade levers: double-glazing = 74% heating-load cut (8→9 stars); north-side tree shading = ~23% of heating load. This partly answers the case’s open “energy performance vs Beacon prediction” question. ⚠ Interim/draft report — room-heating rating not yet available; modelled, not metered; conditioned floor area printed as 0 m². OT_146
Governance
Cooperative model — residents initiated, financed, and managed the development process over approximately 15 years before completion. All development funding sourced from future residents. LIT_018
Governance has stayed largely unchanged since founding (INT_006): every resident is a member, every member is equal in decision-making, with monthly full-group meetings plus focus groups that shift and merge as needs change — “it works really well.” Interview VI [INT_006]
The consensus process is described by a resident (INT_005) as having matured over years of practice — evolving toward seeking diverse views at the outset of a decision rather than a small group developing and then promoting a proposal. Interview V [INT_005]
The formal governance instrument (Body Corporate No. 210417 Rules, adopted AGM 15 Oct 2016). Earthsong’s consensus governance is legally entrenched, not merely cultural: the Body Corporate Rules — made under the Unit Titles Act 2010 ss105–106 (Unit Plan DP210417) — mandate that all general-meeting matters are decided first by the coloured-card Group Decision Making Process (Appendix B: six discussion cards, five decision cards), with a three-quarters-majority of proprietors’ votes as the fallback only if consensus fails after a further meeting (Rule 10; formal resolutions under Act ss97/98/101). The permaculture/sustainability Vision Statement (Appendix A) is a binding rule proprietors may not act in conflict with (Rules 2.19, 14.3); the rules further compel BioGro organic-certification compliance (2.20), compulsory membership of the Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood society (2.27), mediation-first dispute resolution (Rule 15), and reference the Joint Venture Agreement (7 Jun 2005, amended 9 May 2014) with Cohousing NZ Ltd and the Earthsong Centre Trust that governs the common house (2.26, 8.14). This is the documentary backbone for the interviewee accounts of the matured consensus process (Interview V [INT_005], Interview VI [INT_006]). OT_138
Council partnership instrument (Memorandum of Understanding with Waitakere City Council, 2003). The community-council relationship is itself formalised: a Memorandum of Understanding between Earthsong (Cohousing NZ Ltd and the unincorporated society, “jointly and severally”) and Waitakere City Council, framed inside the Council’s post-Rio Eco City programme. The document records that Earthsong “has chosen to locate in Waitakere City specifically because of the Council’s Eco City policies” and that the Council “regards Earthsong as a leading example of an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable community in New Zealand”; it establishes formal meetings at least three times a year (February, June, October) to negotiate site-access terms and Annual Plan contracts, a Council liaison officer and an appointed Councillor, and a reciprocal services-for-access economy (the Council pays in cash and/or in-kind for Earthsong services in return for Council and community access; contracts over $5,000 via standard Council procedures), with three-yearly review, mediation-backed dispute resolution and each party’s independence expressly preserved (including the Council’s separate RMA/Building Act regulatory role). This is the institutional channel behind the Council’s grants and interest-free loan (OT_098) and the “Memorandum of Understanding process” that the Statement of Intent’s Schedule reports public-access usage through (OT_139) - though whether that Schedule means this relationship MoU or a separate loan-specific MoU is not established by either document. ⚠ The published copy is unexecuted (body dated 2003, signature block blank); Earthsong’s 2010 final report to the Council records it as signed July 2003. OT_238
The Statement of Intent (22 June 2004) sets the governance of the shared Earthsong Community Building/common house: the Earthsong owners and the charitable Earthsong Centre Trust propose jointly owning and managing it, and it serves “two distinct but complementary functions” — the community’s common house AND the base for the Trust’s charitable/educational activities among the wider community. It commits the building to wider-community access for up to half the useable time each week, and its Schedule — an access agreement tied to a Waitakere City Council loan — commits the Earthsong Centre to public availability of up to 500 hours per annum with usage records reported to the Council through a Memorandum of Understanding. A concrete codification of Earthsong’s outward-facing “demonstration model” mission (cf. INT_006) as a shared-asset governance and public-benefit commitment. OT_139
The community’s charitable-mission vehicle — the Earthsong Centre Trust — is constituted by its own trust deed (Feb 2004 draft), separate from the unit-title Body Corporate that owns the physical development. The Trust’s charitable objects are educational/demonstrative (teaching NZ and the Waitakere community sustainable cohousing-based urban living, and running the Earthsong Centre as a sustainability venue); its governance ties control to unit ownership (≥75% of the 7–9 trustees must be Earthsong unit owners, selected one-vote-per-unit at the AGM, removable by 75% of unit owners), legally mandates the consensus “Group Decision-Making Process” for all trustee meetings, and carries standard charitable non-distribution constraints (no private pecuniary profit; surplus on winding-up to another NZ charity). This is the trust-level codification of the “demonstration model” mission described in the interviewee account (INT_006). ⚠ The ingested copy is a draft (blank initial-trustee list). OT_140
Founding governance & finance instrument (Cohousing Agreement, signed 18 Oct 1999). The signed member agreement with the resident-owned development company Cohousing New Zealand Limited (incorporated 22 Mar 1999) documents Earthsong’s original decision and capital rules: all substantive decisions by the consensus Group Decision Making Process, backed only on failure by a share-weighted vote deliberately capped at 24% per individual with a 75% supermajority and one vote per 1,000** loaned — egalitarian voice over unequal capital. ~**1.6M member equity was raised by loans, guarantees (1 share per 5,000) and unit deposits plus a $2,000 seed contribution, with the Company building and selling units to members; contributions locked in until wind-up (“viability of the Project must take precedence over the needs of individual contributors”). This is the legal/financial backbone behind the resident-led development, and the documentary counterpart to an interviewee’s sell-at-cost / no-resale-clawback account (Interview VI [INT_006]) and staged capital costs (OT_098). OT_141
Consensus meeting process (facilitation & meeting-process documents, 2004 — OT_145). The community’s consensus decision-making is documented as an explicit, transferable procedure. A three-document 2004-era pack — facilitation guidelines, a full meeting procedure “extracted from The Art of Facilitation” (Dale Hunter), and eight “I”-statement communication agreements — sets out how a Full Group meeting is run and how consent is reached: split roles (facilitator/minute-taker/timekeeper), a coloured-card protocol to signal objection intensity (“we are consenting/reaching consensus, rather than voting”), and three binding rules — arrive on time, “those directly affected by a decision need to be directly involved”, and “decisions… can be revisited once only, at the next meeting”. This is the operational detail behind the “Group Decision-Making Process” the trust deed and Body Corporate rules legally mandate, and behind the matured consensus practice INT_005 and INT_006 describe. OT_145
Member-level governance instrument (Membership Agreement, Version 4 May 2016 — OT_147). The community’s member-level governance is set out in the Earthsong Membership Agreement (Version 4 May 2016, replacing the 2012 version). Every unit owner and every adult resident of three months or more must be a member (cl.3.1–3.2); membership is an effortful onboarding (tour, buddy, reading the Cohousing Book, two observer meetings, purchase/rent, fee, signing — cl.3.6) and carries active-participation duties (focus group, full-group meetings, working bees, cooking teams, guardianship, prompt payment — cl.3.8). Decisions are made by consensus with a 25% quorum using a six-coloured-card process (Appendix A), explicitly designed so “dominant personalities find it harder to push their ideas through … and softer-spoken members find it easier to voice their concerns”; where consensus repeatedly fails, a proposal can pass by a 75% majority vote at a subsequent noticed meeting, and settled decisions may be reopened only by an absent member at the next meeting or otherwise by 50% of members. Members also sign the Appendix B Communication Agreements and commit to a dispute-resolution process (cl.3.10); ex-residents may opt into a reduced 6-month membership that keeps discussion rights but not decision-making (cl.3.12). This is the member-level codification of the consensus/participation culture described in interview (INT_005/INT_006). OT_147
Council partnership record (Final Report to WCC, 2 Sep 2010 - OT_237). Earthsong’s closing report to Waitakere City Council, written by an interviewee as Earthsong Centre Trust chairperson at the city’s amalgamation into Auckland Council, narrates the community-council relationship end to end: Earthsong “chose to locate in Waitakere City specifically because of Council’s Eco City policies”; first contact 1992; MOU signed July 2003 with regular MOU meetings since; ~500 Council staff toured Earthsong in 2003 as eco-city training; joint monitoring ventures (monthly water-use metering of a 7-house block, tank water quality, a construction-waste audit) that produced the metered evidence family (OT_092, OT_094); the June 2005 interest-free Council loan of 300,000 to the Earthsong Centre Trust (repaid 2009) plus a 10,000 composting-toilet contribution, matching the OT_098 grants line; and ~1,000 visitors a year. It also records that in 2010 the Council contracted Robin Allison to write up Earthsong’s systems for the community website, dating the system descriptions later web captures draw on. OT_237
Relevance to Neobiome
Earthsong is the closest existing analogue to a Neobiome-type development within Auckland and the only confirmed NZ urban cohousing project with empirical sustainability benchmarking (Beacon 28/45). Key design features — cooperative governance, car-free interior, rainwater collection, natural materials, on-site commercial space — directly parallel Neobiome design targets.
GEN directory classification (RD_031). The Global Ecovillage Network public directory independently lists Earthsong as “Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood” — setting Urban, types Cohousing / Eco Community / Intentional, GEN region GENOA, and not currently accepting new members (as at the 19 Jul 2026 extract). This is external corroboration of Earthsong’s co-housing archetype (the NI B4a co-housing type, ~0.05 ha/household — consistent with 32 dw / 1.68 ha). ⚠ A separate US “Earthsong” (Rural, GENNA) in the same directory is a namesake, not this community. RD_031
Open questions
- Current population and household composition? (Turnover now partly answered — INT_006: ~1–2 households/yr historically, with a COVID-era wave.)
How does the rainwater collection system perform in practice?Answered + quantified (OT_092, metered 2005–08): ~174 L/p/d (58–80% of regional); on-site rainwater met only ~50% of needs (below the 70% target, land-limited tank volume); non-potable rainwater + city-mains potable; tanks run dry several times each summer and switch to city supply.Energy performance vs. Beacon assessment prediction?Configuration resolved (RT_187, INT_006): solar-thermal HW on houses, PV on carports (more planned), no batteries, no off-grid intent. Now partly addressed by the HERS 8-star building rating for one dwelling (OT_146); metered whole-community performance vs. Beacon prediction still open.How is the common house governed and used day-to-day?Partly answered (INT_005/INT_006): central to community life and cohesion; member-equality governance, monthly meetings + focus groups.- How has the cooperative financing model been maintained over time? (INT_006 surfaces the resale-value-to-commons leakage and the bank-lending barrier — RT_190.)
Connections
Links to
Referenced by