Long Bay - Okura - Great Park - ARC's role...

Yesterday we had a deputation from the Long-Bay Great Park Society at the monthly ARC Council meeting. I would estimate around 50 members of the Society were in attendance. Very impressive. The submission related to the need to protect a piece of land presently zoned for urbanisation, and not otherwise protected.

In its submission, the Society was fulsome in its praise of ARC's efforts during the Environment Court action that has followed notification of Plan Changes and Structure Plans that relate to Long Bay land that overlooks and is adjacent to Long Bay regional park land and the beach.

During my time on ARC I have tried to get ARC to purchase more land, to ensure better protection of existing park assets, and to provide a better buffer between urban development and the coastal park experience. But my efforts have not found majority support among my fellow councillors who have prioritised purchase of parkland an hour or more away from Auckland, and accessible only by car.

However, ARC did decide to become heavily involved in defending public values during Environment Court and related proceedings. This action - in conjunction with expert evidence provided by Great Park Society (funded by them to the extent of about $400,000) - has led to the establishment of 3 buffer areas (which cannot be built upon), and a large Heritage Protection Area (the site of pre-European and colonial-European archaeology), which also have the effect of protecting the regional park and coastal experience from development.

I am advised that the value of land thus protected is around $30,000,000. The ARC's costs in this effort have been estimated at $1,000,000.

ARC has called for a report investigating further the Great Park Society's submission and call for further protection of another piece of land.

Planning for the Auckland CBD Rail Network....

Stephen Joyce is right to say that the planning of Auckland's CBD rail network is not complete. But that's not an excuse to delay electrification...

These images are from a small power point presentation I have prepared to bring out some of the thinking that is needed when planning future rail service extensions in Auckland CBD...

This schematic shows the existing service connections and CBD rail network. Newmarket is a significant station where you can change lines. So is Britomart...

There has been talk of a Parnell Station. Actually, when you go along that line, and look North, and look at a map, you are aware of the proximity of the Domain, Hospital and University....

In any case there is a major challenge in preserving CBD rail services when Britomart undergoes engineering changes to make it a tunnel/through station....

This is a logical next step....

It does not require a station at Parnell (though one might be a good idea). Needs a set of points etc, so some trains go under Domain, through to Aotea. This line would likely need a viaduct across Grafton Gully - above motorway - below existing bridge...

And it could be connected to North Shore (in event rail link goes there), but would certainly be connected to Britomart Rail tunnel. Aotea Square would become major destination and line change....

Here it is...

Duke of Edinburgh Tramp in the Waitakeres

A bunch of D of E students from Takapuna Grammar School after they did their first 20km tramp in the Cascades part of the Waitakere Regional Park. My daughter, Emily, is in the picture, but I won't say where. She'd be appalled...

It was remarkably wet. Mud everywhere. A test of character. Especially when it was raining as well.

I went along willingly as a parent help. Was assigned to "the rowers". Bunch of boys with varying levels of tramping experience. Was great fun.

And we shared the place with these wonderful Kauri trees. Found out later that the reason the kauri are still standing in the upper and lower kauri glens, is actually because the cutting rights for those small sections of the Waitakeres were never granted. They are even more precious now we know about the dreaded phytophthera. These threaten our Kauri trees. Apparently these creatures are slowly moving through the forests. We are not sure if they are carried on the boots of trampers. Or whether mud helps or hinders... disinfectant for boots is now routine. I hope this disease goes like the one we had a few years ago for Cabbage Trees and Puriri....

Morning Kokako Release in ARC Regional Park

Had to get up early for this event. Drove to the ARC before the birds had even thought of waking up. Out to The Cascades in the Waitakeres. Everybody else seemed to be there. Two hundred at least....

The kids were there to give two Kokako their favorite food. Sweet water and squidged up banana it seems. Mike Lee and Sandra Coney were allowed a go too...

But here's one of the stars - and the woman from DOC. Talk about commitment. These birds came from a long way south. She gave us clear instructions. In case the birds ran across the forest floor toward us....

She set them free running up a branch. They skipped their way into the forest canopy. Fantastic experience. The funny thing was the forest was alive with the sound of Kokako even before they were release. Found out the forest had a few Ipods strategically planted in trees - all periodically emitting Kokako calls of the right dialect. Anchoring calls. Keep the birds local.

Very interesting.

SuperCity - Boundaries and Local Government Commission

Last week ARC had a couple of meetings about Auckland's ward boundaries. One of those was at the invitation of the Local Government Commission. They're under a tight timetable to deliver boundaries:

- for the proposed Community Boards (Councils)
- for the wards of Auckland Council

The Commission has got some practical grunt on it: Grant Kirby has been involved with local government in Auckland (from Rodney to AMETI) for years; Gwen Bull was an ARC councillor and chaired it; Sue Piper (who I don't know so well) she was a member of the Wellington City Council from 1995 to 2004 and has been a member of the National Council of Local Government New Zealand. Makes a change to have some local government experience being applied to the SuperCity challenge - compared with the woeful ignorance and lack of local government experience we see at Cabinet.

The ARC presented to the LGC its majority position, but it was also an opportunity for individual members to share minority views with the Commission. I was among the ARC members who took up that invitation.

On Community Boards, my opinion is:

- the present City Councils divide their efforst and time about 15% on planning (District Plan changes, and Long Term Community Planning); and 85% on service delivery (libraries, pools, parks, road maintenance, community services, dogs, regulation, noise control, road reserves....);
- that because City Councils are to be abolished, it is essential that Community Boards have the scale and size to be relied upon to deliver a sizeable chunk of those services (otherwise Auckland Council will have to, and it will distract Auckland Council from big picture responsibilities);
- so bigger is better than smaller, for Community Boards;
- these entities need to be renamed Community Councils (or suchlike). They represent a break with the past. They need to be seen to be different from the past. Because they will do more, and they need to be seen as different and have greater responsibilities, to attract good calibre candidates. Retaining the old name "community board" - which is referred to in LGA - will simply indicate business as usual. Call them: "Community Councils..."
- in my view, North Shore should have 2 or at the most 3 Community Councils (I am aware that there is a call for Devonport to be retained as a small individual Community Council because of its geographic isolation and community of interest. However, if that means there has to be a Takapuna Community Council by itself, then I believe this will result in Community Councils which are too small, and lack scale needed.)
- the way to address the Community of Interest requirement is to subdivide these fewer Community Council areas into wards. These wards would be aligned with the current community board areas. So, if North Shore had 2 Community Councils, each would have 3 wards, and each ward would have a number of Community Councillors elected.

On Auckland Council Wards, my opinion is:

- these need to be multi-member wards (ie not 20 one member wards);
- ARC presently has 2 single-member wards (Papakura/Franklin and Rodney), 2 two-member wards (Waitakere and North Shore), 1 three-member ward (Manukau), 1 four-member ward (Auckland). This has worked well to create cohesive regional governance, where members largely debate the needs of the region, rather than being distracted into parochialism;
- I was elected to North Shore City Council in 1998 when its ward boundaries were changed by the Local Government Commission around 1997 from what I understand was 15 one-member wards, to 3 five-member wards. The new council, with its multi-member wards, was noted for cohesive city-wide decision-making;
- Auckland Council must focus on regional strategic development and direction. It cannot be distracted into local issues, otherwise the whole purpose of the reform will be lost. However, it will only be able to do that if it has confidence that its local service arm - the Community Councils - are doing that job well, and acting as its eyes and ears into communities of interest.

So. The two things: Community Councils and Auckland Council wards, need to be assessed together. This is governance at appropriate levels, but it is integrated governance. Regional, municipal and local. Together.

Having said all that. The above. I would like to say again: the extent and depth of the present restructuring proposed is damaging and destructive. The baby - or a goodly part of the baby - is being thrown out with this reform.

What I believed was a necessary and sufficient reform was:

- change the city councils to municipal authorities and allow them to appoint chairs but not have elected mayors;
- have one rates bill from Greater Auckland Council which has 3 lines: regional rates; municipal rates; water rates;
- put Watercare under Greater Auckland Council (with ARTA);
- ensure municipal authorities required to implement Regional Policy Statement and Regional Land Transport Strategy

Where we are now is vague, where we are headed is uncertain, and what will happen to institutions and good people is damaging.

Tainui - Not Auckland's most reliable water mate...

It was very good to see Government pull back from putting most of Rodney District under control of the very lax and coastline careless Kaipara District Council. Lockwood Smith got a real roasting at a public meeting in Matakana. Completely misjudged what the locals were interested in.

He assumed they'd want coastal development enabled; that they'd support a new motorway through there; and that they'd like the red tape in the way of more development done away with. How wrong he was. You'd think he'd know about NIMBY. Sometimes that conservative force can be a force for good. In this case. It was.

So what about the Southern Boundary? At the moment there is some confusion around why Government would really want to carve up the Hunua Regional Park, and take that, plus two of Auckland's biggest water supply dams, and pass control of the lot to Environment Waikato. At the moment there's no change to that plan.

What's it all about?

Well. There's a lot on information about this floating around. Not all of it makes me happy. Makes me remember a challenging time in my life. When I took on Watercare oevr the Waikato Pipeline. Took them to the Environment Court, with tomato grower John Hamilton. And Tainui. We were all appealing Watercare's resource consent application to take water from the waikato River, treat it, and direct it into Auckland's town supply.

I was worried about a lot of things, but the issue came down to: cryptosporidium in the raw water (from dairy, had found the incidence of cryptosporidiosis in Waikato Region was around 10x what it was in Auckland); other contaminants including organo-chlorines from chemicals routinely put in the water by farming industry etc; and the fact there were about 20+ communiyt waste water schemes all discharging into the Waikato River. John Hamilton was supported by Fed Farmers, they were worried about organochlorines getting into town supply, putting at risk sensitive crops. Tainui had a range of issues, including issues about mixing of waters, and other things. I thought they were in there for the long haul.

Then. I think it was the Sunday before the Environment Court hearing (we are talking 1997 here), I got a phone call that they'd withdrawn their appeal. Found out a few days later that Tainui had been interested in a chunk of land where Watercare was proposing to put its abstraction point (structure at the water intake point). Watercare had made Tainui an offer. An offer of land. Tainui jumped at it, and agreed to withdraw their appeal.

I felt betrayed. 30 pieces of silver was all it took to buy them off.

But I digress. What has all this to do with Auckland losing its dams? Well. A lot actually. For a few years now, Tainui has been progressing a treaty claim in regard to the Waikato River. It seems that Michael Cullen was involved as a Minister, and still is. I understand he's even being paid by Tainui. For his efforts on their behalf.

So now this water deal is getting close to being sorted out. The Maori Party know all about this of course. And, it seems, have done a deal with National, to support the realigned boundary for Auckland SuperCity, provided Tainui get those water assets, as part of its treaty settlement.

You might see the similarity - between what's happening now - and Tainui in 1997.

The upshot seems to be, that most of Auckland's water supply - the Mangatawhiri and Mangatangi dams - will be handed - through Environment Waikato - to Tainui on a plate. Then they'll sell that water to Watercare, for onsale to Aucklanders.

A sort of Tangata Whenua/Tainui water privatisation.

Stinks doesn't it.

The right thing to do would be for Environment Waikato and Government to work with Tainui on joint management of Waikato River and tributaries presently in Waikato. The positive thing about Tainui was its anger over diary water pollution and its desire to cleanup the Waikato. There's nothing dirty about the water that gets into the Waikato from Auckland's water supply catchments....

There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.

Queens Wharf Design Competition Stage 1 - Selected Images

If you get the chance - go down to the Northern Steamship Company building in Quay Street and take look at the competition entries. Really worthwhile. Very interesting. There are 250 separate entries - each on its own A1 sheet. Great way to see what's what....

I've selected a few pics. This one is Party Central in the Cool Shed...

...and so is this one. From outside looking toward Queen Street.

...the entries come in all styles and finishes. Was interested in this one's interest in glassed verandahs. Queens Wharf can be a windy and wet place. So shelter and shade are needed. Not sure about grass...

This is an idiosyncratic one I've included because it's fun. The theme apparently - for the yellow shapes - is the randomness of a bouncing rugby ball....

This one's given the Briton Pier finish to Shed 10. Lots of glazing along the roof ridge, and a seriously in-keeping with the times, and ornamental addition at the end of the building. And what about those lamp standards!

Several point out that this is Queen Street Extension. One even explains that historically Queens Wharf was actually named: "Queen Street Wharf". Probably before it got blocked off with the red fence. Interesting ironwork here - including elevated walkways...

High style here. Street art and continuation of Nikau Palms from Queen Street. Not also the greenery in the building which replaces Shed 10 in this entry...

This entry extends the garden idea. Garden on Queens Wharf idea. Even a formal garden, places to sit...

I guess those sheds do have the outline of a tomato house...

And here we get into some glass and an elegant adaptation and renovation of Shed 10. Looks pretty flash in Merino (one of those Resene Paint whites if my memory serves me right...). Also got a few trees...

This is inside Shed 10. The bones are on display. It's reminiscent of the exposure of bones you can see inside Britomart Station. Not really sure about huge trees inside this elegant treatment. But interesting to bring and extend some Queen Street greenery here...

This is a seriously interesting treatment of the end of the wharf. Specially when you look into that flating structure at the end - complete with wind shelters, places to jump, swim and dive off. Even launch and float a canoe. The seating and shading designed for events at the end - not a stadium - but an amphitheatre. One that you can see through. An event place. And Shed 10 survives too...

This idea would have to be one of my favorites. Called "Arrival Hall", it's at the Queen Street end of Shed 10. The floor is removed at one end to achieve this stunning effect....


...and at night, looking toward Shed 10 from Queen Street a light and neon show inside would make spectacular drawcard onto the wharf...

(By the way, about half the entries in the competition are what I would describe as architectural visions for the whole wharf, which involve starting from scratch. Blank slate approach. Which I don't personally support, and which I consider to be unaffordable. That's my bias. I support adaptive reuse of the sheds.)



The end of the Cool Shed gets the Marae treatment here, plus a waka moored close by. Many of the entries showed Koru and other Maori motif patterns, but it was interesting to see some buildings getting the treatment...

Many and varied treatments to deal to the weather and generally provide enclosed or sheltered space...

This is the real wood treatment for the sheds and wharf decking. Nikau presence again, and special glass light ports into the roofing of the sheds. Again, a really enthusiastic end of wharf space for fishers, swimmers and paddlers alike. Get your feet wet here...

... and again...

Many of the entries recognise the need for shelter from the elements, and provide shade structures ranging from sails to shade houses to stretched sail type arrangements. This one was a bit different, and combined the ability to shade a pathway to the end of the wharf, while retaining the shape of an iconic kiwi image. The Silver Fern.

.... and again.

I repeat, this is a very interesting exhibition of ideas. I would encourage you to go - look - and complete a few forms down there, about what you think of the ideas you will see.

Princes Wharf's Fall from Grace...

Just look at this. Here's how Princes Wharf - the street down the middle - looked in 1928, when this photo was taken. Looking west from the end of the wharf, you can see the buildings in downtown Auckland CBD. Lots of opportunity for heritage adaptation you'd think....

And what about this? Here's HMS Hood (remember "Sink the Bismark"). She came to visit in 1924, shortly after Princes Wharf was built. What a visit that must've been...


tAnd here's what we have now. Hilton Hotel. According to CityCentralMagazine, this, and a bunch of apartments, was developed by David Henderson, Kitchener Group for $200 million. This magazine notes: "when the America's Cup put New Zealand on the map investors in these apartments doubled their income..." It's only been about money. And as you can see in this picture - regulation is useless. Cars park where they should not with careless regard...

Just in case you missed them in the picture above, here's a closer picture. These vehicles are not supposed to park here, but they do anyway. Maybe wwe could arrange for the ghost of HMS Hood to come and blow them off the wharf... you wish...

Stormwater slips through cracks in Supercity reforms

Given Auckland's high annual rainfall and the increasing incidence of weather bomb problems, it is concerning that Parliament's Supercity Select Committee recommends that Auckland's stormwater be separated from the management of Auckland's water and wastewater.

Their decision adds weight to worries that Watercare is being shaped into a neat vertically integrated business funded by revenues from water and wastewater charges. This business model would be upset by Auckland's stormwater challenges, but then public services do not always lend themselves to market solutions.

Today, Auckland's "three-water" services are delivered locally in an integrated way. Councils recognise how inter-twined our waters are, whether we like it or not, and they need to be managed together for a host of reasons.

In the old days, stormwater was managed by council roading departments. But even that model will not possible under Supercity proposals, because roads are to be managed by a separate transport infrastructure agency with little interest in stormwater.

Stormwater cannot be allowed to flow through the cracks in these reforms. Integrated management of Auckland's stormwater assets and ponds and flowpaths is essential.

Reducing Transport Carbon Emissions in Auckland

Strategic and Local Urban Planning Policies to make a difference....

I was required to do an assignment for a Masters Sustainable Development paper I'm taking at Auckland University. And here it is. The research requirement provided me with a very useful opportunity to look at the past 15 years of Auckland's regional and local planning, and how effective it has been....

Here is the Introduction and Executive Summary of the assignment, which I recommend unreservedly to anyone interested in Auckland planning. At the end of this section of the report you will see a link where you can download the full paper....

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to examine and analyse the policy framework that exists in Auckland whose purpose is to shape, direct and manage the sustainability of regional and local urban development in terms of its demand for carbon based energy for transport and its consequent production of greenhouse gas emissions.

The New Zealand Government has recently announced (NZGovt, 2009) that it is: “prepared to take on a responsibility target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions of between 10 per cent and 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020….”

Further Government information on the Ministry of Environment (MfE) website describes this target (NZGovt - MfE, 2009) thus:

“...a ’responsibility target’ means that New Zealand can meet its target through a mixture of domestic emission reductions, the storage of carbon in forests, and the purchase of emissions reductions in other countries…. New Zealand’s 2020 target forms part of a step towards ensuring that New Zealand’s long-term target to reduce emissions by 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 (“50 by 50”) is achieved. Reaching the 50 by 50 goal is a significant challenge and it is important that we make a start now to give us a realistic chance of reaching it…. Because of New Zealand’s projected 35 per cent population growth over the period 1990 to 2020, our target reductions are more stringent when considered on a per capita basis. A target of 10 per cent below 1990 levels equates to a 35 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 1990 to 2020. A target of 20 per cent below 1990 levels equates to a 42 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 1990 to 2020….”

While there is criticism of Government’s greenhouse reduction targets (the NZ Green Party advocates reductions of 40% compared to Government’s highly conditioned proposals which range between 10% and 20%), even these will require significant structural changes in sectors of New Zealand’s economy, as well as behavioural change on the part of individuals.

Almost half the energy consumed in Auckland is for transport (MED, 2007) including private transport, public transport and freight transport. Most of this transport energy is derived from non-renewable fossil fuels which burn to produce energy and greenhouse gases. This relatively wasteful use of transport energy (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999) will need to change for Auckland to play its part in reducing New Zealand’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Adding weight to this imperative is the need to ensure that Auckland’s transport systems become less reliant upon increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive fossil fuels.

There are many ways of reducing Auckland’s carbon-based transport footprint, such as improving public transport, using lower emission vehicles, more walking and cycling, and others. This report concentrates on the effect on transport energy of Auckland’s land use patterns - which are dispersed following decades of sprawling development – and examines policy options to improve and change Auckland’s urban development form so it uses transport energy more efficiently and less wastefully, and is thereby responsible for less green house gas emissions than now.

This first section of this report examines and analyses relevant policies and strategies in force in Auckland region now, to address the matter of Auckland’s transport energy demands and the related carbon emissions, and specifically those policies operative in North Shore City.

The next section of this report introduces and describes a range of policy options in use and under active consideration in other OECD countries, which are aimed at reducing transport demand and related emssions by changing and influencing land use patterns.

These policy options are then assessed in the final section of this report in terms of their applicability and acceptability in Auckland New Zealand.

2. Executive Summary

Auckland’s regional strategic and local urban planning documents comprehensively recognise that the energy intensive and green gas emitting character of Auckland’s transport system can be mainly attributed to Auckland’s dispersed and sprawling urban form.

However, apart from the powerful Metropolitan Urban Limit policy contained in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement that became fully operative in 1999, there is a remarkable paucity of other effective policies that will head Auckland’s development pattern in a compact, less carbon-intensive direction. This is confirmed by the findings of detailed analysis led by the Auckland Regional Council and set out in Growing Smarter (2007). Further policy ideas that would lead to a more compact urban form and reduced green house gas emissions from transport are contained in Auckland’s Long Term Sustainability Framework, in particular a range of densification and development measures.

Most of the world’s cities are attending to similar problems, and there is much that can be learned from their experiences. Casual assessment suggests that Auckland would be low on any list compiled to rank the effectiveness of policies and initiatives being taken by cities to reduce the need for travel and related green house gas emissions by changing the development and redevelopment of city urban form.

The VIBAT – Visioning and Back Casting Transport – innovation being carried out now in London with support from Greater London Authority and the UK Givernment Department for Transport is exemplary because of its focus on linking green house gas emissions reductions to specific policy initiatives, and carrying out this assessment in a way which is widely accessible to the public and interested stakeholder organisations. Auckland can learn from this work in many ways. One of the recommendations of this report is that we need a VIBAT system for Auckland.

Closer to home – in the sense that city development in Canada more closely resembles Auckland’s urban form - the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VPTI) is a store-house of policy ideas that focus on successful compact city development. I note that the VIBAT work has leaned heavily on the research findings of VPTI in regard to urban form impact on travel demand and green house gas emissions. VPTI advice that reductions in travel demand of between 20% and 40% may be achieved through a mix of policies aimed at producing an urban form which leads to significantly less demand for private car travel.

This report brings together relevant policy recommendations from research carried out in Auckland, plus VIBAT and VPTI work, and sets out a number of policy packages and other initiatives that would guide Auckland’s urban development in a more sustainable direction than where it is heading now.

The recommendations are for National, Regional and Local levels...."

Enjoy. Download Joel's Paper