A Spatial Plan for Auckland

The grapevine suggests that Auckland Local Government Bill No. 3 will include a prescription for a Spatial Plan that is to be prepared by the new and incoming Auckland Council after election in Nov1 2010. That's interesting. Wonder what it will provide for?

Currently Auckland has a few regional planning instruments: The Regional Policy Statement (being reviewed now, but not much more than set of sustainable development controls); Draft 1 of the One Plan (this is a disappointing document that amounts to little more than a wishlist of unfunded and unprioritised projects); the Auckland Sustainability Framework (a useful and visionary document - but not a spatial plan) and the Regional Land Transport Strategy (good as far as it goes, but increasingly irrelevant with legislative moves to marginalise its effect).

There's lots of talk about "spatial planning" in Auckland - it trips off the lips easily - a bit like "iconic waterfront building". The words mean different things to different people. That's a comfort, but will not lead to any certainty, or delivery or change.

How about spatial planning Jakarta style:

On November 8, 2009 Jakarta’s Governor Fauzi Bowo closed and locked a gas station located on Jl. Jendral Sudirman to symbolically close down 27 gas stations and convert the areas into green spaces. The Jakarta Parks and Cemetery Agency announced that the 27 gas stations will be closed by the end of the year and the closure of these gas stations will add another 10,505 square meters of green areas in Jakarta (The Jakarta Post, November 11, 2009).

The conversion of gas stations into green areas is to meet the target for green areas in Jakarta stipulated in the Jakarta spatial plan 2000-2010 to cover 13.94 percent of Jakarta's total 63,744 hectares by 2010. In 1965, green areas made up more than 35 percent of Jakarta and have been shrinking ever since. Currently, green areas in Jakarta account for only 9.3 percent of the city's area, far below the target of 30 percent set by the Spatial Planning Law 26/2007.

I commend Governor Fauzi Bowo and his city administration for converting gas stations into green areas because of two main reasons. First, the conversion of gas stations into green areas is a good precedent for implementing spatial plans. Over the years, the spatial plan seems to be a legal document that is not fully enforced and implemented. The 27 gas stations are located in the areas designated as green areas in the Jakarta spatial plans 1965-1985, 1985-2005 and 2000-2010. For many years, the city conceded to the powerful owners of the gas stations and could not enforce and implement the spatial plans. In March 2008, the city proposed the plan of the gas stations conversion but it was rejected by the Jakarta City Council. This year, the city resubmitted the proposal and it was approved by the newly elected Jakarta City Council.

This an extract from http://indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.com/ prepared by Deden Rukmana Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Savannah State University. Imagine doing something like that for an Auckland Spatial Plan. The Auckland Council would be competing with Infratil to buy the network of Shell Petrol stations across Auckland - and its depots and other land holdings. Imagine that as an initiative...

It is useful to begin with higher level thoughts about spatial planning. The European Parliament adopted a European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in 1999.

The aim of spatial development policies is to work towards a balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. In the Ministers' view, what is important is to ensure that the three fundamental goals of European policy are achieved equally in all the regions of the EU:

• economic and social cohesion;
• conservation and management of natural resources and the cultural heritage;
• more balanced competitiveness of the European territory.

What is interesting about this is that it considers not just a single city region, but the inter-relationship between cities and regions across Europe. And about balanced development. We could do with a bit of thinking like that in New Zealand - before imposing an Auckland spatial development plan.

Why? Well - for a start the Auckland growth projections show the lion's share of NZ growth is assumed to occur in Auckland, at the expense of other cities and regions across the country. ie Auckland competes with the rest of New Zealand for people, resources, employment - and just about everything else. Is it really sensible to promote and develop Auckland at the expense of the rest of New Zealand, and without at the same time, promoting other parts of New Zealand? I don't think so. I can think of many councillors in the past who have called upon NZ Government to adopt a national population strategy - in an effort to ensure that NZ growth and development was regionally distributed.

There is not good reason to stuff up Auckland through requiring it to absorb the rest of the nation's growth as well as its own.

The ESDP objectives may be summarised as follows:

• sustainable development
• polycentric pattern of towns and cities
• new urban-rural relations
• creative management of cultural and natural values

Which is fairly broad and uses the "s" word which may not pass the lips of anyone in present government. It seems. However, much of what emerged from further consideration of the "sustainable development" objective was the economic development thrust of what became known as the Lisbon/Gothenburg objectives, part of which go like this:

1. Making Europe and its regions more attractive places to live and work
• Expand and improve transport infrastructure
• Strengthen synergies between environmental protection and growth
• Address Europe’s intensive use of traditional energy sources
2. Improving knowledge and innovation for growth
• Increase and improve investment in RTD
• Facilitate innovation and promote entrepreneurship
• Promote the information society for all
• Improve access to finance
3. More and better jobs
• Attract and retain more people in employment and modernise social protection systems
• Improve adaptability of workers and enterprises and the flexibility of the labour market
• Increase investment in human capital through better education and skills
• Develop effective administrative capacity
• Help maintain a healthy labour force

And this is part of a European spatial development plan - spatial development including economic development - and relating to cities and regions.

Turning back to Jakarta, we find that Spatial Planning has been adopted by law as an institutional planning tool. This is apparently referred to as Law 6/2007. It requires a National Spatial Plan with National Strategic Area Spatial Planning. Then there is a spatial planning requirement at provincial (regional) levels, and a spatial planning requirement at urban (city) levels. There is a requirement for Metropolitan Spatial Planning and what is termed Agropolitan Planning.

It appears that this new planning approach (and the gas station story above, came as a reaction to a previous spatial plan, which is criticised in this 2006 newspaper story as follows:

"...July 14 2006 What will Jakarta be like in 2010? It will be a money-driven city with less social justice and no improvement in public facilities, urban planners say. While Jakarta's residents hope it will be more livable in the future, the city's spatial planning blueprint, known as Jakarta 2010, would likely disappoint most people.

There is a significant increase in land allocated for "prospective economic areas," which will occupy half the city within the next four years. Meanwhile, living area shrinks, a plan that according to urban planning expert Bianpoen would most likely affect the 5.4 million poor people living in kampongs and slums.

"The city plan lacks social justice as it continuously evicts the poor to make way for the rich elite," Bianpoen said after a Wednesday urban planning revitalization workshop held by the Jakarta chapter of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi).

Currently, Jakarta's population swells to 12 million during the day, when commuters from surrounding towns make their way into the city. Some 8.7 million people actually live within the city limits. Each year, about 350,000 newcomers move here from other regions. Jakarta 2010 projects a total of 12.5 million inhabitants.

Meanwhile, the city has lowered its sights in terms of providing open space and greenery. Bianpoen said although the city plans to increase green areas to some 9,200 hectares from the existing 7,250 hectares, the target has actually been reduced to almost half that identified in the 1985-2005 master plan....

Not all spatial plans are sustainable. But they clearly need to be rather more than maps with future roads and railways marked on them. (I have spoken to a number of prospective candidates for Auckland Council who - when asked about spatial planning - speak only about rail to the Auckland Airport and the Britomart Tunnel).

Canberra has adopted a spatial plan. Part of Canberra planning. Goes like this:

The Canberra Spatial Plan is the key strategic
planning document for directing and managing
urban growth and change. It sets actions for
30 years and beyond to achieve this. The
Canberra Spatial Plan outlines a strategic
direction to achieve the social, environmental
and economic sustainability of Canberra as part
of The Canberra Plan.

The key principles underpinning The Canberra Spatial Plan are to:
■ Contain growth within 15 kms of the city
centre to reduce sprawl and protect biodiversity.
■ Increase the number of homes within
7.5 kms of the city centre to provide a
wider range of housing close to
employment and services.
■ Locate new residential areas close to town
centres and transport routes.
■ Locate employment close to residential
areas and transport routes.
■ Provide good travel connections to
minimise journey times and trip length.
■ Protect areas of high conservation value
from the impact of development.
■ Protect and enhance important assets.
■ Be a responsible partner in the region.

The Canberra Spatial Plan will be implemented over the next 30 years
through key interventions including land release, investment strategies
and further investigations. Some immediate actions include land release,
investment in infrastructure, Central Canberra Implementation Program,
master plans for urban renewal sites, policy changes to the Territory Plan
and the National Capital Plan and further investigations. The Canberra
Spatial Plan contains indicators for measuring progress and developing
new or revised strategies.

This is a large topic, and a large posting, so I'll bring it to a close, picking up on the Canberra mention of indicators (targets). In Auckland we haven't been that good at targets. We like the big hairy strategy and vision, but we don't mention targets, or how they will be met along the way. Some Auckland documents do mention targets though, and I think any Spatial Planning exercise would be irresponsible without them. These are development performance measures contained in the Auckland Sustainable Development Framework:

GDP per capita.
Labour productivity.
Multi-factor productivity.
Patent applications per capita.
R&D spend as a percentage of GDP.
Carbon emissions.

Resource effi ciency.
Occupation by industry.
Percentage/number of businesses in knowledge-intensive
high-tech services and creative industries.

Unemployment/labour force participation or utilisation.
Retention of skilled people and skills gap.
Business survival rates.
Access to broadband and cost.
Number of venture capital deals.

Proportion of private motor vehicle travel compared to sustainable transport.
Community resource accessibility index.
Percentage of population within identified growth areas.
Percentage of employment within identified growth areas.
Community perceptions of design (satisfaction with neighbourhood and new development).
Urban design review (expert opinions).
Total number/proportion of residential dwellings that meet minimum insulation standards.
Number of new residential dwellings built with solar water heating.

Kilometres and connectivity of bike paths.
Fuel consumption per capita.
Resident rating of satisfaction with accessibility; e.g. to services, shopping, open space, recreational facilities, passenger transport, etc.
Percentage of total development (new building consents) in growth areas and green field areas.
Urban density (number of people/dwellings per hectare).
Ratio of high/medium/low-density dwelling types in growth areas.
Housing stock by style, number of bedrooms, location.
Number of new residential dwellings built with rainwater tanks.
Percentage of all new public buildings that are built to 4 star Green Star standards.

Means of travel to work.
Average length of journey to work.
Percentage of population who live within 500 metres of a train station or transport hub.
Activity mix in centres and pedestrian traffic (measure of vibrancy in centres).
Total urban footprint and measures of land use (industrial, residential, business etc).

I have not included them all, and there will be others. Of course. Just to give you an idea. And these targets or measures need to be in the spatial plan, by area, and with targets each 3 year period, or so. So that progress can be measured. Not just soft words.

What I wanted to do here, is to broaden the idea of spatial planning, and to send a message to those who are presently drafting words for Auckland Local Government Bill No. 3 - don't confine your thinking to Auckland, and don't confine New Zealand's growth to Auckland either. The whole country needs to share in our country's economic development - the good bits and the bad bits.

Masonic Hotel - Devonport - Evidence and History

Claudia Page is co-convenor of the Masonic Friendly Society Inc, an incorporated Society with a current membership of 389. The group was registered as an Incorporated Society on 19 August 2008, and registered with the Charities Commission on 10 June 2009. It has been fighting against destructive redevelopment of the Masonic Hotel in Devonport.

The Society has appealed to the Environment Court against a resource consent obtained from North Shore City Council by the owner of the Masonic Hotel to redevelop the site.

The case has yet to be heard. However, a very considerable body of evidence has been unearthed and researched by the Society. This information is of enormous value.

Given this material is now in the public domain, I have copied a tiny fraction of it below. Should anyone wish to see more, then I am sure a donation to the Masonic Friendly Society would secure copies of this material.

Below is a little snippet of the history of Masonic Hotel that has been uncovered by Susan Joffe, who is an independent historical researcher, and which is contained in her substantial evidence to the Environment Court....

Figure 1. Masonic Hotel, c.1879. J. Richardson.

3. Summary of History

3.1 Masonic Hotel was built in 1866 by George Beddoes under contract to Thomas John Duder. It was intended to be a resort for wealthy travelers and a holiday destination. With eleven bedrooms and two sitting rooms on the second storey all well decorated and furnished. The ground floor rooms catered to gentlemen’s
sports such a billiards and meeting rooms.

3.2 It immediately became the center of social and commercial activity in the new settlement of East Devonport. It was the watering hole for workers in the shipyards of Torpedo Bay and the meeting place for community groups, sports clubs and local government – Flagstaff Highway Board.

3.3 Photographs of this time show the thriving industry on the foreshore – ship
building, timber milling, wharves with unloading scows.

3.4 The 1883 extension added more bedrooms and kitchen was moved to in a separate building. The south and west facades were altered. It was renamed Pearce’s Masonic Hotel.

3.5 It remained the premier hotel in Devonport until the Esplanade 1902. At this time the commercial center had gradually moved to Victoria Road. However, the
community use of the facility for celebrations and meetings continued.

3.6 The hotel narrowly escaped a fire that damaged the separate two storied building housing servants rooms and the kitchen in 1905.

3.7 Masonic Hotel was sold out of the Duder family in 19247 and, after less than a
decade in private ownerships, was bought by Dominion Breweries in 1937.

3.8 Alterations in the 1960s included the filling in of the verandas.

3.9 With the extension of the licensing hours in 1967 it became Masonic Tavern and
no longer provided accommodation....


4. Historic Significance

There are many aspects to be considered when evaluating historical and cultural
significance. The Masonic Tavern (Hotel) is over 140 years and is therefore
valued for its age. Having been designed by one of Auckland’s early architects
and that the form and ornamentation are typical of public buildings of the time,
also attracts merit. However, it is the social and community values and the part it
has played in the history of the development of Devonport, the associations with
events and people that are of utmost importance in assigning historical
significance in this case.

Dr David Throsby Professor of Economics at Macquarie University, Melbourne
has researched and written widely on the cultural value of heritage buildings.
These values are multi faceted and include the aesthetic, spiritual, social, historic,
symbolic and educational. They are not easily translated into economics as there
is no single unit of account but attempts are being made. The non use values
include the fact that heritage buildings exist, are part of the landscape, are
pleasant to look at and contribute to a sense of well being and belonging.
Heritage buildings are cultural capital that demand a duty of care. There must be
a balancing of economic and cultural values to ensure that future generations have
equitable access to our heritage.

The following definitions are taken from the Auckland City Council assessment
criteria 2009 (draft)
4.1 People: Is the place directly associated with the life or works of well-known or
important individuals?

The Masonic Hotel’s association with person or persons is significant.

The name Duder is inextricably linked with the early Development of Devonport.

Thomas Duder owned the land the Masonic is built on, caused it to be built and the hotel remained in the family for nearly sixty years.

Robert Duder lived in the hotel for many years and many of the Duder enterprises were concentrated in the immediate vicinity.(Annex I p.19)

George Beddoes a pioneering shipbuilder, the first industry in Devonport, built the hotel.(Annex p.25)

Richard Keals one of New Zealand’s early architect who built many public
buildings, designed the hotel (Annex II p.22)

Edward Bartley architect of 1883 additions is recognized as a leading influence in colonial architecture, designed the 1883 alterations.(Annex II p.28)

4.2 Themes/subthemes: – does the place have a direct and demonstrable association with important aspects of historical significance?

4.2.1 Masonic’s role in the rivalry over the establishment of the commercial center of Devonport. The Masonic was built as a direct result of the opposition to the Holmes Bros. establishment of the Flagstaff Hotel on the foreshore at Victoria Road. The competition to have the center of commercial and civic activity at Church Street involved prominent leaders in the development of Devonport who – who are commemorated in place names.

4.2.2 Contribution to Devonport becoming a holiday destination .
The Masonic Hotel was designed for the holidaying families,
honeymooners and invalids and recuperating patients.
This was reported in the accounts of the opening which extol the well
appointed bedrooms, sitting rooms and sanitary facilities. Mr Cock in his
opening speech expressly mentions that he does not want to cultivate the
‘bar trade’. He also planned to build bathing sheds – salt water and
swimming was considered to have curative powers. The bathing machine
was built in 1869 by Mr James.

The tourism attractions in Devonport were expanded with the Esplanade
Hotel built in 1902 and the Ventnor on King Edward Parade.
The North Auckland Hotel at Stokes Point (Northcote) was built for
travelers going north or coming to the city. It was a holiday destination.
It burnt down and was replaced by the Northcote Tavern.
Masonic remained as a hotel until 1967 when it became a tavern.

4.3 Rarity: Is the place unique, uncommon at a district, regional or national level in relation to particular historic themes?

4.3.1 The Masonic is oldest hotel (tavern) in Devonport and arguably the oldest building in the area. The hotel has served the public in the same fashion for 143 years apart from offering accommodation, which ceased forty years ago.

4.3.2 The two other hotels opened in 1866 in Victoria Road, British Hotel and Victoria Hotel had both ceased to exist by mid 1880s.

4.4 Social Values: Community association Is the place important to a community
because of the associations and meaning developed through use and association?
Identity: Is the place a focus of community identity or sense of place, and
does it have social value and provide evidence of cultural or historical
continuity.

Throughout its history the Masonic has been a meeting place for locals,
and venue for social occasions. It is identified with the beginnings of
many of Devonport’s sports clubs – many of which are still functioning.

The Flagstaff hotel no longer exists and the Esplanade built in 1902 cannot claim to have played a similar role in the life of the community as the Masonic. Being forty years later it was not the center of the development of local politics, sports clubs and other social activities of the young settlement.

Even before it officially opened its doors the Masonic Hotel was the center of social activity in the community. In July 1866 a lunch was held to
celebrate the launching of a ship.

Significant to the yachting community from the early days of Auckland
Regatta to Peter Blake planning for his America’s Cup Campaign, the
Masonic has served this maritime community.

Throughout its existence the Masonic has played host to the various
defence forces occupying North Head and Fort Tamaki.

Of more recent times it has been the venue for developing musical talent
as being in a band has become a right of passage for Devonport youth.

4.5 Public esteem: Is the place held in high public esteem for its local or
district significance of cultural sentiment?

The Masonic Hotel and the buildings around are valued as evidence of the early days of Devonport and the industry and commerce that gave thrived there. It was the first public meeting space. The first local government entity, the Flagstaff Highway Board Annual Meeting 1867. The meeting for fund raising for the Devonport Hall was held there.

The hotel itself has been host to generations of Devonportians who enjoy
the knowledge that their grandfather celebrated in the same hotel.

It holds a special place as the venue for the beginnings of sports clubs
their meetings and after match celebrations....

Interesting, don't you think. And that's just a taste of the detail and colour that has been uncovered by Susan Joffe. Other affidavits add considerable architectural detail. Worth protecting that heritage and those historic connections with old Auckland. Great work guys.
You can see more at: http://www.masonicfriendlysociety.org/

North Shore - as recommended by Local Government Commission

This blog contains extracts from the Local Government Commission Super City Boundary, Ward and Board recommendations that relate to North Shore City. The LGC has recommended that North Shore be divided into one and a half, 2 member wards for SuperCity representation. The extra half of the northern ward is "taken" from Rodney District, to form a ward that extends from Mairangi Bay up and including the Whangapaoroa Peninsula....

These 2 Super City wards are made up of 3 Local Boards....

And each of these Local Boards are further divided into Subdivisions, which each have a quota of members. Candidates will stand for a specific subdivision. This is to ensure that each community of interest has representation on the Local Board...

The relevant maps are below...


North Shore Ward
This map shows the North Shore Ward of the proposed Auckland Council. It extends from Campbells Bay in the North, to Devonport in the South, across to Northcote, and up to Beachhaven. It will have two councillors elected at large across the ward. Thus voters will cast two votes, for their preferred two Auckland Councillors. It will have two Local Boards - maps shown further below.




Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward
This map shows the Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays Ward of Auckland council. (By the way - the LGC expects submissions about names. What should this Ward be named?) This ward will have 2 Auckland Councillors elected at large from across the Ward. Voters will have two votes to cast for their ward councillors. This ward extends from Wairewa in the the north, to Mairangi Bay in the south. It includes Paremoremo and Greenhithe. It will have just one Local Board. Map below.










Glenfield/Birkenhead Local Board
This map shows the Glenfield/Birkenhead Local Board, which is contained in the North Shore Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 2 subdivisions: The Glenfield subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, while the Birkenhead subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 6 members.

Devonport/Takapuna Local Board
This map shows the Devonport/Takapuna Local Board, which is contained in the North Shore Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 2 subdivisions: The Devonport subdivision will be represented by 2 members on that Local Board, while the Takapuna subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 5 members. (This tends to suggest that Takapuna will always have a majority on that Board....)












Hibiscus/Albany/ECB Local Board
This map shows the Hibiscus/Albany/ECB Local Board, which is contained in the Hibiscus/Albany/East Coast Bays Ward of Auckland City Council. This Local Board is divided into 3 subdivisions: The Hibiscus subdivision will be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, and the Albany subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board, and the East Coast Bays subdivision will also be represented by 3 members on that Local Board. Giving a total of 9 members.

Local Government Commission Recommendations for SuperCity

I went along to the Hyatt Auckland on Friday - with keen interest - to hear the Local Government Commission (LGC) announce its recommendations for SuperCity Ward and Local Board structure plus boundaries. About a hundred of us gathered in the darkened room, which probably had room for a hundred more at the while cloth covered tables that awaited us. One table at the back groaned under the weight of copies of map books and reports that contained the LGC recommendations (these were handed out after the Commissioners presented their power point summary.)

Sue Piper, Chair of the LGC, emphasised at the beginning that Auckland Council, plus the Local Boards, would be involved in: "shared decision-making". And that set the scene. We also heard from Grant Kirby and Gwen Bull - the other two commissioners.

I won't summarise the recommendations here, because these are reasonably public, but you can get the report (a good read), and the maps, at this link:
http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Auckland-Governance-Proposals-for-Wards-Local-Boards-and-Boundaries-for-Auckland!OpenDocument

The very broad numbers in the recommendations are these:

- there will be eight 2-member wards
- there will be four single-member wards (Rodney, Franklin, Maungawhau - Auckland CBD and environs plus Hauraki Gulf Islands, New Lynn)
- there are 19 Local Boards, of these 13 will have Subdivisions (with specific numbers of Board Members elected from each Subdivision)
- the Local Boards vary considerably in size, with from 5 to 9 members

I published my view about what was needed from the LGC, in September, at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/supercity-boundaries-and-local.html

I argued there in support of Multi-Member Wards for Auckland City (ie not single member wards), and also in support of fewer and larger Local Boards - with no more than 3 for the present area of North Shore City.

The LGC recommendations are along these lines, and so I am relieved. I know that not everybody agrees with this approach, but in my view, provided Local Boards are delegated significant local responsibilities, duties, roles, powers, and commensurate funding tools - then the shared decision-making structure recommended by the LGC will make the best of the severe re-structuring of Auckland local government.

To conclude I quote a couple of chunks from the LGC report:

Re Multi-Member Wards:

...."Apart from the arrangements for the two single-member wards for rural
Rodney and Franklin, we have proposed two-member wards in most cases.
We have found that in Auckland, two-member wards provide greater
opportunities than single-member wards to combine like communities of
interest and in other cases to avoid splitting communities of interest. Two member
wards also provide potential for more diverse representation of
communities at the council table and will provide a choice for residents on
who to approach with local concerns following the election.

We also note that larger ward areas would not require the degree of boundary
changes over time, as smaller wards would, in order to comply with the ‘+/-
10% fair representation rule’. We see this as an important consideration in
our objective to establish an enduring representation structure.
On the other hand, wards larger than two members would mean that
councillors could be seen as that much more remote from local communities.

Large wards are also seen by many as likely to discourage independent
candidates from standing at elections given the resources required to
campaign in such wards. On balance we believe two-member wards are
generally an appropriate size for wards. We also noted a level of support for
two-member wards in the initial views we received....

On Local Boards:

...."we noted a number of other provisions in the
Local Government (Auckland Council) Act relevant to the establishment of
local boards. These provisions include the decision-making responsibilities of
the Auckland Council which are to be shared between the Council itself and
the local boards. Principles for the allocation of decision-making
responsibilities under the Act include that decision-making for non-regulatory
activities should be exercised by local boards unless, for particular prescribed
reasons, decisions should be made by the Auckland Council.

To us, this suggests that boards will need to be of a sufficient size to ensure
they can attract capable people to stand for the board and they have the
ability to generate sufficient resources to undertake effective local-decisionmaking.
For example, a local board may wish to request the Auckland
Council to levy a targeted rate in its area to fund a particular local service or
amenity. To ensure this is effective, the local board area will need to be an
appropriate size, have boundaries that relate to local service delivery, and
contain sufficient capacity to support decision-making on such local services.

We also noted other provisions in the Act which we believe should be taken
into account when establishing local boards. In particular, will the total
number of boards impact on the ability of the Auckland Council to meet its
responsibilities? These provisions include the powers of the mayor, which
include establishing processes and mechanisms for community engagement.

There is also a requirement for the Auckland Council to have an agreement
between it and each of the local boards and for these agreements to be
included in the Council’s long-term council community plan. Clearly a
particularly large number of boards will affect the Council’s ability to carry out
these tasks efficiently and effectively....

You can see more in the very readable LGC report, accessible at the link above. Submissions are due by 11th December. These will be considered by the LGC, and their final determination must be completed by 1st March 2010.

Proposed Auckland Transport Agency

On Friday 20th November, Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) released a "draft organisational structure" for Auckland's Transport Agency. This short document can be downloaded from the front page of: http://www.ata.govt.nz/

A few thoughts strike me. The first is this....

The draft contains "the top three tiers" of the Auckland Transport Agency. Looking at this structure plan, with all of the boxes and all of the activities, I was reminded of a typical Council Traffic Engineering Department. It's mainly about roads: planning new roads, project specs for new roads, planning options for new roads, assessing new road options, designing new roads. And of course I appreciate and understand that roads are part of the transport system.

However, in established and built up cities, new road projects are thin on the ground. Because there's no land left for more roads. Instead emphasis is on re-allocating space on existing road reserves, providing much better share and quality for pedestrians and cyclists, and very much improving the look and feel of road edges, so that local economic development and economic activity is stimulated and thrives and flourishes.

Auckland needs to move to that way of thinking if it is to ever climb out of its current sprawling, energy and transport time wasting habits. And it needs institutions that reflect that need. ARTA - what we have now - does reflect that need. Its emphasis is travel demand management. Its driver is a Regional Land Transport Strategy which - while recognising the role that roads play in transport - calls for the delivery of multiple objectives and co-benefits.

There is very little balance in this proposed Auckland Transport Agency structure. It reflects colonial times - roads, roads roads - and roading infrastructure construction priorities.

The second thought that strikes me is driven by one of the "guiding principles" that apparently have guided this draft structure.

It goes like this: "The Auckland Transport Agency will be the subject of legislation which will set out its accountabilities and reporting relationships with Auckland Council as a council-controlled organisation (CCO)....."

So. The Government has yet to show its hand in respect of how the Auckland Transport Agency will be governed, and also who will govern it.

As a systematic sort of person, I go with the general idea that form follows function. That means when you design something, you first of all figure out what you want it to do. That would be a reasonable guiding principle.

But here, with this draft Auckland Transport Agency we have what amounts to a stand alone Traffic Engineering Agency, without any understanding as to how it will be accountable to SuperCity (let alone the New Zealand Transport Agency or to Central Government), nor any understanding as to the governance arrangements around such planning matters as: project prioritisation; budget allocations across activity classes (ie split in funding between roads, public transport, sustainable modes, land use stimuli - such as stations, undergrounding and such like); relative emphasis on demand management rather than supply management; marketing and communications; modelling....

Planning matters. And so does the governance of planning. It includes strategic planning. It includes funding. It links with important tools such as developer levies - both at regional and local levels. And it very strongly links with regional land use planning.

A great deal of careful thought was put into these governance and accountability matters when ARTA was established a few years ago. And while there may have been complaints, the model has worked well for the Auckland region.

My third thought....

ATA's proposals for the Auckland Transport Agency look very like Watercare. This organisation has operated independently for almost a decade, largely free of public scrutiny, implementing strategic infrastructure, its pumps one of the biggest consumers of Auckland electrical energy. And while Watercare has successfully built a number of large scale projects, it is way behind the eight-ball when it comes to best practice for water and wastewater. Auckland's trade waste record is abysmal. The fact Watercare is determined to dump biosolids in Puketutu reflects badly on Auckland's reputation. The fact Watercare obstructs initiatives to enable non-potable reuse of significant amounts of highly treated wastewater is another example.

Watercare may be viewed as a success by some. It has been a successful business. It has supported a substantial water and wastewater infrastructure industry sector. But it represents old thinking, and it resists efforts to achieve the broader co-benefits that arise from integrated planning. It is driven by supply management objectives - not demand management objectives. That is a major risk of the proposed Auckland Transport Agency CCO also.

As a contender for role of SuperCity Councillor, I view with growing concern the ability of the SuperCity to shape the future of Auckland through the tiny lever of Annual Statements of Intent of a plethora of powerful, independent, narrowly focussed CCOs.

(I thought CCO meant "Council Controlled Organisations")

Victoria and Alfred Waterfront - Capetown

Looking around the world for waterfronts a bit like Auckland, I came across the Victoria and Alfred waterfront in Capetown, South Africa. Others who have been there have told me about it before, but I'm seeing it though new eyes right now. The redevelopment shares quite a few characteristics with Auckland - not least being the similar age and similar buildings.

Anyway. Here's a bit of the history, and a few photos of what they've done....

"...Calls for greater public access and a wider use of Cape Town's historic harbour started in the early 1970's. In 1988, the then landowner (State-owned transport corporation, Transnet Limited) established a wholly owned subsidiary company, Victoria & Alfred Waterfront (Pty) Limited, to redevelop the historic docklands....

...This was received with large-scale public acclaim.... Since its origins in 1860, the Port of Cape Town has been the scene of excavations, reclamations, harbour construction programmes and land based developments....

By the time Prince Alfred* tipped the first load of stone into the sea to initiate construction of Cape Town's harbour, the trade routes to the East had transformed the city into a hive of seafront activity. The discovery of gold and diamonds in South Africa meant that the first section of harbour, the Alfred Basin, had to be added to and the Victoria Basin was built.

The area is notable for its outstanding heritage buildings. It retains the charm of Victorian industrial architecture and the scale of a harbour built for sail and the early days of steam travel.

In the 1970s, containerisation had developed worldwide as the major method of cargo handling and transportation. It was this, together with South Africa's economic isolation at the time and the reopening of the Suez Canal, that led to a sharp reduction in the utilisation of land and harbour facilities surrounding the Victoria & Alfred Basins. At the time, Transnet was in the process of rationalising harbour facilities and reviewing its harbour and other land holdings with particular emphasis on the returns being generated by these assets.

The Victoria & Alfred Waterfront project is the culmination of nearly three decades of planning and development proposals....."

Helensville Rail Service Trial Cancelled

I was Chair of ARC's Transport Committee in 2007 when the ARC voted in support of the Helensville Rail Service trial. At the time I opposed the trial, based on advice received from ARTA and from Connex - the precursor of Veolia. The decision to support the Helensville trial service was made by ARC politicians in the absence of a comprehensive officer report.

There was a lot of enthusiasm for the trial service among some ARC politicians: there had been passenger rail services to Helensville little more than 20 years ago; the line was there and in use by freight services (albeit slow - because of the poor state of the track); and there was strong support from the local Nor-West Rail Support Group. At the time rail patronage was growing strongly across the region and there was a feeling of success in the air....

The advice from ARTA and Connex was predominantly to the effect that regional financial resources were tight, that rail public tranport services are expensive (on a per kilometre basis), and that emphasis must be placed on maintaining and building high patronage core services. I can't recall the exact numbers, but the CEO of Connex advised me that extending the rail service to Helensville was equivalent to extending the length of Auckland's passenger rail line services by about 30% - with all of the attendant servicing costs - but without the justification of significant patronage. I well remember the CEO saying to me at the time, "it would be cheaper to buy each Helensville rail commuter a BMW".

Perth has extended the periphery of its passenger rail services to areas of very high growth. And while Helensville and Huapai and Waimauku will grow, growth is slow in sheer population terms, and competing bus services offer a better service than rail in terms of trip times and frequency. I appreciate the argument that growth could be shaped by the provision of good rails services also. However we need to be mindful of priorities for the money we have.

The figures provided to the ARC yesterday about the performance of the Helensville trial spoke for themselves. The Helensville Trial Service comprised one morning and one evening service to Britomart. The trip time was between 93 and 98 minutes. Bus journeys are quicker. For example the 6:34am Helensville to Britomart bus arrives at 7:50am, 17 minutes before the 6:32am Helensville to Britomart rail service.

The ARC report states that the annual net operating cost to ARTA for the trial service was $367,027. (Though this figure excludes Track Access fees and Station Maintenance.)

On average 14 passengers took each train to/from Helensville. That equated to a subsidy of $45.72/passenger for each trip @ 99 cents/kilometre. Thus the subsidy for a commuter round trip to Britomart was $90. For a commuter using the train for a year - 200 working days - this equates to an annual subsidy of $18,000/Helensville-CBD commuter. And overall this equates to $250,000 annual subsidy for 14 people - a high price to get 14 cars off the road. Maybe the Connex CEO's prediction was understated.

The figures provided in the ARC report do not include the cost of line access. This is the fee charged by Ontrack/Kiwirail, to generate the revenues they are reliant upon to carry out track maintenance. At the meeting a figure of $1.5 million was mentioned as the annual track access fee that would normally be payable for the 30km or so of additional track that is involved with the Helensville service. Apparently Ontrack agreed to waive the fee for the period of the trial.

So. The trial is over. Some investment - $1.25 million - was spent to upgrade station infrastructure and basic amenity. That investment should be protected for the future. And we all learned something. It is a good idea to connect growth areas with good public transport services, to prevent motorcar dominance. But that idea's time, has not yet come to Helensville.

Auckland Leaders want WOW on the Waterfront

The commentators have used up all the words for the Queens Wharf Design Competition: farce, mockery, joke, sow's ear.... Senior officials have mentioned the sheer number fo design competitions that have been had, but not built.

Something's wrong in the state of Auckland.

I think we are trying to wrestle our city out of a state of urban barbarianism.

This barbarianism shines out for all to see when elected leaders make pronouncements about "wow factors", "iconic buildings" and Auckland being "world-class". Some Herald writers are just as bad. In Auckland, mayors, chairs and leader writers are not where they are because they are fantastic designers, or great urban designers, or even architects.

Most of them would say to this, "yeah, but I know what I like, and I don't like that..."

Some cities do things differently, and I guess we can learn from them, but more likely we'll just learn from our mistakes. I just hope we don't make too many more. At least Queens Wharf is on the back-burner. Wanton and hurried destruction followed by hasty construction won't happen.

I went with a dozen invited officials and local government politicians to Curitiba, Brazil, to see what they do there, and to understand the local government process. Morgan Williams, parliamentary commissioner for environment organised the study visit. In a nutshell, I learned this about City Hall:

- 30 years ago, or so, local business and community interests decided their city needed good governance if it was going to get anywhere;
- their plan was to get skilled people into Council;
- a design competition was held at the local university, architects and planners were invited to enter. The objective? A Master Plan for Curitiba; - a bunch of winning entries were selected. The prize? A couple of years post-graduate study in the Sorbonne in Paris, and the opportunity to implement the Master Plan, provided they got elected to Curitiba City Hall on their return

You get the picture. Jaime Lerner - Curitiba's famous mayor, who I met and talked with, trained as an architect. He was elected to Curitiba Council with a bunch of fellow councillors who were also architects, designers, and planners. Their mandate? to implement the Master Plan. And that's what they've been doing...

All this process took a couple of decades. The results are excellent.

Auckland has a lot of design and planning talent. You see them employed privately and in consultancies and agencies. A good number are also employed in Auckland local government. Many from the private sector got involved in the Queens Wharf design competition. Many did not because they felt the design brief was flawed (Cruise ship terminal would compromise Queens Wharf, inadequate budget, insufficient design time etc....). And some were included in the Design Panel, where they provided professional advice about the entries. Advice to Auckland Leaders and Ministers Gerry Brownlee and Murray McCully.

I get the impression their advice was ignored.

The "we know best" approach won the day.

Getting the best out of Queens Wharf and Auckland's waterfront should not be about Cruise Ships and iconic buildings. Nor should it be about one politician's idea of WOW.

I think Auckland people have been short-changed on their waterfront for decades. That is the need that should be addressed, and that is why I see the need for Urban Design and Urban Planning down there, long before I see the need for Architectural Designs.

In the past decade there have been two responsible initiatives at Auckland's waterfront. The first was Britomart - in the time of Mayor Fletcher. That project was a success - sure Queen Elizbeth Square could be improved and it still can be - but the overall result (including Takutai Square behind the railstation), the retention of heritage buildings, and the station restoration itself is outstanding.

The other project - in the time of Mayor Hubbard - was a visionary look Quay Street and the whole waterfront from Ferguson through to Westhaven. Didn't go anywhere fast, because ARC had not been involved in that visionary look and was concerned to protect the viability of Ports of Auckland.

And there's the rub. Ports of Auckland, and its viability, its appetite for wharf space and container space and cruise ship space, continues to be the tail that wags the dog of Auckland's waterfront. Perhaps SuperCity will keep it chained, and allow some sort of design renaissance to flourish in Auckland, beginning with Queens Wharf and Quay Street.

Queens Wharf - Let Sleeping Dogs Lie....

There's wisdom in the more considered remarks of Hamish Keith in today's NZ Herald, and also in the letter there by Architect and ideas man Stephen Smythe.

Their advice calls to mind a wise comment made to me by an experienced former councillor. He said, "a good day in council is one where a bad decision was not made..."

The Queens Wharf design brief was a bad decision because ARC wanted to turn Queens Wharf into Auckland's primary Cruise Ship Terminal - with Cruise Ships allowed on both sides. That's what killed the plan to have a great public space there.

ARC's plan - led by its Chair - should have been put out for public consultation, along with other broad ideas for the use of Queens Wharf - like emphasising its public purpose and ferry use and using its heritage buildings for other purposes - long before Auckland's design community was put to work designing a dog of a design. Trying to make a silk purse out of a dog's ear.

Government's idea of Party Central was always a good simple idea, because all it called for was some temporary renovation and structures. Put them up in time for the Rugby Event and take them down afterward. Use the time as an opportunity to experiment with ideas - as I wrote in the Herald months ago.

I have always wanted to see much more effort put into fixing the Cruise Ship terminal on Princes Wharf. Making it work better than it does now. I've seen reports which indicate that the Cruise Ship industry is not unhappy with Princes Wharf. Sure they'd like it to be better, and two terminals are always better than one, but hey - we only have a couple of these big wharves downtown.

In my opinion the Cruise Ship industry can have access to one of these - but we'll have the other one thank you very much. If there must be another cruise ship terminal, then allocate wharf space further east. Learn - again - from where Wellington is locating its new cruise ship terminal.

My objective through this whole sorry process is to ensure that the existing sheds are not lost and denigrated in a fervour of Iconic Cruise Ship terminalitis.

It has been disappointing to see politicians normally keen to save wooden hospital buildings and historic railway station buildings - all dilapidated and crumbly before careful conservation - jump so quickly to disparage and demolish Queens Wharf's extraordinary sheds. The Heritage Assessments I have read - which have yet to be shared with the public - indicate these are treasures of national importance.

The NZ Historic Places Trust’s Northern Registrar, Martin Jones, who is researching the history of the sheds and wharf, says this in his account of the role this infrastructure played: “The sheds on Queen’s Wharf are the last remaining structures associated with that huge ‘machinery’ of export and as such are an extremely important part of the country’s economic as well as social heritage.” He writes: "The history of Queen’s Wharf sheds and their place in the maritime landscape make them every bit as important as the iconic Ferry Building...”

“The Sydney Blue Gum joists and decking, riveted metal frames, and original electric lifts add character to both buildings which are striking for their modern ‘industrial’ appearance. They have considerable potential to be successfully readapted for new use both inside and out.”

Martin notes further: “The sheds are the last link to a waterfront history that shaped Auckland, but which has all but disappeared.... Cities overseas have shown what buildings like these can become with a little creativity and investment. In the right hands, the Queen’s Wharf sheds could become some of the waterfront’s most prized assets,” he says.

Show some leadership guys. Do the right thing.

Look at Queens Wharf Designs - Put yourself in the picture...

Did you know that the Auckland Sydney Opera House design competition almost brought down the Government? It's true. Totally polarised the community...

Hasn't gone that far in Auckland. Storm in a tea cup by comparison. But remember the screams over the proposed waterfront stadium? I don't mind admitting I was in favour of an stadium on Bledisloe Wharf. An appropriate one - scaleable. Could have up to 60,000 seats, but otherwise an open-ended structure with views to CBD and Rangitoto, and a base of around 30,000 seats on each side. Plenty of examples around the world. But I digress....

The tyranny of the majority (or do I really mean: of the uninformed) threatens what has been an action packed and highly participated and idea-filled design competition. Sure the brief is tight: short-term party central, longer term legacy opportunity, keep the sheds vs demolish the sheds, cruise ship terminal, $47 million. But actually: money is tight, time is tight, and there's lot that's mighty fine about the ideas that have been put up.

I've selected a few images here from among finalist designs. They are beautifully executed, and show real care for the purpose: people space, gathering space, Auckland.

Put yourself in these pictures.
They are not oil paintings - to be looked at from a distance.
They are places for people to go and see and enjoy themselves.

Take a look at them. Go down to Quay Street and understand them.
Or look at them yourself on the website: http://www.queenswharf.org.nz/

And don't be put off by the baying of politicians.


From Design 8


From Design 4


From Design 6

From Design 3

From Design 2

Put yourself in these pictures.
They are not oil paintings - to be looked at from a distance.
They are places for Auckland local people to go, and see, and enjoy themselves.
And don't be put off by the baying of politicians.

Dog Toxin Strikes in Rodney...

This story was in the Rodney Times, and I thought it was worth sharing in full here. It is well written and authoritative:

"...Another dog is sick after a beach walk, this time north of Mathesons Bay at Leigh.

Tetrodotoxin, found in a number of poisoned dogs at Hauraki Gulf beaches since July, is suspected but tests have not yet been done to confirm the poison because of funding issues. Experts say the latest poisoning is an indication the problem may have spread beyond inner city beaches, with most cases at Narrow Neck Beach on the North Shore.

Warkworth veterinarian Roger Dunn confirms a distressed client brought her dog to the surgery on Labour Day when it began vomiting within about 30 seconds of licking what the owner thought was a decaying jellyfish near Daniels Reef. Dr Dunn says MAF Biosecurity has indicated from the symptoms that tetrodotoxin poisoning was the likely cause.

A number of dog poisonings have been linked to tetrodotoxin or TTX, found in the grey side-gilled sea slug, but suspicions in this case fall on the slug’s jelly egg strand, often attached to rocks or floating freely.

"While the worst effects were starting to wear off, the dog was still shaking and had to be carried into the surgery," Dr Dunn says. "It had been vomiting for some time in the owner’s car.

"We gave the dog an anti-vomiting injection and would have put in a drip and given other treatment if needed."

The woman owner, who doesn’t wish to be identified, told the Rodney Times she was walking with her two dogs over rocks with many rock pools exposed as the tide was out. Aware of the dog poisonings attributed to tetrodotoxin, she says she had been particularly vigilant watching her dogs. What "looked like a decaying jellyfish" was in a crevice. One of the dogs, "Charlie", licked it once while being called away.
Within 30 seconds Charlie started heaving and was vomiting violently and shaking, the owner says.

It took 10 minutes to get the 40kg dog to the car because she was continually vomiting and convulsing. "I’ve never seen such a violent reaction. I’ve had a dog die before from eating poison and this was nothing like that," she says.

"With it being the holidays there was a lot of traffic on the road and I got stuck in traffic. Some people were very kind as they could see I was crying, even so it still took 40 minutes to get to the vets in Warkworth."

Dr Dunn says a smaller dog would have died. "This is a large, strong, young dog and she received a sub-lethal dose of a toxin," he says. "If she had been a small 6kg dog she would have died."

Paul McNabb from the Cawthron Institute in Nelson, the independent trust that has been testing for the poison, says the last confirmed dog death from TTX poisoning was at Tapu Beach in the Coromandel in late September. Vet Elsa Flint from Shore Vets in Devonport, whose clinic dealt with one of the dogs that died and another confirmed poisoning, says there were two confirmed poisonings on Takapuna Beach about a month ago.

Dr Flint says the public needs to be more vigilant about TTX poisoning from sea creatures, instead of focusing on the rat poison brodifacoum. "The symptoms of TTX are completely different from poisoning from the rat poison brodificoum," she says.
"Brodifacoum isn’t fast-acting and doesn’t cause vomiting. Rather it works on the clotting mechanisms in the blood and can take up to three or four days to kill an animal, with the animals dying from internal bleeding. They also have an excessive thirst. There is a totally different presentation."

Dr Dunn agrees. "I have seen many cases of brodifacoum poisoning in my career as a vet and Charlie’s reaction was completely different. She reacted to an acute toxin."
Charlie the dog has since recovered.

Useful contribution to the disucussion.

Queens Wharf Designs - Not a flop

Dear NZ Herald Editor,

ARC’s Chairman Mike Lee has every right to express his opinion that the Queens Wharf design competition is a flop and that the hundred year old sheds should be demolished.

I don’t agree with him and nor does ARC policy.

And, so far, the ARC hasn’t agreed to become an advocate for the Society of Iconic Building Architects, nor for the P&O Cruise Ship Company.

What Auckland needs on its CBD waterfront is a popular people place. Aucklanders need a well designed and active public experience on Queens Wharf, far more than they need iconic buildings and cruise ships.

To be successful, Queens Wharf will need structures, but these should primarily serve the public need ahead of shipping profits and design egos.

Many of the design competition entries illustrate how the hundred year old bones of Queens Wharf’s sheds can be respected and utilised to spectacular effect.

Attractive waterfronts around the world have brilliantly renovated sheds, and we should do a Pacific job on ours.

It is time to embrace the ideas of our best designers and get on with the job. This should not be a political football.

Yours sincerely, Joel Cayford

Questions: ATA's Structure for Auckland Council...

Good to see something from ATA that's more substantial than a suggestion we need a competition to design a SuperCity logo....

There is a lot to digest in this 30 page document which covers:

• draft organisation change;
• draft scope of workforce change (?!);
• draft protocols and processes....

I've skimmed it, and what follows is my take about the bits that jump out, plus a few questions that beg to be asked along the way. I understand that submissions from Auckland's Councils are expected before 24th November. First - the immediate questions, then the points that arise, and throughout a few scenario thoughts....

Q1: When will Auckland Council (AC) - the organisation - actually start? It appears from this document that the new Auckland Council will be up and running well before the election on October 30th 2010. This is probably not a surprise. So. When?

Q2: What other CCOs (other than Watercare, Transport Agency, Waterfront Agency), are being proposed?

Q3: Where does the policy and management around stormwater go (document is silent)?

Q4: What date does ATA think the Auckland Council service delivery restructure - assumed to happen sometime after 1 November - will be completed?

Q5: The document states: "...the Auckland Council will not simply replicate the current practices...within existing councils". How does that square with another statement: "...it is likely that .... the Auckland council will rely mainly on current council systems and processes..." ?

Q6: What additional CCO's does ATA consider would be appropriate for Auckland, and has it sought a government mandate to implement those new CCO's?

Q7: Where is it proposed to relocate the Auckland Transport Agency? Will Watercare remain located where it is? What about the Waterfront Agency? Is ATA interested in ensuring there is good communication and dialogue between Auckland Council and its CCO's, or is it keen to put as much distance - control-wise and every-other-wise - between Auckland Council and the CCO's it is being set up to govern?

Draft Organisation Change

(1) Interesting that it is proposed that "AC's Interim Chief Executive" will have direct control over: communications; human resources; risk (undefined) and emergency management. These functions will not be reported to a General Manager. The document states: "post-transition it is expected these arrangements would be reviewed..."

(2) Probably the most revealing.... "while preliminary planning is underway, it is likely that upon establishment, the Auckland council will rely mainly on current council systems and processes..." So. The SuperCity restructure is really about governance restructure, and not about service delivery restructure. Thought so. But here it is in writing.

(3) The reason or excuse for (2) has already been publicly stated and that is that service delivery should be "seamless after 1 November". Wow. So it's change - but no change... It's change to governance, but no change to service delivery... The document goes on to state: "... service delivery will change following the development and adoption of consistent and integrated service strategy and progressive integration of systems...". All that some time after 1 November 2010. No date given.

(4) A bouquet though .... at page 9 and 10 is set out the planning role of Auckland Council in regard to the roles and responsibilities of the Local Boards (or community Councils).

Scenario Thought 1: North Shore's sewer management How will this work under SuperCity? The structure has a "Manager of Infrastructure and Utilities" under the "Chief Operating Officer", so I guess that's where councillors might get quarterly reports about overflows at North Shore pump stations - from Watercare. I say: might. Then there is the strategy division under the "Chief Planning Officer", who has a "Manager Regional and Local Planning". Nowhere is there a "Manager Water and Wastewater". Either under "Planning" or "Operations". And under "Chief Finance Officer" there is "Manager Local Board Services". Would that person be responsible for ensuring Local Board concerns about regular dry-weather overflows, or wet weather overflows, were dealt with? And - in terms of setting strategic priorities for Watercare in relation to network management - where would that sit in the proposed structure?

Draft Scope of Workforce Change

5) The Draft Scope of Workforce Change is an interesting section, which deals partly with systems and also with staff. It notes at the outset that: "... the integration of the IT and other systems and processes which support local government activities will take time..." (Probably the understatement of the century that one - and one of the reasons why wholesale abolition was always an irresponsible option), and interestingly that: "...government policy decisions are needed, regarding ATA's mandate in dealing with existing or the creation of new council controlled organisations...".

6) The discussion document makes a strong disinction between services "where there are systems constraints", and services where there are none. Basically, the document suggests that services that are easy to change, should be changed before 1 November. These include: "strategy; policy and planning; Maori relations; HR; Communications;..." etc. That leaves services that depend on systems services like: call centres; information systems; planning; consenting; rating and payment; and - while it does not explicitly say so - this must include water, wastewater and transport infrastructure - which (I know) are heavily tied into very explicit computer information systems. Interestingly, the document notes that: "...particular priority will be given to systems changes required for the separation of transport functions and the integration of water and wastewater services..." (NB: No mention of stormwater.)

7) The document indicates that ATA "does not intend generally" to review staff numbers or roles, "...whose jobs are specific to particular operational work in .... social housing; local community development and funding; youth,safety and other community programmes... or in infrastructural services such as stormwater, transport and water services..." It notes though, that: "where this work is located may change..."

8) However the document notes: "staff whose primary functions relate to strategy, policy and planning are likely to be involved in significant change as these functions will generally be centralised..." So that's a change. An expected change.

Scenario Thought 2: Management of Transport How will this work under SuperCity? A simple change in this term of ARC is illustrative. Last term, the ARC's Transport Policy Committee dealt with ARTA. It did the Statement of Intent, Administrative Budget, Annual Plan and Priorities, and it received the Quarterly and Annual Reports, and it had ARTA into committee when matters of public interest arose. This term it's been different. Why? Because it was decided at start of this term, that Finance Committee would deal with CCOs - SOIs, Reporting, Budgets, Board Appointments etc - and it has led to a disconnection between transport policy and transport delivery. That should be fixed. The way I read the proposed structure for Auckland Council, there is separation and disconnection with bells on. For a start there is no Transport Strategy Manager. And, like Scenario 1 above for wastewater, there is poor connection between management of local board services (which I presume must include their concerns - eg about road surfacing, bus shelters, traffic lights.... the list is long), strategic transport planning, and "operations" under that hard-working "Manager Infrastructure and Utilities" - all in different divisions. So come on guys. How about illustrating your structure with a few real scenarios. Convince yourself that it will work with some typical infrastructure plans, priorities, budgets, services, reporting, accountability. Then tell us.

Draft Protocols and Processes

9) This is a really interesting one. It notes that, under law, "...ATA is required to develop a change management plan.... for the transition of staff to Auckland Council, the Auckland Transport Agency, and the Waterfront Development Agency...". It also notes that existing Councils: "remain responsible for the employment of their staff", but that: "they are also required to cooperate with the ATA... to facilitate the re-organisation." Apparently, "ATA is not bound to consult with councils, or with employees of those organisations regarding the transition process...". The document concludes: "consultation obligations remain the responsibility of existing councils as employers of the staff...". (Talk about a poison chalice. ATA designs without needing to consult, and councils have to make it happen. Fantastic accountability there...)

10) In contrast though, as the ATA document notes: "...Watercare must plan and manage the integration of water and wastewater services..." (Which is part of the explanation that stormwater has got lost in translation) and: "the ATA must approve and oversee this process..." (So it's one process for Council staff, and quite another for Watercare. Must be who you know, rather than what you know....)

11) This section explains the rather awful, but necessary process of "mapping" where existing employees will be shown a "map" of the new, and the old, with arrows (presumably) showing the route options open to them. Job changes, location changes, criteria for consideration, and then other options for down-sizing staff ranging from: attrition; alternative appointment; voluntary redundancy and compulsory redundancy. At least this part's all pretty clear.

So that's my take on what this discussion document tells us.
Interesting, but has a bad feeling about it. Lots of unanswered questions.
Still feels a bit like a train wreck in slow-motion.

Scenario Thought 3: More, or Less, Integrated Planning? How will this SuperCity structure deliver integrated planning and service delivery? There is an interesting diagram in the discussion document. It lists "centralised" and "distributed" services with quite a lot of overlap. More work to do on that one.... One of the main objectives of this whole destructive restructure of Auckland Governance, was to deliver integration. But I fail to see how this can happen in the proposed structure (the diagram), the apparent lack of ability to govern the CCOs, and the suggestions that the CCOs will be located some physical distance from the heart of Auckland Council (Watercare is already separately located, and the document suggests that ARTA should relocate "to make room for" centralised staff). ARC went to considerable lengths to ensure that the core of ARH and ARTA were co-located with ARC's core at Vodafone House. This was not so that Councillors could "meddle", it was to ensure very good communications and contact between left hand and right hand. I am keenly aware that certain interests would LOVE Auckland's water and transport CCOs to be a million miles from their governors, and the key staff who will be responsible for making that governance work. And I know about internet, telephones and email. There is a lack of public accountability and political reality in what increasingly looks like a corporate-designer institution whose bureaucracy and core functions are structurally - by design - separated from Auckland Council and Auckland Councillors.

Walking Safely on the North Shore....

In many ways, walking and cycling are great ways to get around our city. These non-motorised travel methods cause virtually no noise or air pollution. The only energy they require is provided by the traveller, and the very generation of that energy leads to useful cardio-vascular exercise. These modes don’t take up much space either, and they are quite economical, costing much less than cars and public transport, both in direct user costs and public infrastructure costs. In fact the presence of pedestrians and cyclists enhance the liveliness or urban environments, making both commercial and residential areas safer and more interesting.

Unfortunately, North Shore City Council, in common with other Auckland Councils has done little to promote walking and cycling – especially safe walking and cycling. On the contrary, many recent transport “improvements” to North Shore City – generally to ease congestion and create more capacity for vehicular traffic - have often made walking and cycling less feasible, less convenient, and more dangerous. The consequence of this is that walking and cycling make up a smaller and smaller proportion of all trips.

A research project gave me an opportunity to to recall some of my experience of this. It serves to illustrate the problems that confront those who seek to ensure that the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society are recognised and provided for in all aspect of transport design.

Fig. 1 Wolseley Road. South side. Footpath camber safety issue for disability buggies, prams and children on bikes and other toys.

Figure 1 shows the footpath on the south side of Wolseley Road, Milford. It was pointed out to me by an elderly resident when I was campaigning for election to North Shore City Council in 1998. After election one of my goals was to change North Shore City council’s footpath policy so that this sort of problem would not be repeated. I also tried to ensure that retrospective repairs were made to pavement where there were similar safety issues. The photograph here was taken in 2007. To date no work has been carried out to remedy this problem. I raised this matter at various Council meetings. A typical response from some councillors was that people who were worried about falling, or rolling down the driveway (it was a joke for some), should use the other side of the road. Figure 2. shows the other side of the road.

Fig 2. Across the road from figure 1, looking East.

Officers explained to me, and to my fellow councillors – in report after report – that there was an issue with some North Shore roads, because of the steep terrain in some parts of the city, that unless effort was made to smooth the way between the road and the driveway, then cars would bottom and risk damage in making the transition from private property to the roadway. I understood that that was clearly an issue, but it did raise questions about the planning that had gone into the design of this road, and others like it across the East Coast Bays area. The question of who had right of way arose. I asked officers to report to council who had right of way on a footpath: did a car crossing the pavement have right of way, or did a pedestrian (or cyclist) using the pavement have right of way over a car crossing the pavement? When I asked these questions I expected the answer to be straightforward, but it took officers almost two years to provide the answer to the question. It was stated that national transport policy guidelines indicated that pedestrian users had right of way in those circumstances. We were getting somewhere.

Fig 3. Looking south along Lake Road near Belmont. The asphalt footpath has been resurfaced, but all of the driveway crossings have been replaced with concrete aprons allowing quick access and egress.

Then in 2002, after programmed maintenance of Lake Road pavements, I was surprised to see Devonport’s traditional asphalt footpaths altered and severed through the construction of concrete accessways, as pictured in Figure 3. These were put in place at the same time as footpath asphalt. When questioned, officers justified their actions by saying it was consistent with council’s “like with like” policy, that when maintenance work was done, like materials would be used when carrying out repair works – it was just that the concrete needed to be strengthened… By now a few more councillors shared my concerns. They could see that what had previously been regarded as a continuous pavement for pedestrians and other users, had been transformed into a dangerous obstacle course cluttered with a series of high speed private entry and egress access “roads”. I raised with officers the question whether constructing a pavement like this was consistent with national policy of ensuring that pavement users had priority over those needing to access the road or private property by driving across the pavement. It was obvious to all that the provision of carefully shaped aprons meant that it was easier for a car to drive into or out of a driveway at speed, putting pedestrians at increased risk. Officers suggested that – at considerable cost – these aprons could be removed. Another option was to cover the concrete with a coating of asphalt, but this would have camouflaged the fact that the surface was now undulating, and might itself contribute to accidents. All very frustrating. Around this time I became aware of the existence of Council engineering design standards. After some cajoling, Council officers were persuaded to put on a Works Committee agenda, a report which contained the particular engineering design standards that had led to the changes in pavement layout in Lake Road. These standards were also responsible for the design outcomes in East Coast Bays Roads like those illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. I moved resolutions which sought changes to these design standards in order to achieve pavement designs which would not discriminate against the safety of pedestrians and other pavement users, through prioritising the safety of cars and car movements. Though I still had a year of my term to run, this resolution did not succeed while I was Chair of the Works Committee.

Fig 4. Parents volunteer to walk groups of children along “routes” to local schools

A major success in 2003 was the development of North Shore City’s first Walking School Bus. Council was concerned at the number of car trips involved in taking kids to school. Surveys showed that parents did not want their children walking to school, because they felt it was not safe. Officers came up with the Walking Bus idea. It was supported by Councillors. Implementation was funded by Infrastructure Auckland, ARC and North Shore City Council. Positive media followed and – when ARTA was set up a year later – Walking School Buses was one of the first Travel Demand Management projects it adopted and pushed throughout the Auckland Region. This was a success story, and one North Shore City Council initiative I felt proud of. Then in 2004 another issue arose in respect of pedestrian safety, particularly the safety of children walking to Westlake Girls High School. Changes were proposed to the road network around that school to accommodate traffic-engineer predictions of increased movements along Wairau Road, and the need to provide for buses accessing the Westlake Busway Station. This involved Shakespeare Road being extended across Wairau Road.

Fig 5. Westlake Girls High School is in top left corner of this artist’s impression of the modified Wairau/Shakespeare Road intersection. The brown areas are pedestrian holding bays. Note the large radius turning curves which allow fast travel.

I recall chairing a meeting about these designs where the engineer responsible proudly explained that his designs would be safe for cars or buses driving at 70 kilometres/hour. Apparently the road intersection design was almost to motorway standard. When I reminded him that this was a 50 kph zone with five schools and thousands of students he merely shrugged. I spoke about this example at the 2007 Trafinz Conference, by which time I was on the ARC. Afterwards I was approached by Julie Chambers of Auckland District Health Board who was keen to talk with me about the need to change the way school designations were prepared, in order to better provide for the safety of children accessing schools. I was also approached by a slightly grumpy North Shore City Council traffic engineer, embarrassed by my criticism. He said to me, “you know what the problem is don’t you – the school is in the wrong place.”

Fig 6. Thousands of girls attend the school and need to cross this intersection to do so. It is busy and dangerous.