In an earlier blog I wrote about the sequence of confidential meetings and processes that have occurred, leading up to today. This is at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/05/queens-wharf-chronology-of-confidential.html
But the ARC has to fund what it does, and its annual funding plans must be put out to the public in a very formal way for consultation. There are processes for that and they are defined in the Local Government Act. Major issues are also put out for public consultation before decision.
The outcome of Auckland's major consultation about how the waterfront should be developed, and what wharf should be used for what activity, was called Waterfront Vision 2040. It resulted from a widely distributed consultation document called Linking People, City and Sea, which was used to get feedback from stakeholders and the public. This feedback was used to create Auckland's regional policy for the waterfront, which, to repeat, was called Waterfront Vision 2040.
The table below compares what was written in those two documents about Queens Wharf and about a possible Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal:
Waterfront documents | Linking People, City and Sea | Waterfront Vision 2040 |
| Queens Wharf | ...no mention... | "Queens Wharf will continue to be used for port operations over the short to medium term, in particular for noncontainer based cargo. However, alternative uses will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions. Ideas include providing public access, public spaces, a continual link between Queen Street and the waterfront, reconfiguring the wharf structure to create a new town basin, an iconic building, extending ferries and water taxis, entertainment and a mix of activities." |
| Cruise ship terminals | ...no mention... | Only mentions Princes Wharf cruise ship terminal |
The point being that no public comment or suggestion was made in the above consultation process to the effect that anyone, anywhere was thinking Queens Wharf might or could be used as cruise ship terminal. If any interested person picked up a copy of Waterfront Vision 2040 and read it, wanting to learn about cruise ship terminals, they would understand that activity happened on Princes Wharf and was not part of the plan or public policy for Queens Wharf.
This next table illustrates how the Queens Wharf picture changed when the ARC put out its Long Term Council Community Plan 2009/2019 - as required by the Local Government Act. In effect ARC's LTCCP is its annual budget for the coming year, but also contains estimates for the subsequent 9 years. The law requires ARC to publicly notify a draft LTCCP for public comment. This happened sometime in March 2009. ARC then considered the feedback, made changes in line with that feedback, and then adopted the final LTCCP. This would have happened toward the end of June 2009.
ARC LTCCP 2009-2019 | Draft LTCCP | Adopted LTCCP |
| Queens Wharf | ...no mention... | Chapter 1/Introduction: This LTCCP includes $20 million for the joint purchase of Queens Wharf with the Government, to ensure it is opened up for public access and developed into a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. The transfer of ownership will take place in the second quarter of 2010, giving time for the wharf to be developed as a public venue for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The ARC’s contribution to the purchase comes from a drawdown from Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH). |
| Cruise Ship Terminals | Chapter 1/Introduction: ...no mention... Chapter 1/Direction: ...In addition, the ARC is working on plans for the provision of improved facilities for cruise ships in Auckland. | Chapter 1: This LTCCP includes $20 million for the joint purchase of Queens Wharf with the Government, to ensure it is opened up for public access and developed into a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. Chapter 1/Direction: This LTCCP includes a $20 million drawdown from Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH) to fund the joint purchase of Queen’s Wharf, with the Government. Queen’s Wharf will be opened for public access in time for the Rugby World Cup 2011 and developed as an international-standard cruise ship terminal. |
| Cruise ship terminal funding | Chapter 5/Financial Information: The LTCCP includes the Council’s decision to purchase, along with the New Zealand Government, Queen’s Wharf from Ports of Auckland Limited, with the intention that Queen’s Wharf be developed for public access and also as of a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. This LTCCP includes the half share of the purchase price of Queen’s Wharf. However, it does not include the costs of developing Queen’s Wharf as it is assumed that these costs will be met by the Government and/ or Auckland City Council. Nor does it assume any revenue from the development, as the exact nature of those developments has not been decided. It is also assumed that the cost of ongoing maintenance of Queen’s wharf will be fully met by Ports of Auckland Limited and by the cruise ship terminal operator. Therefore maintenance costs are not included in this LTCCP. |
As you can see, the Adopted Plan (LTCCP) is significantly different from the Draft Plan. This is not unusual. The world does not stand still between when a plan is put out for consultation and when it is adopted. It takes three months. And in these three months PM John Key put forward his suggestion that Queens Wharf would make a great party central for the Rugby World Cup. Ports of Auckland needed cash quickly. And the deal was done.
However the explanation in the adopted LTCCP also states that: "Queens Wharf would be developed as a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand". This is a sweeping statement that directly contradicts the public policy position that was developed and promulgated in the Waterfront Vision 2040 exercise. Without any public policy change process. There is no opportunity for the public to look at and comment upon the adopted plan. The ARC is entrusted to take account of public feedback on the draft plan, and act on that. But it went much further and decided, unilaterally, that Queens Wharf should be a "premier cruise ship terminal for NZ."
While it is understandeable and appropriate for the adopted LTCCP to provide for the purchase of ARC's share of the wharf, it is not an appropriate vehicle to effectively change public policy, and announce it as a fait accompli. There was no consultation over this change in public policy. There was no opportunity for the public to be consulted over this change of direction. There was no public exercise considering cruise ship terminal options.
This final table (below) shows how the ARC has used this year's Annual Plan process to add another unconsulted decision on top of its unilateral 2009 decision to develop Queens Wharf as a cruise ship terminal. Rubbing salt into the wound.
This year's Annual Plan effectively deals with the final four months of ARC's existence before it is amalgamated with other city councils into the Super City Auckland Council. It covers July to October 2010. It is still referred to as the 2010-2011 Annual Plan. What makes this Annual Plan process different to other years is that ARC can adopt it by resolution following minimal consultation (little more than putting it up on its website) - but ONLY if the Annual Plan is consistent with the LTCCP. You can see below that the Draft Annual Plan was much the same as the adopted LTCCP. It was reasonably consistent with it.
But the Adopted Annual Plan is not. It contains a new $4,431,000 provision for "Wharves". I asked about it at a Council meeting, and was advised by the CEO that "it was for maintenance". However the Financial Statements explicitly state that: "maintenance costs are not included in this LTCCP (sic)", but that the Annual Plan: "does include costs relating to the initial development of the wharf for the Rugby World Cup."
I would not be unhappy for ARC to spend public funds on sprucing up Queens Wharf for Party Central if we'd asked the public about that. But it is downright irresponsible to commit ARC funds for that purpose when Auckland City Council has already properly consulted its ratepayers and allocated budget for the same job!
In this Annual Plan ARC has effectively voted to dismantle (demolish) Queens Wharf's 100 year old cargo sheds. This money, this ARC $4,431,000, is ear-marked to pay for the destruction of waterfront heritage that an increasingly vocal public want protected, re-used and restored.
The public have not been asked their views about these matters in accordance with the Local Government Act. That is why they are grumpy.
How Queens Wharf is used, and what happens to any heritage part of Queens Wharf, should be dealt with in a proper public process. Not the manipulative and pre-determined jack-up that is exposed by the evidence above.
No comments:
Post a Comment