New Creative Space on Wynyard

A new public space is emerging on Wynyard Quarter. A space between buildings. You probably haven't seen it yet, because all those fences and construction barriers make it hard to see.... 

It's an interesting shaped space, quite big. Enclosed by buildings, but open to the wider street network. Has a lot of potential - because it's enclosed - shelter from the storm. Activation potential is very attractive...

This picture might give you a clue. Of one of the buildings that frame this creative space. To the right you can see a street. Halsey Street in fact. The proposed hotel site is just across the street. So it forms another part of the frame. of this creative space, if that's how you look at these places...

Now I've given the game away. The ASB building is on one side of this creative square...

This aerial shows the space. The top framing building is the ASB building. To the left is fish-processing (the blank concrete wall presents a fantastic canvas for mural, projection...), but what of the square building at the bottom of the frame? That's the proposed theatre. A THEATRE. On Wynyard. Attracting night and day patronage. Cultural comings and goings...

This is an aerial of how Dublin Docklands Development Agency handled a similar opportunity.  The checkerboard building at the top of the public space is a hotel. The building at the bottom of the frame is a commercial office. And the building on the left - facing the square - is the Grand Canal Theatre (in fact it was built to integrate with the hotel and office developments.)

Here's the theatre. Dusk. Patrons gather on the space outside...

At night the square is lit up and hosts all sorts of cultural activities.

I appreciate that the space I have described on Wynyard is not right on the water - but it's got a lot going for it as a creative opportunity.

Learning from UK Urban Regeneration

In March I visited a number of urban regeneration projects in the UK and prepared several talks about them, drawing out ideas and lessons for Auckland. The images in this posting include a few slides from these illustrated talks which are based on photographs, local planning documents, discussions with local planning staff, and other critiques that can be researched.....

The City marketing image in this slide is how the urban waterfront area of Gateshead and Newcastle portrays itself. The image features three iconic structures - the Millenium Bridge, The Baltic Art Gallery (which was a flour mill), and Sage - which is a music venue - somewhat derived from the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao.

The reality is rather different. This image captures that reality. The urban form is largely empty space. The local street network and fabric is not repeated on the waterfront. The planning for the three iconic structures was to attract private development. But this is not happening. And the bleak open spaces do not attract locals - though the iconic structures do attract some international visitors.

This image is drawn from a presentation about waterfront regeneration on the Thames in London which examines the different types of housing provision as experiences have changed. Examples include Isle of Dogs, Greenwich and Greenwich Peninsula. This example illustrates the retention of lanes in street networks - into and through the new development shown in top left.

The sequencing of regeneration - what works best in terms of value uplift - and what works best in transition is illustrated here. Leisure is first,  then education (schools), office, retail, residential, and only then hotel. Hotel development comes last - which is when the greatest value uplift is returned for the site. Infrastructure is built throughout.

Dublin was an enlightening example. Waterfront regeneration began almost 20 years ago - and then got caught up in Ireland's boom and bust cycle. This image shows Custom Docks - rather like Auckland's Viaduct before development for the America's Cup. Some of the sheds you can see here were redeveloped...

You can see here - for example The CHQ Building. This area was the destination for Dublin's Financial Quarter. Development that was planned down to the bricks and streetscape. New development paid for community gain projects...

This photographic buildup shows the types of housing  and offices that were built, and in the foreground is the Light Rail or European Tram system that was used to lead private investment into the heart of the dockland project. Planners were clear about the need to provide transport infrastructure to lead development investment, and to model and demonstrate the plan for more "sustainable" transport mode share. This emphasised cycling and pedestrian modes.

Kings Cross Station might not be on the Thames - but it is on a set of canals. It is an enormous urban regeneration project of land that was used for railway sidings and other industrial activities. What is extraordinary about the handling of the project is the depth of planning, and the creative ways that have been employed to involve the public and expose them to the evolving nature of regeneration.

The use of active displays and walkways through the heart of the development gradually establishes new roads, new pavements, new cycleways - and familiarises the public with the new piece of city that is emerging.

The Dublin Dockland project has a number of quarters. This one is the Grand Canal Docks area - not unlike Auckland's Wynyard Quarter. Implementation planning began in 2000. Various existing and discontinued uses are shown in this map - which also shows the old blocks and streetscape of the docks and gas works industrial site.

Described as "key structuring elements" the old streetscape is overlaid with a number of new streets. The object being to establish a fine grained city scape reflective of indigenous urban Dublin, and also to create a "permeable" urban area. This is planning speak for the creation of an urban form which is conducive to walking and cycling. Something which will be essential if Wynyard Quarter is to achieve its goal of just 30% of trips being by motor vehicle. 

(There's much more in these presentations and talks for those who want more. This is a taste.)

Mangawhai - Law is an Ass

Have you seen the recent TV ad run by labour provider Allied Work Force? Donkey knee deep in it and drowning, everyone to the rescue including a helicopter, and after the rescue the grateful owner says, “you really saved my ass…”

Not sure who’s coming to the rescue of Mangawhai Ratepayers though. They’re knee-deep in it, up to their necks in fact in Council debt, because of the mess that Kaipara District Council is in after building a very expensive local sewage system.

The local Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Association (MRRA) has been forced into legal action and have launched High Court Judicial Review proceedings against Kaipara District Council (KDC), which yesterday voted itself a budget of $500,000 to defend itself and hired the services of David Goddard QC.

The question is, will the law of the land come to anyone’s rescue here? This posting discusses various legal issues that arise in this fiasco.

The Mangawhai Ratepayers campaign was joined by hundreds of angry ratepayers this time last year, when Kaipara District Council issued a Draft Annual Plan proposing huge rate increases to pay its crippling debts.

Ratepayers reaction included a widely supported rate strike.

Central Government intervened, sacked the elected Councillors and Mayor, and appointed four Commissioners to run the Kaipara District Council from September last year. 

Commissioner Terms of Reference

Their terms of reference  require the commissioners to do many things including these:

• undertake actions to enforce the payment of 2012/13 rates and any unpaid rates from previous years;
• work with the Kaipara community and ratepayers and the Department of Internal Affairs to identify options for dealing with invalidly set rates and other legal compliance matters;
• identify the capacity of the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme, whether it is fit for purpose, and the ideal funding model for the scheme for the future. This work is to have regard to the findings from the Auditor-General's Inquiry into the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme

It would’ve been good for everybody to read the OAG’s inquiry. But it’s unfinished. And many consider that the Office’s audit arm – Audit New Zealand – which audited KDC’s plans and annual reports during the years KDC gradually went under – is part of the problem. That Government checks and balances looked the other way – rather than blowing the whistle and coming to the rescue in the public interest.

But I digress. How have the commissioners responded to their instructions from Government?

Well. They’ve certainly enforced the payment of rates. They’ve applied penalties on the unpaid rates of strikers and let it be known that properties cannot be sold while rates and penalties remain outstanding. Well that’s the law isn’t it. 

Validation Bill

Their recent action – a Validation Bill put before Parliament to fix previous Council decisions by making them legal  later - has also angered residents.

The Validation Bill has been useful because in it the Council admits to a host of illegal and unlawful actions in the past. Many of these relate to lack of consultation and non-compliance with the Local Government Act (LGA) in statements like these:

(78) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the conduct of the special consultative procedure for the long-term plan 2012-2022 be validated;

(79) It is desirable that the irregularities relating to the late adoption of the annual report for the 2010/2011 financial year, and the late adoption of the long-term plan 2012-2022, be validated;

(80) It is desirable that the omissions in relation to the rates assessments for the 2006/2007, the 2007/2008, the 2008/2009, the 2009/2010, the 2010/2011, the 2011/12, and the 2012/2013 financial years be validated;

These statements are similar to the preamble found in Treaty of Waitangi grievance proceedings leading to settlement – Government admits to wrong-doings, apologises, and then agrees to specific settlement measures. Not so in the Commissioner’s Validation Bill. Lots of admissions of illegalities and irregularities, no apologies, and then a request for Parliament to rubber-stamp them all.

Thankfully the first draft of this Bill, a sort of one-stop-fix-all attempt by Commissioners, ran into official treacle and didn’t make it into Parliament. Officials would’ve been nervous about using this process – normally used for dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s left out by sloppy Councils – to restrospectively legalise a sequence of cynical Council decisions.

MRRA Statement of Claim

Another factor in thwarting the speedy path of the Commissioners’ Validation Bill into Parliament was the High Court legal action filed by MRRA, and served on KDC a few weeks ago. There is apparently a convention that Parliament will not deal with a matter that is before the courts. Though I’m not sure how real that convention is.

The Statement of Claim filed by MRRA seeks a Judicial Review of many KDC decisions and is divided into two parts. The first part challenges KDC decisions that led to the Mangawhai Sewage Scheme (MSS) being funded and developed. The second part challenges KDC decisions relating to Annual Plans, Long Term Plans, Rates and Penalties. Most of the KDC decisions whose legality is challenged in the second part of MRRA’s application, are the same as those itemised and admitted to by Commissioners in their draft Validation Bill.

Which is interesting in itself. The Commissioners appear to be hoist by their own petard. On the other hand, how might the Court view those matters? The Commissioners want Parliament to legitimise those past decisions. But MRRA wants a different sort of relief. For example, MRRA seeks the following from the High Court in its statement of claim:

50 (D) An order that all rates and penalties paid by ratepayers of the Kaipara district on the basis of rates invalidly set or assessed for the 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2013 are to be refunded.

The question arises - if the court was to make such an order on KDC, where would the money come from and who would pay it? The Council has no money (it has debts north of $80,000,000) and its sole source of income is its rating base. Presumably all of the rates and penalties monies referred to have been spent. Council would have to raise a loan to make that refund, and then rate its rating base to pay it back. Plus any interest that might have accrued on the new loan, plus any of the costs involved in identifying who deserved a refund, issuing the refunds, and arranging any loan.

Some might suggest to ratepayers supporting legal action: you are just suing yourself.

But how else are ratepayers to redress these accumulating grievances?

The first part of the Statement of Claim challenges the legality of KDC decisions relating to the funding and development of the Mangawhai Sewage System, including:

12.   On 24 August 2005 the respondent resolved to: (a) Accept an offer from EarthTech Consulting Ltd (EarthTech) to design, construct and operate EcoCare; (b) Accept an offer of a borrowing facility from ABN Amro New Zealand Ltd (ABN) to a maximum of $31,000,000 to fund the capital costs of development of EcoCare. 

13.    On 24 October 2005 the respondent resolved to confirm the direction of a draft statement of proposal for the purposes of s83(1)LGA for EcoCare.

14.    On 26 October 2005 the respondent executed a Project Deed agreement with EarthTech to design, construct and operate the EcoCare facilities….

15.    On 22 February 2006 the respondent resolved to adopt a statement of proposal for the purposes of s83(1)LGA for EcoCare and to notify if for consultation under that Act as part of the its proposed Long Term Council Plan 2006-2016…

16.    On a subsequent unknown date the respondent notified the statement of proposal for EcoCare and the LTCCP 06-16, in breach of section 84(3) and 97 LGA.

You don’t have to be rocket scientist to see the sequence of events here. KDC committed itself to particular actions, and then asked questions and consulted with its ratepayers later.

Later on in 2006 and 2007, KDC decided in secret to modify the Mangawhai Sewage Scheme by doubling its size. The Statement of Claim lists decisions made by KDC to change the contract terms with EarthTech, and extend the loan facility with ABN to $57,978,000.

As I understand it ratepayers were not informed about these changes until several years later – when they first got wind of enormous rate increases.

Here is where we get to the real meat of this posting. The MRRA Statement of Claim seeks a number of outcomes from this part of its Judicial Review, including:

A.   A declaration that the decisions to develop EcoCare by entering into the EcoCare Agreement, to adopt Modification 1 and to take on the EcoCare borrowings were illegal and invalid.

B.   An order setting aside the decisions to enter into the EcoCare Agreement, to adopt Modification 1 and to take on the EcoCare Borrowings.

C.   A declaration that ratepayers are not liable for any debts illegally and invalidly entered into by the respondent…

So. What’s the judge to make of all this? Mangawhai has an operating sewage system. It was designed, developed and according to the EarthTech agreement. It was paid for by the ABN loan which is the millstone around KDC’s neck, and which it is anxious to convert into a whole lot of millstones around ratepayers’ necks.

Council Draft Annual Plan 2013-2014

I’ll return to the Court action a few paragraphs down. But before that a little on KDC’s latest 2013-2014 Draft Annual Plan. This was notified for consultation several weeks ago and submissions closed on Friday 18^th April.

The biggest figure in the KDC Draft Annual Plan for 2013-2014 is the Ecocare debt of $57,978,000. The Council Draft Plan is that the debt should be paid for, as follows:

• $13.4 million by those existing Mangawhai households that have not paid the full connection fee already,
• $18.4 million by the whole of the Kaipara District, and
• $26.2 million by development levies from future Mangawhai property developments over the next 30 years.

In addition the Council plan is to charge existing Mangawhai ratepayers interest due on all loans taken by Council – including those whose lawfulness is being challenged in MRRA’s High Court action. 

The growth assumptions for Mangawhai are set out in the Draft Plan. These predict that in each year from 2012/2013 to 2015/2016 there will be about 34 new properties each year (1.6% growth rate), and that the capital contribution paid from each of these will be $17,590.  Then in the years 2016/2017 to 2021/2022 the growth rate will increase to an average of about 59 new properties each year (2.5% growth rate).

Both Deloittes (the new KDC auditors) and Council admit that if these growth projections are wrong (over-estimates) then Council’s ability to reduce debt will be impacted. I have questioned KDC what the growth rates have actually been over the past two years and for an audited account of the development contribution capital payments that have actually been made, and how those payments have actually been applied to reducing Ecocare debt over that period. Anecdotal evidence indicates KDC's growth estimates are unreasonably optimistic.

MRRA has circulated a submission form for use by ratepayers. Council has received a few hundred submissions. MRRA’s main concerns with the Draft Annual Plan are:

• existing Mangawhai ratepayers should NOT be paying ANY of the debt or interest on the additional debt for doubling the size of the EcoCare scheme.
• the Draft Plan growth projections for Mangawhai are unrealistic, and it is not responsible to rely on property development to pay off $26.2 million in debt
• MRRA does not have confidence that this Draft Plan will fix the financial mess that Mangawhai is in.
 

The Court Action

Getting back to the Court Action, and how to handle the enormous and unaffordable debt that the community is now saddled with. MRRA’s Statement of Claim challenges the validity of the borrowing taken out with ABN Amro Bank – on the basis that KDC didn’t follow the Local Government Act when arranging the loans.

Many of us are only now realizing that a cunning little provision went into the Local Government Act when it was made law ten years ago. It talks about “Protected Transactions”. These include borrowings from a bank. What the law says is this:

LGA 117.   Every protected transaction entered into by a local authority is valid and enforceable despite the local authority failing to comply with any provision of this Act in any respect;

No if’s but’s or maybe’s in this provision. Pretty much a get-out-of-jail-free card for any bank keen to loan money to a Council. I understand that banks wanted to get this provision into local government law because they didn’t want their loans at risk of being challenged when ratepayers got grumpy, and found that i’s and t’s had not been dotted giving them a technical excuse to challenge council borrowing in the High Court. 

The thing is that not even a moral outrage excuse – like what has happened at Mangawhai – appears to affect or trouble the banks.

It is unavoidable for ratepayers to take legal action against Kaipara District Council, just as it is unavoidable for Kaipara District Council to defend itself against that action. You only have to read the Commissioner Terms of Reference and the Local Government Act to understand that.

But what can that action actually achieve?

This mess has happened in part because a bank took on a loan that could never be repaid, without having to worry about any comeback due to process illegalities. Council was never able to meet any “going concern” tests. But no due diligence required on the part of the bank. We’ve got our get-out-of-jail-free card. Our loan is safe as houses. 

And it also happened because, despite numerous warnings from ratepayers, neither the Office of the Auditor General, nor its contracted-for-council-audit-services Audit Office gave the matter any more than a gentle look over. Didn’t take it seriously. 

The Law is an Ass 

The law that is the ass here, is the local government law that allows banks to sell loans to badly informed councils whose ratepayers appear to have no redress, and the light handed regulatory law that appears to allow government entities like the Office of the Auditor General and its agents to wash their hands of the consequences of their failures to protect the public interest.

Central Government needs to step up.

An earthquake has been allowed to happen in Mangawhai.

And the law, the enforcers of the law, and those who regulate and audit compliance with the law, permitted it to happen. 

(Joel Cayford is a member of the MRRA Executive Committee. These views are his own.)

Waterfront Regeneration and City Ports

This think-piece draws on ideas about waterfront regeneration in a globalised world, and focuses on what is happening in Auckland – especially around the future of the Ports of Auckland.

Few weeks ago I returned from visiting regenerating waterfronts in Dublin, Newscastle/Gateshead, and Greenwich London. A few years ago I checked out other waterfront projects at Malmo and Roskilde, Copenhagen, Canary Wharf and Hamburg. My plan was to learn from them. Originally my objective was to be able to engage on an informed basis with Auckland’s waterfront as a Councillor, though now my work is as a planning adviser with a continuing waterfront planning research focus at University of Auckland.

Yesterday’s debate at Auckland Council over POAL’s latest set of expansion plans ranged between two very different points of view. One was espoused by Michael Barnett, CEO of Auckland Chamber of Commerce, and the other by Chris Darby who Chairs the Takapuna-Devonport Local Board.

Barnett berated the Heart of the City organization which has advocated against ports expansion plans and for more work to be done on relocation. Barnett said, “the Port is the heart of Auckland”. Darby argued that Auckland was changing, that it was becoming more of a “Harbour Edge City” than one with sprawling reclamations into its harbour. In my opinion, both statements have elements of truth in them.

The problem with Barnett’s statement, and point of view however, is that it harks back to a time of steam engines, coal fired train networks, railway sidings, steam ships, coal reserves, and waterside gasworks. The essence of the industrial revolution on the waterfront – where shipping routes met railways met factories and delivered the coal to power all of them, and to make the gas that warmed the homes and cooked the food of the employees who found work there.

The world has moved on since then, and cities all round the world from Baltimore to Singapore, from Hamburg to Sydney have all engaged in massive waterfront regeneration shaped and defined by two major forces.

The first of these is that cities are no longer places for industrial production. Instead they are places of consumption and places for play and there is a global competition to be high on the list of the best by being unique and creating great places to be.

The second of these is that the smoke-stack vision of the city port is obsolete. As is its presence in the modern city landscape which today is more defined by buildings, infrastructure and services driven by the new information and communication technologies. Containerisation has also radically transformed ports from concentrations of finger wharves and truck movements and railway sidings, to large areas of land generally far removed from the heart of the city, and reliant on good warehousing and fast rapid rail for delivery and dispatch.

If we are to consider the market – even the global market - and what it needs, the first of these is good connectivity. But that does not require physical proximity. It does require good accessibility. That’s what inland ports are about. It’s also why Marsden and Ports of Tauranga and even Wellington work well – alongside their respective cities – but not ruining their hearts.

We can learn from them, and also integrate better with them, so that heavy freight goes through those ports, rather than through Auckland’s heart.

In New Zealand the lions share of export tonnage is primary produce and derivatives which are not grown in Auckland. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that a growing port in Auckland, will require a growing number of truck and trailer and train movements across Auckland, right through its very heart, to get this heavy freight between ship and land destination or origin.

Equally, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that reclaiming more of Waitemata Harbour to create more space to store and unload containers and other freight, will inevitably reduce the amount of recreational and scenic waterspace within Waitemata Harbour. Yet nowhere do I see the “highest and best use” economic benefit-cost calculation applied to that loss of waterspace. If we look at almost any other city of dreams around the world, one that is regenerating its waterfront, we will see that the jewel that is most precious is its waterspace, and access to, recreation on, and views of that waterspace.

I accept there is a nostalgic appeal with a working port. It adds to the character of a waterfront. The marinecraft industry at Wynyard Quarter will be an asset in the future as an attraction. But it’s not a cuckoo that is threatening to get bigger than its nest.

Right now, the Port of Auckland, backed by its smoke-stack champions, are on a path, unless the community disagrees, that will break the hearts of Aucklanders when the full reality is unleashed, and when permitted and planned reclamations go ahead.

There is scope for restructuring of existing port and marine industrial uses, and packaging them, and representing them to fit better with the overall objective of building a better city, and one that fits the city of sails vision. And I’m afraid I don’t hold out much hope of that sort of thinking if the consultation over the options for the future of the port is left to the Ports of Auckland.

Auckland might like to remain a little backwater fondly regurgitating its coal-fired waterfront history, and repeating it, but the rest of the world is changing and new technologies are changing the way cities work and what makes them successful. The questions that I would like to see debated by Auckland Council include: who manages Auckland’s waterfront spaces and places? Who will balance the cultural, social and economic functions of those waterfront spaces and places understanding the opportunities that are here? And what will make Auckland’s waterfront more culturally and socially attractive for us all?

Thinking about those questions is needed in Auckland now.

Great Port Debate Continues

On Monday 16^th April, the Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan Committee met to consider the Port of Auckland’s latest two options for the Port’s expanded future.

This blog posting reports the blow by blow debate in the Council Chamber, and gives a score card assessment of individual performance ( I was going to do this - but instead I wrote the thinkpiece that I posted just after this one....).

The public discussion so far has been reasonably well captured in NZ Herald.

In essence – though it is very hard to actually lay your hands on these plans – the two Port expansion options can be summarized:

Option 1:  Reclaim Bledisloe out about 180 metres, and give back to the public Marsden Wharf

Option 2:  Reclaim Bledisloe out about 135 metres and keep Marsden Wharf.

From what I can glean talking about it, the issue for the Port Company is how to deal with anticipated cargo expansion not containers (this includes car imports and such like), and they base their plans on a year by year increase in freight of 4%. That seems to be the heart of the increase in trade demand that POAL aims to meet – over the next 30 years – through these expansion plans. Which are a lot less than Council was looking at this time last year.

So. Back to yesterday’s debate about the Port (there were other items relating to the Unitary Plan, as you might expect, but I’m not dealing with them here):

Apologies: Councillors Lee and Coney were absent (That made me wonder. Deals are made of these sorts of absences…) Councillor Hulse would be late. Councillor Morrison was away on Council business but would be in later.

Chairman: Councillor George Wood was in the Chair in Cllr Hulse’s absence.

Heart of the City: Alex Swney, Greg McKeown and Terry Gould (HOC Chairman) were given 5 minutes, without power point. Mr Gould reminded Cllrs of the 2 pager briefing that had been pr-circulated (nods and shakes of heads) and delivered their forceful, pointed arguments. I report them here as I noted them:

-         “…the Port is in our patch

-         requires in depth consideration

-         your officers have said “you don’t need to see Stage 2 of the research”, and that looking out 30 years is enough – instead of 100

-         there is a discrepancy in the growth projections used by POAL from those in the Price Waterhouse report

-         you have asked for good information in which to base your decision, and you have not had it

-         I ran STEM (Stop the Eastern Motorway). I remind Cllrs that it was POAL that led the pro-highway campaign

-         We won that campaign and the Council fell

-         We insist that that Stage 2 report is received before decision. The Stage 2 report considers all the urban connections and implications like new roads and rail connections. It considers Maori implications.

-         Don’t put any of the POAL expansion plans into the Unitary Plan”

Cllr Casey Question: Isn’t there a conflict of interest issue? Council’s Chief Finance Officer Andrew McKenzie is on the board of NZCID – submitting here for the POAL plans. And there is another director who sits on the board of POAL and EMA – also here submitting for the POAL expansion plans? (Gould agreed.)

Cllr Fletcher Question: Should the Unitary Plan be fast-tracked in relation to its ability to increase employment opportunities? (Swney said did not need to be rushed. There were efficiency activities underway by POAL now that would increase employment without expansion.)

Cllr Filipaina Question: Could you explain what you mean by the Maori issue? (HOC said there were a number of issues in Stage 2 report, including a proper understanding of Maori relationship with Ports, reclaimed land, and the harbour, with implications, which had yet to be worked through.)

Chamber of Commerce - Michael Barnett (and Tony Garnier). Barnett started off with a sustained attack on Heart of the City, which he returned to:

-         “…This is not a conversation…

-         the real heart of Auckland is its Port..

-         the POAL plan is a realistic and practical proposal

-         remember the PWC report which called for “all three ports” – Auckland, Marsden and Tauranga being needed

-         there is no case for the Port to be moved and re-located, it would cost upwards of $4 billion

-         POAL and its customers need certainty, and that is being undermined

-     we are giving Tauranga ratepayers money that should be subsidising our rates…”

No Questions noted.  (Barnett’s thrust was an attack on Heart of the City. Tactic was pure and simple: shoot the messenger. Struck me at the time the debate was being shaped as an either/or: either expand the port or close it down. Unstated middle-ground is maximize its efficiency on presently consented footprint. No further reclamation proposals. And his point about Tauranga ratepayers was very cheap.)

Westhaven Marina Users – Barry Holton. Forthright defence of recreational boat users, but also concerned about knock-on effects to urban Auckland:

-         we have grave concerns about amenity value losses

-         oppose further narrowing of Harbour, and related loss of views

-         it will compromise Auckland’s “City of Sails” brand and image

-         there is a rush hour on the Harbour at key times, a washing machine effect of boats coming and going, that will be increased by narrowing

-         tidal flow rates will increase and new eddies will form

-         distinct lack of stakeholder consultation by POAL which amounts to criminal negligence

Employers and Manufacturers – Kim Campbell.  This seemed like the soft cop to the Chamber’s hard cop:

-         these plans are just a signal, an opportunity

-         this is a business and it needs confidence, and its customers need reassurance that it’s a going concern

-         to talk of moving it is fantasy

-         do we want to grow, or take the shutters down?

No Questions noted. ( This came over as far too glib. And again the repeated message: “Auckland will only grow if Ports of Auckland grows…” No mention of the middle option. The middle line in the sand.)

POAL CEO – Tony Gibson.  This was a detailed and reasonably factual presentation, which was interspersed with a series of attacks on Heart of the City:

-         he began by attacking details in HOC media releases, saying, “these just support Ports of Tauranga”

-         it would cost $4billion to build a new port – and that’s what HOC wants

-         we are discussing reclamation proposals, it has been a good, unrushed process

-         he praised Councillors for their engagement

-         he used the PWC report’s call for flexibility as a justification for more reclamation

-         he pushed back against Council suggestions that reclamation within the basin should be “non-complying” and didn’t want other reclamations to be any more difficult than other reclamations – in consenting terms

-         our public presentation has not attracted the same public criticism as last time

Cllr Casey Question. Angry about employment and industrial relations.

Cllr Wayne Walker Question.  Should we not have stage 2 report before we decide? We’re being caught on the hop here. What about berthing Queen Mary 2 if we shorten Marsden Wharf for example?  (Gibson answer: Marsden is mostly built on rock 2 metres below the surface. Won’t be able to blast this.)  (Gibson answer: The stage 2 issues that councillors are concerned about can be dealt with in a future resource consent application.)

Maori Statutory Board Question: Talked about past issues and history. We have a sticking point, that Maori issues have been relegated to stage 2. We want the Maori issues lifted to a higher level.

Cllr Wood Question.  Sought clarification on the difference between options 1 and 2 and what the officer’s recommendation was. (Appeared to be confusion here.)

Cllr Webster Question.  Also sought clarification on the difference between options 1 and 2. (Confusion deepened.)

Devonport – Takapuna Local Board Chair – Chris Darby. A forthright criticism:

-         “….we were a little seduced by the carrot of Captain Cook Wharf, but not for the price of what POAL is asking

-         this is not the time to be putting extension opportunities into the Unitary Plan

-         there is a risk that any RMA consent application will be called in by the Minister, and the decision will be made in Wellington

-         this would reduce opportunities for public input about road and rail consequences

-         POAL has not done the work needed to dismiss relocation. There’s nothing about this in these documents. There’s no cost benefit assessment.

-         More reclamation is just more sprawl. We like it in Auckland. It’s a habit we must break.

-         We are more of a Harbour Edge City, than a Reclaim the Harbour City

-         We need to take a global view here, and call for the Stage 2 report. Don’t put these expansion plans into the Unitary Plan….”

Cllr Walker Question/Statement.  The tests that are now being applied in the RAM for consents are more about reasonableness than anything else. Whittled down.

Cllr Brewer Question: Challenged Darby on what Local Board’s position was. Debate.

Auckland Council Officer – Harvey Brookes.  (This officer is known for his robust backing of economic growth and port expansion. A cheer-leader for POAL. He has difficulty now in taking a position of credible independence) He began with complex maps with various non-complying areas, grey areas, corners, extensions and complexity. (Muddied the waters.) Things he said:

-         this is not a resource consent hearing

-         if we do nothing (in terms of Unitary Plan) there could be an application for reclamation from POAL – which would be dealt with by what is in the plan now – which is very much more permissive than what is proposed.

-         He acknowledged Maori concerns

-         Auckland will have four bites at this cherry: Auckland Unleashed; Now with this Draft Plan; then when the Unitary Plan is finally notified; and then when a consent application is made – does not need any more

-         The PWC report justifies what is proposed here

Mayor Len Brown. Moved to head off looming stoush. I understand a lot of work had been going on behind the scenes between his Executive Office Staff, key stakeholders, and officers. He moved an alternative set of resolutions. Speaking to them he summarized what their purpose was:

-         these give us more time to consider the issues

-         from the get go – the Port stays

-         Captain Cook and Marsden wharves need to come back into public

-         There is not enough information re transport connections and inland port, but we could notify these plans without that

-         We have until September to decide in principle on POAL position.

-         Will revisit this June/August period

-         We’ve seen the changes today, have luxury of time, utilize that

Deputy Mayor Hulse seconded.

Cllr Casey:  Major concerns about conflicts of interest.

Cllr Wayne Walker:  Worried about very limited number of options on table.

Cllr Hulse:  We do need to draw a line in the sand about this. The Unitary Plan can’t be silent on POAL expansion.

Maori Statutory Board:  Worried about maori investigation being missed out. Moved an amendment. This was incorporated with Mayor Len Brown’s agreement. (This effectively severed from Stage 2 investigation the Maori issues, and gave them high priority in Council eye’s than the urban transport implications of POAL expansion plans.)

Cllr Fletcher:  These recommendations are wishy washy. Port should stay. Recommendations should state that. Mayor Len Brown said, “I’m happy to say that – that Port should remain in its present location.”  This was then incorporated into the resolutions.

Cllr Raffills:  I like what we’re saying. But think it should mention all three ports. This is a strategic matter. Not just about POAL alone.

Cllr Webster:  I support this.

Cllr Wood:  Support, but I’m still unsure about the 179 metre and 135 metre options.

Cllr Filipaina:  Support and like common sense and more time.

Cllr Brewer:  I agree with Cllr Fletcher about location. Am interested in POAL public consultation now. How will it be concluded? Is it well resourced? (People behind me muttered about how independent it was, and how was doing it….)  Harvey Brookes explained that it was being done to “certain standards” which were not explained.  (I have to say that I think the whole thing is being done well below the public radar, despite reasonable coverage by NZ Herald. It is clearly not in POAL’s interest to get the public interested in this at all….)

Cllr Hartley:  It’s good that it’s in the Unitary Plan (it’s not yet).

Cllr Anae:  Asked various questions of Tony Gibson which he replied to about efficiency. Productivity will move from 32 movements an hour to 42 (unsure what this means), will be able to handle 3.1 million containers with what we have now (I think this is what he said), will be a paradigm shift in port technologies, ships are getting beamier, can cope with what we have now….)

And with that a vote was taken. 

Total agreement. A decision to buy some time. 

A decision, I hope, in which the public will be enabled to engage.

Sea level Rise in Auckland?

You may have seen something of the reported findings of the Climate Change part of CSIRO in Australia. (The intro to the report includes: The Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology has been observing, reporting and researching Australia’s weather since 1908. CSIRO has been undertaking atmospheric and marine research for more than 60 years. Together our scientists continue to build the body of knowledge that allows people to understand the changes in our climate that we are observing and prepare for any future changes.) The findings were circulated earlier this year. 

Made me wonder what was happening – or being recorded in New Zealand.

For example, the summary says this:

State of the Climate 2012 provides an updated summary of long-term climate trends. It notes that the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade having been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s…. 2011 was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Niña event. The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 15 years.

There has been a general trend towards increased spring and summer monsoonal rainfall across Australia’s north during recent decades, and decreased late autumn and winter rainfall across southern Australia. The summary shows that the very strong La Niña event in 2010 followed by another in 2011 brought the highest two-year Australian-average rainfall total on record.

State of the Climate 2012 also highlights the increase in global sea level and notes sea-level rise around Australia since 1993 is greater than, or equal to, the global average. Our observations show that sea-surface temperatures around Australia have increased faster than the global average. The concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new high in 2011. Annual growth in global fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions between 2009 and 2010 was 5.9 per cent, reversing a small decline of 1.2 per cent recorded between 2008 and 2009 during the global financial crisis.

It was the sea level rise information that intrigued me. You can see for yourself here. Further into the summary we read the following Key points:

• Global average mean sea level for 2011 was 210 mm above the level in 1880.
• Global average mean sea level rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the 20th century as a whole.

And then this paragraph, and associated map (below) about rising sea level around Australia

  

Rates of sea-level rise are not uniform around the globe and vary from year to year. Since 1993, the rates of sea-level rise to the north and northwest of Australia have been 7 to 11 mm per year, two to three times the global average, and rates of sea-level rise on the central east and southern coasts of the continent are mostly similar to the global average. These variations are at least in part a result of natural variability of the climate system.

This was the first time I knew that sea level rises vary across the planet. I had assumed sea level rise was uniform. But not so. Here’s how sea level changes vary across the Earth:

 

You can check for yourself with this useful tool (remember to expand out so you can see the whole world, or zoom in on your country of interest, click ‘global’):

You can also see data for 4 measuring stations in New Zealand. 

These give the sea level change in mm/year, with a variability:

Auckland            1.29mm.yr    +/- 0.2mm

Wellington           2.45mm/yr   +/- 0.29mm

Lyttleton              2.36mm/yr    +/- 0.29mm

Bluff                    1.57mm/yr     +/- 0.24mm

What is also interesting is that some areas of sea are dropping in level, while others are rising. On average the sea level is rising mainly because of warming. (For at least the last 100 years, sea level has been rising at an average rate of about 1.8 mm per year. Most of this rise can be attributed to the increase in temperature of the sea and the resulting slight thermal expansion of the upper 500m of sea water. Additional contributions, around 25% of the total expansion, come from water sources on land, such as melting snow and glaciers and extraction of groundwater for irrigation and other agricultural and human needs.)

So why does it vary? Why some increases and some decreases? I have summarised my research here:

To understand sea-level change at a particular coast, we must know the sum of global, regional and local trends related to changing ocean and land levels.

Local sea level change can deviate from the global mean sea level change for a number of reasons:

- Ocean water moves around driven by winds and other factors, so that even if global water volume does not change (constant global-average sea level) there will be regional sea level changes. This can happen due to both natural oscillations in the climate system (such as El Niño / Southern Oscillation) and forced anthropogenic changes.
- The gravitational pull of land ice is reduced as the ice melts, which has a surprisingly large effect on the sea surface. For example, as ice on Greenland melts this will cause a global sea level rise, but a regional drop in sea level in a circular area around Greenland (you can see that in the map above).
- There are vertical land movements that make the sea level change locally relative to the land - which is relevant for the impacts of sea level rise. This can have both natural reasons (i.e. plate tectonic or earth’s crust processes as well as the still ongoing response to the massive ice loss at the end of the last ice age, called glacial isostatic adjustment), and anthropogenic reasons (like groundwater or oil extraction causing the coast to subside).
Changes in ocean circulation are difficult to predict. Modelling ice melt is a challenge in the context of global sea level. To compute the gravity effects, one also needs to know where the ice melts, not just the overall total. And while long-term local land motions can be assumed to occur at a constant rate and thus extrapolated from past measurements, such measurements are not available everywhere, and local land movement can change due to recent effects (like local melting of glaciers, or changes in groundwater pumping, or sudden earthquakes).

Overall, sea level changes can locally differ by some tens of centimeters (or even more in some special cases) from the global mean sea level change. This makes some locations, like low-lying delta cities on subsiding ground, particularly vulnerable.

So there you have it. Some facts and food for thought.

And it looks like we need to pay attention to what's happening in Auckland, because it might not behave in a nice straight line. Unexpected or unpredictable events elsewhere can significantly affect our local situation.