Auckland Council discusses POAL plans...

I attended Auckland Council's Auckland Plan Ctte meeting today 13th August 2013... though I was aware from NZ Herald's Saturday report that this was now NOT to be a meeting where Council finally decided how to provide for the possibility of POAL expanding its reclamation....

I did want to hear how the decision to defer considering this matter would be dealt with. In fact what Council decided was to defer until a 3 day meeting (28th, 29th and 30th of August - 3 days of peace, love and music I'm sure - with a little over 5 weeks till election day....), all Draft Unitary Plan decisions relating to: significant ecological areas; mangroves; residential provisions (especially the mixed use zone); historic heritage and character; city centre waterfront heights; and Ports of Auckland. Should be a doozy.

The agenda item for today's meeting did contain a taste of what Councillors have been advised at the workshop meeting previously held about Ports Expansion Plans. The first 4 slides on this posting are copied from the meeting agenda papers. They illustrate 4 options that were considered by Councillors at the workshop.

You will see that Option 1 is called "status quo". As Cllr Penny Webster explained to the meeting today, the words "status quo" mean different things to different people. She recognises that to the person in the street the words "status quo" means what we see in Waitemata Harbour today. To the public - if they say stick with the status quo - it means no more reclamation.

But actually, as Cllr Webster explained, "status quo" includes the large area in green which is the area where POAL can NOW apply for a discretionary status resource consent for further reclamation. Officer Penny Pirrit confirmed this situation at the meeting, stating, "the existing planning documents enable POAL to undertake reclamation activities" - subject to obtaining a discretionary resource consent.

It seemed to me, based on the statements of the Councillors who said anything, that there was a recognition that doing nothing was not an option for the Unitary Plan. They had to do something, because the planning status quo is too permissive.

There was no information given at the meeting about what Cllrs said about the other options that were presented at their workshop. But the report states that at the workshop "...there was general support for Option 4 (and to a lesser extent support for Option 2)...."

Which is interesting.  You can see here the red area that is depicted in Option 2. This would indicate that reclamation was a "non-complying activity" in that area, but still a discretionary activity (subject to resource consent), in the green area.

My assessment of the 4 options presented at the workshop is that Option 2 is the most restrictive that was discussed (the option of the layman's status quo - no further reclamation - was apparently not included in the workshop discussion.)

I've included Option 3 here for completeness. Apparently there was little or no support for this option at the workshop.

And here's Option 4.

I will now summarise what was said at the meeting today. It indicates the state of play....

Tangata Whenua representatives wanted to know where the report was about the Economic and Cultural Impact on Maori of the various POAL expansion plans. They had asked for this report way back in April. But it was still not done. Officers indicated the report would be with them before the 26th of August. There was no similar promise around the Stage 2 report from the major ports study. Though Mr Blakely (Head of Planning) indicated that the decision that would be required on the 28th of August would be about the Stage 2 study, AND what to put in the Unitary Plan.

Cllr Cameron Brewer spoke at length but appeared to have little understanding of how planning provisions actually work. He referred to Mayor Brown's Saturday announcement as "a call for a cuppa tea" but that "anything we do will be major for POAL future..". Almost as if he's only just figuring that out. Which is good really. Cllrs need to understand what they're doing here. He wanted to know what it would mean if the UP contained a "pencilled in" area for future reclamation, and that the council got the Stage Two report afterward. How would that work? This comment at least signified that Cllr Brewer understood that there was a relationship between Stage Two study (which looks at the costs and benefits of POAL alternatives), and whether Council should "pencil in" these plans.

Cllr Wood then opened up and appeared to try and shut the discussion down by moving that the report be received. He did say, "Option 4 will lead to huge reductions".... Man oh man. This is the problem of what the words actually mean.

Cllr Webster chimed in at this point with her useful clarification that "status quo" means different things to different people.

Cllr Morrison made the most sense on the day. But in the end he appeared to contradict himself. He reminded the meeting that the PWC report advised that some reclamation would "likely be needed at the back-end of 30 years, that the Unitary Plan would have to be reviewed every 10 years, and let POAL demonstrate the efficiencies that PWC also says are there...."

He made a comparison with the RUB or MUL. Interesting point. 

But then he used this to argue for Option 4 (I think). Much better to use this argument to force POAL to use its existing reclamation more efficiently by NOT allowing any further reclamation NOW, and then in 10 years time review the plan and allow a little bit of expansion - but only if it is necessary.

Cllr Walker reminded councillors of what people are generally saying about the Waitemata Harbour, and spoke about efficiency gains.

Cllr Anae was the most disappointing. He talked about there being bigger ships. That Auckland would be left behind without more reclamation. That everything would go to Tauranga. Man oh man.

My own opinion is that the POAL sense of entitlement to further reclamation - the cuckoo in the Auckland nest approach - needs to be nipped in the bud. The regime has changed, so let there be regime change on the waterfront.

I believe there should be no further reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour by POAL. But that might not be a balanced view. And it would certainly be subject to the findings of a sound Stage Two study.

So here's what I think would be a responsible planning approach. It is time for Auckland Council to direct POAL. It owns it after all. It is also time for Auckland Council to facilitate and regulate its future development. But that must be conditional on POAL behaviour change. POAL cannot continue with its sense of entitlement to getting whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

That is why the Stage Two report is crucial  Councillors who advocate for POAL being entitled to further reclamation - without Stage Two analysis - are being highly irresponsible. Expansion plans cannot be left to a simple discretionary resource consent application either. In the hands of POAL this would effectively be a rubber stamp for future reclamation - especially with the proposed changes to the RMA.

Councillor Morrison is right to draw Council's attention to various matters, including that the PWC report highlights the opportunity for more efficient use of existing reclaimed land; and that the PWC report notes that some further reclamation is likely to be needed in the mid to long term future. Most councillors appear to be aware of the need for the Stage Two study - and that the matters to be assessed in that study are not matters that would be addressed appropriately in a simple resource consent application.

That is why it is essential, that any Unitary Plan map that provides for any future opportunity for further reclamation, must be very clear about what that planning future is. It must be specific. I would prefer that the planning maps for Ports area show no further reclamation zone - that is they show what is presently permitted by resource consent. A true status quo.

The fallback position would show some sort of  Conditional Expansion Zone or Area, and that on the face of the planning map are words to the effect: The Conditional Expansion Zone may be utilised for further reclamation of Waitemata Harbour, after 2023, subject to a discretionary resource consent being obtained AND subject to the Stage Two ports study being completed.

This would provide POAL, the public and Auckland Council with certainty.