Auckland Ports: Reclaim, declaim or restore

This posting was partly inspired by attending the Unitary Plan hearings yesterday when submissions about the future of the Port were made by various groups including: The Parnell Community Group, Devonport Heritage, Heart of the City, Ngati Whatua, Urban Auckland, and the Auckland CBD Residents Association. It is interesting to consider the views of concerned groups from around the Waitemata Harbour, with Ports of Auckland in the middle.

This photo was taken yesterday as the sun came up from Mt Victoria. (Click photos in this posting to see them in high resolution). Devonport, with its coastal pohutukawa fringe, is in the foreground. Directly across the Harbour is the Ferguson terminal - still being reclaimed out to the consented edge - and further into the harbour the Bledisloe terminal is visible. The northern sides of both of these reclamations is currently rock. But that is not POAL's final plan.

This diagram is from POAL's 2008 Plan. Variants of it have been presented to the Unitary Plan hearings panel by POAL representatives. These show cranes on the northern sides of the reclamations - in the case of Bledisloe about 200 metres further north into Waitamata Harbour and assume substantial further reclamation. Heart of the City submissions and Devonport Heritage submissions raise issues about the continuing industrialisation of the port, and the clash that is growing between trhe users of the Harbour, and those who have lived on the Harbour - peacefully - for more than a hundred years. However Port plans go further.

This diagram is also drawn from POAL's 2008 Plan, and is entitled: "Ultimate Port layout". This envisages that the basin that currently provides some natural variation in the current layout, would be entirely reclaimed. At yesterday's hearing evidence was presented indicating that POAL is still intent on reclaiming a large part of this central basin area. Submitters expressed concern that POAL's main interest appeared to be creating more land. The Parnell submissions expressed concern that views out over the harbour would change without the variety and diversity that is afforded by the current POAL layout.

A number of submitters questioned the need for more land - given that stacked parking is used in many ports and that it is inefficient to be storing so many containers at any one time on land. Other submitters raised concerns about the increasing "industrialisation" of the port - mentioning the number of cement facilities that are now being established on the land - and that are apparently consented without notification.

The variety and diversity of POAL plans was also noted by submitters. Many questioned the credibility of the plans. Heart of the City suggested that if POAL was genuinely worried about being able to berth longer ships, all it needed to do was to complete the removal of Marsden Wharf - giving it the whole length of the existing Bledisloe Wharf. Heart of the City's Greg McKeown has done a lot of work exploring options for providing berth space, and these include the option of declaiming part of the existing Jellicoe reclamation, so that the Eastern edge of the Bledisloe terminal could also be lengthened.

While these options may have been explored by POAL, they do not appear to have been top of its list.

Sitting there listening I felt it was a weighty load to place on the shoulders of the Unitary Plan Commissioners. Their job appears confined to fine-tuning environmental effects based planning controls that are consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act. Submitters are seeking certainty and want hard and clear lines in the sand. POAL is doing whatever it can to provide itself with future wriggle room. Every one on the hearings room seems to be keenly aware of that. I think that given the scale of the debate that is occurring nationally and regionally about ports and about supply chain logistics, and where communities are no longer prepared to accept incremental creep into public amenity, then it would be rational for this PAUP process to kick for touch pending a necessary political decision - or be the meat in the sandwich.

I do think that Auckland Council has intervened in the process usefully. After its backward step in resetting the activity status of further port reclamations from "non-complying" to "discretionary", it has reset the activity status of wharf extensions like B2 and B3 from "permitted" to "discretionary" outside the basin and "restricted discretionary" inside the basin, and it has decided there needs to be a protected view corridor from the end of Queens Wharf. While these are positions for mediation, and are not in the proposed plan, they do represent a significant and important shift on the part of Auckland Council.

Now to the final part of this posting. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) includes as a key policy objective the restoration of coastlines. This includes the new coastal edges that POAL has created as it has reclaimed (taken) seabed and redrawn the Waitemata Harbour coastline. Interestingly, when the Judges Bay residents challenged POAL over its plans to extend the Ferguson reclamation it won a very important concession from POAL in the environment court. That was that the eastern edge of the Ferguson reclamation would be established as a coastal walkway, that would be planted, with viewing areas out to the end of that reclamation. As far as I am aware the walkway is in place - but how attractive it is and how popular it is I am unaware. The picture at the top of this posting suggests that no planting has taken place.

Now that POAL is being forced to face the fact that it can take no more land from the Harbour, it must be encouraged to take its responsibilities under the NZCPS more seriously. It needs to restore particular edges of its reclamation. It cannot presume to build a bald patch of tarmac totally edged with cranes and berthed shipping. It needs to do what it can to integrate with what is there now, including its basin, and it needs to soften its edges. As these photoshopped images suggest. (Click it to see a much larger image.)

And a couple of closer shots...

I think this is also an opportunity for thinking about the guardians of the Waitemata Harbour.

Rates, Tolls or Taxes for Auckland Transport

There has been a bit of a media feeding frenzy after Auckland Council voted in support of a targeted transport rate to maintain momentum. However Section 11 of the ShapeAuckland document summarising feedback from the Long Term Plan consultation hit the nail on the head:

"....The main pressure on our transport system comes from the rapid population growth Auckland is experiencing. On current estimates our population is projected to reach two million by 2035. Two-thirds of this growth is expected from our birth rate and internal migration, and one-third as a result of migration from other countries. In order to cope, Auckland’s transport system must be upgraded across all modes – roads, public transport, walking and cycling. A higher level of investment is required to address current issues and respond to future growth. Analysis indicates that, even with additional funding, maintaining the current performance of the transport system is unlikely.....
(ShapeAuckland)"

This document also notes the different funding options that had been put out for consultation, along with consultation about what sort of transport improvement plan was supported. People wanted the advanced Auckland Plan Transport Network and were divided over whether it should be funded by motorway tolls or fuel taxes.

Crucially, the Council document notes that because Central Government is not supportive of either tolling the motorway or of fuel taxes to fund Auckland's public transport improvements, and if Auckland Council is committed to delivering the public transport improvements sought by Aucklanders - then another funding source would be needed.

I agree. Almost 10 years ago Auckland Regional Council managed to get Central Government to agree a 5 cents/litre fuel tax to fund planned public transport expansion. It was actually enshrined in legislation. Sure there were those who were opposed, but there was broad support, and it would have been inexpensive to implement. But the current Government canned it. Back to square one. Government unhelpful ideological meddling has meant a ten year delay in getting revenue for what needs to be done.

Now I'm uncomfortable with some of the side-effects of the CRL fast-track. But if other public transport projects can be funded through this targeted rate then I support it. Make sure it's kept ring-fenced is all. And if it means there's less pressure on Council to sell bits and pieces of scarce public land - like Queen Elizabeth Square for example - then I'm all for it.

Finally, a query to those who prepared the ShapeAuckland report. They begin by discussing the fuel tax pros and cons, and then comes this:

"A motorway user charge is more complex to introduce, expensive to implement and requires legislative change. However, compared with rates and fuel tax, this option provides greater ability to manage transport demand. It aligns the costs with those who use it, and delivers them benefits in return. Implementation requires investment but the economic benefits of doing so significantly outweigh the costs. This option would provide economic benefits more than three times greater than the rates and fuel tax option....(ShapeAuckland)"

Now I would like to understand the reasoning behind this statement more. My understanding of rates is that this is the cheapest and most efficient money a Council can collect. The systems are all in place. Just a few computer settings to change, out the increased rate bills go, and in extra the money comes. Hard to get more efficient in terms of revenue raising.

Maybe it comes down to timing. Raising rates now to fund public transport improvements now, is somewhat different and more immediate than building road toll systems (100's of millions in cost), collecting revenues, paying back the investment over a decade or so, and only then directing revenues to PT. Sounds like rates increases now, and when we get a Government that can see the sense in transport funding systems widely used in other global cities, then Auckland can evolve a little more.

Planning Processes for Bledisloe Extensions

I have prepared an affidavit for the Urban Auckland judicial review challenge of the resource consents obtained by Ports of Auckland Ltd from Auckland Council for the B2 and B3 extensions to the Bledisloe Terminal. Furthermore I understand that the contents of that affidavit, and others that were lodged in support of Urban Auckland's Statement of Claim on Friday 1st May, must remain under wraps until the hearing which is scheduled for June 2, 3 and 4. Auckland Council disclosed five Eastlight binders of material just before Anzac weekend, and Ports of Auckland Ltd must lodge evidence in support of its Statement of Defence by next Friday 15th of May.

In this post I will use items that are in the public domain to provide a brief and selective chronology of events that led up to the granting of the resource consents that are being challenged.

The first is POAL's 1989 development plan for the port.

 
The white shaded area labelled "Bledisloe Complex" is much the same today. The plan shows three stages planned for the expansion by reclamation of the Bledisloe Terminal. Marsden Wharf is not shown in the plan.

Jumping forward to 2014, the plan below is what was sent on the 28th of March 2014 by POAL as part of a program of consultation with Mana Whenua groups about whether a Cultural Impact Assessment might be required to discharge treated stormwater from new structures that might be built in the port area.

The original plan must have been in colour. This plan is part of attachment 7 of the POAL resource consent applications for both the B2 and B3 extensions to Bledisloe Wharf. The mana whenua consultation document includes a Beca Consulting Engineers report which frequently makes reference to "new impervious surfaces", as shown in the plan legend above. There are no maps or diagrams which show where any such "impervious surfaces" might be constructed.

The Beca report that accompanied the mana whenua consultation states: "POAL has confirmed that it will develop no more than 3,500 m2 of additional impervious surface at any one time" and that: "there will generally be a very low level of activity on the 'marine and port facilities' or 'marine and port accessory structures and services' that this report relates to". 

Shortly after this consultation with mana whenua, POAL made application to Auckland Council for a new Tugboat Berth within the Jellicoe Basin. This is shown in the diagram below, which is provided in the Auckland Council planning report (signed by the Consultant Planner and the Lead Senior Planner) on the 4th September 2014) relating to the application and which recommends non-notification and granting of consents under the Auckland Regional Plan Coastal (ARPC) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

The report describes the proposed facility as being "approximately 56 metres in length and 41 metres in width... with four concrete berthing fingers approximately 30m (in length) and 2m (in width)" and notes: "I consider that due to the location of the proposed tugboat facility and the large scale of the land holding by POAL surrounding the facility, that the only adjacent land is that which is owned by POAL". 

Interestingly the planning report draws attention to rule H.4.14.1.1 of the PAUP which "requires that stormwater discharge from new impervious area where the total site impervious area is greater than 5000m2 requires a discretionary activity consent."

Which brings me to the B2 and B3 extensions, which are the subject of judicial review.

The application for the B2 extension consent was received by Auckland Council on the 19th of September 2014. It states that it is for 4,290m2. That application is similar in form and structure to the tugboat wharf extension application and was processed by the same Consultant Planner and same Lead Senior Planner who processed the TugBoat wharf extension application. An independent commissioner made the final decisions relating to the application - to not notify and to grant the consents - on 31st October 2014.

The application for the B3 extension consent was received by Auckland Council on the 18th of November. It states that it is for 3,300m2. That application is similar in form and structure to the B2 Bledisloe wharf extension application and was processed by the same Consultant Planner and same Lead Senior Planner who processed the TugBoat and B2 wharf extension applications. A different independent commissioner made the final decisions relating to the application - to not notify and to grant the consents - in late December 2014.

Finally I draw attention to Auckland Council's Hearings Policy.  A key aspect of the delegations is summarised in an internal Auckland Council practice note as follows:  'applications involving “significant” or “contentious” matters must be referred to the Hearings Committee who will decide who is the appropriate decision-maker"....'.  

None of the decision-making related to B2 or B3 was referred to the Auckland Council Hearings Committee. By contrast - for example - the resource consent application for the Parakowhai Sculpture on Queens Wharf was referred to the Auckland Council Hearings Committee. That application has been notified for submissions in the New Zealand Herald today, 8th of May 2015.

On Hosking On Council & SHA's

I wouldn't normally respond to Mike Hosking's comments about Council and Local Government. But his column in NZ Herald this week is an insult even to his intelligence. There is a place for sarcasm and even cynicism in journalism, but there's no place for plain ignorance....so here's Mike's column with my corrections...

Here's my advice to Nick Smith. Roll them, roll right over the top of them.

The Auckland Council, in yet another display of its complete inability and ineptitude, has bought a fight with the Government over special housing sites by blocking three of them and holding the Government to ransom.

Correction: It's not holding the Government to ransom. It's ensuring the Government makes a contribution to the economic growth activity it wants in Auckland - in the same way it has supported growth in the dairy industry and earth-quake recovery in Christchurch.

In a week in which we have discovered the average sale price in Auckland is now $800,000, in a week the Government's bumped the affordable homes prices by about 50 grand a house, in a week in which Barfoot and Thompson tells us it has never sold so many homes, the last thing Nick Smith needs is a bunch of head-in-the-sanders telling him what they're putting up with and what they're not.

Correction: It's basic statistics that you don't use "average" as a measure of the centre of a distribution. Even Demographia is aware that you use "median". Hosking perpetuates the meaningless use of statistics - worse than lies. Sure the median house price in Auckland is high and increasing, and Auckland Council is clearly aware of this. Most of its Auckland Plan and much of the Unitary Plan address this problem.

I think we've worked our way through the whole "housing crisis" enough to understand most of it has nothing to do with the Government.

Correction: You do, do you. Now you're the one with your head in the sand. Haven't you read what Treasury is saying about the effect of Government policy settings on house prices?

Indirectly the Government is responsible for the conditions which exist, ie a strong economy, cheap money, booming migration ... but these are broad-based market conditions and in many respects we should be welcoming them.

Correction: I agree we should be welcoming them. Auckland Council has as its own GDP growth target for Auckland, year on year, as 5%. This might not be welcoming in so many words, but it is certainly supportive.


The bit that does have to do with the Government is supply.

Correction: Last time I looked this Government was not running a command economy a la Soviet Union - especially when it comes to housing. If anything, this Government is doing whatever it can to wash its hands of the need to supply more houses - especially social housing.


You want to slow prices rising? Build more homes. The more you build, the more supply there is, the more that supply soaks up demand. None of this is hard, unless you want to make it hard, which the council clearly does by blocking progress.

Correction: This shows a woeful understanding of the type of economics NZ runs with. The news is full of stories today about how there IS an oversupply of houses in China. The place is full of new empty homes. And the global commodity market is in decline because China doesn't need to build any more houses. That's over-supply. In a place like New Zealand, if Government isn't going to supply more homes, do you really think that NZ's construction market will deliberately build so many homes that they'll drive down their selling price? Talk about cutting your own throat.


Which is really where a lot of this trouble starts and stops.The council.

The council has been anti-growth. It doesn't want more land released. It doesn't want to build up or out.

Correction: This is bollocks. Council is highly pro-growth. 5% year on year GDP growth has been its agreed plan since amalgamation. It is a lie to say it doesn't want more land released. Perhaps I should rub Hosking's nose in the RUB.


It doesn't actually want to do much of anything and when the money is cheap and the population booms and the arrivals start asking where the houses are, your classic demand-supply equation unfolds before your eyes.

Correction: This ignores the fundamental driver of rising house prices: buying houses is the best way to save money and make a buck in Auckland. It's not "arrivals" - though they add to the pressure - it's home economics 101. Buy a house, rent it, do it up, buy another one, etc. 


Those with the money buy what's available, those without, miss out.

Correction: Those who don't buy - rent. Just like they do in most other big cities.  


The mere fact the Government has had to enter this debate tells you all you need to know about the council's inability to read the future and plan for it.

Correction: This is fanciful and dishonest. The Government is intervening in Auckland, for the same reason it has in dairy, mining and Christchurch. It wants to stimulate economic activity, it wants to keep unemployment down. In the short-term. That is its priority. Local Government obligations - for example Auckland Plan - 10 year plan - all required by legislation - are primarily about long term planning. There is a difference. And sometimes this leads to conflict.

It is a widely known fact that migrants stay where they land. The main point of entry to New Zealand is Auckland.

Correction: Widely known facts are like common sense: not that common.

It is widely known that as we've boomed and Australia has hit the wall, the migration movement has turned around.

It is widely known that as the economy has hit rock star status, money has become cheap and given inflation is low and staying low, money will remain cheap.

Note to the council ... it will most likely be even cheaper by the end of the year.

The Government's big picture problem is by entering this debate in the first place it has created the expectation it has the answers which, of course, it doesn't. Not unless it takes control of the council decision-making process over the availability of land, which it might have to.

The council's argument is infrastructural. What about the transport routes and what about all the issues that come with new houses and new people?

Correction: This skims over "Council's argument", and fails to do it justice. Council's responsibility is to ensure that newly subdivided land is fully serviced. This isn't just "transport routes". It's mainly sewage and water. That's expensive and fundamental for public health. It's also stormwater. If that's not properly planned for new subdivisions will flood next time there's a 1 in 100 storm and the insurance industry will go ballistic. And there's electricity and telecommunications. And new schools are needed, let alone community facilities like green areas and sports fields. This is all infrastructure. And it doesn't grow on trees.

The answer is rates. With new people comes new revenue and don't get me started on this council's ability to raise revenue.

This is the council run by the mayor who promised rate rises of no more than 2.5 per cent, until it became 3.5 per cent, which was a straight-out broken promise.

The irony of the 2.5 per cent promise was that Len Brown argued it was roughly in line with inflation, which, of course, it wasn't, given inflation is basically zero.

Then Len rolls in with his newly invented transport levy taking rate rises to 6.5 per cent.

So how about a bit of that money going towards the new infrastructure?

Correction: Next time you write something like this, Mike, please do us all a favour and do a a bit of basic research first. Then you might contribute to the debate rather than taking up space.

After all, you either want to grow your city or you don't.

Of course if you have followed my thinking on this in previous columns, all of this will eventually resolve itself.

There is no crisis, there is no bubble. Increased numbers of houses will come on to the market, interest rates will rise, migration will slow ... market forces will meld their way into their own natural solution.

This is the way it's always been in this country.

Do remember the oft quoted fact - in 45 years we've never actually had a housing crash.

Correction: This is manipulation, economy of the truth. In the crash of the 1930's many investors in housing lost everything they had. My grandfather and many like him lost all they had when house prices collapsed in Oamaru. That's where savings went then. In the crash of the 1980's - mum and dad investors who had put their savings into other savings schemes lost out big time. Now we have a situation like the 1930's where mum and dad savings are in housing. The wheel is turning.

The global financial crisis (GFC), at its worst point saw prices here fall 9 per cent.

Pre-GFC they had gone up close to 100 per cent; they fell 9 per cent when the world stopped. They've since regained all of that and a whole bunch more.

I have spent no time sweating this stuff, but for those who have and are ... let's deal with this with some common sense and professionalism. Holding a government to ransom the way the council is trying it on with Nick Smith is asking for more trouble than a local body will be able to cope with.

Correction: Of course you've spent no time sweating this stuff. You're far too well paid. If you were being professional you'd do a bit of research. Nick Smith has got himself into an ideological corner and he knows it. Many of his cabinet colleagues don't support him on this. You might try and force economic activity and housing production onto Auckland, but someone has to pay. And if investors won't pay for necessary infrastructure, and neither will the Government, why should the rest of Auckland and its Council subsidise them more than they already are? 


Look what the Government did to Christchurch City Council post-earthquake.

Correction: They did to City Council, the same as they did to the regional council as few years before. Government got rid of institutions that stood in the way of its short-term fixes. The one because it was concerned about retaining rivers, the other - in part - because it raised questions about infrastructure costs and about retaining heritage. All long term concerns. Which have not gone away, and which weigh as heavily today.  


If I were Nick Smith I'd be looking to shunt this lot sideways as well.

Correction: Yeah, right. Then we could have Mike and Nick running the show. We'd be up shit creek with a pair of paddlers - one with a PhD and one who can't be bothered reading.

Call to Action on Bledisloe

Two photographs of the B2 end of Bledisloe Wharf.
The first taken 28th April, the second taken just now off the ferry 5th May.

Spot the difference......

Doesn't take a rocket scientist. There are two new piles that have been lowered into place.

Maybe these will be needed whatever the outcome of planning and actions over the next few days.

But POAL puts itself into a very bad position by taking unilateral action like this. And it will force the community that is concerned to take unilateral action too.

 If POAL responds to justice with force, then it must take the consequences. This is beginning to look like a fiasco that might make the Rainbow Warrior on Marsden look like a sunday-school picnic.

Auckland Port Protest 3 May 2015

I went across on the 10:15 ferry to get to the 11:00 start of the protest. So I was a bit early. Seemed to me more police cars and policemen than protestors which was a bit worrying. But more and more people came. Was a great atmosphere. This is a photo essay from start to finish of the march. Enjoy. Was a great day for democracy in Auckland....

Read NZ Herald's story about it here. And go to Stop Stealing Our Harbour's new website here.