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.