Parnell Pet Project Politics

Recognise these two faces? Two peas in a pod. Both let nothing stand in the way of pet projects. Both wanted the character sheds on Queens Wharf demolished. Both want a mega cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.

Both have track records of delivering personal pet projects, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, a deal's a deal. Man oh man. Good qualities if you want a champion for a good project. But damaging and expensive otherwise....

Take the Helensville Rail trial service for example. Even as Chair of ARC's Transport Ctte I didn't see that train project coming. Thought it was just a bad idea. So did ARTA. So did Connex (now Veolia). All strongly advised against it. I was advised it would be cheaper to buy the few potential commuters a BMW each. But Mike Lee pushed it through. Every trick in the book. Never really held accountable for the cost of that failure. Blamed Connex. Blamed ARTA...

Now we have a brand new Parnell Railway station in the wrong place being manipulated into being by the same old Mike Lee up to his same old tricks.

Here's what ARC's report into the proposal had to say when a Parnell Railway possibility was considered by ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee at its 4 June 2010 meeting. The report gave an update on planning investigations into 3 options for a station at Parnell shown in this graphic from the report. The Cheshire Street option is the one being pushed for by Mike Lee - for reasons which are not altogether clear. The report says this about that option:

The Cheshire St site provides the best access to Parnell centre. However the Cheshire St site has nearly 50% of its catchment in the Domain meaning intensive business or residential development could not take place in this half of the station’s catchment, and the walking catchment is more limited.

The report comments on the Parnell Road Overbridge option like this:

The Parnell road over-bridge site was originally favoured by Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Newmarket/Parnell Area Plan, part of the Future Planning Framework, approved by Auckland City Council, located the station close to the Parnell Road over-bridge site because it served the busiest catchment, was closest to the University and would assist the development of the business node at Beach Road/Stanley Street.

The "middle" option - Carlaw Park - is described like this:

The Carlaw Park site appears to combine the advantages of both sites. It can service the university and the Beach Rd/Stanley St business node while providing better access to Parnell centre. The Carlaw Park site is approximately 200 metres from the Cheshire St site and can provide access to Parnell centre within a four minute walk....

The report does not make happy reading for supporters of the Cheshire Street option (like Mike Lee - who appears to be suppressing ARTA and ARC's consideration of this matter.)

There is potential to reduce car trips and hence congestion if the station is located with good access for university students. In the University’s Travel Plan (2007) 15,710 students and 584 staff indicated that they would replace car travel with other modes of travel. Approximately 50% of this group indicated the proximity of public transport to the campus would be a factor in this decision.

The Auckland City Council has looked at pedestrian accessibility, including walking
distances, gradients and safety. In comparing the options, it identifies a number of
safety issues, in particular isolation and personal safety concerns, for the Cheshire
site, and the difficulties of the track to the museum for the aged and infirm....

The 4 June 2010 ARC meeting report also summarises ARTA's position on the matter, along with this tabulation of the relative merits of the two different options that ARTA looked at. It appears that ARTA conducted preliminary investigations into the feasibility of siting a station on the existing rail track between Parnell Road tunnel and the Stanley Street Bridge. Its findings include:

...While no conclusions have been reached, both the northern (former Carlaw Park) and southern (Cheshire St/Mainline Steam) locations are considered to be feasible options. It is apparent that a balance may need to be found between serving different catchments such as museum visitors, Parnell and Carlaw Park business node residents and visitors, and university students....

But it is when land use considerations are brought into play that the Mike Lee option runs into serious treacle. As the report notes:

It is important that development of a station and the wider site in Parnell is based on good urban design principles and leads to a high quality development. Master planning will be essential to ensure that the benefits go beyond the site and that it works for Parnell and wider communities....

The report includes a fair summary of the ideas of Parnell Mainstreet whose concept at Cheshire Street is to consolidate transport infrastructure around the heart of a community, utilizing the existing rail network, an established rail depot, character railway buildings and undeveloped railway land. The ‘idea’ centres on establishment of a ‘destination’ train station, not just a purely ‘commuter’ station nor university station.

In a sense this is a heritage idea driving Auckland's rail network design. A Mike Lee hobby horse - a bit like heritage trams running around the Wynyard Loop.

The report concludes fairly categorically:

One key consideration is the potential for transit oriented development around the station in the medium to longer term.

From the analysis completed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and ACC to date it is apparent that a station at Carlaw Park would support the business node, university, Vector Arena and provide reasonable access to the Parnell centre, irrespective of any future land use changes in the vicinity of the station.

A station at Cheshire Street will be reliant on significant redevelopment in the area as part of comprehensive masterplan. The KiwiRail site is strategically important, close to Parnell, offers wide views and amenity, overlooking the open space of the Domain, likely to have high land values (assist redevelopment), enable growth of Parnell without affecting the heritage character of the main street, etc.

If a significant redevelopment can be delivered in conjunction with station development, then this location for a future station should be supported.

If the future use of the Cheshire Street site is not transit supportive (i.e. it provides for few residents or employees, is not designed to support walking and PT use and is designed for vehicles) then the location of the station should not be supported.

The report also mentions that The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) had committed $1.5 million to Parnell station design in 2011/12 (Regional Land Transport Programme, 2009/10-2011/12).

Those are the only funds that had been allocated to that project by Auckland Regional Council and ARTA before their abolition at the end of 2010. The matter was considered by ARC's Transport Committee (items for information only ) twice more before Council ended.

However the Parnell Station was considered for decision at ARC's last Council meeting on the 27th September 2010. The last hurrah. After ARTA had been pushed into agreeing to Mike's project...

The report makes little mention of the need for Transit Oriented Development, or of the need to connect with the greatest number of land uses. It provides this rough concept outline of where the station would go, which confirms the wilderness nature of its location, and the lack of development opportunities, given the determination to retain the heritage buildings.

Here is the executive summary of that Council report:

A concept design for a new station at Parnell has been developed by ARTA in conjunction with KiwiRail. It has been determined that the preferred location is one adjacent to the existing Main Line Steam (MLS) Depot off Cheshire Street and preliminary design is now being progressed with associated costings.

A total cost of $13.2-15.2 million has been estimated. This includes $5.5m for track
modifications and between $3.5 to $5.5m for platforms, overbridges, lifts, platform
equipment and retailing walls.

Relocation and refurbishment of the Newmarket Heritage Building has a budget of
$4.2m carried forward by Kiwirail from an earlier government commitment. While
there is no detailed costing available at this stage, unspent funds could be utilized for other purposes such as track modifications.

Enabling works for electrification between Newmarket Tunnel and The Strand are
currently programmed to take place in July or August 2011. Re-grading of the track
along this section would involve significant rework of the electrification infrastructure.

This would suggest that a decision on the future Parnell station should be addressed
by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport with urgency, in order to integrate
works and avoid costly reworking.

Thus not only are the Mainline Steam site buildings to be retained, but the old wooden heritage station from Newmarket Station is to be restored there as well. This may be a good idea for a heritage park - but it makes little sense to be developed into a modern station on a line that is destined to carry tens of thousands of commuters/hour. The devil is in the detail. Final extracts from the Council report indicate the rushed nature of Mike's Parnell Project:

In order to meet rail and platform gradient requirements the rail track will need to be re-graded over approximately a kilometre of track and crossover points critical for access to The Strand will need to be relocated. Modification of the access tracks to the MLS Depot is also required. KiwiRail have undertaken preliminary track design and have determined that these modifications are feasible.... (and all before Christmas it seems)

This Kiwirail owned site clearly has potential for development as an integrated transit oriented development, and this could potentially provide opportunities for private sector funding. Parnell Inc have shared their views with the council that in their view that the MLS building could be used for alternative suitable uses, such as a museum and space for local exhibitions and small businesses, etc, and include rail heritage.... (all very preliminary and potential, could this, could that...)

Preliminary modelling has indicated that a Parnell Station would influence rail service frequencies and more analysis would be required to identify any necessary mitigation measures.... (Man oh man)

There are no financial and resourcing implications arising from this report. The cost of a future Parnell Station is estimated in this report and will need to be considered by the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Kiwirail.... (And that's the big one. No budget has been previously agreed for this by ARC or ARTA)

So suck on that Auckland Council. And do your job properly. It's about time pet projects like this bottom-of-the-priority-list Parnell Station option get the full once over before being included in any Auckland Council budget approval. That means integrating public transport planning with land use planning.

Precautionary Principle Vs Erring for “Economic Wellbeing”

Thinking about cumulative effects, and the duties to avoid these in terms of the RMA. Here is the relevant bit of the RMA:

...the term effect includes … any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects — regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect…

So I guess what that means, in terms of the purpose of the RMA, is that the general duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment, includes a general duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse cumulative effects on the environment.

The RMA definition relating to “cumulative effects” is “irrespective of scale and duration…”. I read – “irrespective of scale” – as meaning it doesn’t matter if the effect is “less than minor”, “minor”, “de-minimus”. When plugged into the RMA’s purpose, the word “adverse” is added. So that makes it a bit tricky.

However, it is acknowledged by all parties it appears – that there will be effects from the disposal of fill that contains contaminants not already associated with what was in the quarry at Three Kings. Natural basalt and scoria.

Got me thinking about Auckland’s underground rivers.

What do we know for sure. Undisputed facts:

• We know that many rivers in New Zealand have been badly damaged because of the cumulative effects of farming in their catchments. The root cause of this damage is a mix of agricultural chemicals and farm animal effluent (almost wrote farmer affluent).


• The responsible regulatory authority in every case is a Regional Council. (Or Unitary Authority where that has replaced the Regional Council).


• Regional Council responsibilities include: monitoring the state of rivers; granting consents that affect rivers; monitoring the effects of consented activities and compliance with conditions and carrying out enforcement.


• The legislation which is there to protect rivers from adverse effects, and which prescribes the activities of both farmers and Regional Councils is the Resource Management Act.

So where is the systemic failure? Why are rivers getting worse and not better, or even staying the same (intrinsic values, ecosystems, etc etc). There are various other opinions and processes which are worth summarising:

• Even if farming as we know it was stopped in its tracks, leachate already in the ground would maintain the contaminant flow into rivers for a decade or two.


• There are hopes in a few minds that some sort of water allocation scheme will sort out the problem – ie that some sort of organised market will be the stone that kills the two birds of river pollution and getting the best use out of river water.


• There is huge pressure to convert more relatively low impact sheep farms to dairy farms – irrigated by takes from rivers that many claim are under stress already.

I think the systemic failure fundamentally arises because the regulators either don’t or can’t do their job in accordance with the environmental and ecological protection principles that are written into the Resource Management Act.

What I see in the Environment Court – time after time, when legal action is provoked – are the applicant’s technical experts strenuously and scientifically trying to “prove” that the adverse effects from the applicant’s proposed activity will be less than minor. And yet as even the most rudimentary knowledge of science will tell you, the problems that are at issue (pollution of commons like rivers, lakes, estuaries, seas, atmospheres…) are not described perfectly and analytically by any known scientific methods. At best science suggests probabilities that are riddled with uncertainties and gaps in assumptions, and at worst expert scientific evidence is sophistry designed to support the applicant’s project.

It appears that Environment Court Judges are generally keenly aware of this. Because they are aware, it appears to me that they really have only one option open to them. The Environment Court needs to:

Place great focus on Regional Council evidence relating to the ability of the commons at issue to handle the “less than minor” effects of the application; AND, use the hearing to fully explore the regulator’s processes and track-record in regard to the effects and resource at issue (by using the Court’s powers to obtain independent advice); AND, where there is a question-mark over whether granting the application will potentially damage the resource’s ability to meet the needs of future generations, then decline it by citing the precautionary principle.

I think this sort of Environment Court process would begin to deliver the “cumulative effects” aspiration of the Resource Management Act. The duty to avoid cumulative effects, is actually down to the Environment Court.

The Fletcher/Winstone “cleanfill” application is a classic example.

In my opinion the ARC/Auckland Council has paid very little attention to the state of Auckland’s underground rivers. Its evidence and related reporting did not provide information about other sources of contaminants that either are affecting, or have the potential to affect the quality of that resource. (Including road runoff, stormwater systems, leaking sewer systems, leachate from contaminated soils – residential and commercial, saline intrusion). ARC contaminant monitoring information appeared limited. Contaminants listed in relevant schedules appear out of date. This regulatory environment is an open-door policy for further cumulative effects.

I hold that where there is the potential for cumulative effects, then it is the Environment Court’s duty to scrutinise the combined effects of the activity applied for and the regulatory environment. And then – if necessary – impose a moratorium on future new activities until the relevant regulatory environment has caught up with its duties.

Watercare Avoids Public Responsibility

Ownership and control of North Shore’s sewer networks, pump stations and the Rosedale Treatment Plant are being transferred to Watercare now, because Watercare will be running all of Auckland’s wastewater systems from November. Unhappily, beneath the public radar, Watercare is breaking a carefully constructed public contract....

Watercare doesn’t like the publicly accountable way North Shore City Council runs North Shore’s sewers. Behind the scenes, Watercare is attempting to change many of the controls and systems that North Shore City Council has built up over the years which give the public confidence their sewage system is operated to the high standard that has been agreed with North Shore’s ratepayers....

As an ARC Councillor, I have been locked in sewer network resource consent negotiations with North Shore City Council for the past two years. NSCC was required under the RMA to apply for discharge consents to permit - subject to conditions - periodic overflows from its sewer network. These may be caused by very high rainfall and sewer blockages. Poor maintenance and management can increase these problems and their highly visible and disturbing environmental effects which can include beach closures.

When NSCC first applied for consent, ARC commissioners were not satisfied with the conditions and management arrangements proposed by NSCC. So commissioners granted NSCC a very short 6 year permit. NSCC appealed this decision. This resulted in the mediation process. Negotiations have resulted in a much tighter set of conditions which give the public confidence that the operation of the network and its development into the future will meet their requirements for environmental care and health protection.

Mediation concluded successfully two months ago – to the delight of North Shore City Council and ARC. But in recent weeks Watercare has put a legal spanner in the works. Watercare has sat on the sidelines as a section 274 party. Now Watercare is claiming that as it will be the future operator of North Shore’s sewers, it does not accept the publicly agreed controls that have been developed by North Shore City Council, and which have been accepted by ARC as the regulator of discharges.

I am concerned that what Watercare wants will weaken the controls against sewage overflows into the North Shore environment. It will water down public accountability for overflows and sewage pollution. It will split responsibility between Watercare and the Auckland Council – so the public won’t have the same one-stop-shop they have now when there’s a sewage problem. And it will lead to a loss of transparency because Watercare does not want to commit to the same public reporting and monitoring that North Shore City Council has developed a regionwide reputation for.

I have more than a decade’s institutional experience of North Shore’s sewage systems – both from a City Council operation’s point of view and from the Auckland Regional Council’s regulatory point of view.

I was Chair and Deputy Chair of North Shore City Council’s Works and Environment Committee from 1998 to 2004 implementing Project Care objectives to clean up North Shore beaches and inshore seawater from sewage pollution caused by dry and wet weather overflows. And from 2004 to now I have been appointed by Auckland Regional Council as Resource Consent Commissioner deciding exactly how North Shore’s sewage network should be operated and improved under the Resource Management Act to minimise adverse effects on North Shore’s environment. This detailed work has resulted in North Shore City Council and Auckland Regional Council agreeing a 35 year consent to operate the sewage network, subject to conditions and controls which have been negotiated carefully over the past two years.

Watercare is mounting an Environment Court challenge to have many of these controls and conditions deleted.

I have been immersed in North Shore’s sewage systems for years, and what I see happening now, with integration into Watercare, is not a pretty picture.

The following table contains details of selected changes that Watercare is seeking. The table states existing conditions; Watercare's reasons for wanting it changed; what Watercare wants instead; and my comments:

ARC/NSCC agreed condition	Watercare issue	Change required by Watercare	My comment
3. That the consent holder shall minimise wastewater overflows from the wastewater network to the environment.	The condition is not measureable. Note that conditions that cannot be measured effectively are ultra vires.	Delete condition 3.	This is the main condition imposed on NSCC by ARC in exchange for granting NSCC the right to operate the network to reticulate sewage, noting that discharges can happen.
6. That the Consent Holder shall minimise wet weather overflows that occur on private properties.	The condition is not measureable….	Delete condition 6.	Wet weather overflows on private properties have been a major issue for NSCC and communities. They are extremely upsetting for homeowners. The reporting that is needed is to simply report on these, and demonstrate over time that they are reducing. This would be associated with reports on methods and resources being deployed.
13. The Consent Holder shall operate and maintain the network and any overflows from it in accordance with a Wastewater Network Operations and Maintenance Manual… which SHALL include… a), b) and c).	Watercare will progressively move towards common regional operations and maintenance manuals in the future……it is considered it is the Consent Holders responsibility to meet its consent obligations… without that being detailed in a condition of consent.	Amend condition to more general wording….	These requirements are aimed at minimising dry weather overflows in particular, and also that show how the specific incidents that have redevilled NSCC’s network will be responded to, through very specific operations approaches that have been built up over recent years, and which give community confidence.
14. That the consent holder shall use best endeavours to require private connections from dwellings to the public wastewater network to use BPO materials that do not leak.	The condition lacks clarity and provides no certainty as to what the Consent holder must do…. Futhermore private connections are covered by the Building Code over which Watercare has no control.	Delete condition 14.	50% of stormwater infiltration comes from private connections. NSCC routinely pressure tests private connections to ensure they hold water. "Best endeavours" provides for the operator to develop a methodology, how to advise property owner, how to set connection test. Unreasonable to expect Council to do this job, when Watercare can do it as part of providing service.
17. That a wastewater network operation, maintenance and capital works programme shall be in place to minimise the occurrence of chokes, exfiltration, inflow and infiltration…	The exact obligations on the consent holder are unclear and cannot be measured…. The Auckland Council will need to control inflow, so any controls will depend on actions taken by the council. This cannot be a condition of this consent.	Delete “inflow”	“Inflow” is the word for illegal rainwater connections to the sewer network. Eg when a homeowner connects the house roofwater downpipe to the sewer. NSCC routinely inspects properties to detect these illegal “inflow” connections and get them changed. It is appropriate for the integrated wastewater service provider to do this inspection as part of the integrated “toilet to WWTP” service. That is an integrated service, for which wastewater charges are levied. Reduced inflows leads to reduced need to increase pipe capacities. It should be core business for Watercare to minimise inflows to the network.
22. That the consent holder shall prepare an Integrated Natural Water Monitoring Plan to cover all effects based on monitoring of discharges, infrastructure and receving environment assessments and effects on bathing beach quality. The Monitoring Plan shall specifically include the monitoring and reporting of:a) frequency and duration of pumping station wet weather overflows in each recreation water use area;b) number of advistory notices erected at each recreation water use area in accordance with the Incidence Response conditions…. etc	Bathing beach monitoring, erection of signs and environmental monitoring of receiving environments is a function of the new Auckland Council….	Delete condition	This is a very serious change. Watercare will be in a position to know when its network overflows, when monitoring should occur, testing, and when signs need to be put up. As part of its incidence response plan (as is done now by NSCC). To delete this condition is to absolve itself of a fundamental responsibility, and to transfer all risk to Auckland Council.
23. Incidence response. The Consent Holder shall implement and maintain as Incident Response Plan within the Operations and Maintenance Manual… which sets out how the consent Holder will respond to and avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of overflows. (JKC: This contains detailed specifications, which SHALL BE included).	A condition is acceptable. However, detailed requirements as to the contents of this plan is inappropriate….	Watercare free to implement and maintain such a manual, which will be “provided to the manager on request…”	These response details were worked through in detail with Project Care working party, and North Shore community. They are the result of an enormous amount of work and community experience. It is these which give the community confidence that their wastewater network is being maintaining and operated in a way which gives them confidence and knowledge that local wisdom has been incorporated. Losing this detail would be to lose the essence of what built faith and trust between the community and NSCC in regard to wastewater management.
24. …At times of dry weather flow, as quickly as possible, and in any case within 1 hour… etc	…the level of detail in this condition puts unncessary constraints on the ability of the Consent Holder to operate the system efficiently.	Amend … "as soon as practicable"…	Dry weather overflows are severe in their impact. This condition was negotiated with NSCC. It is a service level that it has agreed to, and which community expects.

Watercare wants regional consistency. It ignores the fact that North Shore residents have agreed to pay more for their sewage network to be cleaner and more tightly than the networks run by Waitakere and Auckland City Councils. It ignores the fact that East Coast beaches and beach waters are highly prized and protected from sewage overflows. As are the inner harbour waters of Little Shoal Bay, Shoal Bay and Ngataringa Bay. We don't want regional consistency that weakens wastewater discharge controls on the North Shore.

The pattern in the changes sought by Watercare, is that Watercare will accept responsibility only for the parts of North Shore's sewer network operations that it has complete control over. The integrated "toilet to treatment plant" role currently taken by North Shore City Council will be fragmented if Watercare is allowed to take the easy bits, and leave the rest behind for Auckland Council. The costs for those wastewater services would stay with Auckland Council too.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Watercare is operating as a corporate raider, asset-stripping North Shore's wastewater operation, taking the trunk network with its predictable revenue stream, and leaving behind all the risky loose ends associated with residential connections, as well as avoiding public responsibility for sign-posting its sewage overflows or cleaning them up within agreed timeframes.

However. ARC has not accepted Watercare's proposed changes.
The matter is still in front of the Environment Court.

You would think - would you not - that Auckland Transition Agency would have a view on what Watercare is attempting to achieve here. I look forward to being on the new Auckland Council and ensuring that Watercare does the integrated job that needs to be done with wastewater - overflows, private connections, toilet to treatment plant. The lot.

That's what "one-stop-shops" are for after all.

ARC votes to combine Slug & Shed on QW!

This blog is about the last 10 days of QW drama. I'd agreed to be silent while things progress, but now's the time for a blog. BTW at the end of this blog you will find a link to the Campbell Live look last night at QW. This is recommended viewing. The pictures in this blog are of ARC's Jasmax / Architectus artist impressions of how Shed 10 could be adapted and refurbished at a cost of around $18 million to provide for Party Central AND a floor area of 6000 square metres. You will see in the pictures that Shed 11 is to be removed. In its place is the Rugby Ball. And on the opposite corner of Queens Wharf is a large video screen. You will note that the pictures are reminiscent of designs submitted in the much criticised Queens Wharf Design Competition. You can see some of these at: Blog: queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1

But the main purpose of this blog is to provide an update on where things are at - as of 7th July. Today ARC held a short notice full council meeting. All the media were in attendance. The purpose of the meeting was to present ARC's new designs, and also to acquaint the public with the fact that the Hon Murray McCully does not support the ARC's change of course. A rather odd resolution was passed without dissent. The guts of it is this: "...that recognising ARC's provisional agreement with NZ Historic Places Trust and the willingness of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to explore options that retain Shed 10, the Council authorises the CEO to commission urgent work from the Council's architects on options that combine the retention of Shed 10 and the Minister's preferred temporary building..." I asked at the meeting, rhetorically of course, "what do you get when you combine a heritage shed with a plastic slug?" Is it a shug...? or is it a sled....? It's a nonsense of course. Like the nonsense that drove the other compromise - the removal of Shed 11. The only reason it's gone - according to ARC's council report - is to "improve views", and to "create more public space". As if there's not already vast amounts of public space on this 27th ARC Regional Park. And as if we really need better views from QW of the Hilton Hotel on Princes Wharf. In fact I find the "improve views" reason hypocritical. How can you say that Shed 10 should be retained because it's heritage, and also say that Shed 11 (which is much the same externally and relates really well with Shed 10 - it's brother or sister if you like) should be removed because it's somehow not heritage, and the view we have had of it for the past 100 years should be replaced with a view we can see today with Shed 11 left where it is? Letters on the agenda from the Historical Places Trust state its assessment that: "...NZHPT's strong preference would have been for Shed 11 to remain in its original location, however under the circumstances we accept that relocation is possible...." and notes further that: "...we understand that one of the rationales for relocating Shed 11 is to enable views to be opened up from Queens Street to the Harbour...". This illustrates the depth of the compromises.

The ARC Councillors first learned about this alternative design, and Mike Lee's change of heart toward Shed 10, through a confidential item on the council meeting agenda held last Monday 28th of June. Councillors were advised that his attitude about Shed 10 changed in the course of meetings held with the Historic Places Trust, some of which were attended by the Hon Murray McCully. It appears the Minister was forthright in expressing his view that the sheds should go, and make way for his preferred cloud structure, aka the slug. It also appears that the Minister was not for turning. ARC's Chairman was concerned that a divergence of views was emerging (between him and the Minister) and so he wrote to the PM about it on 17 June, putting a strong argument for the adaptive re-use of Shed 10. The Minister for the RWC replied to that letter on the 28th of June. Interesting that he replied, and not the PM. I can imagine the conversation about that. Something like, "you write the letter Murray, you're the Minister, but if you haven't got this sorted out in 10 days I'll have to put it back on the Cabinet agenda..."

Anyway, the letter goes, "...I was therefore surprised to read the correspondence between the ARC and the Historic Places Trust where you in effect reverse the agreement reached with the HPT on 27 April and develop an entirely new plan. That clearly goes much further than the obligation to consult over the agreed proposal and I am at a loss to understand how this could have occurred..." The letter goes on state that: "the Government remains committed to the announced proposals..." This letter arrived on the day of the 28th June Council meeting, and Chairman Lee read it out to Councillors who were meeting informally before the Council meeting. They were concerned that this situation should not lead to a meltdown in relations. There were also suggestions that dialogue should be opened up between ARC and Auckland City Council, now that ARC's proposals involved retention of Shed 10 and its adaptive re-use. This type of approach was supported by Auckland City Council and budget had been set aside for Queens Wharf work on condition that its sheds were refurbished as part of that work. For completeness I note here that in April 2010 Auckland City Council's Combined Committee meeting voted for: "That the $21 million and $5 million capital expenditure budget for Queens Wharf in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 be confirmed in the Annual Plan, subject to: These funds are only to be applied to a project that ensures the restoration/refurbishment of the sheds on Queens Wharf for the Rugby World Cup, and in the case of Shed 10 future medium term uses including the possible option of a cruise ship terminal."

At the 28th June ARC meeting, councillors were given a stark choice. Either to vote for the previously agreed "Cloud" / "Slug" approach (which had been voted on, and supported by a majority, at the ARC's 19th April Confidential Council meeting), or to support the new direction (shown in these pictures). The council voted for the latter course of action, which was a change in direction. That was last Monday. In the following week information was hard to come by as to what was happening. Especially what was happening between ARC and Auckland City Council. I understand informally that there was discussion, but no resolution. There are trust issues it seems.... The on Monday 5th July Kingsland Station was officially opened. Even the All Blacks turned up for this. I couldn't attend because I was on a hearing, but there were some interesting indications reported back by some who were there. ARTA's Rabin Rabindram was MC and he introduced Murray McCully who spoke first. Then - oddly - Rabin informed everybody that it was time for a cup of tea. This was a bit of a surprise because there were two speeches to go. One from Mike Lee and the other from John Banks. An Auckland City Councillor commented, "the Minister will not share the platform with Mike Lee." Raised eyebrows all round. Then after the cup of tea, when Mike Lee was acknowledging distinguished visitors it appeared that the Minister had already left the building.... But I digress. Then on Tuesday ARC councillors were advised there would be an extraordinary Council meeting about QW today (7th July). The rest is history. I have summarised the decision made, above. Another letter from Murray McCully, dated 6th July, accompanied the agenda. It restates that "Ministers have agreed that we remain committed to the decision Cabinet made on 19 April. We see no merit in the redevelopment of Shed 10 on its current site, as we agree with your earlier assertion that it is 'old and cheap and nasty'..." The letter goes on to offer two alternatives: (1) restore Shed 10 off the site and build the "cloud" as agreed; or (2) "we would be prepared to sell the Crown's share in Queens Wharf to the Auckland Regional council in order for you to pursue your alternative design..." To finish this I will repeat the advice that was contained in the report to councillors at today's meeting. The advice stated: "In considering its position, the Council will have to weight up the relative importance of: the heritage values of the Sheds; the use of Queens Wharf as a fan zone for the Rugby World Cup; the costs to ratepayers and taxpayers of alternative options; the flexibility available for future decision makers; the value for money afforded by the alternative options; the feasibility and risks of each option; the council's relationship with Government; and the expectations of the people of Auckland." In my comments at the meeting I expressed the view that, due to the consultation with the HPT, we needed to respect the heritage values of the sheds; secondly we needed to deliver the use of Queens Wharf as Party Central (that was the deal); thirdly that we should not do anything that precludes future options. That includes not dismantling or demolishing Shed 11. There is no credible argument for the demolition of Shed 11. And certainly not to make room for a view of the last World Cup's plastic rugby ball.... Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council need to sort this out together. It's about time this partnership worked. Auckland City can help ARC to buy the Government out, and then manage the Party Central fitout of the Queens Wharf sheds. Without precluding future. Campbell Live on Queens Wharf Campbell Live did Auckland a media service by doing a TV3 version of the Sunday documentary. But here's the difference: TV3 managed to get an interview with Chairman Lee. Campbell staked him out at the ARC's media conference yesterday, and grilled him over the cruise ship proposal. This is a must see. The TV3 report includes a walkover Shed 10 with the redoubtable Adam Mercer - from Auckland Architects Association. See it here: TV3 News: Queens-Wharf-debate---what-a-shambles This is a revealing insight into ARC cruise shp terminal thinking.

Queens Wharf - Has it come to this?

So here we have Queens Wharf, as ARC and the Government - according to its joint media release - would like it to be. The glowing thing is the plastic structure - aka the tent. Though we are told it is not a tent. It is a temporary structure that is not a tent. Apparently it can be slapped up and together for under $10 million. Cheap and reasonably tacky. There's a big screen outside on the end of Queens Wharf, and a possible Rugby Ball. September...

This is their conception of how it might look on the inside. A fairly transparent structure. One that can be taken down and relocated after the event. I was advised that the reason the cargo sheds needed to go to make room for it, is because they want the tent also to be used as a cruise ship terminal. Can't get away from that Cruise Ship terminal on Queens Wharf imperative...

I think Auckland will love hosting a Party Central. We did it during the America's Cup. Here's a picture of how they hosted America's Cup Party Central in Valencia: The Woolshed. A real kiwi idea. People could shelter from direct sunshine, or rain, or wind - but there was plenty of air blowing through...

This facility worked really well in Valencia. People loved it. It would work well on Queens Wharf too. In the old sheds. Big screens strategically placed. Some areas had seating, others a bit more casual. Needs to be good for families, for young people wanting a good time, for older people too. A people's place...

Lots of people will actually go to rugby matches (unlike the yachting where it's hard for people to get out there and watch a race - TV is better for most). But with seat tickets going for a King's Ransom for NZ's Rugby World Cup, and with matches happening all over the country, a lot of Aucklanders will be watching TV screens, just as they watched yachting in Valencia....

And it's quite fun to do that in a big group, especially when there are fans around from other countries doing the same - in the same space. So far, it is planned that surplus Rugby fan accommodation will be provided by a Cruise Ship moored at Queens Wharf. This will provide a critical mass of rugby fans, rights on the spot - could a be a few thousand - the Queens Wharf shed(s) could become their TV viewing room. Places where they can invite NZ guests, places where Aucklanders can go to enjoy the fun too. Because Queens Wharf will be very busy place with the comings and goings of fans and their friends and guests.

Have you been on Queens Wharf yet? Have you been inside the Sheds? Have you experienced the views? Hardly anybody has. So go donw there this Sunday. Anzac Day. And have a good look. Would you renovate the house you just bought before you've lived in it for a while. Not likely! Same goes for Queens Wharf. Auckland needs to live on it for a while. Auckland needs to feel what it's like to have Queens Wharf for public uses. We need to experiment. Before we do anything permament down there.

I've been lucky enough to have a walk-over. Before I did I thought we should bowl the sheds. But then I went into them.... This is the cast iron footing for one of the ceiling/1st floor supports....

And this gives an idea of the underside of the 1st floor. This picture gives no idea of size, but I reckon the joist timbers are around 50x20 cms. That's a very hefty joist.

And this picture shows a close up of the floor timbers. They look about the cross section of railway sleepers, and are coach-nailed into the joists. It was like walking on concrete. You had no idea it was a floor with a big open space below...

This long character-filled space was evocative of all the work that has gone on in there for almost a century. Apparently a lot of the work was about wool bales. Our own wool shed. Even with just a few sky-lights on a grey day the light was great...

Apparently the roof trusses, and probably quite a lot more of the original stucture, was floated out here from Britain complete. Just needed bolting together...

Party Central on Queens Wharf is a good idea. Kills lots of birds with one stone. Has many, many benefits for Auckland and for Aucklanders. Let alone the Rugby World Cup event.

Queens Wharf: ARC and Government JV Meeting on Thursday

A little bit of pre-amble first, to get to the point of this blog....

Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.

The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:

In terms of Queens Wharf, work will progress on the agreed option for the redevelopment of wharf for the Rugby World Cup.

One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.

The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."

This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.

The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).

In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).

The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.

Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"

The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.

The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.

This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.

A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.

There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.

I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.

At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.

In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:

In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the Chief Executive investigate an exclusive partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and Government and report back to Council in January 2010.

This motion refers to the development of Queens Wharf including the $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. Auckland City Council has clearly not supported that project. Now it appears the ARC and Government have set up an Unincorporated Joint Venture. However there was no report to Council in January - as decided in the resolution. Nor one in February. Now we hear informally about a meeting of this JV happening this week. Without the ARC receiving a formal report as agreed. Not good process.

Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.

ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....

So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.

So where are we now?

So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.

And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.

Not good process.

What will ARC's Regional Planning legacy be?

We had a meeting of the ARC's Regional Strategy and Planning Ctte this week where we discussed the future of the present review of Auckland's paramount planning document: The Auckland Regional Policy Statement. It is being reviewed now, consistent with legislation that required such a review at least every ten years.

The current review has been underway since November 2007. The issue ARC is now facing is that it will be abolished in a few months time. As the report notes:

At this juncture, the decision point is fast approaching as to what to do with the
proposed ARPS. The review commenced in November 2007, and in light of potential
legislative changes (Phase II reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA),
transport legislation and the Local Government Act (RM2U), new National Policy
Statements (NPS) and National Environmental Standards (NES)), along with
governance changes and the transition to the Auckland Council, it is timely to review
its progression.

The report contains some very robust statements about what the consequences are for regional planning of actions outside ARC's control such as supercity and government's legislative programme:

The governance changes will impact on the nature and form of all resource
management documents in the region. The third Auckland Bill was released on 10
December 2009. This outlines the contents and process for the new Spatial Plan.
Submissions to the Select Committee close on 15 February 2010. The timing of the
Phase II reforms to the RMA, transport legislation and the Local Government Act
(RM2U) is uncertain and their implication for the ARC’s planning documents
unknown.....

Phase II of the RM2U reform may alter the content that an ARPS can/may address,
particularly in regards to setting urban limits, land supply and housing affordability
issues, and in particular, freshwater management. No specific timeframe has been
given for these potential changes....

And in regard to supercity governance changes currently in the wind relating to the possibility of a spatial plan approach the report notes:

The development of a spatial plan clearly has implications for the role and scope of
the ARPS. The future of the proposed ARPS as a legacy item is not assured. It is not
drafted in a manner that reflects the governance and legislative changes outlined
above.

This is very serious stuff.

The ARC agreed to a process where we would adopt the ARPS, but not publicly notify it. Thus we would pass to Auckland Council an adopted draft, ready for its action.

Because I am aware that a huge amount of work has gone into the real core of regional planning in this review, I was anxious that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Leave it all a bit like a damp squib. The core issue has been planning for the staged redevelopment of Auckland's existing urban environment - through re-zoning, some medium and high density development - both for residential and employment generating activities, the roll out of high capacity public transport corridors.

This is critical work, which will need extensive consultation.

Potentially a very hot potato, but good work has been done and this needs to be packaged with the work done in the regional land transport strategy, and made available in a succinct way to the incoming Auckland Council.

The meeting was covered reasonably usefully by Bob Dey. You can see his report of the meeting at: http://www.propbd.co.nz/afa.asp?idWebPage=8338&idBobDeyProperty_Articles=13829&SID=513072092

Waitawa Regional Park Visit

On Thursday 28th January ARC Councillors and Parks staff went on a site visit to Waitawa Regional Park. You go through Clevedon to get there. It's in the South East of Auckland Region, within the jurisdiction of Manukau City Council. This parkland was purchased in 2004 and is not available for public use. Yet. This headland (Pawhetau Point) looks East over the inner Hauraki toward South Waiheke.

Parks Officer indicates the Northern headland (Koherurahi Point) of this 188 hectare regional park. Both headland areas include significant pa sites with Maori diggings, pits, fortifications evident.

In this close up of Northern headland (Koherurahi Point) , you can clearly see the jetty at the end. This is used by the current tenant of the land - Orica - an explosives manufacturer. Orica's tenancy is coming to an end in under 2 years. The size of the land area has enabled this dangerous practice to continue - vacant land provides a safety buffer in the event of a possible explosion.

A very high amenity beach lies between these two headlands. The northern end of the beach is surfaced with a light gravel, while the south end has soft Waitemata Sandstone subject to erosion. This photo was taken almost at low tide which shows why the beach will be a good all tide beach.

Here we are walking out onto the jetty - made of concrete materials and apparently in very good condition. Immediately to the left is a concrete boat launching ramp. The debate was about whether public could use the ramp to launch boats, whether ferries might call to drop visitors, or whether the wharf and vicinity should be for fishers and walkers and non-motorised recreation (kayaks etc).

Lots of talking and looking and listening...

Looking back to the Point from the wharf, this particular headland was a very significant pa site. It is now covered in old - past their use by date - pines. Removing them without damaging the land and diggings etc will be a challenge. There is a narrow one lane cutting through to the wharf, which provides very limited motorised transport access.

This is the beach on the other side of that headland, looking South. (Photo taken from inside the bus - sorry about reflection!). This is also a very pleasant beach about 400 metres long. White shell surface, but with Pacific Oyster clad rocks there at low tide. Not such a good beach for all tide access. Lots of parking here.

A major purpose of the site visit was to explain the land management issues that arise on the bulk of the parkland back from the coast. This land is intended for active uses like mountain-biking, horse-riding and such like. The land had been used fitfully for animal farming (grazing), and about 27 hectares is pine plantation.

A lot of the hillsides are covered in gorse. There is a current program of weedkilling, and then mulching on site. I wondered a bit about whether heavy rain might wash the exposed top soil and mulch off...

Here's a hillside of dead gorse, ready for mulching and clearance. The plan is to plant grass first, them sow some areas with Manuka seed to allow regeneration of bush. You can see in the left foreground an example of the weed species that have proliferated. The gum tree is OK!

A program of stump removal is also underway, along with the removal a rushes - shown here. Cllr Bill Burrell gives an idea of scale! The idea on this land is to enable pasture to grow - without stump holes and suchlike which can form safety risks to strolling park users.

Waitawa does contain some remnant areas of native bush which will be protected.

But the pine trees will be harvested to generate some revenue to pay for improvements to road access and suchlike. Some concern was expressed during the visit to a truly scorched earth approach to pine tree removal. Some consideration of visual landscape from the sea, sun shelter, and natural beauty on the park itself, suggested that some clusters or copses of pines might be retained, and other transitional measures considered.

Throughout the park, there are many gentle pathways, weathered fences, offering peace and tranquillity.

These contrast interestingly with the presence of a number of "brick shit-house" constructions used to store explosives.

There are a number of these very strongly constructed buildings on the park. And while Orica is under an obligation to remove such structures on the termination of its lease, there is an argument for the retention of some: they add historical interest and context; they may be able to be re-used a adapted for use by potential concessions (such as Kayak hire, Mountain bike club storage). During the visit we learned of a developing Kayak trail also...

Waitawa is really about the coastal landscape. Such potential. Everybody was keen to open it up to public access as soon as could safely be achieved. Even if only a part could be opened up...

Just a kilometre offshore you can see McCallum's Island. This is being quarried away under licence for paving materials. McCallum Chip. Sad really. To lose an island like that, and for that. There are a couple of interesting and substantial ship wrecks on the island (you can just make out the tip of the bow and stern of one of these wrecks on the left of this photo.)

Another view through gum tree trunks. That's Coromandel in the background.

Conversations will continue. Here's the site visit under the welcome shelter of 4 or 5 pine trees.

Parts of the landscape looked a bit like Central Otago. So dry and brown.

But I guess the rain will come sometime. And then the wetland area in the heart of Waitawa Regional Park will come to life and do its job of keeping the runoff nice and clean. No nitrate runoff here thank you very much. Not even from Orica's Ammonium Nitrate stores!

Puketutu - Not a Dump for BioSolids - So Far

On the 9th July 2009, independent commissioners - chaired by Leigh McGregor, declined Watercare's applications for consents needed to dispose of sewage biosolids into the quarry hole that will be left on Puketutu Island when Winstone Aggregates finish their rock quarrying operation there. I breathed a sigh of appreciation.

There is a god....

This project - continuously referred to as a "land rehabilitation" by Watercare - has been around for a while. ARC has been dragged into it - reluctantly as far as I am concerned, willingly as far as some others are concerned - because the temptation of a free regional park was dangled in front of it. Like this: Watercare buys the Island and uses a chunk of it as a biosolids dump, and ARC can have the balance for a regional park immediately, and the whole of it for park when the quarry hole is fully "rehabilitated"....

Stank, as far as I was concerned.

Made me think of Goebbels. He used to say, " if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Felt the same to me, the use of the word "rehabilitation" to describe the dumping of partly processed human sewage as a "beneficial use" of this material, as a good way of "rehabilitating" this hole in the Island.

Anyway, this picture comes from Watercare's website and is an aerial view of Puketutu. To the right, you can see the edge of watercare's Mangere Wastewater treatment plant. The sort of triangle area, also to the right, is the current Pond 2 Landfill site used to deposit biosolids now. It's capacity is to 2012 or thereabouts...
And, this picture shows Puketutu in the middle distance. The picture is taken from Mangere Mountain. In the background you can see the Waitakere's. And the Manukau Harbour is the water you can see. None of these pictures give a good idea of the topography of Puketutu. It is steep and undulating, and is about 140 hectares in area. It would make a fanatastic park. Views from it toward Manukau Heads are great. But please hold the biosolids...

I guess the decision will be appealed. But it must help push Watercare in a different direction. And about time. It's a worry with Watercare being supported as the vertically integrated entity in charge of all of Auckland's 3-waters, if it so resolute about least cost, business friendly approaches to water.

To quote summarised reasons for the decision to decline:

"...(a) There would be severe and irreversible adverse effects on the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the Island if this proposal was permitted to proceed;
(b) The proposal would have adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment and the cultural values of tangata whenua which are both matters of national importance and of regional significance. Therse effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;
(c) The properties of the biosolids are far from favourable, and will restrict the landform to a very flat, distinctly unnatural appearance, with prolonged and intrusive aftercare likely to be required;
(d) In purely physical terms consent to the proposal might be granted, subject in all respects to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, the purely physical considerations are considered to be far outweighed by the significant adverse effects that would be caused for matters of national and regional importance;
(e) The disposal of biosolids is not an appropriate way to "rehabilitate" Puketutu Island: it will degrade the island environmentally and leave it in a worse state than that prior to its "rehabilitation"..... etc

Just as an end note to this posting, I note that Auckland's wastewater system needs a policy upgrade. For a start the "trade waste" option of tipping heavy metals etc into the sewer, in exchange for a nominal trade waste fee, must be stopped. Sydney Water stopped this practice almost 20 years ago. Their goal was to reduce the heavy metal contaminants that render biosolids dangerous to life and healthy land. Stopping trade wastes would begin the slow process of creating a better quality organic biosolids that is more likely to be composted usefully with greenwaste and used as a soil conditioner. I appreciate there are challenges with this. But it is becoming the Western world norm to genuinely reuse biosolids, and to recycle their organic content back into the ground.