Submission: Economic Development Strategy

Introduction Auckland faces challenges because of its geographical remoteness (which is also a strength), small local economy (which produces independent and confident children), and small scale of businesses (which is useful in building start-ups which can then spread internationally). These words are partly drawn from the Auckland Council Draft Economic Development Strategy document section: Where Our Challenges Lie (Pg 27), which is the most honest and clear section of this narrowly focussed document. The document starts with a broad vision (Page 4), which then gets narrowed on Page 31 to a vision which requires: “…a step change in exports and internationalisation…” No other economic development visions are articulated. A vision based around a “step change in exports” necessarily involves an expansion in Port facilities. However there are other economic development visions which are not considered in this strategy. There are significant costs and dis-benefits associated with this single economic development vision, because of its narrow emphasis on Port expansion, which have not been articulated in the present draft economic development strategy. The following submission primarily relates to the Ports technical document entitled Waterfront Plan_Working Paper-Port (WPP). New Zealand needs a National Port Strategy – before Auckland agrees POAL's expansion plan There are many acknowledgements in the WPP of the infrastructural issues confronting New Zealand Inc of proceeding with uncoordinated development of New Zealand container handling capacity. That risk is container handling capacity in every port, price-cutting competition in every port, massive duplication in investment, and exporters and shipping companies laughing all the way to the bank. Section 4.2 of the WPP admits to: “Potential for duplication of infrastructure if investment is not co-ordinated…” This is a major problem for New Zealand and for Auckland. Arguably, the cost of port infrastructure is at least as important as roading infrastructure, whose development is closely coordinated by New Zealand Transport Authority. The WPP states at Pg 9 “…there is intense competition for container trade between POAL and Ports of Tauranga (POT)…” I can atest to that from my experiences as a Councillor on Auckland Regional Council (which owned POAL through its subsidiary Auckland Regional Holdings while I was a councillor from 2004 to 2010.) I received regular confidential reports outlining the negotiating strategy which was pursued by POAL and ARH, in the price war that emerged between POT and POAL in trying to gain the Maersk contract which was heavily driven by Fonterra’s desire to drive down the costs of its milk fat freight logistics supply chain. Their priority had no regard for the public cost of meeting that objective. The final price that was offered by POAL to Maersk was little more than $200/container, close to cost, and significantly lower than the handling charges over the Tasman which were nearly twice that. I well remember the justification for this cut-throat price from those in support of it: “it’s all about volume…”. However, whether it’s one million containers/year, or two million containers/year, the mathematician in me is acutely aware that one million times bugger all is still bugger all. The subsidy is born by the owners of POAL, and by those who need to share the transport corridors with all of these containers - many of which are empty, and by those of us who believe the uses of the Waitemata should be very carefully balanced. The WPP notes the existence of an ARH report prepared in 2009 which calls for: “a need to rationalise our port sector expansion, adopt a coordinated approach to infrastructure planning…”.

Submission 1: A partnership with central government and other New Zealand ports be established to rationalise port sector expansion and adopt a coordinated approach to port infrastructure planning.

Submission 1: Draft Auckland Plan

Introduction The Council is to be commended in planning for the Britomart Rail Loop project, and in clearly stating related implementation and funding strategies. This long term project can be a transformational for the city. However, every long term plan has short term objectives and short term projects which will inevitably come due for delivery before the Britomart Rail Loop. The Council’s plan integrity and prioritisation principles will be tested in these early projects. The Government Foreword to this first Auckland Plan is a surprisingly good read, and demonstrates a fundamentally correct understanding of what spatial plan is. At s.19 we read: “…spatial planning is fundamentally strategic and focusses on the long term development of cities and their communities…”, and at s.21 “…the Government believes that effective spatial planning has the potential to help realise these opportunities to improve Auckland’s economic and productivity performance and the efficiency of its urban form… and connectedness…” Again I reiterate that the proof of the pudding in this plan, will be in what is funded, and what is not funded in the early years. Early projects set the trajectory and the pattern for the future of Auckland Council. Citizens will be able to draw a line through the first initiatives and extrapolate into the future, make predictions, as to the likely future Auckland can anticipate – whatever the fine words are in the Draft Auckland Plan. Urban Expansion in Rural Villages With little justification, the Draft Auckland Plan (DAP) identifies Warkworth and Pukekohe as two of its 8 growth priority areas. This is more than a little concerning for those of us who have participated in the planning of Auckland Region for the past decade. These areas are outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). Warkworth is not on a public transport corridor. Helensville is also mentioned as a future area for similar treatment, and , like Warkworth, it is thirty kilometres or so outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit and not on a Rapid Transit quality public transport corridor. The DAP does not appear to distinguish between the type of growth or the different controls that might be appropriate for growth that would be enabled in those rural townships, compared to centres that are within the current MUL. My experience with growth in Albany, and with reaching settlement with Waitakere City Council over the way in which planning for future urban land there should be provided for, gives me cause for concern. I believe Auckland Council must treat these rural development opportunities with a great deal of caution if it intends to avoid the adverse effects that arise from poorly controlled urban expansion. I note that the DAP refers to staging and triggers for development. However, so too, did the plans for Albany, Hobsonville and Westgate. However those controls have had little effect on what happened. Most developers are determined to get quick returns from these new greenfield developments. Residential development goes in first, and the new owners commute into Auckland and further south for work. Once that has happened there is little stomach for the development of local built amenity (shops, cafes, commercial activity, light industrial places of employment….). Vancouver is an interesting exemplar for this matter. It has adopted what it calls “complete communities” approach to the planning of urban expansion. “Thus it has a strategy of “complete communities” and planning and development policies which support that strategy. The objective of “complete communities” is that each community develops so that there is enough local services, employment and basic retail to satisfy the needs of new residents. They don’t have to drive to get those services as soon as they move in. Of course residents can choose to go further afield if they want to, but they don’t need to. That is the essence of that approach to planning the development of new villages. New Zealand’s track record in the field of greenfield development is littered with examples of the market failure to provide for complete community outcomes. Any reliance on RMA planning instruments for these outcomes is destined to fail – simply because the RMA is a free-market development instrument. If the Auckland Council wants “complete community” outcomes – then it must plan appropriately for them. This same criticism and concern applies to land that can be, or is zoned urban within the MUL.

Submission 1: Planning for place-based projects needs to include robust staging criteria and prescriptions for development that will ensure the basic housing, employment, and social service needs of new communities can be met within or close to the newly developed places. This approach to be known as: Complete Communities.

Submission 2: Draft Auckland Plan

New ferry services at Takapuna I note the idea of a ferry service from Browns Bay, Takapuna through an into Auckland City has been included in the transport planning map. This idea has been around for many years and has had some supporters particularly before the Northern Busway and its extensive feeder bus service network was built. As former Chair of North Shore City Council’s Infrastructure Ctte, and of ARC’s Transport Cttes I would like to bring to Council’s attention these points: Before the Harbour Bridge was built, these places needed ferry services, because there were few alternative transport options to get to Auckland CBD. That changed when the bridge was built. Public attitudes to development on beaches has changed since the days of every beach having a wharf. The public want their East Coast Bays beaches kept free from development and activities which detract from the natural environment and peace and quiet. There will always be some who would like economic development opportunities that come with wharves, but I believe these desires are in the minority. Ferry services need to justify their costs. That means that patronage needs to be at a level that justifies the costs of building wharves and landside services - including car parking. The Devonport ferry service is successful in part because about 300 car parks are within a short walk of the ferry. That is not the case at Takapuna where parking space is at a premium, and much of it is valued by recreational boaties. A Takapuna ferry service would not be economic, and car parking would be insufficient. Significant investment has already occurred for Takapuna public transport services, especially to the Auckland CBD. These include the Busway, Takapuna Bus Station and buslanes, and Akoranga bus station. These services provide a 20 minute service between Takapuna and Auckland at nominal cost. Ferry from Takapuna to Auckland CBD would take around 30 minutes minimum (takes 12 minutes from Devonport), and cost more than a bus trip. Takapuna Beach is exposed to North Easterly wind conditions which is one reason it is a popular surfing break on several occasions each year. This suggests that Takapuna would struggle to provide regular “all weather services”. It is not sheltered. While engineers may be able to “build anything” such structures have their own adverse effects on views and recreational water. In my view the economic case for a Takapuna/CBD ferry service has not been made. It is a nice to have, but it is not a need to have. I would also remind Council of the very significant fight that would be fought with Takapuna residents and beach users should necessary consents be sought for an infrastructure required. This is not a high priority project.

Submission 2: Delete the Takapuna Ferry service proposal from the plan of works.

Submission 3: Draft Auckland Plan

Malls and Liveable Cities Probably the most sigificant issue that was debated during the various plan changes that accompanied the Local Government Auckland Amendment Act (2004) was over the planning for Malls. Painted by many as the harbinger of death to local shopping (as witnessed in Takapuna after the construction of its shopping mall, then at Milford after K Mart, then Glenfield’s mall experience, and big box shopping at Link Drive, which was eclipsed by Albany Mega Market….), malls are seen by many as the leading cause of failure of local high streets – with their mix of local shops and local social services, cafes and suchlike. Many point to the vibrant nature of high street shopping in much of downtown Wellington, and note the absence of mall developments. The question is, what is the Auckland Plan for Mall led developments in the growth areas? This is an omission which needs attention.

Submission 3: Provide an urban development policy for Malls in identified growth areas which will encourage the development of an active village or town centre “main street” environment.

Submission 4: Draft Auckland Plan

Parnell Railway Station The City Rail Link Plan map (Pg 166) shows a railway station at Parnell. As readers of this submission will be aware I am concerned that the particular location for this station that is being advocated for within Auckland Council is the location known as “Cheshire Street”. This option ranked bottom of a set of options that were canvassed by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, and Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) prior to the current re-organisation of Auckland local government. The main reason for the low ranking of the Cheshire Street option is that the location does not lend itself to the sort of redevelopment and intensification that has occurred around Newmarket and New Lynn Stations. In fact the Cheshire Street location fails a number of the tests for transport funding prioritisation that are set out in Box11.1 Principles (Pg 163) of the DAP. These include that: “transport investment aligns with growth as envisaged in this plan…”, “ ensure that proposed investment is used optimally…” and “take advantage of all opportunities for transport to assist in place shaping…” There may be some advocates who misread the last of these principles. They may interpret that principle as meaning that because Cheshire Street is an opportunity, then it must be taken advantage of. The problem with this logic is that if the Parnell Station is built at Cheshire, then it will mean that no other station will be built in the vicinity, thereby negating the significant opportunities that are known to exist at Carlaw park and at the Parnell Overbridge options.

Submission 4: Properly consider all options for a railway station at Parnell, taking into account the transport development principles of the Draft Auckland Plan, and taking account of previous work by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council and Auckland Regional Transport Authority, before committing to any construction work on a Parnell Railway station.

Sabotaging Parnell Station

Rumour has it that I am being charged with sabotage of the proposed Parnell Railway Station. Cllr George Wood is facing similar accusations. Apparently because he has written to the Auditor General expressing concerns about the way the Parnell Railway Station project is being gerry-mandered through Auckland Councillors and through Auckland Council processes.

A couple of weeks ago I did write to NZ Herald:

"So. Auckland Council and KiwiRail are full steam ahead with a railway station at Parnell which is in conflict with Auckland Spatial Plan criteria for prioritising infrastructure projects, and before consulting the public.

Not only that but Auckland Council and Kiwi Rail plan to shut down a crucial section of Auckland's rail network to railroad this project through before Christmas. It is hard to understand why Auckland Council would allow this abuse of process. The chosen site was ranked at the bottom of three Parnell Station options assessed by Auckland Regional Council last year.

This manipulation and speed has all the hallmarks of the political interference that foisted the costly Helensville rail service failure on Auckland three years ago. Don't let it happen, Auckland Council unless due process has been followed."

Sabotage? far from it. The truth of the matter is that I DO support a railway station at Parnell, but NOT the option that is being pushed through by certain Auckland Councillors.

I have provided the background to this project in previous blogs, and quoted from Auckland Regional Council reports which quite clearly DID NOT support the option that is now being pushed inside Auckland Council (ie the Cheshire Street option). In particular the ARC report stated:

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.

And this is the critical point. There is no evidence that intensification to justify a station can occur at this location. Those who advocate for the Cheshire option do it for the wrong reasons. They want to support the heritage buildings there - by building the Parnell Railway Station in the wrong place. I support heritage buildings. But they should not by themselves force Auckland Rail development nor the location of stations.

When you build railway station infrastructure you catalyse the transformation and development of a piece of city. Such as at Newmarket and New Lynn and Britomart. The Cheshire Street option can never be that. And its construction will undermine and sabotage the best option for Parnell and Auckland.

I would like to remind Auckland Councillors of its own Draft Auckland Plan. It states at s.197: "Critical infrastructure underpins Auckland's development...". And at s.198: "Investment must connect with the sequencing of development in the identified priority areas...". One of those priority areas is the City Centre - which doesn't include Parnell. So how does any Parnell Station jump that hurdle? And s.191 underlines that infrastructure investment policies: "...include optimising investment and ensuring that it delivers the greatest return...".

But the big policy commitment about railway stations is set out at s.172: "Intensification is encouraged around these stations as it will maximise infrastructure investments."

So. Councillors. Why push on with a Parnell Railway station option that will undermine this policy (because its location is not conducive to the scale of intensification and supportive land uses offered by other options)? Why push on with an option that will sabotage the possibility of a more appropriately located Parnell Station?

I support a railway station at Parnell. One that is consistent with Auckland Council's own Spatial Plan. That is why I hope to successfully sabotage the option currently lined up for Auckland Council endorsement. Before its hasty implementation sabotages the future development of Auckland Rail and land use in Parnell.