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.

Buggers Muddle on Queens Wharf

It's hard not to be a bit cynical about what's happening, or not happening, or planned, or not planned down at Queens Wharf. But it's good to see the Herald coming out strongly in support of the original Party Central idea.

I have been closely interested in the development of Auckland's waterfront, previously as a councillor, and now as a citizen on the sidelines. It seems a long time ago - but really it's only around two years - that PM John Key first announced his idea of Party Central on Queens Wharf. He saw a vision of an international party on Auckland's waterfront during the Rugby World Cup.

This was seized on by ARC's leadership as a way of getting ownership of Queens Wharf, with a chunk of Government money thrown in. $20 million of Govt money, and $20 million of ARC money. And it's right here that the lack of clarity began.

The ARC leadership really wanted Queens Wharf for a cruise ship terminal. A stonking big "world class" cruise ship terminal. And certainly not a terminal made from "cheap and nasty" sheds. So right there you had a two-faced idea.

Was it for Party Central? Or was it for a Cruise Shop (I mean Ship) terminal? I pushed for retention of the Sheds. We love our iconic sheds. Saw Party Central idea as critical to retaining them. Learned about Party Central around the America's Cup in Valencia.

Then two Ministers got involved. Gerry Brownlee and Murray McCully. To begin with it was mainly Murray. He hated the sheds too, and kicked the shit out of the NZ Historic Places Trust in a bullying effort to get them off the case. Even threatened their funding I understand, if NZHPT pursued registration of Queens Wharf and Shed 10. McCully came up with his own appalling idea. Man what a philistine.

At this point it is useful to remind ourselves of all the good ideas that came out of the woodwork in Auckland when there was a design competition. So many used the sheds in creative and vibrant ways.

Finally McCully and Chairman Lee resolved their differences in a classic compromise. It was all about saving two faces. So Auckland lost a Shed and got the McCully tent.

And now we have two more parties on the scene and two more faces that need saving. Gerry Brownlee (Mr Economic Development), and the Maori Party. According to Mike Lee in this morning's Herald the McCully tent was "always going to house a mix of entertainment, tourism information and industry promotion...".

First I knew.

But this is typical when you get a bunch of faces that need to be saved. A year ago we had one face saying: "Queens Wharf is the people's wharf" who was at the same time instructing architects to draw up plans for cruise ship terminals on BOTH sides of Queens Wharf. We still have that problem on Auckland Council, and added to that now we have Bob Harvey's enthusiasm for the pretty pastel advertiser pictures of the McCully tent, and we have Gerry Brownlee filling it up with business promotion and industry stands like a commercial exhibition. And off to one side - always off to one side - we have the Ngati Whatua waka.

Bugger's muddle. I can even feel the birth of a Waterfront Convention Centre....

The danger is that Auckland will do what it always does down on the waterfront, and that is let business and commercial interests dominate, and just leave a bit of space around the edge - the people's space - always a very narrow and dangerous edge close to the water - for the public.

I agree with NZ Herald: "Don't take the party out of Party Central!"

And I say loud and clear - Queens Wharf must be kept for the people of Auckland to congregate and celebrate and have their fun - and that must be its primary purpose in perpetuity.

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.

Government split over Queens Wharf Sheds?

Letters written by different Government Ministers underline the fact they are not all aligned behind Rugby World Cup Minister McCully's demolition derby vision for Queens Wharf...

I have been forwarded Ministerial replies written in response to letters from people concerned at proposals to dismantle/demolish/remove the Queens Wharf Sheds.

In a letter to one such concerned citizen signed by Minister for the Rugby World Cup Murray McCully, we read:

"....Both the government and the ARC recognise the need to take account of the heritage value of Queens Wharf. The ARC is workin with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to ensure that the historical significance of Queens Wharf is protected and promoted in its development. If the ARC decide that there are aspects of the sheds that deserve preservation, these matters will be considered as part of the removal process."

That same concerned citizen also received a reply from the Associate Minister of Tourism, because her original email was forwarded to him for his attention. The letter from the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Associate Minister for Tourism, contains the same paragraphs as the one from Minister for the RWC, but the paragraph above has been changed by Dr Jonathan Coleman to read:

"....I can assure you that both the government and the ARC recognise the need to take account of the heritage value of Queens Wharf. The ARC is workin with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to ensure that the historical significance of Queens Wharf is protected and promoted in its development. If the ARC decide that there are aspects of the sheds that deserve preservation, these matters will be considered as part of the Queens Wharf development process."

Spot the difference. Or am I getting desperate?

Two Faces Over Queens Wharf

These are the two faces of Queens Wharf today. Murray McCully is a Government Minister and Minister of the Rugby World Cup. Mike Lee is Chairman of the ARC. The Government owns 50% of Queens Wharf, and so does the New Zealand Government. An unusual arrangement to say the least. This blog provides some information and background to that arrangement and the relationship. In Mike Lee's 26th April report to the ARC Mike wrote about the media conference where the picture was taken: "At the well attended media conference, hosted by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Hon Murray McCully and myself, Mr McCully revealed plans for the government and ARC to build temporary ‘cruise terminal and entertainment facility’ in time for the Rugby World Cup. I stated that given the failure of leadership of the city’s mayors which meant a new cruise ship terminal was no longer feasible in the short term the ARC fully supported the government proposal which the government will pay for. Our preferred approach subject to consultation with the NZ Historic Places Trust is to dismantle the sheds and re-use salvageable materials in the permanent structure. Consultation will be undertaken in good faith not just on the future of the sheds but on all other historic features of the Wharf." The day before, Anzac Day, in his speech at the opening of Queens Wharf, Chairman Mike Lee ended with these words: "...today we begin a new chapter of Auckland's historical Queens Wharf - for nearly 100 years locked away - by opening it to the people once again. 2.75 hectares of superb public open space - close to the CBD and the Britomart Transport Centre - where people can come for passive recreation, to walk, to fish, to commune with the sea. Which we believe will enhance the quality of life for Aucklanders and our visitors. This is a legacy the ARC is beqeathing to the people of the region. The ARC trusts that the new Auckland Council, the new Super City will carry on our mission to redevelop the waterfront. But one thing we can be certain about - Queens Wharf as our 27th regional park if you will - will remain in the public ownership of the people of Auckland in perpetuity. My thanks once again to the government - to Prime Minister John Key and to Minister Murray McCully. My fellow Aucklanders - Queen's Wharf is now the Peoples Wharf." No mention of a cruise ship terminal in those words. Sounds like a park. If it was park any building - let alone 100 year old cargo shed heritage - would be guarded passionately. What is difficult to untangle in all these words is what is really happening. And what is rational and what is emotional. The whole Queens Wharf thing got legs to begin with when the PM spoke about "Party Central". He asked rhetorically, "where will everyone go to celebrate and have a good time when it's all on?" That was his question. At the time, Ports of Auckland were cash strapped, the stars aligned and the deal was done. But the deal has transmogrified and morphed as various other individuals and organisations have got their hooks into it. It has changed from Party Central to Primary Cruise Ship Terminal. How has this happened? Many ARC reports state opinions carrying the GUEDO signature. GUEDO is central government's office in Auckland. GUEDO stands for Government Urban and Economic Development Office. GUEDO is one of the organisations to have picked up Queens Wharf and turned it into an economic development project. An infrastructure project to promote and stimulate Auckland's economic growth and productivity. Somewhere along the way, after "the failure of leadership of the city’s mayors", the ARC decided to go it alone with the Government. The sequence of events leading to today began at a barely quorate meeting, just before Christmas, when the ARC voted: "In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the CEO investigate an exclusive partnership between the ARC and Government and report back to Council in January 2010." Then we had a wonderful summer in the sun. For a while. In January nothing happened. Nothing happened in February either, so I asked questions at a Council meeting where we were discussing the Annual Plan. A verbal update was provided to the effect that a Joint Venture was actually under way, and that it would be reported to a subsequent council meeting. Note here, that the December resolution called for the CEO to: "investigate an exclusive partnership". So then the ARC met in April 19th. That was the first Council meeting in 2010 where Queens Wharf and the Joint Venture was formally reported on the agenda. This was the meeting where ARC voted to approve: "the staged development of Queens Wharf to enable its use as a fan zone for Rugby World Cup 2011, and for the construction of the permanent cruise ship terminal to commence immediately after the 2011/12 cruise season", and to approve: "dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf". This latter decision was: "subject to the outcome of consultation with the Historic Places Trust". What is interesting about the attachments to the 19th April Council meeting report is that they include a signed Joint Venture Agreement between the ARC and the Government. This was the first sighting of this document by ARC Councillors. It had gone much further than "investigation". The Joint Venture Agreement was dated 26th March 2010. It was signed by ARC Chairman Mike Lee "for and on behalf of Auckland Regional Council", and by Murray McCully "for and on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand acting by and through Hon Murray McCully, Minister for the Rugby World Cup", and also by Gerry Brownlee in his capacity as Minister of Economic Development. "The purposes of the Joint Venture are: General: To hold and operate Queens Wharf and manage the development of it, for the benefit of the public; Specific: To manage the development of: i) an infrastructure legacy site for major events (commencing with the Rugby World Cup 2011) that presents an impressive image of the Auckland region and New Zealand as a whole; ii) a high quality cruise ship terminal facility that will provide economic benefits to the Auckland region and New Zealand as a whole; and iii) an impressive public open space that reflects New Zealand's culture and heritage...." The problem with this wishlist is the classic one of not being able to have your cake and eat it. You can't have the kind of cruise ship terminal that GUEDO wants on Queens Wharf - that is Auckland's Primary Cruise Ship Terminal - that supports Cruise Origination and Termination - and have the kind of open space described in these purposes. The uses are in conflict and there is not enough room. And it is ironic that the purpose speaks of a space that "reflects ... culture and heritage", but has in mind a space that is devoid of heritage buildings. The Queens Wharf Joint venture Agreement contains the sort of detail that might be expected in such a document, including the establishment of an Owners Committee which is quorate if the Minister of the Rugby World Cup and the the Chairman of the ARC are present. It is concerning to note however, that the agreement states that: "The decisions of the Owners Committee are binding on the parties. The parties must take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions. If a party cannot give effect to a decision after taking all reasonable steps, the matter must be referred back to the Owners Committee for reconsideration." The agreement goes on to provide for the existence of a Management Committee, whose first big job is the preparation of an Approved Business Plan", which must be prepared "at least 2 months prior to the end of each financial year". The Agreement defines that date as 30 June "unless otherwise determined by the Owners Committee". So where does that leave us all? Hard to say really. The ARC has not been asked to agree or endorse the Queens Wharf Joint Venture Agreement which has been signed on its behalf by its Chairman. The ARC has not been provided with a copy of the Approved Business Plan which should have been prepared a month ago. And which is important because the Agreement requires the ARC to: "take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions..." What has the ARC agreed to do on Queens Wharf? Be nice to know. It feels a bit like Government has found a way to control Auckland. And what if there's a dispute? Imagine that the ARC is being faced with staunch arguments from the Historic Places Trust in its consultation. Imagine that the ARC is under pressure to adaptively re-use the Sheds that are on Queens Wharf. A lot of pressure. How will that pressure affect the Minister for the Rugby World Cup? What are his obligations to understand the ARC's obligations? Interestingly, the Queens Wharf Joint Venture Agreement does have a tiny bit of light at the end of its rather dark tunnel. It says: "Any agreement entered into by the Joint Venture with a third party must not place a party in breach of any legislation applicable to it, including.... in the case of the ARC, the Local Government Act 2002." Thank goodness for that. But what if the parties agree something among themselves that has that effect? What if the ARC - aware of the deal its has signed up to with Government and the decisions that make up that deal - in its determination to "take all reasonable steps to give effect to those decisions", steps just a wee bit over the line. Like skimping on its public duties to consult over things like: Cargo Shed removal; deciding the temporary slug/tent replacement; providing Queens Wharf Development budgets; changing Auckland's cruise ship terminal locations and functions. And the word "skimping" is charitable. What then?

Party Central Will Happen at Queens Wharf

A good ten years ago it was fellow North Shore City Councillor Andrew Eaglen who - when schooling me in the art of being a councillor - advised: "... a good council meeting is one where a bad decision has not been made..."

I breathed a sigh of relief on Friday. A bad decision had not been made. Government has committed to Party Central on Queens Wharf - but no big cruise ship terminal.

It's media release - under the name of the Hon Murray McCully states:

Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully says the Government and the Auckland Regional Council are "fully committed to delivering Party Central at Queens Wharf in Auckland for next year’s Rugby World Cup", but have decided to delay the construction of a cruise terminal until after the event....

“While there is clear public support for a cruise terminal it is also clear that the debate has left some with a concern that the proposal might be rushed in order to meet the World Cup timetable next year. For that reason the Government and the ARC have decided to delay the development of a cruise terminal until after the World Cup.

"In the meantime, the Government and the ARC will work in partnership to deliver Party Central on Queens Wharf. We want Aucklanders and the city’s visitors to be able to enjoy a new public entertainment space that was purchased as a legacy asset.

“We will also put in place temporary cruise facilities of a suitable standard to ensure that our reputation does not suffer during the period of intense cruise activity next year....

While the ARC's media release on Friday states:

"The ARC is very pleased to be working in partnership with the Government to deliver party central on Queens Wharf in time for the cup,” ARC Chairman Mike Lee said.

“We are disappointed – due to the negative attitude of some Auckland mayors – that we’ll be unable to develop a permanent cruise ship terminal within the same timeframe. However, we will make sure appropriate facilities are available on the wharf to cope with the cruise ships being used as hotel accommodation during the cup....

“The ARC will throw Queens Wharf open to the public in April. This will remind everyone what a great asset the ARC and the Government have bought for Auckland, and how proud we will all be once Aucklanders can again get close to the harbour and ships,” said Mr Lee.

It has been interesting and frustrating time, as this Auckland story has surged along with a momentum all of its own. ARC's 8th Feb media release is a salutory reminder...:

It’s encouraging to see Auckland mayors supporting moving ahead with a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf, ARC Chairman Mike Lee said today.

“The ARC and Government bought Queens Wharf so Auckland and the rest of New Zealand could capitalise on the country’s growing international cruise ship industry.

“We also bought it to open up access to the waterfront so Aucklanders and visitors to the region could make the most of an outstanding venue for events, and as a public place just to relax and enjoy the harbour.

“The ARC has been absolutely consistent about the need for a decent cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf. This is why we and the Government bought it.

“While earlier designs were disappointing, I am confident the latest design options for Queens Wharf have considerable potential to match this superb location,” said Mr Lee.

“However, as we have stated consistently, we need to look carefully at the cost and ensure what is built provides value for money in the long run.”

Auckland is expecting 60 cruise ship visits this season – including the Queen Mary II – and 71 next season. February is the busiest month. Seven cruise ships will visit Auckland this week – on three of those days two cruise ships will be in at the same time. Last week there were three cruise ships in Auckland at once.

Research done by the ARC, Government and Auckland City Council shows that on average, each cruise ship passenger spends between $200 and $300 in Auckland each day they are here.

Government research shows the cruise ship industry contributed $117 million to GDP during the 2007-2008 season.

“This research shows without question just how important the cruise ship industry is. It would be silly to allow petty politics and political campaigning to delay Auckland having a welcoming, world-class cruise ship terminal that would enable the city and country to take full advantage of growth in the industry and tourist dollars,” said Mr Lee.

It is interesting to note that a number of New Zealand ports are visited regularly by cruise ships as they make their way around our coastline. It's not just Auckland that is thinking about this stuff.

For example, the Dawn Princess and the Sun Princess both promote tours that include Sydney and Melbourne, and which visit, in New Zealand: Fiordland, Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Napier, Gisborne, Tauranga, Auckland, and the Bay of Islands.

Here is how the Cruise Ship program promotes the various New Zealand ports of call in their brochure:

Day 4 Monday February 8, 2010 Fjordland National Park
Today we cruise through some of the most spectacular scenery in New Zealand as we visit Milford, Dusky and Doubtful Sounds. These spectacular fjords will be a highlight of the cruise, with spectacular scenery and fascinating wildlife. The day will be free for you to enjoy the grand views or take part in some of the many activities available aboard Sun Princess.

Day 5 Tuesday February 9, 2010 Dunedin (Port Chalmers)
We arrive in the city of Dunedin this morning. Originally founded by Scottish settlers and known as the “Edinburgh of the South”, it now consists of beautifully preserved buildings overlooking parklands. We will visit the historic Jacobean style Olveston House, containing a treasure trove of art and antiques, as we explore this attractive city.

Day 6 Wednesday February 10, 2010 Christchurch (Akaroa)
Today we call into the village of Akaroa. Originally founded by the French, it is now a delightful town, still retaining the ambience of France. We have a sightseeing tour of Christchurch with its very English feel. It is the largest city on the South Island of New Zealand. The city boasts modern architecture and historic buildings set against beautiful parks, gardens, rivers and beaches. We return to Akaroa where there will be some time at leisure.

Day 7 Thursday February 11, 2010 Wellington
Today we will have a sightseeing tour of the main sights of Wellington including the Houses of Parliament known as “the Beehive”. We visit Mount Victoria, where we have 360 degree views of the city, then travel by cable car to the Botanical Gardens.

Day 8 Friday February 12, 2010 Napier
Today we visit the city of Napier. We will have a city tour, during which our local guide will provide in depth information about Art Deco style architecture of the city. We will see the National Tobacco building and many shops and houses designed in this popular 1930s style. In February 1931, an earthquake registering 7.9 on the Richter scale levelled almost all the buildings of Napier and raised the sea bed by two and a half meters.

Day 9 Saturday February 13, 2010 Tauranga
We arrive in Tauranga this morning. Tauranga has a thriving commercial and business centre and is a very busy port. Dominating the scene is the harbour and Mount Maunganui. We travel to Rotorua, a small city on the shores of Lake Rotorua, where we explore the geothermal activity of geysers, boiling mud pools and steaming craters. We will see a geyser display, where boiling water shoots many metres into the air and the blue and green lakes named for their reflective qualities.

Day 10 Sunday February 14, 2010 Auckland
Auckland is the largest city and commercial centre of New Zealand. Our morning city
tour takes in the main sights of Auckland, including the Harbour Bridge, which spans the beautiful Waitemata Harbour, Mount Eden, where we get a panoramic view of the city, the Auckland Museum and the quaint and stylish shopping area of Parnell. We will board the Sun Princess early afternoon. Be up on deck as we sail out of the gorgeous Auckland harbour at 6.00pm

Day 11 Monday February 15, 2010 Bay of Islands
Today we call into the far north of New Zealand and visit the spectacular Bay of Islands. We have a morning sightseeing tour and we visit Waitangi House, overlooking the Bay of Islands, where on February 6th, 1840, that the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed between Maori and the British Crown. The Treaty House – built for the first British Resident, James Busby and his family is one of New Zealand’s oldest and most visited historic homes. The afternoon is free....

It is interesting to read what how the industry sees each of these "destinations". What is attractive. What is the reason to visit. I hope that one day, Auckland's waterfront will rate a mention as a key attraction. And I emphasise - just having a cruise ship terminal does not a waterfront make.

BTW, I was talking to someone involved in the Christchurch/Lyttleton cruise ship terminal project: should we have a fancy cruise ship terminal - or not. Economic advice for the Port Company - assuming about 60 cruise ship visits annually - was that there was economic justification for the port company to build a $15 million cruise ship terminal. Then, if you added the economic benefit arising from the spending of cruise ship passengers in Christchurch, there was a further economic justification of an additional $10 million investment in a cruise ship terminal. This gives a total of $25 million for a cruise ship terminal - based on their economic evaluation.

And a further BTW. Here's my anecdotal experience of what cruise ship passengers do. One indicator of how they spend their money, is based on the ferry loads who go over to Devonport Wharf, and the Village. I usually get my hair cut on the Devonport Wharf. There's a Navy Haircut establishment there. Also does Blue Rinses (I don't get those. Yet.) When there's a cruise ship in, there's a queue of cruise ship women waiting for a blue rinse. The hairdresser told me the secret: "I do them for $25, but it costs them $50 on the ship...". Hardly spend-thrifts! And apparently the other indicator is the steady procession of cruise ship passengers trudging back and forward along Quay Street going to the Supermarket. Cheap wine or gin maybe? I know these are anecdotal. But these observations hardly support the assertion that cruise ship passengers each "...spend $300 a day..." when they are in Auckland.

Anyway. Friday was a good day. We didn't make a bad decision.