Parnell Station - Shakespearean Tragedy

More than a few planners regard the proposed Parnell Railway station - and the process used to secure it - as another Auckland Shakespearean tragedy....

A few weeks ago I gave some background detail.

Last week there was a helpful NZ Herald article explaining the relentless steps being progressed by Auckland Council to get this third-rated option off the starting blocks. It mentioned that a barrister had been retained to determine whether the related need to modify the rail designation should be notified. Apparently land needed to be taken from the Domain to allow for a wider track footprint. And so the designation needed to be modified. So I wrote to the lawyer, David Kirkpatrick as follows:

David,

I see you have been appointed to determine whether the Parnell designation application should be notified. This project has vexed me for the past year - because I am very familiar with it - having watched its birth at ARC. It is a project that is being driven by politicians rather than by planners, and large sections of the community are not aware of what is at risk.

The main planning issues with the proposed location and the planning process include:

- it was regarded as the least successful of 3 Parnell Station options - in terms of being able to trigger a TOD and associated medium density - work was done by both Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council staff that confirms this (a crucial timing issue being whether it would be possible to rezone land around the Cheshire St location to ever enable the sort of development that would support a TOD, compared with the other options). (There are ARC and Auckland City Council reports to this effect - which you should have.)

- the project has never been publicly consulted - in terms of location or funding - in terms of the LGA, or in terms of RMA.

- it is being consulted now in the Draft Auckland Plan, but no alternatives have been presented in that consultation. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt that poor consultation by not notifying the designation and thereby keeping the alternatives under wraps.

- it conflicts with the priorities set out for infrastructure development in the Draft Auckland Plan, and thereby is likely to lead to a situation that there will never be a station built in a Parnell location which will best contribute to city development plans. (You can see a link to my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan in that regard - in the blog links below.)

The drive for the proposed location has primarily come from those who wish to protect the existing heritage buildings on that site, and to justify the co-location there of the old wooden Newmarket railway station building. This idea has its supporters.

However in my view these objectives, including the notion that the museum will be easily walkable, are far outweighed by the public interest arguments and strategic planning arguments of locating the Parnell station at one of two alternative locations recommended by Council officers.

You can see more detail on the following blogs:

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2011/09/parnell-pet-project-politics.html

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2011/10/sabotaging-parnell-station.html

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2011/11/submission-4-draft-auckland-plan.html

Regards, Joel Cayford

And almost immediately, I got this email from an Auckland Council official:

Hi Joel,

Your email below has been forwarded to me for a response.

As you are aware from today's Herald article, Mr Kirkpatrick is one of the commissioners delegated with making a decision on the notification of the alteration of the rail designation in Parnell.

You sent the below email to Mr Kirkpatrick this morning. The commissioner concerned did not read your email.

With your vast local government experience you will be aware that the commissioners have been delegated to make this decision and it is one that has no requirement for consultation. Therefore, I believe that your email to the commissioner providing your opinion and information was inappropriate. The decision making process in Council must be robust and not called into question.

I ask that you not contact the commissioners regarding this in the future.

Happy to discuss if you wish.

Regards,

Jason Marris | Hearings Manager
Democracy Services

That was interesting. Put me in my place. That's what you call a non-notified decision. Even though it gets a decent mention in NZ Herald it still means: "if you have a concern, keep it to yourself...."

I particularly like Jason's comment: "The decision making process in Council must be robust and not called into question...." Hear hear and amen to that. Fact is, council's decision-making relating to this particular project is political and personal (not robust) and very questionable.

The tests as to whether a designation should be changed are onerous. I feel that if it is good enough for Council to ensure David Kirkpatrick's independence, then it is good enough for me - and the public - to know what information was provided to David Kirkpatrick - both as to whether the decision should be notified or not, and subsequently, should that happen, whether the designation should be modified.

So I have written under LGOIMA for the information that was provided to David Kirkpatrick, by Auckland Council, and upon which he will have made his recommendations.

Will keep you informed.