Steps toward a Permit to Pollute (1)

I have written to Auckland Councillors and to Watercare (see below) stating that I am at a loss to understand how Winstone Aggregates obtained consent to dump “cleanfill” with elevated levels of contaminants in the Three Kings Quarry.

In this blog I explore the ARC officer’s report which formed the basis of commissioner decisions made late 2010. The report is dated 3 June 2010. You can download it here.

It appears that Winstone Aggregates first sought consent from Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council in 2009. A Joint Hearing was conducted in late October, early November 2009. Winstone Aggregates required a land use consent from Auckland City Council (change of land use, truck movements etc), and two resource consents from ARC. One of these permits (36221) relates to earthworks on the 14 ha site. The other is a permit (36222) to discharge contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill. These permits were granted subject to conditions.

Then – and this is where it gets a bit murky – in Winstone Aggregates applied for a further consent from ARC. This was notified in 8th April 2010. This new permit (37770) appears to differ from 36222 (granted in 2009) in one crucial respect.

36222 related to the discharge of contaminants onto or into land from a cleanfill, whereas 37770 relates to the discharge of contaminants to land and / or water from a filling operation.

It appears therefore, that someone, somewhere, recognised belatedly that additional consent was required for the discharge of contaminated water. This appears to have been because some of the cleanfill: “may have contaminants above the natural background levels occurring at the site. The applicant indicated that typically this will be the case for about 15-20% of the materials received and the elevated concentrations in these materials will be about 20-25% high than natural background levels…”

The officer’s report relating to the new resource application contains the following information. And I quote:

6.6 The groundwater quality at the Three Kings Quarry dewatering bore is monitored on a regular basis…. The water is of potable quality…

12.1 Fill materials will be brought to the site in accordance with acceptance levels… based on levels that accord with the upper limit of the volcanic range for soil background levels throughout Auckland Region…. However it is noted that the actual background levels at Three Kings are lower or much lower than the upper volcanic levels throughout the Auckland Region….

12.3.5.2 The leaching of contamination from the materials used to fill the quarry has the potential to impact on the groundwater quality…

Table 4. Fill Acceptance concentration (Part 1). These are scans from the report.

Table 4. Fill Acceptance concentration (Part 2). TPH by the way are hydrocarbons. The way I read this it appears that up to 5,600 mg/kg can be dumped. Not sure how that works. That's more than 5 grams per kilogram. So more than .5% of hydrocarbons allowed. Almost enough to establish an oil well!

12.3.9.2 Groundwater modelling was carried out…. Based on all scenarios the final groundwater concentrations pf the majority of trace elements, for example, arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, lead and zinc, were lower than respective NZ drinking water maximum allowable values… the only exception to this was copper, with concentrations slightl exceeding… the trigger value, and this was caused by slightly elevated copper levels that are already present in existing groundwater concentrations.

There is no discussion in the report of the impact of these changes to groundwater on the aquifers that these groundwaters reccharge. There is a clear statement that copper levels are already elevated. This is the tip of the iceberg of cumulative pollution to aquifers. It is always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just as the last dairy farm kills the river – even though by itself its adverse effects are said to be “less than minor”.


Auckland should not be condoning - in any shape or form - activities which permit new contaminants to add to the contaminant loading already building in our underground water resources. It has to be stopped.


And before this blog gets out of hand I will note some of the conditions attached to the permit that was granted. My understanding is that conditions should be meaningful and enforceable. Yet here ARC essentially allows Winstone Aggregates to carry out their own tests on test waters, to only check 1 in every 150 truckloads of fill dumped there, and to run the landfill without a liner (as there is in other major landfills around Auckland), and without a leachate collection system.

This is a bad joke for Auckland. Amounting to a permit to pollute.

"Crap Tax" to buy off Puketutu Tangata Whenua?

You can tell, can't you, that this blog is going to be a crap one.

Having been immersed in North Shore City's sewage for the best part of 6 years while I was a councillor there, and having been involved as a commissioner consenting an extension to Watercare's current disposal to Pond 2 Landfill in the Manukau Harbour, I have learned a lot about what we do here in Auckland, and what they do in more civilised parts of the world.

The United Nations Environment Programme has spent time analysing this issue too. They have produced An Introductory Guide To Decision-Makers, entitled: Biosolids Management: An Environmentally Sound Approach for Managing Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge. The introduction to this guide is helpful and brief:

"...Throughout North America and Europe, the application of biosolids to land is continuing to increase. As shown in Table 1, current biosolids applications to agricultural land in Europe and North America has become significant.
Although biosolids disposal in a landfill site is common, it should not be viewed as a long term solution. This option is considered to be environmentally beneficial only when such disposal includes methane gas recovery for application as a fuel. Modern landfills are complex and costly facilities to build and operate. They must be carefully engineered and monitored to ensure protection of both groundwater and surface water. In many locations, accessible, long-term landfill capacity is limited. Engineering and siting requirements can make the construction of new landfills prohibitively expensive. Most importantly, landfill disposal does not take advantage of the nutrient value and soil-building properties of biosolids, and takes up landfill space that can be better used for other materials. However, landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste and municipal authorities are unable to monitor and control industrial discharges...."

This table is salutory. Auckland puts 100% of our biosolids in a landfill. Quite close to Greece at 97%. But the OECD average (based on this country list) is 43%. We would quite like NZ to shoot up the OECD charts when it comes to GDP, but we're quite happy it seems, to languish at the bottom of the list when it comes to crap. Makes our slogan and brand "100% Pure" seem a bit hollow doesn't it? But it's the last sentence in that quote above that you need to stare at: "...landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste..." Sydney is a great example of a city that has gone to great lengths to get industrial waste out of its sewers. Metals like Chromium, Mercury, Zinc, Lead and Copper are all banned from Sydney sewers. I've seen Sydney's biosolids mixed with green waste, composted, and used as soil conditioner. But we can't do that with our biosolids because we contaminate them. Here in Auckland we actually make money from dumping industrial wastes into our drains. Or to more precise, Watercare Services Ltd makes money from it. Under Auckland's ancient system of trade waste permits, polluters are able to tip their industrial wastes down the drain, pay a fee to Watercare, and she'll be right mate. Don't you worry about it anymore. We'll sort it out, and thanks for the fee. So Third World. So banana republic.....

The revenue stream that Watercare collects from Trade Waste fees is a nice little earner. Subsidises all sorts of other activities and that's probably a good thing. But it means that Watercare has an excuse not to do the right thing. It has to find a hole in the ground to put Auckland's crap - albeit processed, methane extracted, partly dried, and lime added.

The problem for Watercare, and for Auckland, is that the Pond 2 Landfill in Manukau Harbour is filling up, and so Watercare applied for consent on 10 November 2008 to put Auckland's biosolids in a quarry on Puketutu Island in the Manukau harbour. There's been lots of news about this in NZ Herald, and there are other blogs of mine about it.

Commissioners hearing the consent application declined it. Among their reasons were:

(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 of regional significance. These effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;

(c) The properties of 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...

And so it goes on. Needless to say, Watercare has appealed this decision, and the matter is in front of the Environment Court. Mediation proceedings are underway...

In the background there have been a number of curious games underway. One of these has the ARC taking over the Island when the quarry has been filled up, and turning it into a Regional Park. This suggestion has the ARC getting the park for nothing. There is a little conflict of interest of course - because it's the ARC that's one of the consenting authorities for Watercare's biosolids disposal application.

The other game is one between iwi and Watercare. ARC has been kept a little bit in the loop about this, and I understand Watercare wants to come and talk to us about their updated plan in a few weeks. However all of this is happening far below the public radar, and I think it stinks.

Watercare is acting independently, unaccountably, though it will argue it is acting in Auckland's best interests. Across Auckland there is enormous pressure to resolve outstanding court appeals and environment court proceedings. (I think that some of these have lingered far too long and lawyers have got rich out of delays in resolution.)

But is it right that the process of transition to one Auckland Council should mean that an issue like the long term management of Auckland's biosolids should be rushed through in a quick expedient settlement? I don't think so. I think we need to clean up our act, and this is the time to be doing it.

However, and this is the nub of this blog, on Thursday 15 April, 2010, Watercare Services Ltd, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Incorporated, and Makaurau Marae maori Trust Incorporated (the parties) signed a document entitled Puketutu Island Heads of Agreement.

Among other things the parties agreed that:

• Puketutu Island is to be owned by Tangata Whenua;


• There will be an operating licence fee of $2 per tonne (plus GST if any) of biosolids placed there, for 30 years;


• The operating licence fee is to be ring-fenced for Tangata Whenua;


• Parties to agree that Environment Court appeals to be resolved by consent order...

So that is the price of "...the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the island..."

Two dollars for every tonne of crap dumped there. A maori crap tax.

Public Consultation about Queens Wharf

Many people are asking the question: why does Queens Wharf have to be a cruise ship terminal? Many people - and organisations are asking the same question. Some are asking how the decision got made, who made it, and whether there was appropriate consultation.
In an earlier blog I wrote about the sequence of confidential meetings and processes that have occurred, leading up to today. This is at:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/05/queens-wharf-chronology-of-confidential.html

But the ARC has to fund what it does, and its annual funding plans must be put out to the public in a very formal way for consultation. There are processes for that and they are defined in the Local Government Act. Major issues are also put out for public consultation before decision.

The outcome of Auckland's major consultation about how the waterfront should be developed, and what wharf should be used for what activity, was called Waterfront Vision 2040. It resulted from a widely distributed consultation document called Linking People, City and Sea, which was used to get feedback from stakeholders and the public. This feedback was used to create Auckland's regional policy for the waterfront, which, to repeat, was called Waterfront Vision 2040.

The table below compares what was written in those two documents about Queens Wharf and about a possible Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal:

Waterfront documents	Linking People, City and Sea	Waterfront Vision 2040
Queens Wharf	...no mention...	"Queens Wharf will continue to be used for port operations over the short to medium term, in particular for noncontainer based cargo. However, alternative uses will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions. Ideas include providing public access, public spaces, a continual link between Queen Street and the waterfront, reconfiguring the wharf structure to create a new town basin, an iconic building, extending ferries and water taxis, entertainment and a mix of activities."
Cruise ship terminals	...no mention...	Only mentions Princes Wharf cruise ship terminal

The point being that no public comment or suggestion was made in the above consultation process to the effect that anyone, anywhere was thinking Queens Wharf might or could be used as cruise ship terminal. If any interested person picked up a copy of Waterfront Vision 2040 and read it, wanting to learn about cruise ship terminals, they would understand that activity happened on Princes Wharf and was not part of the plan or public policy for Queens Wharf.

This next table illustrates how the Queens Wharf picture changed when the ARC put out its Long Term Council Community Plan 2009/2019 - as required by the Local Government Act. In effect ARC's LTCCP is its annual budget for the coming year, but also contains estimates for the subsequent 9 years. The law requires ARC to publicly notify a draft LTCCP for public comment. This happened sometime in March 2009. ARC then considered the feedback, made changes in line with that feedback, and then adopted the final LTCCP. This would have happened toward the end of June 2009.

ARC LTCCP 2009-2019	Draft LTCCP	Adopted LTCCP
Queens Wharf	...no mention...	Chapter 1/Introduction: This LTCCP includes $20 million for the joint purchase of Queens Wharf with the Government, to ensure it is opened up for public access and developed into a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. The transfer of ownership will take place in the second quarter of 2010, giving time for the wharf to be developed as a public venue for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The ARC’s contribution to the purchase comes from a drawdown from Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH).
Cruise Ship Terminals	Chapter 1/Introduction: ...no mention... Chapter 1/Direction: ...In addition, the ARC is working on plans for the provision of improved facilities for cruise ships in Auckland.	Chapter 1: This LTCCP includes $20 million for the joint purchase of Queens Wharf with the Government, to ensure it is opened up for public access and developed into a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. Chapter 1/Direction: This LTCCP includes a $20 million drawdown from Auckland Regional Holdings (ARH) to fund the joint purchase of Queen’s Wharf, with the Government. Queen’s Wharf will be opened for public access in time for the Rugby World Cup 2011 and developed as an international-standard cruise ship terminal.
Cruise ship terminal funding	...no mention...	Chapter 5/Financial Information: The LTCCP includes the Council’s decision to purchase, along with the New Zealand Government, Queen’s Wharf from Ports of Auckland Limited, with the intention that Queen’s Wharf be developed for public access and also as of a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. This LTCCP includes the half share of the purchase price of Queen’s Wharf. However, it does not include the costs of developing Queen’s Wharf as it is assumed that these costs will be met by the Government and/ or Auckland City Council. Nor does it assume any revenue from the development, as the exact nature of those developments has not been decided. It is also assumed that the cost of ongoing maintenance of Queen’s wharf will be fully met by Ports of Auckland Limited and by the cruise ship terminal operator. Therefore maintenance costs are not included in this LTCCP.

As you can see, the Adopted Plan (LTCCP) is significantly different from the Draft Plan. This is not unusual. The world does not stand still between when a plan is put out for consultation and when it is adopted. It takes three months. And in these three months PM John Key put forward his suggestion that Queens Wharf would make a great party central for the Rugby World Cup. Ports of Auckland needed cash quickly. And the deal was done.

However the explanation in the adopted LTCCP also states that: "Queens Wharf would be developed as a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand". This is a sweeping statement that directly contradicts the public policy position that was developed and promulgated in the Waterfront Vision 2040 exercise. Without any public policy change process. There is no opportunity for the public to look at and comment upon the adopted plan. The ARC is entrusted to take account of public feedback on the draft plan, and act on that. But it went much further and decided, unilaterally, that Queens Wharf should be a "premier cruise ship terminal for NZ."

While it is understandeable and appropriate for the adopted LTCCP to provide for the purchase of ARC's share of the wharf, it is not an appropriate vehicle to effectively change public policy, and announce it as a fait accompli. There was no consultation over this change in public policy. There was no opportunity for the public to be consulted over this change of direction. There was no public exercise considering cruise ship terminal options.

This final table (below) shows how the ARC has used this year's Annual Plan process to add another unconsulted decision on top of its unilateral 2009 decision to develop Queens Wharf as a cruise ship terminal. Rubbing salt into the wound.

This year's Annual Plan effectively deals with the final four months of ARC's existence before it is amalgamated with other city councils into the Super City Auckland Council. It covers July to October 2010. It is still referred to as the 2010-2011 Annual Plan. What makes this Annual Plan process different to other years is that ARC can adopt it by resolution following minimal consultation (little more than putting it up on its website) - but ONLY if the Annual Plan is consistent with the LTCCP. You can see below that the Draft Annual Plan was much the same as the adopted LTCCP. It was reasonably consistent with it.

But the Adopted Annual Plan is not. It contains a new $4,431,000 provision for "Wharves". I asked about it at a Council meeting, and was advised by the CEO that "it was for maintenance". However the Financial Statements explicitly state that: "maintenance costs are not included in this LTCCP (sic)", but that the Annual Plan: "does include costs relating to the initial development of the wharf for the Rugby World Cup."

I would not be unhappy for ARC to spend public funds on sprucing up Queens Wharf for Party Central if we'd asked the public about that. But it is downright irresponsible to commit ARC funds for that purpose when Auckland City Council has already properly consulted its ratepayers and allocated budget for the same job!

In this Annual Plan ARC has effectively voted to dismantle (demolish) Queens Wharf's 100 year old cargo sheds. This money, this ARC $4,431,000, is ear-marked to pay for the destruction of waterfront heritage that an increasingly vocal public want protected, re-used and restored.

ARC Annual Plan 2010-2011	Draft Annual Plan 2010-2011	Adopted Annual Plan 2010-2011
Queens Wharf Cruise Ship terminal	Chapter 1/Exec Summary: Last year the ARC, together with the Government, purchased Queens Wharf to open it up for permanent access, and to build a cruise ship terminal for the growing cruise ship industry, and for Rugby World Cup activities.	Chapter 1/Exec Summary: Last year the ARC, together with the Government, purchased Queens Wharf to open it up for permanent access and to build a new cruise ship terminal for Auckland. The ARC and the Government recently announced plans for a temporary structure on Queen's Wharf as part of the 'fan zone' for the Rugby World Cup celebrations. The temporary structure will be able to service two cruise ships during the event. It is intended that the wharf will be further developed after the Rugby World Cup.
Planned Queens Wharf cruise ship terminal related activities	...no mention...	Chapter 2/Built environment: What we want to achieve - progress with the implementation of the Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040. Wharves $4,431,000
Cruise ship terminal financial information	Chapter 3/Financial Information: The draft Annual Plan 2010/11 reflects the Council’s purchase, along with the New Zealand Government, of Queen’s Wharf from Ports of Auckland Limited, with the intention that Queen’s Wharf be developed for public access and also as of a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. This draft plan does not include the costs of developing Queen’s Wharf. It is also assumed that the cost of ongoing maintenance of Queen’s wharf will be fully met by Ports of Auckland Limited and by the cruise ship terminal operator. Therefore maintenance costs are not included in this LTCCP...	Chapter 3/Financial Information: The draft Annual Plan 2010/11 reflects the Council’s purchase, along with the New Zealand Government, of Queen’s Wharf from Ports of Auckland Limited, with the intention that Queen’s Wharf be developed for public access and also as of a premier cruise ship terminal for New Zealand. This draft plan does not include the costs of developing Queen’s Wharf. It does include costs relating to the initial development of the wharf for the Rugby World Cup 2011. It is assumed that the cost of ongoing maintenance of Queen’s wharf will be fully met by Ports of Auckland Limited and by the cruise ship terminal operator. Therefore maintenance costs are not included in this LTCCP...

The public have not been asked their views about these matters in accordance with the Local Government Act. That is why they are grumpy.

How Queens Wharf is used, and what happens to any heritage part of Queens Wharf, should be dealt with in a proper public process. Not the manipulative and pre-determined jack-up that is exposed by the evidence above.

Queens Wharf Chronology of Confidential Consultation

I haven't put everything down here, but some sort of chronology does put into perspective how we've got to where we are with Queens Wharf....

2005

In March 2005, ARC working with Auckland City Council and Ports of Auckland Ltd, ran a major public consultation about Auckland’s waterfront called Linking People, City and Sea. This emphasised the Western Reclamation and the America’s Cup Syndicate bases in particular. It also sought support for the Marine Event Centre. The consultation made no mention at all of cruise ships or cruise ship terminals. (You can read the detail of this here:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/05/queens-wharf-did-arc-consult-properly.html )

Then in December 2005, ARC working with Auckland City Council and Ports of Auckland Ltd, publised the Waterfront Vision 2040. This consultation makes no mention at all of the possible option of using Queens Wharf as cruise ship terminal. In fact, in relation to Queens Wharf this public document states: “alternative uses will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions. Ideas include providing public access, public spaces, a continual link between Queen Street and the waterfront, reconfiguring the wharf structure to create a new town basin, an iconic building, extending ferries and water taxis, entertainment and a mix of activities…”

2007

Then in October 2007 there was an election, the council elections, and a new ARC Council was established. Most Councillors were re-elected from the previous council. I was relegated to the back benches. Mike Lee was elected Chairman, and Michael Barnett was elected Deputy Chairman.

2008

Council resolved on 25 Feb 2008 that ARC officers, with ARH and POAL, should undertake further work on the potential options for the development of Queens Wharf, determining the benefits and capital costs and operating costs of those options.

On November 12 2008, ARC considered a report in confidential. This contained information about the Princes Wharf cruise ship terminal noting that “improvement of passenger facilities at Princes Wharf have been held up due to objections from local residents….”. The report went on to suggest actions needed if Queens Wharf was to become Auckland’s primary cruise ship terminal, or if Queens Wharf was to be improved as Auckland’s secondary cruise ship terminal. Council resolved to support further work on Queens Wharf cruise ship terminal options, with “limited public access”, with Government, Auckland City Council, ARH, and POAL.

After that meeting, my unpublished letter to NZ Herald included: "...I am very dissappointed by Auckland Regional Council’s limited approach to the Queens Wharf opportunity. At the confidential meeting I advocated for the broader public interest and an urban design led approach. But to little avail. ARC’s involvement in the redevelopment of other Auckland waterfront opportunities has been a public disaster. It was ARC’s responsibility to balance public and private interests on Princes Wharf. It is a disgrace that this opportunity has such impoverished public spaces…” It was around this time that I began this blog….

2009

On May 25 2009, ARC considered a report in confidential which dealt with a potential material transaction relating to a recapitalisation of POAL which included the option of purchasing Queens Wharf outright. Among other things, Council resolved at that meeting: “That the council wishes to have Queens Wharf be made available, to accommodate a primary cruise ship terminal, and for public access, in addition to normal cargo operations.” This is the first time - I think - that ARC actually voted for Queens Wharf to become Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal. No accompanying decision was made to consult the public about this decision or its implications.

On 15 June 2009, in a confidential meeting, ARC decided to buy Queens Wharf for $40 million, in a 50/50 partnership with central government. This was made possible after Government had said that it was keen on using Queens Wharf as “Party Central” for the Rugby World Cup event in 2011. The ARC decided to make provision for this new expenditure in its LTCCP 2009-19, which was adopted on 29 June 2009. This $20 million expenditure was added to the LTCCP too late for public consultation.

On 19 June 2009, Chairman Mike Lee gained sole access to Shed 10, with an NZ Herald photographer, and was reported in NZ Herald: “….he did not believe that Aucklanders and their visitors would be satisfied with such a shape and type of building. ‘We need a longer and higher building, ideally with lots of glass and lights ... I don't think this is going to cut the mustard.’….” He’d made up his mind. ‘This is going to be the front door of Auckland for cruise ship visitors and possibly a renaissance of passenger ships,’ he said.

On June 27 2010, ARC’s Chairman released drawings to NZ Herald that he had had commissioned himself. These had no Council endorsement. They show cruise ship structures on both sides of Queens Wharf, and both sheds gone. These images are contrasted in the news report with images provided by Auckland City Council which show Shed 10 incorporated into the design, and significant public space. You see these at: http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/QueensWharf.pdf

Then on July 14 2009, ARC Councillors had their first site visit of Queens Wharf. A blog covers that visit: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit.html
and: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/07/queens-wharf-site-visit-shed-10.html

On the 19 July 2009, Cllr Sandra Coney spoke out about the sheds. Her statements were reported in NZ Herald, with Chairman Lee’s response:

“Although the wharf's two 1912 cargo sheds are missing from the council's preliminary concept drawings for a cruise ship terminal, Ms Coney described them as "heritage buildings" and sought an assurance that they would be included in a design brief . She called at a transport committee meeting for their preservation to be considered in the context of historic maritime buildings to have survived redevelopment along Quay St.
Auckland City has proposed incorporating the cargo sheds into wharf development plans, in contrast to the regional council's preliminary vision of a new three-storey ship terminal. ARC chief Peter Winder said entrants in a design competition could incorporate both old and new into their entries.

But council chairman Mike Lee said: "Unlike the substantial buildings on the Wellington waterfront, the Queens Wharf sheds were cheap and nasty when they were first built. Now they are old and decrepit, they are still cheap and nasty."

On Friday 24 July 2009, in another confidential meeting, ARC’s approval was sought for the final terms of the acquisition of Queens Wharf, along with its agreement to the terms of the proposed Queens Wharf Design Competition. A draft of the Sale and Purchase Agreement was provided (without schedules). The ARC delegated authority to the Chairman and the CEO to “finalise the Sale and Purchase Agreement…”. It is extraordinary that this responsibility was delegated in this way. I understand that it was in the course of those negotiations that POAL was negotiated away from its position that Princes Wharf remain the primary cruise ship terminal, to a new position that Queens Wharf was to become the primary cruise ship terminal, and that cruise ships were to be accommodated on Queens Wharf on both sides.

On Monday 24 August 2009, Stage 1 design competition opened. Then closed Fri 11 September 2009. From Sun 13 September 2009 Public exhibition of designs opens. I have blogged some of the images and design ideas from those entries:

http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/09/queens-wharf-design-competition-stage-1.html

Mon 28 September 2009, short list of designs to go forward announced. Start of detailed development for short list designs (Stage 2). Closed Fri 16 October 2009



On Friday 30 October 2009, Chairman Lee goes public: “The Queens Wharf design contest is a flop, says Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee. He says the final eight designs are ‘lacklustre, underwhelming and mediocre’….” The competition is canned. (You can see very good images of the 8 finalists at this NZ Herald link: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10606264&gallery_id=107985 ) Six of the eight finalists used one or both cargo sheds in their designs.


December 22 2009, at a confidential meeting ARC agrees that winning design QW04 (one of those not incorporating the sheds, and thus providing the 8000 sm of floor space deemed necessary for primary cruise ship building) “as the design with the most merit from the design competition…” should be used as the basis of an “exclusive partnership between ARC and Government”…for "progressing the Queens Wharf development project". Again, the Chairman was given delegated authority, with the CEO, to enter into a Joint Venture agreement with Central Government. Again, this is an extraordinary delegation of responsibility. With minimum consultation requirements. This pre-christmas meeting was attended by a bare quorum of 7 ARC Councillors.


2010


February 19 2010, all 7 of Region’s mayors vote against the ARC and Central Government Joint Venture $100 million cruise ship terminal tart up of Queens Wharf. You’d think that feedback represented pretty weighty public consultation. But no.

April 19 2010, at another confidential meeting, ARC votes for the plastic tent or slug or relocateable structure, and that the sheds are to be ‘dismantled’ (sensitive demolition), but ‘subject to consultation with the Historic Places Trust’. Yet even this confidential meeting was not allowed to see the other designs that the Architectus/Jazmax team had come up with during the Joint Venture process. I understand there were 6 or so designs - some of which enviasged retaining one or both sheds, and provided a temporary structure alongside them. I have asked to see copies of these plans, but none have been provided yet. So ARC councillors, and the public have only one design to look at. One option to consider.



Which brings us to the present. Casual reading does suggest that the main consideration of this matter has been done in confidential by the ARC, and that genuine public consultation about crucial decisions - like where Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal should be; like what should happen on Princes Wharf (now that its residents are making life a bit hard for cruise ships); and like how any cruise ship terminal should be accommodated on Queens Wharf; and what do we all think about adapting the cargo sheds - has simply not happened.



What will happen next?

Queens Wharf: Did the ARC consult properly?

In the face of a public backlash and in the teeth of a growing campaign, the ARC has sought to justify its decision to demolish/dismantle the Cargo Sheds on Queens Wharf, and to defuse criticism of its hasty decisions, by citing the "extensive public consultation that has occurred about Queens Wharf" in particular "Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040".

But just how extensive was that consultation? And what - precisely - did it say, and what - precisely - were the questions that public views were sought about?

The history is revealing.

The first major piece of consultation that is directly relevant to this analysis/blog was run in early 2005 and was called "Linking People, City and Sea". This was a 4 page brochure with a questionnaire, and included public open days and stakeholder workshops. The preamable to the document reads:

The unique location of Auckland’s waterfront is one of its greatest assets. The closeness of the harbour to the central business district, together with the rich maritime tradition and character of the area, provides many exciting opportunities for the future.

To recognise the importance of this area, the Auckland Regional and Auckland City councils are working with Ports of Auckland towards a long-term vision for the wider waterfront area.

The vision will provide guidance and direction for how this area is managed, developed and protected in the future.

This document sets out a draft vision for the waterfront – stretching from the Auckland Harbour Bridge in the west to Mechanics Bay in the east. This draft vision has been created following community feedback and may change as more input is received from those who live, work and play in the waterfront area.

This is your opportunity to help develop an exciting future for Auckland’s waterfront by filling out the feedback form on the back page...

It is worth noting right here and now, that this document "Linking People, City and Sea" makes no mention of cruise ships or cruise ship terminals at all.

The questionnaire and graphic insets actually emphasise questions about the future of the America’s Cup bases at Wynyard Quarter. At the time, that issue was to the forefront of waterfront planners' attention.

There are two main questions in the questionnaire:

Using a scale of 1 to 5, how important are the following aspects to you in terms of the draft vision? (1 = not important; 5 = extremely important)
Port 1 2 3 4 5
Working waterfront – marine & fishing activity 1 2 3 4 5
Public access and enjoyment 1 2 3 4 5
Economic & social prosperity 1 2 3 4 5
Transport 1 2 3 4 5
Environment 1 2 3 4 5

How strongly do you support or oppose some of the future options (outlined on page 2) for the former America’s Cup bases? (1 = strongly oppose; 5 = strongly support)
Marine events centre 1 2 3 4 5
Marine services activity 1 2 3 4 5
Open public space 1 2 3 4 5
Education, research and environmental activity 1 2 3 4 5
Residential development 1 2 3 4 5
Office and commercial development 1 2 3 4 5
Combinations of some of the above 1 2 3 4 5

These questions are asked along with some open-ended questions. The feedback from these questions is not surprising.

Highest feedback to the first question was that 81% of respondents thought that "Public access and enjoyment" was extremely or very important. And highest feedback to the second question was that "Open public space" was seen as supported or strongly supported by 81% of respondents PLUS that 63% of respondents were opposed or strongly opposed to residential/commercial development. (This latter feedback fact has been regularly ignored in public reports about this consultation.)

Feedback from the open ended questions was summarised and this includes this:

Comments about waterfront functions, the maritime characteristics and mix of waterbased activities were coded separately and mentioned by over one quarter of respondents (26.6%). One eighth (11.9%) saw it as important to the future of the waterfront, with a tenth of respondents (9.3%) liking it currently and half that proportion (4.2%) wanting some change. Comments were typically about enjoying watching boats of all scales – from cruise ships to fishing fleet to small yachts and kayaks – and appreciation of the real working maritime character of the waterfront, different from other parts of the city or water’s edge.

Which as you can see does mention cruise ships - but as a spectator sport more than anything else. There was other feedback reported from stakeholder workshops. One of these stakeholders mentioned cruise ships:

Auckland Chamber of Commerce
The commercial viability of the waterfront is the Chamber of Commerce key concern including retaining the Port of Auckland and its continued to develop as an international hub, enabling growth of the cruise ship and tourism cluster, providing and future proofing the needs of the fishing fleet and sea food processing plants, improving deep water access, berthage and servicing facilities vital to visiting super-yachts and marine industry cluster, improving transport links including future demand for ferry services.

Hardly surprising for the Chamber to say something like this about cruise ships.

Anyway. You can see from this that there were no questions asked, and negligible feedback received about cruise ships or cruise ship terminals from the "approximately 850 people who gave feedback on the draft vision, with a number of groups providing more comprehensive and detailed feedback...."

This feedback then resulted in a flash and glossy communications document which is entitled: Auckland waterfront Vision 2040 which was published in December 2005. The preamble to this document reads:

The aim of this vision is to develop an overarching framework for the whole of the CBD waterfront area, stretching from the Harbour Bridge in the west through to Teal Park in the east. The vision has a long-term planning horizon out to 2040, reflecting the need to consider the staging and timing of future changes.

By taking a big picture approach, the vision sets the high-level, strategic direction for the waterfront area. This framework sits above the detailed planning for specific areas. Following the adoption of the vision, more detailed planning work focusing on specifi c precincts or parts of the waterfront will be undertaken. Detailed planning will align and fit in with the principles of the vision. Public input Throughout the process of developing the vision, both councils have been committed to involving key businesses, industry representatives and the wider community. The draft vision, ‘Linking people, city and sea’, was released for public consultation in February 2005. The consultation focused on getting feedback on key elements and themes of the vision. It also included a questionnaire on various parts
of the draft vision. Consultation included public meetings, open days at the Viaduct Harbour, meetings with stakeholder groups, a mail-out to 2500 residents and distribution of the publication to 140,000 households in Auckland city....

There are two mentions of cruise ships in Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040:

The waterfront is a gateway to the city. It is a transport hub for ferries, buses and rail and is the first port of call for cruise ships. The port also channels goods through the waterfront to the rest of the country.

This is a statement of fact. No surprise or vision or future in this statement. And:

Princes Wharf
Princes Wharf provides a mix of residential, entertainment and hotel activities. It is also the overseas passenger terminal for cruise ships. The continuing use of the wharf for cruise liners, visiting naval vessels and sailing ships helps make Auckland an attractive visitor destination. Improving public access and protecting the public viewing platform at the end of the wharf are essential to the success
of the area. Better signage will also help people visiting the wharves.

Queens Wharf
Queens Wharf will continue to be used for port operations over the short to medium term, in particular for noncontainer based cargo. However, alternative uses will be explored over the medium to long term when the wharf is no longer required for core port functions. Ideas include providing public access, public spaces, a continual link between Queen Street and the waterfront, reconfiguring the wharf structure to create a new town basin, an iconic building, extending ferries and water taxis, entertainment and a mix of activities.

No mention here - at all - of a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.

The opposite in fact. The words here all point to Queens Wharf being a great new public place.

If a citizen was to read the Auckland Waterfront Vision 2040 document s/he could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that there were no plans to build a cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf - let alone demolish the cargo sheds.

So where was the ARC's public consultation about what it proposes for Queens Wharf? Where was the genuine, open, transparent consultation?

Can We Trust The Historic Places Trust?

On Friday 16th April, or thereabouts, Auckland Regional Council received a bombshell from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust - or more correctly from the Auckland Branch of the Historic Places Trust. The letter was a bombshell because it signalled a strong interest from NZHPT in Queens Wharf and the sheds, and it was a bombshell because it arrived just in time to influence ARC decisions relating to its proposals for Queens Wharf.

You can view the letter here: http://www.joelcayford.com/NZHPTQueensWharf.pdf

The key things the letter states include:

- NZHPT is considering a registration nomination for the cargo sheds and wharf structure
- because the nomination "appears to have some merit" NZHPT is preparing a more in depth heritage assessment of the cargo sheds and wharf structure
- NZHPT "preliminary investigations indicates that the place has significant heritage values..."
- ..."given the heritage value of the place, both formally recognised and that identified by the Matthews and Matthews Assessment we would recommend to ARC that an heritage impact assessment is now undertaken in regard to ARC's preferred option for redevelopment, whether this involves adaptive re-use of some or all of the buildings and wharf, or total removal of the warehouses and modifications to the wharf..."

The letter was signed by Sherry Reynolds, General Manager Northern HPT.

After that letter, dated 15th April, arrived, Council staff, working with the ARC Chairman, prepared a set of officer recommendations relating to proposals for Queens Wharf that were sent out with the council agenda papers over the weekend. They included these recommendations:

a) That the report be received.
b) That the Council approves 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.
c) That, subject to the agreement of the Government as the joint owner of
Queens Wharf, and subject to the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency
as required, the Council:
(i) Approves the erection of a temporary structure on Queens Wharf for
use as a fan zone for Rugby World Cup 2011. The Council notes that
the New Zealand Government will fund the design and build of the
temporary structure, and that the temporary structure will be used as a
cruise ship terminal for the 2011/12 cruise season.
(ii) Approves the completion of a heritage assessment of Queens Wharf
with the aim of recording its heritage, maximising the retention and
integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, reusing
materials from the sheds and ensuring that appropriate
interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the
development of the wharf.
(iii) Approves the dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf and
the storage of materials to maximise re-use in the development, and
authorises the Chief Executive to obtain the necessary consents and
approvals to carry out the work....

Then following some lobbying and changes at the ARC's confidential meeting on Monday, where the letter from NZHPT was of considerable influence, the final decisions included the following:

a) That the report be received
b) That the Council approves the staged dvelopment of Queens Wharf to enable its use as fan zone, visitor centre and public open space for Rugby World Cup 2011, and for the construction of the permanent cruise ship terminal to commence immediately after the 2011/2012 cruise season.
c) That, subject to the agreement of the Government as joint owner of Queens Wharf, and subject to the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency as required, the Council:
(i) approves, subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, the dismantling of sheds 10 and 11 on Queens Wharf as required and the storage of materials to maximise re-use in the development, and authorises the Chief Executive to obtain the necessary consents to carry out the work.
(ii) works with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to complete a heritage assessment of Queens Wharf and its structures with the aim of recording its heritage, maximising the retention and integration of heritage features on the wharf into the development, re-using materials form the sheds and ensuring that appropriate interpretation of the history and heritage of the wharf is reflected in the development of the wharf.
(iii) approves the construction of a temporary structure on Queens Wharf for use as a fan zone, visitor centre and public open space for Rugby World Cup 2011. The Council notes that the New Zealand Government will fund the design and build of the temporary structure, and that the temporary structure will be used as a cruise ship terminal for the 2011/12 cruise season.....

I should note here, for the record, that a number of ARC Councillors voted against these resolutions. But a majority did. So these recommendations constitute an ARC decision. (By the way: you might be thinking I'm a bit of a scoundrel for discussing the contents of a confidential meeting. However I have not released any numbers or compromised any private interests. The matters I am sharing here are obviously in the public interest. The matters might be a little embarrassing, but they concern publicly owned assets, and public has a right to know.)

Regarding these recommendations - you may be wondering, what's the difference? The key difference is that the ARC's approval to dismantle (for which read: demolish) the sheds was "subject to the outcome of consultation with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust". And reading its letter you could be forgiven for coming to the view that the NZ HPT was actually serious about Auckland's waterfront heritage.

Then. On Monday. After the ARC's meeting, there was a surprise media release from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It said this:

20 April 2010
MEDIA STATEMENT
Disappointment at loss of Queen’s Wharf buildings

The decision to demolish the two Queen’s Wharf sheds has been met with disappointment by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

“We would have preferred that a use be found for the sheds as part of the overall solution for this area, as it is an important part of New Zealand’s maritime history that will be lost,” said NZHPT Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman.

“Ways to adaptively reuse these buildings could have been explored, and we would have been prepared to support quite substantial changes to ensure as much of the buildings could be retained as possible.

“However we accept the position that has been adopted and now look forward to work closely with those involved in the design for the area to determine how much of the wharf’s characteristic features, such as the rail lines and moorings, can be retained.”

The NZHPT had been considering registration of the Queen’s Wharf, however will not be proceeding with this. Mr Chapman said the organisation would still like to have the opportunity to record more of the buildings’ information prior to their loss.

You will note that this media release came from the Chief Executive, Bruce Chapman, who is based in Wellington, in the NZHPT's head office.

The letter amounts to complete capitulation on the part of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. No registration. No heritage assessment. No call for a heritage impact assessment. (By the way - a cynical view is that the powers that be at ARC had some indication before the Council meeting that the Historic Places Trust would fold, and so there was nothing to lose in changing the recommendations to give an appearance that the HPT concerns were real...)

You really wonder why New Zealand would bother with an organisation that is so spineless at National level, and so unsupportive of genuine preservation work that its Regional Office was carrying out in Auckland. So unsupportive of their initiative which had been taken seriously by ARC, and was being acted upon. As you can see. And right now these sheds, Auckland's heritage, needs all the help it can get. The pressure and speed to dismantle/demolish must be slowed so good sense can prevail.

But really, if we can't trust Auckland's heritage with the NZ Heritage Protection Trust, and we certainly can't trust ARC, who can we trust?

Super City Job "Lolly Scramble" not always sweet...

The Sunday Star Times had a bit of a scoop this weekend when it published information about the process the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) is running to staff up the jobs that will need to be filled at the new Auckland Council, and its CCO's, well before October this year.

The article states: "...nearly twenty times more applications received than positions available..." And contains interesting details about applications for the first three tiers of management. (By the way, other ATA documentation suggests that Auckland Council will have SEVEN tiers. That is a very hierarchical structure - see more about this below.)

The SST article states: "...by Thursday, when applications closed for 25 'tier 3' senior management jobs across the new Auckland Council, 390 people had applied. At the next level up, 100 people have applied for three 'tier 2' roles reporting directly to the chief executive. Another 28 people have applied for one job of Interim Chief Executive...."

What is interesting about all this, is that this hierarchical structure, and the way it is going to be populated, has been designed by relatively faceless people at ATA. Let's think about hierarchies for a minute: The Auckland Regional Council has a 4 tier structure today, though under the previous Chief Executive - Jo Brosnahan - it had a 3 tier structure. It was, and still is, a relatively flat structure. I am advised that one of the benefits of a flat structure is that it is attractive to creative and highly motivated staff who feel they are not simple cogs in a machine, and who appreciate the easy access to senior members of staff who themselves have greater responsibilities because teams tend to be larger and so on.

I understand - for example - that one of the consequences of the ARC restructuring (which followed Peter Winder's appointment to the post of CEO of ARC), was that several regional experts quit the ARC. Some of these are still in the region working as consultants, but others have moved on. Of course there will be split opinions about the precise reasons for these personal changes, but my understanding is that generally, the Jo Brosnahan era at the ARC was one which emphasised Excellence and Technical Leadership. The objective was to position the ARC as the thinking leader behind Auckland Region. And to an extent that objective was fulfilled. I was certainly very aware of that culture and that feeling when I was elected there in 2004, and was impressed with the calibre of technical staff there.

It is often said that Councils get the planners and the engineers and the scientists that are not good enough to be employed by the BECA's and the OPUS's and all the rest of the private sector expert consultancies. But it's only when you work with Council staff that you find out there are some extremely competent officers working for Councils. They are aware that could earn more in the private sector - rather than for a council - but they choose to work for a council for a range of other reasons including: job satisfaction (you get to do some very interesting work at a council); job variety (expert council staff get to work on a range of jobs at one time - which suits them - they can handle and enjoy that stimulation); part of a team (when I was at North Shore City Council I was particularly aware of the quality of work, thinking and creativity from the Environmental Protection Team, and from the Three Waters Team); and opportunities to work in new specialist areas.

Council project and service work was like a vocation for them. Their passion and commitment was evident. They repaid the freedoms that went with the jobs they had, with enormous energy, and sometimes hours above and beyond the call of duty. This kind of give and take goes with a creative structure and organisation, and one that is responsive to the needs of its staff.

I believe this culture is under serious threat with the structure that is being populated now by ATA. There is a chill in the air. Everyone is being very positive at the ARC where there are still many highly motivated and competent staff. Most of these would be at the tier 3 and 4 level of the proposed Auckland Council. I talk to some of them, and they are pretty talkative about the process they are going through now. One was part of a group of managers from all of Auckland's councils that were invited to a meeting at the Aotea Centre by ATA. The purpose of the meeting was for them to receive a presentation about the proposed structure, which also went into some detail about the jobs and positions that would be established. He told me it was a bit wierd looking around and seeing how many managers there were. He did a rough count. He also did a rough count of the jobs on the big screen. "Only about a quarter of us will get jobs", was his opinion.

And they all went back to their offices and sat down in front of a computer screen to "be mapped". This involves interacting with a computer program which asks questions about your skill areas, and asks you to self assess. What percentage of your job is X, what percentage Y and so on. Pretty anonymous and soul-destroying stuff. I appreciate that this method does enable a degree of self assessment, and that it is in reasonably common use when private sector companies have reshuffles and reorganisations.

In the case of Auckland Local Government, every organisation (with the exception of Watercare) is being abolished. Wound up. And this means that every employee is looking for another job. An enormously stressful experience for thousands of individuals.

I know it's not lambs to the slaughter, and that's not the purpose, but - going back to that SST article we read: "....According to a back-of-the-envelope calculation by the Public Service Association, the average redundancy would be about $18,000..."

People I know in the HR industry have described the processes that are typically experienced in organisations like Air New Zealand or Vodafone. Middle managers are treated extremely well during change. Instead of computer mappings, they are interviewed and assessed through human processes. They have access to skilled advisers. It seems to me that this a far cry from what Auckland council managers are being put through.

As one who is planning to stand for Auckland Council, and one who has a history of trying to get to grips with issues by talking with Council staff, I do wonder how easy it will be to do that with this massive and deep structure, wheels within wheels....

And I wonder how many of our very best people will walk away from Auckland Local Government. Either because they don't get mapped right, don't get treated right, or because they take a look at the job slot that has their name on it, and decide it doesn't offer the qualities that they have come to appreciate where they are now.

"Well", people say to me, "you can always change the structure when you get in there, can't you?" Yeah - Right. Imagine the new Auckland Council deciding it wanted a flatter management structure. Say - 4 tiers - to encourage innovation and team building. That sort of thing. There would be bedlam. Councillors wouldn't know where to jump. They'd say, "think of the costs... think of the union action... ATA's just spent millions recruiting for these positions - are you going to throw all that out the window?... what do you know anyway - they say this structure is the best for Auckland... we should really let it have some time to bed in..."

You can hear all that can't you. The truth is this structure - these structures - will become black holes, laws unto themselves - from a management structure point of view - almost impenetrable by those elected to govern them. Councillors won't be able to trust themselves to fix them. And while the only person they employ is the CEO, his or her ability to restructure the organisation beneath them will also be limited. So Auckland will inherit a structure which is concrete, and inflexible, but which will grow inexorably. This seems to be the common feature of very large bureaucracies. They grow.

The reason we are in this fix now, is fundamentally because there was a move to amalgamation. A move to merge. ARC led it with the rhetoric "the one and the many". This vision has become The One Bureaucracy (a dysfunctional entity of CCOs, Boards and a Council) and The Many Ratepayers. (I hasten to remind you that I was among those few municipally experienced ARC councillors who opposed these moves to amalgamate). The Government bought the vision (and now regrets it I'm sure). And those who think they will benefit the most continue to defend it (NZCID, Property Council and EMA).

So what is Plan B?

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

Endangered Species: Auckland Waterfront Character Buildings

This blog is about the protection of the maritime character of the Wynyard Quarter, aka the Western Reclamation, on Auckland's waterfront. Specifically it is about the protection of character buildings down there - all of which have a connection with Auckland's maritime past - all of which ARC (Auckland Regional Council) is seeking to protect in the area's planning controls. However, ARC's commitment to the protection of built characters and heritage is not shared. Various parties, notably Viaduct Harbour Holdings, are resisting ARC's protection efforts in the Environment Court. Sadly, Auckland City Council is also not supporting ARC, in respect of many of the buildings. It is supporting ARC in regard to some buildings - what I would describe as the obvious ones. But unfortunately Auckland City's support does not extend to some of the more workmanlike buildings which give the area so much of its character. The map shown here - and I know it's a bit hard to read in this blog, but I've enlarged a bit of it below - is of the Wynyard Quarter....

The map show shows the location of the 17 buildings ARC believes need some protection from demolition, and some planning regard for their character and heritage qualities. You can see that the buildings are numbered, colour-coded, and three of them have red rings around them. The legend explaining these codes is next...

Ok, so here's the legend. The eight green buildings (Nos 1-8) were in the Plan Change for Wynyard Quarter that was notified by Auckland City Council a couple of years ago. Following submissions etc three further buildings (Nos 9-11) were added at the decision stage - presumably through commissioner's decision. After the decision on the Plan Change was released it was appealed by various parties, including VHHL and ARC. The VHHL appeals sought the deletion of buildings 8, 10 and 11 from the Plan Change. The ARC's appeal seeks the inclusion of additional buildings 12-17. Mediation is presently occurring under the Environment Court's direction.

Building/Structure 1: 65-75 Jellicoe StGolden Bay Cement building and silos Buildings 1-7 are protected by consensus at this stage. No party has appealed these buildings being protected. Protected so far. Building 2: 1-17 Jellicoe StShed (referred to variously and AHB Shed and Fisherman’s shed) Protected so far.

Building 3: 22-32 Jellicoe StBrick building used by Sanford Protected so far.

Building 4: 22-32 Jellicoe StSanford Building Protected so far.

I include here a couple of images I prepared for submissions I made to the Plan Change a couple of years ago. You can see Building 4, the Sanford's Building on the right, in the context of the adjacent building envelopes that will be permitted as of right by the Plan Change. (The building across Jellicoe Street approximately shows the Red Shed - Building 2 - which is protected so far).... The reason this image is here is to give some impression as to the dominating effect of new development on the skyline, and on character buildings, and on the general feel of the area. That is why I believe it is critical that all of the buildings which ARC seeks protection for - and you can see them distributed thoughout the area on the map - remain protected. Not just for themselves, but because of the way their presence will balance the modernising presence of new buildings as the land is developed.

Take the ASB building proposal for example. The two ASB buildings occupy the footprints to the left of the protected Sanford Building, and are across Jellicoe Street from the protected Red Shed (which you can see in this image). Note how invisible the Sanford's Building has become. And that's without the building that can be built to its right. In fact the ASB proposal (apart from the volcanic roof form), broadly follows the plan change, and shows a stepping down in heights toward the Sanfords Build. So it does not disappear altogether. The point I'm trying to make here is that the retention of character buildings can and should have an important defining role in determining and affecting the development of new buildings.

Building 5: 8-14 Madden St Sail Connections (formerly Selwyn Timber Company then N. Cole Building) Protected so far.

Building 6: 120-126 Halsey St:Halsey Street Flower Traders (Formerly Neuchatel Offices) Protected so far.

Building 7: 118-120 Beaumont St Sailors’ Corner (Former British Imperial Oil Company) Protected so far.

Building 8: 101-107 Beaumont St Dive HQ/ Burnsco Marine/ Teleflex Morse At risk! Auckland City Council has gone cold on this one, because they have decided that Beaumont Street needs to be widened to provide for three lanes of traffic heading West out of Wynyard Quarter. So they believe the frontage will need to be demolished. This is a bit tragic for an area whose traffic patterns are planned to be the very antithesis of the rest of Auckland. ie pedestrian and cycling centred, with only a small fraction of the traffic movements in and out to be by means of single occupancy vehicles. It would be a travesty of traffic over place - if this widening and character building demolition ever occurs. Come on Auckland City!

Building 9: Packenham St West and Halsey St (120-126 Halsey St): J. Lysacht Building Protected so far.

Building 10: 121-127 Beaumont StTrans-Pacific Marine At risk! VHHL are opposing.

Building 11: Corner Gaunt & Daldy Sts (125-127 Beaumont St)Marine Electronics Warehouse At risk! VHHL are opposing.

Building 12: 38 Hamer StSanford boat slipway P.Voss slipway At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection. The rest of these buildings 12-17 have been added in for consideration by ARC after a very careful look at characters and heritage buildings on Wynyard Quarter. At this late stage it appears there is little support from other parties to include these buildings among those accorded some protection. I ran a detailed blog entry about this particular one - the Vos Building - last week. This is the sort of result we can aim for on this site. You can see it at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/02/vos-building-maritime-heritage-at.html

Building 13: 139 Packenham St West: Southern Spars At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 14: Packenham St West: North Sails At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 15: 136 Beaumont St Gloss Boats (Former Bailey’s Shipyard and Devonport Ferry Co. Building, Segar Bros/Mason Bros. Boiler Shop Slip) At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 16: 132-136 Beaumont StHQ (Former Chas Bailey Shipyards, Old North Shore Ferries Building) At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 17: 129-135 Beaumont St Smart Marine At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection. I think it is time that Auckland City Council (not just officers) had a second look at this.

Auckland: Are You Ready for More Sprawl?

This blog: contains an introduction to Auckland's MUL policy; a short account of what Government's agenda appears to be; plus some useful international accounts looking at the need to provide for all of the costs of development - when making the case for/or against sprawl.

In my time serving as an elected representative in Auckland local government (12 years), I came to the firm view that there were three local initiatives that will make a difference to the direction, economic efficiency, and social equity of Auckland's development:

• the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) policy enshrined in the Auckland Growth Strategy


• the ability to charge Developer Levies on new land use developments


• the strategy to transfer $1 billion (over 10 years) from State Highway development to Public Transport investment

Like many large Western cities enthralled by the American Post War motorcar and motorway miracle, Auckland has battled with the consequences (eg escalating travel demands and congestion), and struggled to plan its way out of the trap we all find ourselves in. My research suggests that Vancouver - while I agree it's not perfect - found itself in the same trap around 20 years ago - and after adopting a growth strategy - has managed to change the direction of its development to one which more strongly supports compact development over the taking of rural land for edge urban development. But it has been hard, and there is always that temptation and pressure from those seeking the quick returns of new subdivision.

A few years ago I was invited by Connal Townsend to attend an informal meeting of the Property Council. I was asked to share my ideas and thoughts about the Growth Strategy and Public Transport investment. A number of major players in Auckland's property development industry were present. Some were very direct in their criticisms of Councils when attempts were made to progress "brownfield" redevelopment within existing urban environment. "Too hard", was the catch- phrase. "Not worth the candle".

But probably the most honest was the comment, "Joel, if you ask me to choose between buying an investment block just outside the MUL, or buying a CBD block for redevelopment, I'm going to buy the rural block everytime. You guys are going to fold...."

Around the same time I found myself sitting next to back-bencher Phil Heatley in a plane. He spoke of the frustration of being in Parliament all those years, but without the ability to influence anything. I talked about Auckland and its development. He made no secret of his distaste of the MUL, but he seemed very uniformed about Auckland issues. He left me with the clear impression that: "the MUL would be gone by lunchtime, when National gets into Government."

I accept that Auckland's planning has needed change and improvement, to provide stronger incentives around compact development and urban regeneration projects, as well as lining up the funding institutions to assist where holding costs become a major stumbling block. It was never enough just to have a tight strangle hold on the metropolitan urban limit.

Councils have been reluctant to rezone urban land to allow for greater densities and building heights. The rhetoric of "dog boxes" and "rabbit hutch apartments" has been enough to make local communities take fright, and take to the streets to stop any change in their neighbourhoods. NIMBY'ism can be a very powerful thing. But it also stands in the way of a city region fighting to provide the range of housing types and sizes and environments, to meet the very diverse needs of Auckland's cosmopolitan community.

These failures and problems are among those that led to calls for Auckland's local governance to be strengthened, so that its plans and strategies could be actually implemented. Then there was a change of Government. And the reins of change have been seized by those with rather different priorities. The recession has added urgency to Central Government's determination to deliver short-term growth and productivity. Public funded infrastructure is a big part of its program to generate jobs and keep unemployment from getting above 7% (but it is).

And now we have Nelson's very own Dr Nick Smith (Minister of Environment), working with Whangarei's Phil Heatley (Minister of Housing), and pushing a very strong pro development, pro growth, pro "affordable housing", program, which appears to have at its heart the goal of doing away with Auckland's Metropolitan Urban Limit.

"Pushing the Boundaries" was the title of an excellent Saturday Review piece in the NZ Herald last Saturday (13th Feb 2010: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10625802)

It was a good 2 page spread on what is in store for Auckland as the next stage of Government land use planning reforms gather speed. Key quotes:

Smith: "Smith linked restrictive zoning and consent laws to NZ's poor productivity and economic growth..."

(My Comment: In fact the major cost drag on Auckland's economy is the sheer energy and time cost of transport. A full 13% of Auckland's GDP is expended in transport. This compares very unfavourably with modern Asian cities (6%), and European cities (8%). Smith is really only speaking about the gold rush that comes from new land being released. Developers love that gold rush profit, but for a long time afterwards those who buy into it pay excessively for transport and other costs. I suspect Smith is only interested in short term gains - not long term development. Smith has never understood Auckland.)

Heatley: "our drive comes from the fact that property proces have increased hugely ... locked out first time buyers... the biggest propertion has been the land cost, not the cost of building..."

(My Comment: This is the classic case of Heatley wanting to externalise infrastructure costs. Land costs today - because of developer levies - now include some of the related infrastructure costs - roading, 3 waters. For North Shore these "land development costs" can be up round $30,000/housing unit. And even thenm this figure does not adequately cover the full costs of new infrastructure. BTW these developer levies are much less for a new lot built in the heart of existing urban setting.)

The cheapest housing in Auckland is in the South West. It's where a lot of deprived and low income families live. This is Auckland's urban wasteland. Many households live in rented accommodation. But that's not where the bulk of the family income is spent. In fact it is spend on transport. There is very poor public transport here. So - no alternative travel options. Shops and employment and education options are all a decent car trip away. So every mission requires a car trip.

Big families, big cars, cheap and energy inefficient cars. That is what Auckland people get when "affordable housing" is built at the edge. Surveys are showing that a sizeable number of these households are spending upwards of 30% of the household income on transport. These families will not be able to afford to buy a house - not because it may be too much for them - but because their transport priorities must come first - and it is these costs that mean they cannot afford to buy a house. That is the reality.

I was a commissioner with Cllrs Walbran and Glenn for a private application to ARC to release land from outside the MUL for 1000 houses at Papakura. The development application was to build 1000 houses. That was it. Nothing else. No shops. No public amenity like a school or a kindy or anything else to relieve the expense and pain of being isolated away from the services and amenity that most Auckland dwellers have come to expect as normal to urban life.

Agreeing to that development would condemn many more households to lives in relatively cheap houses, but with huge transport and access costs that would have to be born and paid for every day. It is these costs that need to be included when assessing affordability. Let alone the social costs associated with isolation, loss of sense of community etc. These are the long term costs of poorly planned - but apparently "affordable" housing.

These costs need to be counted and included.

This is the lesson from other countries and other cities that have though about these matters rather more deeply than our Ministers. A good summary of papers and reports for and against can be found at: http://www.psrc.org/assets/2032/appIF14-sprawl.pdf

That report contains a good summary of arguments for and against sprawl. I reproduce it here:

Arguments in Defence of Sprawl	Counter Arguments
• Development is cheaper in suburban/rural areas	• True, but real costs are not measured. Adjoining municipalities often subsidize the more extensive and less efficient infrastructure needed for sprawl development.
• The additional cost of sprawl is privately provided indicating people’s willingness to pay more for sprawl and their desire for sprawl	• Again, real costs are not reflected in the price of sprawl development. Adjoining municipalities often subsidize the more extensive and less efficient infrastructure needed for sprawl development.
• People prefer low density development over high density development	• Survey results showing more people preferring low density development can be misleading due to varying perceptions of "high density." Surveys that use visual examples are more useful and show that many are willing to sacrifice low density and more square footage for better designed homes with a range of nearby amenities.
• Residential development in rural areas produces public revenues in excess of public costs	• "Working" land, such as in agricultural production provides revenues in excess of public costs.
• Commutes are shorter in suburbs	• Due to growing suburb-to-suburb commuting, travel to work may be shorter for many workers, but more trips are necessary because of separated uses. Trips are longer and there are few alternatives for those who can’t drive.
• Cars are the most versatile form of transportation and as cars get more fuel efficient and less polluting, environmental impacts will no longer be a concern	• Cars are still a long way from being environmentally friendly, but even if they were totally clean, it does not solve the problem of loss of wildlife habitat, resource consumption, traffic congestion or traffic fatalities resulting from sprawl type road infrastructure and lack of sidewalks or bike lanes. Auto dependent development also prevents non-drivers from having choices in how to get around. 32% of the U.S population can’t drive.
• We are able to grow more crops with less land and labour, so prime farmland being lost to development is bunk	• The problem is where and what land is being lost. Productive farmland close to urban centers is being lost. New land could be brought into agricultural production but often at high economic and environmental cost. Also the farther farmlands must move from urban centers—where the consumers are—the more inefficient it is to bring products to market, especially for smaller farms selling their produce in local markets.

Table. Prevailing Arguments in Defence of Sprawl and the Counterarguments

This debate is only just getting started in Auckland.

I hope that Auckland Regional Council can lift its head from trying to shoehorn a $97 million cruise ship terminal onto Queens Wharf, and extract the labour of its expert staff from being forced help for the Auckland Transition Agency, to engage with this issue, and drive a strong public debate in defence of the regional development policies it has been responsible for adopting and championing.