Watercare Avoids Public Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is getting the Auckland Council jobs?

My problem is how to get elected to Auckland Council, after serving time as an ARC Councillor and before that as a North Shore City Councillor. But that seems to be a relatively easy task compared to getting a job at Auckland Council - if you're already employed by a Council! Certain staff members out there are keeping careful count as appointments to the new Auckland Council and its CCOs are announced. They provided me with this bar chart which shows where these new staff have been appointed from. Interestingly, the recorders of this information have included "Watercare" in the "Other" category. This probably reflects the widespread perception that Watercare and its supporters are exerting an undue influence in the design of the new Council structure, and also on who gets the key jobs.

This graph is another depiction of the same data, which is the sum of ATA announcements, up to and including June 28th: Jun 28 – Watercare appointments (ACC/Metrowater=2, MCC/ Manukau Water=1, NSCC=2, Other/ Watercare=2) Jun 25 – AC appointments (ACC=1, ARC = 1, MCC=1) Transport Appointments (ACC = 2, RDC=1, Other=1) Jun 08 – Transport Appointments (ARTA=6, ARC=1, ACC=3, MCC=1, WCC=1, NSCC=1, Other=2) Jun 03 – Executive Appointments (ARC=1, ACC=5, MCC=1, WCC=3, NSCC=0, RDC=1, Other=3) May 31 – Executive Appointments (ARTA=1, ACC=1, Other=5) Apr 30 – Watercare Appointments (ACC/Metrowater =3 FDC=1, MCC/ Manukau Water=2, Other/ Watercare (incl CE),=8)

I will endeavour to keep this record up to date.

Smarter Governance for a Smarter Auckland

Today I delivered a presentation at the Rendevous Hotel to the Smart Cities Summit Conference. I was asked to speak about the sort of governance and leadership that Auckland needs - across the Region. And to speak about whether the governance reforms will deliver. These are a few slides and words from that presentation. They cover issues in Auckland City and North Shore City...

I used the example of Mexico to begin. Mexico has a reputation for poor air quality and a lot of other environmental bads. But their streets and communities are dynamic with life and energy.

This is a typical Mexico arterial street. I know it's an old city, but what a great streetscape. Sure the air looks pretty unhealthy.

But the back streets and communities are dynamic with life and energy. A lot of attention given to public spaces without cars and traffic. Interesting.

When you come back to Auckland it strikes you what it's like here - in the hearts of our cities. This is the heart of Manukau City as seen from the air on the way to land. It's really just a huge car park. Not a great people place...

And then when you do get back to North Shore, you can't ignore the fact we have some "bad air days" of our own in Auckland. And it's not because of winter fires. It's because of our dependence on, and heavy use of motor vehicles...

This is an aerial view of where Northcote Road crosses State Highway 1 on the North Shore. The uses of the land are labelled. To get between them you really need to drive. It's a car oriented design. It's not for pedestrians or cyclists. A lot of the North Shore has been designed this way.

It's one of the reasons the Auckland Region developed a Growth Strategy. To stop sprawl, and to establish much better quality urban environments. The idea was to encourage better quality density development around centres, and corridors, but to leave other parts free of infill development so the leafy character remains. This picture is from the strategy. It shows what the vision was supposed to be for Centres....

But these pictures show the reality of residential development in downtown Auckland. Very poor amenity compared to the vision. Disappointing - both for the people who live there, and setting a bad example for other places to copy. Not exemplary. And leaky building construction adds further injury...

Another part of the strategy has been Corridor Development. Aimed at streets like Taharoto, Wairau, Dominion, Sandringham - for example. These are served by quality bus transport. Others are close to railway lines....

This is a bad example from Auckland/West Auckland. Nobody really wants to live next to a railway line that looks like this. Nothing like the strategy. Poor amenity and lowest quality urban design. We can do better, and we need to do better...

This picture shows an aerial view of Highbury, on the North Shore. Highbury is a village and centre that was built long before the Harbour Bridge was built. It is a classic "english" town design. It has good main streets with shops and cafes, it also has commercial and light industrial areas which offer employment opportunities, there are green spaces and other public facilities (like a library). And as you can see, residential development is close enough so people can walk to the shops and to work...

But this is not how the new parts of North Shore have been developed. This is part of the Albany development. To the right is the Rosedale Industrial Estate, and to the left is new residential subdivision. This is a classic single use zoning. No mixed use. No walkable relationship between different uses. This is a negative change to car based living, because of its reduction in pedestrian and cycling based living and amenity. We need to do better....

Water, wastewater, and stormwater are issues for Auckland and for North Shore - where these images were taken. Flooding and erosion are issues when it rains. Yet - like last summer - when it's dry then we seem to not have enough water!

North Shore's steep topography means when it rains hard, water finds overland flow paths, and goes downhill at great speed. Down driveways, along fences, damming up and causing floods as it goes...

And then finally, what's left after the floods, discharges at great velocity into stream beds (causing damage and erosion and scouring), and finally into the the sea - often at beautiful beaches. Like here at Takapuna. Stormwater eventually needs to get to the sea, but the pathways its takes, and the damage done on the way, need to be carefully managed.

But it's not all bad.... North Shore City Council is a leader in the Auckland region at managing water in a 3 water way. This means storing stormwater in detention tanks, for reuse, but also to slow its flow when it rains hard. Slow it down in those short, peak 15 minute downpours. The strategy is also about keeping stormwater out of sewer pipes, so they don't discharge. And those old straight concrete drains and pipes are giving way to softer, more attractive approaches which slow water down and provide storage, rather than approaches based around high flow rates...

There is some high quality urban design around corridor and station development. This station development at Newmarket marries a railway station with great urban design, new shops, public open piazza spaces, and high quality medium density housing for those people wanting to live closer to the action, but unable to afford an expensive freehold house.

And across the Auckland Region there is a concerted approach to provide improved and safe cycle infrastructure, so Auckland's potential for this form of transport can be realised, along with the change in look and feel of town centres. They come to life when more people come and go by bike or on the footpath. But they must be safe.

This simple table illustrates what Councils do, the activity areas, and the legislation that directs council activities. Good governance depends on three things: good staff; good councillors, and good legislation. Without all three it's difficult to make positive changes to the look and feel of Auckland's urban landscapes and our town centres and streets.

This picture is from the Government document: "Making Auckland Greater", which led to the legislation that will abolish existing councils including North Shore City Council, and Auckland Regional Council - and establish a single supercity council. This will have a set of CCOs to provide key services like transport and water services. But there are major questions about the new supercity.

For example: how integrated will all this be? Will the new legislation lead to better outcomes? Is it more likely that the good things in the old Growth Strategy can finally be delivered more reliably? This diagram shows one of the problems with what has been proposed. Council "3 water" services will be split up. The Watercare CCO will only provide water and wastewater services, and stormwater will be provided alone by Auckland Council. This is a very disappointing disintegration.

There was more in my presentation about these aspects. However a lot of faith is being put in a new spatial plan to solve problems around integration and implementation. But it could just be a fashion. A planning fad. Check out the blog below for more on the spatial plan. This was published in NZ Herald on 29th June. And there's more on this blog about spatial planning....

Sign the Lake Road Cycle Lane Petition - Now Please

A very active petition is under way now, for the North Shore cycle lane. I've just checked out comments left by recent signatories.


Here's a selection:

2558
Name: Ryan CrawCour on Feb 2, 2010
Comments: Cycle Lanes should be kept. In fact with Auckland's traffic congestion problems more cycle lanes should be developed and people encouraged to ride more and drive less. It will make for a fitter, happier nation!
2559
Name: Anonymous on Feb 2, 2010
Comments: I think new zealand is very "unfriendly" to byciclists.it is very dangerous to drive with a bike on new zealand roads,and I think if there were more cycling lanes then more people would use their bikes,so it would aalso be more environmental frindly.
2560
Name: Jared Scollay on Feb 2, 2010
Comments: The North Shore is congested and dangerous of cycling - the number of cycles lanes and their coverage needs to be extended not reduced.
2561
Name: Natalie Jessup on Feb 2, 2010
Comments: We REALLY need to keep more cycle lanes! The North Shore has been so ahead in many other things (recycling, bus lanes) so please keep the bike lanes and make more.

YOU need to sign this petition, and get your friends to sign it too.

Here's the introduction to the petition from Bronwyn Jones who has organised the petition and who will be presenting it to North Shore City Council next week:

Dear all,

We need another 500 signatures by 8 Feb, which is just 10 days away, on the residents’ petition to save the Lake Road cycle lanes. Please get one or two, or even three, or more people onto the online petition. Family members (kids ok), work colleagues, friends, whoever. Anyone from the Shore or Greater Auckland (Lake Rd is an arterial route and part of the Regional Road Plan), who has not signed already. Or, email me for a Word doc of the petition sheet and circulate a hard copy.

Why the hurry? We need to present the petition to the NSCC Infrastructure & Environment Cttee (which includes transport, cycling etc) on the evening of 9 Feb. Council officers will present a report recommending that the cycle lanes be left as is and they need the petition as support. The chairman, Ken McKay keeps saying that the council “cannot ignore the views of 2,700 people” from the anti cycle lane petition and we have to send a clear message to the council that there is a lot of support for the lanes, more than the antis. So far, we have about 2,700 names (2k online, once the double ups are deleted; 730 from our own efforts circulating the petition at events). We need to get well over that 3,000 mark.

Please forward this email or get onto the petition online and get the names of those who haven’t signed in there: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/lakeroadcyclelane/

There is a tab at the top that allows you to see who has signed. Ignore the donation page that pops up after you have signed – just click out of it.

Thank you, everyone, for helping with this. Our efforts at events have shown us that this issue is bigger than just our local interests. People who support safety on the roads WANT to sign.
Apologies if you get this email more than once. Thank you so much if you have signed.

Thanks and regards
Bronwyn,

SAVE THE LAKE ROAD CYCLE LANES. SIGN THE I-PETITION AT:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/lakeroadcyclelane/

So. What are you waiting for?

You support cycling don't you?

Even if you're not a North Shore cyclist, you can see that this is an exemplary project that needs support so it gets the Council support it needs, so it develops into an exemplar for all Auckland.

Won't take you long.

North Shore City's useful Bill 3 Submission

I would like to congratulate North Shore City Council officers for a very useful and readable draft submission to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Aka Bill 3. I understand this submission is very much the thinking of the politicians first and foremost, put into submission form by the officers.

You can find a link so you can download the whole thing at the end of this blog. But what I wanted to provide was my extracts from it. My choice of extracts is based on getting the main guts out of the submission, so you can use bits and pieces in your own submission. If you want to. It's not bad to repeat stuff - especially if you strongly agree.

NSCC's submission is a very useful summary of issues relating to: Local Boards; CCO's in general; Auckland Transport CCO in particular; Spatial Plan; and Stormwater.

1. Statement of Principles

Inter-relationships

“…there is risk with moving from 8 local government organisations to one local government organisation and 8 Council Controlled Organisations that the same issues with tensions and slow resolution of problems could continue to be the bane of Auckland’s governance, therefore it is vital the organisations have a shared goal of contributing to the vision of the Auckland region as a whole and implementing plans consistent with the Auckland region’s Spatial Plan…”

Subsidiarity

“… we believe Auckland Council should have the ability to focus solely on regional strategies, plans and their implementation. It is highly important, therefore, that the principle of subsidiarity is applied, we note that the Government is applying this same principle in its cabinet decision for ‘Local Boards to have a statutory role broader than community boards but narrower than local authorities and a much greater interdependence between the Auckland Council and Local Boards (compared with Community Boards and Councils), requiring close consultation and integrated decision-making’. We believe it is vital that the Auckland Council Governing body have the time to focus on regional issues, and not be caught up in decisions that can be made at local level by Local Boards.”

Equity and Access

“…. Communities across Auckland vary significantly. It is highly desirable for the health and progress of the region as a whole that individual community needs and and desires are able to be reflected appropriately… the regional benefit of recognising and allowing for these differences should be allowed for within the base funding agreements with Local Boards providing that the general equity and access to services across the region is maintained…”

2. Local Boards

Place Shaping role of Local Boards

“…we believe in order for the Local Boards to have a truly ‘place-shaping’ role and to engage local democracy at grassroots it is vitally important that the functions of the second tier (the Local Boards) be clearly defined, are substantive and meaningful… we believe the powers and functions of the second tier should be enshrined in legislation, to esnure clarity of prupose and clear delineation of duties and powers between the two tiers…

“….while we believe local planning and consenting issues should be delegated to Local Boards and acknowledge that this is not achievable with the requirement that Local Boards deal only with non-regulatory matters, this does not preclude the Auckland Council from delegating to Local Board members the power to be part of a panel hearing resource consents, to provide the local input and enable better connectivity with the place-shaping role the Local Boards should have…”

Placeshaping and the role of Council Controlled Organisations

“…It does not appear from the Bill that Local Boards will have the ability to input into any strategies or plans made by the Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) this includes Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, or that the CCO’s will be accountable to the Local Boards for work to be done in a local area. There is likely to be a large amount of work doen by Local Boards in helping placeshape their neighbourhoods, this not only involves dealing with local people on what Auckland Council may do for them but also what might be needed in their respective areas in regard to traffic calming measures or parking issues on roads…. (however) Auckland Transport is not directly accountable to Local Boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of the CCO – eg through appointing directors, and influencing its Statement of Intent….”

“…. Our council would like to see some provision in the Bill for Local Boards to have the ability to deal directly with the transport organisation or any of the other CCO’s where there is a local impact in respect of the work they are doing. We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the 2 bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

3. Council Controlled Organisations

Retention of infrastructure assets in public ownership

“…we are strongly committed to the belief that all infrastructure assets should remain in public ownership… we believe that provisions surrounding Watercare Services Ltd remaining in public ownership should be enshrined in law….”

Establishment of CCO’s through Order in Council

“…The Bill allows the Minister to establish, through an Order in Council and on the recommendation of Auckland Transition Agency further CCO’s… our Council believes there should be further constraints placed on the criteria for establishing new CCO’s….”

Ability for Minister to appoint initial directors of CCO’s

“…The Bill provides for the Minister of Local Government to make the initial director appointments to the CCO’s established under an Order in Council. It is generally considered best practivce for the body to which the directors to be accountable, to appoint them… we believe there should be ability for an interim board to be appointed for an interim period, this will then give the Auckland Council the ability to review the board members and the mix of skills…”

Integration of Spatial Plan and Infrastructure

“… we believe there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to ‘give effect’ to the Auckland region Spatial Plan…”

Requirement to consider 4 well-beings

“…there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to consider the four well-beings as part of their planning process…”

Local Board agreements with CCO’s

“…We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

4. Planning

Spatial Plan and lack of timeframe

“…while we agree that the Auckland Council ‘must prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland’ (Clause 66(1)), we are concerned that there is no timeframe for when such a plan should be completed, and nor is anything said about when updates are required. We note that since Toronto became a unitary authority in 1998, there was considerable delay before its first Spatial Plan emerged – a delay that is widely seen as being a major cause of the difficult development environment that the city has experienced…”

“…we suggest that the wording in Clause 66(1) be amended to read: ‘That Auckland Council must set a strategic vision for the city and must prepare and adopt a spatial plan by the end of its first term in office. Updates to the spatial plan should be prepared on an as required basis but no less than every six years.’…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise importance of integrated planning

“…We believe it is critical that the proposed Auckland Council structure responds to the strategic importance of centre and corridor planning, particularly because these two fundamental elements of regional planning are controlled, respectively, by the Auckland Council and by Auckland Transport. But because we believe that the linkages between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are less strong than desirable…. There is a likelihood that integrated planning will be difficult to achieve…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise sustainability and sustainable development

“…In order that the purpose of the spatial plan… ‘Section 45, 66(2) becomes consistent with existing law and clearer about the imperative of long-term thinking in achieving sustainable development…’, we suggest that Section 45, ‘66(2) be amended to read: The purpose of the spatial plan is to provide an effective long-term strategy for the sustainable development and management of Auckland…”

“… we also feel that there should be a clear connection made between social, cultural and economic factors and the more ‘physical’ development responses that have been emphasised at Clause ’66. We therefore suggest that Clause ‘66(3)(f) be amended to read: “to set out a development strategy on how to achieve broad policy objectives for land use, transport, other infrastructure, and environmental management in Auckland’s evolving social, cultural and economic framework’…”

5. Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport’s objectives

“…The objective and operating principles of Auckland Transport, as set out under s.45 of the Third Bill, are not as specific or wide-ranging as the objectives for ARTA under the (soon to be repealed) Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004….”

“…the LGAAA (2004) provides more specific objectives for ARTA, which do not apply to Auckland Transport:

- expansion of what exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility means
- avoiding adverse effects on the environment
- ensuring views of affected parties are taken into account
- give land transport options early and full consideration
- provide early and full opportunities for consultation on land transport programmes
- focus on overall needs of region and views of communities
- consider needs of future generations, including cultural and economic wellbeing
- foster co-operative and colaborative working relastionships
- clear accountability

“…we believe that the objectives for Auckland Transport need to be more specific because they are currently open to misinterpretation… Auckland Transport’s objectives need to be similar to ARTA’s objectives…”

Accountability of Auckland Transport

“…Accountability during the transition phase to 1st November 2010. Prior to the Auckland Council coming into effect on 1 November, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) together with the Ministers of Local Government and Transport, influence the direction of Auckland’s transport systems. Legislation contained in the 3rd Bill will guide the direction of Auckland Transport – for example by setting objectives and operating principles – after the Bill becomes an Act. Thus, elected local representatives do not have any influence during the important transitional period…”

“…Ongoing accountability post 1st November 2010…. There is no statement on what happens if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with Auckland Transport’s contribution to the council’s (or the Government’s) objectives….”

“…Accountability to Local Boards…. Auckland Transport is not accountable to local boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of Auckland Transport… Auckland Transport, unlike other CCO’s, does not need to prepare and adopt a 10-year plan that includes information on how the organisation is giving effect to the Auckland Council’s strategy, plans and priorities… the 3rd Bill should set out consultation requirements for Auckland Transport, including the opportunity for Local Boards to provide feedback on proposed activities that have an impact on the Local Board’s area…”

“…Auckland Council oversight of Auckland Transport planning…. We note with concern that the proposed legislation at New Clause 75 subsection 3 (p.55) currently exempts Auckland Transport from the requirement to prepare and adopt a plan under New Clause 75 subsection 2(c) which enables Auckland Council to require substantive CCO’s to prepare and adopt a plan covering a period of at least 10 years describing how the organisation intends to: (i) manage, maintain, and invest in its assets; and (ii) maintain or improve service levels, and; (iii) respond to population growth and other changing environmental factors, and; (iv) give effect to the Council’s strategy, plans and priorities…. Removing Auckland Council’s exemption (as in the Bill now) would provide the opportunity for Auckland Council to obtain an explicit statement from Auckland Transport on how it intends to “give effect” to key Council strategies, in particular the Spatial Plan…”

Transport and Land Use Integration

“…The 3rd Bill is particularly emphatic in allocating responsibility for developing and managing the Auckland Transport System to Auckland Transport. But we believe the Bill does not adequately emphasise the fundamental importance of achieving transport and land use integration… Transport and land use integration is a key objective of the RLTS but we believe that its ability to influence the actions of Auckland Transport has been substantially downgraded from that currently applying to ARTA. Whereas the 3rd Bill requires the Auckland Transport’s RLTP to be ‘consistent with’ the RLTS, ARTA’s RLTP has been required to ‘give effect’ the RLTS…”

“….We have a number of questions about this:

- Will Auckland Transport reflect the land use strategies being promoted by the Auckland Council through the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in the RLTP?
- Will Auckland Transport provide public transport services and infrastructure which support the region’s land use strategies?
- How much recognition and accommodation will be given by Auckland Transport to land use objectives and plans in individual transport projects?

“…we believe the following additional objective for Auckland Transport is required….The objective of Auckland Transport is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the effective and sustainable integration of land use and the transport system, including an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable network…”

6. Ongoing operation of development contributions

“…development contributions represent a significant funding source for the Auckland region (projected to fund a total of $1.6 billion of growth related capital investment over the 2009-2019 period). If the legal provisions around transition and the ongoing ability of Auckland Council to use development contribuitions as a funding tool were not carefully managed, the new Auckland council would be faced with a major funding issue…”

7. Water and Stormwater organisation issues

“…there is some confusion around the relationship between wastewater services and stormwater. It is assumed that initially at least Auckland Council will be responsible for stormwater management across the region… while powers under LGA 74 Pt 21 have been removed from the Auckland Council (these relate to the use of vehicle crossings; planting in dividing strips; foot paths and channels….) some of these are useful for stomrwater management when dealing with overland flow and flooding, and the powers therefore need to be restored to Auckland Council for stormwater management. If these powers remain removed from Auckland Council, there needs to be a requirement for Auckland Transport to acknowledge the function of roads in managing/conveying stormwater and a requirement for them to work with Auckland Council…

Good eh?
Anyway, here's the link so you can download this submission. It's the lion's share of the agenda you can get from NSCC's website for its Council meeting of 3rd February 2010.
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/YourCouncil/Meetings/AgendasAndMinutes/Documents/2010%20Agendas%20Minutes/February/Council%203%20February%202010%20Order%20Paper.pdf

Walking Safely on the North Shore....

In many ways, walking and cycling are great ways to get around our city. These non-motorised travel methods cause virtually no noise or air pollution. The only energy they require is provided by the traveller, and the very generation of that energy leads to useful cardio-vascular exercise. These modes don’t take up much space either, and they are quite economical, costing much less than cars and public transport, both in direct user costs and public infrastructure costs. In fact the presence of pedestrians and cyclists enhance the liveliness or urban environments, making both commercial and residential areas safer and more interesting.

Unfortunately, North Shore City Council, in common with other Auckland Councils has done little to promote walking and cycling – especially safe walking and cycling. On the contrary, many recent transport “improvements” to North Shore City – generally to ease congestion and create more capacity for vehicular traffic - have often made walking and cycling less feasible, less convenient, and more dangerous. The consequence of this is that walking and cycling make up a smaller and smaller proportion of all trips.

A research project gave me an opportunity to to recall some of my experience of this. It serves to illustrate the problems that confront those who seek to ensure that the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society are recognised and provided for in all aspect of transport design.

Fig. 1 Wolseley Road. South side. Footpath camber safety issue for disability buggies, prams and children on bikes and other toys.

Figure 1 shows the footpath on the south side of Wolseley Road, Milford. It was pointed out to me by an elderly resident when I was campaigning for election to North Shore City Council in 1998. After election one of my goals was to change North Shore City council’s footpath policy so that this sort of problem would not be repeated. I also tried to ensure that retrospective repairs were made to pavement where there were similar safety issues. The photograph here was taken in 2007. To date no work has been carried out to remedy this problem. I raised this matter at various Council meetings. A typical response from some councillors was that people who were worried about falling, or rolling down the driveway (it was a joke for some), should use the other side of the road. Figure 2. shows the other side of the road.

Fig 2. Across the road from figure 1, looking East.

Officers explained to me, and to my fellow councillors – in report after report – that there was an issue with some North Shore roads, because of the steep terrain in some parts of the city, that unless effort was made to smooth the way between the road and the driveway, then cars would bottom and risk damage in making the transition from private property to the roadway. I understood that that was clearly an issue, but it did raise questions about the planning that had gone into the design of this road, and others like it across the East Coast Bays area. The question of who had right of way arose. I asked officers to report to council who had right of way on a footpath: did a car crossing the pavement have right of way, or did a pedestrian (or cyclist) using the pavement have right of way over a car crossing the pavement? When I asked these questions I expected the answer to be straightforward, but it took officers almost two years to provide the answer to the question. It was stated that national transport policy guidelines indicated that pedestrian users had right of way in those circumstances. We were getting somewhere.

Fig 3. Looking south along Lake Road near Belmont. The asphalt footpath has been resurfaced, but all of the driveway crossings have been replaced with concrete aprons allowing quick access and egress.

Then in 2002, after programmed maintenance of Lake Road pavements, I was surprised to see Devonport’s traditional asphalt footpaths altered and severed through the construction of concrete accessways, as pictured in Figure 3. These were put in place at the same time as footpath asphalt. When questioned, officers justified their actions by saying it was consistent with council’s “like with like” policy, that when maintenance work was done, like materials would be used when carrying out repair works – it was just that the concrete needed to be strengthened… By now a few more councillors shared my concerns. They could see that what had previously been regarded as a continuous pavement for pedestrians and other users, had been transformed into a dangerous obstacle course cluttered with a series of high speed private entry and egress access “roads”. I raised with officers the question whether constructing a pavement like this was consistent with national policy of ensuring that pavement users had priority over those needing to access the road or private property by driving across the pavement. It was obvious to all that the provision of carefully shaped aprons meant that it was easier for a car to drive into or out of a driveway at speed, putting pedestrians at increased risk. Officers suggested that – at considerable cost – these aprons could be removed. Another option was to cover the concrete with a coating of asphalt, but this would have camouflaged the fact that the surface was now undulating, and might itself contribute to accidents. All very frustrating. Around this time I became aware of the existence of Council engineering design standards. After some cajoling, Council officers were persuaded to put on a Works Committee agenda, a report which contained the particular engineering design standards that had led to the changes in pavement layout in Lake Road. These standards were also responsible for the design outcomes in East Coast Bays Roads like those illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. I moved resolutions which sought changes to these design standards in order to achieve pavement designs which would not discriminate against the safety of pedestrians and other pavement users, through prioritising the safety of cars and car movements. Though I still had a year of my term to run, this resolution did not succeed while I was Chair of the Works Committee.

Fig 4. Parents volunteer to walk groups of children along “routes” to local schools

A major success in 2003 was the development of North Shore City’s first Walking School Bus. Council was concerned at the number of car trips involved in taking kids to school. Surveys showed that parents did not want their children walking to school, because they felt it was not safe. Officers came up with the Walking Bus idea. It was supported by Councillors. Implementation was funded by Infrastructure Auckland, ARC and North Shore City Council. Positive media followed and – when ARTA was set up a year later – Walking School Buses was one of the first Travel Demand Management projects it adopted and pushed throughout the Auckland Region. This was a success story, and one North Shore City Council initiative I felt proud of. Then in 2004 another issue arose in respect of pedestrian safety, particularly the safety of children walking to Westlake Girls High School. Changes were proposed to the road network around that school to accommodate traffic-engineer predictions of increased movements along Wairau Road, and the need to provide for buses accessing the Westlake Busway Station. This involved Shakespeare Road being extended across Wairau Road.

Fig 5. Westlake Girls High School is in top left corner of this artist’s impression of the modified Wairau/Shakespeare Road intersection. The brown areas are pedestrian holding bays. Note the large radius turning curves which allow fast travel.

I recall chairing a meeting about these designs where the engineer responsible proudly explained that his designs would be safe for cars or buses driving at 70 kilometres/hour. Apparently the road intersection design was almost to motorway standard. When I reminded him that this was a 50 kph zone with five schools and thousands of students he merely shrugged. I spoke about this example at the 2007 Trafinz Conference, by which time I was on the ARC. Afterwards I was approached by Julie Chambers of Auckland District Health Board who was keen to talk with me about the need to change the way school designations were prepared, in order to better provide for the safety of children accessing schools. I was also approached by a slightly grumpy North Shore City Council traffic engineer, embarrassed by my criticism. He said to me, “you know what the problem is don’t you – the school is in the wrong place.”

Fig 6. Thousands of girls attend the school and need to cross this intersection to do so. It is busy and dangerous.

North Shore City Council reviews Cycle Strategy...

If you take a keen interest of cycling issues in and around Auckland, you'll know about the Lake Road cyclelane, and the public debate that whirled around that...

One of the outcomes at North Shore City Council of all the hot air and incendiary letters that ensued, was that it decided to review North Shore City's Cycle Strategy. That strategy was put together by a previous council - one a little more representative of the interests of cycling and of pedestrian oriented development and other modern ways of thinking about urban development and transport.

It is essential - I think - that a good number of thoughtful submissions are made. The strategy is being reviewed now. Submissions close on the 16th of March - a week's time.

You can see the current North Shore Cycle Strategy, and the form to make a submission (you can do it on the internet), on NSCC's website at:
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/have_your_say/walk_and_cycle_strategies/cycling_strategy.html

I've put in a submission. The submission form asks for your response to the vision, 5 goals and 7 strategies. You can go into those in detail at the NSCC website - but they are big files, and take a while to download etc. But the heart of the NSCC cycling strategy is as follows:


Vision and 5 Goals for cycling North Shore
The vision for cycling on the North Shore is:

“To provide a safe, convenient and enjoyable cycling environment that meets the needs of cyclists and encourages cycling as a mode of transport and as a means of recreation.”

This vision is supported by five goals which reflect national and regional transportation and community objectives. The goals are:

• To increase the number of people cycling


• To increase the number of students cycling to school


• To improve safety for cyclists


• To improve convenience for cyclists


• To improve enjoyment in cycling

The Executive Summary contains a brief description of the current 7 strategies to deliver that vision, and the 5 goals. I have pasted them here:


North Shore City Council 7 Cycle Strategies

Strategy 1 - Develop safe, convenient and quality cycle networks and supporting facilities to meet cyclists’ needs The provision of safe, convenient facilities for cyclists is paramount in encouraging people to change their travel behaviour. People must feel safe and know they can get to their destination easily. This strategy provides for the development of the cycle network (strategic and local) through cycle specific projects and other road improvements, and supporting facilities such as parking, learn to ride facilities, hand rails and integration with public transport.
Strategy 2 - Apply best practice cycle design guides to cycle networks and to cycle facilities Ensuring that the appropriate cycle facilities are located in the correct location and to the required guidelines and standards (safety and otherwise) will create a vibrant, well-used cycling environment on the North Shore. This strategy provides best practice solutions for cycle facility type, design and location,
incorporating Austroads documents and guides from Transit NZ, Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. It also provides a comprehensive process for delivering the best solution on a case by case basis, recognising that each situation is different. Best practice design guides also apply to urban design and safety guides and Land Transport Rules. This chapter also outlines enforcement in terms of ensuring appropriate behaviour from motorists and cyclists.
Strategy 3 - Maintain cycle infrastructure to a high standard. Once facilities are in place it is important to ensure that they are kept up to standard and updated where and when necessary. This strategy outlines the cycle facility maintenance plan. Another important facet of maintenance is monitoring and evaluation – ensuring that the facility or programme is achieving the goals of this Cycling Strategy. North Shore City is following the lead of the Regional Cycle Monitoring Plan in its monitoring and evaluation programme.
Strategy 4 – Support education and training programmes that improve cycle safety North Shore City Council is dedicated to protecting its citizens and improving road safety. This strategy provides for the ongoing expansion of the Council’s cycle safety programme, which includes education sessions delivered in schools and workplaces
as well as other community initiatives. Driver awareness and education is addressed through active support of regional and national campaigns. Current programmes include:
• ‘Bike It’ the North Shore City schools’ bike programme
• Kids Bike Day
• ‘Share the Road’ campaign (regional and North Shore City level)
• Adult beginner bike sessions
Strategy 5 – Support programmes promoting cycling In order to
maximise the number of people using the cycle facilities provided around the city, a programme is required for promoting cycling as a safe and efficient way to get around. This strategy provides for the ongoing implementation and development of programmes such as the TravelWise school programme and the workplace travel plan programme, which are important channels for promoting safe cycling to people travelling to school and their place of work. The Council will also continue to promote cycling through cycling events, community based programmes, neighbourhood accessibility plans, personalised journey plans and by supporting promotional activities initiated by other organisations.
Strategy 6 – Improve the coordination of efforts amongst groups affecting cycling. The provision of cycle facilities and programmes is progressed by many different parts of North Shore City Council. This strategy seeks to develop processes and structures to maximise the efficiency of these different parts of Council and ensure the successful delivery of this plan. The main driver for coordination will be a cycle steering group made up of relevant Council officers. This group will monitor the implementation of this document and report back to other Council departments and external organisations and groups.
Strategy 7 - Ensure that where possible, adequate resources are available to implement the Cycling Strategy Resources are required to action the strategies outlined above. This strategy puts in place the processes required to ensure that, where possible, this funding is available from all obtainable sources – in particular from the New Zealand Transport Agency and North Shore City Council itself.

I recommend you make a submission.


The survey questions, and my submission, were basically this:

Do the vision statement and goals reflect your vision and goals for cycling in North Shore City?: Yes.

Are the seven strategies appropriate to achieve the vision and goals?:
No

If not, please suggest how these could be improved.:

Strategy 1 is supported. Safety is paramount to deliver the vision. If people don't feel it is safe to cycle on North Shore, then this effectively means North Shore City does not "encourage cycling as a mode of transport..."

Strategy 2 goes too far, in my opinion, in emphasising "best practice cycle design guides to cycle networks and to cycle facilities". It is more important now to be re-allocating road space to cycling (by setting it aside with white painted lines for example), and by removing the right to park cars in the road reserve. It is also more important now to be working with Parks Dept (and ARC's Parks Dept) to allocate space within parks and reserves for green cycleroutes - which can connect with road cycleroutes. Then later, as demand and acceptance grows, then resources can be allocated to improving the standard of cycleway infrastructure. It is better to have a safe cycling network that is less than perfect, than it is to have a few short sequences of cyclepaths which are world class, but which don't connect, and lack utility.

Strategy 3. My response to this is similar to Strategy 2. What is important to cyclists is that cyclepaths on road reserves are swept regularly, and are kept clear of glass fragments and other detritus that can make cycling unsafe or unreliable. It is better that existing cyclelanes are kept functional, rather than money being wasted keeping them beautiful. In cash-strapped times the priority needs to be utility and safety - rather than perfection.

Strategies 4, 5 and 6 are essentially motherhood and apple pie. It is good to do these things. It is good for NSCC to be walking the talk. It is also appropriate for NSCC to act consistent with its vision for cycling on the North Shore.

Strategy 7. I don't support the caveat "where possible" in this strategy. NSCC has a duty to deliver multi-modal transport infrastructure. There is clear direction from all levels that Auckland, and its sub-cities, need to do far more to encourage land use settlement patterns, and urban form which "encourage cycling as a mode of transport...". Just as NSCC has promulgated Plan Changes 22, 23 and 24 to require much greater responsibility on the part of land developers to ensure that stormwater effects are minimised etc, then in the same way, NSCC needs to be ensuring that its District Plan guides and shapes land use patterns which will genuinely "encourage cycling as a mode of transport" - ie that people are encouraged to use a bike for local errands, shopping, going to school, going to work etc - rather than feeling actively discouraged to use a bike by land settlement patterns, absence of safe lanes, and large physical distances between land uses, limited mixed uses etc. Thus - NSCC has a duty to financially support cycle infrastructure development, but it also has a planning duty to ensure that land use patterns also "encourage cycling as a mode of transport".

If this is relevant, please tell us how we can work together. :
As an ARC councillor, I am keen to ensure that Regional Planning and TLA planning is well integrated and coordinated. Am happy to come along and talk about this, or/and facilitate sharing of ideas with ARTA.

Are the actions listed in the Cycling Strategy 2009 appropriate to achieve the vision and goals?: No

If not, please explain what we could do better or differently.:
In particular, my comments in regard to Strategy 2 and 3 indicate that the priority now is to establish NSCC cycle path networks (that don't need to be gold-plated). Cycle infrastructure needs to be connected and joined up. PM Keys initiative for a national cycleway is a good opportunity for NSCC to share this popular vision, and engage over how this path might integrate with North Shore cycle infrastructure. It is important for North Shore's economic future and tourism, that North Shore is part of this initiative.

For your interest.