Showing posts with label SuperCity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SuperCity. Show all posts

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Isn't Aisling's death a stormwater wake-up call for Auckland?

There's been a little bit of news coverage of what Waitakere City Council - councillors and staff - must be going through after Aisling was found drowned in one of Waitakere's stormwater pipes.

There but for the grace of God go many of Auckland's Councils I think.

Stormwater has always been the "poor relation" of Auckland's waters.

This gives a good idea of what happens when a stomrwater pipe surcharges in heavy rain (shower gone past in this picture, but overland flow continues as land drains). The bulge of water will be surging from a stormwater pipe below ground. Here, there is an overland flow path above the pipe.

So far, in Auckland's restructuring, stormwater is running through the cracks...

Stormwater manhole lids are locked into place by lugs. The lids turn to lock. But in my experience stormwater lids routinely "pop off" or "pop open" under the pressure of stormwater when pipes are surcharged (full).

Who will control this infrastructure in Auckland's SuperCity?



This diagram gives a good idea of what a stormwater pipe looks like, and its connections to manholes and manhole covers above. (This image is actually a sewer pipe, but the principle is the same...). The diagram also shows some of the problems that arise, like cracks in the pipes, like tree roots getting in. All of these problems need to be managed. The pipes go where water goes.



Under present arrangements, stormwater pipes are controlled by Auckland's councils. Some Councils have integrated the management of stormwater infrastructure with that of water and wastewater. Three water strategies are what the modern world does. It is working reasonably well. But obviously not perfect as the Waitakere experience clearly demonstrates.
But under present proposals, Watercare will ONLY pick up water and wastewater. Nobody has said anything about what will happen to stormwater infrastructure.
So who will?




Sunday, September 27, 2009

SuperCity - Boundaries and Local Government Commission

Last week ARC had a couple of meetings about Auckland's ward boundaries. One of those was at the invitation of the Local Government Commission. They're under a tight timetable to deliver boundaries:

- for the proposed Community Boards (Councils)
- for the wards of Auckland Council

The Commission has got some practical grunt on it: Grant Kirby has been involved with local government in Auckland (from Rodney to AMETI) for years; Gwen Bull was an ARC councillor and chaired it; Sue Piper (who I don't know so well) she was a member of the Wellington City Council from 1995 to 2004 and has been a member of the National Council of Local Government New Zealand. Makes a change to have some local government experience being applied to the SuperCity challenge - compared with the woeful ignorance and lack of local government experience we see at Cabinet.

The ARC presented to the LGC its majority position, but it was also an opportunity for individual members to share minority views with the Commission. I was among the ARC members who took up that invitation.

On Community Boards, my opinion is:

- the present City Councils divide their efforst and time about 15% on planning (District Plan changes, and Long Term Community Planning); and 85% on service delivery (libraries, pools, parks, road maintenance, community services, dogs, regulation, noise control, road reserves....);
- that because City Councils are to be abolished, it is essential that Community Boards have the scale and size to be relied upon to deliver a sizeable chunk of those services (otherwise Auckland Council will have to, and it will distract Auckland Council from big picture responsibilities);
- so bigger is better than smaller, for Community Boards;
- these entities need to be renamed Community Councils (or suchlike). They represent a break with the past. They need to be seen to be different from the past. Because they will do more, and they need to be seen as different and have greater responsibilities, to attract good calibre candidates. Retaining the old name "community board" - which is referred to in LGA - will simply indicate business as usual. Call them: "Community Councils..."
- in my view, North Shore should have 2 or at the most 3 Community Councils (I am aware that there is a call for Devonport to be retained as a small individual Community Council because of its geographic isolation and community of interest. However, if that means there has to be a Takapuna Community Council by itself, then I believe this will result in Community Councils which are too small, and lack scale needed.)
- the way to address the Community of Interest requirement is to subdivide these fewer Community Council areas into wards. These wards would be aligned with the current community board areas. So, if North Shore had 2 Community Councils, each would have 3 wards, and each ward would have a number of Community Councillors elected.


On Auckland Council Wards, my opinion is:

- these need to be multi-member wards (ie not 20 one member wards);
- ARC presently has 2 single-member wards (Papakura/Franklin and Rodney), 2 two-member wards (Waitakere and North Shore), 1 three-member ward (Manukau), 1 four-member ward (Auckland). This has worked well to create cohesive regional governance, where members largely debate the needs of the region, rather than being distracted into parochialism;
- I was elected to North Shore City Council in 1998 when its ward boundaries were changed by the Local Government Commission around 1997 from what I understand was 15 one-member wards, to 3 five-member wards. The new council, with its multi-member wards, was noted for cohesive city-wide decision-making;
- Auckland Council must focus on regional strategic development and direction. It cannot be distracted into local issues, otherwise the whole purpose of the reform will be lost. However, it will only be able to do that if it has confidence that its local service arm - the Community Councils - are doing that job well, and acting as its eyes and ears into communities of interest.


So. The two things: Community Councils and Auckland Council wards, need to be assessed together. This is governance at appropriate levels, but it is integrated governance. Regional, municipal and local. Together.

Having said all that. The above. I would like to say again: the extent and depth of the present restructuring proposed is damaging and destructive. The baby - or a goodly part of the baby - is being thrown out with this reform.

What I believed was a necessary and sufficient reform was:

- change the city councils to municipal authorities and allow them to appoint chairs but not have elected mayors;
- have one rates bill from Greater Auckland Council which has 3 lines: regional rates; municipal rates; water rates;
- put Watercare under Greater Auckland Council (with ARTA);
- ensure municipal authorities required to implement Regional Policy Statement and Regional Land Transport Strategy


Where we are now is vague, where we are headed is uncertain, and what will happen to institutions and good people is damaging.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Stormwater slips through cracks in Supercity reforms

Given Auckland's high annual rainfall and the increasing incidence of weather bomb problems, it is concerning that Parliament's Supercity Select Committee recommends that Auckland's stormwater be separated from the management of Auckland's water and wastewater.

Their decision adds weight to worries that Watercare is being shaped into a neat vertically integrated business funded by revenues from water and wastewater charges. This business model would be upset by Auckland's stormwater challenges, but then public services do not always lend themselves to market solutions.

Today, Auckland's "three-water" services are delivered locally in an integrated way. Councils recognise how inter-twined our waters are, whether we like it or not, and they need to be managed together for a host of reasons.

In the old days, stormwater was managed by council roading departments. But even that model will not possible under Supercity proposals, because roads are to be managed by a separate transport infrastructure agency with little interest in stormwater.

Stormwater cannot be allowed to flow through the cracks in these reforms. Integrated management of Auckland's stormwater assets and ponds and flowpaths is essential.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Government SuperCity Model Undermines NZ Law

For 20 years Auckland has developed and re-shaped itself following the 1989 Amalgamation. Legislative planks that have underpinned Auckland planning over that time are the Resource Management Act 1991 and the more recent Local Government Act.

Both of these Acts profoundly influence and enable the way that the public and communities are involved in Auckland planning.

It has taken Auckland's councils time and effort to properly engage with and adapt their institutional arrangements to fit these new laws. Among other things that delay, or organisational intertia has led to delays in implementing the Growth Strategy - which calls for more efficient and intensive development of parts of Auckland around mass transport corridors (like rail and bus and ferry), and less wasteful greenfield sprawl at the edges.

The LGAAA 2004, amended the Local Government Act and put more direction into what Councils needed to do, to give effect to the Growth Strategy.

And it has been happening: New Lynn and Newmarket are standout examples. And planning is underway for change in other parts of the region now: St Lukes and Milford shopping centres are examples that come to mind readily.

But Government's proposed changes risk halting that progress. Government's proposals will lead to centralised planning, and to just 20 councillors.

The public are only slightly aware of the important and significant role that District Plan changes and Designations under the RMA are to urban change. Nobody - not even Councils or Government agencies - can build something, or permit something to be built, unless the District Plan provides for it. Unless it is permitted by the District Plan.

Waitakere City's New Lynn project required a suite of District Plan changes. These will enable medium density and high density development around the railway station. These Plan Changes did not happen overnight. They are not like a resource consent permit to build a house. They are at the heart of planning. The RMA imposes a range of consultation requirements and obligations when changes are made to the District Plan. The public - even under proposed streamlining changes to the RMA - still have very significant opportunities for input to Plan Changes. Council has very significant duties to ensure the changes to the plan - and their implications - are well understood by the community.

The affected community includes local land owners. Some residential. Some business. And there are the infrastructure operators as well: public transport, roading, water, electricity....

Waitakere City Council carried out much of this consultation using Charrette processes. These are a form of consultation which is intensive, involving, creative, and which takes time. Experts were brought in to explain options for change. Meetings took place over an extended time period. Wall charts went up. People indicated their support for some things and not others. This process took a couple of years for New Lynn. And it's still going on as detail gets worked through.
Ultimately, the council proposed various District Plan changes. These are policy decisions for the council to take. Elected councillors make the final decisions. Most Plan Changes are heard by Councillors. They should be. While there is pressure to professionalise this process, and ensure that no politician is seeking to pork barrel over any aspect, there is no taking away from the reality that Plan Change processes are highly contested.

Public issues and public realm are at stake. Land development profit opportunities are evident. Development levies need to be calculated so infrastructure is paid for appropriately. Those decisions are taken under the Local Government Act, which is entwined with RMA decisions.

Plan Changes to District Plans take time.

They are the fundamental basis for Auckland planning. As are designations. These are needed for new motorways for example. Or other new public works like schools.

There has been much debate in the media about resource consent planning processes, and who will do those under the SuperCity. But resource consents are heard in terms of the District Plan. I am talking here about the District Plan itself. How it changes over time. How it needs to change to enable Auckland to develop in a more energy efficient and land efficient way. A more compact way. A way that is the agreed alternative to sprawl.

Auckland's future development is dependent on the District Plan. These are 7 of these now. One for each territorial authority area. They are changing all the time.

I am sitting on a plan change hearing now. There is a private plan change being heard for farm land at Takanini - Papakura. This Plan Change is problematic because it involves a shift in the MUL. However there are many other Plan Changes being considered across Auckland Region.

ARC's Transport and Urban Development Ctte was advised of a major Plan Change being prepared for St Lukes shopping area. This is another private Plan Change. Auckland City Council is the consent authority, as it affects its District Plan. Consultation obligations must be met and public participation is substantial.

Political decisions are required to ensure that the level of public consultation and involvement is appropriate. And that the Plan Change itself is good and fair to all parties affected. This work goes largely un-noticed by the public, yet it is fundamental to Auckland's direction, and to the implementation of the principles that underpin the Local Government and Resource Management Acts.

Abolishing the councils that do this work, and that manage the contest between public realm development and private benefit, puts much of what has begun to work well across Auckland at risk. Cutting councillors from their present level to just 20 will seriously undermine their ability to carry out the essentially political work that this process demands.

It will mean greater delegation to officers of this work. It will mean that councillors are removed from the reality and the impact of their decisions. This will not improve representation. Whether government likes it or not, elected council representatives are the people whose job it is to manage the awkward decisions that no-one else likes to make.

These need to be as public as possible. Because planning and Plan Changes are not a private matter. Less planning will not mean better outcomes.

Government changes will damage the implementation of New Zealand law. If we had a constitution in NZ, Government could not change these governance arrangements in so draconian a way. Government should take a long hard look in the mirror, and a deep breath before going further with these destructive plans.
Showing posts with label SuperCity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SuperCity. Show all posts

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Isn't Aisling's death a stormwater wake-up call for Auckland?

There's been a little bit of news coverage of what Waitakere City Council - councillors and staff - must be going through after Aisling was found drowned in one of Waitakere's stormwater pipes.

There but for the grace of God go many of Auckland's Councils I think.

Stormwater has always been the "poor relation" of Auckland's waters.

This gives a good idea of what happens when a stomrwater pipe surcharges in heavy rain (shower gone past in this picture, but overland flow continues as land drains). The bulge of water will be surging from a stormwater pipe below ground. Here, there is an overland flow path above the pipe.

So far, in Auckland's restructuring, stormwater is running through the cracks...

Stormwater manhole lids are locked into place by lugs. The lids turn to lock. But in my experience stormwater lids routinely "pop off" or "pop open" under the pressure of stormwater when pipes are surcharged (full).

Who will control this infrastructure in Auckland's SuperCity?



This diagram gives a good idea of what a stormwater pipe looks like, and its connections to manholes and manhole covers above. (This image is actually a sewer pipe, but the principle is the same...). The diagram also shows some of the problems that arise, like cracks in the pipes, like tree roots getting in. All of these problems need to be managed. The pipes go where water goes.



Under present arrangements, stormwater pipes are controlled by Auckland's councils. Some Councils have integrated the management of stormwater infrastructure with that of water and wastewater. Three water strategies are what the modern world does. It is working reasonably well. But obviously not perfect as the Waitakere experience clearly demonstrates.
But under present proposals, Watercare will ONLY pick up water and wastewater. Nobody has said anything about what will happen to stormwater infrastructure.
So who will?




Sunday, September 27, 2009

SuperCity - Boundaries and Local Government Commission

Last week ARC had a couple of meetings about Auckland's ward boundaries. One of those was at the invitation of the Local Government Commission. They're under a tight timetable to deliver boundaries:

- for the proposed Community Boards (Councils)
- for the wards of Auckland Council

The Commission has got some practical grunt on it: Grant Kirby has been involved with local government in Auckland (from Rodney to AMETI) for years; Gwen Bull was an ARC councillor and chaired it; Sue Piper (who I don't know so well) she was a member of the Wellington City Council from 1995 to 2004 and has been a member of the National Council of Local Government New Zealand. Makes a change to have some local government experience being applied to the SuperCity challenge - compared with the woeful ignorance and lack of local government experience we see at Cabinet.

The ARC presented to the LGC its majority position, but it was also an opportunity for individual members to share minority views with the Commission. I was among the ARC members who took up that invitation.

On Community Boards, my opinion is:

- the present City Councils divide their efforst and time about 15% on planning (District Plan changes, and Long Term Community Planning); and 85% on service delivery (libraries, pools, parks, road maintenance, community services, dogs, regulation, noise control, road reserves....);
- that because City Councils are to be abolished, it is essential that Community Boards have the scale and size to be relied upon to deliver a sizeable chunk of those services (otherwise Auckland Council will have to, and it will distract Auckland Council from big picture responsibilities);
- so bigger is better than smaller, for Community Boards;
- these entities need to be renamed Community Councils (or suchlike). They represent a break with the past. They need to be seen to be different from the past. Because they will do more, and they need to be seen as different and have greater responsibilities, to attract good calibre candidates. Retaining the old name "community board" - which is referred to in LGA - will simply indicate business as usual. Call them: "Community Councils..."
- in my view, North Shore should have 2 or at the most 3 Community Councils (I am aware that there is a call for Devonport to be retained as a small individual Community Council because of its geographic isolation and community of interest. However, if that means there has to be a Takapuna Community Council by itself, then I believe this will result in Community Councils which are too small, and lack scale needed.)
- the way to address the Community of Interest requirement is to subdivide these fewer Community Council areas into wards. These wards would be aligned with the current community board areas. So, if North Shore had 2 Community Councils, each would have 3 wards, and each ward would have a number of Community Councillors elected.


On Auckland Council Wards, my opinion is:

- these need to be multi-member wards (ie not 20 one member wards);
- ARC presently has 2 single-member wards (Papakura/Franklin and Rodney), 2 two-member wards (Waitakere and North Shore), 1 three-member ward (Manukau), 1 four-member ward (Auckland). This has worked well to create cohesive regional governance, where members largely debate the needs of the region, rather than being distracted into parochialism;
- I was elected to North Shore City Council in 1998 when its ward boundaries were changed by the Local Government Commission around 1997 from what I understand was 15 one-member wards, to 3 five-member wards. The new council, with its multi-member wards, was noted for cohesive city-wide decision-making;
- Auckland Council must focus on regional strategic development and direction. It cannot be distracted into local issues, otherwise the whole purpose of the reform will be lost. However, it will only be able to do that if it has confidence that its local service arm - the Community Councils - are doing that job well, and acting as its eyes and ears into communities of interest.


So. The two things: Community Councils and Auckland Council wards, need to be assessed together. This is governance at appropriate levels, but it is integrated governance. Regional, municipal and local. Together.

Having said all that. The above. I would like to say again: the extent and depth of the present restructuring proposed is damaging and destructive. The baby - or a goodly part of the baby - is being thrown out with this reform.

What I believed was a necessary and sufficient reform was:

- change the city councils to municipal authorities and allow them to appoint chairs but not have elected mayors;
- have one rates bill from Greater Auckland Council which has 3 lines: regional rates; municipal rates; water rates;
- put Watercare under Greater Auckland Council (with ARTA);
- ensure municipal authorities required to implement Regional Policy Statement and Regional Land Transport Strategy


Where we are now is vague, where we are headed is uncertain, and what will happen to institutions and good people is damaging.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Stormwater slips through cracks in Supercity reforms

Given Auckland's high annual rainfall and the increasing incidence of weather bomb problems, it is concerning that Parliament's Supercity Select Committee recommends that Auckland's stormwater be separated from the management of Auckland's water and wastewater.

Their decision adds weight to worries that Watercare is being shaped into a neat vertically integrated business funded by revenues from water and wastewater charges. This business model would be upset by Auckland's stormwater challenges, but then public services do not always lend themselves to market solutions.

Today, Auckland's "three-water" services are delivered locally in an integrated way. Councils recognise how inter-twined our waters are, whether we like it or not, and they need to be managed together for a host of reasons.

In the old days, stormwater was managed by council roading departments. But even that model will not possible under Supercity proposals, because roads are to be managed by a separate transport infrastructure agency with little interest in stormwater.

Stormwater cannot be allowed to flow through the cracks in these reforms. Integrated management of Auckland's stormwater assets and ponds and flowpaths is essential.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Government SuperCity Model Undermines NZ Law

For 20 years Auckland has developed and re-shaped itself following the 1989 Amalgamation. Legislative planks that have underpinned Auckland planning over that time are the Resource Management Act 1991 and the more recent Local Government Act.

Both of these Acts profoundly influence and enable the way that the public and communities are involved in Auckland planning.

It has taken Auckland's councils time and effort to properly engage with and adapt their institutional arrangements to fit these new laws. Among other things that delay, or organisational intertia has led to delays in implementing the Growth Strategy - which calls for more efficient and intensive development of parts of Auckland around mass transport corridors (like rail and bus and ferry), and less wasteful greenfield sprawl at the edges.

The LGAAA 2004, amended the Local Government Act and put more direction into what Councils needed to do, to give effect to the Growth Strategy.

And it has been happening: New Lynn and Newmarket are standout examples. And planning is underway for change in other parts of the region now: St Lukes and Milford shopping centres are examples that come to mind readily.

But Government's proposed changes risk halting that progress. Government's proposals will lead to centralised planning, and to just 20 councillors.

The public are only slightly aware of the important and significant role that District Plan changes and Designations under the RMA are to urban change. Nobody - not even Councils or Government agencies - can build something, or permit something to be built, unless the District Plan provides for it. Unless it is permitted by the District Plan.

Waitakere City's New Lynn project required a suite of District Plan changes. These will enable medium density and high density development around the railway station. These Plan Changes did not happen overnight. They are not like a resource consent permit to build a house. They are at the heart of planning. The RMA imposes a range of consultation requirements and obligations when changes are made to the District Plan. The public - even under proposed streamlining changes to the RMA - still have very significant opportunities for input to Plan Changes. Council has very significant duties to ensure the changes to the plan - and their implications - are well understood by the community.

The affected community includes local land owners. Some residential. Some business. And there are the infrastructure operators as well: public transport, roading, water, electricity....

Waitakere City Council carried out much of this consultation using Charrette processes. These are a form of consultation which is intensive, involving, creative, and which takes time. Experts were brought in to explain options for change. Meetings took place over an extended time period. Wall charts went up. People indicated their support for some things and not others. This process took a couple of years for New Lynn. And it's still going on as detail gets worked through.
Ultimately, the council proposed various District Plan changes. These are policy decisions for the council to take. Elected councillors make the final decisions. Most Plan Changes are heard by Councillors. They should be. While there is pressure to professionalise this process, and ensure that no politician is seeking to pork barrel over any aspect, there is no taking away from the reality that Plan Change processes are highly contested.

Public issues and public realm are at stake. Land development profit opportunities are evident. Development levies need to be calculated so infrastructure is paid for appropriately. Those decisions are taken under the Local Government Act, which is entwined with RMA decisions.

Plan Changes to District Plans take time.

They are the fundamental basis for Auckland planning. As are designations. These are needed for new motorways for example. Or other new public works like schools.

There has been much debate in the media about resource consent planning processes, and who will do those under the SuperCity. But resource consents are heard in terms of the District Plan. I am talking here about the District Plan itself. How it changes over time. How it needs to change to enable Auckland to develop in a more energy efficient and land efficient way. A more compact way. A way that is the agreed alternative to sprawl.

Auckland's future development is dependent on the District Plan. These are 7 of these now. One for each territorial authority area. They are changing all the time.

I am sitting on a plan change hearing now. There is a private plan change being heard for farm land at Takanini - Papakura. This Plan Change is problematic because it involves a shift in the MUL. However there are many other Plan Changes being considered across Auckland Region.

ARC's Transport and Urban Development Ctte was advised of a major Plan Change being prepared for St Lukes shopping area. This is another private Plan Change. Auckland City Council is the consent authority, as it affects its District Plan. Consultation obligations must be met and public participation is substantial.

Political decisions are required to ensure that the level of public consultation and involvement is appropriate. And that the Plan Change itself is good and fair to all parties affected. This work goes largely un-noticed by the public, yet it is fundamental to Auckland's direction, and to the implementation of the principles that underpin the Local Government and Resource Management Acts.

Abolishing the councils that do this work, and that manage the contest between public realm development and private benefit, puts much of what has begun to work well across Auckland at risk. Cutting councillors from their present level to just 20 will seriously undermine their ability to carry out the essentially political work that this process demands.

It will mean greater delegation to officers of this work. It will mean that councillors are removed from the reality and the impact of their decisions. This will not improve representation. Whether government likes it or not, elected council representatives are the people whose job it is to manage the awkward decisions that no-one else likes to make.

These need to be as public as possible. Because planning and Plan Changes are not a private matter. Less planning will not mean better outcomes.

Government changes will damage the implementation of New Zealand law. If we had a constitution in NZ, Government could not change these governance arrangements in so draconian a way. Government should take a long hard look in the mirror, and a deep breath before going further with these destructive plans.