Showing posts with label expansion plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expansion plans. Show all posts

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Submissions B: Waterfront Plan

Where is the Masterplan?

With its emphasis on projects and proposals, and its 3 year planning horizon, the DWP does not pretend to be a Masterplan. However Auckland has been promised a Waterfront Masterplan from the re-organisation of Auckland local government. There appear to be a number of “givens” in the DWP (eg Cruise on Queens, Wynyard Quarter structure plan, Ports expansion plan). No options for these givens are included in the DWP. The risk of assuming these proposals were well planned when the DWP was prepared, is that the learnings from the Rugby World Cup will not be applied. It is submitted that all of these projects need re-assessment in the light of RWC experience.

Submission 2: Ports expansion plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and scenario options developed to enable a formal planning process.

Submissions D: Waterfront Plan

Ports Growth Plans

What happens to Auckland’s Port in the next decade or two will have a major influence on the rest of the waterfront. Anticipated effects from an expansion of Ports and import/export shipping include traffic effects (both in the water and on road and rail), view effects, and demand for berthage which could be allocated to other uses – eg cruise ships. The WDA acts for Auckland in respect to the rest of the waterfront and must have a view on what those Port expansion plan effects will be, how they should be managed, and whether they are sufficiently adverse to merit some re-consideration of Port development plans. It is submitted that the DWP fails to properly address this matter, which means that the DWP fails to address the Auckland waterfront in an integrated way.

It is submitted that simply incorporating POAL development plans into the DWP is insufficient. Other options need to be investigated.

The expansion proposals for Ports assume that another 20 hectares – or thereabouts – of waterfront will be reclaimed for Ports activities. This needs to be put in perspective. For example the proposed headland park will be about 3 hectares. Queens Wharf is about 2.5 hectares. The benefits to Auckland’s visitor economy of a successful public waterfront space need to be weighed against the disbenefits that will arise from a significant port expansion.

Submission 4: Ports plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and regard be had for their impact on Auckland’s local and international visitor economy.

Showing posts with label expansion plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expansion plans. Show all posts

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Submissions B: Waterfront Plan

Where is the Masterplan?

With its emphasis on projects and proposals, and its 3 year planning horizon, the DWP does not pretend to be a Masterplan. However Auckland has been promised a Waterfront Masterplan from the re-organisation of Auckland local government. There appear to be a number of “givens” in the DWP (eg Cruise on Queens, Wynyard Quarter structure plan, Ports expansion plan). No options for these givens are included in the DWP. The risk of assuming these proposals were well planned when the DWP was prepared, is that the learnings from the Rugby World Cup will not be applied. It is submitted that all of these projects need re-assessment in the light of RWC experience.

Submission 2: Ports expansion plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and scenario options developed to enable a formal planning process.

Submissions D: Waterfront Plan

Ports Growth Plans

What happens to Auckland’s Port in the next decade or two will have a major influence on the rest of the waterfront. Anticipated effects from an expansion of Ports and import/export shipping include traffic effects (both in the water and on road and rail), view effects, and demand for berthage which could be allocated to other uses – eg cruise ships. The WDA acts for Auckland in respect to the rest of the waterfront and must have a view on what those Port expansion plan effects will be, how they should be managed, and whether they are sufficiently adverse to merit some re-consideration of Port development plans. It is submitted that the DWP fails to properly address this matter, which means that the DWP fails to address the Auckland waterfront in an integrated way.

It is submitted that simply incorporating POAL development plans into the DWP is insufficient. Other options need to be investigated.

The expansion proposals for Ports assume that another 20 hectares – or thereabouts – of waterfront will be reclaimed for Ports activities. This needs to be put in perspective. For example the proposed headland park will be about 3 hectares. Queens Wharf is about 2.5 hectares. The benefits to Auckland’s visitor economy of a successful public waterfront space need to be weighed against the disbenefits that will arise from a significant port expansion.

Submission 4: Ports plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and regard be had for their impact on Auckland’s local and international visitor economy.