Auckland Plan - Users Guide

The Auckland Council has published 4 plans and invites submissions from citizens. These must be in by October 25th. Through NZ Herald, Deputy Mayor Hulse worries there might be more than 3000 submissions and they might not be able to be heard. Apparently - in law - any citizen who wants to be heard can request to be heard, and Council must meet that need. Cllr Hulse is seeking advice about this.... it's a worry...


Unfortunately, the documents are massive.

The Draft Auckland Plan alone is 250 pages long.

The Draft Economic Development Strategy is over 100 pages.

The Draft City Centre Masterplan is around 200 pages.

The Draft Waterfront Plan is estimated to be around 300 pages.

That's around 800 pages total. I've looked briefly at the Auckland Plan and it's a dense read. You can get printed copies, and you can download files from the Council website. But as Brian Rudman reports today in his NZ Herald column, these files are huge and even caused his computer to hang.

So. It's a big ask. Rudman's advice is to download the questionnaires and enter your feedback into them. That's not a bad idea. You can meaningfully submit without reading 800 pages.

Click here to go to that webpage. It has links to the plans, and links to submission forms.

But you probably miss the real objectives behind these plans.

My two decades of experience of Auckland "Long Term Planning" suggests that it is not really about long term planning at all. It is really about short term projects and short term thinking. Auckland local government institutions - despite their history - have a remarkably short term focus. Apart from motorways. But then those were planned by Central Government's Ministry of Works years ago. Even the North Shore Busway was planned as mitigation for a motorway project, by Transit, the nation's motorway provider.

What happens in Auckland "long term planning" is that it all crystallises in those pages at the back where actual projects get listed. The ones at the top get built. The rest don't. It's pretty easy really.

Why do we think short term - especially in Auckland? I'd like to introduce some new thinking here. National cultures can be described according to the analysis of Geert Hofstede. These ideas were first based on a large research project into national culture differences across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries. Studies identified and validated four independent dimensions of national culture differences, with a fifth dimension added later.

A good link about these ideas is here.

The cultural dimensions are:

• Power Distance
• Individualism
• Masculinity
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Long-Term Orientation

I won't go into detail here, but just summarise the key cultural differences between New Zealand, Japan and Sweden. I should point out that these assessments are averages. They are not immutable. They change over time. They can be recognised and compensated for - in planning terms. But they shouldn't necessarily be given into. Especially if planners recognise the problem caused by doing as we have always done (A: You get what you've always got....).

So. Comparisons. See the table. Hofstede’s Power Distance Index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. NZ's score indicates a low acceptance that power be distributed unequally. Which you'd expect.

Individualism is the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. NZ's score is high. Influenced by a mix of free market entrepreneurialism, and the happy anarchy that many NZers have.

Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole ‘feminine’. This is one of the interesting ones for NZ to look at - not so much the difference between NZ and Japan, but the difference between NZ and Sweden - one of the caring Nordic countries. Read in NZ planning - look out for male bullying.

Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’. Again, NZ is much less tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity than Sweden. Read: NZ unhappy with uncertainty in planning (though the process of planning is uncertain by its nature, though not of its findings in the end).

Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore, Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension.

Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension:

Long term orientation:
-persistence
-ordering relationships by status and observing this order
-thrift
-having a sense of shame

Short term orientation:
-personal steadiness and stability
-protecting your ‘face’
-respect or tradition
-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

While NZ scores on a par with Sweden, what makes this an interesting cultural aspect of NZ institutional behaviour, especially how local Government institutions behave, is its relationship with Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Could it explain why Auckland Local Government is characterised by male bullying (high masculinity score), pet projects (reciprocation of favours and gifts), blaming others (protecting your 'face'), no genuine consultation (discomfort with uncertainty)? Food for thought.

Politicians and others with an inside track in this major Auckland Council planning exercise make sure their projects - their pet projects - are in there somewhere. Near the top preferably. Doesn't really matter about the long term vision. It will never happen. Just make sure my project happens.

My experience of Auckland local government politics reinforces this. Want to know what happens immediately after most council elections? Generally the mayor meets with councillors - one on one - and asks them, "what do you really want to deliver in the next three years. For your area. What project is really important to you...?"

And councillors, once they get over the realisation that this is how it's done, answer the question. The mayor makes a list. Knows what to do.

These projects have nothing to do with long term planning. They are usually ill-thought-out and populist. maybe you think I'm being a bit cynical. Long term planning is paralysis by analysis and we'll never build anything. Might as well build something.

That's how we get Cruise Ship terminals right to the end of Queens Wharf that will stuff the waterfront up for the public long term. It's how we get the crazy idea that Warkworth should be an intensively developed satellite town - part of the sustainable growth strategy. It's how we get a railway station at the least justified option at Parnell. It's how we get a ferry service to Takapuna.....

To name a few pet projects that have crept onto these 800 pages, and been prioristed, without adequate justification. Proper justification would demonstrate how those particular projects contribute to the delivery of long term goals AND demonstrate in a robust manner that of all other options that exist, the chosen project is the best use of public money.

I would like the submission process and timetable to be a time when people discover or uncover these pet projects lurking in the fine print of these glossy publications, and out them. So that they can be exposed and be subject to the submissions they deserve. Long term planning should not be manipulated by turning it into a vehicle to deliver pet projects and populist promises.

Come on Auckland Council. Look in the mirror and learn from past behaviour. Auckland neither wants nor needs an action reply of past planning practices.

Public Consultation about Queens Wharf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queens Wharf: Did the ARC consult properly?

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

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

The history is revealing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two main questions in the questionnaire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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