Submissions E: Waterfront Plan

Princes Wharf It appears that Princes Wharf has been omitted from the DWP. Except for its suggested retention as the primary cruise ship terminal in the short term. No project proposals are mentioned in the DWP for Princes Wharf (Pg 10). I am advised that recent surveys by cruise ship operators of passengers who have used Pricnes Wharf facilities are positive (if councillors have not seen this information they should request it). The Cruise Ship industry can make Princes Wharf facilities work to the satisfaction of cruise ship passengers. It is submitted that Princes Wharf needs to continue as Auckland’s Primary Cruise Ship terminal for as long as reasonably possible. It is submitted that various requirements and conditions for the public use of and access to parts of Princes Wharf need to be actively enforced, so that the public vision and aspirations that accompanied the relevant resource consents for the Princes Wharf development are given effect. It is also submitted that options for re-use of the cruise ship terminal facilities - in the event they are vacated by the cruise ship industry - be explored, and that such options should include the activities and uses which were expected from the redevelopment of Princes Wharf.

Submission 5: The Draft Waterfront Plan needs to provide for Princes Wharf. Proposals are required to improve Cruise Ship handling facilities in the short term, and to ensure that the public amenity conditions of Princes Wharf resource consents are given effect.

Submissions F: Waterfront Plan

Cruise on Queens Because of the anticipated volume of cruise ship visits to Auckland there is an obvious attraction in using Queens Wharf out to the medium term to support that industry. However I believe it is essential that authorities recognise that Auckland is poorly served in terms of waterfront public space/capita. This was evidenced by the crowding that occurred on Auckland’s waterfront (despite the availalability of Quay Street, QE Elizabeth Square, Queens Wharf, Captain Cook Wharf, Princes Wharf, Te Whero, and Wynyard Quarter) during RWC festivities with quite modest crowds. It is critical that any utilisation of Queens Wharf and Shed 10 is subject to stringent controls which protect public access to Queens Wharf and public amenity on Queens Wharf. Authorities must not give in to demands from cruise ship operators for “Rolls Royce” terminal provision. For example, I am advised that recent cruise ship visits using the Princes Wharf facilities have rated well with cruise ship passengers. The Cruise industry have made those facilities work well - despite their complaints and lobbying of public officials for more central city crusie ship parking. Cruise ship visits to Queens Wharf during the Rugby World Cup also worked passably well – despite not having access to Shed 10 – and little space on Queens Wharf itself. Auckland will only be in the black economically from cruise ship visits if public investment is tightly constrained. Whereas Central Auckland benefitted significantly from the 1,000,000 visitors to Queens Wharf during RWC. The majority of these were locals. Their contribution to Central Auckland’s visitor economy is often ignored by those who persist in talking up the contribution from the much smaller number of cruise ship visitors. The obvious answer to this conundrum is to provide for both sets of visitors, and both economic contributions. But this will require a much more balanced approach to the planning of Queens Wharf than has been evidenced to date. It will require the depth of planning that has been associated with Wynyard Quarter.

Submission 6: A Plan Change to the Regional Plan Coastal relating to proposed uses on Queens Wharf be publicly notified to ensure the owners and operators of Queens Wharf are in compliance with the RMA.

Submission 7: That the Agreement relating to Queens Wharf with Ports of Auckland Ltd be re-visited to establish conditions to constrain non-public uses of Queens Wharf and Shed 10 (by the cruise ship industry for example). These conditions: should restrict the area of Queens Wharf that can be used for non-public activities; should expressly establish a five year lease for such activties – such leases being renewable subject to Council approval – thereby sending the message that non-public uses of Queens Wharf are of a temporary basis; should contain a maximum number of days and preferably a specific set of dates when Queens Wharf facilities can be used for cruise ship visits (to ensure there are opportunities and to provide the certainty needed for planning of other activities and events on Queens Wharf).

Submissions G: Waterfront Plan

Successful Place Making at Wynyard Quarter One of the most positive initiatives in the DWP is the reference to :”considered place-making”. Due to a combination of quality planning (arising from the urban design framework process and RMA plan changes), a pause in the development of sites along Jellicoe, the available of budget for public investment – a cluster of public places has been constructed along Jellicoe Street through to Silo Park. The public have loved those places: the artificial grass mound, the children’s playground, the seating, the sense of open-ness, the peace and quiet from commercial hubbub. The DWP features photographs prominently of these accidental successes. Why accidental? Because much of this amenity, these quality public places, suburban park landscapes, are the sites of future highrise development. The DWP is highly misleading because it does not accurately depict how Jellicoe Street will look when it is developed to potential. The images used in the DWP (Pg 31, central pictures) depict the sort of Urban Park landscape approach that is visible now at Qynyard Quarter – including the play area and sitting areas – but which will be lost if planned development occurs. This is one end of Auckland’s “Foreshore Avenue”. It needs to be supported along Jellicoe, across the walking bridge, and into Quay Park to Queens Park. What we now see on and around Jellicoe is the sort of suburban park landscape that Auckland needs, and clearly loves already, and should be be retained. I recognise that the revenue from planned development is part of the budgetting process, so it is not just a simple matter of rezoning some of that land as urban park (though that is required). I submit that experience to date with Wynyard, including RWC experience, merits a plan change for the northern precinct of Wynyard Quarter - including the headland park. This would allow further development potential on that land, to compensate for some loss of development potential on and around Jellicoe. It would also be an opportunity for planning necessary for Te Papa North (for example), which could be integrated with a cruise ship terminal on Wynyard Wharf.

Submission 8: That necessary planning be undertaken into Wynyard Quarter development options which will allow the urban park amenity now evident along Jellicoe Street (including the playground, grass mounded area, other sitting areas, paved open space areas), to be retained, by reducing proposed development intensity in the vicinity, and by reviewing development options on the tankfarm area.

Submissions H: Waterfront Plan

RMA Plan Change for Queens Wharf Prior to the redevelopment of Wynyard Quarter two major plan changes were prepared, notified, heard and adopted. These plan changes to the Regional Plan Coastal and Auckland City Council’s Isthmus Plan allowed development options to be considered and provided for in those plans, while also ensuring that various other matters were appropriately provided for (including such matters as heritage and character buildings, public open space provision and amenity, view corridors, urban design, conflicts between public access and commercial activities, transport restrictions). No such planning has been carried out for Queens Wharf which continues to be zoned for “Port Activities”. That zoning, combined with the Rugby World Cup Empowering Act, afforded authorities considerable latitude in doing what they wanted on Queens Wharf. Many of those new activities are a change of use from what has historically occurred on what was a working wharf. It is submitted that among other things, view corridors from the end of Queens Wharf, need protection under the RMA from the effects of development on Queens Wharf and in other parts of Waitemata Harbour. It is my submission that WDA needs to prepare and notify a plan change to the Regional Plan Coastal in regard to Queens Wharf

Progressive Incorporation of Maritime Heritage into Wynyard Quarter I note with satisfaction the mention of the preservation of the Vos and Brijs boat yard and slipways (Pg 21). I note also the mention of the heritage yacht and waka basin on Wynyard Point. However no time frame or proposal is indicated in the DWP for any project involving Vos and Brijs infrastructure. I note that the timeframe for the commencement of the heritage yacht and waka basin is sometime between 6 and 10 years from now. I am concerned that this not a strong commitment to heritage and culture in this area. This may be in line with the stated goal of the DWP (Pg 21) which is that the waterfront is “…a place where we can express our cultural heritage and history, and celebrate our great achievements…”. As it stands the stated goal does not provide the direction and concreteness that I think is needed. In my view the waterfront needs to be a place: “…which incorporates Auckland’s cultural heritage and history, and which provides a home for the display and use of representative examples….”. I am aware that there are many heritage craft that can be brought into the heart of Wynyard Quarter now and which merit dedicated berthage in Silo Park and other sections of wharf space. The reason that space needs to be dedicated is to facilitate the provision of wharf side interpretation signage and education displays, and to allow this amenity to be permanently incorporated into the proposed heritage trail (which needs to be a specific proposal by the way). Heritage incorporation needs to be permanent – not temporary. It is to be structurally included, built in, not an add-on, to Wynyard Quarter. As it stands the DWP appears to put a very low priority (10 years before anything happens) on provision of heritage boat and waka display on water. I submit that a progressive approach to maritime heritage is necessary, (as recommended for cruise and ports). An interim measure would be to allocate berth space for these craft and for interpretation and for inclusion in the heritage trail, in the protected and enclosed waters just west of Silo Park. This would provide a home her maritime heritage now, incorporate it properly now, and buuld its presence into the heritage trail. I am generally concerned that the DWP does not have concrete proposals that give effect to the vision of: “celebrating our sea-loving pacific culture…”. The turnout of Auckland’s Samoan and Tongan population to the waterfront during the Rugby World Cup – there because Samoan and Tongan teams were in the tournament – should cause some reflection on the part of the WDA, and more specific inclusion in the Waterfront Plan. It is further submitted that the Vos and Brijs initiative needs to be accorded the status of “proposal” under the DWP, and be progressively implemented, starting as soon as possible. Old buildings need attention and planning sooner – not later.

Submission 9: Wynyard Quarter provision for maritime heritage and culture needs more direction to ensure the waterfront: “…incorporates Auckland’s cultural heritage and history, and provides a home for the display and use of representative examples….”

Submission 10: Wynyard Quarter proposals need to provide for a progressive approach to maritime heritage (one which starts now), including the allocation of berthing space now in the Silo Harbour enclosed area to heritage boats and the provision of land side interpretation signage there and related amenity and that this attraction be built into the heritage trail.

Submission 11: An explicit proposal is required which provides places and spaces for representation and cultural displays of Maori and Pacific Island maritime activities and traditions. This proposal needs to be progressive and to start now.

Submission 12: An explicit proposal is required relating to adaptive re-use of Vos and Brijs site and buildings.

Slow Movement Zone along waterfront supported The DWP divides movement along and around the waterfont into 3 categories (movement diagram – Pg13): fast, medium, slow. This is supported. However it is apparent that the DWP proposal for an effective public transport service across Te Whero Bridge – or in that alignment – conflicts with the slow movement objective. To be useful and justifiable as a public transport service – a modern tram would need to carry at least 5,000 people/hour – this service could not provided at a “slow” speed. The tourist attraction Wynyard Loop idea is not a model that can be expanded to provide an effective public transport service connecting Britomart with Wynyard Quarter. It is submitted that the present direct bus service corridor is the one that will need to be followed by a tram service. The present Marine Event Central Plaza, pedestrian bridge, Te Whero, Quay Street promenade corridor needs to be protected from motorised traffic of any sort, and be dedicated for walking, buggies, casual cycling.

Submission 13: The public passenger transport link to Britomart should be along Fanshaw Street, not across Te Whero Island.

Marsden Wharf We have beaten the French in this Rugby World Cup. New Zealand’s relationship with France makes for very interesting history. This is a significant opportunity for Auckland that has not been highlighted so far. Already Auckland is a showcase of French cuisine and French restaurants flourish. We saw how many French citizens came to New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup. Marsden was the site of an extraordinary piece of international political skullduggery. The French are generally appalled at what their leaders did here in New Zealand. In a sense it is Auckland’s physical place to remember its global stance on nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, and the lengths we as a country were prepared to go to stop it. With Greenpeace. It needs a place in the DWP.

Submission 14: Marsden Wharf presents a cultural and economic opportunity which needs protection and recognition in the Waterfront Plan.

Submission 1: Draft Auckland Plan

Introduction The Council is to be commended in planning for the Britomart Rail Loop project, and in clearly stating related implementation and funding strategies. This long term project can be a transformational for the city. However, every long term plan has short term objectives and short term projects which will inevitably come due for delivery before the Britomart Rail Loop. The Council’s plan integrity and prioritisation principles will be tested in these early projects. The Government Foreword to this first Auckland Plan is a surprisingly good read, and demonstrates a fundamentally correct understanding of what spatial plan is. At s.19 we read: “…spatial planning is fundamentally strategic and focusses on the long term development of cities and their communities…”, and at s.21 “…the Government believes that effective spatial planning has the potential to help realise these opportunities to improve Auckland’s economic and productivity performance and the efficiency of its urban form… and connectedness…” Again I reiterate that the proof of the pudding in this plan, will be in what is funded, and what is not funded in the early years. Early projects set the trajectory and the pattern for the future of Auckland Council. Citizens will be able to draw a line through the first initiatives and extrapolate into the future, make predictions, as to the likely future Auckland can anticipate – whatever the fine words are in the Draft Auckland Plan. Urban Expansion in Rural Villages With little justification, the Draft Auckland Plan (DAP) identifies Warkworth and Pukekohe as two of its 8 growth priority areas. This is more than a little concerning for those of us who have participated in the planning of Auckland Region for the past decade. These areas are outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). Warkworth is not on a public transport corridor. Helensville is also mentioned as a future area for similar treatment, and , like Warkworth, it is thirty kilometres or so outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit and not on a Rapid Transit quality public transport corridor. The DAP does not appear to distinguish between the type of growth or the different controls that might be appropriate for growth that would be enabled in those rural townships, compared to centres that are within the current MUL. My experience with growth in Albany, and with reaching settlement with Waitakere City Council over the way in which planning for future urban land there should be provided for, gives me cause for concern. I believe Auckland Council must treat these rural development opportunities with a great deal of caution if it intends to avoid the adverse effects that arise from poorly controlled urban expansion. I note that the DAP refers to staging and triggers for development. However, so too, did the plans for Albany, Hobsonville and Westgate. However those controls have had little effect on what happened. Most developers are determined to get quick returns from these new greenfield developments. Residential development goes in first, and the new owners commute into Auckland and further south for work. Once that has happened there is little stomach for the development of local built amenity (shops, cafes, commercial activity, light industrial places of employment….). Vancouver is an interesting exemplar for this matter. It has adopted what it calls “complete communities” approach to the planning of urban expansion. “Thus it has a strategy of “complete communities” and planning and development policies which support that strategy. The objective of “complete communities” is that each community develops so that there is enough local services, employment and basic retail to satisfy the needs of new residents. They don’t have to drive to get those services as soon as they move in. Of course residents can choose to go further afield if they want to, but they don’t need to. That is the essence of that approach to planning the development of new villages. New Zealand’s track record in the field of greenfield development is littered with examples of the market failure to provide for complete community outcomes. Any reliance on RMA planning instruments for these outcomes is destined to fail – simply because the RMA is a free-market development instrument. If the Auckland Council wants “complete community” outcomes – then it must plan appropriately for them. This same criticism and concern applies to land that can be, or is zoned urban within the MUL.

Submission 1: Planning for place-based projects needs to include robust staging criteria and prescriptions for development that will ensure the basic housing, employment, and social service needs of new communities can be met within or close to the newly developed places. This approach to be known as: Complete Communities.

Submission 2: Draft Auckland Plan

New ferry services at Takapuna I note the idea of a ferry service from Browns Bay, Takapuna through an into Auckland City has been included in the transport planning map. This idea has been around for many years and has had some supporters particularly before the Northern Busway and its extensive feeder bus service network was built. As former Chair of North Shore City Council’s Infrastructure Ctte, and of ARC’s Transport Cttes I would like to bring to Council’s attention these points: Before the Harbour Bridge was built, these places needed ferry services, because there were few alternative transport options to get to Auckland CBD. That changed when the bridge was built. Public attitudes to development on beaches has changed since the days of every beach having a wharf. The public want their East Coast Bays beaches kept free from development and activities which detract from the natural environment and peace and quiet. There will always be some who would like economic development opportunities that come with wharves, but I believe these desires are in the minority. Ferry services need to justify their costs. That means that patronage needs to be at a level that justifies the costs of building wharves and landside services - including car parking. The Devonport ferry service is successful in part because about 300 car parks are within a short walk of the ferry. That is not the case at Takapuna where parking space is at a premium, and much of it is valued by recreational boaties. A Takapuna ferry service would not be economic, and car parking would be insufficient. Significant investment has already occurred for Takapuna public transport services, especially to the Auckland CBD. These include the Busway, Takapuna Bus Station and buslanes, and Akoranga bus station. These services provide a 20 minute service between Takapuna and Auckland at nominal cost. Ferry from Takapuna to Auckland CBD would take around 30 minutes minimum (takes 12 minutes from Devonport), and cost more than a bus trip. Takapuna Beach is exposed to North Easterly wind conditions which is one reason it is a popular surfing break on several occasions each year. This suggests that Takapuna would struggle to provide regular “all weather services”. It is not sheltered. While engineers may be able to “build anything” such structures have their own adverse effects on views and recreational water. In my view the economic case for a Takapuna/CBD ferry service has not been made. It is a nice to have, but it is not a need to have. I would also remind Council of the very significant fight that would be fought with Takapuna residents and beach users should necessary consents be sought for an infrastructure required. This is not a high priority project.

Submission 2: Delete the Takapuna Ferry service proposal from the plan of works.

Submission 3: Draft Auckland Plan

Malls and Liveable Cities Probably the most sigificant issue that was debated during the various plan changes that accompanied the Local Government Auckland Amendment Act (2004) was over the planning for Malls. Painted by many as the harbinger of death to local shopping (as witnessed in Takapuna after the construction of its shopping mall, then at Milford after K Mart, then Glenfield’s mall experience, and big box shopping at Link Drive, which was eclipsed by Albany Mega Market….), malls are seen by many as the leading cause of failure of local high streets – with their mix of local shops and local social services, cafes and suchlike. Many point to the vibrant nature of high street shopping in much of downtown Wellington, and note the absence of mall developments. The question is, what is the Auckland Plan for Mall led developments in the growth areas? This is an omission which needs attention.

Submission 3: Provide an urban development policy for Malls in identified growth areas which will encourage the development of an active village or town centre “main street” environment.

Submission 4: Draft Auckland Plan

Parnell Railway Station The City Rail Link Plan map (Pg 166) shows a railway station at Parnell. As readers of this submission will be aware I am concerned that the particular location for this station that is being advocated for within Auckland Council is the location known as “Cheshire Street”. This option ranked bottom of a set of options that were canvassed by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council, and Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) prior to the current re-organisation of Auckland local government. The main reason for the low ranking of the Cheshire Street option is that the location does not lend itself to the sort of redevelopment and intensification that has occurred around Newmarket and New Lynn Stations. In fact the Cheshire Street location fails a number of the tests for transport funding prioritisation that are set out in Box11.1 Principles (Pg 163) of the DAP. These include that: “transport investment aligns with growth as envisaged in this plan…”, “ ensure that proposed investment is used optimally…” and “take advantage of all opportunities for transport to assist in place shaping…” There may be some advocates who misread the last of these principles. They may interpret that principle as meaning that because Cheshire Street is an opportunity, then it must be taken advantage of. The problem with this logic is that if the Parnell Station is built at Cheshire, then it will mean that no other station will be built in the vicinity, thereby negating the significant opportunities that are known to exist at Carlaw park and at the Parnell Overbridge options.

Submission 4: Properly consider all options for a railway station at Parnell, taking into account the transport development principles of the Draft Auckland Plan, and taking account of previous work by Auckland City Council, Auckland Regional Council and Auckland Regional Transport Authority, before committing to any construction work on a Parnell Railway station.