Tag Archives: Draft Auckland Plan

Councillor Brewer Sounds Out the CRL

Posted on by

Govt buy-in on City Rail Link needed | Scoop News.

This press release was brought to my attention through the former admin of AKT Blog site Jon C. You can read the press release for yourself and make what you will of it. 

This press release was brought to my attention this morning AFTER I had given my presentation yesterday on the City Centre Master Plan to the Auckland Plan Committee.

Clock Tower building, University of Auckland

Coincidence or strange sense of irony – but what Cllr Cameron Brewer has mentioned hear is what I touched on in my presentation yesterday (as well as Wynyard Quarter). In brief I said this about the City Rail Link:

  1. I support it
  2. Using the Rail Fallacy the actual cost will be near $3.6 billion and be completed around 2025-ish
  3. A Priority Two Project per my original submission with completion around the 2022-2032 mark. In other words the middle 10 years of The Auckland Plan
  4. Need to get Wellington on board
  5. Need to step back, have a proper debate and get some savings done first (that part was not mentioned)

Back to release again and agreeing with Jon, I also believe the CRL has gone super quiet. This is especially while the Draft Auckland Plan is being finalised, AND the Draft Long Term Plan (that would fund this mega-project) is calling for submissions. Time to re-kick a ever-more expensive project back into the spot light for another look? VOAKL thinks so.

Further more I do not personally agree with $8 million been spent on consultants when the University of Auckland – our flagship university is more than able to do the task better in: research, results and price.

So is the blind leading the blind here on the City Rail Link and lumbering the city an enormous cost that we are simply not ready for yet? I say so. So lets all step back, pause, and breath and come to the CRL question again with clear minds.

As I do not look forward to paying 25% of my rates in 2021 on $520m worth of interest on an $8.4b DEBT!!!

Councillor Lee has a Moment

Posted on by

A Moment from a Veteran Councillor

 

www.franklin-live.net/site/player/887.html.

OK there is two parts to this post; the first being Councillor Lee’s tantrum at the end of the clip when Deputy Chair of the Auckland Council Future Vision Committee – Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse “calls” Cllr Lee as the agenda needs to be moved on. The second is (if you can get through Cllr Lee’s monotonous ramble) is about productive land verse Greenfield development as Auckland expands and grows to two million people by 2032.

First some background though

The meeting on which this video transcript was taken was on the 17th February when the Auckland Council Future Vision Committee was continuing deliberations into finalising The Auckland Plan. Now at the time of the video (around 15:06 so some five hours into the meeting) the Committee were discussing in length Chapter Seven (Rural Auckland) of The Draft Auckland Plan and in particular from Councillor Lee’s ramble it was the debate of productive land verse Greenfield development – and how according to Councillor Lee, the Draft Auckland Plan maps had left out “productive land” for readers to view.

Now this brings me to my first point – productive land

Now granted – The Draft Auckland Plan did not include “productive land” in its maps – what it should have included was a rural Auckland land use break down on what the rural land was being used for (actually I think the draft plan did (can’t be bothered to look at this moment)). That is because I follow Straight Thinking writer Owen McShane’s philosophy is that it is human investment into the land on whether it is productive or not. For example, the rich red soils of Pukekohe are great for potato growing but useless for sheep and cows, and mushrooms. The flood plains near Clevedon would be hopeless for horticulture but great for agriculture or maybe forestry. Someone barren soil near Drury would be useless for nearly everything except gorse and mushrooms. Worn out soils can be restored through intensive regeneration and pastoral care or retiring to forestry. Many different uses – all productive land one way or the other including a paddock full of gorse as the bees go bloody crazy over their yellow flowers (and hello we need bees for food). So effectively it is our efforts (including gorse growing and bee keeping) that will determine the productivity of the land (or lack thereof).

And personally I have turned some weed infested nutrient poor clay soils into extremely productive vege gardens with tomatoes, beans, corn and boysenberries literally overflowing the main freezer. So again it is what we do with the land is whether it is productive for our uses or not.

 

Now to the back-end of this nice video thanks to Councillor George Wood and Facebook.

If you can get through the six odd minutes of the worse monotonous drone on Chapter Seven I have ever heard you hit this little gem.

The Deputy Chair politely if not rather apologetic about the request calls Councillor Lee to wrap up his piece and the Committee move on with the agenda. From here you can see Councillor Lee get very upset, mumble something about Councillor Quax “taking all day” then storming out of the room as the Deputy Chair explains Cllr Quax’s actions and the reason behind her call. Now I can understand Councillor Lee’s passion about Chapters 7, 8, and 11 (rural, urban, transport) of the Draft Auckland Plan as they are my very passions (and what my submission was on) as well – and the reason why I started VOAKL. However Councillor in the eyes of this ratepayer – your actions were childish, indefensible  and down right disgusting as an elected representative of Auckland Council – especially on such a critical issue as Chapter Seven. Now I do not know what Councillor Quax as up to but from the remarks of the Deputy Chair he was legitimately asking questions into the day’s agenda. You sir Councillor Lee for someone who has served Auckland for such a long time – should have been mature and more civilised on the matter.

I wonder if I ask for time off from work and prepare to sit through Chapter Eight (urban Auckland) deliberations as that should be some fireworks in that meeting (remind me to bring two lunches, coffee and some cash to visit a bar later).

Tomorrow the next round of deliberations begin with transport being discussed.

Sadly not expecting much there as if the agenda is anything to go by then Auckland Council (and Central Government) have missed the one opportunity in getting Auckland free from her traffic constipation… 

A Small Tactical Victory

Posted on by

One of my Points made it through

 

There has been much debate about the consultation process of The Draft Auckland Plan. The Plan was long and complex at a combined length of over 800 pages long (this includes sub-plans like The City Centre Master Plan) and not much to get a submission ready on the respective Plan and sub-plans.

In saying that I submitted a 54 page document with supporting documents attached to that. I attended a formal Draft Auckland Plan Hearing Panel in which half of the Councillors were present listening to my supporting presentation. In that presentation I did outline my coverage on Chapters 7, 8 and 11 (Rural Land Use, Urban Land Use, and Transport) to some questions and congratulations from some councillors. Since the hearings I have been watching the deliberations to The Draft Auckland Plan. The Auckland Council Future Vision Committee is tasked in deliberations and taking into account our submissions before finalising the The Auckland Plan by mid year  (and Aucklander‘s getting a chance to voice their final opinion at the Local Elections next year).

Last night I was going through the Future Vision Committee’s agenda for the 17th (today when I wrote this post) and I got down to page 57 and saw this:

At least one submitter agreed that climate change is a significant issue for Auckland but urge that it be
managed in a way that does not undermine our economic performance and as such argued that rather
than penalising the use of traditional energy sources other initiatives such as more efficient vehicles, better
home insulation and quality urban design should be pursued. In reality effectively addressing emissions
and encouraging the use of renewable energy will require a wide range of measures.

 

I took a look at page four of my original submission which was this:

The Existing and Historic Conditions of Auckland

 

Section B (Auckland Now) of The Draft Auckland Plan outlines the existing and historic conditions of Auckland. For the most part this submission agrees with what is outlined in this section – with one exception: Part B (of Section B) – Climate Change and Energy Security.

 

Again for the most part Auckland (andNew Zealand) is vulnerable to energy supply shocks as the city and nation relies highly on imported fuels. However a mix of traditional (fossil fuel) and new (renewable) energy supplies (rather than a skew towards new) need to be implemented to help Auckland make Auckland more resilient to future energy shocks.

 

Whether one likes it or not traditional energy sources will be with us (Auckland and beyond) until at least the end of this century and the Land Use and Transport ideas mentioned in this submission acknowledge that fact. Measures can be taken to improve the quality of the social and physical environment while traditional energy supplies are still being used. Measures such better fuel quality, better vehicle maintenance and making newer vehicle fleets (that are more fuel-efficient and kinder to the environment) more affordable will go along way in reducing Auckland’s carbon foot print without shocking the economy if more drastic measures were introduced. Sound urban and transport design principles also go some distance in reducing the increasing need for energy and the enlarging carbon foot print. Making sure every residential house is warm and dry will assist in energy consumption being reduced from constant heating and cooling through fires, gas and heat pumps/air conditioning. Sound urban and transport design would allow efficient movement of people and goods – for an efficient transport network reduces energy consumption lost through otherwise inefficient transport movements. Sound Urban design would look at houses and commercial buildings utilising passive means of cooling and heating – again to reduce energy consumption needed for more active modes.

 

Through natural progression, Auckland will move away from traditional energy sources as new energy sources become more economically viable. I would be against trying to “force” the city away from traditional energy use unless one wants affordability to be thrown out the window, consumers and producers will switch over on their own accord if the alternative is better than the original – its all about freedom of choice.

 

This is how I see the progression through the energy sources (in this case transport) from traditional to new over the next 100 years.

 

            Traditional (Oil based)

            Hybrids (as a complement not as a replacement)

            Electrics (as a complement not as a replacement)

            Synthetic Fuels (coal based as New Zealand and Queensland have enough coal for at least 100 years)

            Hydrogen fuel cells (as a total replacement for of traditional and synthetic fuel sources)

 

Mitigation techniques can be done to improve our energy security and the ever-changing climate – but it must not send the city backwards as the already unaffordable becomes even more unaffordable.

 

Join some dots and get past some summarising and you can see my page four got a mention in the agenda which was deliberated today. Ok people will get mentioned in other agendas and reports but for me considering this was the first (and certainly not the last) time I had put forward a formal submission to a government document and the fact piles of information will be “screened out,” I consider this a small tactical victory.

A tactical victory as a piece of my submission got mentioned onto the public agenda for deliberation in Council (the FV Committee), it shows someone was “listening” and took interest enough for Page Four to make it onto the agenda. Now what Council does with page 57 of the agenda I am not sure – either way to me a small tactical victory (although if Council embraced and adopted my piece on page 57 I would consider that a huge Strategic Victory).

So now I wait for the Auckland Council Future Vision Committee to deliberate on Chapters 7, 8, and 11 – of which I am just reading up through the agenda now for the 22nd that Ch. 7 and 11 will get deliberated on.

Fingers crossed folks, the big chapters are coming up.

Commentary on Rural and Urban Auckland, and Transport will continue here at VOAKL!

Is the Draft Auckland Plan a Lemon?

Posted on by

Is Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan a Lemon?

 

And

 

What could intensification look like in your neighbourhood if Auckland Council continued as is with The Draft Auckland Plan?

 

Lets have a look and see if Lemon is the operative word

 

 

Yesterday I posted the Independent Report into actual intensification potential in Auckland and how at absolute best, still falls 10% short of the desires set out in the visions in The Draft Auckland Plan.

 

Recapping briefly:

The Draft Auckland (Spatial) Plan stated a 75:25 ratio of intensification (Brownfield) to sprawl (Greenfield) development for a projected 400,000 new residential dwellings in Auckland (to house 2 million people) by 2040. The Draft Auckland Plan also sets out a very clear Rural Urban Boundary system on where development can or can not occur. In effect, the RUB is an arbitrary line on a map, all urban development will occur behind the RUB curtain, no urban development will occur on the rural side of the boundary. The RUB is the containment method behind the compact city model pushed by some in Auckland Council including the current mayor, Len Brown. So effectively 300,000 of the 400,000 the new dwellings needed will occur behind the RUB line. The city can not expand “naturally” which then causes major imbalances in the demand and supply of residential (and commercial/industrial) market(s). So can the intensification be done?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • Whilst the Plan’s target cannot be achieved, substantial intensification is possible, but needs to be much more widespread than the current Auckland Plan’s town centres and corridors.
  • Without major re-zoning only 45-60,000 extra dwellings are able to be provided in intensified form in the next 30 years.
  • With major re-zoning and sticking to town centres and corridors (as current draft Auckland Plan) could provide 90-120,000 extra dwellings .
  • With major re-zoning in most current urban areas (requiring huge political resilience) could provide 200-270,000 extra dwellings.

So as you see The Draft Auckland Plan, to be blunt and honest the Plan is a lemon when it comes to intensification.

Any how lets take a look at the report more in-depth, by starting at looking at if the last bullet point did occur this is what your local neighbour would look like.

 

So lets take a look at the graphics that were provided in the report.

Birkenhead

Birkenhead

 

 

Mangere

Mangere

 

 

New Lynn

New Lynn

 

 

Tamaki

Tamaki

With my views of Tamaki, refer to my Tamaki Assignment

You can right-click each of the above graphics and open them in a new tab, but heads up they are 1879×1033   so a 27″ screen does pay dividends

 

Those are the levels of intensification as an example of what would occur, if the maximum amount of permissible intensification (which is still 10% short) occurred.

To get an idea of what the buildings will be like, check out Chapter Eight of the Draft Auckland Plan by clicking the respective hyper-link.

Some areas would suit and be able to handle it such as Tamaki, over areas such as Birkenhead could not.

Look, we need all to have a pause and serious think here about how we want OUR Auckland to evolve over the next 30-odd years – as The Draft Auckland Plan misses the point and boat entirely looking at the independent report.

I personally advocated for a 60:40 ratio (Draft Auckland Plan is 75:25) in Brownfield (Intensification) : Greenfield (Development). So out of the 400,000 new residential dwellings needed; rather than the 300,000 as set out in the Draft Auckland Plan for Brownfield development, it would be around 240,000 (out of 400,000) dwellings needed in the Brownfield zones. Now looking at the report, the maximum plausible was 270,000 and even my 240,000 is pushing the barrow up the hill – with the 50:50 (200,000) split being advocated by the centre-right in Auckland Council also pushing it.

 

So then what is the ratio if The Draft Auckland Plan stuck to its guns. Well according to the report:

With major re-zoning and sticking to town centres and corridors (as current draft Auckland Plan) could provide 90-120,000 extra dwellings .

So that would mean a ratio of 30:70 Brownfield:Greenfield development – rather bit off to the point the other way around. And if no major re-zoning was undertaken the ratio falls even less to Brownfield developments. 

So taking it from the report:

Whilst the Plan’s target cannot be achieved, substantial intensification is possible, but needs to be much more widespread than the current Auckland Plan’s town centres and corridors.

Effectively, Chapters Seven and Eight of the Draft Auckland Plan are basically duds with no real scope of achieving its vision target let alone being viable or plausible.

Even my 60:40 ratio and the centre-rights 50:50 ratio is pushing it politically (at the minimum) but could be more “acceptable” and viable then the 75:25 current ration.

 

 

So where to next folks – we have a lemon for a Draft Auckland Plan in its current form – some serious re-working is going to need to be done. And that is before we factor in Port of Auckland.