Month: April 2013

All Things Waste

Unitary Plan and Waste


No I am not referring to the Unitary Plan being either waste or being waste. If you want that go read one of Bernard Orsman’s pieces from the NZ Herald…


What I am referring to in this post is a question that has come up in the Unitary Plan discussions of recent: waste. That is waste-water (sewerage) and refuse (what goes to the tip) in Auckland and how we are meant to cope with it through to 2041 as a million extra people live in Auckland. While the Unitary Plan as such does not deal specifically with waste (that is dealt by the Waste Minimisation Policy adopted by Council recently), as the Unitary Plan dictates land and zoning rules it might be prudent to have the land available for waste facilities here in Auckland.


The city is going need the room to treat the increase sewerage and process the refuse as we march towards 2.5 million people. So where do we place these facilities?

Waste-water wise we already have two main facilities; the Mangere Sewerage Plant with its four hi-tech Bio Reactors (eliminating the needs for the oxidation ponds that use to pong), and the Albany Sewerage Plant which recently received an upgrade but not as hi-tech as Mangere (Albany still has Oxidation ponds which the Northern Motorway runs over). There are countless smaller sewerage treatment plants scattered around the Auckland region that service small places like Helensville but not connected to the metropolitan sewerage system.

Refuse wise I believe we have a main landfill somewhere on the North Shore operated by TransPacific Waste Management on behalf of Auckland Council with countless transfer centres around the city. As for recycling plants I would have to look but, I think Auckland Council has one dedicated recycling plant while paper is often dealt with by private firms (one I know of in Penrose next to the Onehunga Line).


Upgrade or even expansion wise for our waste facilities seems a rather straight forward exercise.

Waste-water wise Watercare (the Auckland Council CCO) has marked down that a new waste-water treatment plant is likely to be needed in the Drury industrial area to supplement the Mangere Plant when the intensification and Greenfield development takes off down this end of the city. If you replicate the Bio-Reactor set up at Mangere to the Drury site then there should be no issues with treatment in the south of the city. You can upgrade the Mangere Plant by adding more Bio-Reactors to it which would seems a good idea as the plant already exists. The catch is can the existing pipes take the extra load if we upgrade the plant. The same can go for the North Shore treatment plant in expanding its capacity by adding the Bio-Reactors to the existing facility (just need to watch those pipes again).

So with waste-water providing Watercare and Auckland Council does not take their eye off the ball nor piddle the money else where, the waste-water issue should be a straight forward one with a new plant and the existing two upgraded.


As for our refuse here in Auckland, this is where it gets interesting.  I have written a post on our trashy problem before and can be seen here: “TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH – Waste to Energy for Auckland?”

The post is self-explanatory and challenges Auckland to be mature in asking itself how we deal with our trash. I highly recommend taking a read.


Waste-water and refuse. Two rather stinking problems or concerns for Auckland as the city grows but, two of the easier problems to “deal with” if the city acts in a mature and proactive manner. Just keep your eye on the ball folks and no piddling the money away…



BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL



Those Secret Papers

Where’s Wally?


Seems our Ageist Old Fart from the NZ Herald – Bernard Orsman has had one of those John Key/David Shearer “brain fade” moments when banging on about the Unitary Plan. Orsman decided to go post this piece in the Granny Herald which caught the attention of a few people:

Secret plan papers kept from public

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

8:06 AM Monday Apr 29, 2013 

The Auckland Council is sitting on secret documents used to draw up a new planning rulebook for the city and instructed its top lawyer to keep them hidden from the public.

Mayor Len Brown and chief executive Doug McKay have rejected requests from the Herald to release background papers used by a political working party to develop the most important planning document in the history of Auckland.

The new rulebook – or Unitary Plan – sets out a new way of life for Auckland’s 1.5 million residents that includes high-rise apartments and infill housing to cope with squeezing another 1 million people into the city.

But when the Herald sought the background papers on the heritage rules from Mr McKay under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the council’s general counsel Wendy Brandon refused to release the material. Requests for background papers on other issues would also be refused, she said.

The Herald is seeking a review of the council decision from the Ombudsman.


Not trusting Orsman I decided to go digging up for myself for these apparent secret papers. Often private citizens – those being private citizens who have not gone out of their way annoying Council have better luck getting a hold of council documents than the commercial media. I got an answer back pretty much the same day in regards to those “secret” paper and it is the following:


The papers are both beside me and on my desktop. I have had them since 2011 (with the collection still ongoing) and I already refer to them quite often here at this blog for research. Heck the paper version even follows me to Unitary Plan Community Meetings as well. So what were those papers? Well they were:

  • The (operative) Auckland Plan
  • The 7000 page draft Unitary Plan including maps – both electronic and hard copy
  • Every single Auckland Plan Committee agenda with all the attachments (often with Powerpoint presentations attached) added since The Auckland Plan became operative in 2011 if not earlier


Anything not available would have been from commercial sensitivity grounds such as someone’s property to be directly affected by a project (happens). However, those documents can also be sort after – usually with some black highlighter through it.


So the question was asked (basically Where’s Wally) about the background documents used to draw up the Draft Unitary Plan. Well seems the answer was if I trawl through over 10,000 pages of both hard and digital material – the background information is all there. One just needs to go sifting through it to go find it – or be more proactive and go ask someone who knows 😛



Might be time to leave the Herald alone folks. I see do a pretty decent coverage on the Unitary Plan from all angles including the youth angle.


At the same time I could always go out to the community and talk Unitary Plan independent from the Council. Might go work on that business flyer this morning…



BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL


This and That – Round Three. But I Hear Mr Kirk’s Concerns

The Herald Just Can’t Get It


Mr Kirk however has a Valid Point



It seems the NZ Herald with their Auckland Unitary Plan reporter Bernard Orsman can just simply not get it when it comes to actual coverage and commentary on the Unitary Plan. I have repeatedly noted and am doing so again that the Main Stream Media are failing in their obligations of balanced reporting with the most two prominent posts being these two:


This unbalanced and one-sided coverage is annoying the city greatly as there are those who support the Unitary Plan in-part or as a whole. However Orsman and the NZH seem to be more interested in the Blue Rinse Brigade and trotting out what they say rather than what we all say.


However, Fairfax media who run the local Couriers you get, plus individual private blogs like my own have stepped up to the plate and are doing much better coverage and commentary thus far on the Unitary Plan. Fairfax and those bloggers should be applauded (although I still wince at Sydney’s piece – although that was out of circumstance) for their efforts so far while the NZH be vilified for their continued failings.


So where did Orsman and the Herald fail this morning prompting the latest round of backlash in social media. Well it was this article here: ‘Not in my back yard’ and if you look at the main story carefully it is actually not a NIMBY-ism story. It is a story of genuine concerns for an elder – someone with wisdom and knowledge on city planning listing his thoughts on the Unitary Plan and actually giving an alternative here. However, what flipped the story over to a NIMBY-ism piece was Orsam’s rant on the side – obviously still hurting from Sydney’s blog post.

I shall get to Mr Kirk’s concerns in a moment but first Orsman.


This is what the fool had to say as a sidebar to the article:

The battle backed by a blog

Hate speech is coming to a street near you – if you live in a quiet piece of suburbia, like Poronui St in Mt Eden, and object to your neighbourhood being rezoned for apartments and infill housing.

In a sign that the council is losing the battle to persuade middle-class suburban Auckland to adapt to a new way of life, it has appointed 28-year-old councillor Michael Goudie to counter more conservative views.

Not only that, but wise heads like deputy-mayor Penny Hulse are turning a blind eye while Goudie promotes an anonymous blog article, We Hate Nimbys (Not In My Back Yard) that labels a “sea of grey hair” opposing a new planning rulebook “selfish, arrogant, narrow -minded and parochial people” who should “just hurry up and die”.

Suburbs, including Orewa and Browns Bay that helped elect Goudie to the council in 2010 are branded “soulless, geriatric timebombs” in the blog he calls “brilliant” but that others label “hate speech”.


Yep he is still sore after that apparent line. However let me copy over a post from ANZAC Day by Orsman that would give rise to the ‘Pot, Kettle, Black’ argument:

Len Brown is attending four Anzac Day services tomorrow. I wonder if Michael Goudie will be tagging along in his official capacity of nobbling the oldies on the unitary plan to tell the “sea of grey hair” what a bunch of arrogant, deluded and selfish people they are who should “hurry up and die”.
I think Goudie has a bit more nous than that…
But there is more and even I replied right back
  • Bernard Orsman Other councillors are not speaking in an official capacity Penny. You are condoning this hate speech by doing nothing…and making it political. So Michael can tell the oldies to ‘hurry up + die’ just not on Anzac Day???
    • Ben Ross Major Face-Palm Bernard. For someone who is in the particular age group Councillor Goudie had an apparent crack at, you would think the term “with age comes wisdom (and maturity)” would resonate in your head before uttering that out with ANZAC Day upon us.

      Meaning we put aside our what ever differences (with the UP) for just today and stand united together to remember those who served and fell protecting what we have today. 

      Heck if I was your employer and thank your stars I am not, it would have been a formal reprimand for bringing the company into disrepute on a sacred day as this…


That reprimand should now be dismissal…


I don’t care what beef one might have against councillors and the Unitary Plan, you NEVER EVER imply ANZAC Day the way he did nor utter such tripe as Orsman did ON ANZAC DAY either. What Goudie might of said can be remarked as offensive to some but, we leave those gripes behind as we remember our War Heroes on that special day – hand in hand united. And if you are wondering if I am fuming – yes I am as ANZAC Day to me does hold close to me (as it does to all others) with having family on both sides of both World Wars.


Mr Kirk’s Concerns and Alternatives


Mr Kirk (a former planner with the former Auckland City Council) who lives in Mt Eden and right next to the famous iconic Mt Eden Volcano had concerns about the Unitary Plan (as does many others) did have to say this which struck me most:

From that NZ Herald Piece:


“Kirk, 77, has produced a demographic breakdown of Poronui St that shows more than half the residents are under 30 – and just six over 65 – countering critics’ claims (see sidebar) that most opponents of the plan are elderly.

He says he has no moral answer to the “nimby” question.

“That’s the dilemma. Do I share Poronui St with others or do the drawbridge thing and say ‘I’m bloody in and I don’t want more people’?”

The planner and social conscience in Kirk says if the council is serious about Poronui St, it needs to develop a specific, comprehensive plan where the architecture and buildings work for the residents – and not rely on blanket zoning passed over to developers.

“That is a lazy, unprofessional cop-out.”



Now that I do honestly hear loud and clear from Mr Kirk. It is something I have picked up through my Unitary Plan commentary and jet-setting and it is an issue Auckland Council needs to address. Fortunately I am writing and redeveloping a concept that Mr Kirk is looking for with Mt Eden. It is my Special Character Zone work and presentation I am compiling for Orakei Local Board next week in regards to St Heliers but, can easily be translated to other areas such as: Mt Eden, Onehunga and Ponsonby.


Taking an extract from my OLB presentation:



My submission to the draft Unitary Plan (and currently seen in the Shape Auckland Housing Simulator) calls for Local Centres to be dropped to three storeys. This would be consistent with the calls in St Heliers to drop the Local Centre to three storeys – with further restrictions at nine metre heights in place within the rules. What is not recognised thus far through the Unitary Plan is the fact our city is heterogeneous and the great role Local Boards has to play with Unitary Plan “planning” once the UP is operative.

To recognise the heterogeneity of our city I am proposing to St Heliers via the Orakei Local Board a Special Character Zone tied in with my Centralised Master Community Plan (CMCP) – Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation urban development/management model.

CMCP’s were covered in my submission to The Auckland Plan and I shall go back over it in a moment. First it is introducing and working on a new zone – the Special Character Zone (SCZ). 


Centralised Master Community Plans being as in the embed below:







The CMCP extract is a bit vague as I update and clean it up but in short it takes some of these merits in regards with Local Boards that are found in my other methodology (the SLPD):



The main crux of the SLPD would come from the: decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU. This is how the crux or ideal would be achieved:

  • Under SLPD’s the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Community Board rather than the centralised Council

  • Council provides  a statement of intent (The Auckland Plan) and action plan for Auckland (Auckland Long Term Plan) over the next period of time

  • Council provides a mediation service when there is a dispute with an SLPD

  • Council assists Local Community Boards with resources required when an SLPD is being carried out

  • SLPD follows the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (mentioned page 14)

  • Simplified Zoning

  • Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developer (allowing greater flexibility and response to community concerns and needs/desires)




Mr Kirk is wanting a comprehensive plan in regards to Mt Eden, I think that can be provided for with a ‘Mt Eden Special Character Zoned – Centralised Master Community Plan’ – a specialised local plan led by the Local Board overseeing the land allocation/development/utilisation of Mt Eden.

Once I have given my presentation to Orakei Local Board, I might translate St Heliers Special Character Zone over to Mt Eden and see where that goes. But good on Mr Kirk for making his concerns known AND seeking out an alternative for his community. No he is not a NIMBY, he is a genuine concerned citizen wanting the best for his community (and the wider city). 🙂



Just a note before I sign this off: this Unitary Plan is like the rabbit hole in Alice and Wonderland 😛  I have gone down the hole and where I end up at the end of this – who know!



BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL


Lesson From Melbourne

Auckland Transport: Take Note


Saw this via my Twitter feed a few moments ago:

Fare evaders allowed to do a runner

Michelle Griffin


Yarra Trams has ordered its inspectors not to pursue fleeing or aggressive fare evaders after a spate of attacks.

In an internal Yarra Trams memo obtained by 3AW, dated March 2013, ticket inspectors are told they:

  • Must not block the path of, or attempt to physically detain a person who attempts to walk/run away.
  • Must always maintain a safe distance between themselves and a person being spoken to – if possible.
  • Must not surround or corner any person being spoken to regarding an offence under the Act.

The edict was issued after 10 assaults on ticket inspectors on trams between January and March this year. According to a Yarra Trams spokesman, this is “slightly higher” than the number of assaults at the same time last year, and resulted in 15 minor injuries, such as sprains and bruises.

The edict effectively ensures that those who refuse to give their name and address and instead flee cannot be detained or fined.

This comes just as Public Transport Victoria orders an increase in tram patrols by inspectors, in an attempt to cut fare evasion to 7 per cent across the public transport network.

There have been several aggressive confrontations between inspectors and passengers reported in recent years.

Read more:


This is happening in Melbourne while we have this per Campbell Live: “SERIOUSLY AUCKLAND TRANSPORT?” that I covered recently. No wonder why Councillor Mike Lee is jumping up and down red and blue in the face. But in acknowledgement and balance: Dr Lester Levy of Auckland Transport is actively working on this situation – a man I can trust as a ratepayer to sort what is best for both AT/Rail and the city (AUCKLAND TRANSPORT TO RE-THINK STRATEGY).


But Auckland Transport – take note of Melbourne please SO WE CAN AVOID Melbourne’s situation…



Off to the Auckland Plan Committee

And Away I Go Giving a Presentation


May 2, I give a presentation to the Orakei Local Board on Special Character Zones and Centralised Master Community Plans as an alternative to some of our centres in the Unitary Plan (as we are a heterogeneous city). May 14 (as I have been granted Speaking Rights by the Deputy Mayor (to which I send my thanks 🙂 ) I give a largish presentation to the Auckland Plan Committee (the same committee overseeing The Unitary Plan) – on Manukau.


I have mentioned Manukau before at BR:AKL the most recent in my “THE CLUNKER AND ME (2) + A NOTE ON MANUKAU” post which deals with ‘Sense of Identity,’ and on the planning perspective; “QUESTION: AUCKLAND – METROPOLIS OR MEGALOPOLIS/MEGAPOLIS” post.


  • May 14 – Tuesday: Auckland Town Hall – Auckland Plan Committee (confirmed). I am asking for a speaking slot here while the Unitary Plan is still under the feedback process to provide clarification on the Manukau City Centre idea. After giving the idea at the Manukau Civic Forum and through my subsequent post: MANUKAU AS THE SECOND CBD OF AUCKLAND; the idea has been noted by Council (Councillors and planners) as well as growing some legs and going for a run. So to save the councillors getting befuddled around Manukau I thought I might go and clarify what I mean with Manukau as our Second CBD.

The post goes on with a note on Manukau and the City Centre Zones verse Metropolitan Zones per the Unitary Plan. My MANUKAU AS THE SECOND CBD OF AUCKLAND” post linked above outlines what will be the foundation to my presentation to the committee.



Something to think about

As I have been chatting away to various people on the concept of Manukau being a second CBD in Auckland; two interesting and thought-provoking questions popped up. They were:

  • Can Auckland be looking at THREE CBD’s by 2040: the existing CBD, Manukau and Albany (or Takapuna(something the North Shore can figure out itself))
  • Is Auckland an actual metropolis or in fact a megapolis/megalopolis

As for the tri-CBD question; another time and another debate. Right now it is the metropolis/megapolis/megalopolis question for Auckland

Now before some one pipes up about the world megapolises and megalopolises being massive areas with tens of millions of people, I want you to put that world relativity concept behind and think of a New Zealand and literal Greek concept of the terms.

The best way to convey the information is an information dump from Wikipedia…


So plenty to chew on and quite of bit for me to draw up for my presentation in three weeks time to the Auckland Plan Committee. And yes the matter will most like be a “hot button” issue and be somewhat contentious, but a matter needing to be raised and for the city to discuss 🙂



BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL



This and That – AGAIN

Not Again…


Where is Progressive and REASON with The Clunker Debate



You know when something gets flagged on Facebook more than three times it is worth considering rather urgently. I had commented on the polarisation and slack Main Stream Media report on The Unitary Plan in my “This and That” post:


From One Extreme To The Other


With The Clunker?


While most commentary and interaction with The Unitary Plan (The Clunker) continues as May 31 approaches at a more civilised level, unfortunately extremes can crop up that skewer the debate. This can either be extreme commentary from a particular group or individual (which I will comment on below), the media being particularly lazy as they are and only covering one side of the debate which they are doing with The Clunker for the most part (that will be bringing me to my second part).


After thinking that kind of situation was to be buried and we all move on with the Unitary Plan feedback and all keep our heads and maturity. Guess I spoke too soon when this was flagged to me:

Councillor backs ‘village idiots’ blog

A blog calling residents “delusional village idiots” for opposing apartment plans in Milford, Browns Bay and Orewa is backed by Albany councillor Michael Goudie. The councillor posted a Facebook link to the anonymous “I hate NIMBYS” blog that labels unitary plan opponents “soulless geriatric time bombs”. Mr Goudie, who prides himself as being the voice of youth on council, says the blog is “brilliant” and encourages people to share it. “I am glad people power is finally taking a stand against the loud minority.”

Hibiscus Bays Local Board member Gary Holmes says Mr Goudie holds passionate views but should step back from debate while the council is consulting on its draft unitary plan. Mr Holmes says it’s “unfair” to pit old versus young generations during discussions on Auckland‘s intensification. “It’s not generational. People have been through battles and understand what is at stake.” Browns Bay and Orewa residents have already fought hard to restrict heights, he says. “In 30 years they will thank us,” Mr Holmes says. If Auckland had listened to members of the older generation such as former mayor Sir Dove Myer Robinson the region would have a widespread rail network. Mr Holmes says there is support for some apartments, particularly around transport routes, but some of today’s character needs protection. “You can’t look at every area in the same way.”

Mr Goudie says on Facebook that the issue was about attitude not age.


It is about attitude and not age as I can attest to through my work on the Unitary Plan thus far. It is the reason why (and for my views of THAT blog see my “This and That” post) I can be scalding of St Heliers but in the same breath reach out to RIGHT ACROSS THE SPECTRUM age and demographic wise (except the NIMBY’s) with everything thus far with the Unitary Plan. And heck you need to reach out across that spectrum as the old adage states: united we stand for divided we fall (or more simply put divide and conquer).

While an age polarisation debate might have kicked off on The Shore and the Isthmus, down here in Southern Auckland I see: people young and old, workers and entrepreneurs, urban and rural folk alike somewhat if not united in concerns, voices, and ideas with the Unitary Plan. I could go a far as saying Southern Auckland knows growth is going to happen but, it needs to be done right with all negative consequences mitigated against. Then again we always want things done properly. This is what we are fighting for down here in the South with The Unitary Plan – making sure as Dene Andre said “Liveability from international best practice is executed.”


So again my conclusion:




All this brings me to the conclusion which seems inevitable in this Clunker debate. The two extremes facing off and firing broadsides against each other which will polarise the debate and entrench views. This action goes and buggers up the middle ground from both sides (those pro-sprawl, and those pro-intensification) who are actively working together and working a compromise in bringing this city forward for the next thirty years. The extremes are trying to force either change or no change, while the middle favours more progression. Progression and change are two very different things and have very different consequences to people and the city.


I just ran these words through a thesaurus to get the synonyms that we can more relate too:

  • Change: transformation, revolution (which then implies upheaval), conversion
  • Progress and Progression: development, evolution, growth, advancement, improvement


Now look at those words and think to yourself which basically scare the living daylights out of you. Those that are NIBMY-ists don’t bother answering as I am rather not interested in hermits or fossils (one which is a relic of a by-gone era) as nothing is static in this universe. For me I am more inclined towards Progress and Progression over “Change” even though I am a social liberal and can tolerate some “change” as defined above.

But look at the language of the Unitary Plan (and Auckland Plan) and you see the language I classed under the ‘Change’ department (especially transformational). I admittedly have parroted that same language although that has been scaled back in more recent submissions as I swing more to progression rather than transformational. Then again you often have to speak the language of the council (so transformational) to get them paying attention (oops there goes a secret of mine). The language Council is using in the Unitary and Auckland Plans through “change” is pretty much enough to go make most people (even those progressive) rather hesitant in what is being pushed forward. Probably won’t help matters is when Council goes and bollocks up the communications process and people really do start running around clueless through no fault of their own (although communications with the Unitary Plan has been “basic” but not flash).



Well I expect nothing from the MSM in reporting both sides of the coin in a more balanced manner so blogging continues and my main outlet. But moving the language from change to progression will be more the theme as I continue and sell my alternative to The Clunker. A story is being told, this is my story on our city


BR:AKL:  Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change 

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

North Shore Rail – Actively Being Considered

Wheels Turning (Slowly) for North Shore Rail


Came across this last night while reading up happenings across the city: “Shore rail considered

From the article:


Rail to the North Shore is being investigated by Auckland Transport.

The public transport mode has been “identified by the Auckland Plan as an important extension to the rail network”, the council-controlled organisation’s annual report says. “A draft report on land use preconditions has been updated and finalised by Auckland Council following feedback received from stakeholders.” Auckland Transport goes on to say the NZ Transport Agency has reported on steps to restart work on an additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing. “Auckland Transport will need to consider the implications of this on planning for rapid transit on the North Shore.” The agency says it and “other stakeholders are considering the findings and possible next steps, including future proofing the rail connection”.

In November, Massey University vice-chancellor Steve Maharey said a section of its Albany campus was sold to Auckland Council. Mr Maharey claimed he was told it would become a public transport hub with light rail as an option



I have commented on this before in my “NORTH SHORE RAIL FOR $2.5B?” post written in September:

Of all the options that were available, the one that caught my attention the most due to cost effectiveness while delivering the highest benefit was:


Meaning the Bus-way is extended, upgraded and fully optimised (so at maximum efficiency and/or capacity) before the Albany to CBD section of the Bus-way is flipped (converted) over to Heavy Rail which would connect to the Aotea Station of the City Rail Link. A reminder that the bus-way as it currently stands was designed to be flipped to rail in due time – so it should not be that difficult.

The conversion of the bus-way to heavy rail in Auckland Council’s and Auckland Transport‘s opinion would be around 2041. In my submission to the Auckland Plan, that conversion would be completed by 2040  (so third and final period of the current Auckland Plan):


Lets see where North Shore Rail goes. But by the looks of things it could be in position ahead on anticipated time. Remembering heavy rail can move upwards of 900% more people than the bus-way ever could. So a great decongestant for the North Shore 🙂