I Dedicate This Post to Weymouth

Last night I went down to the second Weymouth Unitary Plan Community meeting to observe proceedings on again the Unitary Plan, but more so the Weymouth-Karaka Bridge. No need for me to cover the Unitary Plan stuff as I have already done so right through this blog – including elements on liveability within a community and city. What I want to look at is this bridge and my help to Weymouth in staving that bridge off for a very long time.

There were passionate pleas against this bridge and I could hear them loud and clear from where I was sitting. Also again I do sympathise with Weymouth over this bridge and its negative effects as where I live in Papakura are facing down the barrel of the central end of the Mill Road Corridor project – the 4 lane super-bypass of State Highway One. Like the Weymouth Bridge, the Mill Road works would create rat running within the local communities connected to both pieces of infrastructure causing a lowering of amenity and safety to those living or working there. So I can hear and sympathise with Weymouth (and Karaka who also bitterly oppose the bridge) through what I am facing down in my community.

What I am going to do though first is run a recap on the material I have in concerns to the Weymouth Bridge before posting an “example” submission type on how to stave off that bridge.

First of all I am going to echo what Council Transport Manager Kevin Wright and Deputy Mayor said about the bridge:

From Facebook and email exchanged

Christine Fletcher: There is strong opposition from the Karaka Residents I know to the proposed Weymouth Bridge. I am aware of a number preparing submissions in objection. It is a ridiculous proposal. It has no funding and does not appear in any planning document. Given that we don’t have sufficient funding for our existing and approved transport projects it is wrong to distress so many people on a proposal that will never go anywhere. Further evidence of the flawed thinking around the ill-considered Unitary Plan. You can imagine Penny Hulse and Roger Blakely playing with a big felt tip pen oblivious to the respective communities. I don’t think that I can attend that meeting but I will put you in touch with the independent planner consultant who is helping residents to draft their submissions.

This is the reply from The Council on my comment

Auckland Council Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and NZTA have no plans to build a bridge and new connection between Karaka and Weymouth. It is not part of future transport projects agreed under the Auckland Plan, or other current transport plans. No decisions have been made to include Karaka North or Urquhart Rd peninsulas in the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB). Options maps for the RUB in the south, available for public feedback as part of the draft Unitary Plan, show an indicative transport link between Karaka and Weymouth labelled as “a possible future transport link”.

In order to retain the functionality of State Highway 1 in particular, a major new north-south corridor (such as a Karaka to Weymouth bridge connection) will be needed at some stage if the levels of growth envisaged in the south happens.

We initially developed RUB options maps with no references to a bridge to Weymouth on the plans. A decision was made that it could be seen as disingenuous to consult on these options without making people aware of potential infrastructure implications of the amount of growth envisaged in the south.

For more visit:http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Documents/southernrubengagementandfeedbackreport.pdf

The point I have put in bold is the crux of the issue and I am not sure whether residents picked up on this. It was what Kevin and Penny were trying to say that:

1. I t would be extremely dishonest not to put the potential bridge there with the RUB options currently being considered. Meaning if the entire RUB area got developed in 15 years and the bridge was needed in 16, to spring it on people 15 years later after the fact (which is now) would be more hurtful to existing residents and farmers here 15 years down the track than now. So place the options here now to inform and influence the submissions back on the three RUB options
2. Kevin mentioned a trigger point that could “force” the bridge to be built. Again as in point one if a particular RUB option goes ahead a that population trigger point is triggered, then the bridge goes ahead out of no choice.
3. The RUB will influence the timing of the bridge. Now I know all three RUB options have that bridge drawn in. That would stem from the comment above I have quoted about the capacity of State Highway One if the entire RUB area gets developed. So we/you need to think of an alternative now to move those potential people in 15 years if State Highway One can not handle the future load. This is the tricky part – finding that alternative

This brings me to the part on submission writing and how to pull off a successful one that will sway councillors.

I spoke to Councillor Alf Filipaina last night on submissions and got some interesting (but known) insight to Councillors and submissions. When councillors go through the submissions they do actually read them. I can prove this as I have seen it when I have given such submissions and attended hearings. So the councillors are aware and I adjust my presentations to that accordingly. This means just writing “no” on your submission against an idea is not going to go very far. It basically gets put in a pile with other such submissions and if councillors treat it as one submission then that would not surprise me. What the councillors are looking for is this:

• Okay so you put “no” to something you are against
• You state your reasons why you are against this particular
• You state a VIABLE alternative to what you are against in the first place

Doing this causes a chain reaction in the process that allows councillors to:

• Understand your thinking and logic
• See something they might have honestly missed (I have had this happen to me more than once with urban design submissions)
• Know what you are actually saying when they (the councillors go and debate the matter)
• Go ask the bureaucrats to go and investigate if required on that alternative and report back to them. Councillors then go debate while fully informed your alternative and it might just become policy. 

The above bullet points is what I follow and remember when writing my submissions. I have done it for: the Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan, Regional Public Transport Program, Regional Land Transport Plan, and other minor submissions. In the same regard it is also the process I use when giving presentations in front of committees. The last such time this has happened were both at the Transport Committee in: forcing Auckland Transport to go and investigate the Manukau South Rail Link (which is under way and had a helping hand from Councillor Wood), and recently forcing Auckland Transport’s hand on full justification on the Manukau North Rail Link while explaining “Otahuhu Shuttles.” Now if you do not know what a Otahuhu Shuttle is then don’t worry. It was an example I was using to get AT to explain a concept better to a befuddled Council. Also with the bullet points in dark red this is one to remember as I have unwittingly landed myself in this particular situation outside the normal processes

It is in regards to Manukau and asking it to be upgraded into a fully fledged city centre zone. I have written a post on this: “MANUKAU AS THE SECOND CBD OF AUCKLAND” and it outlined my reasons for upgrading Manukau as such. I had given also what I had written as feedback to the Manukau Civic Forum held recently to the planners. Now to be honest while I was expecting it to be noted by the Council I did not expect it to grow legs and go for a run. Upon a discovery last night the idea has grown legs and go for a run. The Deputy Mayor and Penny Pirrit have heard the idea from the planners (what they didn’t know was who kicked it off) on Manukau. For the Deputy Mayor to pick up on this (as she was not present at the Civic Forum when I gave the Manukau viewpoint) means I wonder if the planners have taken note and undertaking a preliminary investigation into the idea. I know the idea is slowly getting around Auckland after I have gone banging on about it but it makes me wonder. What I do know is that I think I am going to be “hauled up” to next month’s Auckland Plan Committee meeting (chaired by the Deputy Mayor and responsible for overseeing the Unitary Plan) to explain the Manukau idea before it goes and befuddles everyone.

Now you might have noted I usually focus more on transport than urban planning. That is true as transport is my main expertise and experience in Auckland. However when urban planning issues such as the Unitary Plan come up I do focus on it as I am now. Also you might have noticed I am going in a roundabout way in explaining my point. That is true but I am giving examples and experience I have had with council in getting matters across successfully. Well either that or go and stink it in the media and force a back down – as that has worked too.

So what to put in your submission if you are against the bridge.

This is by no means an extensive or exhaustive list but, it is a starter to get the ball rolling.

I’ll link back my post on the Rural Urban Boundary which gives my thinking: THE RURAL URBAN BOUNDARY – SOUTH END. I recommend reading it first as it explains my logic and what I am likely to place in my submission next month. An extract can be seen below as well:

Personally I am in favour of the Draft Southern RUB Options – Corridor Focus (Page 4 of the embed) which contains primary urban development to Drury and Karaka (Core’s K and D), along the State Highway 22 and North Island Main Trunk Line rail corridor, the North East Pukekohe flank, and the Pukekohe South East flank. This option keeps the main development either near existing development or along a transit corridor making infrastructure provisions (Drury and Paerata Rail Stations) and access more easier than the other options such as those that include Karaka North and West. Per The Unitary Plan there is an option to retain a green belt between Pukekohe and Paerata which would provide a wildlife corridor as well as park space. While development is kept away from the highly valuable Pahurehure Inlet which according to the maps contains colonies of wading sea birds. In any case that area slated as Karaka North and West if need be can be converted either into lifestyle blocks with strict covenants or over time into a new regional park and green lung for the ever-growing Auckland (which is what I would prefer Council would do (like an Ambury Farm or Puhinui Reserve set up)).

I have also noted as potential transport link from Whangapouri to Weymouth via a new bridge over the inlet as well as talk of a new waste water treatment plant. With me preferring the corridor option thus Karaka West and North not being developed – but actually wanting to be flipped over to lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve I can not see the need for a transit link through that area connecting to Weymouth. That link would create a rat-run from State Highway 20 at the Cavendish Drive Interchange, down Roscommon and Weymouth Roads (Route 17), over the new bridge, down the new transit link and through to State Highway 22 just north of Paerata rather than containing it to State Highways 1 and 22. That kind of rat running would lower the amenity of the new Greenfield developments and do nothing to solve congestion issues. As for the waste water treatment plant, well with Karaka North and West no longer under development you can away plop the new plant there out of the urban road but near the potential outfall site.

 

Submission wise I am going to follow through and “recommend” to Auckland Council that the Corridor Option for the RUB being the preferred southern Greenfield development options, providing there is:

• A green belt maintained between Pukekohe and Paerata
• New waste water treatment plant is built
• That transit link over the Inlet is not built
• What was labelled Karaka North and West either be allowed to be converted to Lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve seeming wading birds live in those areas
• And that Auckland Transport will build the Drury and Paerata Mass Transit Interchanges (rail and bus station, and park and ride)

 

You can see I am against the bridge and also a particular RUB option that would force the bridge rather soon. But at the same time you can see my reasons behind why I am opposed to the bridge and a particular RUB options, as well as my choice in RUB options and complementary alternatives.

In short this I what I will be submitting:

• Oppose the Weymouth-Karaka Bridge due to:
  • Rat running down Weymouth Road and Roscommon Road to and from State Highways One and 22
  • Lower amenity and safety of the Karaka and Weymouth Communities
  • Increased air and noise pollution
• Oppose the RUB Option allowing Karaka North and West to be built
• As an alternative I support the Transport Corridor Option in developing the RUB providing
  • • A green belt maintained between Pukekohe and Paerata
    • New waste water treatment plant is built
    • That transit link over the Inlet is not built
    • What was labelled Karaka North and West either be allowed to be converted to Lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve seeming wading birds live in those areas
    • And that Auckland Transport will build the Drury and Paerata Mass Transit Interchanges (rail and bus station, and park and ride)

Now while I will flesh this out in a full submission you can see that:

• I have opposed a RUB option and the bridge
• Given my reasons why I oppose it
• Chose another RUB option more suitable and avoids the bridge situation
• Reasons why I chose that RUB option
• Conditions and extras to be considered if this RUB option is taken (regional park and proper public transport)

This is what you need to consider and get into your submission when preparing it for Council. The Councillors will see this and consider it – especially if you front up to a hearing where you can really get the point home to them (the hearings are my favourite battleground in getting points across).

As for the Regional Park bit, I will explain this in another post on why I have got it placed here. Also once my submission is written as it is a public document, I will upload it here to the blog.

I hope this helps and remember, contact your Local Board if you need help with submissions. They are only too happy to help their communities.

The RUB Options being considered and open to feedback

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND