From Yesterday’s Proceedings

As usual Bernard Orsman has one heck of a slant on “proceedings” that might happen at a Council Committee meeting. His interpretation was much different then what I got out of five and a half hours of near “torture.” More on that in the moment and more on the Orsman fan club which was quite amusing yesterday to watch.

But, first yesterday’s Auckland Plan Committee on the Unitary Plan and other matters,

I will draw along comparisons from Orsman’s article to outline the different interpretations. You can also read the agendas at the bottom of this post and the Minutes will be posted as soon as they are available.

The Committee

The first item was on the Council lodging a submission against the Sky City Convention Centre (in return for more gambling facilities). Straight forward there, the committee by majority approved the submission and two Councillors will be off to Wellington to give the oral submission later.

The second item is where the only thing you gained by this is a numb backside consequence starts occurring. It was on the Submission to Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which would allow Local Boards to delegate powers to: Committees, individual portfolio holders or officers much like the main Governing Body does.

This should have been a straight forward item and passed rather easy. Queue 45 minutes of debate later due to Councillor Sandra Coney (who will stand down from the Governing Body to a Local Board seat (if she wins)) harping on about this being undemocratic (the Bill). Love to know how this Bill is undemocratic as there are days where you need efficiency and delegate back down to individuals on matters, other days democracy does trump and the matter should be before the full Local Board or Governing Body.

For handling of small-scale events and other matters efficiency and speed would trump having to wait a full month for a Local Board meeting. Thus I don’t see a particular problem of the Bill and what it tries to achieve.

But no, we get a 45 minute debate from Councillor Coney on this only for the item to be passed by a Super Majority. Irony is going to have it most likely that Local Board Member Coney will be delegating back down matters if she is elected to her respective Local Board. Or Waitakere is going to be extremely inefficient and slow handling matters and she will insist everything be dealt with at the full monthly Local Board meetings.

The next item on the agenda was the Submission to the Food – specifically around Genetically Modified Organisms. This one went straight forward even with Councillor Walker contributing (more on him grandstanding later) with Councillors concluding they like to see Auckland GMO free. Ah well not going to get concerns from me with that one so carry on.

From here on in things went down hill extremely fast and a few people including some Councillors agreeing that:

1.  Where was the Gin and Tonic
2. The only thing we got out of that was a numb backside…

So lets look at the Unitary Plan and draw the comparisons with Orsman’s piece in today’s NZ Herald.

From the NZ Herald

Key city issues put on hold

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

Debate on ports, residential heights and other topics must wait until final plan meeting.

…

Well before we even get into the Unitary Plan report itself, the Committee got grounded down on the issue of independent legal advice on the Unitary Plan process. This took 45 minutes – basically to lunch time to finally get to the deciding moment in which (and from Facebook):

The comments in respect to the thread:

• Luke Christensen there isn’t really any process outlined by the RMA pre-notification. No council has done an extensive feedback process as this one has followed. Legal review relates to plan consistency, ie rules giving effect to polices and objectives.

   
• Nigel James Turnbull staggering they dont support a peer review process…

   
  • Ben Ross Not required. For one who is in a C&R team and about saving the ratepayer cash I can here hypocrisy alarms screaming here Nigel. I agree with George‘s comments below entirely. Thank you George for showing a level head here  . Then again C&R – yeah well
• Bob Murphy Did some-one wake George Wood suddenly so he didn’t know what he was voting about?

   
• Tony Vlatkovich not at the least surprised. This motion would have been well warranted in the circumstances given the l implications for all aucklanders.However such a proposed course of action would slow down the process and it seems to me that the desire of some is to implement as soon as possible whatever the effects. Everything is driven by the desire to get things underway.One can see this when town planners are now granting non notifed applications without even consulting the next door neighbour.Another was the first for the lion brewery site one of the biggest developments in auckland.That was non notified.!

   
• Julie Clayton-West Cameron, please remind me .. are we living in a democracy or is our council governed by Putin?

   
  • Tony Vlatkovich well the initial suggested unitary plan talked of large concrete block buildings up to 19 stories not inconsistent with berlin,russia etc draw your own conclusions Julie Good point.!

     
  • Julie Clayton-West Oh Tony. I despair. I really do. I’ve travelled so much and lived overseas and saw these revolting vertical ghetto blocks and they, as in the UK etc, tore them down because they realised they just didn’t work. They were soul destroying and ugly and no one should be made to live in them. But Len and his Planning Department won’t listen. They are determined to build them in our city. Meanwhile, Len’s on his lifestyle block and Penny is out in Kumeu.

    Like · 16 hours ago
  • Luke Christensen there are several in Ponsonby, Parnell, Devonport. Don’t think they are going to be torn down soon. Are very popular.

     
  • Tony Vlatkovich Hi julie yes i have also witnessed similar social experiments disasters overseas but we are blindly following what other citys social disasters have had to deal with.Interestingly what provisions are being made for our animal..Most buildings will be unit titled and generally no provisions under body corporate rules to house pets.What will happen to them or will council legislate for that.?

     
  • Julie Clayton-West Luke, most of those you mention are well built. The ones in the CBD are cheap and nasty. They are not an alternative. They are a problem. Tony, I worry I really do. Who is going to stand up and be the person we can vote for? Sir Dove Myer must be rolling in his grave.
• David Thornton The Section 32 analysis must be the place to look! When is it due to be made public?

   
  • Luke Christensen yes agreed, thats why said motion is superfluous

     
  • David Thornton Cameron Brewer why haven’t Councillors referred the non-disclosure of legal advice to the Auditor-General, also ask the Attorney general to see if there is case against the council officers who are refusing to reveal this information which is paid for from ratepayer funds. You may also like to consider suspending the CEO until he either produces the legal advice or gives a public explanation of why not.
• Bob Murphy Hope they realise that we are watching them closely before the elections.

   
• George Wood Why spend probably hundreds of thousands of dollars feeding fat cat lawyers on a rush job Bob Murphy? 

  I’m there is ensure that the ratepayers money is not wasted. Councillor Wayne Walker wants to get Dr Royden Somerville QC of Dunedin to advise the Auckland Council on Genetically Modified Organisms.

  I agree with David Thornton that the section 32 analysis would cover this type of review.

  Dr Royden Somerville QC will also cost mega bucks which the rateap;yers of Auckland will again have to find.

  http://www.nzbar.org.nz/Person?Action=View&Person_id=752

  

  Dr Royden Somerville QC : New Zealand Bar Association

  www.nzbar.org.nz

   
• David Thornton My only concern is that the Section 32 may not be made available until after the Proposed Plan is notified.

   
• Luke Christensen Sec 32 has to be signed off by govt before notification, maybe will be released then?

   

I echo the concerns of David and George here. The Section 32 analysis per the Resource Management Act requirements will cover what the defeated motion was trying to somewhat achieve. Yes I do show concern with Section 32 that it will be done promptly and smartly for EVERYONE to review once complete. I also would be safe in betting the Government will be watching the Section 32 analysis very closely. Meaning it will be ROBUST as anything before the Draft Unitary Plan hits formal notification.

Hopefully with the motion now defeated we wont be hearing about this again (and I don’t think we will be per standing orders on voted issues). Time to move along with the Unitary Plan and work with what we have for the better and for Auckland.

After lunch things got tucked into the Unitary Plan propper.

From Orsman again

Key issues on the future of Auckland, including Ports of Auckland expansion plans and apartments in the suburbs, have been kicked for touch until the final meeting on a new planning rulebook for the Super City.

 

Instead of reaching a position on the ports, residential heights, heritage controls and other issues, the Auckland Plan committee yesterday delayed debate and decisions until it wraps up the rulebook, or Unitary Plan, for formal notification.

 

The council had set up a three-stage process to make decisions on feedback received on the draft Unitary Plan – a series of direction-setting workshops behind closed doors, debating and formally agreeing issues at four Auckland Plan committee meetings and wrapping up the Unitary Plan document over three days at the end of August.

 

The committee, under the leadership of Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, bypassed the second stage of the process yesterday on a raft of issues.

 

Several groups and individuals who wanted to address the meeting were refused speaking rights on the grounds the meeting was not making any decisions. The committee would hear from people when decisions were being made, Ms Hulse said.

…

Seems Orsman is on his warpath again as I got very different interpretations from the outcomes of the Committee.

With speaking rights in the Committee at the moment, any Unitary Plan speaking requests will be denied at this point and time. The Deputy Mayor has made this clear and consistent on the grounds of the Unitary Plan is under active decision-making at the moment after the feedback round that closed May 31. Effectively no one will be granted rights until the decisions have been made the Draft Unitary Plan is essentially hitting formal notification.

And Penny is being fair and consistent despite some whining from the Isthmus (again). I got denied speaking rights on Manukau and the Unitary Plan, while someone else got denied something else with the Unitary Plan. BUT and this is the BUT; both the other person and I did have discussions with the Deputy Mayor and fruitful ones at that. Both of “us” were happy with the outcomes and continue to advance our causes through the standard channels.

Now Orsman is banging on about process and kicking issues into touch with the Unitary Plan. His fan club no doubt egging him on. Well the Councillors, Local Boards and Independent Maori Statutory Board are about to each get a memory stick with 6000 pages of “tracked changes” on the Unitary Plan document thus far. Tracked changes from 22,700 pieces of feedback from the public, and feedback that is riddled with red pen. That red pen an acknowledgement to me that the planners have read my submission, considered it, and entered it into their data base. No doubt it will be part of the 6,000 pages of tracked pages which made both myself and Councils go POOOOAH in surprise.

So if anything here the planners are being damned thorough. Again this is confirmed by councillors who visit the planners and see them up to their eyeballs in submissions working through this all.

MY THANKS TO THE UNITARY PLAN PLANNERS FOR YOUR TIRELESS EFFORTS HERE.

I don’t envy your task and you guys are doing a great job in getting everything ready in such a compressed time frame.

And this is why I am pouring scorn of C&R and their people at the moment. Hypocrisy, stalling, wasting my money while we wait for the Draft Unitary Plan with its changes to come out. No wonder our planners feel unloved right now with this thankless task.

As for Port of Auckland; well the Port was there listening in (and got equally frustrated by the antics on some Councillors). Effectively with the Port we have this and again was stressed quite clearly despite again what Orsman, his fan club and C&R will harp on about:

A note on the Port which was stressed by Councillor Penny Webster yesterday (I think). Under current plans and operative material; Port of Auckland CAN APPLY for a consent to expand up to 26ha on their Waterfront site. This is I believe a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

What Council will consider on the 28th is whether to move that activity from Restricted Discretionary to either Discretionary or Non Complying and set it through the Unitary Plan. 

As for Part II of the Port Review, I interpreted it back out that the Mayor wants it done and will be voted on also by the 28th. By a straw poll that vote will succeed.

Nothing is being slowed down with the Port per se and that was clearly explained yesterday. Not that some including candidates would know or even bother to ask

And

If I am interpreting this right from (Chief Planning Officer Dr) Roger (Blakeley), Councillors serving 2016-2019 term will be dealing with Stage II outcomes and recommendations

—–

Things got moving after this and the Council voted to note the interim directions from the workshops and send it to the August 28-30th committee meetings for final decision-making. Not kicking it into touch as Orsman said – as these current Committee meetings are (as Councillor Brewer reminded everyone) to note the interim directions, ask some questions, then kick it to the decision-making meetings at the end of the month.

The Orsman Fan Club

After that Orsman took his leave from the meeting and the chambers and this is where the amusing part occurred and has to be noted. We move onto the Auckland Design Manual (which will be launched September 30 and is a very classy website upon first looks) and so Orsman took his leave – with a procession of three-quarters of the public gallery following him out. Outside it was spotted that they were all having a “discussion” on the day’s proceedings and where next. Probably also hence how we ended up with today’s article from him.

I was not the only one who found this quite amusing. Usually people follow politicians and bureaucrats out the door to get a word. Following a journalist out the door for a discussion that lasted around half an hour – well that is amusing.

Amusing as I drew an instant parallel to this:

Abbott gives supporters bum steer

Words on wisdom: Liberal followers listen to Tony Abbott at the Ringwood campaign office. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Credit: The Age

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/abbott-gives-supporters-bum-steer-20130812-2rsi2.html#ixzz2btyqQlPf

I do implore to read the article and see if you can see how I drew the parallel with the Orsman Fan Club and Orsman himself. Mind you Orsman would not give the so-called “bum-steer” although he has been debunked with the Unitary Plan so many times.

Also those who have been following my Unitary Plan commentary should be able how one could fathom at the parallel drawn above. Hence why the independent commentary on the Unitary Plan continues while also advancing projects for a better Auckland. The Orsman Fan Club shows people who are against the Unitary Plan (and they come from two quarters of the City) are willing to engage in a high-profile journalist to get him to conduct effectively their spin and often misinformation (when he can do that on his own). This actually grinds down the Unitary Plan process, upsets it by trying to exert undue influence of the process over the expense of the rest of the city, and over politicise the entire thing which I would bet might tickle the fancy of the Right Wing but, seriously annoy the rest of the city who are either pragmatic or just want to get on with it.

In saying that Auckland 2040 have been rather quiet. Most likely if they are like me; they are knuckling down pretty hard and getting on with Unitary Plan work and advancing causes through standard means. Noting that Auckland 2040 and I for the most part agree with each other on Unitary Plan matters (although one does not appreciate when others spin misinformation). Be interesting to hear what they are up to in an a form of an update.

And so this brings to a close my Unitary Plan report. Despite the constant re-litigation (which should cease now) and grinding down on the same issue, despite Orsman trying to throw a spanner into the works (which isn’t working) progress is being made for the big August 28-30th meetings. Those meeting where decisions are set and the a date decided for the Unitary Plan to formal notification (a three year process).

Looking at the word count this must be my longest post yet 😛

One last thing: Councillor Wood praising workshops and the outcomes via the mapping workshop. All so praise to George for steering the Workshops while the Deputy Mayor was away. Thank you George

TALKING AUCKLAND

Related articles

• Key city issues put on hold (nzherald.co.nz)