Councillor Darby and Herald’s Bernard Orsman sensationalise the facts

 

As mentioned on Talking Auckland earlier this week Councillor Chris Darby’s motion at the Auckland Development Committee to effectively revert the Port reclamation rules back from Discretionary to Non Complying was lost 12-10 (see: PORT OF AUCKLAND UPDATE: DISCRETIONARY RULE ON RECLAMATION REMAINS)

On one had we had Orsman posting a misleading article yesterday stating that reclamation was due to start in April this year. That was proven incorrect when this came to:

CLARIFICATION: PORTS NOT RECLAIMING LAND IN APRIL + MORE INFO

……..

Source: https://voakl.net/2015/02/27/clarification-ports-not-reclaiming-land-in-april-more-info/

Of course Orsman made the correction but you would never notice it without close inspection.

 

So while Orsman misleads and then gets corrected Councillor Chris Darby of the North Shore decided to have a virtual sook on Facebook:

…….

My reply was long but made in very plain English:

Ben Ross Actually the stoush is long over Councillor and you will find the City’s reputation will remain intact.

First of some correction matters

NZ Herald story on Ports of Auckland incorrect – first steps to reclamation will not start in April
A story in today’s NZ Herald claims incorrectly that ‘Ports of Auckland will start work in April on the first step to reclaim more of the Waitemata Harbour after the Auckland Council yesterday voted in favour of more generous rules allowing expansion over the seabed.’
This statement is not correct for two reasons:
1. The work to begin in April will be a piled structure, not reclamation (as reported in media over the last couple of weeks). This work is not ‘the first step’ to reclaim more land; it is a wharf structure which is entirely reversible. Any reclamation work would be a separate process subject to resource consent.
2. The vote by Council yesterday has no connection to the work to begin next month. This work received consent in December last year. The decision yesterday relates to council’s current view on the unitary plan rules, which won’t be agreed until mid-next year – ie the rules that would apply if the ports were to make an application for reclamation.
Auckland Council has requested a correction from the NZ Herald.

The Port has agreed to hold off any port reclamation (different from building piled wharves) until the Unitary Plan is in operation late next year.

When it is these are the specific tests the Port must pass:

Specifically this:
Policies
The policies are as listed in the General Coastal Marine zone for the CMA in the precinct in addition to those specified below.
The general policies 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 for the centres and mixed use zones and the General Business and Business Park zone apply to land within the precinct in addition to those specified below.
The City Centre zone policies 5 – 9, 11, 16 – 17, 19, 21 and – 23 apply to land within the precinct in addition to those specified below.10. Provide for further reclamation to be undertaken, only if:
a. there is no practicable alternative
b. it will provide a significant regional benefit
c. it is the most appropriate form of development
d. potential adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.11. Provide for minor reclamation that is carried out as part of rehabilitation or remedial works of an existing reclamation or CMA structure, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on the environment.

————–

I think B and D are quite stringent there.
Also you sure your are not using the Port issue as a lightning rod over the QEII issue? Some say you are despite the sale of that piece of land not able until Road Stopping is complete by AT and that needs a full public notification first. Anyhow QEII Square moves 50metre south-east to outside the Britomart Entrance where the buses currently are (and will be moved). That space alone gets good light and you can see up Queen Street valley and onto Queens Wharf.

Back to POAL, the reclamation rules are now to be before the Unitary Plan Panel. What you are being express with the truth here Chris is how the UP Panel process work and how Judge Kirkpatrick can very easily put the reclamation rules back to Non Complying if the material stacks up. That said he could have knocked it also from Non Complying back to Discretionary as well.

Halting all port work is also illegal under the RMA as it not a prohibited activity. So I dear someone to try it in the Enviro Court and find out how that goes.

finally looking at the voting split it became rather obvious:
The Affluent Isthmus and North Shore vs the less affluent West and South Auckland, Cr Krum’s area housing heavy industry, and Rodney.

Time for that Isthmus and North Shore lot to stand back while the UP is under deliberation. Also this is now a matter between Krum’s Ward and Southern Auckland where the industry housed is that is connected to the port. If we are going to alter operations through environmental concerns if is for those people to decide seeming their Economic situation is on the line. And I am talking $380m and 3,500 jobs in the South connected to the port through just General Cargo alone. $280m of that is in wages paid (Cruise Industry only gives $160m).

As for relocating the port? If within Auckland the RMA itself would prohibit it without Central Government involvement https://voakl.net/…/port-of-auckland-relocation-and-the…/

…….

 

Darby further replies (to which I then reply:

Chris Darby Lot of words for so little argument Ben.

• Ben Ross Actually the bulk of Bledisole Wharf houses containers waiting to be shipped out (by sea or rail/road)

  And Chris really, that all you gt after losing again this time 12-10 to a full Committee that was down one (which would have been 13-10 if Sir John was there)

  So and go file that Judicial Review you talked about last week. It is over and it is before the Unitary Plan panel. We will come back to it when Kirkpatrick makes his recommendations next year.

• Penny Webster Thank you Ben for telling the real story Not as sensational but true

————

 

The debate has come down to one between Darby and his Ivory Tower brigade versus the other 12 Councillors, Mayor and Deputy Mayor who either house the populations or industrial bases affected by port operations.

The situation with port reclamation is complex one and thus does not need to be sensationalised by Ivory Tower Councillors nor their supporters.

It is probably most wise for Council to embark on a campaign again to refresh us of the Unitary Plan Hearings Panel processes. That is what happens when a topic comes up for hearings, the process of Council making its position for mediation, mediation itself, and then the actual hearings. Because it seems a few have forgotten that the reclamation issue is now before that Panel. It is out of Council’s hands until next year.

 

So in real short terms:

1) POAL not going for consent nor thus reclaiming wont happen prior to Unitary Plan going live next year
2) The old proposal for reclamation in the PAUP was a total dog and as loose as current legacy rules
3) New proposed rules going to the PAUP Panel are stricter (I have the link to the material if wanted) than old proposed rules
4) Those new rules esp point 10 make POAL jump through more hoops then Port of Tauranga would
5) Unitary Plan Panel can recommend more lax or even tighter rules in July next year
So THAT is where we are at with POAL
Environment AND economics weighed off considerably
Spiel over

………

 

Indeed that spiel or rather Weekend Analysis is over for this weekend 😉