Everything else
Check this latest video from Auckland Transport out in relation to consultation on the new West Auckland Bus Network:
Yeah I think they might need a new marketing manager rather fast
Calling it creepy is me being polite put it this way
While the investigation goes on into what caused the fire at the Penrose Substation and the resulting three-day blackout on the Eastern Isthmus of Auckland it seems we need a new Chairman, and CEO of Vector – the lines company that delivers the juice to residents and businesses across Auckland.
From the NZ Herald
Vector bosses spent much of yesterday’s annual meeting in Auckland discussing the fire at a substation in Penrose on October 5 that cut power to 85,000 customers.
Mr Stiassny and Vector chief executive Simon McKenzie were unable to say what caused the fire until an investigation was completed, possibly early in the new year.
Only then, Mr McKenzie said, could the company discuss compensation for households and businesses, some of whom were without power for several days.
Compensation could take the form of the “Vector promise” of $50 for households and $200 for businesses. It would be premature to speculate on compensation above that, he said.
Coralie van Camp, a Vector shareholder and longtime critic of the power network company, told the meeting that people could have died due to poor maintenance at the substation.
She criticised Vector for paying out too much in dividends instead of investing in maintenance.
Mr Stiassny called it a serious incident that could have been worse, but said the company and electricity users could not afford a gold-plated network.
It would cost $500-$600 million for Vector to upgrade each of its 14 substations to achieve reliability above 100 per cent. State-owned Transpower, which provides bulk electricity to Auckland, would have to spend more, he said.
The company produced figures showing people in the affected areas had 99.8 per cent reliability of power in the past 15 years.
…..
Source and full article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11346810
$600 million to so-called gold plate the network which actually translates to a power network that rivals the European Union, parts of the USA, and Japan where they don’t get such systemic failures (if they do they are super rare unlike ours which is about every 2-4 years). That is around six years worth of those AECT dividends that you get in your letter box around September each year if we calculate the current dividend out at $335/household.
So the question you need to ask yourself is the following:
Getting our network up to the specifications similar to the EU where we have redundancy capacity ample enough is not gold plating, it is good investment and good business. And if the Vector Chairman, CEO, and Government Energy Minister can not see that then they all need to be sacked immediately.
Consider ourselves lucky we do not operate large Nuclear Power Stations which are reliant on an external feed to keep the reactors online. As the USA and Canada found in their last cascading failure when you lose the external feed the reactors need to be shut down for safety reasons making the power situation worse as you take more supply offline….
Note: This does not include reaction to the Air Quality debate as any resentment should be directed at Government where the order came from – not Council who are simply complying with central legislation
It was brought up in conversation over the Long Term Plan that criticisms and resentment towards the Council seems to be more naked, concentrated, and getting rather well-informed than the usual junk you can see often being flung. What makes the criticism more concentrated and naked is that once residents understand how the rating system works they hone their criticisms rather sharply back at the Council. So is such criticism warranted towards the Governing Body or is the City over reacting to the large and wider situation at play.
My own reaction (in-lieu of the discussion) was:
The City is openly critical for three reasons
What is fuelling the criticisms along is the 21 Local Boards send a sharp letter to the Mayor as we can see here: Local Boards Fire Shot Over Mayor’s Bow
If you are looking for a Councillor’s sharp criticism – with me replying back twice then I leave you this from Councillor Chris Fletcher:
Endless meetings and workshops are being held in a desperate attempt to reconcile the Mayor’s 10 year budget with Auckland’s community aspirations. The public were sold a pup during the unitary plan process. It did not duly consider the cost of meeting infrastructure investment with population growth. Furthermore planners were working on a different set of data from infrastructure providers. Now in desperation we are trying to ration sparse resources to ensure we can meet our responsibilities. This has translated into an unacceptable proposal to cut parks and sports investment by nearly 40% over the next 10 years. All of this could have been avoided if there had been leadership in managing the statutory processes bringing policy and funding together in the Auckland Plan, LTP and Unitary Plan.
Alternative sources of funding have been pointed out to the Council to supplement the rates stream also seen here:https://voakl.net/2014/10/21/questions-around-land-sales/ (you were absent Councillor – I believe at the late Mark Ford’s funeral?) More can be seen here:https://voakl.net/…/the-reaction-to-my-presentation-to…/
The alternatives and way forward is all there for the Governing Body, whether the Governing Body advances into the 21st Century in thinking, planning and having to go outside the box is yet to be seen
All said if the Minister and Ministry have no idea what is really going on since the Unitary Plan went out for notification then what the heck was in their submission and what are they honestly doing that does not involve blinkers.
Impetus now lays with the Minister
Seems Central Government might be partly to blame for where we are if we take both the Unitary Plan and Long Term Plan in account.
From Auckland Council – and read the bit in bold carefully too
Auckland Council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee adopted a draft Air Quality Bylaw today to tackle Auckland’s air pollution. The proposed bylaw has been recommended as a way of meeting national air quality standards, as required by the Government.
In winter, 75 percent of Auckland’s air pollution is due to fine particulate emissions (PM10) from open fires and old, non-compliant wood burners. The inhaling of fine particles – which can lodge in the lungs – has raised the level of respiratory illness in the region, a surprise to many who thought that vehicles or industry pollution was to blame. The proposed Air Quality Bylaw will focus on the management of indoor fires to reduce the emissions of these fine particles into our air.
“It is hard to comprehend that the warmth emanating from that wood fire we enjoy on a cold winter night is the cause of serious health issues. By concentrating on the air pollution culprit in winter – indoor fires – we will not only achieve cleaner air, we will be well on our way to meeting national air quality standards,” says Calum Penrose, Chair, Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.
The committee held a robust discussion about the various implementation timings of the bylaw and Councillor Penrose was pleased with the resulting recommendation of prohibiting both open fires and older wood burners (pre-2005) in October 2018. This will allow homeowners and landlords time to consider alternative heating sources.
All regional councils are required to monitor air pollution levels to ensure particle concentrations are within National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (AQNES) requirements and that we identify any areas – airsheds – where air quality may exceed standards. The Ministry for the Environment now requires all councils to meet the AQNES standards with no more than one exceedance per year in a region by 2016.
The bylaw is expected to be tabled at Auckland Council’s Governing Body meeting later this month. Calls for public submissions will begin on 10 November.
—-Ends—-
The Urban Air Shed where the restrictions will be in place by the order of Central Government per Resource Management Act – National Environmental Standards for Air Quality
Some Frequently Asked Questions – and answered
Because they do not look like they are being spent in Addison When I wrote the Updates on Takanini-Addison Area post I had a few questions come in about where the … Continue reading Where have the Development Contributions from Addison Gone?
Combined Letter Sent I saw this yesterday come across Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarveySpectre_/status/522945585679056896 I thought to myself what is this all about and so I opened the link which lead to … Continue reading Local Boards Fire Shot Over Mayor’s Bow
From Auckland Council
Cultural impact assessments: balance needed
“Protecting Auckland’s cultural heritage is a key part of Auckland Council’s job but so is making sure consent applicants don’t find themselves tied up in unnecessary red tape,“says Roger Blakeley, Auckland Council’s Chief Planning Officer.
“There is always a balance to be struck.”
Dr Blakeley was responding to public debate about the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provisions concerning mana whenua including a public meeting tomorrow organised by the group Democracy Action.
He says the rules in the proposed Unitary Plan regarding sites of significance or value to mana whenua were brought in following feedback the council had received on the draft plan asking for more protection for cultural sites and places.
The Unitary Plan hearings process is now underway and the Independent Hearings Panel will review the rules as people have their say.
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) provides greater emphasis on the consideration of Mana Whenua values, establishing a framework for Auckland Council and Mana Whenua to work together.
It contains a range of provisions relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, intended to meet the council’s broad obligations under the Resource Management Act.
“In the meantime, we need to keep focusing on a balanced, workable approach. The ‘Cultural Impact Assessment’ that critics have been complaining about isn’t new – it’s been around for years.”
It is currently required in a very small number of cases where a property is near a site that is of value or significance to mana whenua and involves changes that could potentially impact those sites. This can include, for example, former burial sites or pa sites.
In the last six months, Auckland Council has processed over 6000 resource consents and less than 200 of them (3%) triggered a possible assessment. There have been 50 site visits and 12 cultural impact assessments formally requested in that time.
“As a council we’ve worked closely with iwi to find ways to minimise the impact on landowners and have introduced a facilitation service to simplify the process.
“This involves the council contacting iwi on behalf of the applicant, and the iwi will say whether an assessment is needed. Most people are taking advantage of the facilitation service.
“There is a misconception that these assessments involve some kind of veto from iwi. They don’t. They are about iwi providing expert advice. The council takes that expertise into account, but it is the council that makes the decision.
“While we continue working towards the right balance, it’s good to remember just how important protecting our Māori heritage is to Aucklanders – including recent arrivals who really embrace this aspect of their new home. It is our point of difference in the world. Like other global cities, we want to retain our heritage, as an important part of our culture and identity.”
—-Ends—-
Quoting again: In the last six months, Auckland Council has processed over 6000 resource consents and less than 200 of them (3%) triggered a possible assessment. There have been 50 site visits and 12 cultural impact assessments formally requested in that time.
From the Minister for the Environment – Dr Nick Smith
The Resource Management Act needs to explicitly recognise the importance of New Zealanders’ access to more affordable housing if the downward trend in home ownership over the past 20 years is to be reversed, Building and Housing, and Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith said today at the Property Council New Zealand’s Residential Development Summit in Auckland.
“The Resource Management Act must safeguard our natural environment but it is also a crucial piece of planning legislation. It forms the basis for the decisions that determine what we can do on our land. So it’s important we have a system that balances environmental protection with the wider needs of New Zealanders. We need a system which ensures that important environmental standards are maintained, but that which also enables growth and development – including a strong housing supply,” Dr Smith says.
“It is the price of land and sections that has gone up so rapidly in unaffordable housing markets like Auckland, and it is the Resource Management Act and how it is implemented that is largely responsible for this cost escalation. The new law allowing Special Housing Areas is a short-term fix but we must address the fundamental problem with the Resource Management Act if we are serious about long-term housing affordability.
“The vast bulk of consent processes under the Resource Management Act are about urban development, yet they barely rate a mention in the purposes and principles of the Act. This is why the Government is determined to make changes. We need to get everybody working in the resource management area from a policy, planning and consent perspective to understand how their decisions impact on young Kiwi families who aspire to own their own home.
“I welcome the challenge working as Building and Housing, and Environment Minister. No one Minister has previously been responsible for the full regulatory framework affecting housing, from subdivisions, building consenting to occupational regulation. This presents the opportunity to streamline how we develop new housing so as to increase housing supply and affordability.”
….
It will be interesting to see what comes about when the draft reforms list is finally released – most likely by Christmas if the Government is going full speed on this.
Still I wonder if we would have been better served if we had a Planning Minister: Queensland Gets It Right, Auckland Continues to Dither and Get it Wrong
Also the old issue of property rights is bound to crop as well: Property Rights and the Unitary Plan
So lets see what the reforms do truly give us….
For your reading Source: Auckland Council Tomorrow I give my presentation in the Public Input section of the Auckland Development Committee tomorrow at Town Hall. You can see the agenda … Continue reading Presentation for October Auckland Development Committee Up
I have seen this from Local Board Chair Peter Haynes in regards to a motion Councillor Cathy Casey put forward at the Unitary Plan Committee today:
I have noted from a couple of Procedural Minutes from the Independent Hearing Panel for the Unitary Plan as well as the Committee Agenda (see: website down so will get the link when it is back up) that the Council nor the Hearings Panel are particular interested in making resources available to submitting groups so that they can front the Hearings Panel better equipped. Furthermore the Minister for the Environment has refused access to those resources as well.
It definitely seems so after my previous Unitary Plan Hearings Already Into Trouble? first pointed it out.
Talking Southern Auckland 