One a penny, two a penny – Hot Cross Buns From Yesterday Today is out in the garden day Tomorrow is more HOT CROSS BUNS Have a … Continue reading Hot Cross Buns
Will be back Tuesday Talking Auckland wishes everyone a Happy Easter out there (and a Happy Birthday to our Deputy Mayor – Penny Hulse whose Birthday also today). … Continue reading Happy Easter Everyone
Latest from AT while Auckland rides through the weather
As of 12:15pm from AT
TRANSPORT UPDATE
All of Tamaki Drive has reopened except for Kohimarama between Averill Ave and Selwyn Ave where a local detour is in place. This section is expected to reopen around 2pm.
As of 11:20am from AT
AUCKLAND TRANSPORT UPDATE
Update on Tamaki Drive
Auckland Transport is working to re-open Tamaki Drive after this morning’s flooding.
The part of the road Ngapipi Road to Selwyn Ave will open shortly, followed by section from The Strand to Ngapipi.
All going well the remaining area Selwyn Ave to Averill Ave will re-open at around 2pm.
From Auckland Transport as of 10:30am
Bad weather disrupting roads and buses, trains not affected
This morning’s bad weather has closed some roads and is affecting bus services in Auckland.
This is the latest information:
“Tamaki Dr
Road closed between The Strand and Kohimarama Rd
All bus services detouring via Shore Rd/Kepa Rd
Major delays – Shore Rd currently bumper to bumper
” Remuera Rd – Greenlane/Ladies Mile Intersection
Traffic lights out at these intersections
Major delays in the area
Affects all Remuera Rd bus services
” Whangaparoa – By Marellen Dr
Partial road closure due to fallen trees
” Pt Chevalier – Selwyn Village
Road closure affecting 007 bus services
” Quay St – Lower Albert to Lower Queen St
Partial road closure but most buses remaining on route
City LINK from Wynyard Quarter detouring via Customs St
Some traffic getting funnelled into Britomart causing delays
” Meadowbank – Harapaki Rd – ROAD NOW OPEN
General delays apply to the entire bus network due to severe congestion on most arterial roads.
All train services are operating as per normal.
More updates as they come through
Stay safe out there folks and keep listening to updates from Civil Defence please.
I noted yesterday that Councillor Cameron Brewer (surprise – surprise) released an “opinion” on the public losing interest with Auckland Council. The actual question is ‘has the public actually lost interest?’ I would say no and even Radio new Zealand’s Todd Niall would say no in his written correspondence earlier this week.
Lets take a look at what Councillor Brewer is saying this time.
The second term Auckland Council is proving to be an interesting one and very different to the inaugural 2010 – 2013 Governing Body.
We are currently going through a budget round to lock in where council’s $3b expenditure is directed for the forthcoming 2014/15 financial year.
This year we had fewer than 2,000 written submissions from the public on our Draft Annual Plan with only a few dozen turning up to speak to their submissions. The Mayor takes this as a vote of confidence in the council, but I take a different view.
My view is that the public interest in this council is at an all-time low because Aucklanders are increasingly of the view that this term is a bit of a lost cause, a bit of a political basket case. The Mayor has hung on to his political career but has lost a lot of political capital. Whatever your view on that, this is bad for Auckland.
….
Todd Niall and myself have already commented on the low Annual Plan submission count and why it was that low. You can see my own commentary behind to low submission count (which includes extract’s from Todd’s analysis) here: “Todd Niall Hits the Budget Nail on its Head.”
From that commentary piece:
To be honest I can see why both the Annual Plan submission count is very low and how most submissions were pertaining to local rather than regional issues. For the low submission count the Annual Plan submissions were called for during the final weeks of the massive Unitary Plan submission period. With limited time and resources available a conscious call might have been made on which of the two submissions you would pick to get done. Is it the Annual Plan or is it the Unitary Plan? I made such a conscious decision and chose the Unitary Plan over the Annual Plan to dedicate my submission time to – so as a result no submission from me on the Annual Plan this round.
What also factored into not doing an Annual Plan submission this round was the knowledge knowing the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (the main Council budget document) is coming up for debate soon. Something again Todd Niall points out…
…
Maybe that’s why Aucklanders have turned out in such low numbers to have their say on this year’s annual plan. They know that far bigger debates lie ahead.
Again I would say that is why the submission count is low not because we have lost interest but rather we had the Unitary Plan at the same time as well as knowing those bigger more important debates ahead (like the Long Term Plan).
The Unitary Plan submission count (at 8,900 as of the beginning of the month) I would say is a testimony to Auckland paying interest into what Council is doing. Of course we have the next Unitary Plan submission round late next month where anyone can submit on the points previously made (so no new material). Also if you are like me you are taking a break between all these big submission and consultation periods unless you want to burn yourself out from it all.
Continuing from Voxy
The lack of interest and coverage shows that the public and media have effectively given up on this term, with 2016 set to be a watershed election.
One thing’s for sure the third term will be just as different again with a new Mayor and many new councillors after a whole new public mandate and direction sought and secured.
….
Be very careful what you wish for Councillor. I can assure you the public and media (both Main Stream, and Social) have certainly not given up on this term. That said I do believe and agree that the third term will be quite different with new Councillors including a possible replacement for Orakei Ward too 😉 .
Finally:
In the meantime all councillors are committed to making a difference. For me it means keeping the Mayor accountable and focusing on the likes of fighting for lower rates increases and pushing for more sustainable debt levels. I will also continue to advocate for regional funding for projects in the Orakei ward area.
….
Groan…
Local Boards I thought would be the best advocates for getting funding for projects in their local area while ward Councillors are meant to be focusing on the big picture regional stuff. Or did Cameron not read this: Slow News Day. We Have the Bigger Picture to Focus On
Oh well I suppose the above was expected from Councillor Brewer.
In the mean time this storm outside is causing enough havoc as is – although I still have mains power in Papakura for now
Stay safe out there folks and keep listening to updates from Civil Defence please.
Questions are being asked on what to do with the Auckland Council Civic Building that currently houses the Councillors, the Deputy Mayor, and support infrastructure (including staff) before they all move to the new complex at the old ASB Tower at 135 Albert Street.
From Auckland Council:
Future of first skyscraper up in the air
The future of New Zealand’s first skyscraper, the 100m tall Auckland Council Civic Administration Building, is in the balance. To be vacated by the council later this year for new headquarters at 135 Albert Street, the building has serious structural issues and would require an estimated $70million retrofit to give it a new lease of life. The council has no further identifiable use for the building – designed in the 1950s and opened in 1966 – so it faces possible demolition or refurbishment for other uses, the Finance and Performance Committee heard today.
At the leading edge of building technology when constructed, the building is not listed for protection but two recent assessments suggest it worthy of Category A or B scheduling. Category A listing would limit the type of renovation permitted.
Refurbishment would have to include removing asbestos installed during construction as a fire retardant.
The committee decided to test the market for investor interest in refurbishment and at the same time request Regional Facilities Auckland, a council controlled organisation, to include the building in a review of possible future uses of the Civic /Aotea Centre precinct.
“Market testing and precinct planning opportunities will allow us to determine the future of the building with a complete picture of options and costs,” said committee chair Councillor Penny Webster.
Staff will report back before the end of the year.
—-ends—-
Personally I say demolish it and either put a plaza there our some other new building to support the Aotea Centre.
8,900 counted so far I sent a question away to Auckland Council on how many submissions for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) as news around the PAUP has … Continue reading 8,900 Submissions to the Unitary Plan
Where is our disconnect with youth and employment? Yesterday Mayor Len Brown kicked off a Youth Summit in the CBD to illustrate the high youth unemployment problem in Auckland, … Continue reading Youth Connect – Our Youth Disconnect
A week ago I critiqued Watercare (who provide our fresh and waster water services in Auckland) on their decision around a recycled storm-water scheme in Stonefields. You can read it here: Patch Protecting or Genuine Concerns?
This morning I noticed (and a few others) the editorial for the Herald this morning commenting again on the recycled storm-water scheme. Lets take a look bit by bit from the editorial this morning shall we?
Stonefields, a village-style residential development in what was the Mt Wellington quarry, has branded itself with environmental “sustainability”. The basis of that brand was a dual water supply. Every house built so far has both a drinking-water supply and a “third pipe”, bringing surface water from a central reservoir to toilets and outside taps. The system may have saved water from the metropolitan supplier, Watercare Services, but saving water is not the supplier’s prime concern.
Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue. Not so, says Watercare. The scheme, it says, would have cost Stonefields residents more than they will pay for the normal water supply. And since the groundwater collected for the third pipe would not have been treated to the same standard, it would have been charging those residents more for a supply of lower quality.
Common sense is probably on the side of Watercare. Surface run-off, especially from roads, is polluted. It was going to have to be treated as it was pumped from Stonefields’ collection tank to the reservoir, though not to a drinkable standard. The company says the cost of collection, treatment and pumping would have resulted in Stonefields residents paying five times the cost of Auckland’s potable water. And most of the third-pipe water would be flushed into the same second pipe, where it would need sewage treatment and disposal
……
“Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue.” When you read the rest of the editorial I wonder but not help that is “bending the truth” to a wide degree.
What would be nice if the editorial posted some hard figures on the actual cost Watercare is purporting for the third pipe recycled storm-water scheme. Costs that include both the set and operations of such a facility in comparison to the normal set up we already get. Then for good measure some comparative costs from overseas as well as the private sector to see if the scheme is not value for money as Watercare (and the Herald) claim
I also note saving water is not Watercare’s main concern. Well no if it is out to maximise income and profits which is telling as we further get down the editorial.
Cost is not the only consideration. Enthusiasts for third-pipe water conservation ought to consider what would be lost. This is a country in which the water is safe to drink. To slake a thirst, we turn on the nearest tap without a qualm. That would change if not all piped water could be trusted. The outside taps at Stonefields were to carry a sign that the water was not safe to drink. Do we really want that?
The former Auckland City Council ought to have thought of all these practicalities before it invoked principles of sustainability and made third-pipe reticulation a feature of Stonefields’ development consent. Its own water retailer, Metrowater, was going to run the system. But for the Super City’s creation, and the bulk supplier’s takeover of the whole system, the true costs of “sustainability” might never have been known.
….
I assume whoever wrote this has never been around much as plenty of outside taps (not drinking fountains) even in urban Auckland carry the Do Not Drink sign above the said tap. And can someone tell me – who races to the garden hose and drinks out of it – regularly? So a really weak excuse here in that section of the editorial.
Thanks to the Waikato River, Auckland will never be short of water. There is no point conserving the water for its own sake if it must be replaced by a costly supply of inferior standard, no matter how interesting or exciting the environmental engineering involved.
…
I am quite sure the people of the Waikato – especially those who use or treasure the river will be quite comforted that Auckland will never be short of water thanks to Watercare drawing water from there and then pumping it to Auckland after it treated – NOT. I am aware Watercare are seeking consent to double the amount of water intake from the Waikato River to pump into a growing Auckland. This consent process has riled the people of the Waikato as the extra intake will no doubt put strain on New Zealand’s longest river. It is of note the lower Waikato is reliant on rainfall, Lake Taupo and the Waipa River for its water flow – and it is certainly not unlimited either. Just look what happens when our South Island hydro stations get dry years and the knock on effects downstream…
Now if you want a contradiction then check this last bit from the editorial
More water falls on Auckland than the city can use. Only a fraction of Stonefields’ storm water was to be channelled into the third pipe. Most would have drained to the Tamaki inlet. Reducing stormwater pollution of the sea around Auckland is the real challenge. Collecting tanks and treatment may be the answer, and if the water can be put to a cost-effective use, all the better. But recycling for a needless purpose at greater cost is not sustainable.
—-
Okay so more water falls on Auckland than we can use yet we get 10% of our total supply from the Waikato with Watercare wanting to increase that to 18% of total supply. Auckland also in 1994 suffered a drought which eventually led to the Waikato pipeline being built in the first place so that Auckland would not be faced with a similar situation again. So which way is it? We get enough rain that we do not need the Waikato, or is Auckland that large that we need the Waikato to supplement our dams.
In any case the real question that begs to be asked is ‘who actually wrote the editorial?’ Watercare or the NZ Herald themselves…
Talking Southern Auckland 