The plot thickens but the tower continues

May 4th, 2008. Posted in Auckland
google.com

The plot thickens. Rudman has written in the Herald about the Westfield tower and the theoretical Mt Eden loop underground train tunnel. Previous snarky discussion here.

Rudman’s column is fairly informative compared to the original Herald coverage, but the headline is silly and tabloid-like: “Rubber-stamp for Westfield’s 40-storey monstrosity beggars belief”. I’m not sure what qualifies it to be a “monstrosity”. Maybe a sub-editor at the Herald is permanently stuck on tabloid mode and strangely oblivious to the Herald’s own monstrosity of a headquarters.

Anyway, ignoring Rudman’s liberal ARC quotes, some key points:

  • The ‘planning general manager’ for the Auckland City Council, one John Duthie, was involved in the new harbour crossing study. This study mentions a possible rail link from the North Shore under the Westfield building and into Britomart, as well as the theoretical Mt Eden rail loop. Implication being that Duthie presumedly knew about Westfields plans for a 40 storey tower while he was also aware the region desires to build an underground rail corridor beneath Westfield’s property. Question being why didn’t Duthie move to protect the ratepayers interests by pushing for a designation before Westfield appeared at a planning hearing with their 40-storey tower, or why didn’t he move to drag the consents process out.
  • ARTA apparently has no power to file designations. Presumedly only specific councils and government agencies can do so, and ARTA for whatever reason isn’t one of them.

So I have some questions…

ARTA is a subsidiary agency of the ARC. If ARTA has no ability to file for designations itself, then did Parliament intend the ARC would do that on behalf of ARTA? If so, why didn’t the ARC? Why is the Chairman of the ARC blaming the Auckland City Council for not filing a designation on behalf of an ARC agency? Must the local council be involved in all designation requests?

Is it the Auckland City Council’s legal responsibility to act on possible policy and plans of ARTA or other Auckland councils, or is it to act based on actual published policy? Could Westfield sue a council for acting on vague “proposed” plans during the consents process?

(Related: Is another tunnel out of Britomart actual regional planning policy? Maybe not yet (5 Mar 2008):

Although the authority proposed the idea of tunnel as part of an inner-city rail loop to its Auckland Regional Council parent in 2005, Ms Hunter said her board had only recently decided to put the planning wheels in motion.

Translation: “We really haven’t done much yet”)

Is it Auckland City Council policy to interfere with a private development which will dramatically increase the population density around Auckland’s only major train station? Doesn’t a 41 storey apartment tower right across the road from Britomart help Auckland City Council meet the growth development goals set by a regional agreement 9 years ago? (and yes, that document is hosted on the ARC’s own website)

Related and in case you’re curious: the entire ARTA Board of Directors is appointed by the ARC.

  1. One Response to “The plot thickens but the tower continues”

  2. By Nilu on May 5, 2008

    To answer your questions
    - ARTA was formed to set policy priorities for the Auckland Region but do not have any teeth or jurisdiction to set designations or allocate land (ARC doesn’t have many assets anyway). ATRA came out of the govt Local Govt Amendment Act 2004 and essentially influences Ontrack, Transit and local council transport stuff - nothing more. The projects it has worked on to date have been small by comparison.
    - FYI LGAAA was created as a formal request from Auckland to govt to give statutory powers to the regional plan and be more effective than the district/city plans under the RMA.
    - my understanding of ARTA is that they do not make any significant transport decisions within ARC, only policy suggestions. Significant roading decisions are made by central govt and local roading within local govt. However, it must all meet the regional plan and align with the transport strategy.
    - There is a governance project that was under way last year - can’t remember what it’s call - ARLTS or something to that effect. Until all governing bodies/stakeholders agree to common policy direction of national importance, ARC can not direct ACC.
    - and that is the other thing - has the government set it’s “matters of national importance” regarding transport and economic development in Auckland yet? I am asking about local and central government.
    -John Duthie and his team is well respected amongst govt planning and policy circles.
    -Mike Lee….well….

    Your second question:
    - I ask why should ACC file on behalf of ARC if ARC has not set it’s policy direction, why are they reactive and not proactive?
    - and yes LG (ACC) is usually involved in all designation processes as per required under the Local Govt Act. Also it falls within their jurisdiction as a utility authority, however if ARC and central govt have recognised a plan or strategy as having national significance - then certain powers can be applied.
    - FYI ARC works under the LGAAA (for the regional plan) and the under the much loved RMA.

    The last question:
    - ACC will not act on “possible” ARTA/ARC policy or plans. They would be legally liable if they did and local govt have water-tight systems to avoid litigation of this sort
    - and yes, Westfield can certainly sue - are the proposed plans draft? final? approved by councillors? other Auckland councils?

    And finally, at the last LG election, electrification of the rail and other key transport projects where flagged as high priorities for Auckland especially because of Rugby World Cup 2011 (or was it 2010). Nevertheless we don’t have the money to fund these projects - bottom line. Mind you, I have been out of the scene/action for a couple of months so can’t make specific comments on current issues.

    hope this helps Ed

    Reply

Post a Comment