The plot thickens but the tower continues
May 4th, 2008. Posted in Auckland | 1 Comment »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.
