8-10am tomorrow morning there is a meeting organised by groups concerned about the lack of governance and oversight by Council over the Port Company. Whether you can make it tomorrow or not, if you agree that the Port Company needs more oversight and governance from the Council, visit this page and them them know.
Letter to the Council:
Dear Mayor Len Brown and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse,
I am writing on behalf of Urban Auckland, the NZ Institute of Architects Auckland Branch, the Urban Design Forum and the Auckland Architects Association. We represent the professionals working in the built environment of our city. We are joined by local community groups and Westhaven Marina Users.
We are deeply concerned at Ports announcement last Thursday that they are extending Bledisloe Wharf in April by 93 and 98 metres thus eliminating the crucial view down the harbour from Queens Wharf – the proposed gateway to our City. We feel let down by Council process and have no trust in Ports of Auckland.
We are not against Ports of Auckland operating in the city. We are for establishing a way forward where we can all be good neighbours. PoA’s actions in the last few months show they have no intent at all in being that.
We feel our voice has not been heard. We have not been consulted over the City Centre Integration Plan. No study of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental impact has been done as you promised in 2013.
Tomorrow morning Wednesday 25th February at 9am we are launching a petition ‘Save our Harbour” on the end ofQueens Wharf and would appreciate it if you could attend to listen and talk to the people. In the past we have been heartened by your leadership on this issue.
The Petition states:
We ask the Mayor and Councillors to
- Stop the proposed extension of Bledisloe Wharf
- Keep ‘reclamation’ of the Waitemata Harbour as a ‘non-complying’ activity
- Start a wide-reaching study of environmental, social and economic factors affecting the site and operations of theAuckland port. The Mayor promised Aucklanders this in 2013.
- Make Ports of Auckland work with the people of Auckland – not against them.
We acknowledge this is short notice but timing of events has been out of our control. We wanted to make sure our voices were heard before Thursday’s Development Committee meeting.
A view from architect David Mitchell in the paper paper:
It is hard to believe that the best thing to do with the Waitemata harbour is to tip dirt into it in order to store more cars on the resultant tarmac:
Processing...
Is it just me or has Len gone AWOL over this?
Clearly there is a conflict of interest between wanting [needing!] the highest possible dividend from the wholly owned Port company and being the regulator representing all future generations and the environment. This year’s budget v posterity seems too hard a call to be left to mere politicians.
Council seems fundamentally confused about which things are strategic and which ones are ‘operational’. Clue: if it involves stewardship on behalf of future generations, it aint operational.
Did anyone unravel what leverage Council actually has over the Port company, diluted through *two* CCO Boards both of which have money as their prime directive?
There is always a conflict when the Council does any project. They claim to use independent commissioners but they know what decision to make if they want another job. A better system would be a call in of the consent process by central government for any project the Council owns.
I though the buyback of shares in 2005 was supposed to have sorted all this rubbish out
“Under ARH’s 100% ownership all POAL land will remain in public ownership, and this will assist in the integrated development of the total waterfront area for port operations and public use.
“As a shareholder, ARH can focus on the evolution of land use not used for ongoing port operations for the benefit of the Auckland region and the public, and we are sure other civic entities will want to work with us to achieve this goal.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0504/S00012/arh-seeks-all-poal-port-company-shares.htm
My how things can change in 10 years,
I really don’t know why the council just doesn’t sack the board and appoint some directors that will do what the council wants, Or perhaps this is all a function of the coucil not knowing what it wants from POAL
http://www.poal.co.nz/news_media/publications/POAL_constitution_2007.pdf
26.9 Removal: A Director may at any time be removed from office by Ordinary Resolution or
by written notice to the Company signed as provided in clause 26.4.
26.4 Appointment by Shareholders: Subject to clauses 26.1, 26.2 and 26.3 a person may be
appointed as a Director at any time by an Ordinary Resolution or by written notice to the
Company signed by the holders of a majority of the Shares which confer the right to vote at
meetings of Shareholders. Two or more persons may be appointed as Directors by a
single resolution or notice.
The port should relocate to somewhere where the land is cheaper and release this prime land near city.
Yup, I thought the overall strategy for PoA was slow reduction and relocation elsewhere. Must’ve dreamed that one.
Bledisloe Wharf really is the key to unlocking the Waterfront. Imagine having an urban beach looking towards a re purposed Central waterfront [YELLOW], a large grass area which doubles as crowd space for a stage [GREEN & ORANGE] and another row of bars and restaurants like the Viaduct or Wynyard Quarter [RED]. Perhaps one of our America’s Cup yachts as a centrepiece [BLUE] much like KZ1 in the Viaduct. It’s depressing that we don’t even get to have a conversation about whether the Port is the best use of this area anymore – instead we’re losing more control of our Waterfront and things are heading in the complete opposite direction.
Note: I’m clearly not an urban planner so please be nice http://iforce.co.nz/i/tkfy0i2t.zj2.png
I am a little bit worried about the port companies practice of dumping bulk materials like coal, iron sand, gypsum and fertiliser onto the wharf. How much ends up in the harbour. They do it because it makes the logistic simpler. For example a shipload of Gypsum comes in it is unloaded off the ship and dumped onto the wharf. They can then truck it away at their leisure. Conversely if Ironsand is being exported its trucked onto the wharf and dumped. Then when the ship arrives the front end loaders run around picking it up and piling it into heaps so it can be lifted by the grabs into the ship. Its probably alright on a calm day. But if its raining or windy I am sure a signifigant amount ends up in the harbour. All this to avoid demurrage charges.They may have a resource consent but I wouldn’t call it good practice. They used to use overhead hoppers which discharged directly into the trucks. I could imagine a portable hopper which the trucks could discharge into which the ships cranes could then lift and discharge into the holds.
I’m surprised by the lack of impact the wharf additions have on the view in the above picture
I thought it was going to be worse
It effectively encircles the view from Queen’s Wharf creating a lake feel. It’s a poor outcome.
Petition signed, thanks. Grow a spine and do your job on behalf of the people of Auckland, council. Will be thinking very hard at the next elections.
Why do these things always have to take place when I am working 🙁
Real Matthew – Imagine a 250m long 6 storey high car carrier berthed at the extension and/or multi-cargo or containers stacked 6 high on the new reclamation. 30,000m2 of reclamation obliterates that visual connection to the harbour entrance, Rangitoto is lost, Bean Rock forgotten, North Head extinguished and Devonport Wharf becomes the new view marker.
The city-centre has effectively lost it’s connection to the harbour entrance.
Lurk here for long enough Chris and you’ll read all sorts of opinions from our Real Matthew.
Glad to hear you’re onto this, I can’t help but think that the council is a bit toothless dealing with Ports of Ak.
Disastrous! Can/will the Council do anything about this?
That’s not what the picture shows
But the picture is misleading because it just shows bare reclaimed land, not containers, container ships, cranes and parked cars. It truly will be a disaster for Auckland if it is allowed to proceed.
Agreed disaster. What do we gain? What will we lose?. Same with Pohutakawas case last Friday.
I cannot believe same argument, same cause, but different location within 3 days. 6 historical trees , now our harbour. I guess we just have to keep hitting them on the head harder and harder!!!! Again not looking big picture, but now with the realization also that Auckland Transport’s Strategic Fit is Rapid Transit and Active modes what does that do to car containers vs unassembled bikes in a box and no additional car demand at all?
What is it 45% by weight is cars of incoming cargo what is that 90 % of space. With new transport focus of public transport and private use cycles. Do cycles take up less weight and space???? Hello focus wrong!!! Hard case us standing on wharf about 150 people and we all have to move for one car!!!Sound familiar!!! But lets create more carpark space in the absolute prime of our harbour and restrict harbour entry to 4 marinas, fishing,yacht races etc!!!Len where the hell were you!!!!
Do you think PoA want to extend the wharf in order to put nothing on it?
However I agree the picture does not do justice to the full impact such a big extension will make.
In the picture from the restaurant it looks like a lot of space is taken up by parked cars. Is it not unreasoable for The council as owners to direct PoA to build a carpark for the temporary storage of cars. Wouldn’t this free up a lot of space on the existing wharf for other operations?
An A2 pictorial in herald today about hauraki gulf at crossroads. Doesn’t make great reading. 44 fatal hits by ships on Bryde’s whales since 1989. Resident whale population in hauraki gulf 50. What is the big picture port strategy for NZ and obviously maximising rail haulage. Also on anniversary day time lapse on harbour since start, can’t say port location was our wisest decision.
Maybe their focus should be making 10 knots, international best practice for protection of whales mandatory not voluntary having wiped one out as late as last September? But no let’s go 180 degree in the wrong direction and fill in the harbour, that is obviously stage 2. But even Stage 1 of a piled wharf extension starting April bad enough.
the “visit this page” link to let them know’ – in top paragraph of this blog isn’t working
Google save the harbour, it is an actionstation.org/savetheharbour.
works for me….
130pm Town Hall Tomorrow Level 2 be there if you can and facebook page save the harbour. Good rally this morning, they had boats showing how far out this beast goes oh my goodness. Still no overall Port Strategy next 50 years? Westhaven concerned even from a navigational point of view squeezing all vessels into narrow area. Fantastic speech Chris Darby, time for council to turn page on outcomes and real public value, and wants like Auckland Transport Board did last week. A new quick press release at HSBC Building to deflect media away from Rally…..interesting!!!!TV3 and herald still there, that worked like shit.
Meanwhile shit going down on the harbour front, it sounds like council meeting at 130 at town hall tomorrow decides fate of making reclamation non complying or discretionary? Rally wanted as many to attend as possible and tell your councilor your concerns. Apparently only found out about it Saturday?
Looks to just about stretch to Rangitoto. Build a car park building. Noticed that feature at Southampton port when I was bringing my car back. That’s probably how real ports handle space shortages.
Cruise ships mighn’t be happy with this?
I just couldn’t make it today any idea what is going on? I see Sir Stephen Tindall totally opposing also without a solid well scrutinized overall strategy on social, economic and environmental effects. Also Leighton Smith on the radio firing missiles. Should be interesting!!!
Real jobs for real people.Thats what ports of Auckland provides. Shame you people couldn’t show the same interest in saving takapuna camp grounds,that is a real loss for real people. but of course its making way for your boat club
If the Auckland Council decides to sell the Auckland Port. it cannot be on “as is, where is” basis. The Auckland Port needs growing room and it’s present location does not provide that. Auckland’s citizens are fed up with the port’s continuing expansion into the Waitemata Harbour so no matter who owns the port, the port has to be re-located.
I found your talk at Probus in Newmarket so interesting!! Thinking outside the square. How do we get a Council with a mindset to open their eyes and think of alternatives.?.
Who are you connected with and what are they doing about ‘this problem .?? The port has to move . Wouldn’t it be great if it could be underway before the Americas. Cup???
Dreams are free.!! Keep talking Bruce.
It’s quite outrageous that the government does not have a national ports policy. Winston Peters has just jumped into the debate and is promising that Auckland’s port operations will be moved to North Port, Whangarei. But that is only one option and may not be the best one. What has happened to the proposals put forward by Bruce Howe? Come on Aucklanders, we need to see a lot more activity at this website