JOHN ELLIOTT: LOCAL NEWS

JOHN ELLIOTT: ENABLING HOUSING SUPPLY AND OTHER MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL

Submissions closed last week for public comment on the Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters Amendment Bill proposed by the National Party’s Nicola Willis and, in a surprise move, supported by the Labour Government.

The aim is to progress the bill through the select committee process and pass it into law before the end of the parliamentary session this year. Such indecent haste with legislation that will inevitably impact the lives of many in the main cities prompted us to submit.

Already Auckland Councillor Christine Fletcher has been called to order for her comments about the bill, but it was clear from observing the online submissions that were presented over the last week that the complexities of the issue require a much more considered consultation with stakeholders and experts than appears to be allowed for. The built form of our cities and living environments impacts the health and wellbeing of citizens in a directly physical but also psychological way.

The Auckland Unitary Plan, after a long drawn out and expensive process by engaged ratepayers, council officers and stakeholders, has resulted in a framework which allows for the appropriate development of increased urban density, supported by the necessary infrastructure, all the while conserving the amenity that is valued by communities across the city - not least of which are the heritage precincts that tell the story of the city and its people.

Aucklanders have produced, at great birthing pains, a plan for their city already. There is no need to apply further legislative rulings as proposed in the bill to effect the required intensification when controls already exist that will deliver nearly one million additional housing solutions and ensure that Aucklanders can live in quality environments that sustain health and wellbeing.

It seems that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach to intensification needs will not take into account the physical specifics of existing built environment such as heritage and the amenity valued by communities. If a standardised framework is imposed on geography, culture and environment, which may in reality not deliver the most efficient utilisation of sites when 3 x 3 stories is the default, urban centres across the country are at risk of becoming homogenised, tightly packed, characterless living environments.

A free-for-all approach to rapid development will almost certainly plunge us into another crisis like the leaky home tragedy as new and inexperienced developers see dollar signs and communities bear the brunt of poor quality design and construction.

While cities all over the world have managed to preserve heritage precincts and create healthy modern conurbations that enrich lives in a post pandemic 21st century world where environmental considerations are imperative for survival of people and planet, we need regulations with foresight.

All over the world rewilding is proposed as an answer to climate crisis, so is it future-focussed to be creating dense urban conurbations when technology allows citizens to work at a distance?

Recent protests have highlighted the rural urban divide that amplifies the undeniable inequities within our populace. 'The Great Resignation' is seeing families abandoning jobs and city living for more healthy lifestyles.

If provincial regions receive support and development funds so that New Zealanders can thrive living closer to nature, wellbeing will be enhanced and a more healthy and balanced society might result. (JOHN ELLIOTT)  PN

They showed you nothing but love. Let us help you show a little back.

There are certain people in life who shape who you are. Special people who were always there to give you advice, support, comfort and love. When the time comes to bid them farewell, make sure to farewell them properly. Talk to us we’ll help you do exactly that.

31 Ocean View Road, Northcote | 09 489 5737 | office@hmorris.co.nz

RMA ENABLING HOUSING AMENDMENT I am strongly opposed to current housing legislation being fast tracked through Parliament, which based on my experience as a former Mayor of Auckland, will, if enacted, result in the permanent scarring of the landscape of Auckland without fixing the real issues of housing affordability and supply. This legislation has nothing rational about it and should be opposed, with submissions closing on Tuesday 16 November.

The proposed legislation is ill-considered, driven by ideology rather than principle and introduced at a time when Aucklanders are suffering from consultation and Covid-19 fatigue. The Government justifies it on the questionable assumption that housing supply and affordability will somehow magically improve by making planning rules more permissive than the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) while ignoring the evidence that the only barrier to the development of new sites is funding to complete infrastructure. Neither the Government nor National opposition have displayed any appetite for addressing this, the real barrier to accelerating new housing development.

Everyone agrees we need more affordable housing. It is a matter of national shame we have allowed a loss of hope in young families from the possibility of purchasing their own homes. If we are ever to address this matter sustainably, we must be honest around the actual road blocks.

After Auckland was amalgamated in 2010, the Auckland Plan was passed and then the AUP finally adopted in 2016 after a huge amount of consultation and controversy. AUP identified and freed up 900,000 new sites for development. The ONLY reason these sites have not yet been developed is infrastructure funding.

Analysis indicates this Bill will enable development across urban Auckland and several rural settlements at a level of density well beyond those anticipated in the Auckland Plan.

Auckland Council officers have identified major concerns with the likely poor quality of development enabled under this and significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties to development. The new proposal cannot be appealed to the Environment Court by a submitter or affected party and reheard. The Minister for the Environment can unilaterally overall Council decisions without appeal.

The AUP has no shortage of sites or capacity. The new legislation dismantles existing rights and may destroy much of our history. In allowing three developments on single sites of up to three stories as of right without a resource consent it could be a recipe for complete devastation of Auckland as we know it. Little consideration has been given to the significant impacts including sunlight, shading, privacy, heritage, and other amenities currently required. Why would we allow this to happen when many feel current legislation is already too permissive?

It is a poor reflection on proponents of this bill that they chose to focus on the language I used to make my case to Council, while refusing to engage in the substance of the threat facing Aucklanders.

I had no intention of offending or hurting anyone and apologise if my words were not understood in the context I intended. I call upon those who love our city to stand up to this threat to our environment, support all politicians and others that oppose it and make your voices heard.

THE PROPOSED SITING OF THE EREBUS MEMORIAL Why it is so offensive and why it must be relocated.

I am writing to add another thread to the conversation and controversy surrounding the proposed siting of the Erebus Memorial in the Dove Myer Robinson Park in Parnell. I have recently been assisting the group requesting a reassessment of the siting for the memorial and a hold being put on the work until this is done, for reasons set out below. But until yesterday I could not articulate why I felt the siting was so wrong. Now I can.

I find the proposed placement so offensive because it is, quite simply, colonisation. Colonisation yet again, at this time, in this place and overseen by our Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

Why do I think the placement in this park represents colonisation?

One definition is, "the action of appropriating a place or domain for one's own use". The planned memorial is the proposed insertion of a large, shiny, modern structure into and over the soft underbelly of an ancient pā of an older culture on that site and next to an ancient tree of great significance to that older culture.

The planned memorial represents the valuing of science and technology over spiritual values and timeless wisdom; in fact it does not even acknowledge the existence of those qualities. It also represents valuing the recent past over the more distant past, and of western science and technology over indigenous history and beliefs.

In my opinion, this is arrogant, abhorrent and unacceptable. I believe this is disgraceful, in every respect. This is how history is rewritten. This is how one culture imposes itself on another and reduces and obliterates the history and stories of the other. This is the main reason the memorial must not be allowed to proceed on this site. Colonisation must stop.

However, this placement also represents loss of democratic rights and normal processes. That this project is being organised by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is incomprehensible and defies belief. The planned siting is disrespectful of both culture and heritage, and also of cultural heritage.

That this project is now being pushed ahead, in the face of the sacred rāhui placed by local iwi and also in the face of the forthcoming ombudsman's report, indicates the willingness of that ministry to walk roughshod over both indigenous cultural lore and western constitutional procedures.

The earlier non-notification by Auckland Council of the resource consent - for a proposed public monument, in a public park, to be built using public funds - is another good example.

What emerges for me from an analysis of the facts of all the processes involved in this issue is not only a clear case of colonisation, but also a worrying loss of democratic rights and principles in Aotearoa at both local and national levels.

Claire Chambers, Parnell

LETTERS CONTINUED ON P92

JOHN ELLIOTT: SEABIN PROJECT - AIMING FOR 100 CITIES WORLDWIDE

Seabin is an innovative Australian inspired project to clean up pollution in harbours around the world.

Their philosophy is that both clean-up and prevention of marine litter are needed to help keep our oceans clean. But even more important is the data involved with understanding and addressing the problem in the first place.

Seabin says it has already achieved proof of concept via the 12-month Sydney City Pilot which followed five years of technical research and development.

This year Seabin have kicked off their 100 cities campaign with the aim of going truly global. They are offering a 5-in1 package of data monitoring, impact reporting, identifying causes of pollution, community awareness programmes, and marine debris removal to cities around the world.

Seabin already have 860 seabins in place, capturing 3,612kg of waste a day; nearly two and a half million kg has been captured to date. CEO, Peter Ceglinski, said their goal is to have 100 cities working toward cleaner oceans by 2050.

“I believe those 100 cities can change the world,” says Ceglinski.

This project deserves scrutiny and could be a good fit with Auckland Harbour. We should look for sponsors to set up a trial one here. The amount of mainly plastic pollution being removed in Sydney was huge.

Seabin is potentially a game-changer world-wide and New Zealand must get involved. (JOHN ELLIOTT)  PN

Here is a contact email for Fallon White. E: fallon@seabinproject.com

HIRE A MEETING ROOM IN THE HEART OF PONSONBY!

Ponsonby Community Centre

Business hours availability Special rates for community groups

For more information and hire rates email info@ponsonbycommunity.org.nz or visit our website www.ponsonbycommunity.org.nz/venue-hire

JOHN ELLIOTT: SOLAR PANEL HIGHWAYS

One of the impediments to driving EVs out of town is the recharging question.

Some EVs have a very short driving range before their battery runs out. Cars can be recharged overnight, if owners take only short local trips, but for longer journeys, charge we must.

Around the world experiments are taking place turning roads into smart charging solutions for cars. Charging moving cars is technically possible. If you can imagine a future where a significant proportion of busy roads have this technology, it may become possible to drastically reduce charging times and reduce the size of batteries needed.

In Germany a company is working on developing a solarpowered road surface that can inductively charge cars as they pass by and in the USA ‘solar highways’ are being developed. They consist of individual solar panels with three layers: a top layer of high-strength textured glass that provides traction for vehicles, an array of solar cells beneath that for gathering energy, and a base plate that distributes the collected power. They also contain LED lights, powered by the sun, that can act as road and warning signs built into the road itself. They can also use gathered heat to melt snow and ice on the roads.

A project in Atlanta, Georgia, is confident its solar roads will be successful with more durable solar panels.

So far, the French solar road, one of the first, has had teething troubles, and is far from reliable. Flat panels proved less efficient than sloping ones usually placed on roofs and wear and tear from traffic was much greater than expected.

Nowhere have I read that charging tracks have been developed alongside motorways, where vehicles can just drive off the road onto charging pads set into maybe a kilometre of roadway. Drivers could go round and round that track, like a raceway loop, half a kilometre long and just maybe twenty metres wide-just enough to safely turn and do the second half of the track.

To prevent dozens of cars hiving off the motorway all at once and roaring around the track as if they were at Monza, marshals might be needed to shepherd the cars carefully around and to prevent accidents. How many times you would have to go around the off road circuit would depend on how good the charging system was, and how much electricity your vehicle needed.

So is this a realistic possibility, and are local innovations and technology progressing?

Auckland University academics are flat out working on new developments for road charging. Professor Grant Covic is lead principal investigator of the MBIE-funded Inductive Power Transfer (IPT) Roadway Project. Covic heads a multidisciplinary research team which aims to develop new ways to charge New Zealand’s EV fleet.

For many consumers, the greatest barrier, other than cost, is “range anxiety”, creating fears of running out of power, or having to break journeys to recharge, which is why IPT is a potential game changer.

The major task is to develop charging pads connected to a reliable source of power-that can survive being imbedded in the highway.

Grant said the goal is "to break the technology barriers to get it into the road, with development starting within the next decade".

Dr Doug Wilson, who leads the university’s transportation engineering materials and modelling team, believes a demonstration system could be up and running within three years, especially with the support of industry players like Downer. The ultimate goal is for power to be able to transfer between charging pods in the road and the pads in the vehicles, regardless of whether it’s a Ferrari or a bus, or how high the vehicle is above the ground.

Technology alone won’t save our planet and humans have plenty to do, but each smart bit of tech. will add to the equation. I can see this working on our major motorways - and soon - much of it with locally designed and built technology. (JOHN ELLIOTT)  PN

MIKE LEE: CITIZEN DHALL AND THE BATTLE TO SAVE THE WATERFRONT TRAMS

The courageous battle by Ponsonby wine merchant Puneet Dhall and his passionate supporters to save the waterfront heritage tramway deserves our admiration and thanks.

Despite Puneet’s bravura submission to Auckland Council’s November planning committee, the majority voted to approve Panuku’s latest attempt to kill it off. We shouldn’t be surprised. Despite the trams surviving several near-death experiences and their popularity with Aucklanders, the Super City being what it is, it was only a matter of time.

The Wynyard Quarter tramway operating as Dockline Trams was an Auckland Regional Council (ARC) legacy project. Part of the Wynyard waterfront redevelopment, it was built by the CCO Sea + City, which became Waterfront Auckland, (since restructured as the unloved Panuku).

Beginning late 2010, the build was designed and overseen by MOTAT engineer Colin Zeff and completed well in time to be a popular attraction during the 2011 Rugby World Cup. The whole system, 1.5 km of tracks, overhead wires, poles and tram shed, was engineered to the latest standards capable of running modern light rail vehicles. The all-up cost, including two heritage trams was $9m. By comparison Auckland Transport (AT) spent six years from 2013 to 2019 and more than $80m digging up and replacing the very same streets.

The century-old trams clanging around the waterfront were actually more than what they seemed. On one level they were a ‘place-shaper’, (along with the still yet-to-materialise Headland Park), signalling the ARC’s determination that the Wynyard Quarter not become another sterile collection of high-rise offices and apartments.

Rather we wanted to retain as much as possible the character buildings and industrial features of Auckland’s old working waterfront. In terms of heritage, the trams, beautifully restored in the traditional Auckland tram livery, carnation red and cream, recalled the Wynyard Quarter’s role in the stabling of electric trams, evoking the era of Auckland’s highly successful 72 km tramway, tragically demolished in 1956. And of course Dockline trams were a fun attraction, especially for families, with a sense of magic about them. As Puneet told the councillors:

"Five years ago, I used to enjoy taking my two-year-old son on strolls from our house in St Mary’s Bay to the city centre. On one such walk, we came upon the heritage tram in the Wynyard Quarter. It’s quite something to be inside a piece of technology over a hundred years old, gliding along, the sun glinting through the windows against the old wood and leather - this is travel."

Puneet was impressed by the smiles – of everyone on the trams - and not just the kids. But the tramway was meant to be something more. The original concept was to link the Wynyard Quarter across the Viaduct along Quay Street to Britomart, picking up the Maritime Museum, North Shore buses, harbour ferries and cruise ships - an imaginative way of opening up public transport access to the Quarter and a modest but strategic first step towards a light rail future for Auckland.

Extending the trams the extra 600m via a planned new bridge to Britomart was one of the most popular aspects of the 2011 Waterfront Plan. When asked about this, 43% of submitters responded with ‘Do Now’, 30 % said ‘Do Soon’ and 13% said ‘Do Later’ and only 13% said ‘Don’t Support’. But despite the show of democracy, sadly the wishes of the public were ignored. Instead the trams were constantly disrupted and restricted, especially by AT bureaucrats who evidently saw them as a rival to private buses – and by an odd cycling obsessive who poured bitumen into the tracks.

But the tram haters had to reckon with citizen Puneet Dhall.

In 2018 when Panuku first made its move to kill off the trams, Puneet organised ‘Keep the Auckland Dockline Tram running’ with a petition gaining some 1800 signatures, knocking on official doors and bravely presenting to the unsympathetic boards of Panuku and AT.

Thanks to his energetic campaigning, the tramway, partially dismantled during AT’s road works saga was reassembled at the direction of mayor and councillors in late 2018. Under MOTAT’s management it has since then been through a popular renaissance, despite Covid-19, and the even heavier restrictions imposed by AT.

But now, Wellington property developer Willis Bond has demanded the tram shed land, and with Panuku’s refusal to relocate to an alternative site, the powers-that-be have come in for the kill. And this time, disappointingly the mayor and councillors (with the noble exceptions of Councillors Fletcher, Watson, Walker, Stewart, Sayers and Mulholland) have gone along with it all, as has the once supportive Waitematā Local Board.

As Puneet told the council, "These humble old trams represent Auckland’s splendid civic past, a slice of joy and happiness for ordinary folk, especially kids in Auckland’s troubled present, and if the city bosses could only see it - the forerunners of a bright Auckland future."

But it’s not quite over. The waterfront trams will continue running until at least June 2022. Enjoy them while you can. (MIKE LEE)  PN

Mike Lee was the former chairman of the ARC & former councillor for Waitematā & Gulf.