In the Department of Internal Affairs’ briefing to the incoming Minister of Local Government, Hon Dr Nick Smith, in December 2011, it stated “Despite a generally strong local government commitment to consultation, people with an interest in their council can sometimes struggle to get clear information about the issues it faces and the potential impact on ratepayers and residents. Even if the issues are clear, individuals and communities can find it hard to influence local authority decisions or hold those bodies to account. Elections are infrequent and are blunt accountability mechanisms. Seeking judicial review is expensive and addresses decision-making processes, rather than the substance of decisions. Providing more direct tools for people to review or influence local authority decisions could be useful, and could build on other measures to improve transparency, accountability and financial management in local government.”

In a previous post on this website entitled “Complaints Service” I detailed a complaint made by me on 20 December 2011, and the response.

On Auckland Council’s website under “Complaints” is the statement “We take your complaints seriously and we use your feedback as an opportunity to learn, and improve our services.” “We will send you an acknowledgement within three working days and have a full response sent to you within ten working days.” Now that all sounds very nice but one of my chief concerns is the difficulty, or is it the deliberation, that Council Officers have, in giving straight answers to straight questions.

By way of illustration, let me recount my 2012 experience:

Having directed some specific questions to Roger Blakely, Chief Planning Officer for Auckland Council, re planning matters relating to the widening of Te Atatu Rd, I was dissatisfied with his non-specific answers.

On 16 January I pressed him for specific answers to the following 3 questions:

1. Does it rest comfortably with Auckland Council that its subsidiary AT made no application for a change in designation in the DP, thereby avoiding public consultation?
2. When did Auckland Council first become aware of the intention of AT to acquire a large number of properties or parts thereof outside the designations in the District Plan?
3. Has AT officially notified Auckland Council of its intention to acquire properties or parts thereof outside the designations in the District Plan?

On 17 January he replied

“Dear Mr Osborne

In response to your further questions of the 9^th of January 2012, I must reiterate that the proposal to undertake road corridor improvements along Te Atatu Road, is a project that is the responsibility of Auckland Transport.

Auckland Council does not get involved in the delivery of these projects unless it is required to do so from a consenting point of view. As indicated in my previous email, it is an Auckland Transport decision whether they choose the designation process to acquire land for roading projects. In this instance it is clear that Auckland Transport are using the option of direct negotiation with affected property owners instead of amending the designation.

I have previously answered your planning questions. I do not think there is any value in a response to your last 2 questions in your email, because as I have indicated the delivery of this project is an Auckland Transport matter and Auckland Council would not need or require to be directly informed on the matters that you have raised in those two questions.

Auckland Transport has advised me of the communications process they are undertaking on this project. For your information this is attached. If you have any further enquiries as this is an Auckland Transport project, you should direct them to Auckland Transport.”

Not satisfied I complained to Doug McKay, Chief Executive AC, that day.

On 18 January I rang Yvonne Parlane, PA for Doug McKay to ask for confirmation of receipt of my email from the previous day. I was told she was unavailable.

On 19 January I sent a reminder.

On 23 January, having still heard nothing, I sent another reminder.

At 11am I rang and asked to speak to Yvonne Parlane. After two minutes of canned music, I was told “Darryl” was dealing with it. I asked to speak to Darryl Griffin and was told he was unavailable. I also asked for Yvonne Parlane but once again was told she was unavailable.

At 11.05 am I rang back and spoke to S who told me Yvonne Parlane had told her I was to deal with Darryl Griffin. Darryl Griffin was unavailable. After more canned music, I was asked by S if I would like her to take my details. I agreed.

At 11.10 am I rang and spoke to A. I asked for Roger Blakeley. He was unavailable.

I asked to speak to the Complaints Manager. I was told it was Luke Bailey. After 5 minutes of canned music I was told he was unavailable.

At 11.18 am I sent an email to Darryl Griffin asking for a reply.

At 11.21 am I rang and spoke to A. I asked for Luke Bailey. I was put on canned music for several minutes before I hung up.

At 11.33 am I sent an email complaint to Luke Bailey and asked for a complaint number.

At 11.43 am I rang and spoke to G. I asked to speak to Michael Joseph but after 1 minute of canned music I was informed he was on leave until 27 January. I asked to speak to another liaison officer but after 6 minutes of canned music, was told I would have to leave a message on Michael Joseph’s answer phone. I said that was unacceptable and asked to speak to the Mayor’s PA. After a further 8 minutes of canned music, I was told to send a copy of my email to the Mayor.

At 11.58 am I sent an email to the Mayor.

At 11.59 am I received the Mayor’s pro-forma acknowledgement, which, for those of you who have not received one, states:

“On behalf of Mayor Len Brown, thank you for your email.

The Mayor receives a large volume of correspondence and we will respond to you as soon as possible.”

At 12.30 pm Luke Bailey rang and said as far as Council was concerned they had answered my questions and would not be revisiting the matter. I disagreed, asked him to paraphrase his comments and email them to me and once again asked for a complaint number.

At 2.53 pm Luke Bailey sent me the following email:

“Dear Mr Osborne,

Thank you again for making us aware of your concerns regarding the proposal to undertake road corridor improvements along Te Atatu Road.

Auckland Council has provided all information and assistance possible regarding this project. Dr Roger Blakeley’s letter advised that this is an Auckland Transport project and any further correspondence, or enquiries should be directed to Auckland Transport directly as they are in a position to answer your concerns.

We regret we are unable to provide any further clarity in regards to this matter.

We have forwarded your concerns regarding the handling of your communication to the Office of the Chief Executive.”

At 3.10 pm I rang Luke Bailey as no complaint number was enclosed. He was unavailable so I left a message on his answer phone.

At 4.01 pm, not having heard from Luke Bailey I sent him an email once again requesting a complaint number and pointing out that, despite numerous assertions to the contrary, my 3 specific questions to Roger Blakeley had not been answered.

At 4.03 pm Darryl Griffin emailed me to say “Doug asked me last week to review your issue.” He noted I was not satisfied with Roger Blakeley’s responses but merely said “Roger’s advice is that the delivery of this project is a matter for Auckland Transport.”

At 4.42 pm I received an email from Luke Bailey ignoring the contents of my email sent to him at 4.01 pm and once again refusing to supply a complaint number.

At 5.06 pm I sent an email to Darryl Griffin saying

“I directed 3 questions re planning issues to Roger Blakeley.

They remain unanswered.

I remain dissatisfied.”

On 24 January I received the following email from Darryl Griffin.

“I refer to your email of 17 January indicating your dissatisfaction with the response from Roger Blakeley with regard to the three questions you asked of him. I will respond to each in turn.

(1)   Does it rest comfortably with Auckland Council that its subsidiary AT made no application for a change in designation in the DP, thereby avoiding public consultation?

As previously advised the decision whether to designate land or negotiate directly with landowners rests with Auckland Transport. Auckland Council has no opinion on the method chosen.

(2)   When did Auckland Council first become aware of the intention of AT to acquire a large number of properties or parts thereof outside the designations in the District Plan?

Staff from Auckland Transport and Auckland Council work with each other around the boundaries of each organisation’s responsibilities. Consequently the Auckland Council organization was likely aware of this issue but it is a matter for Auckland Transport.

(3)   Has AT officially notified Auckland Council of its intention to acquire properties or parts thereof outside the designations in the District Plan?

Auckland Transport is not required to notify Auckland Council of its intentions and has not done so.”

On 26 January I received an email from Jane Harrison, Democracy Services, issuing me a complaint number and saying I would receive a response within ten working days.

On 27 January I received an email from Darryl Griffin claiming “I have responded to you dealing with the three specific questions you raised with Dr Roger Blakeley.” He concluded “This completes the response to Customer Reference 9000113941.”

In other words, black is white, that’s the end of the matter, no further discussion.

On 10 February I emailed Mayor Len Brown asking what action had been taken since I had emailed him on 23 January. At 7.30 am I received a pro-forma response identical to the one on 23 January.

On 12 February 

I sent emails to my local MP, Tau Henare, my local board chair, Vanessa Neeson and the Mayor(Copy to Minister of Local Government)  expressing concern about the complaints system.

My email to the Mayor reads:

“Dear Sir,

1. I and many members of the public are concerned about the lack of transparency in Auckland Council’s complaints system.
2. I have been told a directive has been issued to call centre staff on how to handle any incoming calls from me.
3. Under LGOIMA could you please provide me with full details of that directive or any relevant correspondence regarding contact with any particular Council officers.”

On 15 February I received the following email from Darryl Griffin.

“Hello Gary,

I have caught up on the trail of emails between you and the Mayor’s office late today.

Your complaints have been referred to me.

Answering the second and third questions that you ask first. I advise that Doug McKay has asked me to work through issues that you raise and to assist where I can. As far as I know you are the only person who has been assigned a senior manager to help with specific issues that you may have. There is no email trail to that effect but I have my instructions from the Chief Executive and I am implementing them. The call centre will be requested to refer your enquiries to me. I will do my best to be available to talk to you or to answer emails as quickly as possible.

I note your concern about lack of transparency of the complaints system at Auckland Council. The complaints system is an electronic tool that assists keep a register of complaints and a record of their management. In my opinion the tool works well in that Auckland Council management have some certainty of a process and tracking system to manage customer complaints. The system contains a lot of information and much of it is private. In my opinion transparency is not a major goal.

It may well be time for us to arrange a catch up again Gary. If  that will be of value to you please advise me and we can discuss a mutually acceptable time.

With respect to your request this afternoon for advice of action taken over the last three days I advise that the Mayor’s office referred your inquiry to me. I am aware that you have had discussions today with Michael Joseph but I have not had a discussion with Michael about those discussions at this time. I have not logged the inquiry as a LGOIMA request as I consider I can answer the questions you have asked immediately. Your email implies a lack of expediency in responding to your request   and I apologise I have not been able to address this matter until this evening.”

With the lead up to the Super City we heard much rhetoric about accountability and transparency. Naturally, if any complaints I address to the Mayor or the Chief Executive are delegated to a senior bureaucrat who does not consider transparency of high importance and makes a decision whether or not to process a LGOIMA request as a LGOIMA request, it is hard for me to have faith in the comments advertised on Council’s website regarding complaints as mentioned in Paragraph 3 of this post.

Address to Henderson –Massey Local Board 2 February 2012

Madam Chair, Ladies & Gentlemen

Most Councillors and Local Board members are unlikely to be personally affected by the Public Works Act during their lifetimes. However, it is important that they have an understanding of what the ratepayers whom they are paid to serve, have to endure in cases where their land or parts of their land are acquired under the process.

When I addressed this Board on 3 November 2011, it was 2 days before a meeting at Flanshaw Rd School billed as a Public Open Day advertised in a pamphlet saying “We want to hear from you.”  “Auckland Transport is in the process of finalising the preliminary plans for the project, and would like to hear your views.” Did they really?

TPOG (Te Atatu Property Owners Group) asked to view the public submissions but was told its request was regarded as frivolous. I therefore question the relevance and credibility of those submissions. For most of us, the first we knew about our loss of property was the letter dated 20 September 2011 from Auckland Transport.

Research revealed that 2 years ago, on 3 February 2010, at a meeting of the Infrastructure and Works Committee, the Waitakere City Councillors approved a preferred option for the Te Atatu Road Corridor subject to public consultation and detailed design. What public consultation? I have addressed that issue in a blog on my blogsite entitled the “Con” in Consultation.

Note 18 in the Agenda of the meeting of 3 February 2010 stated “It is noted that currently the Waitakere District Plan has a 2.88m designation along the sides of the corridor between Edmonton Road and the motorway interchange. This will need to be uplifted and replaced to reflect the current concept design as it requires a wider designation up to 7 metres.” As it turns out 40% of the 109 properties being acquired by Auckland Transport are outside the designations in the District Plan yet no application for a change in designation was made.

Now, if a private citizen wants to do something that affects the boundaries of his own property, he is subject to all sorts of hurdles through the Resource Management Act and the process of public consultation. A change of designation also requires public consultation but Auckland Transport argues it is exempt from the need to apply for a designation under Section 16 of the Public Works Act. I asked the Chief Planner for Auckland Council if that rested comfortably with the Council but he refused to answer. Eventually I got an email from Darryl Griffin for Auckland Council saying “Auckland Council has no opinion on the method chosen.”  How convenient!

I also asked if AT had officially notified Auckland Council of the property acquisitions and his reply was “Auckland Transport is not required to notify Auckland Council of its intentions and has not done so.” What wonderful coordination!

I was dismayed yesterday to read the Agenda for tonight’s meeting and see not a single word devoted to the Te Atatu Rd Corridor. We were promised the Super City would deliver accountability and transparency. This cloak and dagger approach to business and treating the public as mushrooms can only lead to increased dissatisfaction and growing mistrust. 

The ultimate sentence in the Chair’s message tonight is “It is the job of the local board to be the voice of the community and we are adamant the voice of the Henderson Massey community will be clearly heard in Auckland Council.”

I would ask you as a board to voice the concerns of over 100 property owners in Te Atatu South, who after 4 and a half months are still very much in the dark!

amended at any time, through a plan change, variation, correction or as a result of a notice of requirement to designate land.” Auckland Council is currently developing a Unitary Plan. Until such time as that plan is adopted the District Plans of the various former Councils now making up Auckland

 Council are in effect.

Under the note for Plan Changes for Waitakere is the comment “The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that all Plan Changes must be publicly notified. Any person can lodge a submission in relation to a particular Plan Change. A summary of submissions is then prepared and an opportunity is provided for parties to lodge further submissions either supporting or opposing the original submissions.

According to Section 72 of the Resource Management Act 1991 “The purpose of the preparation, implementation, and administration of district plans is to assist territorial authorities to carry out their functions in order to achieve the purpose of this Act.”

Section 75 describes the contents of district plans.

District Plans have a statutory ten-year life. The comments under Plan Changes in the Waitakere District Plan state “it is also the intention of the Council that the Plan be a “live” Plan, with reaction, where necessary and if possible, to changes in the environment or better methods of dealing with environmental effects.”

What is a Designation in a District Plan?

A designation authorises a requiring authority’s work or project on the site or route without the need for a land use consent from the relevant territorial authorities.

On 20 Sep 2011, Auckland Transport wrote to 109 property owners in Edmonton Rd and Te Atatu Rd advising them parts of their land had been identified as necessary for road widening. For 40% of these properties intended acquisitions were outside the designations shown in the Waitakere District Plan.

On 9 Dec 2011 Owena Schuster (Auckland Transport) advised me “It is not necessary to amend the District Plans because the excess land can be acquired using the Public Works Act (PWA) process (through AC?). No further designation process will be undertaken as part of this land acquisition exercise for this project.” When I pressed for a date when Auckland Transport had first decided sections of land beyond those designated in the District Plan might be required I was informed “Middle of this year (2011) during the preliminary design phase.” Yet this contradicted the Agenda notes of a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee of Waitakere City Council, a year and a half earlier on 3 Feb 2010 which stated “It is noted that currently the Waitakere District Plan has a 2.88m designation along both sides of the corridor between Edmonton Rd and the motorway interchange. This will need to be uplifted and replaced to reflect the current concept design as it requires a wider designation up to 7 metres.”

Auckland Transport and Auckland Council’s roles will be expanded in my next blog.   

At a meeting of the Infrastructure and Works Committee of Waitakere City Council on 3 February 2010, a report presented by Hussam Abdul-Rassol, Manager, Transport Services noted that one of the corridor studies of major arterial routes within the city had identified Te Atatu Road as needing upgrade work to address a number of safety and operational issues. It was noted that a number of workshops had been held in 2008 with limited participation. Note 26 stated “Public consultation will need to take various forms to ensure the public is fully informed of the Te Atatu Road corridor project. Due to the significant amount of land acquisition required, Council officers anticipate a lengthy consultation process.”  In conclusion the report noted “It is necessary to engage Councillors, Community Board members, other transport organizations and members of the public in the decision making process to achieve successful results.” It was recommended that the public consultation process, and detailed design be started before the end of December 2010.

Nearly two years later, at a full Council meeting on 30 September 2010, Waitakere City Councillors voted to receive a report on the Te Atatu  Road and Lincoln Road Corridors Improvements report. Further details are given below.

Then on September 20 2011, more than 100 property owners in Te Atatu Rd and Edmonton Rd were told by Auckland Transport parts of their properties were wanted.

“Part of your property has been identified as necessary for the road widening.”

In the accompanying information pamphlet was the statement “Where the proposed works are minor, a designation may not be required and compensation negotiations can be started at the time the landowners are notified of the proposed works.”

“The acquisition of land for public purposes such as roading is governed by the Public Works Act 1981.” “Negotiation to acquire the land and on the amount of compensation often takes place after all the required consents have been granted, or the designation has been made.” Landowners were invited to attend a meeting on 1 October 2011.

At the meeting on 1 October 2011 a glossy pamphlet was handed out entitled “Affected landowners specific meetings and consultation.”

It stated “If your property is affected we will:

• talk to you personally
• work with you to manage your concerns
• explain the support you are entitled to and the process of assessing fair compensation
• explain the relevant processes and your rights

Another pamphlet enclosing an inaccurate flowchart stated “AT begins a process of consultation with affected landowners. At this time, access to the affected property is generally sought, to enable design and construction planning works to proceed while land negotiations take place.”

On 27 October, following my request to Michael Riley for a date when negotiations would commence, I was informed “Formal negotiations under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 are planned to commence in February 2012.”

“We do not wish, however, to pre-empt the outcome of the public consultation by entering into irrevocable agreements until the Local Board has approved the final design.”

“The time taken for negotiation does largely depend on the property owner’s preparedness to negotiate in good faith: Some property owners are only marginally affected, and we anticipate a negotiation time-frame of perhaps only several weeks.”

A Public Open Day was held on 5 November and the inaccurate time-line presented stated “Sep- Nov 2011 Affected Landowners & Community consulted on preliminary design.”

A report to the Auckland Transport Board stated “Submissions by the public are now being considered.”

Auckland Transport’s own website advertised Public Consultation from 28 October to 21 November.

On 8 November I complained to Doug McKay CEO of Auckland Council, the parent body of AT. He referred my complaint to Darryl Griffin.

On 14 November Darryl Griffin advised “I do not consider that there is any reason why Auckland Transport would revisit the decision for construction of cycle lanes on both sides of Te Atatu Road.”

Was there no intention of taking any notice of public submissions due to close a week later?

His evidence of the decision was WCC resolution 1418/2010 passed on 29 September 2010.

“MOVED by Cr Clews, seconded by Cr Neeson:

The Council resolved to:

1. Receive the Te Atatu and Lincoln Road Corridors Improvements report.
2. Agree that the Council’s preferred option for Te Atatu Road Corridor Improvements is as outlined in this report, and that this is the basis for further design work on the Te Atatu Road Corridor Improvements project.
3. Agree that the Council’s preferred option for Lincoln Road Corridor Improvements is Option 3, as outlined in the Lincoln Road Corridor Scheme Assessment Report dated April 2008, and that Option 3 is the basis for further design work on the Lincoln Road Corridoe Improvements project.
4. Agree it be recommended to the new Auckland Council to include further funding for the Te Atatu Road and Lincoln Road Corridor Improvements projects in its draft Annual Plan 2011/2012 and Long Term Council Community Plan 2012-2022, in accordance with the timeline shown on table 1 and 2 in the Te Atatu Road and Lincoln Road  Corridor Improvements report.

At a meeting of TPOG (Te Atatu Property Owners Group) on 15 December, the three Local Board members from Henderson-Massey who attended, Messrs Flaunty, Corban and Nobilo, all sated publicly their opposition to the cycle lanes. As a result of that meeting a number of questions were forwarded to Mark Ford, Chairman of the Board of AT. He referred them to Mohammed Alsakini, Senior Transport Engineer, AT. We had also asked for access to the Public Submissions but were denied that with the Privacy Act being cited.

The question arises then. Can those submissions be legally regarded as public submissions?

The old standard “You can’t complain about the service, there isn’t any,” whilst not entirely applicable to the situation below, does spring to mind.

On 13 December I had great difficulty in getting hold of appropriate Council staff during normal business hours. I complained.

The result of that complaint is below:

Gary Osborne

48 Jaemont Ave

Te Atatu South

Waitakere   0610

Dear Mr Osborne

Thank you for your phone call of 13 December 2011, making us aware of your concerns regarding the service provided by Auckland Council Call Centre staff. We appreciate that the service that you have received has not met your expectations and take all feedback as an opportunity to improve the experience of our customers.

We are committed to providing the best service possible to all of our customers. Please accept our sincerest apologies that in this instance, this was not the case.

We have investigated this situation and identified the staff member concerned in order to ascertain what took place during this call.

In line with our process for handling planning enquiries the staff member initially offered to transfer you to the duty planner. When this proved to be insufficient, she then attempted to locate a senior member in the planning team. However, she was unable to make contact as the manager in question was unavailable. You were then offered the option of leaving a voicemail message so you could be contacted as soon as possible to discuss your concerns.

As the staff member has followed the Council’s procedure for handling these kinds of enquiries, we do not believe that any further action should be taken in regards to this matter.

Again, please accept our apologies that the service provided did not meet your expectations. We expect that any future interactions with Auckland Council will be a more positive experience.

If you have any further queries please contact us on (09) 301 0101, quoting Customer

Reference No. 9000113450. Alternatively, for more information, please refer to our website www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

Yours sincerely

Luke Bailey

Complaints and Issue Management Team

Customer Services

Auckland Council

I wasn’t  satisfied with the response so sent back the following email.

Luke Bailey,

Complaints and Issue Management Team,

Customer Services,

Auckland Council.

20 December 2011.

Dear Sir,

Re Complaint 9000113450

My complaint was not against V, the Call centre staff member, who was acting on instructions, but against the Council system for handling phone calls.

At 12.30 pm on 13/12/11 I rang 3010101 and asked to speak to the Head Planner.

I was then asked by V “Which area?” and replied “Waitakere”.

I was then asked if the Help Desk would do.

I said “No, I need to speak to the organ grinder, not the monkey.”

I then suffered 6 minutes of canned music before being told “I will have to put you through to the Help Desk.”

I then listened to another 7 minutes of canned music.

At 12.43 pm I was told I would be transferred to Erin Shields. There was more music then V told me it was going to voicemail.

At 12.44 pm I said I would like to make a complaint.

I got another 2 minutes of canned music then at 12.46 pm relayed just what I have told you.

At 12.47 pm I asked for a complaint number.

After “One moment please”, then another 4 minutes of canned music, I was given complaint No 9000113450.

Today when I spoke to T at 8.20 am she was unable to find my complaint in the system.

If calls are going to voicemail, a caller should know within 10 seconds or so, not have to wait several minutes. On 13/12/11 it was 21 minutes before my call ended after having been exposed to canned music for a considerable part of that time.

I believe the service is inefficient, as demonstrated above. That is the true nature of my complaint. As you say, the Call centre staff member followed procedure on 13/12/11. Therefore the system needs a thorough overhaul.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Osborne.

Roger opened the meeting and said he wanted to look at the big picture. I said I had been invited to the meeting by AT to discuss TPOG’s concerns and to that end had prepared some material and also had a number of questions. I said the first time property owners had been made aware of  the road widening was when they received a letter dated 20 September from AT. This was followed by two open days, the first for residents who were affected parties and the second for the general public.

My first question was “What was the purpose of this consultation?” Roger waffled, said he didn’t like the use of the word “consultation” and commenced to digress. I produced a couple of pamphlets and said nevertheless this was the word used in the material put out by AT. Roger said the purpose was to gauge the views of the community. It was more about information sharing and “there will be more information sharing as time goes by.” He said the consultation was ongoing. I said that was not so as we had been told submissions closed on 21 November and AT’s own website had advertised the “Consultation” from 28 October to 21 November.

Roger turned to Owena and asked if that was so. She acknowledged it was. I pointed out to Roger that on 3 February 2010 it was stated at a meeting of the Works and Infrastructure Committee for Waitakere City Council “Public consultation will need to take various forms to ensure the public is fully informed.” I commented that the only so-called public consultation was on 5 November and consisted of members of the public being asked to fill in a feedback form and return it by 21 November. I asked what the various forms of consultation were. Roger suggested we had misunderstood the consultation. I then pointed out another statement from 3 February 2010. “Council officers anticipate a lengthy process.” I asked why this had not occurred and who was in charge of the consultation. Once again he avoided my questions. I then drew his attention to a statement by Darryl Griffin on 17 November 2011 (before public submissions had closed). “I do not consider there is any reason why Auckland Transport would revisit the decision for construction of cycle lanes on both sides of Te Atatu Road.” In other words, before submissions had closed AT had made a decision. I asked on what date AT had made the decision. Roger did not know but then suggested the decision had been made by Waitakere City Council.

I showed him the title for my property as it existed in September 1987, when I bought it, devoid of any designation for road widening. I expressed concern at the lack of dialogue forthcoming from AT and said several TPOG members had had difficulty getting hold of AT staff during normal business hours or even getting phone calls returned. Roger said the project was proceeding come hell or high water and that it was done and dusted ages ago. He said AT was “very comfortable” with their process and the consultation stage was now over. Anne said it had really been more of a “show and tell” process and he agreed. He conceded the word consultation did not properly reflect the process that had occurred. When I asked him who took responsibility for all the inaccurate glossy brochures, leaflets etc, he said it was irrelevant at this stage. He promised to look into the matter of unreturned phone calls.

I pointed to the brochure saying “If your property is affected we will: talk to you personally, work with you to manage your concerns.. etc”

I asked him when the talk was going to start. He said he would look into it. I also told him I was not happy that Call centre staff had been instructed to block any communication from me to the CEO of AT. He said that was because I had bombarded the CEO with emails and it was inappropriate to contact him and expect immediate replies, as the CEO is responsible for overall business, has much on his plate and the Te Atatu Rd project was just one of many on his list of ongoing projects.

I refuted that and said the first email I had sent to the CEO was following an unreturned phone call at 2.13 pm the same day. Since then I had copied him in to all emails sent to AT and would continue to do so.

I then drew Roger’s attention to a statement on 3 February 2010 “It is noted that currently the Waitakere District Plan has a 2.88 metre designation along both sides of the corridor between Edmonton Road and the motorway interchange. This will need to be uplifted and replaced to reflect the current concept design as it requires a wider designation up to 7 metres.” I asked Roger why this had not happened. Roger said he couldn’t speak for the person who had made the statement as to what was in that person’s mind when he made it but AT had a different view. I said it was all very well having rules re District Plan (DP) changes for the public, but the Council not using its own internal monitoring systems to apply for changes to the DP when it was seeking to do things outside designations in the DP made it unfair. Roger said I could apply for a Plan Change if I wished but I assured him there was no intention on my part to do that. He reiterated AT was quite comfortable with the process used. I then pointed out that only a day earlier AT had claimed it was first realised in mid 2011 that parts of properties beyond designations in the DP would be required. This did not gel with the statement on 3 February 2010. He conceded there was a contradiction.

I then pointed out I had recently been told there were about seven properties being acquired outside the designations in the DP but on 14 November was informed by Owena Schuster there were 43. That represented 39% of the total properties being acquired. I said AT had misinformed residents in their communications. Roger disagreed but said he undertook to have dialogue on the matter but AT was not yet ready to discuss matters with property owners. It was early days yet but property owners would be contacted individually “in due course”. He conceded that the advertised time-frames were inaccurate.

I then asked him if a change in the DP required public consultation. He answered “Probably.” I asked when it would be updated and he said the Auckland District Plan is currently underway.

I pointed out that if the $4m acquisition budget includes properties such as a complete block of shops in Edmonton Road, TPOG members have grave concerns the budget is inadequate. He said not to worry, if the budget falls short they will find the money somewhere. I asked him where I could find details of the budget and he referred me to the 2012/13 Annual Plan. He said it may be insufficient but we don’t need to worry about it. We will be paid a “fair” amount for our land. I asked about fences, planting etc and he said there was no need to worry, it will be negotiated on a property by property basis. I asked how much money the Government was putting into the project. He did not know and said it may not have been documented. I asked if the Government funding was conditional on cycle lanes being put in place and he said it was.

I then read three emails from TPOG members.

Owena Schuster said she had another meeting to go to so we brought things to a fairly speedy ending.

Roger Wilson undertook to

1. Follow up on why I have received no feedback on my property.
2. Find out when discussions will begin with individual property owners.
3. Look into the possibility of releasing individual submissions.

The reason why we can’t have safer cycle lanes is because there are a bunch of selfish adults out there including a large bunch of Council and CCO officers who think it is their right to have cycle lanes on the road, and bugger those who would prefer safer cycle lanes. Parents are unwilling to allow their children on the roads and want off road cycle lanes.

These selfish bastards are wanting to breathe in fumes and wreck their lungs and tell you they are getting healthy. Bollocks I say. I am in favour of cycling for health, this is not the way to do it. You would of course notice that these same selfish pricks will scoot across the intersection on the pedestrian phase or when the light is red but they see nothing coming, or ride on footpaths when something is in their way, they just want to ride on roads and have more than their share of the public funding, as in a dedicated cycle lane over the harbour bridge rather than have hooks on buses to get them across.

By the way, this so called “Te Atatu Rd Upgrade” smacks of the same thing that happened on Lake Road Devonport. It was called Lake Road improvement and the one lane each way nose to tail chaos that was , everyone thought “improvement” –good we are getting extra traffic lanes, no they put up with months and months of chaos while cycle lanes were built and it was only late in the piece that they discovered improvement meant cycle lanes not extra traffic lanes to ease terrible congestion. We had huge opposition, but the officers fought it and carried on.

Viv Keohane

Kaipatiki Local Board member.

 Deputation to Henderson-Massey Local Board 1^st December 2011

From Gary Osborne

As a property owner who stands to lose a chunk of his land I believe it is important for me to express my feelings on the effectiveness of that loss of land.

On 20 September a letter was sent to affected property owners under the heading CONSULTATION advising them of an intention to purchase parts of their properties as Auckland Transport was planning to upgrade Te Atatu Rd. The letter stated the route along Te Atatu and Edmonton Rds experiences a high level of traffic on a daily basis. I agree and that has led to numerous accidents. By way of illustration, just two weeks ago a truck and trailer jack-knifed on Te Atatu Rd and led to a two hour backlog of traffic on the North Western motorway with traffic ground to a stand-still.

The reason I am opposed to the planned “improvement” is because it fails to meet both of its major aims:

1. Improved traffic flow
2. Safety

As far as improved traffic flow goes there is no intention to increase the number of vehicle lanes. I therefore do not accept the flow of traffic will improve. As far as safety is concerned, the introduction of 2 cycle lanes will encourage cyclists to use the road, in the belief that the official cycle lanes give them special road user rights. With the belief that one is right often comes the false assumption that one is safe. It is my belief that if these cycle lanes go ahead in their proposed form, they are an accident waiting to happen and it won’t be long before there’s a major cycle accident. I hope I’m not here addressing this Board within the next 12 months saying “I told you so.”

This is one of the busiest arterial routes in Auckland, not just Waitakere but Auckland. I understand a major influence on the intention to introduce the cycle lanes is the attraction of a huge government subsidy that, without cycle lanes, will not be available.

How am I affected?

My garage door is 6m from my boundary. If 2.88m of my property frontage is taken I will lose effective vehicle access to my garage. The only way to use it will be to drive in front-wards and back out on to the main road when exiting. That is a highly dangerous manoeuvre. My dwelling was built in 1961.

Following my attendance at the Drop-In-Day on 1 October, I had an on-site inspection by Stuart Penfold on 10 October. He told me he was unable to enter into any discussion.

On 19 October property owners received Access Agreement forms asking them to sign over wide-ranging access rights to their properties for a period of 2 years including bringing vehicles, machinery and equipment onto the property. The goodwill consideration for the owners’ acquiescence – the princely sum of 10 cents.

Then a week later Michael Riley, Property Specialist, wrote to me saying “the time taken for negotiation does largely depend on the property owner’s preparedness to negotiate in good faith.” In the same letter he advised me formal negotiations would not begin until February 2012 and I would not be negotiating with Auckland Transport but with Auckland Properties Ltd. 

On 14 November Darryl Griffin, Manager Democracy Services, advised me “I do not consider that there is any reason why Auckland Transport would revisit the decision for construction of cycle lanes on both sides of Te Atatu Rd. It appears that this hinges on whether the finalisation of the cycle lanes required a further political decision, or whether there was a mandate to proceed and to incorporate the outcome of the Councillor/Community Board workshops without a further political decision.”

In other words, to hell with the fact that public submissions don’t close until 21 November, that’s only being done as a PR exercise anyway!

As I see it this project fails to meet its stated aims:

1. Improved Traffic Flow
2. Safety

Therefore I am opposed to it. I do not accept that the perceived social good outweighs the personal sacrifices that I and many other property owners will have to make.

From Anne Langford

As a resident of Te Atatu Road, I am totally opposed to cycle lanes on this very busy, congested and dangerous road.  I do not believe enough forethought and consideration has been put into this project.

Whilst I’m not opposed to cyclists having cycle lanes, I will not  condone cycle lanes which are a potential death trap.  37,000 cars travel on this section of Te Atatu Road a day. Putting cyclists next to automobiles is irresponsible.  Cycle lanes should be as far away from motorists as possible.  Tamaki Drive is a good lesson in possible carnage.  Just last week a cyclist was hit on Te Atatu Rd and had to be taken away by ambulance.  Of all the properties on Te Atatu Rd, I have the most visibility of oncoming pedestrians and cyclists. Three weeks ago, as I meandered down my driveway to enter the road, all footpath traffic was clear. I stopped at the road, looked right, and when I looked left, there was a kid on his cycle plastered up against my passenger window, hanging on for grim death to his handlebars. Where he came from, I’ll never know.

The NW motorway cycle lanes are a good example of what a good cycle lane looks like: far enough away from traffic to be safe, and protected by a fence. Why can’t this cycle lane be extended through the back roads of Te Atatu, through council land, with a cycle bridge over Henderson Creek to Central Park Drive, or one over the Whau River to Glen Marine? This would provide cyclists with a safer and scenic route into Henderson or Te Atatu.

Another issue which I’m very concerned about with these road improvements, is my access to the road.  At present it is next to impossible to enter the road without the generosity of motorists and the traffic lights. 90% of motorists will move forward or backwards to let me out as they are at the lights and are going nowhere.  However, there have been many instances when once the cars are parted, I then see a cyclist coming down the footpath and then have to wave to the motorists that I can’t pull out, but thank you anyway.  If these new cycle lanes promote more cyclists to use Te Atatu Road, any chance of my pulling out will be doomed. This will apply to both residents and businesses on this road.

If what the engineers  say is true, that the new lights at Te Atatu and Veras Rds and at the roundabout near Countdown  improve traffic flow,  maybe my ability to access the road is finished. Presently, if I wish to turn right from my property to go to the motorway, I have to go left, up to the roundabout and come down that way to the motorway.  How will I do that now if there are lights up at the Countdown end?  Travel down Te Atatu Rd or Edmonton Rd, find a space in the traffic and pull into someone’s driveway and turn around.  If the traffic is flowing like they say it will be, there will be no way I can pull out on to the median strip on Te Atatu Rd to get across the road.  And increased cyclists will certainly seal off that opportunity for me.

I think it’s about time that a long-term approach be taken to fixing the Te Atatu Rd bottleneck instead of a way out-of-date fix that might generate more problems than it is worth. Let us put the money allocated for this project towards  something that will improve the gateway to the West for years to come and get the bulk of the traffic off Te Atatu Rd so that it can be used by cyclists, if they wish.

What is CONSULTATION?

BACKGROUND TO TE ATATU RD CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS

In 2003 Waitakere City Council commissioned a number of corridor studies dealing with all arterial roads in the city.

Several options were reported to a joint meeting of the City Development Committee and Henderson Community Board in December 2006. An Options Consultation process was approved at that meeting. It included “consultation” with individual property owners by March 2007, and “community consultation” including a public open day by April 2007. Such consultation did not take place.

In 2008 Council commissioned the concept design stage of the Te Atatu Rd corridor. This included updated traffic turning counts at all intersections, urban design improvements in the vicinity of Te Atatu Rd/Edmonton Rd, and identifying ways to improve transport and efficiency. The study was completed in March 2009, then placed on hold. Rather than staging the work it was recommended by Council officers that it be delayed until 2014/2015 to coincide with NZTA’s motorway interchange project.

On 3 February 2010 a meeting of WCC’s Infrastructure and Works Committee approved a preferred option, subject to “public consultation” and detailed design. Acknowledged problems with delaying the project were: problems associated with the Edmonton Rd roundabout and lack of appropriate turning facility at Covil Ave, the south-bound bottleneck in the afternoon/evening peak at the Edmonton Rd roundabout, high accident rate and lack of turning facilities for private access unresolved. Note 18 of the Agenda pointed out the Waitakere District Plan had a 2.88m designation along both sides of the corridor between Edmonton Rd and the motorway interchange but in some cases council would require up to 7m.

Note 19 stated a desire to “start the public consultation, land acquisition process, and detailed design before the end of December 2010.”

Note 23, under the heading CONSULTATION said “A number of workshops were held in 2008 to develop the concept design.”

Note 26 stated “Public consultation will need to take various forms to ensure the public is fully informed of the Te Atatu Rd corridor project. Due to the significant amount of land acquisition required, Council officers anticipate a lengthy consultation process.”

On 29 September 2010 Waitakere City Council agreed to receive a Te Atatu Rd corridor report and that the Council’s preferred option was as outlined in the report and was the basis for further design work.

During the last week of September 2011, property owners whose land was subject to acquisition received a letter dated 20 September from Mohammed Alsakini headed Te Atatu Road Corridor Improvements Project – Consultation. It advised that a preferred option had been chosen by Waitakere City Council in 2009 and approved to proceed to the preliminary design stage in 2009. It stated “It is now Auckland Transport that will progress and manage the project through to completion.”

I rang Auckland Councillors on the Transport Committee who appeared to know little about it. I was advised to attend a “Drop-In-Day” on 1 October. Unfortunately no decision-makers were there.

In the first week of November a pamphlet entitled “Te Atatu Rd Corridor Improvements” arrived in our letter boxes inviting us to attend a “Public Open Day” on 5 November. Residents were invited to complete a “Feedback form.”

On 3 November I expressed my concerns to the Henderson-Massey Local Board during Public Forum.

On 5 November the Project Team members on hand to “answer your queries” were not decision makers and in some cases not in control of the facts.

There has been no vote on these matters in any of the Auckland Council meetings.

It has been acknowledged by Darryl Griffin, Manager of Democracy Services that the only “public consultation” that has taken place was an Open Day on 5 November 2011.

Property owners trying to engage in discussion about their particular concerns have been greeted with bureaucratic double-speak and a series of delays. 

Address to Henderson-Massey Local Board 3^rd Nov 2011

Madam Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Some years ago there was a meeting in Pt Chevalier. About 5 people turned up. My concern was the widening of Te Atatu Rd and I was given the impression about 1m either side was to be purchased from property owners.

Six weeks ago Auckland Transport sent out a letter to certain Te Atatu Rd property owners, including myself, advising that parts of our properties (approx 3m) had been identified as necessary for road widening. Part of the acquisition was for 2 cycle lanes on one of the busiest roads in Auckland. The info we were sent claims 38,000 vehicles per day, although some time ago during submissions on the fire station, it was claimed there were 46,000 vehicles per day.  I wonder how much will be spent on a public enquiry as soon as the first major accident occurs on this stretch of road involving a cyclist.

The letter dated 20 September invited us to ring Stuart Penfold if we had any questions. I rang Stuart and was invited to come and see him at the Drop-In Day on 1 October. I attended, waited half an hour in a queue for Stuart and was then referred to Michael Riley’s queue. When I got to speak to Michael he asked me to ring him in his office on Monday.

I rang Michael on Monday 3 October and was told he had referred my matter to the engineers. Having heard nothing further by Friday 7 October, I rang Michael to be told he had not heard back from the engineers yet. Later that day Stuart Penfold rang me and arranged to inspect my property at 10.30 am on Monday 10 October. I introduced Stuart to my tenants, gave him their phone number and said he was quite welcome to come back at any time at all for further measurements providing it suited the tenants.

Then on Wednesday 19 October I received a letter from Michael Riley dated 1 October enclosing two forms entitled “Access Agreement” that I regarded as a gratuitous insult.

Now under Section 171 of the Local Government Act 2002 Councils have certain access rights to properties under certain conditions. Auckland Transport does not have those automatic rights.

Auckland Transport was therefore asking property owners for a special favour, before any negotiations had even commenced.

I’ll read the part of the “Agreement” which got up my nose.

“It is agreed that, for the consideration of ten cents (10c), receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Auckland Transport and or its Agents may enter and re-enter The Land subject to this agreement with or without such assistants, machinery, vehicles or equipment as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of enhancing the current roading network for safety, amenity and to expand the use of alternative transport modes.”

The letter asked the recipient to sign acknowledgement of receipt of ten cents yet ten cents was not even enclosed. I rang Michael Riley and asked how Auckland Transport intended delivering the ten cents. I was told I could come into his office and pick it up if I liked. I did not like but I also asked him who was the lawyer who had drawn up the agreement. He did not know.

Consequently I sent an email to Michael asking 8 questions. I received a reply a week later. Here we are being asked to grant Auckland Transport a huge favour extending to allowing machinery, vehicles and equipment onto our land when it is envisaged negotiations will not even commence for another four months. The depth of gratitude by Auckland Transport for that display of good will on the part of property owners is an offer of ten cents!

Yet in his reply to me on 27 October Michael Riley had the temerity to say “the time taken for negotiation does largely depend on the property owner’s preparedness to negotiate in good faith.” I would suggest if 10c is the best offer that can be made by Auckland Transport for early wide-ranging access to properties before negotiations have commenced, it is the property owners who are largely dependent on the other party’s preparedness to negotiate in good faith. The signals to date do not augur well for the future.

The second matter is Pool Fencing. At a Policy Committee meeting on 29 July I expressed very grave concern about the inconsistencies that would arise by having 21 separate Exemption Committees for Swimming Pool Fencing. Nevertheless it seems Auckland Council is hell-bent on pursuing this approach!