Editorial: Space for idealism at Tank Farm

Opinion

A jewel of the Auckland waterfront, the vast tract of potential development land known as the Tank Farm, is finally gaining some spit and polish behind closed doors at the Auckland City Council. Yet whether it will end up sparkling as it should is far from clear.

Thousands of residents responded to campaigns by the Herald and the Heart of the City organisation for the public voice to be heard before a cosy concept from the city and regional councils began an irresistible path down the planning process. That plan for the Tank Farm, and one from the Ports of Auckland Ltd, were accountants' answers. They tried to maximise development profits through large-scale apartment and commercial buildings and the "mixed use" designation which has defaced so much of the city with fast-food outlets, service stations, cheap flats and tyre shops. It would have made available large lump sums of cash for use on unrelated, one-off roading and transport infrastructure. It filled more of the waterfront with restricted space and was profoundly uninspired in its vision for future generations. Ports of Auckland, the owner, is in turn fully owned by the Auckland Regional Council and there is a strong responsibility on that elected body to ensure the company does not advance a shoddy, short-term solution for Auckland.

Some breathing space was reached after the deluge of public submissions, which naturally favoured more public, open space on a landmark which may stand for all time. The deadline for releasing a plan change which would start the process was delayed for up to two months from the short-shrift target of May 31.

Now comes word of how the city council has interpreted the public mood. A draft plan obtained by the Herald shows a greater contribution of public parkland and open space, fewer apartments on the headland itself but still some 16-storey buildings on the lead-in road, and generally greater access through the site. It retains space for the marine industry, which is good. But it is a pragmatic advance. The public is offered an extra hectare or so of open space and two different widths of boulevard in the vicinity and modifications to the siting and scale of some buildings.

In classic bureaucratic fashion, the modest benefits being waved before Aucklanders are now likely to come with a big bill. To wrest more public space and control of the Tank Farm land off the port company, it seems the council and therefore its ratepayers will face a call from that company for a further $300 million. The previous estimate already stood at $350 million, so the price to be paid for agitation for a waterfront park and an aesthetically appropriate development starts to look worryingly high. This is a tried and tested way by public authorities of putting idealists back in their place but in this case, in particular, it does not have to be so.

The regional council's decision to buy out other shareholders in POAL and assume 100 per cent ownership was, and is, a difficult decision to fathom, unless it was for this very purpose. As the only shareholder whose interests the ports company must seek to advance, it must surely be able to prevent standard commercial belligerence which would force ratepayers to bear a further $300 million in cost. What would be the point in a public money-go-round in which ratepayers stumped up money to the city which stumped up money to the port company which passes it on to the regional council?

It is encouraging that the city council appears to have heard some of the concerns of its residents. It and the regional council should not now allow short-termism to penalise those same Aucklanders for holding firm for an outstanding waterfront amenity for the long run.