The proposed land transactions at Hobsonville and Gulf Harbour will separate ownership of reclaimed marina land (private ownership) and the seabed (Crown). Integrated management and control of the land will then be entirely reliant on the council's marina precinct plans and planning controls. The underlying problem is that the precinct plans are inconsistent with marina zone objectives and policies, and the legislation that established the marinas.
The Herald's editorial made valid comments that private investment often provides a city with developments it could not otherwise afford. However, the developer and community must have similar expectations before a private development is seen as a benefit by both parties.
Local communities and marina users see Pine Harbour Marina as a compelling example of inappropriate precinct plans and questionable application of planning controls resulting in an irreversible loss of open space and a development which conflicts with marina activities.
The recently consented apartment development at Pine Harbour will result in four 9m high flat roof buildings, immediately abutting four piers of the marina basin; sandwiched between the narrow 3.5m wide marina esplanade on one side and the marina access road on the other. With prices in the range $1.6m – $2.5m this waterfront development cannot be justified as providing much needed "affordable housing". Planned apartment buildings 18m high along the marina waterfront at Hobsonville are similarly alarming.
Attractive architectural perspectives of walkways, cafes and restaurants and assurances that marina users amenities will be improved and protected do not convince marina users. The reassuring comments are in stark contrast to Simon Herbert's (Empire Capital) evidence at the Unitary Plan hearing for Bayswater Marina: "In summary this land is now privately owned, and other than the access strip covenants requiring public access to the access strip, there should be no requirement that the land be solely or predominantly used for public purposes."
Panuku's lack of respect for public opinion is also alarming. Panuku has been pursuing its sales strategy at Hobsonville and Gulf Harbour for some years but only entered into limited public engagement shortly before seeking council endorsement. The proposal for Gulf Harbour is expected to go to the finance and performance committee as early as July 24.
When the council and Panuku started contemplating the negotiated sale of council owned land on the waterfront of two of the City of Sails' largest marinas, the moral compass should have immediately pointed to full public consultation. However, in a letter to marina users at Gulf Harbour, Panuku justifies the limited engagement based on a legal opinion.
Panuku's fondness for obtaining legal rather than public support for its actions also flows through to obtaining a legal opinion in support of its plan that the council uses the Public Works Act to acquire marina land at Hobsonville from itself in order to circumvent previously legislated public interest and enable the negotiated sale to the current lessee, Empire Capital.
What local communities and marina users opposing current plans would like to see is an immediate halt to the proposed land sales and a long term strategy for the ownership and development of marinas that truly reflects the interests of the community and marina users.
• Richard Steel is chair of the Auckland Marina Users Association Inc and immediate past chair of Pine Harbour Berth Holders Association Inc.
