Auckland Mayor Len Brown has this morning tabled a $5.5 billion draft plan which he hopes will turn the city into the “most liveable city in the world”.

The 254-page plan, which was launched at the new Auckland Art Gallery by Mr Brown and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, includes the $2.2 billion central city rail loop, $2 billion of further waterfront development and $1.1 billion for central city development.

Aucklanders will have until October 25 to submit their views to council on four weighty volumes of plans – the draft Auckland Plan – a blueprint to improve the city’s quality of life over the next 20 to 30 years – and the Auckland City Centre Masterplan for 20 years, the Waterfront Masterplan for 30 years and Economic Development Strategy for 10 years.

I’ve not yet had time to read the draft plan.  But with Auckland projected to grow by 600,000 people over the next few decades it is vital they start working on how to cope with this population growth. I am of the view the city needs to expand both upwards and outwards.

What I do want to comment on at this stage is the fact that there can now be a coherent plan for Auckland. Under eight different Councils, this was impossible. The new Council doesn’t guarantee that the plan will be a good plan, but it does give Aucklanders the opportunity to develop a good plan for their city.

I’m not generally a big fan of ten or twenty year plans. They remind me too much of the USSR. but when it comes to infrastructure planning and investment, you do need to be looking long-term. The danger is when you try to expand such plans beyond those things which need to be decided on a long-term basis.

Auckland mayor Len Brown should “just do it” and build the proposed $2 billion city rail loop, former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett says.

Mr Kennett was in Auckland yesterday discussing his leadership of Melbourne and the lessons that can be applied to New Zealand’s largest city as it attempts to become super-sized.

As the architect of the “Kennett Revolution” when he came to office in 1992 he drastically cut state spending in Victoria, “offered 50,000 public servants opportunities beyond the public sector” and turned the city into one of the world’s best event cities through an investment programme which included building the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre.

Kennett was one of the great Premiers of an Australian state. I always hoped he would become Prime Minister one day.

The former premier said Mr Brown needed to choose about five key projects for the supercity from the “wordy” 30-year Auckland Plan out for public discussion.

He recommended a national convention centre, cruise ship terminal, a Pacific region office of the United Nations, an Aussie Rules franchise and to “turn the city to the sea”, reversing Auckland’s inward-looking design.

Not so sure about an UN office, but I like the idea of an Aussie Rules franchise – that could become huge.

Mr Kennett said he opposed borrowing for operational spend but approved it for infrastructure investment. He would not hesitate at all to borrow money to build the link because over time it would add to a less congested city.

“Two billion spent today is chicken feed in 20 or 30 years. I’m currently advancing a new underground rail system for $100b. In 50 years that will be a drop in the bucket.”

I agree that borrowing for infrastructure is good, while borrowing for operational spending is bad. And if Len wants the CBD rail loop, then he should go for it regardless of the Government.

I can certainly recall the days when National held just half a dozen seats or so in Auckland, and now it is Labour that is reduce to single figures in Auckland.

Almost one in 10 Aucklanders voted National for the first time in the 2008 general election. Head-to-head, there was a 15 per cent swing to the right, and four middle-Auckland electorates changed their political colours.

National’s average vote in Auckland was 48.3%, compared to 38.0% in Wellington and 42.1% in Christchurch.

The National over Labour gap in Auckland was 15.4%, compared to 10.9% nationally. Only rural NZ had a bigger gap

Auckland also had the largest swing in the country. National went up 6.9% and Labour went down 8.9%.

This movement was particularly pronounced in the city south of the bridge and north of Manukau: young Nikki Kaye unseated Judith Tizard in Auckland Central; Pansy Wong crucified the opposition in the newly created Botany; leopard-skin-clad Paula Bennett stormed home in Waitakere; and burly Samoan rugby player Sam Lotu-Iiga claimed Maungakiekie from old-school unionist Mark Gosche.

The print copy has an amusing sketch of Paula, Sam and Nikki respectively as Wonder Woman, Super Man and well I am not sure but I think Sheena.

Repeatedly, Labour MPs interviewed for this story refer to their electoral defeat as a movement of tides.

That of course is part of it, but not all of it. For may part, here are some of the factors which led to National winning seats off Labour in Auckland.

1. Right candidates for the seats
2. They ran campaigns to win the seats, not just party vote campaigns. A good local campaign will life electorate vote and party vote.
3. The boundary changes were generally favourable to National, especially in areas like Maungakiekie.
4. Incumbent MPs were retiring or weak
5. The Government had lost touch – ie time for a change

Now if Labour are placing all their faith in (5) no longer being an issue, then they may get a shock.

The implication is that if the tide of support went out in 2008, it’ll come back in eventually. But, a year and a half later, there is little sign of a sea change that will wash the left back to power.

One has to make it happen, not just wait for the tide.

Chris Carter, whose electorate seat Te Atatu swung almost 20 percentage points to National from Labour, is almost blase about Patel’s change of allegiance: “By and large the Indian community is still with us – and the South African one is for the other guys. That’s the way it’s always been.”

But not necessarily the way it always will stay.

While Trotter has been bitterly attacked by Labour backbenchers for his diagnosis, their leader concedes he may have a point. “I think that’s probably right,” says Goff of the loss of ‘Waitakere Man’: “There’s a group of people out there who thought that Labour had become too nanny-statist, telling people what to do and not to do.”

Not just nanny state. Too reluctant to give tax cuts, and too keen to grow government spending.

1. $23.9 million to remove the two 1912 cargo sheds and creating a cup village with temporary and hired structures
2. $27.7 million involves minor refurbishment of the sheds to provide covered space for the cup
3. $31.3 million involves significant refurbishment of the sheds with a focus on keeping one or both over the medium term
4. $97 million has a a $49.2m budget for a cruise ship terminal, plus $15.6m for wharf repairs

A dedicated website has the four options and allows feedback.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports on Wellington’s RWC plans:

A Rugby World Cup village on Wellington’s waterfront – centred around a yet-to-be-built wharewaka – will become the focus of celebrations at next year’s tournament.

More than 1200 partygoers will be able to pack into the building and a marquee next door, with the city council set to rent the wharewaka, or canoe house, its staff and its facilities for the event.

It will be the focus of Rugby World Cup celebrations, costing ratepayers about $150,000 – considerably less than a $100 million plan to build a party zone in Auckland.

Sounds good to me.

The vultures are circling. As the Wellington sevens kicked off in bright sunshine yesterday (is it ever any different in the capital?) word emerged that both Auckland and Dunedin are contemplating bids for host rights to the New Zealand leg of the international sevens circuit when it comes up for grabs again in 2012.

I don’t think there is any need to worry.

The Sevens won’t go to Auckland for two reasons:

1. No one will turn up
2. No one will notice they are on

Auckland is notoriously unreliable when it comes to attending sporting events. And the Sevens are more than a sporting event – they are a two day festival, and part of the festival is seeing people all through town in their costumes. You won’t in Auckland.

As for Dunedin, you have to be crazy to hodl the Sevens in Dunedin.

In one sense Dunedin would be a great venue. The venue would sell out easily, and the locals would definitely love dressing up and attending. It could almost do as well as Wellington.

But the problem is that half of Dunedin would get burnt to the ground, as the cost of hosting it.

Students (and others) in Dunedin start burning couches and generally rioting after just a couple of hours of drinking. You’d have to be mad to want to host a game which is basically two days of non-stop drinking rugby.

Can you imagine 25,000 students and others pouring out of the stadium after NZ wins (or loses) the Sevens. George Street would disappear in the rioting.

Quite simply, New Zealand needs Auckland to work, and for that to happen, it needs to work efficiently. Auckland cannot rely on roads and motorways alone to meet the region’s future transport needs, as the city’s roading network is already nearing the practical limits of expansion.

The key thing is, it is not a choice between improving roads and public transport. They are not substitutes, but complementary.

The number of trips made on Auckland’s transport system by 2051 is expected to increase by 65 per cent from 3.2 million to 5.2 million a day.

Plans for an underground rail loop from Britomart southward underneath the CBD to Mt Eden have been debated for nearly a century.

Initial economic evaluation of the CBD tunnel shows that it attracts a higher return than many major roading projects of a similar scale, particularly as rail can shift much larger numbers than any other mode.

So long as it is cheaper per than Labour’s plan to spend $1 to $2 billion on a single tunnel to help then retain Mt Albert!

The Western Ring Route, State Highway 20 and incremental improvements to other motorway networks and roads are critical. However, these improvements and the new Central Connector and development of the bus lane network will meet future demands only if we complete a fully integrated transport system, including a CBD rail loop.

The capacity of Britomart at peak times would potentially more than double to 40 trains per hour, if it were a through-station. These are compelling reasons why we need to push through Britomart, up under Albert St, beneath Karangahape Rd and on to Mt Eden and Kingsland.

Because of its higher capacity, rail is the most effective and efficient way of providing for Auckland’s growth in travel demand, especially to the congested CBD.

So why a loop?

This CBD loop is no ordinary transport project. This project looks ahead 100 years, to the kind of centre a true super city aspires to.

Super cities all over the world have strong centres and with vision, good design and a sound business case, this project unlocks the potential of Auckland’s centre by enabling much greater access from all parts of the region. This will reinforce the existing role of central Auckland as a regional destination for workers, students and residents and it will cater for the projected growth in the size and intensity of the centre of Greater Auckland.

Enhancing access through a CBD rail loop is critical to the central area’s contribution to lifting the entire region’s (and therefore the country’s) economic performance.

This rail loop is more than a rail link. It is a transformational economic development project at the centre of the new Super City.

So what is the cost?

The currently estimated cost of a CBD rail loop is between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. If the rail loop is not constructed, we do have a good handle on that cost, which includes further road and motorway construction to meet demand (at least $3.3 billion for roading and additional parking capacity, according to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s latest estimate).

If it can be done for that much money, the economic argument really stacks up.

Publicans in suburban Auckland reckon the city council should leave the running of neighbourhood bars to the locals.

There’s a difference between suburban bars and inner-city boozers, says Jason Breen, managing director of Remuera’s Villager restaurant and bar.

Local bars responded to the patrons’ needs, which meant they needed flexibility.

Mr Breen is saying leave it to the local bar owners, but it got me thinking about another issue – why doesn’t the Auckland City Council not make any changes at all to licensing rules, and wait for the Super City.

Because then the new local boards will be able to set rules for their local communities, rather than have them set centrally. That would seem a win-win.

Hundreds of Auckland bars and restaurants will be forced to close at 11pm under planned city council liquor law changes.

The council wants all on-licence premises outside the CBD closed by 11pm, unless they are situated in entertainment precincts such as Ponsonby Rd, Parnell Rd, Newmarket or Mission Bay.

I’m glad I live in Wellington!

The rest of the country subsidises Auckland and provides it with the wealth to exist.

This is not a view unique to Damien. Michael Cullen once said:

Auckland now sits atop the nation like a great crushing weight

I think it is commendable Damien shares his views with us. he is obviously positioning to become Finance Minister.

Incidentally a report in 2006 concluded Auckland sends $3.8 billion more tax to Wellington than it receives back in spending.

Regulars PC and Annie will be there, and many more I am sure.

Then we have the idiots. Inspired by the scare mongering of Phil Twyford’s bill about Auckland assets (I note Labour only wants the public consulted over selling assets – not over buying or producing them), they have listed several Auckland assets for sale such as the Harbour Bridge (noT even owned locally), libraries (what moron thinks anyone would sell or buy a library), a building owned by DOC and a stadium owned by a trust.

So not only are they trying to whip up hysteria over a non-existent issue, they can’t even get the most basic facts right.

Meanwhile the adults are actually trying to grapple with the serious issues.

Labour and its allies keep talking about the issues they think are important, rather than those people are actually concerned about. But hey long may they campaign on free silk scarf dying courses, welfare for millionaires, and stopping Auckland local bodies from selling assets they don’t actually own.

Ports of Auckland will vacate the wharf by April 2010.

If ever the case for a single city was clinched it was last week on Queens Wharf. The old wharf, a terminus for Gulf ferries but otherwise little used, could be purchased from Ports of Auckland for $20 million and turned into the public centrepiece of the waterfront in time for the Rugby World Cup 2011. …

And hopefully it will happen.

They are not, of course. The mayors of Manukau, North Shore and Waitakere cities, inveterate opponents of the single-city plan, have missed an opportunity to show that progress is possible with the present set-up. They are disinclined to share the Queens Wharf development lest Auckland City’s mayor and council take the lion’s share of the credit.

And soon they will all be gone – or at least their positions.

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a mix of 10 ward and 10 at-large councillors.

But it is understood the Government and Mr Hide could live with a council of ward-only councillors if that were the strong view of submitters.

Another option is to increase the number of ward councillors to 18 and reduce at-large councillors to six.

Here is where Labour has very confused messages. The one thing they are most oppossed to, is the at large seats. Yet they also compalin that the Government is changing the decisions of the Royal Commission, when it was the Royal Commission itself that went for a massive ten at large seats.

The Royal Commission had ten at large seats recommended (plus arguably two Maori seats at large). The Government’s response reduced this to eight, and now according to the Herald may reduce it further to six. Looks to me like a Government responding to feedback.

So why is Labour so desperate to get rid of the at large seats? Well mainly because it will make it harder for them to gain control of the new Council. Labour actively stands for local Councils, and will no doubt be fielding a ticket for Mayor and Council. Their concern is about how best to gain power in Auckland – not about what is best for Auckland.

As it so happens, I have also oppossed at large seats. I’ve blogged several times that I woud prefer they are done away with. I’ve taken this position, even though it is true that doing away with them may benefit Labour gaining control. The reason I oppose them is simply because I don’t think you get informed decision making when there are too many names to be selected on a ballot paper. The original proposal of 10 at large would have led to voters having to pick 10 candidates out of a field oh probably 50 or more. It would be like the DHB elections.

Only six at large mitigates the issue somewhat. But I still think six is too many for well informed decision making. If you are asking people to choose more than a couple of candidates, then it becomes a contest on name recognition, not picking the best candidate.

It is likely to pass a bill under urgency next month to set up an establishment board with the complex, and controversial job of restructuring the eight councils into the super council in less than 18 months.

Victorious Rugby World Cup captain-turned-businessman David Kirk, former Commonwealth Secretary-General Sir Don McKinnon and NZ Post chief John Allen are being mentioned as possible board heads.

Other names mentioned are Fletcher Building chairman Roderick Deane, who is believed to have turned down the job, Professor John Hood, former vice-chancellor of Auckland and Oxford universities, former Labour Cabinet minister and Wellington Mayor Fran Wilde, and accountant Brian Roche, who has scored a raft of public sector appointments and is familiar with Auckland’s problems.

I’d pick Fran Wilde. Fran would sort those Auckland Mayors out in quick time, and get the CEOs working together to form the new Super City. And God help anyone who steps out of line.

Can anyone tell me their position on Maori seats?

Can anyone tell me their position on local Councils vs community boards?  They initially said they did not support local Councils as they were too large, but then complained when the Government listened and got rid of them.

Can anyone tell me whether or not they supported the unchanged recommendations of the Royal Commission?

No you can’t, as they have no policy apart from wanting no at large seats, as that will make it easier for them to gain power over the city.

But now in a fit of stupidity, Goff is calling for a referendum on the changes. Before I detail how unworkable this is, let’s hear what the Royal Commission itself said:

31.4 Nor does the Commission consider that a reorganisation proposal would be an appropriate mechanism for implementing the proposed reforms, despite the superficial attraction of using an existing statutory mechanism.1 The reorganisation process requires the review of any reorganisation proposal by the Local Government Commission, followed by consultation with stakeholders, the notification of a draft proposal, and public submissions. It also requires a poll of electors which, by simple majority, determines whether or not the proposal will proceed. Plainly, the complex and wide-ranging recommendations in this Report are not suited to this process;

So the Royal Commission itself said a referendum is only superficially attractive and is plainly unsuited to complex and wide-ranging recommendations.

The Royal Commission was of course right on this point. Referendums are suitable for simple singular propositions, such as changing the term of Parliament from three to four years.

The reform proposals have dozens of elements to them – one Council, an executive Mayor, local boards, composition of Council, powers of Council, powers of Board, ward boundaries, etc etc etc. What would people be voting on?

And is Goff really saying that he wants it to be a choice between doing nothing and the Government’s proposals? That there should be a poll, and if it fails then the status quo endures and all the work of the Royal Commission is wasted? Because a referendum is not something that allows you to modify a proposal, like a select committee process. It is a stop or go process.You don’t like the bathwater and indeed the baby goes out the window also.

Also consider the further practicalities of a referendum? What do you do if voters in six Councils vote yes, and one Council votes no? Do you then have a new Auckland Council with a big hole in the middle of it? Do you give veto power to the voters of the smallest Council that represents around 2% of the Region?

And let us remember the hypocrisy. Goff attacks the Government for changing some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet himself now demands the Government ignore one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission – that the reform is far too complex for a referendum.

The mayoral war of words that greeted the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and the Government’s swift response to it, has merely proved the commissioners’ implied message that their cities comprise a sprawling metropolis, the councils of which prefer to work in silos, believe one community is superior to the others and that, given the opportunity, mayors would rather engage in verbal battle than unite to secure a structure that would benefit most of those they purport to represent.

Indeed the Mayors have proven the case for change.

To their credit, Auckland City’s John Banks and Waitakere’s Bob Harvey seem to have glimpsed what the commission was trying to achieve when its three members delivered their report late last month. North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams and his Manukau counterpart, Len Brown, seem unable, however, to see beyond the prospect that their mayoral chains will have to be stowed for good after the next local body election, possibly now two years away.

I would agree that Harvey has been constructive.

The kerfuffle with which the four mayors responded to the Government’s post-commission plans simply underlines why much of the rest of New Zealand regards their politics as toxic and why reorganisation of local government north of the Bombay Hills is urgent.

You won’t get integrated public transport and a proper roading strategy until you have one Council.

Mr Banks is itching to be mayor of an Auckland “supercity” and has tried, unsuccessfully, to remain above the fray. But he is at odds with the leftist minority on his council and certainly with his North Shore counterpart, who has an idiosyncratic approach to local governance.

Heh that is a euphemism.

They seem to have stopped trying to protect their old job, by demanding the proposed six local Councils be retained. The model of 20 – 30 community boards is far better for local representation than six huge local Councils with no community boards.

What they are now focusing on is having all the Auckland Council seats done through wards, instead of 12 wards and 8 at large. On this issue I support them.

The Royal Commission proposed 10 at large seats (the Govt reduced this to eight), and proponents of at large seats have noble intentions. They want Councillors who will put the entire Region first, not their ward. I can understand the rationale for at large seats.

Having said that, I don’t think Councillors get too influenced by their ward. On Wellington City Council you rarely get people voting on ward lines – it is almost always on ideological grounds. And I don’t think Auckland Regional Council has a lot of divisions based on current wards.

There is some risk in not having at large seats, as the new Auckland Council will be very powerful, if all the Councillors do get tribal and try to represent the old cities. But having ward boundaries that are very different to the old cities and districts are a way around this.

So why do I think at large seats are a bad idea, even if well intentioned? The main issue for me is that you will not get well informed voting. Having to pick 8 or 10 Councillors out of what maybe 30 – 50 candidates will be a simple game in name recognition at best. It will not lead to good governance.

Picking one Mayor out of 10 candidates will be okay, as that race gets lots of publicity, and you probably will know enough about your preferred candidate to make an informed choice.

Likewise a ward election will mean picking one (maybe two) Councillor only – few enough to be an informed choice.

The other issue is cost of campaigning across the whole region.

Sending one letter to the region’s 500,000 ratepayers will cost a candidate $250,000 in postage alone.

Spending limits should be high enough to allow a direct mail letter to every voter and $250,000 while suitable for the Mayoralty will be too much to expect people to raise just for a City Council spot. You could get away with spending under $50,000 on a ward spot, which is about right.

The spat comes comes as Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey is trying to act as a peacemaker and bring all the mayors together for a meeting on Wednesday with Mr Hide.

“It’s hugely important that the mayors are united in a common voice,” Mr Harvey said.

But his peacemaking efforts have been criticised after he emailed colleagues to suggest some leading figures in the governance debate, such as Warehouse boss Stephen Tindall, Deloitte chairman Nick Main and Committee for Auckland chairman Sir Ron Carter, take part in the meting.

Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee replied: “Sound likes elitist bullshit to me Bob.”

Mr Lee said it was the “hair-brained (sic) scheming of those amateurs” which encouraged the failed mayoral coup of 2006 that would have consigned the ARC to the political scrapheap.

Mr Harvey has since agreed not to invite the businessmen to the meeting, which may have to be moved from North Shore City Council’s headquarters to have any chance of getting Mr Banks to attend.

So the Chair and the Mayors can’t even agree on who to invite to a meeting, and where to have it.

Mr Williams is convinced Mr Banks is part of a right-wing smear campaign that includes Mr Bhatnagar, Mr Banks’ former press secretary Cameron Brewer, who now heads the Newmarket Business Association, and the right-wing blog Whaleoil run by Cameron Slater – son of Citizens & Ratepayers president John Slater, and a friend of Mr Banks.

Banks accidentially sent a text to Williams:

“I leave this to Whaleoil. TV3 are running this lunitic (sic) tonight?”

It was hardly a difficult guess that Whale would be responding to Mayor Williams latest outburst.

To me this just sums up why we need reform – no more squabbling Mayors all about patch protection.

The plan announced on Monday sensibly ditched the commission’s recommendation for six local councils – a recipe for more of the same paralysis – and provided for between 20 and 30 local boards, with between 125 and 150 members, to ensure that community voices are heard.

Apart from the Mayors losing their jobs, almost everyone seems to be saying that decision was the right one.

The HoS is concerned about lack of powers for the local boards. I think the ability to propose an additional rate for additional local facilities or services will turn out to be quite powerful.

What is more worrying is the composition of the council itself. It is a blizzard of confusing numbers but the proposal is for 20 councillors elected from 12 wards (which, for no good reason, will coincide with neither the community boards’ bailiwicks, nor Parliamentary electorates) and eight councillors elected at large. The mayor, too, would be elected by the voters of the region.

Again there seems to be a consensus that all the Councillors should be from wards. Hopefully the Select Committee will be able to make recommendations on this issue.

Talking of super city issues, one has to giggle at this story:

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams accused Rodney Hide of lying about having met local Mayors – claiming he met John Banks only. Rodney’s response:

But Mr Hide said he spoke to other Mayors the day the Royal Commission released its report, a day when Williams was in the South Island.

“Andrew Williams wasn’t there when the Royal Commission released their report, and I don’t know why, so we did our best,” he told NZPA.

Williams seems exceptionally skilled at making himself look foolish.

The Herald editorial:

The Government’s refinement of the royal commission’s design for Auckland is nearly right, but not quite. The single city overlaying 20 to 30 community boards looks a better balance of power and local democracy than the commission’s six subsidiary councils.

Absolutely. But that is what the Mayors are fighting to keep.

But the gap between the two tiers would be wide, and that makes the electoral arrangements for the higher body more important.

The Government, conscious of the gap, perhaps, has increased from 10 to 12 the number of Auckland Council seats to be elected from constituencies, leaving eight to be elected, like the mayor, across the whole city. But why have any council seats elected city-wide?

I agree. And people should submit on this issue to the select committee.

If the purpose is to ensure that at least a core of the council takes a broad view of the city’s interests, it is interesting that the same principle has not altered behaviours in Parliament. List MPs are not beholden to territorial constituencies but their behaviour is not notably different from those of colleagues representing electorates.

A good point. Also it will be horribly confusing having maybe 50 people standing for eight at large positions.

The 20 council seats could have electorates identical to those of 20 community boards, if the Local Government Commission settles on that number of boards.

That to me would be ideal. Each ward should elect one Councillor, who would also be a key liasion with the community board.

The electorates could even match parliamentary constituencies in the Auckland region.

I have no problem with that, but understand some MPs do not like the idea of the City Councillor becomign a de facto shadow MP, as may happen if they have the same boundaries and represent the exact same set of constituents.

And it should be a simple matter to add two Maori seats elected from the Maori parliamentary electorates that cover the area. That would simultaneously put right two failings in the latest proposal.

As the Government says, there is an existing law that allows Aucklanders to have Maori seats, should they so wish them. Only 5% need sign a petition.

The Government envisages community boards having roles that would include dog control, liquor licensing and graffiti clean-ups. Their autonomy should go beyond those tasks. Community boards can, and should, continue to make many of the resource consent decisions that affect the character and amenities of the area but do not impinge on the wider city.

I also tend to agree here, and again would advocate people submit for enhanced powers to the select committee.