It’d be fair to say that there’s quite a bit of unease around parts of Auckland at the level of change the draft Unitary Plan appears to allow. In particular it seems as though the raising of height limits in town centres seems to terrify people of a certain age (just check out the grey hair at many of these public meetings- how many of these objectors will actually be around to be outraged when anything is actually built?) However, quite a lot of the opposition also seems to result from people just not wanting change in their area – an example is the Devonport article linked to above.
But looking just at what’s in the Unitary Plan only tells half the story in terms of upzoning. The other critical component is to understand what the existing plans provide for and how the Unitary Plan might be different to what’s currently allowed. To get a better understanding of how existing plans provide capacity for growth, the Council undertook what’s called the Capacity for Growth Study, a fairly complex computer modelling process to assess – in quite a bit of detail – the number of additional dwellings that could be accommodated under existing planning rules in the following ways:
- Development of currently vacant land inside the existing urban area
- Infill opportunities (i.e. adding further dwellings while keeping the existing dwellings on the site)
- Redevelopment of residential land (involving the removal of the existing dwelling)
- Residential opportunities on business land (in those zones which allow or encourage residential activity)
- Development opportunities in rural residential areas
- Development of greenfield land
The results report emphasises that the purpose of the project is not to analyse the likelihood of redevelopment occurring, but rather to give us an idea of what development potential exists in different parts of Auckland if sites were to be developed to their potential. The study also assumes that development will comply with the development controls (like height, driveway widths etc.) and only the lowest level of resource consent for an activity is used (i.e. densities that are permitted activities or whatever the easiest consent to get is if nothing is permitted).
The results highlight that a huge amount of development potential exists across Auckland under existing planning controls, in a wide variety of different ways:
The report notes that you can’t simply add these all up to get a final result as some capacity is mutually exclusive from other capacity (i.e. you can either infill or redevelop a site but you can’t get the additional capacity from both), but it’s clear that existing planning documents do contain a pretty large amount of capacity, although not quite the full 400,000 additional dwellings Auckland will need over the next 30 years. Though remember this doesn’t include any of the additional greenfield land or any of the capacity the Unitary Plan potentially allows.
A map of where the additional capacity is located is included below:
Looking at this map you can start to see one of the most important tasks of the Unitary Plan is not necessarily to provide a whole lot more capacity, but rather to provide capacity in places where it’s more likely to be taken up and – from a transport perspective – has good access to public transport. For example, there seems to be a huge amount of existing capacity in the former Waitakere City Council area – even though much of that area has relatively poor public transport access. There’s also quite a lot of existing development capacity around Howick, another area with pretty poor transport access.
The extent of this existing capacity is really highlighted when you look at the numbers and break them down by Local Board:
As I said earlier, while much of this potential capacity is unlikely to ever be utilised (for example on Great Barrier Island or the unlikely subdivision of large residential sites with swimming pools in Remuera), I think most people will be fairly surprised to see the extent to which their areas could intensify under the existing planning rules.
While a similar modelling exercise has not yet been done for the Unitary Plan – and may take some time as I suspect the goal is to focus on analysing what’s in the notified version of the Plan, there has been a comparison undertaken between the existing capacity and the level of growth for each Local Board area that the Auckland Plan envisaged as being required to reach the “70/40” target (with a 10% wriggle room for more or less intensification). This comparison highlights some fascinating results:
You can see that in 10 out of the 21 Local Boards (Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipatiki, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Waiheke, Waitakere Ranges and Whau) the amount of existing “redevelopment capacity” is actually greater than the area’s share of the planned growth in the Auckland Plan. In other words, if we ignore the need to “overzone” (required as not all places will ever redevelop) then in almost half of the local board areas we don’t actually need the Unitary Plan to provide additional capacity.
What’s critical to note is that these areas tend to be places with comparatively lower public transport access or areas where the market demand for intensification is likely to be relatively less. The places where existing capacity isn’t enough are the areas with good public transport access, inner areas where there’s likely to be market demand for more intensive dwelling types – oh, and the two rural local boards where the Auckland Plan proposes a stupidly high amount of sprawl. But let’s set those aside for now.
The key takeaway point of this study, in my opinion, is that the key job for the Unitary Plan is more around ensuring the right areas are upzoned, rather than ensuring all areas become upzoned to allow more development. In many parts of Auckland the existing plans provide a surprisingly high amount of capacity – and perhaps the need for the Unitary Plan to change things very much in these areas is minimal. However, it is clear that current plans often seem to have additional spare capacity in the wrong places and therefore it is critically important for the Unitary Plan to be successful in upzoning areas within Local Boards such as Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna and Maungakiekie-Tamaki: inner areas with good public transport access and a likely strong market for intensification.
The point is that many of these place are less likely to see that much increased intensity because of a lack of demand in these areas, including new much further out new sprawl-burbs.
In other words, we shouldn’t care too much about raising height limits in Howick Village but we should make damn sure they’re raised in Morningside and Onehunga.
There is a further issue that needs a lot more analysis too; how much will the sweeping do-not-touch-anything-pre-1944 Heritage Overlay actually trump the up-zoning in practice in these very areas; the older places like Onehunga and Morningside?
Processing...
One failing I see about building capacity in the right places is the zoning around train stations. I think the plan is a bit soft at the moment. The current plan seems to only allow for density within a 2 minute walk from the station. I think another zone should be created specific to train stations that allows for more 3 story terraced housing within a 5 minute walk or say 500m radius from the stations. This zone is similar to what the old waitakere city council had.
I note in west Auckland there are plenty of 1000m sections within 5 minutes from train stations that could be better utilised as 4 to 5 3-story townhouses instead of just 3 2-story houses.i think even if developers bought multiple sections in the mixed zone they are still limited by height to 2 stories. This all seems to limiting for the next 20 years and also takes away developing from “mum and dad” developers.
I think they have focussed on sites that are both close to rapid transit stations and a neighbourhood centre. Some of those are extensive.
Perhaps they should zone in a little patch of mixed use commercial next to every station that doesn’t already have it.
Yepp agree that most development should be around town centres and for more commercial around other train stations. But still think the development around places like Henderson, glen Eden are still just too limited to just a block away (2 minute walks).
I agree, and their own research shows that people are already walking at lot further for an inferior ride and service, several conclusions; all Transit involves some amount of walking and some are choosing that for its own benefits, some are walking because the service is, to them, worth it, ie better than alternatives. With the step change in vehicle quality, frequency, speed, and destination options we can expect more to be happy to walk further than 2mins to use it.
We should be developing up and over the Henderson Station. The potential is huge. Also, relocate Avondale Primary to the race course land and redevelop the entire Avondale town centre and enclose the station. The UP, the ITP and the Auckland Plan do not think big enough in some areas and too much in others. I mean for all the debate around Milford and St Helliers, the potential in other areas is massive including Onehunga.
Not to mention the huge land waste at Smales Farm or even around Akoranga. Think big, think PT, think connecting. Heck, Pukekohe is going to be kept as low density for the major portion. Why not allow Terrace housing and low rise apartments around the train station?
That is a bloody good point Bryce.
No matter how much we look at St Heliers or Milford, they will never have the potential of a true transit area like Henderson or New Lynn to absorb heaps of people and jobs. And really what would you be losing in those areas? They arent exactly pleasant town centres now with all the roads going everywhere. Those areas could become really exciting and accessible with an actual reason to visit. Why would I now go to Avondale or Henderson even if there was a good train service?
In saying that, for exactly the same reason, how much real high level intensification will the market demand in places like St Heliers or Milford? I wouldnt think much beyond the apartments on top of the already existing mall.
Agree. Most the southern train line has limited development to me eg. Not much housing development potential seems to be happening around otahuhu station.
These train station surrounding areas should be developed as destinations to travel to in their own right not just treating the CBd as the only travel destination by train.
A quick drive around Milford and St Helliers (well the bays) and a visit to google earth shows that both areas already have a pretty good amount of either infill housing, 70’s style flats or terrace houses.
I agree there is big potential in other areas, but the potential in Milford and other NS bays is pretty big. There is a lot of demand for morning sun over Rangi, and the ability to take a walk on a beach from your front door. You could build 10 stores from Castor Bay to Belmont, and flog the lot without raising a sweat.
Ah Swan, you see that’s less about accommodating people, more about getting a great return. The UP doesn’t have these areas set for 10 story buildings anyway, with the exception of Takapuna. Don’t want a Gold Coast along the waterfront thanks – and I don’t live there.
Is there a difference Bryce P? The better the return, the stronger the demand and the greater the value created.
I believe there is. I thought the goal was about how do we fit more people into Auckland, not creating high demand properties. If that were the goal then there would be a plan for the PT network to closely follow the coast to move everyone.
Was interested in reading these comments. I’m also disappointed in the decreasing of density around train station. I bought a section in the old waitakere council density zones with the view to develop it in the future but now find out the current plan has reduced the density and i can’t do what I planned. Crazy.
Crazy indeed Tom. I hope you are making a submission.
“The study also assumes that development will comply with the development controls (like height, driveway widths etc.) and only the lowest level of resource consent for an activity is used (i.e. densities that are permitted activities or whatever the easiest consent to get is if nothing is permitted).” – I would wager that without this assumption (which I think would be very difficult to achieve in many circumstances) a large chunk of that red on the map would disappear. The report should probably also note in its assumptions that NIMBYs don’t exist.
Er? not sure I get your point, the study has taken the most conservative reading of the possibilities, therefore in practice higher densities are probable, no?
“…only the lowest level of resource consent for an activity is used (i.e. densities that are permitted activities or whatever the easiest consent to get is if nothing is permitted).”
No, I don’t think that’s right.
I think what SDW is saying is the assumption is that the sites are viable for development using the lowest level of consent but that might not be a valid assumption.
For example many of those sites may not be feasible to develop without applying for resource consent above the lowest level (none).
e.g a site that simply meets the density requirements may require extensive earthworks or a concession to the height/boundary rules to fit another dwelling in which would require a higher level of signoff.
I agree with SDW and GTP. This has to be a desktop study, which doesn’t invalidate it, but it should be treated with caution. I’ve spent many years in utility planning and I’ll tell you for free, what works on paper doesn’t necessarily work in the real world. The trick is to do a first cut, then GOYA and go take a look. In recent years Mr Google has reduced some of that legwork I’m pleased to say.
That said, Patrick has correctly identified that there’s a lot of capacity available in existing areas if a developer is willing to take the risk and council is prepared to streamline the bureaucracy. So far there’s no sign of the latter happening unfortunately.
Fair point
To comment a little further… I live in what I think would be called a brownfields development, and love it. Close to motorways, PT and retail! A developer took a risk and did very well out of it, but he faced a lot of opposition (not from NIMBYs, but from bureaucrats). Some sites he built on himself, others were sold as vacant land and now contain bespoke townhouses or terraced houses. A true mixed development.
So I certainly have no objection to intensification provided it’s sympathetic to its neighbours. Harking back to the Onehunga project, the 3-storey option wasn’t a good look there considering the existing built environment. My 3-storey townhouse with a maximum height of 9.75 m (pitched roof) would be unsuitable in some environments, but works well here due to the location and topography. (But I would say that, wouldn’t I?).
I think this may remain a key issue with the UP – as all significant development requires resource consent. If publicly notified it may mean the UP isn’t going to be the panacea we hope it will be.
All subdivision, even building on your back garden requires a resource consent. Remember most consents are granted. I have never managed even a renovation without having to get a resource consent, fairly routine, although a hassle and expensive, but just a cost of big city living.
Exactly Patrick, plus the majority of infrastructure costs. I’ve previously mentioned an infill housing project I was involved with where a substantial upfront cost was carrying out sewer separation at no cost to council. Where I now live the developer provided all the new infrastructure which was of course reflected in the land price (maybe not Telecom but water, SW, SS, power, roads), which were then handed over to council or Vector except for a few private roads. I have no problem with this which is of course the norm, despite those who claim that council (and thereby existing ratepayers) are subsidising new developments.
Swan, while I share your concern, in my experience it’s not too difficult to obtain non-notified resource consent. The trick is to (a) talk to any neighbours who might be affected and even get them to sign off your plans, and (b) have a pre-lodgement meeting (or two or three) with council officers, ie take a no-surprises approach. It sounds as though the Onehunga developer has done or is doing this.
Yes, I am not sure if it is an issue or not, however the current district plans operate differently when it comes to land use – the intended development activities are generally permitted. I have also heard that public notification is going to be far more likely under the UP. Not sure if the two go together (haven’t been bothered to look into it more deeply).
“The results report emphasises that the purpose of the project is not to analyse the likelihood of redevelopment occurring, but rather…”
And there is the heart of many aspects of what is going wrong with the Unitary Plan right now.
It’s no use talking about theoretical capacity if the reality is that development is not happening under the provisions of a plan- whether because of development viability or the settled pattern of residents who just want to stay put.
What would be more valuable is to study the differences, over time, between zoning allocations and the reality of development in existing areas, and to analyse the data and related market dynamics to inform how future zoning should be applied.
Some Canadian cities studied the correlations between property age/type and neighbourhood demographics to target where and when to upzone in a way that would trigger substantial market response. Good stuff that led to results, and sensitive to the behaviour and changing needs of the population. The UP is a market intervention and community tool, and should recognise this in a more sophisticated way.
Just like jonno1 says, GOYA definitely matters as well. I looked at the maps associated with the study- sites near me counted as having capacity included greenways purchased by the ex-WCC as part of the Twin Streams project. D’oh.
There is a lot of rather mediocre housing in places like Panmure that the UP still zones for single dwellings. Not 2 mins walk to a station, but less than 10 mins on a bike. These stations (especially GI) are very close to the city, so deserve bigger high density zones
I find it highly ammusing that you write about how the people of Auckland all of a sudden have grey hairs about the type of upzoning in the unitary plan. I remember when you boys were writing posts last year like Auckland has spoken, intensification is coming haha. Oh my how your views have changed. The facts are what they are, Len Brown is going to be voted out because he has developed a plan of which about 15% of Aucklanders actually want. Not only that but he has spent millions doing it.
If you want real change how about cutting development contributions, the real reason why owners colored red above haven’t subdivided, it’s almost $40k including consents and contributions before you even get to hammer a nail. What a joke.
A had friend explain to me that in the 1980’s a house to build in Massey cost $18k, of course rates here a lot higher but today that same house is worth $400k. That is a build cost of $8k in 1980 which now costs over $200k to build the same thing. The way he told the story was like a comedian telling a great joke. “They Built it for $8k and tried to charge me $16k for the property, it was like day light robbery, I tell them I wasn’t going to pay double but in the end I felt the costs were justified”.
We need to wake up to the fact our council has had their hand in the cookie jar inflating prices far greater than current inflation levels. With cheaper development will come cheaper housing.
Where have you been living.
The only people I see who don’t like the UP are the clowns at the local town meetings.
If LB gets voted out I’ll eat my hat.
I think it is very unlikely Len Brown will be voted out, but we’ll see how people actually think and what they will vote for.
Well someone’s got to run against him for a start…. No one sticking their hand up yet, hard to lose a one horse race. Would have thought if his policies were that unpopular there’d be a queue forming…..?
I hear that John Minto intends to stick his hand up – perhaps Len is sponsoring him. Unfortunately “the right” is in disarray in local government, just as “the left” is in disarray in parliament, whereas at both levels a strong opposition is ideally needed for balance. Currently that’s just not happening. To be fair, Len seems to have mellowed a bit, ie is growing into the job.
1. Just because a lot of (overwhelming older) people are turning up to meetings doesnt mean that there is any majority opposition. There might be and I guess we will find out in the next elections, but those meetings are hardly indicative. What young person (i.e. under 50) has the time or inclination to sit in a meeting and argue with baby boomers. We all have jobs, families etc to deal with.
2. I agree development contributions are making subdivisions expensive. I am a lawyer and see it all the time and hear my developer clients complain all the time. However, if we scrap/lower the development contributions then who pays for the new sewer, electric gas upgrades required? Who pays for the roading or PT upgrades in that area to provide the services everyone wants? The council doesnt just take those development contributionsand have a big party with it.
I know who developers want to pay – tax/rate payers so they can make more money.
Do you have any constructive suggestions where that money will come from?
I never really heard anyone complaining about these contributions in 2004-2008 boom years, when any monkey with some capital could make money on property with their eyes closed. However when the crunch came in 2008 and these guys actually had to be businessmen to make a profit, something they had no idea about, the bleating began about big, bad government and how they were being screwed.
Well put. It doesn’t help that the small chunk of supporters who turn up to meetings get totally silenced.
To comment on your points goosoid:
1. Goodness knows why oldies would bother to turn up at the meetings you speak of, I certainly wouldn’t waste my time. What baby boomer has the time or inclination to argue with smart-alec youngsters? We’re too busy either running businesses that employ the young ones, or enjoying the fruits of our labours (and loins).
2. How many times have we been over this infrastructure argument? The developer pays for everything within the development, while the “development contribution” goes who knows where? For a start, the electricity/gas/telecoms lines companies, not council, pay for upstream reinforcements which are matched to the increased demand. And when council reinforces water upstream or SW and SS downstream they’re well covered by user charges too.
Do you think there would actually be any developers (or developer’s lawyers) if they didn’t occasionally make some profit? Of course not. And no, I’m not a developer, although I’ve done some small developments for fun but unfortunately not for profit (so I’m not even as competent as a closed-eyed monkey). If the development contributions were ring-fenced exclusively for purposes relevant to the developments then you might see more willing acceptance of them.
“If the development contributions were ring-fenced exclusively for purposes relevant to the developments then you might see more willing acceptance of them.”
That is a very good statement. After all, every step of the way through the consent process, you are hit with fee upon fee so where does the extra cash go? If the whole process and the fees were transparent then I for one would be a lot more comfortable with the process. Even if the fees were itemised – ie. a percentage goes toward PT provisions etc.
And I’m hardly an oldie at 42 but I am struggling to find time to do bugger all at the moment and am just about to embark on a 6 week film shoot that will leave me with even less time. I know I’ll be working when my local UP forum is on. Isn’t life supposed to get easier?
Can you see any young smart alecs in the audience at those meetings? Maybe you cant but plenty of other baby boomers can make it along and make sure nothing chnages. What happened to the 60’s/70’s “we can change the world”. Now it is “we can stop the world changing”! John Lennon must be rolling in his grave.
I am a commercial/corporate lawyer, you think I dont understand making a profit or the development process? How many large subdivisions or commercial property projects have you been involved in? I have been involved in a lot in my 9 year career. So dont suggest that I am attacking developers for making a profit – but they are also business men (well in theory) and they need to make a profit within the cost structure of their sector. If they cant, then move aside for the next guy to have a go because (smart) people are making money within the existing cost structures. That is called free enterprise.
Yes developers pay for the upgrades on their land, of course. My point is that most developers think they should be able to put as many buildings as possible on to land and plug into the local system at no cost. Of course if more people go into an area you need upgrades to everything – sewer, electricity/gas infrastructure, roads, parks, schools, hospitals, fire stations, and (dare I say it) public transport. None of that is on the developer’s land but it is all affected directly.
Who pays for all that? The tax payer so that the developer can make a bigger (not no, but bigger) profit? I suggest not.
If you want transparency then look at the annual accounts of the Council.
Actually goosoid I have been to one public meeting which was about the Sarawia St crossing (nothing to do with the UP of course, but the same principle of trying to sell change). The “smartest guy in the room” was the AT presenter and his performance was sub-optimal to say the least. So much so that I almost felt sorry for him – don’t junior/middle managers get any PR or presentation training these days? It was pretty clear that AT favoured the cheapest option as distinct from the best option. But you’re right now that I think about it – most of the audience comprised oldies because of course they are the property owners most affected by the proposals. In that particular case I fully support closure of the crossing for safety reasons, and while none of the three options affect me personally it’s not rocket science to figure out which is the right one.
I have no doubt that you understand the development process, but your previous post didn’t make that entirely clear, and you’ve repeated the utility error. All the council/government costs are community-wide issues commensurate with population growth; they’re not the responsibility of individual developers or householders, any more than the CRL would be. We’re fortunate in Auckland to have sufficient critical mass that these infrastructural costs can be absorbed – imagine what it’s like for indebted provincial towns with falling populations.
As for my involvement in large subdivisions and commercial property projects, sorry, I’ve lost count so can’t help you there!
Well yes of course all the older people are the “property owners most affected by the proposals”. They were the only ones alive when the property in that area was even vaguely affordable.
That is the point I am making. The areas that are bleating the hardest are nice areas that young families would love to raise families in, just like all the baby boomers (born 1945-1964) trying to stop development were able to do. However, the city is much more populous now and in order to allow the same families into the area it weill have to more intense in the housing. But now the baby boomers want to deny those opportunities to young fanmilies so they can see out their retirement in small “villages”.
What happened to the generations that sacrificed everything for the next generation, like the generations born pre-war? I know it is hard to sit back and be objective on these things but for me as a generation X (born 1965-1984) – that is what I see. I fear for the generation Y. God knows what they will do – inherit off the baby boomers?
You are right on development contributions, I got a bit carried away there. They dont deal wuth utilities, of course, as separate connection fees are paid. I believe it is based on waste and storm water connections as well as roads, PT and other community costs.
And yes transparency would be good but then you drive up the admin costs of the Council leading to higher operating costs and less value delivered.
My point more is that every dollar not paid by a developer isnt suddenly not needed. That dollar will need to come from someone, usually the rate payers. There are plenty of developers out there making money from development. In my experience those are the guys listening to their advisors (!) and trying to do things in an open and innovative way.
The guys who fail are normally just cowboys who want to do cookie cutter developments on greenfield land using a template that is 30 years old. I also think the days of small independent developers are dwindling as you need some critical mass and standardisation to make money when the building costs are so high. Much more critical is the rort on building materials in NZ and the Council cant be blamed for that.
Capacity for growth study does not appear very realistic. Most of the sites identified for development in my area are already utilised as schools etc. I doubt we will want to get rid of these with more kids arriving. Possibly the model just searched for green areas?
I saw this really interesting article on interest.co.nz:
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/64020/opinion-historical-figures-actually-suggest-current-surge-auckland-house-prices-repres
This is a kind of Freakonomics analysis, divorced of political ideology and just looking at the facts and figures. I suggest what it really shows is that the problem is not so much in the growth of house prices in NZ but the low growth of wages in NZ that hasnt matched the growth of property prices anywhere but particularly in Auckland. Of course, this doesnt really help young families looking to buy a first home but it does put things into some perspective. Also shows how low our house prices were as relatively recently as 2001.
I also had an interesting conversation yesterday at a seminar I was presenting at with a senior guy from Colliers in Auckland. He was discussing what investors should look for in an area where they are looking to buy property and specifically mentioned public transport as a a factor to consider.
I asked him whether he thought investing in the metropolitan centres on the rail network was a good idea and he said for him it was a no brainer. He was very bullish about the CRL and said it will have to be built whether the government like it or not. He is a European and said he is always really surprised that even young NZers dont seem to see the potential development benefits of the CRL.
Being a European, I guess he is not blinkered by the decades of anti-transit propaganda that Aucklanders have been subjected to and so perhaps has a more open viewpoint. Still interesting stuff from a guy who is hardly on the lefty fringes of the issue.