I’m not sure whether it is driven out of selfishness or just a sheer lack of understanding but the opposition and reporting of the unitary plan now seems to be bordering on lunacy. Almost the entire concern about the unitary plan so far seems to have been in relation to height limits. First the focus was around the heights of apartments but opponents of the plan have now moved on to the height limits in the mixed housing zone. For these opponents even three stories seems to be scary so thanks to Google, I went for a look around some of their neighbourhood and look at what I found:
Looking around a few other suburbs we also have.
In all it took me only about 5-10 minutes to find these 3 storey houses and interestingly none of which appeared as if they were out of place in their local environment. Yet somehow try to build something the same height but as a group of terraced houses, or apartments and the development seems to become evil (some are taken from Trademe listings).
and
The same height limits that allow for the large houses in the first sets of photos are the ones that affect many of the terraced houses and apartments in the second set of photos.
But I wonder if these people actually realise what the existing height limits are? I suspect they don’t so I went and had a look. Here are the limits in residential areas for the former North Shore City Council:
16.6.1.2 Maximum Height
a) Residential 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 zones: 8 metres.
b) Residential 6 zone:i) Intensive Housing on sites exceeding 1500m²: 9 metres.
ii) All other activities: 8 metres.c) Special Height Restrictions:
i) RNZAF Airbases – refer to Rule 14.10.1.
ii) Mount Victoria and North Head – refer to Rule 8.4.3 and Rule 8.4.4.
iii) Dairy Flat Airfield – refer to District Plan Map 3.
iv) 94, 96 and 98 Mokoia Road (Lots 6, 7 and 8 DP 12148) – 9 metres.Control Flexibility
By means of a Limited Discretionary activity application:
a) Residential 1, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5 and 7 zones: Up to 9 metres.
b) Residential 6 zone:i) Intensive Housing: Up to 10 metres.
ii) All other activities: Up to 9 metres.c) Residential 2A zone: Up to 11 metres.
Most properties on the shore sit under residential zone 4a so have a height limit of 8 metres with council officers having discretion to increase that to 9 metres. Seeing as in the unitary plan the mixed housing zone is the most common, what does it say about height?
Part 4 Rules»4.3 Zone rules»4.3.1 Residential zones»4. Development controls»4.3 Mixed Housing zone»4.3.1 Building height
Purpose: manage the scale of buildings to generally maintain the low-rise suburban residential character of the zone (two to three storeys).1. Buildings must not exceed 8m in height.
So it is 8m as well or in other words for the majority of people on the shore, there is actually no change to height limits at all. Not that the scaremongers like Wood, Quax, Brewer and a host of local board members would tell you that. Unfortunately they have been assisted by the hopeless attempts at comms by the council. We said very early on that effort should have been put into showing what was allowed under current rules vs. what is proposed. For most people this would have shown that there was actually no change at all and therefore nothing to worry about which is a point that Brian Rudman also highlighted a few days ago.
Processing...
Just wait till the Herald finds out there’s currently no height limit in New Lynn or Henderson.
Or technically Manukau and parts of Takapuna 😛
Thanks for the post though Matt. Saves me having to bang my head against the wall after 10 days of Mixed Housing and subsequent 3-storey houses and Walk Up apartment commentary… 😀
does this imply that the people objecting to the 3 storey height limits, such as Auckland2040 are a bunch of uninformed snobs who don’t even know what currently exists in their own neighbourhoods?
yes
The Objectives and Policies clearly say that the Mixed Housing Zone is 2 stories. This means that developments that are fully 3 stories will not be looked upon favourably, and exceeding 8m is a matter of exception rather than rule. The 10m just comes from talking about notification, and there isn’t an obvious rule change at 10m.
The first houses were on sloping land where there is an average level struck. The second lot look as though they were in Albany on Res 8 (intensive development) Mixed zoning covers 49% of Auckland’s residential area – 10m as of right on 1200m of land with minimum size of apartments 30m – no neighbour’s consent.
No none are from Albany and most are on flat ground. It is also not 10m as of right and you should know that being a local board member. But seeing as you are one of the ones spreading lies I don’t expect you to be honest.
Oh and please use your real name
Priceless.
well done Matt!
Frankly, Jan O’Connor, it is inexplicable and troubling that you, as an elected representative, would hide behind an alias on a public forum discussing Council issues. Then that you are spreading misinformation while doing so is simply shameful… there is clearly something very very wrong with your clique on the North Shore.
shall we send this to the North Shore Times or similar?
Please do, how cowardly are you that you cannot stand up for your own comments. Only because she know that she is talking a load of rubbish.
Why should we limit the minimum size of properties? Are people not capable of deciding what size dwelling they want to live in for themselves? Why are you guys so paternalistic and illiberal?
Absolutely – I have seen some great houses in Europe that are on 200sqm. A 2-3 storey house of 200sqm (with a small garage) and a 100sqm outdoor area. No wasted space at the front or side. As you say Swan, why does anyone have the right to say how small my house is? Height I can understand because of sun and shade, but less than 4 stories – why are there any restrictions?
More and more I want to see all restrictions lifted including the RUB. This government is always saying that the market can decide best, well lets see it do that – it has never had a chance in Auckland as we have had controls for a long time.
I’ve seen some great houses in Wellington on 200sqm, and there’s a few in Auckland if you look hard enough (and have piles of cash – they’re all heritage, of course).
But here’s the thing – houses on small lots like that (or even smaller) are often allowed right now, and they’ll be common under the UP. The only problem, is that they have to be unit title, with the body corp paying for the cost of driveways accessing all the units. So we end up with a big, insular, disconnected and sterile gated development. If we allowed smaller fee simple subdivision, with public through streets vested in the council instead of a shared driveway, we’d end up with a much nicer environment, and potentially we could have houses with some more individuality.
It can be a similarly efficient use of space, if we could use small (~5m) shared spaces (a.k.a. Really Narrow Streets) to access the houses. If none of the houses have parking, it could even be pedestrianised!
Exactly! It all comes back to parking. That subject that the Herald is mind numbingly daft about. Small fee simple sites with no parking are fantastic for some. But inconceivable to those still lost in the mire of auto-dependancy.
Even if we have parking, it doesn’t have to destroy the city. Shared spaces are exactly the compromise that lets us keep cars without letting them take over, and a 200sqm lot is easily enough for a two or three-storey terraced house, with a ground-floor single garage.
If you get rid of the parking, though, hoo boy do you have options. You can subdivide down to maybe 60sqm, with a thick grid of small pedestrian-only streets, and have every lot on a corner. Dual aspect, even with 100% site coverage. Sounds like hell on earth to the Auckland 2040 crowd, but in reality people will pay thousands just to fly there and visit something like that for a few days:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lily_may/1427360810/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/abdielfaith/1631411651/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbaggaley/6293796187/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajk/112190579/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gudaev/6764158459/ (yup, that’s a rubbish bin)
Some great photos there. I used to live in Prague and one of the great pleasures was juts wandering through the streets. For me Prague is a great example of what can be done with the right political will. The Communists built an incredible underground system that is still working so well until today. Prague has the highest per capita use of a metro system in the world – and that by a political and economic system that we are told was bankrupt.
It constantly amuses me how NZers (especially older NZers) can go overseas and rave about small narrow streets in Europe but then come back and declare it just cant work in NZ. What the hell is so special and different about NZ? Nothing as far as I can see other than our own determination not to embrace change.
I still think the main issue will be transport (luckily for a transport blog). Regardless of what the planning rules are, if we dont build a good PT/cycling system and just build more roads, good quality intensification just wont happen. The two (PT/quality intensification) are inextricably linked as are motorways and sprawl.
I agree. I would love to be able to buy (if I had the money) a small freehold section (i.e. between 150 – 200m2) and build my own terraced house on it. Typical terraces in Auckland repeat themselves 20 – 40 + times over and it is so dull. I don’t like the McMansion style home that seems to nearly fill the whole lot. However people get to build that way if they choose, why can’t I also build in the way I choose? The current minimum 300m2 is still too big.
Ana, Vinegar lane in Ponsonby is in that vein, and it sold most units within a few days of going on the market.
http://vinegarlane.co.nz/
The only thing I thought was a bit strange was it results in neighbours both building an adjoining wall with a small gap- seems a cost and energy waste, but I guess that gives more flexibility, and the lack of sameness you’re after.
They were expensive, but hey, it’s commercial land in one of the highest demand areas of NZ. If only more developments could be done like this on brownfields sites near Railway stations (and sans attached supermarket) it would be great.
Hi Matt,
Remuera Road has a lot of 3 story houses / apartment buildings that you could post photos of.
Here are a couple of examples.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=444+Remuera+Road,+Auckland,+New+Zealand&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=-36.880778,174.800048&cbp=13,24.4,0,0,0&cbll=-36.880906,174.799975&hl=en&ved=0CAoQ2wU&sa=X&ei=PsOZUdusK8WdiQKkuIDADQ
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=98+Remuera+Road,+Auckland,+New+Zealand&layer=c&z=17&iwloc=A&sll=-36.873008,174.782030&cbp=13,37.1,0,0,0&cbll=-36.873228,174.781822&hl=en&ved=0CAoQ2wU&sa=X&ei=NMSZUcP8JpO0iALz_4BQ
Haha, and I had finally got round to putting my photos together for a similar post.. although they aren’t all 3 storeys like that. Mine are more about existing medium to high density in heritage areas…
I know of one Local Board Member who is proud to use his name here. Also, a potential one!
Great to see Jan O’Connor outed.
This is even funnier when read alongside an earlier comment from Jan O’Connor (wrongly) attacking someone else for hiding behind a nickname on this very blog (here). The nickname she objected to? Stu Donovan.
A big problem why there is so much scaremongering is you’re dealing with people who aren’t planners or in the building industry. Trying to inform these people must be near on impossible for the council. All they see is the sensational headlines and believe them as facts not more misinformation. Most the dire scenarios they dream up are highly unlikely.
So is it the height that is the limit, now and proposed in the Unitary plan, and not the number of floors?
Interesting enough I am in a Orange zone- I think 4 story limit – our house and our neighbours are three at the moment!!
There is both, 8m and a max of 2 storeys in both unless you apply under more stringent conditions for higher.
You’re doing bloody great work Matt et al, please keep it up. This is quickly becoming the most important, considered, rational blog in the country, and refreshingly free from spin.
Thanks
Yup.
For contrast you could always take a look at the Auckland 2040 website. How much misinformation and scaremongering can they pull together?
Tea Party. Our own local version.
Its very bizzare that website. What they ask for is almost exactly what the plan is doing. Transportblog could of written a post saying the same thing, ie “Focusing intensification into localities well served by roading, infrastructure and public transport.” The plan mostly does that ffs.
Luckily their submission form is just as dull and stupid, so the council can just easily bat them away saying that they are doing those things already.
http://auckland2040.org.nz/downloads/generic_feedback.pdf
Very worrying to see a local board member faking an alias.
I guess it’s politics but it is a shame the debate is being closed down by politicians hoping to get easy votes by scaring people. Out in our many Kaipatiki consultations in parks & markets etc many people are actually quite happy with a lot of the plan & many see there has to be an alternative to sprawling forever and sending future generations to the city limits or overseas. It’s sad that those opposing for political reasons aren’t putting up any alternative solutions. Also seem to ignore the fact that this is the first time council has asked for pre-draft submissions.
Do you mean that a Local Board Member is using my name? That is outrageous Matt L
There are two plausible scenarios to explain what has happened here today:
1) Jan O’Connor has chosen to use the pseudonym “Kate” to spread misinformation about the Unitary Plan. Jan’s cover was subsequently blown, however, when she chose to log in with her real council email address; or
2) Kate has logged in under her real name, but then chosen to use Jan O’Connor’s email address.
On the balance of probabilities, I’m picking scenario #1 is more likely.
Given the details around the second comment, I think the scales are very heavily in favour of #1
Well that’s answered the “how did you know” question. Although e-mail address is just free text.
It could have been me using option 2. If only I knew who she was or what her email address was.
it could have been anyone. But it’s rather telling that neither Kate and/nor Jan O’Connor are providing us with any answers!
Outing someone on the basis of an unvalidated email address seems a tad unethical to me. In fact, outing at all without prior discussion with the other party seems odd, given that the address field can be spoofed. Even a quick check of the IP address would be a start, as (in this example) Council would have a static address. Then all it would take is an email to that address seeking confirmation (or otherwise) that that person was the sender, and as an interested party should disclose their interest. I couldn’t, however, see anything controversial in Kate’s comment.
I use an email address that is real but is reserved for blogs and online purchases, which means if I am spammed I have some idea of the source, and can abandon that address. But if the blog administrators want my full name and address, I have no problem with that subject to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
Except that Jan O’Conner has form for this sort of internet idiocy, doing the same thing on Cameron Slaters site back in 2009 – http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2009/10/liar-liar-pants-on-fire-cr-oconnor/ (sorry I had to link to that site).
I am not sure what to make of an elected official having teh stupidz so much as to make the same n00b mistake… Twice. She isn’t welcome in my World of Tanks company, that’s for sure.
Fair enough Sanctuary, however my point was that one unethical act doesn’t justify another, otherwise – well, you know where that leads. There are other ways of quietly dealing with problem commenters. I have no idea of or interest in who the person is anyway.
Jonno we have asked people use their real names, but respect that not all wish to, however in this case we have an elected representative actively spreading misinformation which is a great outrage and if we find that sort of behaviour on our blog we will out it.
What parts of the 3 points she raised were misinformation, just so we all know.
Cheers.
The parts that were misinformation where he claim that these were all on sloping sites, that they were in areas zoned for intensification and and the key one being that a developer can build to 10m as of right if they have over 1200m2
But most of them were on sloped sections and they most likely were in or right next to areas zoned for intensification.
Lol.
Seriously? ‘I can look at a place and know exactly the zoning is’
As superpowers go, it’s pretty lame.
Welcome to 2013. This is internet. We know. We are informed. Now step aside, please.
Well that was amusing with elected reps using fake names… Tsk Tsk
At the matter at hand I did note this on Facebook tonight
I am going through the Legacy District Plans and see 3 storey super large houses (5-8 bedrooms) and some 3 storey walk up apartments are ALREADY allowed in some if not most Mixed Housing Zone areas in the UP. Essentially no change. So the issue is?
It was followed up from someone else with:
Ben, you are spot on. Over here on the Shore, the “opposers” are complaining about 6 storeys in Glenfield. But you can practically do that now in some areas surrounding the Glenfield town centre. The issue is no developer wants to because it’s not economic. But that’s not why they are opposing it. It’s all quite shameless politicking without any responsible thought given to future growth. It’s highly irresponsible. I think there is a bias toward brownfield development, but some arguments I am hearing opposing intensification are completely illogical and downright dumb.
I believe myself and ATB have touched on this in our own ways but the UP in some regards is keeping the legacy of the District Plans going – just in one single document not 14…
So we have something already allowed, something (being in a mixed housing zone myself) that allows me to take up in 10 years by purchasing the property next door to me and building a three storey house and something I must be missing here?
I think it is time to call it a night for me.
Back tomorrow
🙂
http://www.kiwianarama.co.nz/quarter-acre-dreaming/
Nailed it!
Thanks Frank, that site has more than a few gems:
http://www.kiwianarama.co.nz/hating-auckland/#more-328
http://www.kiwianarama.co.nz/the-flat-white/
And with spot on timing The Herald writes it’s own satire: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10884980
Hamilton: South South Auckland
Classic – that rolling cycle is like clockwork!
And the hits just keep on coming:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10884996
Think they need to add a newspaper section 🙂
http://www.kiwianarama.co.nz/dumb-news/
It turns out the slogan was prescient. “Hamilton: City of the Future [Planned Auckland Expansion]”
Property commentator Alistair Helm said it was normal that higher prices in Auckland were forcing some people to look out of the city centre and beyond. Commuting from Hamilton to Auckland didn’t make sense until a high-speed train was established linking the two cities but some buyers may be pre-empting things “and saying it’s going to happen one day so why don’t we jump the gun and buy a house now”.
High speed train, Good reason for keeping Eastern Transport Corridor in the Unitary Plan, it’s going to happen one day.
The problem is not three story terrace houses in groups or three story houses- It is the out of scale individual apartment or houses that goes right next to your one story house and garden that either blocks the sun creates a wind funnel and/ or looks right on to your outdoor deck lawn or living areas or into your inside living areas – How would you like to be in a single house IN THE MIDDLE of these blocks of houses- looking at blank walls 10 m high 4 m away – It is very interesting the way many planners like in a fantasy land of good design when most if not all of the examples we ordinary people experience in the real world are developers attempts to make the biggest bang for their buck by pushing the options to the limits and beyond – forcing us into expensive hearings to defend our communities ,challenging and defeating Council guides and controls in Court- Did I miss something when I read that the property Council defeated Councils and Auckland’s attempts to give greater protection to heritage and pre-1940s houses with character in our streets ?
John. There are boundary controls for these edge issues. But also some areas will change, as they always have for the entire history of this city. If the aim of the largely elderly crowds wound up by a few paranoid crazies is to prohibit all change then they will be sorely disappointed. The discussion should be about the quality of the change. It is frankly wrong, a lie actually to describe the 2 to 3 story Mixed House zone as ‘multi-story high-rise’. It is neither. So that leaves on 7% of the city up zoned to anything like that description, mostly places that already have higher limits allowable anyway…. This issue suffers from terrible exaggeration.
John, I would appreciate a response to Patrick’s comment. He makes the (reasonable) point that building setbacks should manage the boundary issues you raise? Note also that the 10m will only be permitted subject to conditions on shading etc. Otherwise the limit is 8m.
The issue is that people like Jan, Peter, and Auckland2040* are deciding to privilege their narrow set of aesthetics over my ability to own a house. Their desire to see no change means that those who do not already have homes or high present or future incomes will be forced to make large compromises and sacrifices.
These include but are not limited to; affordability, location, transport time losses, housing size, foregone expenditure on other things I value (family, leisure, consumer items, etc), longer working hours, living in NZ (the lack of affordable and convenient housing will push people overseas. It’s already doing so, and I am losing friends to Australia), and lessened investment in the productive economy (far too much of our capital is locked up in the property market, where bank returns are higher and risks are lower). For people who think the words “three stories” are scary, this is good policy. For everyone else, it’s a disaster.
*Most of them will be long gone by then. Barring tragedy, I’ll still be very much around.
No doubt George D, it is hard to convince our generation even though they overwhelmingly agree that they are fine with apartment living and do NOT want urban sprawl, heck large large numbers of under 25s even under 30s do not have a private form of transport.
We are under represented and people who won’t even be around when Auckland faces these issues are crippling the city with their spin.
Absolutely classic! Come on – can’t you name and shame? Would love if the Herald or Stuff or any of those ‘news’ agencies reported on the truth from an angle like you guys do.
Ok, so that reply landed in the wrong place… Would be great if you could get FB integration so we could simply comment away without any disguises.
^ This would be good, would get the blog extra exposure popping up in Newsfeeds etc.
Pennny Hulse has just been allowed an editorial – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10884911
Awesome and so clear!
Will this placate the wingers – doubtfully, but it should make things clearer for the moderates.
I almost wet myself when I saw a balanced article.
hooray for the moderates. We need some more passionately moderate people in all of these debates …
I’m actually starting to comment on herald articles now…I think the comments need some balancing out.
The interface between Res1 zone (8.0M) and Mixed Use zone(16.5M) concerns me.
I do not see any evidence in the rules that provide buffering to sites with the lower height limit.
The 12.5 M overlay proposed along Ponsonby Rd gives some protection to adjoining residential sites in Town Centre zones.
It makes sense to have this overlay on Mixed Use where they adjoin Res1.
it is a worrying trend when people take some matters slightly but anyway who is there to follow up