With the submission period for the Unitary Plan drawing to a close, there seems to be one last push by opponents going on. Tomorrow we should have our submission guidelines up along with some easy things you can do to submit but before then I thought it would be worthwhile looking at a couple of the developments over the last few days.
TVNZ have done a two part series on the plan but as usual with our media, seem to skip some crucial details. Here is the first part.
Let’s be clear, the only way the old ladies vege patch will be killed off is if she decides to do it herself. No one is going develop her land unless she does it or unless she sells it. This is also featured as one of the key myths that the council set out to bust in this blog post.
Myth 1: Your house could be taken off you and be demolished to make way for terraced housing and apartments.
Fact: Nobody will be forced to change their way of living. Auckland Council does not have the power to take your property from you. Nothing will ever change on your property unless you as the property owner decide to renovate, build or sell.
There are a couple of other points that seem to need constant reminding in this debate:
- Just because there is a height limit, it doesn’t mean that buildings will actually be built that high, remember that many places have no height limits now and we don’t see skyscrapers popping up.
- Development will only happen if there is demand for it.
It was pleasing however to see that the local business association seeing the benefits. They obviously realise that more people mean more businesses and services can be supported in the town centre which can help improve the liveability of an area. Panmure is also going to be fairly important transport wise with the AMETI busway and new train station going through.
There is a typical bit of scaremongering though, most of the city could already end up with three storey buildings under the current plans by developers getting resource consent, this is exactly the same as what is proposed in the unitary plan. The one thing I do agree with though is that it will be imperative that we have good design.
Following that first segment, yesterday was part two.
So Phil McDermott thinks intensification will put pressure on aging infrastructure but sprawling north and south won’t? Is he suggesting that these new developments won’t hook into the existing transport, water and waste water systems? I love how he also claims that people like us, who just want people to have more choices in how they live, are somehow limiting peoples opportunities.
Next up we have David Thornton from the group No More Rates. He claims to be pushing for sprawl based developing towns along a High Speed Rail network from Whangarei to Hamilton. But it might sound nice, it is really just a brain eating zombie idea, a bit like the ones Stu highlighted a few weeks back. First such a network would be astronomically expensive and based on international experience could easily top $30 billion. That is way beyond the affordability of the nation and odd that a group campaigning against rates would propose such an idea. It also just seems like a way of pushing all development out of Auckland and into Northland or the Waikato. To take that much load, cities like Hamilton and Whangarei would probably need more than quadruple their populations bringing with it much more massive change to those communities than what is proposed in Auckland.
More than just a zombie idea, it is also a complete red herring. The No More Rates group have frequently campaigned against rail projects, especially the CRL like this example from March where they push for sprawl based on expanding the motorways.
Gridlock should not be used to justify Central Rail Link.
Yesterday’s traffic gridlock should be a catalyst for a wider debate on how Auckland plans to cope with population growth.
Mayor Len Brown’s total preoccupation with the Central Rail Link is blinding him to the real alternative of expanding land supply to cater for both population increases and the provision of affordable housing.
The draft Auckland Unitary Plan, due to be released on 16th March, clearly shows that removing the current metropolitan urban limits will provide development land for up to 40% of the estimated population growth over the next 20 years.
However this expansion is delayed for many years, presumably to allow concentration on building medium and high rise apartment blocks all around the region.
The Auckland Council should make expansion beyond the present Metropolitan urban limits its first priority, rather than plunging ratepayers into the danger zone of huge debt and horrendous rate increases in the years ahead to pay for a rail link that many believe is unnecessary and financially unsustainable.
A move away from ‘intensification’ in favour of greenfields development, and expansion of satellite towns, would support the already planned extension of the northern motorway and the early completion of the western by-pass.
Add in a mostly government funded additional harbour crossing, and a much less costly solution is there for the taking.
Ratepayers in particular would be wise to consider this plan as an alternative to the rail dominated proposals in the draft Unitary Plan.
The assertions in this press release are astounding. So the City Rail Link at $1.8 billion is too expensive but a $5 billion additional harbour crossing is cost effective. They previously objected to the Unitary plan based on what they claim are rail dominated proposals but now object to it because it sprawl using an even more expensive rail proposal?
As mentioned previously we will get our submission guide up tomorrow but if you don’t want to wait, make sure you get your feedback in as from what I’m hearing, the groups completely opposing it are submitting a lot of feedback.
Processing...
The main myth being widely regurgitated is that the Unitary Plan is mostly about building up, not out. What are those proportions again?
Yes I had to laugh at the No More Rates crowd: Arguing against the CRL on the grounds that it is not cost-effective ($1.8 billion) while advocating for us to accelerate the next Waitemata Harbour Crossing ($5 billion).
They try to suggest the next Harbour Crossing will not affect rates, because it’s wholly funded by NZTA. That line of reasoning, however, is monumentally stupid. As noted the other day, NZTA more or less redistribute fuel duties that are paid by Aucklanders into the NLTF. Yes some of “our” money is re-directed to pay for roads in less populated regions, while there’s also some year-to-year cashflow bumps in various regions depending on when projects are being constructed, but in the end what Auckland gets from the NZTA is more or less proportional to what we put in.
So if we (being Auckland and NZTA) decide to progress the next Harbour Crossing, then this will have to divert the amount of funds that are available for other projects in Auckland. In turn, Auckland will have either have to 1) forgo $5 billion of other transport projects or 2) increase council rates (or other revenue sources) to raise enough money plug the gap.
“No more rates” have no more credibility; someone needs to tell them you don’t get nothing for free – especially $5 billion highways.
Last I heard, if you want the full CRL you are looking at just under $3 billion. If you want it for less than that you need to start tacking out things like east facing connections and station.
For the harbour crossing, there is no reason why it should cost over $3 billion given its only 200m longer than the waterview tunnels and just as complex.
So anyway, both projects seem to be sitting in the same cost basket now that we have better information.
Given your cost difference was more than either project thats one big nit to be picked.
But yes, how its paid for makes little difference in terms of how cost effective they are. Unless your doing it through PPP with a high interest rate.
There are detailed posts here about the costings of both CRL and harbour tunnel.
The “$3b” CRL figure includes things like Onehunga line improvements, extra trainsets, and inflation that other projects are not quoted with. It suits opponents like the current govt to amp up the price.
The CRL itself is abut $1.8b and I suspect it will come down further yet, the quoted cost of a harbour tunnel were $5.3b last time I saw them. I can’t answer why there is such a big difference as I’m not an expert (although it may have something to do with the amount of work needed on either side of the tunnel). Yes the $1.8b for the CRL doesn’t include things like extra trains but similarly the AWHC doesn’t count in it the likely widening that would be needed further north of the project or upgrades to local roads to handle all of the extra traffic generated by such a project.
It also doesn’t include the extra trains that will be needed.
One thing the $1.8B cost for the CRL misses out is that almost $1B needs to be spent on property acquisition and mitigation.
Just by looking at the actual $1.4B cost for waterview shows that you would need to be doing something pretty crazy to spend 4 times that one a project thats only 10% longer.
No that costs includes land purchases which are estimated at around $231m
I guess I should have put the word “mitigation” in bold.
Adding to that however is thats its not really going to be a world class facility either operating on the limits of what heavy rail can handle.
That being said though, it will still be a cool project once its up and running.
I stumbled across a gardening problem on Choice TV on Friday that included a segment about someone who had a vege patch big enough for an entire family on a balcony of about 4 square metres. So I don’t think anyone needs to fear loosing their garden as a result of smaller properties.
George Wood says the North Shore ‘deserves’ the additional Harbour Crossing. 20% of the city ‘derserves’ 5billion spent on a project that will flood the city centre destructively with cars, reinforce auto-dependancy, and saddle future generations with debt.
Way to go old man.
I do agree on ‘high speed rail’ in that building the current line to cope with 180 km/h or so would be achievable at a reasonable price. Certainly nowhere near $30b. Other than that the arguments here against the UP are misinformed.
There’s a single track between Auckland and Tauranga, and Auckland and Northland. Laying in the double track for those and putting in electrification will be several billion dollars based on the costs of Project DART and electrification of Auckland’s network. That’s not including any realignment to cope with the much higher speeds, and remember that the routes to both Tauranga and Northland are through some very rugged country.
Remember that we can’t get the current government to even stump up a billion dollars in support of the Core Rail Link, so we can sure as hell forget them giving KiwiRail many billions of dollars to make inter-city rail vastly more attractive. The CRL actually has a business case, too!
Auckland to Hamilton is double track. Hamilton to Tauranga is single track with long passing loops. You don’t need any more than that to run a fast service (for very frequent yes, but not fast).
And high speed rail, or at least higher speed rail, doesn’t require electrification, doubling and changes to curves. Take QR’s diesel tilt train for example, that can do 160km/h on generally unimproved mainline narrow guage track. With that sort of top speed Auckland to Tauranga would be possible in about 2h15m with limited stops.
A “fairly high speed rail” project would cost in the low hundreds of millions.
If there is follow-through on the intent to have more freight by rail between Auckland and Tauranga, it pretty much needs to be double-track the whole way. You didn’t mention the state of the Northland line, either.
As for changes to curves, there’s a lot of Auckland’s rail network that is barely up to the 105km/h maximum of the new EMUs, never mind 160-ish km/h. It gets worse once you get onto the older lines outside the city.
Electrification may not be essential, but the OpEx of a bunch of high-end diesels (nothing we’ve got can do those kinds of speeds) would make the case for electrification in order to lower the ongoing costs. If you’re having to spend a heap of money on new kit you may as well completely future-proof things, especially since oil ain’t getting any cheaper.
Will any of the workers at the new ‘milk plant’ be able to afford brand new adjoining homes? I think not.
One thing that seems to be getting lost in this debate, is that the CBD centric cities around the world, are the ones that have the highest productivity, better high-wage employment opportunities etc. I think that needs to be pushed more!
Here is a link to a really cool Gen Zero easy and appealing UP feedback form for the time pressed:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5shX2v_pUjZSnQxWkNBbnNOdDg/edit?pli=1
And a longer version:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tqFeUuO5JW_sAK5NrqACub6muNwWqfSrgdpOEdryV94/edit?pli=1
It is after all the younger people that will be living with the decisions we make now.
The bad faith aspect of the opponents of the Unitary Plan has made me increasingly angry. The most depressing part of the whole unitary plan consultation process has been the utter refusal of it’s opponents to engage in any sort of good faith debate on the subject. No once have any opponents put up a single credible alternative argument. It is all zombie facts and wishful thinking, the Balkanised us-and-them mentality of old fuddy-duddies who are hoping that if they ignore the problem of growth it will just go away. Strewth, even Murray Deaker was wading into it on his Radio sports show claiming the Unitary plan somehow represents a threat to the Kiwi way of life, as if lack of access to a sports field is somehow a worse assault on the values we all hold dear than young families never being able to own their own home or poor brown people living out-of-sight and out-of-mind in isolated third world ghettoes on the city fringe. Just as long as you can’t see them from the fairway of Gulf Harbour, eh Muzza?
Listening to the cacophany of half-arsed zombie facts and ignorant angry opposition, as far I can see all the fury directed at the unitary plan is simply reactionary nonsense from groups who don’t accept the need for change, don’t want change or who stand to lose their privileged position due to change. The total dominance of the debate in our so-called mainstream media by aging whites is simply the most astonishing – are grim – display of who thinks they should run Auckland and in whose interests it should be run you will ever see. In the whole series of articles in the Herald, for instance, not once has Bernard Orsman sought anyone’s views except those of well to do baby boomers and C&R nay-sayers.
A cartel of vested interests who have got very rich indeed thank you very much by manipulating Auckland to their own personal benefit for the last fifty-sixty years is determined that they will see off the unitary plan by hook or by crook. I guarantee you that if the Unitary plan is accepted substantively unchanged and Len Brown is re-elected off the back of his South Auckland heartland, the likes of Quax and Brewer aided and abetted by Brownlee will start looking for excuses to replace the Auckalnd Council with appointed commisioners, a la ECAN.
PS Is it just me, or is Cameron Brewer starting to talk in that wierd, stoccato style that John Banks uses? Is talking like that some sort of mentally retarded class marker for the toffs from Remmers?
The main fear stokers are confident of surfing all the way to elected office on the frenzy that they are promoting- very real self interest. Just like the Tea Partiers in the US and once there their of clay will be equally evident. This is all about crazies getting elected to Local boards and the Council by fire ring up fear and disappointment. Facts not an issue. Poor Auckland. Wood, Quax, and Brewer, should be ashamed of their disgraceful empire building on mendacity and illusion.
“The total dominance of the debate in our so-called mainstream media by aging whites is simply the most astonishing – are grim – display of who thinks they should run Auckland and in whose interests it should be run you will ever see.” – Yes, it’s depressing that the views of immigrants (many of whom are comfortable living in 3-story townhouses) have not been mentioned. Their opinions could be successfully harnessed to counter the views of groups like “No More Rates”. Would be interesting to see how the UP is being discussed in the vernacular media (Hindi, Chinese, Samoan, Punjabi, etc.) Maybe the Council should ask its Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/advisorypanels/Pages/ethnicpeoplesadvisorypanel.aspx) to help out?
Harminder that is a very good point, if you find any commentary from immigrant groups it would be great to have links here, ta.
It is very disappointing to see submitter’s descending to general insults to make or support their arguments. This generally indicates a weak argument.
To be fair, a big process like this was always going to inspire fear. Where was the change management and communications planning to address that? People deserve to have their concerns addressed, and a vacuum is allowing lies to take root.
Is the ‘consultation’ binding in any way? If not, I think it’s plausible that the Council are just letting the whingers have a moment to click submit and think that they’re being taken seriously. Instead of responding in real time, perhaps it makes more sense to let the complainers complain, then respond with superficial changes and a well-doctored PR campaign? I don’t mind betting that there will be some changes/clarifications that are really just the same as the existing plan, but with clearer wording.
This round of consultation isn’t binding – it’s about genuinely trying to improve the plan. If you oppose the whole concept, there’s a formal round of submissions and hearings when the plan is “notified” later this year.
By the way, if you want your own copy of the Unitary Plan zone data in a form you can use, we have it at Koordinates.
Aaaand that was supposed to be at the top-level. Grrrr threaded comments.
thanks for the link. I’ll be submitting something.
“Let’s be clear, the only way the old ladies vege patch will be killed off is if she decides to do it herself. No one is going develop her land unless she does it or unless she sells it”
And that’s the big lie being spun by the AC propaganda machine. People choose to live in neighbourhoods where people are generally like-minded. One person sells up, and a process of transformation begins, eventually forcing out those who find their neighborhood no longer suits them. The UP removes protection of communities to remain as they want.
Surely, by your reasoning, if a community wished to remain a certain way, it would. You wouldn’t have to worry about anything.
No, under the UP a community has no method to prevent something out of character with its surroundings from being built. The UP shifts protection from the majority to the minority.
Here in Swanson the entire village is being upscaled to high density. The council knew it would be extremely unpopular, so they refused to schedule a UP meeting, so as to avoid confrontation. Essentially massive change is being dictated, and Auckland Council is moving the city away from democratic principles.
I take great comfort in knowing the government will not allow the UP to be implemented in its present form.
I’m looking at the GIS viewer now and there is a Metropolitan Centre around the station at the heart of Swanson, a little bit of terrace housing, and some light industry, presumably existing. This is what you are calling ‘high density’? Looks very mild to me, should, over time lead to more choice and a higher level of amenity in the area, no doubt what you’ve been experiencing over the last couple of decades. Can you be precise about exactly how the world will end if any of this gets built?
Is it, like other objectors to the UP, you think it is some kind of trick because it doesn’t enforce ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE anywhere near you? The current plans don’t do this either, in fact there are no height limits in parts of Waitakere right now. And anyway change is unstoppable, but most of Swanson won’t change much anyway.
Grey Lynn where I live also has Met centres and terrace housing too. Looks good.
Patrick- do you mean Town centre. The nearest Met centre to Grey Lynn is Newmarket surely?
Oh quite right Geoff, but I think the City Centre zone of the City Centre is a lot closer than Newmarket.
But I was was thinking of Henderson as the Metropolitan Centre, Swanson only has a little bit of THAB and single house surrounded by acres of Rural/Coastal. No ‘high density’ at all!
I left that one out cause its a mega met centre.
We are both talking about the Grafton CBD right? 😉
But wasn’t it like this in most of the old councils, pre-amalgamation.
How can you opponents to a draft draft plan?
We are all submitters surely?
there was a lot of waffle about growth projections at the Auckland 2040 meeting at the Northcote Centre last night, Somehow using the high projections rather than the medium projections (recommended by Stats NZ) is a major crime. Penny Bright claiming that using the high projections contravenes the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act because it does not meet the requirment for the plan to be evidence based.
my memory is that in past iterations of the RLTS planning, Auckland has consistently trended along the high growth projections, am I wrong?
Its funny how on the one hand the NIMBYs predict the Unitary Plan will bring apolyptic change and on the other they say that there won’t be the growth to support the need to plan for change.
Anyway if growth ends up being lower than forecast then not as many buildings will get built. I don’t see how it is possibile to ‘over intensify’ through moderate zone changes.
*apocalyptic
For decades, C&R councils in Auckland have prioritised keeping rates low today over investing enough in tomorrow’s infrastructure (hence the poor state of our sewers, footpaths etc).
A false economy just like not painting a house, but I guess it must make sense to enough voters. Be interesting to understand more about that viewpoint.
The wider picture is the problem of overseas investors buying up to 8 properties at a time in Auckland and living overseas, thus bumping up the cost of houses in Auckland, so Kiwis can’t afford to buy them,put a capital gains tax on rental properties and get central government to invest in our small dying rural towns, maybe some small business incentives would be the answer.
Make New Zealand the organic bread basket of the world, Make Auckland the Greenest city in the world, with organic gardens on our inner city apartment roofs. Start with Auckland City being GE free and the whole of New Zealand to follow.
Fix up the Southern end of the motorway, allow for better and regular transport options from Pukekohe and Waiuku,spend money on the inner city rail loop( over the next 10 years), make sure there is safe and proper parking facilities around all rail stations.
Wake up people of Auckland, your rates are going to go up every year, with the attitude of a mayor who thinks Auckland ratepayers are a bottomless pit! We are still in the middle of a recces ion, let these projects be done over a sensible time period.
Carol B
Hello Carol B
Good news for you, the Government already working on Southern end of the motorway, its called the Waikato Expressway.
“cost of the RoNS corridor would be $2.4 billion with a confidence range of $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion.”
Sadly you might be right about being in the middle of a recession.
I almost fell off my sofa laughing when I saw on the news about the “No More Rates” group wanting a high speed rail line built alongside SH1. That is one utterly ill-informed group if they think thats the way to “no more rates”.
Don’t bring in a capital gains tax it will only bite you sooner or later and will increase the price of houses as the vendor seeks to retain their profit. We should look at preventing non residents or better still non citizens from buying homes.
Seems as though the women lives on Te Koa Road, Panmure, backs onto the Queens Road shops so falls under the Panmure town centre zoning. Only one of about 10 houses there zoned for 8 stories, and probably only a handful of single detached houses zoned for 8 stories in the whole city. Very unrepresentative.
So imagine the demand from developers and how much she will be able to sell it for! Surely that nice lady could think of something to do with a massive windfall from selling to a developer. She can buy a much nicer house with a nicer garden somewhere nearby in Panmure.
I wish my house was one of the few houses zoned for multi storey in a potentially mushrooming suburb – Panmure will be a huge hub for transport once AMETI is done. The equivalent of winning Lotto that is.
I understand that change is difficult for older folk but as Monty Python so aptly said “Always look on the bright side of life”.