If you haven’t done so already, it is so critical that you submit on the unitary plan. You can do it via the official feedback form on the ShapeAuckland website or you can use this quick an nifty form set up by Generation Zero. One of the key reasons for this is that many of the groups that oppose the plan are doing the same. Now while there isn’t a problem with opposing the plan in itself, many of the groups, like Auckland2040, have been getting people to submit based on scaremongering and misinformation.
One example of this has recently started going around is below, I suspect it originated with the 2040 group. The email itself says it comes from Pauline Anderson who is a member of the Albert-Eden local board, however just to be clear, I can’t confirm it is actually from her. The email itself is actually extremely long so I am only going to quote from a few key parts however you can read the full thing here. It starts out with a fairly sky is about to fall warning.
Read the following email text, then copy it and email it to (or share this page with) any and every Aucklander you know ! This is IMPORTANT – this “plan” has the potential to wreck our city for everyone – and once it is done there will be no going back!!
I am writing to you as a personal contact because I have become deeply concerned about the future effects of Auckland Council’s draft Unitary Plan.
I want to alert you to these issues and persuade you of the need to act FAST, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
The deadline for submissions is next Friday 31st May and the plan runs into thousands of pages. Given the 31st May deadline you don’t really have time between now and then to read and understand the Plan in detail.
However this email will give you the key points of concern, tell you what you can do and help you to do it.
But I stress: you/we must act before the deadline or it will be too late!
If we do nothing it will be assumed that we are happy and the plan will be fast-tracked through implementation by our elected representatives.
The impact upon you, your city, your neighbourhood and your homes could be severe and will be final!
Wow this unitary plan must be scary stuff and will destroy my house and family if I’m not careful ………. I feel a tui billboard coming on. It then goes on to try and explain in writing what the zones are.
- If your plot is shaded in the “brown paper” colour you are in the Mixed Housing zone.
- If it is in the “Amber” colour you are in the Terraced Housing & Apartment zone.
- If your house is in the off white colour your enjoyment of your property will not be directly affected by the plan unless your property is close to the border with one of the other zones.
…but since we all stand to suffer indirectly as a result of the plan you might want to read on anyway!
Firstly the direct impacts:
If you are in the Mixed Housing zone then your height-to-boundary rules are gone and the plan will allow construction of 10 metre high three storey multi-occupancy apartment blocks.
Well let’s stop right there, to see the rules yourself, go to the Unitary Plan text and I will put the relevant section in brackets. As pointed out the other day, the height limit in the mixed housing zone is 8m (see 4.3.1), the same as the majority of the residential areas today. Like the existing residential areas that limit can only be exceeded with resource consent from the council. The height-to-boundary rules also still exist and are the same as those in the single house zone (confirmed in 4.3.2, section with the details 4.1.2). The email continues.
If you are in the Terraced Housing and Apartment zone then your height-to-boundary rules are gone and the plan will allow construction of rectangular multi-occupancy apartment blocks with, dependent upon the width of frontage, in the worst case no effective height limitation.
Once again this is incorrect information. Firstly there are various setback requirements (4.4.2) including where the THAB zone is adjacent to a single or mixed housing zone the first two stories need to be at least 3m from side or rear boundaries and the 3rd and 4th stories need to be at least 5m back. It is also incorrect to say that there is no effective height limitation as the plan says that buildings must not exceed 14.5m or four storeys in height (4.4.1). Houses in the THAB zone can only go higher if they are right next to a defined Town or Metropolitan centre. Buildings in the THAB zone are also still subject to overlays like the volcanic view shafts.
The email continues on in the same vein trying to scare the reader even suggesting that one of the negative side effects will be increased foot traffic, I never realised that pedestrians were so scary. The email ends with this next section before telling people how to submit their feedback and then asking the reader to send the email on to 10 friends like some kind of email pyramid scheme.
So what can you do about it?
Firstly let me say again: Doing nothing is the same as saying that you are happy with the plan!
If you do nothing the plan will be pushed ahead as Len Brown put it “fast, fast, FAST”. And while the council strategy is to persuade you that it is a “just a draft” if you do not tell them in no uncertain terms what you do not want in any plan, they will only take out of the draft the bits that they do not want in their plan not the bits you don’t want in it – and you can guess which bits they will leave in!
The only chance you have of influencing the outcome is to object. The following are some things you might like to object about worded so that you can copy them straight into the Council’s online objection form:
I/We oppose the Draft Unitary Plan residential provisions and request Council to:
- Rethink the plan and allow more time for residents to understand, consider and if necessary oppose it. The current plan is far too long for anyone to understand in its entirety, let alone laypeople who are not familiar with the wording of such documents in the time that has been allowed under the current proposals.
- Change the wording of the plan to allow a right of consultation and objection about proposed developments to all affected homeowners and a right of appeal to a higher authority such as the Environment Court.
- Revise the plan to prevent the proposed scattergun approach which permits multi-storey/high density apartments to be developed throughout the city.
- Determine the ability of roading and other infrastructure (e.g. schools, sewers, public transport) to support and accommodate intensification before permitting intensification.
- Focus apartment building into key areas where the prices for apartments that are built will be affordable (rather than million dollar plus apartments e.g. ones with million dollar views) and where the city’s environmental appeal will not be adversely impacted and encourage comprehensive planning for each of these areas.
- Re-evaluate the projected population growth used as a basis for the plan based upon census information and consider other ways of reducing population growth in Auckland rather than just accepting that the projected growth is an inevitable fact.
- Change the plan to respect and not override existing determinations of the Environment Court and other such agencies.
- Remove the Council’s discretion to allow buildings of any height to be built.
For a good example of a four storey apartment building, The Issac is currently going up in Grey Lynn and looks fantastic.
We had another example in the Herald today, this time from Belmont on the North Shore.
“The biggest issue was how could the council embark on such an intensification programme without pre-planning the requisite infrastructure?” Mr Keenan said.
“The schools are full, there are no civic amenities and little local employment, so most people have to travel out.
“What is that going to do to Lake Rd? It is madness to intensify this peninsula when there is only one way in and out.”
Mr Keenan said Auckland had a bad history of after-the-event Band-Aid transport planning and it seemed this was going to happen again.
The Belmont community’s submission on the plan said it rejected proposals affecting the Devonport peninsula, including Bayswater.
Apartments and terrace housing of 14m in height would destroy the leafy suburban neighbourhood, they say.
It was possible the whole of the Belmont sector could be rezoned depending only on planners’ exercise of discretion in favour of a developer.
So you have no civic amenities and not enough local jobs but object to development which could bring more people into the area and make those amenities and businesses viable? And while Lake Rd is most likely an issue, the extra development would likely help to justify improvements to it including hopefully some bus lanes. It is also incorrect to state that a planner could just rezone things in the future if they felt like it. Mr Keenan then points to the fact he worked in a legal practice for 35 years and seems to suggest that he was actually involved in some of the bad developments that have occurred. Funny how he didn’t make a stand against development when he was profiting from it.
The article then takes a turn which almost beggars belief, but sadly one that we have heard before.
In East Auckland, Tamaki Housing Group spokeswoman Sue Henry took to the council 673 submission forms collected from residents.
“A lot of the forms have still not come back,” she said.
“We strongly object to the Unitary Plan proposal of uprooting existing communities and enforcing multistorey intensified slums on residents.
“We want Auckland’s growth capped and intensification proposals scrapped in their entirety, because there is a better way of doing it.”
Right so how are you going to cap the population Sue? Are you going to forcibly stop people from having kids and ship any that do out of town? Also what is your better way of doing things?
Once again, if you haven’t already, it is critical that you get your feedback in on the plan. You can use either via the official feedback form on the ShapeAuckland website or you can use this quick an nifty form set up by Generation Zero.
Processing...
We never hear what this ‘better way of doing it’ is… a one child policy?, mass sterilisation?, or perhaps enforced euthanasia, you know everyone over 75 or 80, has to take a pill… that’d help… What’s your plan Sue?
Generally, when it comes from someone on the self-described Left, it means deliberately pushing jobs out of Auckland into “the provinces”, aka “real New Zealand”. Perhaps massive subsidies for infotech in Wellington, shifting tertiary funding to Dunedin, that sort of thing.
Or perhaps just removing the massive energy and transport subsidies provided to Auckland. Or shift the biotech subsidies from Auckland to Wellington. Or return all the head offices back to the provinces they were located in before Rogernomics unleashed the corporate raiders.
Or just admit that Auckland’s population growth is leveraged off the the ticket clipping financial services sector (big bucks for little effort is what economists call “high productivity) so its always going to be the most attractive place for ex-pats returning home to raise kids and for uni grads.
Which means the future Auckland needs meet the needs of those who want want they’ve experienced in true World Cities as much as it needs to meet the desires of current middle class residents. However capping the population has a particular attraction to current property owners approaching retirement age…it will add a “quota” premium to house prices for those retiring to a lifestyle block in “the regions”.
Now I believe you are stretching the truth. If there’s a ticket clipping city in this country then it’d have to be Wellington.
And what are these subsidies you speak of?
Yep, those huge energy subsidies of the highest electricity pricesin NZ, and the huge transport subsidies of the lowest rate of return o fuel tax investment in NZ.
As noted by our leader on Newstalk ZB recently, Auckland is a city with one of the highest proportions of overseas born people in the world, other than Vancouver – also another “unaffordable” city by chance. The population data clearly shows a large portion (30-40%) of the growth has been from immigration. As National and Labour are very pro-immigration (for obvious different support base reasons), maybe that is what they are suggesting to look at, as it is largely policy driven and controllable and could relatively easily be capped. This, alongside more investment in economic reform to grow the other cities advantages, as seen by recent IT and call centre company expansion in Wellington for example, could slow the rate of population growth to a more manageable level. Just saying. Give people a job location choice and many would leave Auckland in a flash.
30-40% form immigration means that 60-70% has come from natural means i.e. people having babies. Stopping immigration (which I don’t support) won’t stop the population increasing.
Also no one is forcing the jobs to be in Auckland
“capping the population has a particular attraction to current property owners approaching retirement age…it will add a “quota” premium to house prices for those retiring to a lifestyle block in “the regions”.
Quite the opposite. Higher demand from a growing population pushes prices up so those selling up and retiring to lifestyle blocks will be financially better off. Perhaps you mean capping the supply of housing.
That aside, has it not occurred to AC that their (repeatedly) stated objective to make Auckland the most liveable city in the world will have implications in terms of attracting new residents? They may state that it is a myth that they are not aiming to more residents (Fact: Auckland Council is not trying to attract more people) but should they be successful in meeting the liveability aims there will undoubtedly be induced demand to live in the city. Making things better for the inhabitants will invariably make things better for potential inhabitants as well.
MFD have you thought that line of reasoning through? So AC should strive to make AK crap so no-one wants to come here? Really?
Of course Vancouver has high property prices because it’s a success, doesn’t Key want success for Auckland? Also we should note that unlike Auckland Vancouver has a great deal of lower priced dwellings because it has a lot of apartments. Its detached houses, like increasingly in AK are very expensive and that affects the median. But it isn’t so unaffordable outside of this typology.
“So AC should strive to make AK crap so no-one wants to come here? Really?”
For crying out loud, this is not a binary, with-us-or-against us argument in spite of your trying to make it one.
AC is stating that is that they have no influence over population growth but they are aiming to make the most liveable city in the world. It’s cognitive dissonance and disingenuous. A more honest statement would be to explain that by making Auckland city the most “liveable” city in the world it will make it a very popular place for people to live. Instead their approach is a “nothing to do with us, mate. We are just responding to what the statisticians tell us” approach.
That is completely misrepresentative of the situation.
The council are are not aiming to attract the 1000000 as they have stated.
They are aiming to make Auckland a good place to live which may result in higher immigration and births, but that isn’t the aim.
No, Sailor Boy. Not just a good place to live but the *most* liveable city in the world. The best. That is their stated aim. Where did you get the idea that they just wanted to make it a good place to live?
Well, the most livable city in the world would be a good city would it not. Stop being so deliberately obtuse.
(1)The council wants to make Auckland more livable for their current residents.
(2)Many people are expected to move to Auckland already.
(3)As a result of (1) we may get even more people to move to Auckland.
(4)The council are not trying to encourage a million more people.
I think we need to close the borders like North Korea, institute internal passports like Soviet Russia, then engage a one child policy with forced strerilisations like China.
Infact there was a very successful programme of decentralizing urban growth to focus on rural areas in Cambodia not so long ago, perhaps we could engage the surviving leaders of the Khrmer Rouge as consultants.
That’s a far better approach than building townhouses like Sydney and apartments like Paris, because we all know population growth is bad for society.
Hah, but some bozo on the Labour Party blog was saying that the Unitary Plan was a “Soviet-inspired” design for “Lennygrad”, so it is US who are the communists!!!
You may be on to something there Brother Nick!
Nick there must be some kind of crazy-commie version of the Godwin Law that you’ve just crossed… perhaps it’s the Reid Law and we’ve just invented it?
I don’t pretend to understand Reid’s Law, I merely enforce it 😉
I have to admit I’m really looking forward to making a formal submission and presenting factual evidence against this rabble. I wonder how statements like “intensified slums” will go down during cross-examination from Council lawyers under the revised hearings process?
I imagine;
*opens submission
*rolls eyes
*ignores submission.
So apartments are for poor people keep them way from us rich and our million dollar views came up in there. I think that’s what it’s all about the gross poor people might start getting to closer to them keep the poor well away with more sprawl is the answer. Considering it is mostly coming from the old North Shore and Auckland City areas and as Richard Hills said in Kaipatki it’s been mostly positive I guess since it takes mostly poorer parts of the shore that’s not a surprise really and where I live most of the surrounding houses have been infill ed(which made George Wood cry and he put a stop to it) expect ours ironically even though it’s the biggest section of all them we haven’t done it because lack funds and the house is weird place I’m not kidding either all the numbers on letterboxes in my street have an A or B next to it seems to of worked out fine “oh I wish they hadn’t infilled this street” said no one who actually lives here ever.
Obviously I am from the Shore and the best that I can determine (and I agree with you Dpalenski) is that people are against the Unitary Plan because it allows less wealthy people into the area..
I think intensification is great – I must have a disconnect somewhere.
Yes I suspect this is a large part of the reaction from many of the hot spot areas. I have seen comments (not on here) suggesting that some people in these areas didn’t want intensification as they wanted their suburb to be exclusive and expensive so they could use it as a status symbol.
I’m from the Shore too, and I wonder how many people on the Shore realise they can get more wealthy with less regulation on their land (by, somewhat paradoxically, creating more affordable housing)?
Shore three, and currently living n a 3 storey house with 2 and 3 storey neighbors. Bring on the UP, and let’s get behind Len.
Shore four, and completely agree, does anyone know where the alleged oppositon to the intensification in Browns Bay was? I’ve heard none, and my mum especially is really keen.
Another Shore person and have already made my submission on the nifty form (thanks for the link!) Unfortunately, parenting duties kept me away from the meeting in Browns Bay. My impression is that a lot of the fear of intensification is about shading of the beach. There is a preference for four stories rather than six. Of course some are more concerned with preserving “their” views….
Walking around Browns Bay, it is already an area filled with flats and apartments so aside from the shading issue, it is hard to see what people are getting worked up about. More people in the town centre would be a big boost for the businesses of the area which have struggled since the Albany mall was built. There is a lovely beach and park, two supermarkets, an excellent library and leisure centre and good public transport links to other places. If I was in a different family situation, I would love to live in an apartment there.
Molly, could you not live with your family in an appropriately sized apartment or townhouse in Browns Bay? It’s not like there will be a law forcing all new apartments to be student crash pads like the ones in the city. As you say there is the beach, parks, rec centre etc.
Yes I could (and not saying it is not possible) but we are closer (walking distance) to the kids’ schools where we are and that is a biggie for us. Also, our house is right in the middle of two bus routes so we are fairly well serviced in that direction too. In fact, walking to Browns Bay is doable from our place – it is the hills and not the distance which makes it less attractive.
On your point re apartments for families – I hope that this will be the sort of development that occurs as part of intensiifcation. Offering a choice of living options for all situations should be the aim.
Development will be market driven pure and simple, like it is now. It will still be once we remove some of the constraints on what you can’t build. It’s not like the council buys land and builds homes, or they tell people what to build (currently they tell them what they can’t build).
If there is a strong demand for a raft of young singles and students to move to Browns Bay then developers will focus on one bedroom apartments and flats. But I highly doubt that. I can see Browns Bay demand being of two kinds, families with children and retirees and empty nesters (much like it is now). So I would expect that any developer looking to sell their new homes at a good price will build two/three/four bedroom places of good quality and space. Same with the likes of St Heliers or Herne Bay.
Over in Arch Hill and Grafton you might see the opposite, very little in the way of family units but rather one and two bedroom crash pads for young professionals. In the middle suburbs it might be a mix, Three story terraced houses in Mangere and Glenfield for families who want a house with a bit of lawn without breaking the bank.
If there is one thing that doesn’t offer choice of living options, it’s the current rules!
Exactly Nick Browns Bay is a lovely place to raise kids, hardly where I want to live during my young professional years though!
Shore person 6. I live near the Belmont shops where that lawyer was standing in the NZ Herald article yesterday.
My wife and I had actually been down there getting takeaways the night before and saying how much room there was for more shopping there. It already supports three dairies and multiple takeaways (3 pizza places) as well as a medical centre and a barber. Intensification may mean that a small New World style supermarket could be built, meaning we dont have to go to Hauraki or Devonport for our shopping.
I agree that Lake Road is congested for about 10% of the time (it is empty by 6.30pm) but that can be fixed by replacing the on road parking with bus lanes and encouraging more cycling commutes (or to the ferry) by upgrading the existing Green Route to create quality off road cycling infrastructureall the way from Devnport to Takapuna. The Belmont pipeline bridge is already being replaced which is stage one. There are already a lot of children who cycle and my neighbour’s boy was telling me Hauraki primary won a prize for its cycling rates.
The ferries could easily handle more passengers and Bayswater could be ramped up to 15 minute ferries with the addition of another boat. There is already an excellent bus service that meets every ferry at Bayswater. Once the CRL is built passengers can jump on a train and be anywhere on the line quite quickly – and obviously a CBD commute is effortless – as I know because I do it every day.
It will take a change in people’s mindset but it is possible and would make the area much more interesting to live in.
Bring it on.
I just don’t see why people on the peninsula would drive anywhere. It is the perfect place to do otherwise.
Absolutely, Sailor Boy and one of the reasons I chose to buy a house there. It just takes a different mindset that a car isnt the only way to travel – quite a leap I find for most NZers.
Being lucky enough to work in the CBD I practically never drive. I cycle/ferry to work.
I wrote a letter to the editor of Devonport’s local paper The Flagstaff supporting the UP. it was such a contrarian view they now want to interview me. Do any other Devonport peninsula people want to get involved with this? @goosoid?
Agree, I live in Devonport and I’ve never driven so little before. It so easy to get anywhere just by catching the ferry then linking with the train or buses. There is also a range of convenient bus services which are linked into the ferry during peak periods. Apart from some obvious restrictions around heritage, it would probably be best place to focus market attractive intensification.
Definitely the ferry should have improved frequencies. Any other PT service with that level of patronage would have better frequencies. I propose 15 minute frequencies for Devonport and 30 minute frequencies for Bayswater. Is it worth adding a limited off peak Stanely Bay ferry service too?
OK – Myself and my family live in a pioneering 1970s 4 bedroom townhouse in a fairly affluent suburb. It is definitely the cheapest house on the street…. because when it was built, the local residents put up such a fuss against the three townhouses that were built on the one section that the local authorities at the time put a stop to any more being built. And that has been the case on this street until very recently. The house we own is a similar price to much larger houses in other suburbs. We made the choice to trade off space for location – a 2 minute walk to the beach being just one feature.
The point being, that there is no way we could have possibly been able to afford to buy a stand-alone house in our chosen ‘burb….. the town-house option made it possible for us to live near the beach. This is something our children have made great use of over the years. The Unitary Plan offers many more families like ours, the chance to live near the beach.
And I should add, don’t be fooled by the 4 bedroom description, it is very compact home. But, town-houses in general offer potential for great space efficiencies achieving more useful space per square metre.
Agreed, I lived in a 3 bed town house in Albany that was a tiny volume but felt huge inside.
great video about sprawl transport and quality of life.
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html
“technolisis externality cluster f***”
Man that is funny.
Yes it made my day, totes.
It’s seems auckland2040 is fine with intensification in “poorer” areas but not anywhere in the vicinity of the city ie. where people want to live.
Also forget about progress or economic development. Everything needs to stay the same. Not realising that the only reason they live in these areas is that things developed!
At the core, many of these arguments boil down to people’s desire to be surrounded by other wealthy people that they can identify with. The flipside is that Auckland will move inexorably towards greater spatial segregation by income, which may ultimately lead to the formation of ghettoes . All this comes from people who try to suggest that denser and more affordable types of housing should be located “somewhere else”.
I am also concerned that English and Brash can take the time to criticise the metropolitan urban limits, without also criticising members of the public who advocate for unnecessary restrictions on the supply of housing in existing urban areas.
Also around the world poverty is now moving out to the fringes so this fear of urban poor in high density dwellings is a concern whose time has past. I guess many will like that- out of sight
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/05/suburbanization-poverty/5633/
Perhaps you theorists could spare the time to spend the day with Sue Henry, the woman you so cheerfully dismiss and deride. She is a very hard-working, passionate supporter of the people of Glen Innes. She gives a voice to those “gross poor people” your commenter referred to. People with real housing issues, not academic ones. She could tell you her “better way of doing it”, and you would be wise to listen. She knows. She lives with it. She does her best to make a difference. She works in amongst the community. Try it sometime….you might learn a thing or two.
I don’t care what she does because as long as she suggests capping the population it shows she doesn’t have a handle on what is actually happening in the real world. The majority of the population increase is happening through natural means i.e. more people being born than dying, how does she propose we stop that?
Is she also the one complaining about HNZ redeveloping their sites?
“She could tell you her “better way of doing it”, and you would be wise to listen.”
Great – maybe she could do a guest post so that we can all understand. It is just that I havent heard any suggestions other than capping population – which is not tenable in a democracy (just ask India).
It would be great to hear some other ideas.
Or just building elsewhere, especially on the lovely and productive and expensive to reach countryside.
…seems sensible, locally sourced fresh food is over rated imo…
Maggie we’re all ears. Sue is more than welcome to submit a guest post on her grand plans for population control. Meanwhile in the real world …
Hopefully We’ll be empty nesters in another 20 years, and about 10 years after that it might become too hard to use the stairs to get up to our 3rd floor, so I’m keen on down sizing to somewhere like Takapuna or Browns Bay. What I would hope for are multitude of food providers, shopping, a beach, cinema’s, proximety to rather good mass transit (Akoranga or Baywswater/Devenport)to get into the City , and a theatre – things to do other than BOWLS and an RSA! (OMG I’d go senile real fast!!!). Takapuna ticks all these boxes but am hopefull within 30 years Browns Bay will catch up.
Sue is not a blogger. She is a community type, deals with flesh and blood people. Helps them get a roof over their heads, and put food on the table, and have a voice about issues that affect them. I just object to the way you talk about her – dripping sarcasm and references to the “real world”. How ironic.
Great and good on her – however some of us deal with flesh and blood people occasionally as well.
However, she seems to be motivated and articulate enough to make public comments against a plan that will affect all Aucklanders. If she has an alternative plan then lets hear it.
It is easy to be negative and knock other people’s efforts, much easier to be constructive and offer solutions. I believe that is exactly what you are saying about this blog’s attitude to Sue, so we are inviting you/Sue to practise what you preach and put forward your alternatives.
Sorry obvious error – “much HARDER to be constructive and offer solutions”
Had to say that this is quite funny – “Sue is not a blogger. She is a community type, deals with flesh and blood people.”
Wonder what Maggie (& Sue??) thinks the writers on this blog write about? Their concern about the Unitary Plan is guided by the focus on achieving a high-quality system of ***public*** transport, i.e. moving “flesh and blood people” around quickly, safely and cheaply.
Also, Sue’s statements to the press (““We strongly object to the Unitary Plan proposal of uprooting existing communities and enforcing multistorey intensified slums”) betray some outdated assumptions: a) the UP is not about uprooting communities (that’s a different initiative, which can also be characterised as making better use of our land) and b) apartment blocks do not automatically translate to slums
Maggie, take a step back for a second. You seem to know Sue and respect her – that’s grand. But does that mean she’s immune to all criticism? That all of us have to respect her even when she has done nothing to earn that respect? Or that we can’t respect her other qualities but disparage her views on the Unitary Plan as being unrealistic? Because they are.
Sue has chosen to make inflammatory and uninformed comments about how the draft Unitary Plan was “uprooting communities”. She also suggested that population control was a viable alternative. Personally, I’m extremely offended by Sue’s efforts to scare people with these comments. Sue is, in my opinion, behaving extremely irresponsibly – dangerously in fact when one takes a longer, wider perspective.
I think a little sarcasm is warranted when confronted with issues of such import. I could get angry, but that’s even less constructive.
I am willing to listen to any logical and realistic alternative, as is I believe many on this blog are. Just a note please – I prefer evidence based and testifable facts, figures and data as opposed to anecdotel (he said she said) opinion.
Well said.
The letter originated here: https://www.facebook.com/UnitaryPlan/posts/139043372955123. It has been disseminated widely by local board member Anderson. As chair of the Albert-Eden Local Board I would like to make it clear that the letter does not reflect my views or those of the Board as a whole.
Peter, thanks for that wider perspective on the views of the Albert-Eden Local Board – it’s usually appreciated when elected representatives take the time to stop-by and contribute to our discussions. Unless your name is Jan “Kate” O’Connor … 😉
I would like to make it clear that I support intensification in Auckand. The city simply cannot continue to sprawl. I do however want intensification that is carefully planned and considered with infrastructure investment in place before intensification becomes a problem for the city. Much of Auckland in particular the central isthmus is already under pressure with sewerage overflows storm water and flooding issues and traffic congestion already costing the city millions. To simply open over 50% of the isthmus for intensification without planning for it is simple folly. Len Browns vision for the world’s most liveable city cannot happen without significant investment in infrastructure. If the Billion dollars for the inner city rail link was used on infrastructure then the UP might just work. But that is another debate.
I have a letter from water care that states that current and proposed infrastructure (central interceptor for one) would simply not cope with predicted population growth. They have advised council of this yet we still plan to open up the whole city to intensification in one go instead of a staged process.
Albert Eden is already the least greened area in the whole of Auckland and needs more open space desperately. This is agreed by all. However there is no provision for any additional parks or open space in the UP yet the intensification planned in the UP will increase the population of Albert Eden at a minimum to say 150,000 people over the next 10 years, but no more open space. The worlds, most liveable city! How?
I did not write this email, it was forwarded to me I do not know who the original author is. I chose to forward to those in my email group as I hoped to cause debate and make people realise the importance of this document to the future of Auckland. It seems it has worked. I have to say that I have received many emails and phone calls thanking me for bringing the importance of the UP to people’s attention. I suggest that if it had being called something like “The Auckland housing intensification plan” it would have caused people to sit up listen and get involved to a much greater extent. Most people still do not know what it is all about. But let’s not tell people what it really is.
The consultation process around the plan and on this most agree has been meagre and of the meetings I attended much of the important information such as section size in the mixed use and single house zones was glossed over. The planners did not know this detail, chose not to know or were actually incorrect and were corrected by the general public. Is this good enough for something so important?
It was only at my insistence that more meetings for the general public be held in Albert Eden we had one at Unitec and library venues for drop in discussion, plus a couple for stakeholder groups was simply not enough for a population of 100,000 plus with a lot changing. Finally the board agreed and unfortunately no planners were available. Never the less they were very well attended the last on the 27th May in Mt Albert with 70 people many incredulous that they were only getting a meeting about it just 4 days out from the close of submissions. Aucklanders have not being well served by this council on this debate.
In fact that very day at a council meeting a motion was passed by George Wood to extend the consultation period by 15 days and was voted down 10 – 7 not to extend. Where was the harm in giving Aucklanders the time they needed given the surge in interest at that late stage?
This plan is important for the future of Auckland. All we can hope now is that council and the planners listen and put a lot more thought, facts, planning, focus on infrastructure issues and consultation into the next round of the process. We’ll see.
Hi Pauline,
Thanks for your comment and it’s good to hear that you support the general objectives of the Unitary Plan. In terms of the other issues your raise, they seem to relate mostly to the issue of the extent and timing of infrastructure delivery, which is a valid and worthwhile debate to have – although not something the Unitary Plan can address. Instead, much of that work will be undertaken by the likes of AT and Watercare etc and published in separate documents.
I do note, however, that the infrastructure spend suggested in the Auckland Plan, and associated strategic planning documents, seem to set the scene for one of the largest and longest infrastructure investment programmes ever undertaken in New Zealand. While there are exciting times, I accept that hard decisions will need to be made about which infrastructure projects offer value-for-money. I will note, however, that the bulk of the transport infrastructure spending is attributable not to public transport projects like the CRL, but instead to extremely expensive state highway projects, such as the second harbour crossing, most of whom will have relatively poor economic returns compared to the CRL. So I’d suggest you focus your pencil sharpening efforts on extracting maximal value from all forms of infrastructure spending, rather than simply seeking to redirect funds from the CRL. I reiterate: The bulk of the low-value infrastructure spending in Auckland is associated with state highway investment, not public transport.
In terms of the population growth you mention and are concerned about (150,000) it’s hard to put this in context without knowing the current population. Your later comments suggest the current population of Eden-Albert is “at least 100,000”. I put it to you that a population that grows from 100,000-150,000 in ten years is an annual average growth rate of approximately 4% p.a. Given that the population of Auckland has in recent decades been growing at about 2% p.a. on average across the city, but much faster in central city areas, then the growth the UP anticipates in Eden Albert would seem to be quite reasonable. I’m sure many of the metropolitan centres, for example, are expecting to experience much faster growth. It’s also worth mentioning that this is the growth being allowed for in planning provisions but is unlikely to eventuate unless we track according to Statistics NZ’s high population growth scenario.
I also note that the Unitary Plan provides for 30-40% greenfields development, which is approximately the same proportion of greenfields development that has occurred during the last few decades. As such the draft Unitary Plan is not at all the “housing intensification plan” you claim. Instead, it seems to be more of a business-as-usual plan, at least in terms of the proportion of intensification that it allows for. The key difference, however, is that the DUP proposes more formal policies to ensure the intensification (60-70%) that does occur is more structured than what has been experienced in the past. This means enabling development around town centres and transport corridors that already support services and infrastructure, rather than just letting intensification happen wherever and whenever.
Notwithstanding those points, I do agree with you – the next round of debate will be very interesting. I hope, however, that in the future you will try to avoid forwarding on emails that contain major factual errors. While I understand you were keen to foster debate, I’d suggest that it’s also your responsibility (as an elected representative) to ensure that the debate that you foster is informed by facts not fear. In my opinion, too many of Auckland’s elected representatives did not seem interested in fostering informed debate – I hope these people have learnt from this experience and seek to do better in the future.
Regards,
Stuart.
I take this to mean that you don’t view the City Rail Link as infrastructure then?
Oh dear – Pauline is making stuff up. When our Board was told that there was very limited availability of planning staff to support further public meetings our Board collectively decided to hold a further 20 events during May (12 Library drop in sessions and 8 public and stakeholder group meetings) using our own resources. As organiser of this process on behalf of the Board, which involved attendance at every one of these events, I can confirm that Pauline was only present at two.
Despite negative press coverage of the consultation process and the diligent efforts of those whipping up opposition, I was very encouraged by the intelligent and thoughtful response of most attendees – whether in the larger gatherings (30-100) or one-on-one.
Once again Greame Easte believes his own truth just like he only tells people what he wants them to hear.