Auckland Transport Blog Submission on the Draft Unitary Plan

Today is the last day, if you haven’t already, please make a submission before 5pm

This is a joint post by Patrick Reynolds and Matt L

Introduction

I sometimes self-describe as an ‘impatient optimist’. And impatiently optimistic is how I feel about Auckland right now. I am optimistic because I see Auckland as ready to enter a new phase as a confident and singular small city having grown out of its very awkward teenage years, unsure of its identity as either an overblown and inward looking provincial town or becoming the thriving urban centre of our part of the Pacific. Auckland as a coiled spring. But impatient too, because this movement, which feels very natural and right to me, simultaneously faces resistance, which I guess is to be expected; growing pains.

The rewriting of the various planning documents that are a necessary result of the reform of Auckland’s local governance is a once in a generation opportunity to guide this growth in better ways, but this is a fairly dry and technical process and what follows is our response to the Draft Unitary Plan in Planning language. Rather than react to this as some desire to obfuscate and control it is simply in order to be precise. Anyway I am not a planner, and nor is Matt, but it really isn’t that dense or arcane that any reasonably intelligent person shouldn’t be able to understand it with application.

This document represents our desire to live in a thriving and improving city, it will be very different from those prepared by some extremely vocal groups who clearly feel very threatened by what they see or have been told is in the DUP. We are confident that our response is the better one, because reading their material they clearly misunderstand the DUP or in some cases are intentionally misrepresenting it. However I’m sure many of those involved are also motivated by the same desire as us; to improve the city. So hopefully some common ground between these extremes can be found.

One last point is vital. We are very lucky in Auckland. Our city is enjoying the problems of growth, this means there is pressure to change things and the money- as always never as much as we’ed all like- to fund those changes. So here is a chance to fix a few mistakes from the past and build on the best things we have.  And this growth is pretty steady and not too disruptive. We are neither Detroit nor Shanghai; we are facing neither the despair of decline nor the unmanageable pressures of super growth. We are also not Christchurch; we have the opportunity to re-invent ourselves without experiencing the trauma of disaster. So we should allow ourselves a little ambition to try new ways, new ways of living, new ways of moving. Unless, of course, we consider Auckland to be absolutely perfect as it is….?

-PR

With all of the talk around the Unitary Plan, it was about time that we sorted out our submission. We have worked on this together and are submitting this on behalf of the blog (ATB). In this post we will cover off the key points we have made however you can read the full submission here.

Context/General Points:

ATB generally supports the intent of the Draft Unitary Plan (DUP) as a key contribution to the Auckland Plan’s vision of making Auckland the world’s most liveable city. The DUP has importantly taken the opportunity to not only bring together existing District and Regional Plans around Auckland, but also at the same time provide for a transformational shift in the future shape of Auckland in a way that supports the development strategy of the Auckland Plan. The bold approach of the DUP is to be encouraged and must be maintained.

ATB has been disheartened by the misinformation that has spread about the DUP over the past few weeks in particular – especially where that misinformation has been fostered by Councillors and Local Board members for what appears to be their political advantage. ATB also considers that as the DUP is a very long term document guiding the shape of Auckland, it should take particular consideration of impacts on children and young people (as per the Auckland Plan’s priority) and be mindful of changing trends.

One changing trend which is particularly important for the DUP to keep in mind is a long-running revival of the attractiveness of inner city living. In Auckland this is best illustrated by the huge increase in house prices for inner suburbs in recent years – a sign that these are attractive places where people want to live. Another important trends is in relation to changing travel demands – as throughout the developed world younger people are choosing not to drive but instead live in more central locations, catch public transport, walk or cycle for their activities. These trends are entirely consistent with the vision of the Auckland Plan and need to be fostered in the Unitary Plan.

Therefore, key general points of feedback on the DUP are:

• Intensification must be enabled in high amenity inner suburbs (in a high-quality manner that is sensitive to the character of these areas) and not simply pushed to the poor parts of Auckland that complain less. Enabling higher intensity housing typologies in places where people want to live will be important if development is to happen.
• Intensification must be focused on areas with good access to high frequency public transport – especially public transport that is of ‘rapid transit’ quality. For Auckland to truly be a ‘liveable city’ transport and land-use planning must be integrated better than has occurred in the past, with key traffic generators locating ‘on the way’ of rational public transport route planning.
• Greenfield development should be carefully controlled and properly priced. Most houses built on the urban periphery in recent years have been at the ‘top end’ of the market and do not contribute to improving housing affordability. Even if greenfield development did result in cheaper housing prices, these gains may be lost through increased transport costs. Servicing greenfield development may also undermine Council’s ability to service intensification – if Council really believes in a ‘quality compact city’ then servicing intensification should be prioritised.

In relation to process, while ATB understands the Council’s desire to get the Unitary Plan in place as quickly as possible, it is perhaps of even greater importance to ensure that the Plan is “done right”, that it is robust, that its impacts are fully analysed (for example to test whether the new zones really allow more capacity or not) and that community understanding and ‘buy in’ can be achieved to as great an extent possible.

Summary of Submission:

Key parts of the Unitary Plan which are supported by ATB include:

• Provision for ‘upzoning’ of land in a number of strategically important locations around Auckland. In particular, there appears to be good alignment between the zoning structure of the DUP and Auckland’s existing and future public transport network.
• The DUP includes robust assessment criteria to ensure that intensification is of a good quality. In particular the criteria relating to ensuring carparking does not dominate the streetscape are utterly essential in creating quality centres.
• The removal of minimum parking requirements in a number of zones gives effect to Directive 10.6 of the Auckland Plan and reflects growing international evidence that minimum parking requirements are perhaps the most critical planning rule that shapes urban form and transport outcomes.
• The removal of density controls in the Terraced Housing and Apartment Building zone, and the Mixed Use zone. Density controls undermine the ability to provide affordable housing by encouraging very large houses so developers can maximise their profit. Density often also has little to do with environmental outcomes as a single very large house can have greater effects than two or three much smaller houses.

While the bulk of this submission relates to areas in which ATB considers the DUP should be amended to ensure it can be improved further – it is important to note the areas of support as they are critical in giving effect to the Auckland Plan’s development strategy and updating Auckland’s planning documents to be in line with modern international best practice.

Areas of the Unitary Plan which ATB considers require amending are outlined below and are further elaborated upon in later sections of this submission:

• In some locations it appears as though obvious opportunities for enabling intensification have been missed. A number of specific amendments to the planning maps are included as Appendix One to this submission.
• The transport section of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) should be amended to better align with the transformational shift in transport outlined in the Auckland Plan.
• The urban land supply section of the RPS should give clearer guidance in ensuring greenfield land is planned for appropriately and only released if absolutely required. There should also not be any ability to extend the rural urban boundary.
• There should be some variation in the future development potential of Metropolitan Centres based on their particular characteristics rather than blanket rules across all of these key centres.
• There should be the ability for some areas zoned Mixed Use to develop to a greater extent where the effects on surrounding communities would be minor and there is particularly good public transport access.
• The parking rules should be re-looked at quite extensively, including the removal of minimum parking requirements completely (particularly in the Mixed Housing zone).
• The Mixed Housing zone and Terraced Housing and Apartment Building (THAB) zone appear to be trying to do the job of three zones, with three-level fee-simple terraced housing (a typology with much potential in Auckland) being ‘squeezed out’. A third zone, specifically aimed at providing for that typology, is suggested.

For the rest of the submission we have gone into more detail for each of the points that we consider require amending.

Of course you don’t have to be this detailed. The key thing is that you make a submission (hopefully in support) and you can do that by filling in the official feedback form or use the excellent form created by Generation Zero

Share this