Ok so while the Unitary Plan submission period is over and I intended on not writing about it for a while, I really couldn’t go past a piece in the Herald today from Fran O’Sullivan. She seems to have picked up many of the points that we, and others have made.
The so-called debate on Auckland’s draft Unitary Plan has become disconnected from the big-picture narrative that it serves: that contained in the overarching Auckland Plan, which aims to transform Auckland into the “world’s most liveable city”.
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse admitted as much when I challenged her about this at a lunchtime discussion on the plan this week. Hulse was adamant the council would respond to the formal consultation when the plan is notified around September-October.
“It’s simply the first draft, or a draft draft plan,” are the words Hulse and Mayor Len Brown are using as they explain there is a great deal more formal feedback to come this year before the Unitary Plan is finally bolted down. And even then there will be an evergreen aspect to it, as the plan must be responsive to changing conditions in years to come.
But Hulse is also pledging to be “robust”. I read this as shorthand for not allowing the council to be bullied by the ill-informed and those spreading misinformation into backing down on plans for Auckland to be a compact city and caving in to the lobby that advocates for increasing urban sprawl by pushing the city’s limits to gobble up more prime farmland.
Good stuff. After weeks of listening to and reading self-interested Nimbyism masquerading as objective concern, it was a relief to hear some common sense from Hulse.
This is Auckland’s chance to get it right.
Yes, the council will give way a bit on the margins to accommodate more housing. But there is an additional infrastructure cost to this which proponents overlook: more roads, more rail links, more sewerage, water, electricity and phone lines and more schools. It’s not simply a matter of plopping down new cookie-cutter houses on vacant farmland.
She even notes an important point missed but many of those who complain as well as making a surprising and almost out of context comment on supporting the CRL although I’m not to sure about the comment on paying for it by selling assets.
The great irony is that much of what the Nimbyists complain about can already take place under Auckland’s existing planning rules.
As a CBD dweller, I welcome the added vibrancy Auckland will enjoy as more people make the city their home in coming years. The CBD and inner suburbs in particular could do with a massive injection of people. Auckland needs a beating heart. It would be terrific if there were more inner-city dwellers – young and old.
There are three issues that concern me: first, the insane way that central Government continues to throw roadblocks in the path of Brown’s CBD rail loop plan. Brown could settle it once and for all by flicking council shares in other assets and reinvesting the equity in the new rail kit and borrowing the difference.
And finally she even gives a nod to our friends at Generation Zero including:
Their argument for intelligent density and against sprawl is compelling. Couple that with their insistence on giving the urban design rules statutory weight and Auckland would be on to a winner.
A nice refreshing piece from the Herald. Only shame we didn’t see it earlier to help inform the debate.
While on a similar topic, another article in the herald caught my attention. This one was on land prices, specifically how some people/companies are land banking huge chunks of land within the existing urban boundaries to get massive profits.
A land banking business with a big piece of residentially zoned real estate on Auckland’s outskirts has made more than $6 million a year for almost two decades – doing nothing.
QV records shows Yi Huang Trading Company owns 39 Flat Bush School Rd, which it bought in 1995 for $890,000.
Now, this 29ha block is listed on the market for $112.6 million, promoted as “the land of opportunity, vacant but close to Barry Curtis Park”.
Now we obviously can’t force anyone to develop land if they don’t want to but before we go opening up the cities urban boundaries it would probably be a good idea to start being smarter with what land we already have. We know that there are potentially 15,000 sections that could be developed within the existing urban limits and without addressing the issue of land banking, we are likely to see similar behaviour happen with the opened land as owners drip feed sections to the market to maximise the return they are able to get.
Out of interest, the section mentioned above is listed in the unitary plan as a mixed housing zone allowing sections down to 300m². Assuming around 25% of the land would be used for the likes of roads and parks that leaves enough potential space for over 700 dwellings.
Processing...
cycle action auckland are saying that you could still put a submission in this weekend if you had wanted to but missed the deadline
there’s a chance that they’d still accept it
best article I’ve read in the Herald for many months.
yes – was going to keep away from Unitary Plan/transport stuff this weekend, but help also noticed this phrase in Fran O’Sullivan’s article following on from her support for the CRL: ‘Second, the available room for business growth seems light.
Third, surely the plan could step up to provide for much more intensification within the CBD and inner suburbs than seems to be the case.’
As the Unitary Plan comes closer to being tied down, it may be that the preferred density spread becomes “more lumpy”. This means that in some areas it may just be too hard to take on the locals, and if close to the high tide line, possibly unwise. On the other hand, both the inner and outer CBD zones, plus some of the other regional centres could happily handle an even greater level of intensification than planned. One of the interesting comments out of one of the TV shows, was by a Panmure shop owner calling for extra development in the town centre that would help revitalise that suburban centre. Panmure’s retail trade will have taken a pretty significant hit from Sylvia Park.
Apologies – pressed the post comment button before proof-reading. First sentence should read: ‘Yes – was going to keep away from Unitary Plan/transport stuff this weekend, but couldn’t help also noticing this phrase in Fran O’Sullivan’s article following on from her support for the CRL…..”
late submissions will be accepted at the discretion of the council, however, judging by the ridiculously tight deadlines, I doubt they will
Remember thought that it is feedback, not a formal submission process, so there’s a good chance that it will be accepted.
The land banking issue is a massive one and it is great the Herald is finally looking at this. Pro-sprawl campaigners assume that by changing the zoning to residential the land becomes cheaper and majic low cost housing results- in fact often monopolistic behaviour can occur as that article shows and the gains for the speculator are huge – like shooting fish in a barrel as they say. Time for a non-productive land tax? Find it interesting that and Fran O’s article were completed after submissions closed, but anyway.
This is where the govt should really be focussing there attention to fix the housing crisis. There are macro-economic measures needed to fix this. Things such as capital gains tax would definitely help here. Also worth noting that all remaining suitable land in Flat Bush is zoned residential. Same is true in the North Shore, no land left. Auckland has major geographical barriers that make this possible, blaming the MUL is simplistic. These geographical barriers do not exist in cities such as Houston that pro-sprawl campaigners love to compare us too.
Just had a look at your blog, Luke. Enjoyed the photos and analysis! Keep it up.
On a sort of related note I went to the new urba apartment development near K Rd today. Almost all sold after a couple of weeks, mostly to owner occupiers, it’s sold so fast they are pulling construction ahead five months.
My question is why do we have so many fringe sections not being brought to market when the demand for housing is so strong? Could it be that people aren’t that interested in land in the edge?
O’Sullivan’s columns are normally firmly on the right side of the political spectrum, so it was surprising to see her criticism of central government blocking the CRL plans. It was a good article, except for labelling the CRL a loop. We’ll just have to keep pushing the message on that one.
All politics are local, and she’s an inner city dweller – so self-interest rules again and overrides her usual knee-jerk rightism. Of course it also helps that in this instance it is the supposedly free-market types that are opposing changes that will allow the market a bit more leeway to decide how land gets developed. As someone noted above, I think it’s interesting (at best) that NZH held this back until after the deadline for feedback had passed. At worst it smacks of deliberately holding an editorial line over the columnists.
Maybe the Gummint has gone too far right even for her?
How ironic the mixed housing zone will allow 300sqm, does that mean everyone included in this area are land bankers too?
I have said it all along, this draft plan is going to drive prices up & up until they smash the barriers and build 100,000 homes on the outskirts of Auckland.
A classic land bank situation occurred in Glenfield where a large tract of land was not developed and land further afield was subdivided first. The Council refused to connect two halves of a road waiting for the land bankers to subdivide and pay the costs to connect the road. Not only did this lead to land further afield being developed prematurely but created traffic problems in the street where i lived because traffic from other new developments came along our street when they should have gone through the land bankers unconnected street .
Yes, Capital Gains tax is urgent and I suggest once land is zoned residential it must be developed within a set period or penalty rates applied
I find it ironic that those on the outskirts are being accused of land banking when the Council is about to open mixed housing zone for 300sqm development. Does that mean everyone included in the mixed housing zone are land bankers too? – Properties are skyrocketing in these areas thanks to the draft draft unitary plan allowing 300sqm subdivision.
I was told on this site 6 months ago I was crazy for thikning the unitary plan would drive prices. What an absolute cluster f**k it has been for those first time home buyers. Essentially the bulk of housing won’t be built for another 5 years once the plan is binding. What a crazy crazy way of planning!
“thanks to the draft draft unitary plan allowing 300sqm subdivision” – The Unitary Plan hasnt even been notified yet let alone being in operation so it is a bit hard to see how you can blame the UP for high property prices. You cant really be landbanking when you buy a property and then live in it for years while raising a family.
Land banking on the outskirts involves fallow land where noone is living there – I think that is a big difference.
However, blocking intensification is going to raise the prices. In fact, many submissions against the UP actually state that intensification will lower property prices. Then other people agree with you and say it will raise prices. I think you are right but that misses the point. Even if the land value goes up by 25%, if you then build three extra housing units on that land (for a total of 4) then the price per unit is still a lot lower. That is the point of dense housing.
I dont agree with penalising investors for holding land on the outskirts. If they saw demand I have no doubt they would be developing like crazy. I guess we have to ask why they arent developing that land.
Could it be that there isnt that much demand for peripheral housing? Could it be that the majority of people in Auckland would actually rather live closer to the centre of the city where there are more amenities and a shorter commute?
Did anyone see in the NZ Herald the very small 2bdrm house in Eden terrace on 200sqm that sold for 66% over CV at $565k? I young guy in our office wanted to buy it but was blown out of the water by Baby Bommers buying for their son at Auckland Uni. What the photo in the paper didnt show is that the deck from the living room on the property almost abuts the motorway. The noise would be quite bad. Regardless, young people in particular are prepared to put up with that for the lifestyle an inner city dwelling will give them.
Intensification can’t come soon enough for the next generation as Generation Zero has shown.
Capital appreciation is the main driver now. It is going to be very hard to stop. It’s like an ocean liner, once the breaks are applied and motors put into full reverse it takes another 5 miles for complete stop.. The point here is the draft unitary plan is not applying any breaks. In fact it is applying more power to this ship, how on earth does allowing subdivison to greater Auckland allow cheaper housing.
You say housing will be cheaper but will it? – Right now 800sqm in avondale is around $550k, are you telling me after the plan is binding that 800sqm is going to be $550k.. The fact is these 300sqm will probably sell for around $350k and that my friend is a massive increase compared to what $550k will buy you now. Housing is not getting cheaper it is just getting SMALLER!!..
The only way to undo this crazy plan is for the goverment to step in and order more houses today! Either on the outskirts or in the middle, it doesnt really matter. Once families see what $450 will buy you after 100,000 more homes are built on the fringes property prices will tumble! – The fact is the AK plan is perfect in a recession, It would have been a dream in 2006! but unfortunatley now we are in a housing BOOM and the plan is causing a bubble. Firstly, build 100,000 homes on the fringes then by all means go for gold in the centre!! Build 6 stories in the mixed housing zone, it won’t matter once there is another massive supply influx!
There is a massive difference between $350k and $550k when you are looking for a house. It is not so much the house will be smaller (as you can still put a 200sqm house on a 300sqm section with 2/3 storeys) but the land will be smaller – maybe just a small deck and garden. That is what many houses in Ponsonby/Grey Lynn have and look at the demand there.
A lot of people (no, not everyone) dont want land. I dont. I spent an hour mowing my already small (maybe 150sqm) lawn on the weekend and I would rather just not have it. Some people do and that is why there is a 60/40 split between greenfield and intensification in the UP.
I have no problem with removing the metropolitan boundaries as long as we remove all exclusionary zoning (minimum lot size, minimum parking, minimum set backs) and start investing at least 40% of our transport budget on public transport and cycling. Then we will have a real free market and we will see what the demand really is. Right now we have development and transport planning that favours sprawl over intensification.
I dont believe that in a real free market the majority of people would choose to live 20-30kms from the CBD.
Also JOSHR although it is an important issue improving housing affordability isn’t the central purpose of the UP. The UP is meant to guide the form of the growth of the city whether there are supply and demand gaps in housing or not. It ought, on some level, be independent of market states and be interested in long quality settings over short terms crises or imbalances.
Having said that it does matter enormously where new dwellings are; affordability of access is a central component of dwelling affordability. Of course everyone really knows this because there are plenty of really cheap houses in depressed rural areas that few want to live in and that are too far away from where they do. Where is as important as what when it comes to dwelling supply. And I agree with you that there needs to be an actual policy of building good, well located, affordable homes in quantity. It is against this government’s religion to do that though so we will have to wait for the next one for that to happen.
Meantime it is interesting to see that the apartment market seems to back in full swing again; this will affect supply meaningfully so long as the banks will lend to to people wanting to buy into this typology…
The current price bubble in Auckland began when the insurance industry removed Christchurch from the immigrant housing market and many companies relocated their South Island regional offices from Christchurch to Auckland. In the few months of stats available since the insurance prohibition was relaxed Auckland stratified median house prices have fallen relative to inflation. It remains to be seen whether the government’s market driven approach to the post-disaster reconstruction will work better than America, Japan and Australias socialist approaches to post-disaster recovery.
Fran’s article nearly got me to the typewriter for a letter to the editor. Good for her. I have also noted in other media articles that Sir John Kirwan is a waterfront apartment dweller and loves it and Don Brash, in an article arguing for urban sprawl, disclosed that he too is an apartment dweller, although I’m not sure in what location.
I too have shifted this last weekend into my Federal Street abode and am loving it. All the services right there. Four minute walk to britomart. Just getting my neighbours used to my piano now…
My grandparents used to live opposite Murphys Bush (shown on the ariel photograph) and have sold due to the urban sprawl. The property Yi Huang Trading Company purchased was done in my birth year and neither my Grandparents or I knew about them. How weird.
But its disgusting how 10 years ago: Flat Bush School road was open road and driving along it would make your stomuch fly; and all you could see was paddocks and horses. Now its full of houses and the road is 50km. Visited the area a couple of weeks ago and it made me feel sick – the development is crazy.