Population Growth Continues to be Questioned

Groups like Auckland2040 bemoaned three storey terraced houses as potential “highrise” slums that will end the world – if they are allowed near rich beach side suburbs of the North Shore or high amenity areas of the isthmus – have become a common theme since the consultation on the Unitary Plan began a few months ago. As the consultation period drew to a close they also adopted another tactic, questioning the population projections that the council is using. They question whether we will have 1 million people in the region in 30 years’ time and even went so far as to suggest their followers make the following statement in their submissions.

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.

Now the council hasn’t just plucked a number randomly out of the air, they are using projections from Statistics NZ to guide the planning process. People familiar with the numbers – or who read some of the numerous posts we have done on the issue – will know that there are actually three sets of population projections for Auckland, a high growth scenario, a medium growth scenario and a low growth scenario. The council has also frequently pointed out that historically Auckland has tended to grow faster than predictions. Here are the current population projections for the region.

Now I’m not sure if this was pre planned or if it was a response to people questioning the projections but last week the council held one of their Auckland Conversations events to talk about the issue. The speakers were Len Brown, Chief Planning Officer Roger Blakeley and special guest Len Cook who was formerly the countries chief statistician and who has also performed a similar role in the UK. You can watch the full discussion from all three speakers here (you have to sign up to watch but it is free)

You can also follow the presentations separately if you want:

Len Brown

Roger Blakeley

Len Cook

What I took from watching this is that the council is on the right track. They are planning for the highest projected population growth just in case it happens instead of planning for less and crossing their fingers and hoping the growth doesn’t occur. But even with this approach is still being questioned with the likes of Auckland2040 – who were at the event – seemingly thinking we should take the crossing our fingers approach. Yet Bernard Orsman from the NZ Herald who was also at the event seemed to present the information as if the mayor was desperately holding on to using the figure for some sort of political reason.

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is sticking with a projected population growth figure of one million more Aucklanders to justify controversial plans for apartments in the suburbs and urban sprawl in the countryside.

Last night, Mr Brown said Auckland’s history of exceeding high-growth projections made it prudent to provide for the high-growth scenario of a million more residents by 2041.

The figure of an extra one million people has been the basis for the council’s asking Aucklanders to adapt to a new way of life in the draft Unitary Plan that includes high-rise and small-size apartments in the suburbs and 160,000 homes outside the existing urban boundaries.

The council’s use of the high-growth projection has provoked debate about the figure and whether something should be done to slow the city’s population growth.

Mt Eden resident Alan Kemp is typical of many, having called the Unitary Plan a “rotten plan” based on bad numbers that allowed multi-storey buildings at odds with their surroundings.

This is how Radio NZ saw the talk which seemed much more balanced.

Or listen here.

The issue has come up again in the Herald this morning with another piece by Orsman regarding the use of high projections used for planning in the Auckland and Unitary plans vs the medium projections used in the planning of infrastructure.

The Auckland Council is talking up another one million residents in the city by 2041, but it is taking a prudent line when it comes to providing transport, water and other services.

The council has adopted a Statistics New Zealand’s high-growth scenario of a million more residents by 2041, but its water body is using a medium-growth scenario of 700,000 more residents.

The mismatch has raised questions, but council chief planning officer Dr Roger Blakeley says it is prudent to provide for the highest likely population growth and to be cautious to avoid over-investment.

He said the council required council bodies to be cautious about capital spending ahead of time to avoid high borrowing, interest and depreciation costs.

Underspending on infrastructure, he said, could be addressed through regular budget reviews and incremental increases to facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants.

During feedback on the draft Unitary Plan, concerns about a lack of infrastructure planning have been a hot topic at public meetings.

Councillor Cameron Brewer has called for an independent review of the most likely population growth, saying the council’s projections are out of kilter with the Government’s national infrastructure unit’s mid-range projections

I think that the point Blakeley makes is perhaps the most important in this entire debate, effectively we should be planning for the worst but investing for what is most likely. If the worst does happen then we can adjust our investment levels accordingly but if growth falls short then so will the amount of intensification. With Auckland’s having a history of under planning for growth, I’m actually surprised that we still have people – especially politicians – suggesting that we carry on that tradition. I guess it is because the politicians who have to deal with the mess under planning causes will almost certainly be different to those currently in office.

Lastly perhaps my favourite graph from the presentations is this one from Roger Blakeley’s presentation which shows the population changes between 1961 and 2011 by migration and natural increase. What is clear is that population increase from natural means is consistently increasing and now with the exception of a couple of years makes up the vast majority of the population increase.

 Edit: and with almost perfect timing, the council has just put up this post on the issue which answers the question of:

Q1. What population growth projection do we use for the Unitary Plan, and why?

Q2. What population projection do we use for infrastructure planning, and why?

Q3. How do we monitor for changes in future population projections?

Share this