Next steps for the Unitary Plan

Yesterday the first of many next steps for the Unitary Plan was taken as councillors discussed the issue of height in centres. Here’s a brief summary of what went on during the discussions:

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said the workshop brought together local board Chairs and the Auckland Plan Committee members to talk through the principles governing heights in centres and give interim direction on how changes will be made to the draft plan.

“The political direction that came out of today’s workshop is that, while we all agree we need a range of heights across our centres, we would like to see greater refinement to allow for variety within a centre where it is appropriate.”

The direction-setting workshops, which will be held over June and July, reflect the main topics in the 22,700 pieces of feedback Aucklanders gave over 11 weeks of engagement.

“We have started with centre heights as our first topic, as they set the framework for the level of development in other parts of Auckland.

“Proposed height limits for Auckland’s metropolitan, town and local centres have been widely debated, with clear argument coming through from each side of the debate. Our challenge for heights is to get the balance right and I believe we can do that,” said the Deputy Mayor.

Work will now start to refine the principles relating to height in centres as directed. These will then be presented for discussion at the next Auckland Plan Committee.

While I’m sure there was plenty of messy debate behind the scenes, the outcome of this seems fairly sensible: just because a place is noted as a particular centre doesn’t mean it should have a uniform height limit. Just as every centre of the same type (for example Metropolitan Centres) shouldn’t necessarily have the same height limits.

This is something that I posted about back in early May – pointing out that even though Takapuna and Papakura (for example) are both Metropolitan Centres, they are fairly different in about every possible other way and there doesn’t seem to be a particularly compelling case for both centres to have the same height limit.  In that example, it seems fairly obvious that parts of Takapuna would be suitable for heights of higher than 18 levels whereas such heights seem less likely to be suitable for Papakura – at least any time particularly soon.

The decision to look in more detail at a greater variety of heights within the centres also makes sense if you look at a place like Takapuna. There may be strong reasons to not want higher buildings to cast shadows over Takapuna Beach in the afternoon, meaning that the further you go west within the Metropolitan Centre zone the higher the height limit could be. I’m pretty sure the existing Sentinel Building is higher than 18 levels! So a sensible outcome for Takapuna may be lower height limits in some part of the Metropolitan Centre zone and higher limits in other parts – a more nuanced approach.

I do hope that the evolution of the Unitary Plan over the next few months follows a similar course – where the focus is on taking the bones of the plan (which seem pretty good) but applying a level of detail to ensure that it works at the local level. I do hope that overall the zoning will enable a similar level of capacity to be developed within the existing urban area – but perhaps with intensification concentrated to a slightly greater extent in the places where it really does make sense (the isthmus, along good PT corridors, near railway stations, around centres etc.) and wound back in the places where it doesn’t make sense (isolated parts of the North Shore).

A few suggestions are noted below:

• Bump up the height limit in parts of the Mixed Use zone where this will be appropriate. Morningside, Grafton and along Great North Road through Arch Hill seem like prime candidates to allow 6-8 levels rather than the current proposed 4.
• Split the Mixed Housing zone into two so that we can have a proper terraced housing zone and don’t need to propose intensification across such a wide part of Auckland.
• Allow higher height limits in some Metropolitan and Town Centres, but wind them back in others. Push up the role of Sunnynook as it’s near a busway station, but perhaps roll back in places far from the rapid transit network.

I do hope that this type of approach can enable the Unitary Plan to move forward in a way that perhaps eases the fears (sometimes unfortunately not very well founded and based on media scaremongering) without losing what the Plan seems to do really well in my opinion: enabling intensification but demanding high quality development.

Share this