The past few days has seen a pretty sad process of watering down the Unitary Plan to provide much less affordable housing and intensification within the existing urban limits. The push to limit intensification has come from a somewhat strange mix of councillors who I don’t think would often find themselves on the same side of the debate. Those most commonly opposing provisions that allow for intensification were: Calum Penrose, Cameron Brewer, Dick Quax, Sandra Coney, Sharon Stewart, Mike Lee and Wayne Walker.
I’ve only watched bits and pieces of the debates and deliberations over the past week, but it seems as though one of the key concerns from many of the councillors opposing what they see as widespread intensification relates to whether Auckland needs to plan for quite this much growth all in one go. To some extent there’s a bit of validity in the argument – the Auckland Plan is a 30 year strategic document while the Unitary Plan is a ten year statutory document: they aren’t the same thing and there’s nothing which says that the Unitary Plan needs to enable all 30 years worth of growth outlined in the Auckland Plan all at once. Particularly when significant infrastructure spending on transport, water, wastewater, stormwater, parks and schools to support the growth will take decades to come to fruition.
The main problem with that approach, aside from neglecting the massive housing shortage which exists and the moment and providing for significant pent up demand in inner suburban areas, is consistency with the approach being taken outside the current urban area. As we’ve noted many times, the more development is constrained inside the current urban area the more there will be pressure for further sprawl to take place.
And the Unitary Plan contains a lot of areas where sprawl could take place. The latest documentation online shows in yellow the areas proposed to be zoned “future urban”, indicating that they will be urbanised at some point in the future. Here’s the map for the southern area:
At least on the bright side it seems that the horrific Karaka-Weymouth Bridge idea has been killed off with the development seeming to largely following the rail line.
Looking out to the northwest, there’s a heap of growth planned around Whenuapai, Westgate and even Kumeu/Huapai and Riverhead:
The positive story here is that with this scale of growth in the northwest, the Northwest Busway is assured to be an essential project and the real question simply relates to when it will be built. I wonder if Kumeu/Huapai will grow large enough to justify an extension of electrification and therefore passenger services from Swanson.
Shifting up north, perhaps the biggest surprise is the massive amount of land set aside for future urbanisation around Dairy Flat, which hadn’t really been signalled in the Draft Unitary Plan maps. If it were to happen soon then an extension of the Northern Busway to Silverdale would almost certainly be needed. It is also interesting as I have heard a few rumours about people with good connections buying some large blocks of land in the area recently on the expectation zoning would be changed in the Unitary Plan.
And finally there’s even pretty massive growth proposed around Warkworth, which by the look of it would eventually see Warkworth to grow to many times its current size:
It’s a bit difficult to figure out exactly how the Unitary Plan enables land to go from this gigantic future urban zone into actual development, but critically what the Unitary Plan is doing is putting a huge heap of land into the same bucket of “future urban”. Presumably this will mean massive value appreciation for people who end up inside the RUB, which will put pressure on for redevelopment (due to increased rates). Stopping little bits of future urban zoned land from being developed ‘willy nilly’ all over the place could actually be really difficult – as the Resource Management Act is fairly generous in allowing private plan changes.
What would be a better approach, in my opinion, is effectively splitting the future urban zone into two zones: a short term future urban zone and a longer term “urban reserve land”. This approach would signal that the longer term land isn’t intended to be urbanised for 15-20 years and therefore would allow infrastructure providers to focus their efforts on serving the areas that actually will be urbanised in the near future. After all there is little point in building something expensive like a busway if the development it is to serve doesn’t happen for 20+ years. We also don’t want the situation where development occurs and key infrastructure like a busway is built 20 years too late.
So our challenge to all those Councillors who have stymied intensification every step of the way in the Unitary Plan so far, particularly those who aren’t that fond of sprawl either, is to have a think about the other side of the coin and look at ways to ensure that we aren’t cutting out intensification while enabling widespread urban sprawl. Perhaps if we have eased back on the boldness of the push for intensification, we also need to ease back on the extent to which the Unitary Plan enables sprawl.
After all, the Unitary Plan’s meant to be a 10 year regulatory document, not a 30 year strategic one.
Processing...
Holy crap, that’s a lot of area zoned from Albany through to Silverdale. I had actually wondered why that area had been missed out in the draft – I’ve heard that it’s not great land for farming. You’re right though Matt, it’s a bit disingenuous that it has been inserted now at this stage, and a few people have probably made a packet behind the scenes.
Perhaps the busway had better be on the west side of the motorway, and ideally going to the heart of any proposed ‘villages’ up there…/
Yes was thinking exactly that. Would seem silly to have it on the east if all of that development is to the west. Council/AT/NZTA have the opportunity to get the designations and land purchase in place before any development happens.
Would anyone know what kind of rural/urban ratio this version of the Unitary Plan has? It would make sense not to do all development in one go, but if they’re front-loading the sprawl and leaving the intensification until later, that would tell you something meaningful about the current council’s real priorities. If the split is supposed to be 60:40 urban:rural, but all the cutbacks to intensification we’ve seen have substantially changed that ratio, it seems this is not about “releasing land in stages” but more about promoting sprawl rather than intensification.
The target is actually 70:30 but the 60:40 was a fall back position. Sounds like even that is note under threat.
Yeah, hard to see how they could get to 60:40 with the new changes.
Why not? 60% sprawl and 40% intensification seems very achievable?
/sarcasm off
I think passenger rail to Kumeu and beyond is a dead option now (esp as the service to Waitakere seems to be on it’s last legs). The route is simply not direct enough. Extending the busway to Kumeu would be a much better option.
More of the same kind of sprawl then? The UP is turning into a complete waste of time and money.
From what I’m hearing and seeing through the resolutions of Councillors, there would be no way to justify a lot of the amendments as part of their statutory s32 requirements. The big law firms must be licking their lips with this debacle. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the thing is kicked out and they are told to start again.
In which case the government could very well intervene. An even worse scenario for Auckland. I predict an exodus of young professionals.
I’ll be gone as soon asI pay off my student loan if we sprawl like this instead of intensifying. I don’t think that there is anywhere in Auckland that I currently want to live as a young professional…..
I have left NZ a couple of years ago due to the foreseen lack of real opportunities for engineers. The correlation between opportunities in NZ for young professionals and urban form is not clear. However, from anecdotal evidence, I could personally see the exodus and it’s definitely not stemming. Lots of people my age have been travelling to Europe (and visited me), and, I would say, a third of them are seriously thinking of moving here and the other half are already elsewhere (Australia, Canada, the States etc.)
It’s really sad, but frankly, the opportunities in New Zealand is very limited. If only we had listened to the late Sir Paul Callaghan…
Back on topic, I seriously (and sadly) cannot see myself moving back to Auckland. I grew up in a suburbia, and I frankly never actually liked it. More sprawl?? Oh dear…
For many people it won’t be about opportunities, I think that there are enough opportunities in NZ for me, but I don’t want to live in a city like Auckland unless it changes to actually become a city…..
A dense Auckland offers the opportunity of more innovative companies, in clusters, doing design, R&D work. People working, living, socialising in the city with access to the universities, business contacts etc. Ed Glaesers’s book – Triumph of the City is a good read.
Exactly, Bryce. Looking at the cluster of jobs (for design engineers) in Cambridge, Brighton and Guildford in the UK; Erlangen & Nuremberg in Germany; all of which have denser population and better transport access to bigger cities. In my opinion, they provide easier and better access to most things: social life, events, networking etc.
In my humble opinion, it’s definitely better than having to drive everywhere in Auckland.
The viability of all this sprawl is predicated on several assumptions not least that people will want to live in the wop wops..
I live in Pukekohe and love living in what some people would call the ‘wop wops’. I hate the idea of losing the green belt between Drury and Pukekohe. However, I can also see the benefits it may bring – mainly for me personally, hopefully a speed up to the process of extension of electrification of rail lines and an increased frequency of trains.
Pukekohe, Huapai / Kumeu, Silverdale etc should all be getting built up as higher density, stand alone towns rather than added on to the general Auckland isthmus. Even though these settlements appear a long way from downtown Auckland, they cannot carry on developing like small town NZ. If they do, there will be no ‘greenbelt’.
Hi Leah, yes fair enough, sorry about the unintended implied criticism. I also enjoy visiting Pukekohe from Auckland ..and Warkworth and so on, and one of the reasons I like these places because they feel like separate towns, which of course they are, with distinct identities. I agree with Bryce that as standalone towns there is plenty of potential for benefits to each town.. but I’d be worried that that is not what the proposed sprawl is likely to deliver. Far from it.. “brick and tile for miles” more like.
100% with you on electrification.. one day, when it continues to Hamilton, and we have regular services taking 1-1.5 hrs AK-HN we will look back in bemusement why we used to waste so much of our time driving our cars up and down SH1.
I like the wop wops. And i’ve also lived in an apartment , also good. Requirements change as life changes, more kids, dogs, number of incomes, importance of schools , v importance of bars and restaurants . And it will keep changing. I moved to the wop wops as it’s where i could affor. I’m with the councillors, on a slower easier pace of change. Their is badly built poorly designed cheap housing in Auckland already. It’s not that popular. And it’s not what is making the headlines re house prices in auckland. The headlines focus solely on house prices in our aspirational suburbs. Opening up the floodgates to maximum development is not going to get the results we want. Let’s do things carefully and thoughtfully or not at all. I’d rather have high quality design than speed. I think our poorer transitional suburbs are particularly at risk without strong guidelines for minimum build standards. Developers building whole neighbourhoods without input from communities. In the old days homes were built by the loving hands of the people who intended to live there. So with people focussed on building communities with a business objective we need a system of checks and balances. One of those balances is our council.
So shouldnt the emphasis be on ensuring good design rather than restricting intensification, as the Architects’ Institute said?
“In the old days homes were built by the loving hands of the people who intended to live there.” – Some, but a hell of a lot of other houses were built by the State and ironically are now some of the most sought after homes in Auckland. My grandfather built a lot of those homes in Chch and I know he and the other guys took a lot of pride in building those homes.
Yes. And a state built house has a different motive as well. The state not being driven by profit in quite the same way. I’m not against intensification.. But we also need to talk about some of the really bad design that has happened in Auckland . and we need to be sure we have the structures in place for good design before we roll it out across the region. Here is a quote from the lonely planet describing Auckland: “The traditional Kiwi aspiration for a freestanding house on a quarter-acre section has resulted in a vast, sprawling city. The CBD was long ago abandoned to commerce, and inner-city apartment living has only recently caught on. While geography has been kind, city planning has been less so. Unbridled and ill-conceived development has left the centre of the city with plenty of architectural embarrassments. To get under Auckland’s skin you’re best to head to the streets of Victorian and Edwardian villas in its hip inner-city suburbs.” This pretty much sums it up. We need to address sprall. We need to address the unbridled and illconceived development issue and create more of the kind of homes and suburbs that people will want to live in for a hundred years. Ok for intensification with good design.
Read more: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/new-zealand/auckland#ixzz2dsUae8fk
It’s not like stand-alone houses are immune to being leaky and generally crappy, don’t forget. It’s just that the really nasty techniques were used at a time when the market was responding to demand for intensified housing so there are a lot of examples of leaky density. Suburbs built through that time are just as leaky, but because it’s individual home-owners not entire blocks the impact isn’t the same.
Agree. Plenty of bad examples of sprawling standalones.. And it’s just the sheer quantity of them. Seems like they go on forever. I think Hobsonville pt. Te Atatu Peninusla are good examples of new mixed housing with enough differentiation in type and style. Well thought out layouts creating functional neighbourhoods around neighbourhoods and public transport.. And a town center that makes them feel like they are part of a community. I would like to have those good things considered in the Unitary Plan guidelines
Looks like the fearmongers have got their way. What a shame. The 60:40 ambition seems to be dead. I wonder if 50:50 or even 40:60 is achievable with this amount of land being freed up..
I think it’s time for a much more intensive direct lobbying campaign by Generation Zero.
The councilors don’t appear to have a clue about what their decisions mean for the next generations. They’ve prioritised the amorphous value of “character”/”I-like-it-don’t-change-it” over actual liveability for the next million and the current 1.5 million in future.
Gen0 don’t have money, or social position. As far as many elected “representatives” are concerned, that makes them an annoyance to be ignored. Faced with people who are “like me” (upper-middle/upper class, property-owning, probably white, probably a Boomer or, at worst, a GenX) and people who aren’t, the like will win because appeasing them means that my lot is also maintained or improved. Going with “the other” will, frequently, mean discomfort for me.
Sorry, but I do not see Opaheke, Drury, and Paerata being developed any time soon. I wonder if the new state highway plan is still going ahead, it doesn’t show it on the map.
Drury just got a somewhat go ahead with the Stevenson Industrial Park given the Okay by the Commissioners. Depending how long that takes when it hits the Environment Court we could see some new industry there in about five years
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/papakura-courier/9120513/Residents-dread-park
Its nice to see some counillors responding to what the rate payers want instead of blindly supporting the planners.
Apparently the ratepayers want higher rates because that will be the end result. More sprawl = more infrastructure required (libraries, pools, motorways, PT, roads (build and maintain) = more rates. Glad they’re happy with that. Have a read on what has happened to Detroit for a worst case scenario.
Are you saying that without this plan, sprawl is inevitable going to occur?
Yes. As Auckland has already. More of the same = same result.
Auckland has been sprawling for decades, largely because there’s been no plan to discourage the sprawl. The only “planning tool” has been the MUL (now RUB), and that’s it. Auckland will continue to grow, with or without the plan. Without the plan, though, that growth is largely going to be outward because there just aren’t the planning tools available to make it possible for any significant growth to occur through increased density.
Which is why people are suffering shock at the UP. Because they haven’t had to think about it before now.
I am assuming you are the same Dennis from Palino’s campaign team. Because anyone with a sense of logic and intelligence to them would realise that the Councillors are not responding to the often silent majority, but the very narrow and noisy conservative NIMBY brigade who can scream the loudest.
One thing is though at least we can have another crack in the formal notification stage before the Commissioners to get our points across and backed by solid evidence as Dick Quax keeps harping on about. If the Commissioners do their job properly and bring into the consideration of the evidence before them then we might find some of those amendments being reverted in three years time
No I am not that guy. Calling people names does not help the discussion
So you’ll be happy with higher rates and taxes then Dennis?
The rates are already extremely high. If the council stuck to core business the rates would be less. Its good to see that Mayor Len. Is looking at amalgamation of several C.C.Os. perhaps he can get rid of some of yhe 143 PR staff and some of the planners.
Under a major sprawl scenario they will have to go up more. Transport, or more specifically roads, make up a considerable part of your rates. They make the wage bill appear insignificant.
@Dennis, the rate are already high is not a response to Bryce’s statement that sprawl is going to cost more than intensification.
When asked, most people will prefer what benefits them in the short term, especially if they don’t have the pay the long term costs, or aren’t even told about them.
Politicians should also think about the long run. They are here to GOVERN us, not just to wish-fulfill the expectations of their voters. They are supposed to be professionals – accountable to their voters, but not beholden to them.
Of course, immediately in advance of an election, such far-sightedness is in particularly short supply.
Voters who have no idea of the implications of their requests.
Presumably you are talking about the councillors who are still voting for moderate intensification.
Yes
I think it’s best if we just scrapped the plan & with a few rules just allow what the market rules. That’s better than just going we can intensify there but not there, we can sprawl over there but not here etc.
Yeah, well, leaky homes showed us that no rules are as bad as too many rules, or crap rules. It isn’t easy, but wrangling this thing out is infinitely more desirable than giving up.
I have no problem with regulating, and in any case it is clear that in many areas New Zealand has paid a high price from lazy and slack regulation. But this isn’t about the volume of regulation, it’s more about the crazy outcomes and unintended consequences that these regulations have.
I agree Frank. Why not scrap exclusionary zoning rules (minimum lot size, minimum parking, minimum set back etc), and the RUB and just let the market decide where things should be.
We should concentrate on design and building standards rather than telling everyone where and what they should build. The thing is most pro-intensification advocates would be for that deregulation but pro-sprawl advocates not so much, which shows that it is really sprawl that needs regulation to make it happen. Of coyrse pro-sprawl like to paint themselves as pro-free market until the elimination of exlusionary zoning rules are is proposed and then suddenly they are all for (anti-intensification) regulation.
Houston for example is an exaqmple of a city that has regulated sprawl by keeping very strict exclusionary zoning rules while making sprawl and enforcing private land covenants (by the use of public funds) very easy.
How the heck did a trackback get there? No I did post the above into here either…
Starnius and Louis dont commit the mistake of confusing the Building Act (that caused the Leaky Building Disaster) and the Resource Management Act which influences the Unitary Plan please in regards to regulation.
The Building Act needs to be as strict as anything but the Unitary Plan can be liberalised back unless we want a repeat of what we saw with the Unitary Plan proceedings and those cursed density/lot size controls that got through
Really? Planning is not about quality? Splitting hairs over the difference between building code and planning is just daft; they are both critical to the quality of homes.
Unfortunately I think there is widespread perception that as a country we don’t pay enough attention to quality. I’m with the shrewdly measured Chinese media response to the Fonterra disaster:
“…state-controlled media seized the moment to boost the image of local dairy producers and ridicule the quality control of not just Fonterra but New Zealand.”
For me, the RMA fits into this perception. Lots of hot air, lots of focus measurables, but very little recognition of the intangibles that can be the most critical part of quality.
Suggesting that lack of quality control is just about the areas in which problems have already surfaced is a major hinderance to the country. Deregulating planning is just another way to invite disaster, one that is perfectly predictable and avoidable, and enormously damaging to individuals and the country.
Councillors focussing their energy on nimby concerns means they are missing the real need for focus on quality. Minimum lot sizes mean nothing if the quality is poorly regulated. Once you have a system that addresses quality the nominal density measures become an irrelevant sideshow.
Thanks for nothing, Coney and Lee: I expected better of you. Nuts. You guys are rapidly appearing to be of the BANANA school rather then straight NIMBY. Brewer and Quax, we at least already know to have low expectations for you.
Agree with all of the above.
‘Thanks for nothing, Coney and Lee: I expected better of you.’
Interesting quote there. On the face of it, their stances appear surprising. I think however that if you look a little deeper into their individual circumstances, they may have each have thoroughly lost faith in the officers of the council in general.
Council staff refused to give Sandra Coney access to a legal review of the new planning rulebook for the city. This is a battle she has just recently won by forcing beauracrats to concede to a politician’s right to see background information. Brian Rudman has probably summed it up best: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112918
Mike Lee? He has been witness to the almost complete loss of power by councillors to have any say over transport policy. A policy making role now almost exclusively the preserve of AT in consultation with the government.
These two characters should be ardent “greenies” and “pro-PT new urbanists” based on their respective backgrounds. If “green leaning” councillors are out of step with their electorate, they get voted out to be replaced with councillors more like Brewer and Quax in their world views.
That Lee and Coney do not support these policies should cause the technocrats and planners some pause for thought. There seems to me to be a loss of trust.
I think that a truthful review would reveal that there are holes in the detail of the plan and this is at the source of some of the anecdotes causing discontent within the chattering classes. This is no criticism of the planners involved, some of whom I know have worked wonders under unrealistic deadlines. It is a criticism of the timeframe set to try to get a resolved Unitary Plan over the line. And it may also be a criticism of the ambition to implement change without first selling the concept to the public with some successful and well publicised “key-note” demonstration projects. More Hobsonville Points are needed. Each designed and executed brilliantly.
Yup, this arbitrary timeframe to fit notification in prior to the elections was a horrible decision and seemed to be motivated more by the legacy of individuals more than anything else.
Dictated by central government wasn’t it?
Yes. Central Government threatened to remove Council powers if the plan was not notified promptly.
@tuktuk you seem to be saying that because Lee and Coney have suffered frustrations with Council staff they have a right to de rail the whole Unitary Plan process. These two councillors have done more than anyone to prevent moderate intensification from ever happening. If they have ever made any claims to care about sustainability or about making the city more inclusive then they are nothing but hypocrites. I think Lee is in the running for taking the title of worst councillor from Quax.
@Frank McRae – Councillors Lee and Coney do indeed have a right to derail the whole Unitary Plan process if that is what they think their electorate wants…..they have been voted in to represent their electorate. They will be voted out if they are not seen to represent their electorate.
Central government may have threatened to remove council powers if the plan was not notified promptly. That does not make it justifiable to steam-roller a plan through that may not be sufficiently correct to have satisfied sufficient numbers of Aucklanders.
The whole concept of a Unitary Plan is one that is very abstract – small groups of people such as those who frequent this site will be pretty well informed. However, I’d suggest that this is not the case for the greater Auckland region. A change in strategy is required if lasting change is wanted. Where were the case studies (….other than Hobsonville Point), the architects competitions, the look, touch and feel “lifestyle” picture that could have engaged with Aucklanders? The frustrating thing is that the skills and talents are available out there awaiting meaningful engagement.
Last year, the TV series “The Block” Australia worked with terrace townhouses in Melbourne. This could have provided inspiration to council officers on how to win the populace (and their councillor representatives) over to the many positive aspects to intensified living.
Tuktuk – I haven’t watched everything but seen a decent amount of the proceedings. Most of the debate and amendments being proposed are to rules that have nothing to do with the UP process and show what the councillors really think. For example he voted to expand the minimum outdoor area on every single home because he believes every dwelling should have a bigger backyard. That amendment failed but had it proceeded it would have prevented any form of density. He also voted (unsuccessfully) to make it harder to get consent to build at higher densities.
I get the real impression that both he and Coney are all talk and no substance.
Matt L – interesting feedback there. I don’t think it is a case of all talk and no substance, I do suspect there may be an element of “pissed-offed-ness” with the council officers and planners which in many ways is actually a worse state of affairs.
Comment has been made of the progress achieved by Waitakere City during the 1990s. It seems to me that part of the reason for its success was a shared vision and a collegial approach between the elected representatives and the council staff. There has to have been excellent relationships from the top down to achieve this. Tribute should be paid to the well known elected public faces of that former council, and to the lesser known council staff who made it all happen….and where necessary reviewed and revised while still achieving on the big picture vision (shared with Councillors).
It may be that the two Councillors under discussion are being unduly obstructive and I would like to hear their reasoning presented as coherent and logical arguments.
Coney might call herself a greenie but she is against development. Witness her support of the campaign against the Piha cafe’.
I am aware that the RMA is not related to building codes, but my comment was more about general regulation across all of society.
Fair enough their Louis.
Reaction on all the UP proceedings now that they are concluded?
I agree with you Louis but my firm does a lot of weather tight home litigation work and it was an even narrower problem than the Building Act.
The problem was the approval of a specific cladding system that had a very low tolerance for error – and that period of building hyper-activity brought out a lot of cowboys who were prone to sloppy work. Abandoning basic building concepts like sloping roofs with overhang and flashings on windows because the regulators decided they knew better than the people who had built houses in the hundreds of years before was also a main culprit.
The new Building Act is not bad by itself. The RMA is I think a problem but how do we justify taking away community feedback and participation? I know it gives a lot of power to NIMBYs and BANANAs and slows progress but without that how does anyone then stop projects they disagree with?
Hobsonville Pt, Te Atatu Peninsula, New Lynn- see the connection. The old Waitakere City council knew what they wanted. Sadly all gone now. Perhaps someone could look at why Waitakere had the leadership to push these developments and everybody else got sprawl. Preparedness to take risks and be unpopular would have to have something to do with it.
Waitakere was bounded by two harbours, an estuary, and two other TLAs. Endless sprawl just wasn’t an option – though I’ll point you to the change within my 34-years of life from my aunt and uncle building in then-rural Massey (but building a house, not operating a lifestyle block), surrounded by paddocks, which was still the situation in the early 1990s, through to the present where Massey isn’t even close to being the edge of the contiguous built area.
Auckland City didn’t get any sprawl at all. Because it had no area over which to sprawl, what with being surrounded by water and other TLAs.
I guess what I was alluding to is that to balance the conservatism of existing residents concerned about new people living amongst them with the need to create better quality urban spaces you need leadership and financial commitements from council to get there. Whilst John Banks was dreaming of an Eastern Motorway through Orakei and Glen Innes and North Shore was creating the massively car dependent Albany Mega-Centre, Bob Harvey and Penny Hulse and others undergrounded the New Lynn station, encouraged high rise on Te Atatu Peninsula moved the council offices to Henderson centre and developed Hobonsville Point. Not sure we will see that sort of leadership in the face of resident opposition from the Auckland Council though.