A lot of the angst over the Unitary Plan seems to have been directly at the Mixed Housing zone – which is the most extensive residential zone throughout Auckland in the Plan [covering around 49% of all residential zoned land]. While some of the fears are simply stupid as they seem to driven by people who think the only good plan is one the prevents any change happening anywhere [especially near them] but looking into the zone in a bit more detail seems to highlight that it isn’t really quite sure about what it wants to achieve and therefore probably both misses out in intensification potential in places where it does make sense while also tremendously ‘scaring the horses’ in places where intensification is probably only sensible at a fairly minor scale. It is probably like this as most of the provisions in the MH zone are roll-overs of the the current regulations, but also because it allows a big potion of the city to go in various directions, based on local imperatives; it has a certain flexibility. Yet the question remains: Is this flexibility a strength or a hinderance to the quality of urban form and the growing needs of the city?
Let’s work through the zone bit by bit to get a better understand of it – firstly the objectives and policies:
Zone description
This zone is the most widespread residential zone in Auckland. It enables two storey housing in variety of sizes and forms – detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, town houses and terraced housing and low-rise apartments. The variety of housing types and sizes provided for will increase the supply of housing, create diverse neighbourhoods and provide housing choice.This zone encourages new development patterns by providing increased housing densities with the highest density levels enabled on large sites with wide road frontages. The basis for these provisions is that the larger the size of the site and the wider its frontage, the greater the opportunity to integrate the development into the neighbourhood and provide a range of dwelling types. Over time, the appearance of neighbourhoods within this zone will change but they will retain their suburban residential context.
A resource consent is required in this zone where five or more units are being built on a site. A key part of the resource consent process will be determining if the site is of a size, shape, slope and with sufficient street frontage to achieve quality residential development.
The zone provisions also ensure that development does not detract from the amenity and character of adjoining development or sites.
Non-residential activities are provided for but the range is limited to those which include a residential component or will benefit the local community.
Objectives
1. Housing supply and housing choice within neighbourhoods is increased.
2. Developments provide high-quality on-site amenity for residents.
3. The amenity of adjoining sites and the residential character of the surrounding area is maintained by development.
4. Development is of a scale, form and appearance that responds to the site and neighbourhood’s suburban residential context.
5. The density of the development is appropriate for the physical attributes of the site.
6. Non-residential activities provide convenience and choice for the neighbourhood while ensuring the residential character and amenity of the area is maintained.Policies
1. Enable increased densities of development, in a variety of forms and sizes, including detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, terraced housing and low-rise apartments.2. Require development to be of a scale and form which allows immediate neighbours to have adequate sunlight and privacy, and to avoid excessive bulk and dominance effects.
3. Require residential development to achieve a high quality of on-site amenity by:
a. providing functional and accessible outdoor living spaces
b. providing the amenities necessary for day to day living
c. designing each dwelling to be functional and enjoyable to live in
d. prioritising pedestrian access, safety and movement
e. providing safe, convenient car parking and garaging that does not dominate the street
f. designing developments to provide easy access for all people.4. Require development of five or more dwellings to integrate into the neighbourhood and achieve an attractive built form when viewed from the street and adjoining sites by:
a. being well connected into the wider neighbourhood
b. using a housing type which is suited to the physical attributes of the site
c. using a form and layout of development that responds to the natural landform and natural features of the site
d. dividing the mass of the building into smaller scale parts in order to create interest and positive relationships with surrounding development, including historic character and historic heritage areas.5. Limit the density and/or the height and scale of development where this is necessary to take account of one or more of the following factors:
a. achieve a balance between making the most efficient use of the site, being respectful of neighbours and providing good on-site amenity
b. the proportions or topography of the site or the length of the road frontage mean that it is not possible to maximise development without generating adverse effects on the street and surrounding area.6. Limit non-residential activities to those of an intensity which is compatible with the residential character and amenity of the zone and require any non-residential building to be of a scale and design that is complementary to the surrounding residential context.
Looking at some of the key rules we can see that it doesn’t involve much upzoning at all. An 8 metre height limit as a permitted activity, a density control of one unit per 300 square metres for sites under 1200 square metres and without a 20m frontage and a fairly normal array of other controls [site to boundary, site coverage etc.]. We also, unfortunately, see minimum parking requirements retained in this zone. Two stories [three with a resource consent in some cases] and mandatory on-site parking makes for low rise, low density suburbia, just with some smaller dwellings with smaller gardens possible [Although why some of these couldn’t be without garages instead if the market supports it I have no idea].
But critically there are really two zones in one here – all dependent upon whether the site being developed meets two key criteria of the 1200m site size and the 20m site frontage. Sites which don’t will see a fairly low level of intensification down to 1:300 m2 of density [a bit more enabling than current rules which are generally around 1:350-1:400 in the “standard” zones]. Sites which do meet this threshold will still have the same key height controls [two levels as permitted, higher with a resource consent as is the case in existing plans] but won’t have density controls and therefore will see a much wider range of development typologies occurring.
The trouble with squeezing two zones into one is, as I said earlier in this post, that I don’t think we provide for either of the sought outcomes very well. I think there are quite extensive tracts of Auckland where three level terraced housing would most certainly be appropriate – yet that kind of development would probably be quite difficult in the Mixed Housing zone, yet the Terraced House and Apartment Building [THAB] zone is quite tightly limited around centres and in places where we might want more intensive housing than freehold “fee simple” terraced housing. But similarly, there are probably quite significant tracts of Auckland where we don’t want intensification to happen much beyond what’s there now [or provided for in existing plans] due to poor transport access, a lack of infrastructure capacity or the particular character of an area.
A good example is to look at the North Shore, where it seems pretty much everywhere not specifically identified a low density or which isn’t in or immediately around a centre has been lumped into this Mixed Housing zone:
The way the zone is currently structured makes me worry it’s nothing more than enabling “garden gobbling” infill across a massive tract of Auckland: not the targeted intensification that we actually need in order to integrated our planning and transport better or to provide affordable housing in the right places. Certainly too strict in the places we want growth, maybe too lenient in the places we don’t really want growth.
So what’s the solution? Well perhaps this zone should really be split into two?:
- A “Main Residential” zone which has something like a density control of one unit per 350 square metres, a standard site coverage requirement, 8m height limit (perhaps full discretionary status to go beyond it?) with standard allowance for another minor unit within the main building – something all zones currently provide for. This would probably cover most of the area currently proposed as Mixed Housing, except for areas close to the THAB zone or on really good public transport routes.
- A “Terraced and Town House” zone. This would explicitly allow three levels, not have a density control but have other amenity controls which direct the zone towards providing intensive housing typologies which still sit on their own bit of land [rather than apartments which rely on Unit Titles and Body Corporates]. This “Terraced and Town House” zone would be the best bits of the Mixed Housing zone and perhaps the “pushing it” bits of the current THAB zone – which in turn could properly focus on providing for good quality apartments and narrow the area it applies to [or just merge with the Mixed Use zone].
This would lead to four ‘steps’ in intensity for typical residential zones: Single Dwelling with little infill potential, generally Single Dwelling with some infill and some duplex potential, Terraced Houses & Town Houses and then Apartments. This might hopefully lead to Auckland being able to better explore those “middle density” housing typologies that seem to have been squeezed out so often in the past and led to not much being built between detached houses and big apartment buildings. It might also allay many community fears of ‘garden gobbling infill’ and direct intensification to where it actually makes sense.
But to really gain the density advantages from this new zone it would need to be more flexible to allow different typologies and this should mean the ability to go below the 300m^2 Minimum Lot Size, remove Minimum Parking Requirements, and Height in Relation to Boundary controls, where appropriate. As exampled this post. And in the spatial order of many of our older suburbs:
These houses all fail the MH regs as being too close to each other, on lots too small, and in most cases having no off street parking. Yet I am pretty sure that the people who pay huge sums for these houses and those that wish all suburbs could be Victorian or Edwardian are more than happy with these features yet they are not possible in the MH zone. Further coverage of this disconnect between the actual building blocks of successful old neighbourhoods and how we plan now here.
So perhaps the MH zone is seriously flawed; neither one thing nor the other. Could it be chopped in two or would invite even more boundary issues? And I guess the downside to this is a loss of flexibility for the market to determine over time where is more suitable for either of each of these two new zones, but rather have it left up to planners to pick and choose now….. But then currently the loudest complainers are people who seem to want the Council to further restrict their property rights, be more proscriptive, not give them more freedom.
Processing...
Hmm I think your main Residential zone is not much similar to the single house zone. I say keep the mixed housing zone in general as it looks now, although maybe some tweaks to reduce in sensitive areas (landscape and heritage), and where far away from PT, and enlarge close to high frequency PT routes. Ie between Mt Eden and Dom Road there is patch of single housing in the middle. Should go all the way between these roads, in anticipation of heritage overlays getting rid of intensification potential in some streets.
However agree should have a middling zone close to town centers, maybe at 10m, and also reducing the need to amalgamate sections.
To reduce community concerns could have a much higher unit size in the general mixed use zone (maybe 50-70m2), however in this new terrace housing zone that would not exist. I suspect there may also need to be a temporary ‘service capacity overlay’ in some areas, as will be some streets that it is found the sewers and stormwater cannot handle intensification for now. Best to be clear about this in the plan, rather than waiting for individual applications. This overlay could be non-statutory, however would say that water care/council will oppose intensification on certain streets in the meantime. Problem is Plan Change is sooo complicated, so would take years to update plan after work is completed.
Very well put Patrick, I’ve been trying to think of this solution for weeks! I have struggled with how ‘broad-brush’ the mixed zone is, so I feel like this makes sense. If anything it would give some shape to the plan where there is currently a lot of beige indicating lots of potential outcomes. Would help allay alot of the fears I think while allowing for better targeted intensificaiton.
“Problem is Plan Change is sooo complicated, so would take years to update plan after work is completed.”
Agreed.
Agree with Patrick that MH is too broad, and too far from the next zone up – the THAB zone so an intermediate step up between MH and THAB is needed.
And Luke C’s comment about a 10m height limit closer to THAB zones, this is what the old ACC “Res 7” (a,b,c,) zone accomplishes – a step from the old Res 6 (a,b,c) zone to a higher (3 level) type situation.
For instance most of Rem road both sides is Res 7.
Also agree with Luke C’s comment about plan change.process being complicated.
My suggestion that council need to mark the MH zones, then introduce a “MH Plus” zone near the edges of the THAB zone (e.g. 250 metres circle around the THAB zone circle. Which is the stepping stone “up” to THAB.
Then with some clear process and rules as to how an entire block/sector within the MH Plus zone can get “upzoned” in future to the next level up (THAB).
e.g. automatically upgraded within 7,14,21 years or whatever – if external conditions a b and c are met, where these could be transport links, drainage, or other external to the sites affected changes (e.g. adjacent THAB zone/sector must be 60% intensified), plus maybe including a community agreement of X% of the residents in the MH Plus “block” agreeing to the upzone process for “their block”.
This means that council then has given a clear stepping stone process by which MH to THAB can be transitioned in a orderly and less brutal way, and can be achieved semi-automatically without having to rewrite the UP every few years. And also means that MH areas edges are less prone to boundary effects of having THAB shoved up against it, while also allowing for a gradual expansion of the THAB circle “out” as and when the THAB development potential is achieved so that further enlargening of the THAB zone is needed/justified.
How about this for a solution, we maintain three residential zones but tweak them a little, basically:
1) Single house zone, old school suburbia that we want to maintain.
2) Mixed housing, basically intensive individual townhouses and terraces up to three stories. Still fee-simple single owner dwellings with back yards, but able to be built intensively. Everyone still has thier own plot of land, whatever the size.
3) Low rise apartments zone. Allows for apartments and terraces of 4-6 stories, the distinction being that body-corporate cross titles on land are more common.
So the terraced house provisions shift from the old THAB to the mixed housing, but critically the Single House zone gets expanded to cover about half of what is currently proposed to be mixed housing. Or in other words mixed housing shrinks to become more like an extra band around centres and corridors, rather than the default for much of suburbia.
This would allow a much better stepping of density from intensive centres down to low intensity suburban areas. Much less frightening for the horses.
Great idea and pretty much what I have written into my submission.
Nick- Excellent idea. i might steal it for my submission too if ok?
Having “2)” means increased density, livability, and we do like “a bit of dirt to call our own”.
Also less Body Corporates = A Better World. Most of my apartment based friends say Body Corps lead to some nasty politicking and bullying.
And we don’t want to make Colin Craig any richer…
Amen to that.
Definitely, this is a great idea. Body corporates are the price you have to pay to have an apartment, not a good in themselves. Terraced houses and the like work far better as fee simple developments. They can be built and redeveloped individually, and each one can be different without needing the neighbours’ permission. Plus, not having unit titles eliminates the horrible “gated community” style of development that has infected most terraced house developments in Auckland.
In my submission I’m going to go the whole hog and suggest that unit title, cross lease and the like not be allowed as of right, except in the apartment zone. The council would also commit to taking over any common driveway (as a shared space) as long as it was a connection right through the block (i.e. no dead ends). This opens up far more frontage for smaller lots.
I quite like my body corp and do considerate it a “good”. The manage the short and long term maintenance, keep the walls painted, mow the lawn, sweep the grass, test the fire alarms etc. all stuff I’d rather not do myself, and I imagine its much cheaper for the forty of us to pay for that collectively than if we all did it separately.
I do have a very good BC management company though, and have experienced the horrors of a bad one.
Nick have you just outed yourself as a lawn owner!
Oh, I’m sure some of them can be great for the people who own them right now. Presumably it depends hugely on picking the right place, and doing the work to make that body corp function.
The real problem I have with unit title is the same as with cross-leases, covenants, easements and so on – you tie in a very specific pattern of ownership that’s difficult to unpick in the future. Subdivision has similar problems, but to a much lesser scale, since you can at least redevelop individual properties without needing the permission of all of your neighbours. You can also consolidate parcels a bit more easily. With unit title you need to buy all of the units. With fee simple parcels you just need enough contiguous lots for what you want to build, and you can stand to have a few holdouts.
Interestingly it is the need to manage parking that is usually the reason that small residential developments have to move from fee simple to body corporates- to manage that collectively own space. Fully agree that this is to be avoided where possible. Lawyers are rich and busy enough.
This is yet another reason why small lot size, no side setback, no Height in Relation to Boundary, no Minimum Parking options are an important possibility in exactly those residential areas that are no not so central that a taller typology make economic and urban form sense. AKA Terrace houses, like Georgian London… especially with key holder parks within blocks. Walk-ups. Glorious.
“Lawyers are rich and busy enough.” – That is just not possible. How are the partners meant to afford private schooling and the 3 SUVs to take the kids to school every day? Wont someone think of the children!
Having no parking or car access would certainly lower the need for a BC. However, there are other factors like party walls and common space – even just footpaths. NZ legal practise isnt very well developed to handle things like party walls, though that is one of the standard easemenst provided for by statute. The gated community type of development pretty much requires unit titles even if there was no vehicle access because of all the shared space.
If you had a row of terraced houses, each with direct access to the street, then a non-unit title development might be possible. However, you are right that current planning rules mean that unit title developments are often the only way to go as otherwise the rules (minimum lot size and maximum coverage and set back in particular) will prevent fee simple developments.
The low quality of BC companies has definitely contributed to the negative impression unit titles have. Some of them are real cowboy outfits who have no idea what the law provides. Resident controlled ones are often even worse though in my experience with no recording of decisions and no maintenance funds.
Shared driveways are like cul-de-sacs, in a way. They do nothing to improve connections through the neighbourhood, and they aren’t really public space. But they bring all sorts of complications for the residents, and no one person gets to benefit by treating the space as private, either.
What would be far superior is to open up rear lots with new mid-block through streets vested in the council. The idea is that public maintenance of your street is a reward for opening up a new connection. If it’s more efficient for a body corp to maintain a driveway than an individual, then think of the council as a body corporate responsible for the better part of a million units.
I could Nick’s “mixed zone 2” being popular for people who are leery of the complications that come with shared ownership structures like cross-leases and unit titles, but don’t need the space associated with single house dwellings (ie people happy to accept smaller lot sizes and/or more stories if it means they can live in the neighbourhood they want more cheaply).
I think that would be the intent of that zone – to stay away from cross-lease, unit titles, body corporates etc. but not apply a density control but a heap of amenity controls instead. Hopefully that would lead to Hobsonville Point outcomes.
This blog and the comments on it give me hope for the future of Auckland – good on everyone who is preparing a submission, it will definitely make a difference! One point to consider – the 20m width consideration came in to incentivise more comprehensive development, and development against the street. We know that at that width you have much more flexibility with development, particularly in being able to group parking – any narrower and you tend to end up with sausage blocks and it becomes harder to address the street.
In the MHZ currently the ‘reward’ for comprehensive development with road frontage is the removal of the density limit. If we end up with a third zone or an intensive Mixed Housing Zone (both good ideas), how can we encourage or reward more comprehensive development?