Yesterday the Council’s Governing Body agreed to notify the Unitary Plan, 6 months after they first launched consultation on the draft version of the plan. The decision to notify confirms all of the changes made to the plan following the feedback from the draft and from the councillor’s discussions over the last few weeks. This is quite a big milestone as it means the plan can now start to go through the formal resource management act processes. Here is the council’s press release:
Auckland Council’s Governing Body has approved the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan for notification and a formal submissions phase.
Following today’s meeting Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said “We have developed this plan with our communities using a brave new process and today’s decision is a true milestone for Auckland.
“The proposed plan has come a long way since we put out a draft version in March. It now reflects a careful balance between ensuring quality development in the right places and a modified approach where our communities have voiced their concerns.
“We want to create a city our grandchildren will be proud of and the Unitary Plan is one of the key tools we need to make this a reality.”
The next stage in the process is the formal submissions phase, which starts on the date of notification, 30 September. This process is set out by the Resource Management Act and allows 90 days for Aucklanders to make a submission.
Following this, further submissions and the hearings process will take place over approximately three years.
The plan includes amendments to the maps, policies and rules based on the feedback of 22,000 Aucklanders and the decisions made by Auckland Councillors on what changes would be included.
From 30 September, the proposed plan will be available online at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz as well as in hard copy format in libraries for those that don’t have access to internet.
The councillors voted 17-4 to notify the plan with only Cameron Brewer, Christine Fletcher, Dick Quax and Sharon Stewart voting not to proceed.
It will be very interesting to see how the public react to this version of the draft, and if the Herald will once again try to whip people into a frenzy about it. There are of course also the very anti unitary plan groups like Auckland 2040. Further it’s unhelpful for the whole process that there are local body elections just around the corner, and there are already a lot of signs of politicians trying to scaremonger the population with misinformation for their own political advantage. In case anyone is wondering, one of the reasons for notifying now instead of waiting till after the election is that it means the formal process is underway and not able to be tinkered with which could have been an issue if there are a large amount of new councillors swept in on a platform of throwing the plan out.
In fact some of the councillors tried to get the process delayed for this very reason with Cameron Brewer moving an amendment during the debate two weeks ago.
I expect there will still be a lot of noise and complaining about the plan and the biggest worry will be seeing what the commissioners on the hearings panel decide. The panel are being appointed by the government, not the council as is usual in these situations. The amended process the government has put in place means that the hearings panel will review the feedback and evidence before making recommendations to the council. If the council doesn’t agree with the recommendations then the worry is the process could be drawn out in environment court appeals for up to a decade.
Another reason why it was important for the council to agree to notify the Unitary Plan relates to the government’s Special Housing Area agreement with the council – which was also approved today. That agreement will see special housing areas established where the consenting process is sped up and crucially in those areas will be the Unitary Plan rules will be used.
What is absolutely clear is that the council will need to do a much better job of communicating what the plan actually contains than they did with the draft where their comms were horrendous. Half of the issues came from the fact that people didn’t realise that most of the rules they were fighting against were already in place in their neighbourhoods and they acted like the sky was falling down due to them being in the unitary plan. While a lot more work is needed it seems that perhaps the council might be finally starting to get the message as along with the press release they have put out these two graphics to try and explain some of the contentious issues of building height and dwelling size. Much more information is going to be needed, especially at a local level to help explain what changes are proposed.
Along with these two graphics, there is also this factsheet on building heights which compares the height limits for every metro and town centre.
Lastly the other day I said I would publish the relevant voting records however due to how they are laid out it would require a massive amount of work to put into a post (which would also be very very long) so here are the minutes from the discussions.
Of course we will be following what happens with the plan after notification so you can probably expect a bit more coverage on this topic yet.
Processing...
I’m torn as to whether minimum dwelling sizes are more/less harmful than minimum parking requirements.
Nonetheless, what is certain is that they will have extremely negative impacts on housing affordability in Auckland for the people who can least afford it.
Way to go Auckland.
Don’t worry Stu, the council have also mandated that for any development with 15 or more dwellings that there be a minimum of 10% as affordable homes. Just how they will manage that and whether it will work is anyones guess.
I think you mean to say that the council has mandated that up to 90% of the new housing constructed in Auckland will be unaffordable. This is not exactly a sweeping triumph of policy.
So the the Unitary Plan, as enacted by quivering incompetents influenced by shrill hystericals actually de-intensifies Auckland’s future. Dullsville it will remain.
I still don’t see why they need to force 30m2 studios to have a balcony of 8m2 added on. There is something very strange when a studio must have a balcony the size of a bedroom.
Neither Councillors nor planners should be dictating this. What is with this mandatory external space? Some idea about the universal cultural value of the BBQ? Outside living is not always the best use of a site; southside balconies don’t even work on villas and are routinely closed in. Many apartments would be much better with that space on the inside… especially for apartment sites with expansive motorway views….
It would have been a lot better if at least the balcony space requirement could be flexible, i.e. if you go for a larger inside, you get a reduction / can drop the balcony off. Maybe we can achieve that via submissions? Gen Zero campaign and lots of us writing in? Plus get at least town centres permission to build 30sqm sizes, rather than just metropolitan centres.
So just include balconies in the minimum? I.e. you can build 30m2 + 8m2 balcony, or 38m2 with no balcony, or somewhere in between.
Exactly. Wouldn’t be removing the nanny state, but a lot better.
Of course someone will come along even then and ask for a minimum balcony requirement IF one decides to have a balcony under this rule, because the market can’t be trusted on this either, and people can’t be trusted to see that if a developer builds a 1 sqm balcony, it is of little use. No, there will have to be a rule on that too.
Actually, even a 1 sqm balcony might be perfectly fine. Why not? But you can’t let people decide. They are idiots after all.
Especially about things they can see and measure themselves. Flexibility is only good in subjects where they need experts, such as cladding materials, treatment methods, eaves etc… – i.e. leaky homes. There, it is all fine to let the market decide to serve us up with a few billion dollars of economic damage. BUT NOT ON BALCONY SIZES, DEAR SIRS.
The balcony requirements seem ludicrous…
So how does the three year (!) approval process work? Is there still a chance for meaningful change, whether pro-urban or pro-sprawl or just NIMBYist?
The final details aren’t yet know but I understand it will be considerably more technical than a standard hearing on a proposed plan, anyone who submits can be cross-examined by lawyers (more akin to the Environment Court) so it will require a lot more technical justification from submitters (i.e. “high density housing will just create a ghetto” won’t cut the mustard if you want to be taken seriously). This may sway it more to the pro-urban side however those with the deepest pockets benefit most from the new system.
Huh. Newmarket is the second-largest business hub in Auckland, and they’ve actually managed to reduce the height limits there from what are currently in place.
its because the proposed height limits would have completely blocked out views of Mt Eden from the entire eastern suburbs of auckland, also compromise views of Mt Hobson. and vice versa from Mt Eden out across Hbson Bay etc. it still allows for 9-10 storeys across a reasonable area.
The volcanic cone view shafts still exist and override any height limits, so no problem there.
Bizarre right. Nice work Cameron Brewer. Moron.
I loved his piece in the Herald this week. Too much debt, Len Brown should fix it. It’s the annoying parent on the sideline at the soccer game, except he forgets he’s actually on the team. How about some actual programs on how to reduce this debt load? Or would that detract from the fact that most of the borrowing is completely justified?
“How about some actual programs on how to reduce this debt load?”
Higher single uniform rates charge. That’s one of the things he declaredly loved. So rates for Orakei rise slower than rates for Otara, because everyone pays a higher lump sum.
No, wait, that’s redistribution in favour of richer areas, not debt reducing. Still fits.
Exactly, changes nothing. He needs to outline the things he would cancel or change to reduce debt. I’m pretty sure he was against the whitewater rafting facility so there’s $30m. Leaves several billion to go.
As a resident of Orakei Ward, I cannot believe that no one stood against Dr. No. Is there a no confidence option on the ballot paper?
Not paying Cameron Brewer would be a good way of reducing council debt.
Does this mean that every three story residential building will need to receive resource consent?
Are there any other cities in the world with minimum balcony requirements?
In the single house and mixed housing suburban zones a three storey building would require resource consent. In the mixed housing urban zone a three storey building is permitted which means no resource consent is required. So in the majority of the city, and an even greater majority of the Isthmus where intensification makes most sense, it will not be possible to build over two storeys without resource consent.
Re three storeys requires resource consent: from what I’ve seen of the draft UP to date it is not clear. The wording of the rules limits heights in most residential zones in terms of metres but their headings and stated purpose make reference to stories. It creates ambiguity that lawyers can drive a bus through. And it’s not hard to build a three storey house up to 8m. Just dig it in a little and have a flat-ish roof. There are plenty of examples around the suburbs (especially on the North Shore). For the terraced house and apartment zone the rule explicitly controls height in both metres and storeys. Although I don’t know if a storey is defined or how it deals with a split level house or a house with a mezzanine floor. Of course this may now be changed in the proposed UP to be notified.
Re minimum balcony size in other cities: Yes. London is one example. I suspect many other UK cities as well. Wouldn’t surprise me too if some Australian cities also have such standards.
the government gets to appoint the hearings panel!!!!??? another instance of their democracy is better than ours! stop meddling National, you gave us this super city now butt out and let it do its job
Fat chance. Be “happy” we haven’t had our mayor replaced like they did in Canterbury (ECAN regional council kicked out and replaced by comissioners) or Christchurch (council and mayor essentially replaced for many functions by an appointed CERA authority).
Remember, this is “trust me, I wouldn’t do anything wrong with your trust” Key’s government. They know best, now go and talk about snapper.
Really cheesed off about Browns Bay….. There hasbeen little to no opposition to 6 stories and yet it has been reduced to 3/4
The people on the hill would have complained about views.
No offence, but have you been to Browns Bay?
he hills there are so steep around the village centre that there is no way that views would have been blocked even by a 6 storey building.
Despite being a reasonable distance from the CBD, Browns Bay could have been great with a well connected PT route with a few more apartments. Same with Milford, Devonport, Bayswater, etc. Sigh…