Myths of the Unitary Plan

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

There are Myths?

 

Apparently So

 

Time to look at some Myths Around the Unitary Plan as well as a response to those myths and debunk them. Why? Someone has to – might as well as be one of Auckland‘s leading balanced commentators on the Unitary Plan. So here we go starting with the Council’s list.

Format: My comments will be in blue under the said point

 

From Shape Auckland

UNITARY PLAN MYTHS BUSTED

City park.

Mis-information is being spread about the draft Auckland Unitary Plan, which is causing misunderstanding and unnecessary concern amongst our communities.

We welcome your feedback but it is important that it is based on facts and what is actually being proposed, rather than myths. You have less than three weeks – 31 May – to submit feedback.

Below are the most commonly incorrect statements being made about the draft plan and the correct situation.

Myth 1: Your house could be taken off you and be demolished to make way for terraced housing and apartments.
Fact: Nobody will be forced to change their way of living. Auckland Council does not have the power to take your property from you. Nothing will ever change on your property unless you as the property owner decide to renovate, build or sell.

Correct apart from the Public Works Act 1981 for civil projects like roads. But in that case it is transport related rather than zone related. You more likely have a NZTA or even Kiwi Rail filing a Public Works notice to have your house purchased off you rather than Council. Although in saying that I am aware of the City Rail Link land designation and property acquisition under way. But again – transport not zone related.

 

Myth 2: Auckland Council is trying to attract 1 million more people.
Fact: Auckland Council is not trying to attract more people nor does it have a target for another 1 million people. We are however prudently planning for it. The figure of 1 million is based on the Statistics New Zealand high growth rate, which has made predictions about Auckland’s population for the next 30 years. Most of the growth will be from Aucklanders having children and migration from within New Zealand.

No, that (the growth) would be happening on its own. I have given commentary on Auckland having critical mass to attract large numbers of people to the city. Yesterday I also called for Auckland to be recognised as a Megaopolis for which we are. As I said we are no longer a sleepy backwater village, but a gobal city now playing with the big boys of the world. Thus we treat and plan as such owing to our Megaopolis and Beta status in the world. However, in the same regard we do have 1.5 million people and natural birth rates currently standing at around 2.4 (so above replacement rates (2.1) and in the positive growth territory). So Auckland is going to grow one way or the other

 

Myth 3: Apartments are planned in every neighbourhood.
Fact: They won’t appear in every neighbourhood. In fact the proposed terraced housing and apartment building zone will make up only 7% of Auckland’s total residential land use.

Need to check the Unitary Plan maps but on strict definitions that would be correct. Terraced Housing and Apartments are not planned around the lower end Local Centres nor the numerous Neighbourhood Centres. The apartments are definitely not in the rural neighbourhoods either.

Myth 4: High density = high rise.
Fact: No. The majority of future Auckland housing will remain at two storeys. Increased density will be achieved by allowing for well-designed housing options on smaller lots. Multi-level dwellings in residential areas will be only between four and six storeys, not high-rise which is considered over nine storeys. Some of the areas proposed for terrace housing and apartments already have apartments of this height.

Okay playing with the English here somewhat. It comes down to definitions of density and high rise. Official definitions of High-Rise is anything over 12 storeys with medium rise being 4-12 storeys. Anything below that is low-rise. As for density that is dependent on geographic definitions which often define the number of people per set area. So depending on what the people for set area trigger for high density is, is depending on what high density really is. For me I take it off the Sim City 4 definitions which was based on American usage of the terms. Most of our housing is in fact low and medium density per American rules under the Unitary Plan.

 

Myth 5: Aucklanders do not want to live in apartments.
Fact: Many Aucklanders already choose to live in apartments. There are 3-4 level apartments across Auckland. Those choosing this lifestyle are not just younger Aucklanders or students but baby boomers who are downsizing their property for low maintenance living.

Allow the market to determine that. Although our finance rules might need to change to make access to apartments somewhat more easier than current and compared to a detached house on a lot.

 

Myth 6: The draft Unitary Plan will allow for rows of badly designed block buildings and shoeboxes.
Fact: Quality design for our city’s future development and public spaces is a top priority under the proposed Unitary Plan rules. Some of what’s been built in Auckland in the past has been too small, not enough variety, and not well designed. The rules for minimum unit sizes is proposed to be 30sq m plus a mandatory 8 sq m outdoor living space. There cannot be a building solely made up of units of a minimum size as there are limits on how many of one type of unit a building can have. The draft Unitary Plan sets design controls, which will be supported by the Auckland Design Manual.

All I can say is read this: WHAT IS A MIXED HOUSING ZONE in regards to mixed housing. As for apartments – well we should have adopted the 2005 Urban Design Protocol eight years ago…

 

Myth 7: There is not adequate protection for heritage homes.
Fact: The draft Auckland Unitary Plan provides more protection for character and heritage homes than currently exists. The Plan recognises that a balance is needed for homes of historic character. It proposes a set of rules and controls that acknowledges Auckland’s distinctive villa and bungalow suburbs and that a number of factors are needed to fairly evaluate what homes should be protected from demolition or removal. At the same time, it recognises that some residents want to have the ability to make changes to their home. While these evaluations are being done, the Plan proposes an interim blanket protection for all pre-1944 buildings.

Working on that through the Special Character Zone proposal…

 

Myth 8: The Council is deliberately creating a divide between the young and old.
Fact: Auckland Council is involving all Aucklanders in the discussion about our city’s future and we are not singling out or favouring any particular section of our diverse community. We are getting feedback from all ages.

Umm no, the blue rinse brigade and some civic leaders have been doing that – and exceptionally well too. Those civic leaders and the blue rinse brigade should be shamed (no St Heliers is not that category before some asks as they have gone out of their way to work with youth (hey I am one) and get a resolution acceptable to their community and wider Auckland (again the SCZ work) for the divide caused. Council as a whole however has not created this divide (if it did yesterday would of been a torture exercise – to which it was the absolute opposite). 

 

Myth 9: Infrastructure and transport are ignored in the Unitary Plan.
Fact: Planned new developments will only occur with adequate infrastructure in place. The draft Auckland Unitary Plan sets out rules to ensure safe, efficient and secure development, operation and upgrading of infrastructure. The Plan has specific sections on infrastructure. However, it is wrong to expect that the Plan deals or must deal with all aspects of infrastructure.

I can’t be seriously bothered going into this. I have gone on about it enough and Council has as well. Watercare and Auckland Transport know what is at stake and even are submitting themselves (most likely) to the Unitary Plan. What one has to watch is silo mentality between Council and the CCOs that can cause a disconnect between urban planning and infrastructure as has happened in the past. All my UP work has that land use – transport integration in constant play

 

Myth 10: If a terrace house or apartment is built next to me, I will experience shadowing, loss of privacy and sunlight.
Fact: The draft Plan has specific rules that will protect the privacy, sunlight etc. of neighbours that apply to all such new apartment developments. They include height in relation to boundary (daylight access rule) and privacy rules.

Waiting for the Auckland Design Manual before commenting there

 

Myth 11: We don’t need to change anything.
Fact: When Auckland’s eight councils amalgamated, there were 14 different district and regional plans. The council is still operating under these plans, many of which are out of date, have inconsistent rules and are more than 10 years old. The Government required the new Auckland Council to create a single Unitary Plan for the whole of Auckland under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It is needed for us to implement the 30-year Auckland Plan and create the world’s most liveable city.

Yes we do, I live in Papakura and have a business slowly expanding right across the city. I don’t need to go through 14 cursed ad-hoc and outdated planned to make sure I comply with the rules from legacy councils. At least with the UP there will be a single rule book I can deal with unlike the 14 now. As for legislation, that is correct with the UP required by Central Government

 

Myth 12: My property has a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) which means everything from trimming a tree or clearing any vegetation will require resource consent and I can never develop the land.
Fact: SEAs are about protecting unique native plants and animals but council recognises that protection must be balanced against individual property owners’ rights to use and manage their land. Minor vegetation pruning and trimming, pruning of trees within 3m of a dwelling, maintaining existing tracks, ecological restoration and emergency works to protect people or property would all be permitted. A consent would be required to clear indigenous vegetation (e.g. for new building sites). A consent for a first house site on undeveloped SEAs where no alternative exists would always be granted. There would be no cost for processing these consents in relation to SEA.

Don’t know about that to comment specifically on it

 

That is the Council’s Myth Busting, now for Thorton Myth Busting

Again my comments in blue text

List of ‘myth-busters’ will not fool ratepayers

Wednesday, 15 May 2013, 12:06 pm
Press Release: No More Rates

MEDIA RELEASE 15th May 2013

[statement from David Thornton]

Auckland Council’s list of ‘myth-busters’ will not fool ratepayers

Auckland Council’s list of ‘myth-busters’ will not fool ratepayers into accepting the flawed and controversial draft Unitary Plan which the Council wants to take immediate legal effect when it is notified shortly after 18th September.

Meetings attended by hundreds of ratepayers and residents have largely rejected the Unitary Plan in its present form and the council’s myth-buster list appears to be a last desperate attempt to deflect the tide of opposition which is currently flooding into the Town Hall.

With the closure of the ‘engagement’ period in just two weeks the council’s response to public input is likely to become a major election issue in October.

Millions of ratepayer funds have already been spent on developing this Plan – and a huge amount has been spent on promotional spin.

Ratepayers have a right to expect a clear picture of how the Unitary Plan will affect them and their homes – and how much is the Council really telling them.

The following ‘non-myths’ are my response to the Council.

Your house cannot be taken off you – but revaluations will cause another chaotic swing in the incidence of rates
The Council proposes to rezone every residential property in Auckland which will bring about wholesale changes in market valuations – which, in turn, will lead to wild swings in rates following next year’s general revaluation of all properties. This movement in valuations is already starting to happen as property developers are reported to be searching for ‘juicy’ redevelopment opportunities ahead of the introduction of the Unitary Plan.

Probably going to end up saying this a bit but; playing loose with the English here. Council can not take your house off you apart from the Pubic Works Act and nor can developers. The free market does reign supreme here so it is up to owners to decide whether or not to sell – even to those developers eyeing up juicy developments. As for rate swings, our rates are taken from capital not land. Capital does not usually swing that much unless there is something defective with the building at hand. So rates should not swing with the land value swing from UP rezoning. If there is rate swings then one might want to look at the rating formula set to our capital based system Auckland has…

 

Auckland Council chose to accommodate 1 million more people.

Auckland Council has chosen to adopt the highest forecast of population growth of one million. Most councils and government agencies adopt the medium growth forecasts, in Auckland’s case this is 600,000. The Council did in fact choose to use the maximum forecast, it was not forced on the Council by the Government

The Council then chose to use the clumsy method of rezoning every residential property in the city/region – but has been told by consultants that not even this wholesale rezoning will provide enough land within the current metropolitan limits, or even with within the proposed expanded limits within the Rural Urban Boundary.

Probably a good idea to go for the high end and scale back over 30 years. Scaling back and even running infrastructure surplus would leave the city in a better position than under project population growth and end up in an infrastructure deficit situation (making it very expensive to catch up on as Auckland is already finding out). As for agencies, well we all know they prove themselves as Captain and Major Useless most days in the fact they under project and we get caught short (schools, hospitals, public transport and prisons any one?) as a result… So over projecting – better of the two evils

As for that consultant’s report; if that is the StudioD4/Jasmax report I leaked last year then fine that is a fair point. That report was looking at however, the council’s then initial proposal of 75:25 Brown:Greenfield development which is now the actual 60:40 rule.  However, I do believe the 60:40 ration with land has covered the growth aspect adequately enough at this present time.

 

Apartments are planned in every neighbourhood.

Council claims that apartments won’t appear in every neighbourhood and that the proposed terraced housing and apartment building zone will make up only 7% of Auckland’s total residential land use.

The 7% figure is a smoke screen – the fact is that the terraced housing and apartment zoning, which includes 4 and 5-storey apartment blocks, is to be found in almost every community across Auckland. Including apartments above shops in local centres.

Loose with English here and David knows it. As I said earlier: “Need to check the Unitary Plan maps but on strict definitions that would be correct. Terraced Housing and Apartments are not planned around the lower end Local Centres nor the numerous Neighbourhood Centres. The apartments are definitely not in the rural neighbourhoods either.”

 

High density other than high rise.
Council claims that the majority of future Auckland housing will remain at two storey and increased density will be achieved by allowing for well-designed housing options on smaller lots.

This is wholesale in-fill. Increased density will require increased infrastructure, including water supply, wastewater disposal [sewerage drains], stormwater drainage capacity to match increase in non-permeable land, and massive road widening – most of which will need to be retrofitted which is hugely expensive with the cost falling ultimately on ratepayers.

There was a comment that did mention that this can happen but, on the flip side it could kick off a needed upgrade for the community area as well bringing in benefits. The planning process and rights to appeal should provide the checks and balances from excessive costs being fostered upon a community

 

Aucklanders wanting to live in apartments?
Most Aucklanders do not live in apartments and there is no substantiated demand for them. Developers have realized this which is why the apartment market is dominated by renters and investors. A recent survey reported in NZ Herald showed young couples planning a family want to have a home with ‘a bit of grass’ just like their parents.

Rule of thumb number one: ignore Herald polls. 

As for everything else – allow the market to decide. Although renters do live in apartments you know… I do have friends who do live in them as they do not want a house with land attached – no use to for them.

 

The draft Unitary Plan and design rules.

Council claims that the draft Unitary Plan sets design controls, which will be supported by the Auckland Design Manual.

Community meetings have asked to see this Design Manual but have been told it will not be available for residents and ratepayers to consider until September, by which time the Plan could be effective, and resource consents being applied for.

Even I am waiting on the ADM so agree there

 

Divide between the young and old on the Unitary Plan?
Any perception of a divide between young and old can only arise from the council’s own presentation of the Auckland Plan

The Council’s whole PR strategy has promoted the interests of youth – the Deputy Mayor even used her grandchild at the Plan launch to stress this was a plan for 30 years and beyond. The Council’s Auckland Plan states” young people” is where it wants to make a transformational shift. – it’s the number priority. But few young people have been present at community meetings on any of Auckland’s plan.

Most of the 35-year olds, and upwards, attending community meetings on the Plan, have clearly rejected the extent of intensification in quiet suburban areas. While there have been accusations of Nimby-ism from a small vocal collection of youth commenters, there is no apparent groundswell of support for the Unitary Plan from young people.

This is where I drop the biggest myth busting and I shall use my comments again on this: “Umm no, the blue rinse brigade and some civic leaders have been doing that – and exceptionally well too. Those civic leaders and the blue rinse brigade should be shamed (no St Heliers is not that category before some asks as they have gone out of their way to work with youth (hey I am one) and get a resolution acceptable to their community and wider Auckland (again the SCZ work) for the divide caused. Council as a whole however has not created this divide (if it did yesterday would have been a torture exercise – to which it was the absolute opposite).”

More to the point is that I can bridge the divide and have done so with the UP. The Blue Rinse Brigade seem to be ignorant to  that however, so I do wonder when NIMBYism does kick through and is stirred up to be made worse by those civic leaders (and Bernard Orsman of the NZ Herald who should know better). Also I was at the Generation Zero Unitary Plan Youth Form last night where there were 150 under 30’s there all talking UP. Beside the fact I ended up de-facto facilitating three different topics (Sudhvir I shall invoice you shortly buddy 😉 ) two schools of thought came out of the forum:

  1. The youth know as much as the over 35’s do with the Unitary Plan and my apologies is not a heck of a lot. It is through no fault of their own I make that extremely clear and no fault of Generation Zero either who have been working their backsides off getting the UP out there. As I said I ended up de-facto facilitating three topics (The RUB, The Centres and Housing Location, and Integrated Land Use and Transport) to help the students along with understand the UP. While I was fine doing that I did find it also alarming
  2. A Council inquiry needs to be held the engagement and feedback process right across the spectrum. As I mentioned in Point 1, I was de-facto facilitating owing to my work and dedication to the UP thus far. I shouldn’t have been to be honest and all I wanted to do was listen and take notes so I could write it back up on my blog as part of my UP coverage. But I stepped up and did so with the result being lots of happy people – so I did my civic duty again. But that inquiry needs to be held on what went wrong and what can be done next time to improve it.

I do wonder if the Blue Rinse Brigade should hang its head in shame for putting the wider city off. Angry and abusive scenes (no not St Heliers…) against those who had a just a slightly different view to those of the Brigade would have been enough to put any person off from participation.

In saying that; through my own consultancy firm TotaRim, engagement on the Unitary Plan will continue post May 31 to everyone young and old, for or against the UP. Details on the flyer at the bottom of this post.

 

Infrastructure and transport in the Unitary Plan.

At public meetings council representatives, and Local Board members, have acknowledged that there is no specific provision for infrastructure and transport in the Plan, but claim that Watercare and Auckland Transport have plans ready to meet the demands of intensification. Watercare is preparing an expansion programme but there are no plans publicly available which show that necessary infrastructure will be in place for the widespread intensification proposed if the wholesale rezoning is approved.

I think I might have Watercare’s Plans floating around somewhere if not I can ask as they have commented here on the blog before. As for AT well they do have the Integrated Transport Program although I am no fan of it. The ITP is publicly available and I do have both hard and electronic copies.

 

Shadowing, loss of privacy and sunlight.
Council claims that there will be no loss of privacy and sunlight , nor any shadowing, have been challenged at most public meetings on the Plan, and officers have admitted that they have insufficient local knowledge to be certain of all the claims on these issues.

Area Plans, Centralised Master Community Plans, and Semi-Liberal Plan Districts. All commented on before, all cover the points made here…

 

The need to change Auckland’s planning system

There is certainly a great advantage in having a common set of development and land use rules right across the city/region – and reducing the numbers and names of different zones also makes sense. But the wholesale rezoning in the plan goes much further than that – it affects every residential property and most properties are in the ‘mixed housing zone’ in which it will be possible, in many cases, to add a further property expanding the potential for in-fill across the whole region. This plan would change the shape of Auckland for ever.

Stating the Obvious or No —- Sherlock? 

Auckland is a Megaopolis so we will be changed forever as we continue to grow – up. Evolution for you folks (along with all the remarks that come with it and dinosaurs)

ends

 

As I said my private consultancy firm will still run Unitary Plan workshops and sessions even after May 31. Just because feed back has closed does not mean it is time to let up on still learning the UP and getting ready for the next round of submission processes (most likely formal notification). So if you would like to arrange a Unitary Plan workshop or session before formal notification then contact me at totarim.consultancy@totarim.co.nz

 

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

2 thoughts on “Myths of the Unitary Plan”

  1. Good mythbusters, thank you but I am curious as to who are the “blue rinse brigade”? here’s another myth buster – who dyes their hair blue these days? Generation zero? if we mean older people, we baby boomers are aged up to 67 – and yes we have grey hair but we also live in apartments & terrace houses/units. If we are over 70, we often live in retirement villages – some will be thinking of their children & grandchildren having the same oppoertunity as they did to own their own house (single). Grumpiness is a feature of all ages – part of the kiwi culture of not wanting to be told by anyone what to do = “nanny state”. Hopefully the “grumpers” are a minority – but please no more mention of a “blue rinse brigade” – is an British expression from the 1930s that no longer applies anywhere except in blogs?

  2. No way was I going to speak at the Herne Bay Residents’ Association meeting last week. There was a bunch of very grumpy and badly informed people who were being very rude and obnoxious to the Auckland Council planners and Waitemata Local Board members who took time out of their schedules to attend this meeting and try to educate people. I actually think their opinions are conflicting as well. One person was complaining about needing more “certainty” in the plan, while they were also complaining about how developments may not be notified. Once you notify, there is no certainty!

Comments are closed.