The Unitary Plan

 

Verses

 

The Centralised Master Community Plan and the Semi-Liberal Plan District

 

 

The last two posts on The Clunker (The Unitary Plan) and my alternatives have been a comparison exercise on where each proposal’s “zones” would sit and compared next to each other. You can see the commercial zone and industrial zone comparison over at my “THE CLUNKER AND BUSINESS ZONES,” while you can find the residential zone comparisons over at my “THE CLUNKER AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING.” For those who have read the commercial zone post you would have noticed two new concept terms pop up: CMCP and SLPD.

 

Those familiar with my Auckland Plan Submission (Councillors George Wood and Cameron Brewer being two) will know that CMCP stands for Centralised Master Community Plan, while SLPD stands for Semi-Liberal Plan District. While both The Unitary Plan and my alternative both have zones (albeit different), my alternative had two over-arching planning strategies (called LADU (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation); the CMCP and SLPD which dictated my zoning efforts in Auckland.

So what is the CMCP and what are SLPD’s? Let me introduce you to them (again) as they will be the back bone of my submission to the Unitary Plan

 

Centralised Master Community Plan’s and Semi-Liberal Plan Districts – An Introduction

 

Cutting straight to the chase, from my submission to The Auckland Plan – CMCP’s and SLPD’s:

 

Methodology of Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation)

 

Overview

 

The goal is to allow Auckland to develop and grow under a system that is “Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Affordable while still making Auckland ‘The Most Live able City.’” So how can we allocate, develop and utilise Auckland’s finite land supply in the most efficient manner but still hold to the principles of being affordable and environmentally (physically and socially) sound. What I propose mixed model system of land allocation/development/utilisation that would be best suited to Auckland’s diversified needs. The mixed model system would consist of two elements:

• Centralised Master (Community) Plan
• Semi-Liberal Simplified “District” Development

Both elements of the mixed model will still have to however comply with these basic requirements:

• Follow and Implement the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol
• Follow these philosophies (The (Auckland) Regional Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies):

○    Would you and your family live here happily?

○    Would you work here happily?

○    Would you and your family use this recreational space while feeling safe?

○    Would it be something you would allow your next generation to inherit?

○    Not contravene the principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (i.e. the land allocation/development/utilisation will not create severe adverse effects – or simply put, lower the amenity of the surrounding existing physical and social environment)

 

 

A Centralised Master (Community) Plan is where the subject land use is performed under a strict prescription. That prescription would provide the covenants on land allocation, land utilisation, urban design and “rules” around what types of activities or future activities that could or could not be carried out. Centralised Master (Community) Plans would utilised in areas that have significant value or consequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCP’s could not be left strictly to more market forces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).

 

A Semi-Liberal Planned District is where the subject land use is performed under more flexible operations than land use under a CMCP scheme.  The SLPD Model would be split into two subsections; one subsection dealing with already utilised land (so brownfield type development or existing residential), the other subsection dealing with greenfield developments. However the principles of the Semi-Liberal Planned District model of land allocation/development are the same. The principles of an SLPD being:

 

• Follows the R-LADU-P bullet pointed above
• Works collaboratively with local community
• Achieves the desires of the local community (or region) in question
• Delivers affordable, efficient and desirable products or outcomes to the community or region
• Should not require “excessive” Council intervention due to the final product of a SLPD application having a negative effect (contravening the Philosophies mentioned above)

 

 

You can read it over at Scribd (and download it) by clicking this link

 

Now backing the bus or EMU up for a moment, let’s take a look at the Submission introduction on how and why I came about with the CMCP and SLPD:

Introduction

 

How does Auckland best allocate and utilise its land efficiently and optimally so that the goal of being the “Most Liveable (and affordable) City” can be realised.

Options suggested (but are not limited to) are the (Centralised) Master (Community) Plans where development follows a strict centralised prescription and land users then follow a strict usage covenant, to a Neo Liberalistic deregulated market approach where the Council allows the market to allocate and utilise the land per market forces (as seen in Huston, Texas). In this submission I advocate more a mix model of land allocation and utilisation to accommodate jobs, residents and support systems for Auckland.

By mixed model I mean utilising systems from various urban development and management options and using them for Auckland. This is due to the belief that a single option one size fits all would utterly fail to respond to Auckland’s current and future land use needs. In essence both the (Centralised) Master (Community) Plan and to an extent a more liberal option of land use have their place in Auckland providing some simple guidelines are followed.

 

The guidelines for Land Allocated Development and Usage are:

• Follow and Implement the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol
• Follow these philosophies:

○    Would you and your family live here happily?

○    Would you work here happily?

○    Would you and your family use this recreational space while feeling safe?

○    Would it be something you would allow your next generation to inherit?

○    Not contravene the principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (i.e. the land allocation/development/utilisation will not create severe adverse effects – or simply put, lower the amenity of the surrounding existing physical and social environment)

 

As for planned land allocation and usage, I have outlined different areas out in Auckland for different modes of development. As in the Outline, these following areas have been allocated types of development to be undertaken:

Areas for “sprawl” to occur at:

• Drury^
• West Papakura^
• Westgate
• Hobsonville
• East Takanini^
• Airport
• Kumeu
• Wiri*^

Area’s for intensification to occur at:

• Wynyard Quarter^
• New Lynn
• Takapuna
• Tamaki^
• ManukauCity Centre^
• Papakura Central^
• Papatoetoe Central (Hunter’s Corner)
• Pukekohe
• Otahuhu
• Penrose/Southdown/Onehunga#

See Appendix Map for illustration of the above areas (that are outlined (^))
*Wiri for both intensification and sprawl
#Urban redevelopment

 

 

For the sake of brevity and limited resources available this submission will focus on these following areas:

• Wynyard Quarter
• Areas south of the CBD from the lists above (marked with ^)

 

Each development area that this submission will focus on will have either one of these development type options:

• Centralised Master (Community) Plan
• Semi-Liberal Simplified“District” Development Plan or simply put; Semi-Liberal Planned District

 

 

You can see in the introduction the basic Urban Design principles I have applied that would be used in place of the highly descriptive rules seen in the former legacy Councils’ District Plans and in the current draft Clunker. Remembering the idea is both: simplicity, and keeping the plan under a thumbnail thick.

 

And for a brief recap this is where the CMCP and SLPD overlays applied in regards to zoning (noting that I expanded in covering Southern Auckland – but it can be easily translated as designed right through out the city)

Category	CMCP/SLPD		Suggested Zoning Maximum	Notes
International City Centre	CMCP		N/A	Covered by the Draft City Centre Master Plan
Metropolitan Centres	CMCP		N/A	Includes Tamaki. Excludes Sylvia Park
Any Urban or Town Centre in the Draft Auckland Plan marked with a (*)	CMCP		N/A	Due to surrounding social or physical environment sensitivity
Town Centres	SLPD		Medium Residential and Commercial	Includes Sylvia Park
Local Centres	SLPD		Light Residential and Commercial	Possibility for up zoning for medium commercial and residential – but on a case by case basis
Urban Growth Corridors	SLPD		Medium Residential and Commercial	Has potential for High Density Residential and Commercial, but that needs to be explored in-depth first
Existing Industry	SLPD			Review each area for LADU and redevelopment possibilities

 

Rural (As per Chapter Seven – Schedule Two – Page 109, the Draft Auckland Plan)

 

	Classification	Suggested Zoning Maximum	Notes
	Satellites	Medium Residential and Commercial, Light Industry	Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning
	Rural and Coastal Settlements	Light Residential and Commercial	Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning. Areas marked with (*) have potential for medium residential or commercial in the future
	Rural and Coastal Villages	Restricted Light Residential and Commercial	Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning or other protected/sensitive areas. Areas marked with (*) have potential for further light residential or commercial in the future

 

 

Areas not covered above including rural and “special” areas will be expanded upon later

The Centralised Community Master Plan

As the document contains graphics that I want to show you, I will embed the CMCP section of my submission below for your reading and downloading:

 

For the Semi Liberal Plan District

 

That embedded document does contain a disclaimer on Rural Land Allocation/Utilisation/Development:

A Note on Rural Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

 While I have left the option open for simplified rural zoning in this submission, I have noted that the Draft Auckland Plan has a Rural Activities Category for rural LADU.  Schedule One – Rural Activity Categories (Chapter Seven, pages 107-108) outlines LADU categories for Auckland’s different rural types in an attempt to “watch over” the rural landscape of Auckland. Upon reflection I agree with the draft in the Draft Auckland Plan for the Rural Activity Categories. If a separate agricultural zoning was needed (outside of the blanket Industry: Agricultural Zone – mentioned on page __ of this submission) then adapting the optional Agricultural/Rural Zoning to the Rural Activities Categories would be a viable and sound idea. Country Area Living Description (Page 108, Chapter Seven, The Draft Auckland Plan) for example would be assumed to be adapted with the Agricultural/Rural – Small Scale SLPD zoning. The zone or CALD area would be ideal for allowing a “transition” between urban and rural while being future proofed for any expansion type Greenfield development. 

 

Also included in the SLPD alternative is the infrastructure development component which is a key plank to the SLPD. It is called MUD or Municipal Utility Districts and is from Texas. Now a reader here at BR:AKL is doing some ground work on MUDs having being involved or experiences with them. Once I have that I will analyse my interpretation of MUD and work out whether it can be used here or not as the only viable alternative to The Clunker’s version of money-raising for infrastructure work and affordable housing.

 

 

Now I have to be at pains at stating the following for when reading up on my CMCP and SLPD works:

• It was developed in 2011 and needs some updating to reflect The Clunker’s advancements here in 2013
• The work was specific to Southern Auckland (my home), so I need to translate it across to Auckland
• Practical research is under way on MUDs
• Language needs updating to reflect the last two years of planning development
• I am still drafting the submission to reflect The Unitary Plan, not the Auckland Plan

 

 

But this is what I have so far as a fully viable but work in progress alternative to the Council’s Unitary Plan. Not much yet but it’s getting there for the May 31 deadline.

Next round of posts I might put the Clunker to one side and look at Auckland Transport’s $60 billion folly called the Integrated Transport Program. The ITP and the Clunker are tied in and interdependent so it might be time to check this relationship and get that $60 billion cost down while actually getting Auckland going forward rather than backwards as the ITP would.