How to Write an Effective Unitary Plan Submission

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

A Repost From Whale Oil on How

 

 

This is repost (transmit) from Whale Oil’s “GUEST POST – BEATING THE UNITARY PLAN.” All credits and attributes belong to the original author over at Whale Oil – I am just reposting it as what Planning Parrot has to say needs to get out to Auckland before around 85% of the submissions fall over with the Unitary Plan. This post is released under the normal Creative Commons “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported” – same as BR:AKL

I have pointed out the main facts in bold red that you need to take heed of with your submissions

 

How communities can beat the Auckland Unitary Plan and thwart development – A guest post by The Planning Parrot

 

Communities are worried about the Unitary Plan and so they should be. The ‘rule book’ intends to dramatically change the way land can be used in Auckland with a distinct appearance of directing development towards intensification and predominantly apartment buildings. The scale of change is massive.

But can the Council simply railroad this plan into fruition or does the Council have limitations? The answer is Auckland Council cannot do whatever it wants. Land owners and communities are provided the right to participate and negotiate changes to the Unitary Plan if they disagree with any part of it.

So how can a community change what is proposed for it’s own area?

 

Firstly what is the Unitary Plan?

The unitary plan is a rule book consisting of multiple layers in a pyramid type hierarchy starting at the top with policies and issues and cascading down through objectives, rules, controls and assessment criteria.

The rules are essentially everyday black and white rules mostly about the type of building shapes and the activities that can be conducted. Planners will have a better understanding of the intent for the rules by reading the policies and objectives. This is the written section of the unitary plan. The unitary plan also applies zones, precincts and activity tables on maps that show where the rules and activities can locate geographically and combined with the rules essentially tell people what they can and cannot do on their land. For instance where industrial and residential must locate.

By law the Resource Management Act requires that Councils notify a unitary plan and allow for lay-persons (that’s predominantly you and anyone not qualified as an expert in a planning sense) to make submissions.

Most people do not understand the process and this is where confusion reigns.

Mere opposition is insufficient and people need to grasp that a submission (both written and verbal) must include empirical evidence (related to a field of expertise) – facts.

 

The aim of a submission is to convince a Commissioner to change what is proposed. Change can occur if people can identify how what is proposed affects them. An effect must be something specific and tangible and is usually a planning matter such as:

  • – traffic;
  • – shadowing;
  • – bulk;
  • – noise;
  • – emissions and odours;
  • – loss of amenity;
  • – economic (trade loss);
  • – social and cultural (the way you relate to a neighbourhood and interact, cultural issues);
  • – infrastructure;
  • – flooding;
  • character assessments;
  • – archaeological and heritage;

Effects must demonstrate a link between a relevant planning consideration (a fact that can be proven – for instance a lot more traffic or shadowing or loss of character) and the property concerned.

 

A plan change has additional matters to consider. Under the RMA there are gateway tests that evaluation reports prepared by Council must pass. A section 32 report requires an analysis to demonstrate it passes those tests.

A section 32 analysis must also have regard to any regional policy documents. In Auckland the former ARC created a regional policy framework that still exists and for which the Unitary Plan will have to consider – particularly if the Unitary plan intends not to change that framework.

The Auckland Regional Policy Statement negotiated through the LGAAA process was settled in 2011 and has a set of criteria as a test for plan changes in section 2.

Lastly a Council in preparing a Plan must have conducted a series of detailed studies and assessments to justify the decisions it is making. That means for every change proposed a report that justifies the change should exist and would form part of the section 32 analysis. Any opponent can challenge those reports and the content in them and should do so as part of a robust opposition.

So that’s the background.

 

Now how to beat the Unitary Plan.

Auckland Council has already prepared some studies that have made the media that opponents have shown to be flawed. Such as capacity studies which Council has used to show it can accommodate one million more people inside the limits. Those reports were flawed and proven so.

They are a fantastic tool for communities opposed to intensification.

In Orewa residents there used ‘existing capacity’ studies and a fine grained analysis to show there was plenty of capacity and argue therefore that up-zoning and high rise under Variation 101 was not needed. That plan change set case law (precedent) in Court and forms a base position that a Commissioner can consider.

In Howick the community used a character assessment to prove there was a quality and heritage that was fundamental and which should be protected and they stopped intensification.

The same process applied at Orewa and Howick can be applied to beat intensification out of suburbs where communities don’t want it.

 

Secondly identifying specific effects on land subject to the categories mentioned above and detailing how that effect (must use facts) will create an adverse effect should be used. This method also adds to the tools at a community’s disposal.

Increased zoning capacity has a range of costs on communities. More housing means upgrades to infrastructure like roads, sewer, storm water and potable water at costs to community. These costs are an effect and should be challenged. If infrastructure is insufficient and costs too high then communities can justify that the impact upon them in terms of cost is too big.

Up-zoning will improve land values but mean higher rates and may not result in a financial windfall because the land may be too expensive to develop.

Communities should protect existing rights. Any new rules that stop them modifying existing homes in favour of redevelopment should be opposed.

Capacity is the big argument. Proving that existing zones have latent capacity means there is possibly no justification for increasing zoning to allow for more dwellings.

Communities need to be sure not to be outright opposed to any change. Commissioners and Courts don’t like hard and fast NIMBY’ism and won’t be receptive to such rhetoric.

A smart community will find a happy medium between what is proposed and what exists today to ensure they put forward a balanced approach. A Commissioner will prefer a community that is proactive, balanced and measured over a battle hardened community who is difficult and cannot accept any change.

For each effect identified a submitter or community should propose what change they want and justify it with planning facts. These can be gleaned from planners and from reading planning reports on line from previous plan changes to understand terminology and get ideas.

Change is inevitable but is it required to be so substantial and go as far as Council proposes?

Communities need to be organised. Signing pro-forma petitions is meaningless. Copying a prepared submission will also have less effect. Individual submissions in the words of the submitter is best and where submitters spend time to detail real effects.

Lastly communities need to identify what they want instead and they should if possible engage a representative planner and a Resource Management Lawyer who can do the job best. Pooling money to fight as a unified front is very powerful.

 

If all else fails then the communities can appeal the decisions to the Environment Court for remedy.

The plan can be changed and people can do it, if they know how.

 

—-Ends—-

Brilliant piece

But, I can not stress the second half of the piece from Planning Parrot – especially the parts in bold maroon and red enough! I have covered the uselessness of “taking votes” in my “DEBUNKING THAT ONEHUNGA OPEN LETTER” and how the Local Board should have been kicked up the backside yesterday with the Onehunga Meeting. Something tells me a North Shore Local Board might be heading in the same direction this morning after their two community meetings on the Unitary Plan. Of course that will be depending on what I see this morning from their commentary on it.

However, I have mentioned something similar (although not in great technical detail as Planning Parrot did) to the Whale Oil guest post in my “KARAKA COLLECTIVE HAS BEGUN A MSM PR CAMPAIGN” last month is regards to this round of submission writing.

 

I also mentioned this morning the following comment which Orakei Local Board Desley Simpson picked up on and I am inclined to agree:

  • Ben Ross Indeed. Hate to say it but I would be at a guess that 85% of all submissions would fall over due to not following the lines myself and Planning Parrot spelled out in how to give an effective submission to the UP.
    Even Councillor Alf Filipaina was saying the same things with effective submissions
  • Desley Simpson Ben look at the submission form- does this explain it? No
    Does it clearly help people respond so they will not make the round filing bin on the floor under the desk ? – No

 

Set up to fail? Could be very well so but, there are some who will plough on to make sure that the city is not set up to fail (with its submissions).

The “A CASE OF CIVIC DUTY” post spells out the challenge ahead and why some like myself stepped up to the plate with the Unitary Plan and undertake the most extensive independent and leading commentary on this rule book thus far. Stepping up to the plate to help the city through so that failures will not occur in the submission process as alluded by Planning Parrot.

In saying that though I have flipped over to a more professional approach to my “civic duty” and assistance with the Unitary Plan. The flyer below illustrates the step up with the Unitary Plan commentary and “services” in “Talking Unitary Plan.”

 

We still have a long way to go with The Clunker but done right from our end – the residents end with submissions and advocating; then the city has a chance of bringing about a Unitary Plan more palatable than it is in its current form.

 

Introducing TotaRim Consultancy Limited – Unitary Plan Services

 

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL