Making it harder or easier?
I got to give it to Orsman of the NZ Herald for getting this one right, I just wish he ran with this article 8 weeks ago while we were considering the Unitary Plan…
I caught this piece from Orsman this morning in regards to some pending changes to the Unitary Plan, in particular three storey residential buildings and apartments. Yes I can hear some collective groans here after I ran heavy debunking on Orsman and 2040 Auckland about three storey houses and walk-up apartments.
But credit is due where credit is due and credit goes to Bernard Orsman here.
From the NZ Herald
Easing public fears on city blueprint
By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman
Council rethinking Unitary Plan to answer residents’ worries on building heights and new apartments in suburbs.
Lower building heights, tighter controls on developers and giving the public the right to object to apartment buildings are among changes being considered for suburbs in Auckland’s Unitary Plan.
In an exclusive interview, Unitary Plan manager John Duguid says the mayor and councillors have to get their heads around some “big topics” when it comes to apartments in the suburbs.
Many of the nearly 1400 submissions on the draft Unitary Plan focused on developers getting an easy ride and the public being shut out when it comes to building “small-scale apartments” in suburban streets and four-, five- and six-storey apartments close to town centres.
…
Mr Duguid said one of the big concerns from the Auckland 2040 lobby group and others was that neighbours should be involved in apartment developments, and applications should be fully notified when they breached the rules.
…
Under review
Mixed housing
*Coverage: 49 per cent of suburban Auckland.
*Maximum height: 3 storeys
*Rules: One house per 300sq m. Where a developer has more than 1200sq m of land and a 20m street frontage, they can build up to two storeys with no density rules as a “permitted activity”. Developers can apply to build to three storeys subject to conditions as a “non notified restricted discretionary” activity. No public input.
*Possible changes: Giving neighbours and the public a say when developers want to build three storeys or breach controls. Three-storey apartments could become “discretionary”.
Terraced housing and apartment buildings
*Coverage: 7 per cent of suburban Auckland.
*Maximum height: 4, 5 or 6 storeys, depending on location.
*Rules: Up to four dwellings is a “discretionary activity”. Five or more dwellings is the easier “restricted discretionary activity”. Developers can apply to exceed height limits if a building is 7m from the boundary and has a 30m frontage. No public input.
*Possible changes: Giving neighbours and the public a say. Having the same rules regardless of the number of dwellings. Making it harder for developers to build above the height limits or breach the rules by making “discretionary” applications.
Activity status – from easy to hard
*Permitted activity: Building work that can be done as of right. Resource consent not required.
*Controlled activity: Building work that requires a resource consent. Conditions imposed.
*Restricted discretionary activity: Resource consent required. Council can only consider specific matters. Conditions can be imposed.
*Discretionary activity: Resource consent required. Conditions can be imposed. Can be notified.
*Non-complying activity: Resource consent required. Wide open to what council may consider. Usually publicly notified.
*Prohibited activity: Not allowed.
Source: Resource Management Act
…
Now there are two aspects under review here; Mixed Housing Zones, and Terrace Housing and Apartments. In regards to the proposed changes for Terraced Housing and Apartments if the Council is not going to split the two out, I have no issues with the proposed changes. With the Mixed Housing Zone I do oppose the proposed changes.
Why?
I asked this question – it is a question not a statement:
Huh, they want to move building a three storey house in a Mixed Housing Zone from a Restricted Discretionary Activity to a Discretionary Activity?
Meaning it becomes (or rather can) public notified, harder for me to get consent, potentially costing me more money, and having some busy body causing an objection which will often prove to turn out to be nothing (because I would have followed the Auckland Design Manual and privately notified my neighbours in advance) costing me more money and time.
Yes I live in a Mixed Housing Zone
Talk about going backwards thanks to the NIMBY‘s?
Someone can comment in the comments department on why building a three storey house on a Mixed Housing Zone should move from Restricted Discretionary to Discretionary Activity but, I find it slight odd. To me there should be no particular issue building a three storey (10 metre high) piece providing I comply with the conditions set in the Auckland Design Manual and the conditions set in the RDA rules. Those rules will be usually height to boundary rations, sunlight and maybe parking if I am going to have four or more cars on site permanently and have them on the road.
And for good measure I am not going to block someone’s sunlight out deliberately as I would not want that in return.
So did 2040 again impinge what I can do with my house and land which sits on a Mixed Housing Zone by making me jump through more hoops? They might just possible have.
Talking Southern Auckland 
There are some big presumptions here Ben. Firstly, the Ak Design Manual is non-statutory – no compulsion to follow it required. Secondly, people building houses are often not neighbours with a vested interest in communicating and maintaining respectful mutual considerations between the parties. They are often developers with the motivation being money. This is where your arguments of “privately notifying the neighbours” and “not going to block someone’s sunlight out deliberately as I would not want that in return” are completely redundant. I also do not view public notification as an invitation for people to be “busy bodies”. If neighbours are not given an opportunity to present their perspective, it becomes a one-sided debate. If the objections are considered by Council to be unreasonable – then so be it. Justification for the decision should be available for all parties. Shutting down the debate leaves a very one-sided form of governance.