The Rural Urban Boundary – Clarification and Voting Records

Written by Ben Ross - Talking Auckland

Clarifications on the Southern RUB and the North/North Western RUB

 

Information is trickling through on the Rural Urban Boundary at both ends of Auckland. I have both the responses to the questions I sent away as well as some of the voting records on the RUB resolutions and amendments. As the rest of the information comes through I will post it up for your viewing.

The Questions

After the concerns raised about the RUB – especially the Southern RUB when the Isthmus had its intensification downgraded on a mass level I fired off some questions on the issue. Specifically this is what I asked Council:

Could the statement please have:
  •  Include any amendments that went through on the Southern RUB
  • The consequences of the down-scaling of Intensification on the isthmus – as the question asked all round “where will the now houses go then?”
  • Any myths that need to be dispelled like the RUB expanding (apart from the Stevenson site which was approved by the Commissioners last week)
  • Any movement on the projections of Greenfield/Brownfield ratio of potential housing (I have to stress the word potential before I get into trouble with Oliver). I ask this as the Auckland Plan had the 70:40 ratio where out of the 400,000 supposed houses needed, up to 120,000 went into Greenfields and up to 280,000 in Brownfield (the 70:30 split) or if using the 60:40 split 240,000 and 160,000 respectively; would this down-scaling on intensity on the isthmus “threaten” the 60:40 ratio and possibly dilute it to say 50:50. 
That last bullet point is question that has started floating around after Monday’s amendments went through and in my opinion need to be nipped in the bud quickly. I know it ties in part to the last second to last bullet point (that is the RUB wont expand) but those two bottom bullet points did come up separately.

——–

Sure enough (and with my thanks to Council) the responses came through (and still are) in regards to my questions. The reply (paraphrased) from Council was the following:

Key point is that this doesn’t change the capacity targets at all. This is set at 70:40 by the Auckland Plan and this hasn’t changed.This is just the proposed plan we’re talking about – the formal submissions do not start until the Governing Body makes that decision on September 10.

Some of the decisions will see capacity for potential development reduced in Mixed Housing Suburban areas as you’ve pointed out, and you’ve also said there are many people who aren’t happy about that.

This is the point of having gone through all this engagement already and for the next phase, it’s about working to get the right balance.

 Will dig through the notes and get you the Southern RUB.

——-

 

So at the moment the questions were answered in two ways:

  • Democracy at work (this is an interesting paradigm)
  • The 60:40 Brownfield:Greenfield Split is not under “threat” – although I will add “yet” to that statement

 

In saying this I would say the Planners are going through the RUB situation and looking at options. Why? Check the voting records and what was voted on/for.

 

The Vote

This is the voting records available thus far on the Rural Urban Boundary situation:

Please remember there is more voting records and RUB information on the way.

 

But for the moment this is where we are with the Rural Urban Boundary and the issues around that. As for the Prime Soils “issue” that caused a flap, this was the correct Tweet: “90% of the Southern RUB is within our prime soils”

 

Next RUB Update will be Monday evening if not Tuesday morning

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

 

Related articles