Future Planning

&

Reminder on Statistics

 

 

One thing taught rather well to Geography students is that there are: “Lies, Damned Lies and there are Statistics.” With the amount of tripe the Statistics Minister Maurice Williamson, Mayoral Candidate John Palino, Auckland Councillor Dick Quax, Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater, and No More Rates head – David Thorton that analogy is rather sticking true.

Yesterday in my “Debunking a Census Myth” post I debunked the myths the above five mentioned people. I did pick up the piece from Kiwiblog: Auckland growth on the Census verse Unitary Plan matter especially this at the bottom:

The 21 electorates mainly in Auckland had an electoral population of 1,205,678 in 2006 and of 1,318,141 in 2013. That is growth of 112,463 or 9.3% over seven years.

That equates to an average growth of almost 1.3% a year – well below the 2.2%.

What difference does this make over time?

Well 2.2% a year for 30 years is a 92% growth while 1.3% for 30 years is a 47.3% growth.

What difference does that make to projected population? Well on 1.5 million current population the 2.2% figure means an extra 1.4 million residents while the 1.3% figure means an extra 710,000 – so a difference of around 700,000 Aucklanders.

I look forward to people claiming that we should ignore the census data and not change the Auckland plan. Of course we should wait for the official figures next week.

Source: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/10/auckland_growth.html

 

In any case the 1.4 million (400,000  more than Council projections (and we have since 1991 always overshot our projections in population growth) or 700,000 (300,000 less than Council projections) extra by 2042 is STILL A BUCKET LOAD OF PEOPLE COMING to Auckland!

Farrar should have heeded his own advice in waiting for the official figures next week. Although as I mentioned yesterday the Internal Migration figures are not out until next year which brings me to the next point.

 

I was talking to a fellow commentator/activist around this migration/population issue; they mentioned this:

“Have a look at this over the last twenty years. It’s very patchy. Why you’d possibly make long-term migration projections when you’re at the bottom of a cycle beggars belief.”

Those figures being from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – derived from Statistics New Zealand:

Source: http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/migration-trends-1011/large.asp?id=fig3-1

 

Bottom of the cycle owing to the Global Financial Crisis and a very strong Australia. Now with Australia weak and New Zealand (more to the point Auckland) beginning to surge ahead again those figures on that graph are going to track upwards again and those five above mentioned people might want to rethink fast.

 

And also as a fail safe in case growth in Auckland falls off, the Unitary Plan is reviewed once every ten years. Thus we can scale back in 2026 if growth fell out. Somehow though I think we might be scaling up.

 

As for Statistics Maurice Williamson committing a massive blunder with his Census and anti-progressive Auckland rant yesterday, I will follow that up in the next post.

 

So where does the above leave me with what I want in the Southern Rural Urban Boundary when the Unitary Plan becomes operative?

 

What I Would Like to See in the Operative Unitary Plan – Southern Rural Boundary

 

The Southern Rural Boundary is heavily reliant on the Population Data that will come through from next week until 2015. Depending how much Auckland is going to grow by and WHERE in Auckland it is going to grow will determine:

1. The amount of land needing to be released inside the Southern Rural Urban Boundary over the life of the Unitary Plan
2. The resulting infrastructure required and how soon
3. Will the RUB needs to be expanded or contracted owing from changes to our growth amount and patterns
4. Influence the development of Papakura Town Centre, Pukekohe and Manukau City Centre as the supporting centres

 

The Southern Rural Boundary with the Future Urban Zone

You can also see the north-west Rural Urban Boundary up at Westgate

 

The Southern Rural Boundary option that is in the notified version of the Unitary Plan is derived from one of three options available during the earlier feedback process this year:

Note the Bridge is actually no longer on the maps per the later edition of the Southern RUB map as shown below (I showed the above one as it had the three options)

 

The corridor option – along with the RUB being extended to Mill Road was what I “agreed with ” in my initial feedback to the Unitary Plan earlier this year. And it is the option I would like to see in the operative version of the Unitary Plan in three years tome as well.

 

I would like the corridor option to be maintained as it would contain the urban expansion within two high quality transport corridors; State Highway 22 and the railway line. We know Auckland Council is preparing to extend  the electrification to Pukekohe and throw in the Drury and Paerata Stations as well hopefully within the next two years. That means in theory the new residents and business should be no more than 10 minutes at most from either a bus stop, a State Highway or a railway station. This should do its part to alleviate congestion and commute times compared to say if the Karaka North and West options were taken. We need to focus more around Transit Orientated Developments if we don’t want to get ourselves into any further pickles then we already are. Those who wish to live close to a transit corridor would do so and vice versa that don’t. The catch is that there will be choice – something not really there.

What we do not know is how the area will be developed over the next 30-years as the sprawl does march south. But it is something we can get right when we come to that particular bridge.

 

As for extending the RUB to Mill Road from Porchester Road, well that needed to be done as that land was dead rural land any how. The only catch is in that area is it does sit on a 100-year flood plain so we need to be careful around how we hand storm water when that area gets developed (rather soon).

 

With the Countryside Living Zone which is generating feedback to the blog, I am going to take a look at it over the next eight weeks and possibly make some enquiries around it. I would be inclined to agree with some of the feedback in being baffled on the way the Countryside Living Zone was changes around… I have also noted I am not the biggest fan of the zone as I see it as a cop-out zone. Meaning if pressure increases on the RUB and it gets expanded, the Countryside Living Zone would be the first on the blocks to be put into the Future Urban Zone. I also note that in this case it would be right over prime soils around Pukekohe rather than more dead soils near the Hunua area. So again something to check and possibly submit on – especially if that RUB comes under pressure from increased growth in Auckland. Something I do expect.

 

 

My next post in regards to the Census is a reply from another person two actually) in regards to making a gaff yesterday. With the Unitary Plan I will look at both the rural areas and the Metropolitan Centres again.

 

 

Related articles

• Census calls rail loop into question (nzherald.co.nz)