Bill English serves a reminder to Councils on Development Controls

 

 

Earlier this week Minister of Finance Bill English gave a pre-Budget speech to the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce which hinted at “easing size regulations” around building sizes. While most people latched on to minimum sizes of apartments (a hot and very topical topic in Auckland and with Auckland Council at the moment) the Minister also made mention of other development controls (that are found in Section Three of the Unitary Plan).

From the NZ Herald:

Before I have Councillors and/or Planners jumping up and down at me a reminder the above with said by the Minister – not me okay? That said, through presentations and submissions to both the Auckland, and Unitary Plans the need to liberalise our development controls as part of a range of options to restore housing affordability needs to occur. So I agree with the Minister’s sentiments around development controls that can push up the cost of housing: “A range of other rules set minimum subdivision size, ceiling heights, bedroom size and even the width of the front. All pushed up the cost of housing.”

You can read my submission to the Unitary Plan where I have made mention of development controls in the embed at the bottom of this post.

 

One thing (well two but the second point I’ll raise in a moment) I did see Bill English comment on was this: “Local body planners and councillors are not aware of the wider social and economic effects of their complex rules and processes.” 

Well I am very sure planners and Councillors are very aware of the negative effects of complex rules and processes. However, the main driver of these complex development controls stems actually from NIMBY’s trying to “protect” their patch at the detriment of everyone else. We saw this (the NIMBY’s) in the dying stages of the drafting of the Proposed Unitary Plan before the Local Elections last year. A consequence of that was two-fold:

1. Isthmus residential zoning is too low for what it should be as Auckland grows
2. Getting the development restrictions on the Isthmus wound back is not going to be an easy task

I would rather set the zones in a more liberal fashion across the Isthmus and let both the freer market and the Auckland Design Manual set about the housing equilibrium for the Isthmus area. Of course as I mentioned in the “Debunking Unitary Plan Myths – Again” post coordination right across the board is going to be needed, better than what we have honestly now.

 

The second point from Bill English was this:

Mr English said the Government would not be stepping in to make local decisions on house size.

“In the end councils have to make those decisions. But we just want to make sure that everyone understands that the choices made by the planning parts of your council have a real impact on family incomes.

“When everyone understands that, it might help change the nature of the choices.”

…

And so it should be left to Councils and its citizens unless the Council has become paralysed.

I wish though Bill would stop putting the sole onus back on the planners and redistribute it back to citizens that are stalling the continued evolution of the City. Because the choices those NIMBY citizens do make all-in-all is what through to the end result will have in “real impacts on family incomes.”

So yes effectively I am re-proportioning part of the housing affordability issues back to our NIMBY’s who won’t allow the liberalisation of our planning rules so that the freer market (the people) can provide the housing where needed. As I said countless times before:

1. The Building Act controls the structural quality of our buildings (and I hope Government is not tinkering with that again after the last disaster)
2. A City is a growing and constantly evolving organism that adapts to the changing environment
3. Thus a City is not a thing trapped inside a snow-globe sitting on a shelf of a museum. Nothing lasts forever and like everything on this Earth things change
4. The Auckland Design Manual goes and works through in making sure we get quality urban design outcomes. Draconian rules via development controls to try achieve these outcomes wont and will never work.

 

As for what is a NIMBY?

From my NIMBY post earlier this year (edited here for updating):

NIMBY’s, love them or detest them they are always going to be there when it comes to Planning. Our most classic example is watching them come out of the woodwork every time the Unitary Plan is in the spot light. That said you can usually class NIMBY’s into three broad but semi-fluid categories (which in the end gives rise to one class of actual NIMBY (hint category 3):

1) Those with legitimate concerns

Once case would be a factory that has obnoxious emissions being set up close to an established residential area. Or (and usually the case) a badly designed and out-of-place mid rise apartment block (so 4-8 storeys) in an established residential area whether it already has mid rise blocks or a low density zone just up scaled. A close example of that was the Milford development recently approved by the Environment Court. Long story short it was eventually concluded that what was originally proposed was deemed out-of-place due to its height. After some compromises the heights were lowered and the development can now go ahead. Looking at the compromise the development is now back in character as the area will evolve with more mid rise developments over time.

When faced with citizens NIMBY’s from legitimate concerns the situation can be often easily solved with all parties entering dialogue and not being stand-offish against each other. Often and sadly this means a date with the Environment Court to get that compromise. Milford went through this and most recently the Orakei Point development. That said there was also the case of NIMBYism for the sake of NIMBYism (see number 3) fouling the process as well which is certainly no help. Remove these kind of NIMBY’s out and 99% of the time you will get a compromise that is decent for all parties – in the end.

 

2) Surprised or Spooked

This happens all too often when people go NIMBY owing to either lack of information or lack dialogue (if you have fully notified consents). Auckland Council are no angels for surprising and spooking people with planning decisions and it happens all to often. It is a natural instinct to go into full defensive mode when dropped into a situation with no information at hand. Humans like other animals fear what they do not understand as we do not know what the effects will be up-on them. I have always said even if it is controversial be up front with all the facts straight away. Do not tell half-truths under any circumstances. People will nearly always (even if they are in opposition (or will be)) they are appreciative of the fact that the consenting authority was up front straight away with all the facts at hand. And that appreciation can extend and lead back to NIMBY cause category number 1 with compromises fleshed out. In my observations 9/10 NIMBY issues with planning in Auckland comes from this situation – the people being surprised and spooked. A situation that can be easily avoided.

 

3) NIMBYism for the sake of NIMBYism

The Planetizen article outlines this kind of NIMBYism. People objecting for no real good reason because often “they hate change” (as one person said once at a St Heliers meeting during the initial Unitary Plan feedback rounds). These kind of people are your noisiest and will literally spam the heck out of the Main Stream and Social Media outlets. They as well as tie up Council Committees and all too often the Environment Court which grinds the processes down and waste people’s time and money.  In my observations you can not reason with them so do not bother. You can usually debunk them with solid actual facts – you just need to get through all the noise they generate first. I can think of five particular people in Auckland that would fall in this category – ironically four of them are elected representatives in Auckland…

This extract from Planetizen sums up point three rather aptly – albeit from an American experience

….

Source: https://voakl.net/2014/03/15/nimbys/

It is worth noting that those in categories one and two are not your NIMBY’s in the end. Those in category three who are the actual NIMBY’s.

 

In the end it will be interesting to see what the Minister of Finance does come up with in any attempts to “relax” development controls in the Budget (due mid May). However, personally we can still do a bit of liberalisation our end through the Unitary Plan Hearings process.

 

Submission to the Unitary Plan