Bob Dey gives a prelude into the Unitary Plan Hearings (and Auckland’s future urban possibility) as we head into 2015 – head long
Respected property and planning writer Bob Dey has penned together a series of three prelude summaries facing both Auckland and the Unitary Plan hearings this year. From what I can see Bob has given a three-part outline with more meatier parts to come possibly tomorrow if not later this week.
Those who either care about the future of Auckland, wrote a submission to the Unitary Plan (like I have), or like to keep abreast of planning should read Bob’s insights as they are very valuable ones.
Below is the link and the opening lines (and/or key highlight) from the three posts by Bob today
Part One
UP1: The PAUP, the MUL, the RUB, the RPS & the LRP – the what-the?
In the fortnight before Christmas, the independent panel hearing submissions on Auckland Council’s unitary plan scheduled what will probably be its most important discussion, on the overarching role of the regional policy statement and 2 components, the rural:urban boundary and the compact city concept.
Most of the paperwork was in, and the way the panel has been working has been to accept brief summaries from submitters on the formal submissions day.
The positions were well defined, but did the facts presented substantiate the positions?
…
In November, first mention of the council’s proposed land release programme (the LRP) came in presentations to the hearings panel. In the pre-Christmas session, council submissions amplified what this programme was about. But, like the ever-changing capacity for growth study, the LRP won’t be ready for presentation to the panel until May.
Submitters asked: How can they present educated submissions when they don’t know where the rural:urban boundary will be? And if they don’t know how the land release programme will work? Or – this is fundamental – who will dictate the release programme, council or developers?
The hearings panel has scheduled a session for Tuesday 27 January on whether it should issue interim recommendations on the regional policy statement section of the unitary plan. I can see the whole unitary plan process getting tied in knots if these interim recommendations were followed by interim (or final?) council decisions, which would then become open to appeal on matters of law while the rest of the process was still wending its way through.
….
The unitary plan series:
This is the introductory article for an immediate series of articles on the overarching policy, how or whether urban & rural uses ought to be separated, how proposed zoning ought to be applied or whether the proposals are appropriate.
Somewhere down the track I may venture my own opinions, but for this series I am essentially a messenger packaging up ideas from a vast array of submissions. On the way through, though, I will also question them.
There are 3 articles today, essentially outlining positions. Tomorrow’s trio of articles will be meatier. I expect the series to run for several days.
………….
Source: http://www.propbd.co.nz/up1-paup-mul-rub-rps-lrp/
Part Two
UP2: Council tells panel the evidence backs compact city, and new urban boundary will work
Critics of the council-led drive toward a compact city concept will chortle at this: “There is a strong base of evidence in support of the unitary plan’s strategic policy approach of providing for growth in a quality compact urban form. It builds on a long series of work undertaken by the council & the legacy councils, including the work that informs the Auckland Plan development strategy. A compact urban form is an established international model for providing for growth.”
The statement came mid-December in the Auckland Council summary of its position on the regional policy statement on urban growth, presented by lead legal counsel Heather Ash.
The pre-Christmas sessions before the independent panel hearing submissions on the Auckland unitary plan were about providing for capacity in a quality compact urban form, development capacity and supply of land for urban development, rural & coastal towns & villages, and the structure plan requirements for future urban-zoned greenfield & brownfield land.
Exhortation to a belief is one thing. Evidence to underpin that belief is another, and council evidence to substantiate the claim of a “strong base of evidence” has been consistently hard to come by. That’s why the argument in favour of the compact city has struggled to win universal approval – not because a few people in prominent positions have refused to listen.
After writing that quote from Ms Ash, I spent the next 2 days trawling through documents to prove my point wrong, and in search of substantiation for 2 essential features of the compact-city concept: reasons to sway homebuyers away from suburban standalone houses and into apartments or townhouses, and verification that a rural:urban boundary will be flexible and aid the trend toward a compact city without causing further land price escalation.
After that trawl through an exorbitant number of planning documents I’ve reached a few tentative conclusions (tentative because I may have missed some significant pointers):
- There is some evidence to support the compact-city concept
- The panel received evidence demonstrating how both the rural:urban boundary and the compact city concept would work
- Much of the criticism of the council’s work on these topics fell well short of being adequate rebuttal
- The critics’ chortle will be short-lived – if some monumental changes occur.
………
It is of note with that above observation that I have also observed Council getting unstuck when the Regional Policy Statement – Urban Growth was being worked through at the Hearings. That being Council is tardy with solid concrete evidence to back it’s claims that the Compact City Model is best fit cost wise for Auckland. That said as also noted above the rebuttal by critics has been seriously wanting as well for the most part. However, the rebuttal against the Cost/Capacity of Growth (or Development Capacity) has been sharp. This would be owing to Council delaying the release of the Cost/Capacity of Growth from November last year until May this year. Apparently the delay was down to a “rebranding” exercise. More like arse covering in Bob’s part two from today was any indication.
Part Three
UP3: Paper on preferred form an important backgrounder
One of the important background papers before the independent panel hearing submissions on the Auckland unitary plan, Towards a preferred urban form, is first about the rate at which the urban growth boundary might be expanded, second about how to encourage intensification, and third about centres versus neighbourhoods as places to live.
It was written in September 2011 by David Mead & Rachel Ritchie, of resource management consultancy Hill Young Cooper Ltd, for the urban form team of Auckland Council’s spatial planning unit and is among the documents making up the section 32 report for the panel.
3 years on, it looks like many of the lessons have been poorly learned.
….
Who should lead?
Mr Mead & Ms Ritchie wrote that planning-based prerequisites for quality compact housing must involve a mix of regulatory & non-regulatory actions, and said support for and enablement of a wide range of compact living options would depend on whether redevelopment was market-led, plan-led or a mixture of the 2.
“Left to themselves, market forces are likely to see urban redevelopment focused on certain neighbourhoods, particularly those that offer an ‘amenity advantage’ such as access to coastal areas, large reserves, expansive views or close proximity to inner-city, character neighbourhoods. This is likely to lead to largescale infrastructure works to cope with the additional population, while significant change to the character of desired areas is likely to be seen.”
On the other hand, they wrote that a plan-led approach would see redevelopment pressures more evenly spread across the urban area, better matching growth with infrastructure capacity and lessening the impact of concentrated change on the character of areas.
But – they wrote 3 years before the council’s budget crunch saw a $300 million belt-tightening proposed – there is a catch: “For this to work, there need to be incentives created so redevelopment pressures are redirected from high amenity areas to areas where amenity can be improved. An example would be improvements to the amenity of the middle ring suburbs, such as improved parks & open spaces. This would require investment by the council, yet council’s finances are constrained. There is therefore a trade-off between working with the market and shaping the market.
“A middle course is needed, with the extent of plan-led redevelopment dependent upon investment in infrastructure & amenities that will support urban redevelopment in less commercially desirable areas. The extent of investment needed needs to be identified, as it is a key parameter.”
…….
Source: http://www.propbd.co.nz/up3-paper-preferred-form-important-backgrounder/
The “Who Should Lead” is the real kicker once the Unitary Plan goes live late 2016. Bob has pointed out that Council finances are indeed strained (Auckland Transport, and Parks and Rec are having upwards of 40% of their budgets wiped in to upcoming Long Term Plan, the very departments needed to make Auckland viable) and we will need to go with a mixed model approach. That is:
“A middle course is needed, with the extent of plan-led redevelopment dependent upon investment in infrastructure & amenities that will support urban redevelopment in less commercially desirable areas. The extent of investment needed needs to be identified, as it is a key parameter
What I presented to the Council in November would address such issues to a large extent
Blogger gets council attention to city strategy ideas
Published 27 October 2014
Voice of Auckland blogger Ben Ross went to Auckland Council’s development committee a week ago to talk about city-building, the city rail link & a funding mechanism, and kickstarting city centre development.You’d think the councillors on that committee wouldn’t need a jolt like this, that they’d have all the answers at their fingertips. But they don’t (have all the answers) and they do (need a jolt).
Mr Ross didn’t have time to deliver his whole presentation, but did well enough. Committee members sat up, looked at the documents he posted on the big screen, and followed up by asking about projects being undertaken in places like Miami & Sydney.
The links are on his website.
But you don’t have to look outside the region to spot one of the answers to the council’s development & funding questions: holding public land for lease instead of selling it for a once-only return.
New council chief executive Stephen Town is talking about an urban development authority, citing Australian examples. Australian state governments, adherents of the autocratic style, have used the state ownership & development authority models for decades; using development authorities to combine urban enhancement with value gain is relatively new.
….
“It’s too late for lot 59 (the council carpark) unless the council rescinds the motion, but others, eg round Westfield mall, I suggest the council hangs on to the land and becomes a developer. Another plus is it doesn’t have to go through the complex consulting process for others, like Precinct on the waterfront.”
Mr Ross said other transport nodes where private-sector development could occur on publicly retained land were at Orakei & Henderson stations. “You could do it with the city rail link, sell the air rights over the station.”
Links: Ben Ross, 16 October 2014: The reaction to my presentation to the Auckland development committee [updated with figures & links]
Presentation for October Auckland development committee up
……
Source: http://www.propbd.co.nz/blogger-gets-council-attention-to-city-strategy-ideas/
And all that folks is just the outlines to the situation. Bob has not even touched the meaty stuff yet, and for myself I haven’t start yet either as I start drawing comparisons between Auckland’s Plan and future alongside the Sydney Plan and its future.
2015 is going to be a big year with the Long Term Plan (master budget document) being under consultation then adopted, and the Unitary Plan continuing through its hearings. One thing I have weighing in the back of my mind is that Auckland is likely to evolve (grow) in a natural pattern that is going to defy most aspects of the Auckland and Unitary Plans….
Talking Southern Auckland 