The Reality Facing Auckland Council

And Why We Should Look to the Sydney Plan

 

While the Auckland Development Committee today went from the mundane ho-hum run of the mill stuff to now the Kauri tree issue one thing the Committee will have to consider later on in the year is the three-yearly review of the Auckland Plan.

In my previous post (THE AUCKLAND PLAN AND THE SYDNEY PLAN #2) I started “reformatting” the Auckland Plan so it was concise, easy to understand, and actually interlinked with each other as well as back to the main vision (The World’s Most Liveable City) .

The new Development Strategies (that incorporate the existing transformational directives) were:

 

HOUSING CHOICE INCLUDING MANAGING GREENFIELD SUPPLY, URBAN RENEWAL, AND HOUSING CHOICE THROUGH ALLOWING FREELY DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPOLOGIES (SO AFFORDABILITY)

• RADICALLY IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF URBAN LIVING
• SUBSTANTIALLY RAISE LIVING STANDARDS FOR ALL AUCKLANDERS AND FOCUS ON THOSE MOST IN NEED

………………..

 

With me so far?

Well while I sit through part of the Committee today have a ponder about the observations I have left below. It has come from the Have Your Say Sessions for the Long Term Plan in the Southern Auckland area.

 

Just a general observations from the Southern Auckland Long Term Plan Have Your Say Sessions I have picked up thus far.

It was around transport and the Development Auckland CCO.

When I mentioned the Gen0/Transport Blog Essentials Transport Budget, as I noted in my earlier comment it was received coolishly by the two Councillors and the Deputy Mayor present (it was not dismissed out of hand so let me be extremely clear there). So I got Franklin Ward Councillor Cashmore, and our Deputy Mayor to flesh their side of the argument out. Personally I knew where this was going but I was going to see if they could articulate their point to which they did.

Cr Cashmore I have respect for after he articulated a point about heavy industry last year when no other Councillor apart from Penrose could. But what was being articulated last night was that the Essentials Transport Budget (note from my end that the BTN and APTN is not any better) has a hole in it and that hole is in Southern Auckland. Now don’t shoot me here I am just reporting back a critique (I gave one back as well). Southern Auckland is tipped for large if not the largest amount of both residential and employment growth – even more so than the City Centre itself. Reason? The South houses four of the five Heavy Industrial Complexes and those complexes are experiencing both growth and are nearly out of land until Drury South and later Glenbrook come on stream. Coupled with the South housing 38% of the population of Auckland and all things considered with NIMBYism on the Isthmus growing to 45% by the end of the Auckland Plan you hit an acute situation at hand.

YES the South will still commute to the City Centre but as I just pinged Simon Wilson from Metro Magazine on:

Metro @MetroMagNZ
“It’s easier for people in the inner city to escape to the country than for people who live on outskirts to drag themselves into the centre”

Ben Ross @BenRoss_AKL
@MetroMagNZ if they “want” to go to the Centre
MoTransport report says the South “doesnt”

That Ministry of Transport report out last year strongly suggested Southern Auckland commutes within herself primarily and looking at future trends will continue to do so.

That report which I commented on in specific to the South can be seen here and here:
https://voakl.net/2014/08/21/aucklands-commuting-journeys-a-series-major-non-city-centre-employment-centres-overview/
https://voakl.net/2014/09/08/aucklands-commuting-journeys-a-series-concluding-remarks/

Now before Patrick pipes up everyone in that Have Your Say Session is aware of students and off peak leisure trips using the networks to go north from the South. That was beside the point. The point being and as Cashmore articulated and the session agreed with last night is that the South is growing and set to grow faster in housing and jobs (from her Industry). The South commutes within herself for the most part.

Transport investment coupled with integrated land use planning needs to realise this and this is where East West linking across the South, links like the Manukau South Link to be in position (Pasifika will prove that particular point this weekend), three new stations between Papakura and Pukekohe being needed all come into play.

NOW, whether the Council and Auckland Transport actually follow through and do the above is yet to be seen. However the rumblings coming from the Southern Councillors and with the Deputy Mayor nodding realise at the absolute minimum there is a massive hole in planning down here and it needs to be rectified and budgeted for soon.

http://transportblog.co.nz/2015/03/10/the-consultation-problem-who-submits-on-the-plan/

——————————-

 

The Sydney Plan has its subregions and arguably the Auckland Plan has its subregions as well.

For Sydney:

SYDNEY’S SUBREGIONS

Successful partnerships are needed to deliver 664,000 additional homes(1) and accommodate 689,000 new jobs(2) by 2031.
The Government will work with local councils for each subregion in Sydney to implement A Plan for Growing Sydney.

Subregional planning will link growth in population and housing to the infrastructure that supports communities, such as schools, health services, transport, electricity and water projects.

Subregional planning will promote good planning principles and the efficient use of land and infrastructure. It will improve liveability by identifying the locations for future housing and employment growth and by balancing growth with improvements to environmental and open space assets. It will facilitate the planning, design and development of healthy built environments.

Subregional planning is the link between the big picture planning directions set out in this Plan and detailed planning controls for local areas. It will also deliver planning outcomes across local council boundaries, where coordination between State agencies and/or local government is required. Better planning outcomes around major infrastructure projects will significantly benefit from improved coordination between local councils and State agencies.
Subregional plans will build on the actions set out in A Plan for Growing Sydney. Councils, the community, the Greater Sydney Commission and the NSW Government will work together to finalise and implement these plans.

Sydney’s six subregions are:

• Central;
• West Central;
• West;
• North;
• South West; and
• South.

 

Subregional boundaries were developed in consultation with stakeholders and local government. Designed to streamline the implementation of A Plan for Growing Sydney, the subregions reflect the economic and community relationships between Local Government Areas, allowing more cohesive and integrated planning.

Priorities for each subregion in Sydney are set out in the following sections, along with further investigations that are needed to shape subregional plans. Further actions will be identified through the subregional planning process.

……………

Source: http://www.strategy.planning.nsw.gov.au/sydney/the-plan/ (under Sydney Subregions)

* Both Parramatta and Sydney are illustrated in the map above as the Sydney Plan recognises both being City Centres or CBDs.

 

For Auckland

 

There is text but it like the rest of the Auckland Plan goes on a very long ramble.

 

Now both the Sydney Plan and Auckland Plan have identified Centres based on a Geographic hierarchy.

For Sydney it is its two CBDs, the Regional City Centres, their Strategic Centres, followed by various other areas of interest.

For Auckland it is the City Centre, the Metropolitan Centres, Town Centre, and on smaller scale Local and Neighbourhood Centres, and the industrial zones.

 

So I will leave you with that for today. In the next mini-series post I will flesh out those new four development strategies.