Similar view points
Clunky, Clunker, yep the Unitary Plan has been called that much to the annoyance of our Deputy Mayor. But it wasn’t me this time calling it clunky. It was just about all the submitters in the room so take note Council.
Last week I was involved in the Workshops for the Residential Zones of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Residential Zones essentially make up half my submission with the Metropolitan Centres make up the other half. Any rezoning requests cross over both halves of the submission.
The Unitary Plan Workshops on the Residential Zones were designed to get submitters and the Council Planners together to meet informally and contest ideas on which way the Unitary Plan insofar as Residential Zones should go. I was present at the Monday session where overall strategy was discussed. From the workshops we go into Mediation and then the Hearings in October.
This is publicly available – The Residential Zone Workshop Outcomes:
Some key points fleshed out:
- Update on revised capacity modelling work – some submitters asked if this will be discussed
during mediation sessions. - Considerable support for the overall strategy expressed in the objectives and policies but
considerable doubt that the zonings and other methods actually implemented the strategy. Not
enough variety of housing size or increase in the number of households was provided for. - Most parties maintain that density is not correlated to amenity. Better to regulate amenity, not
number of dwellings or number of people per site or per land area. - Considerable support for more housing choice within all areas so that people do not have to
move away from their local neighbourhood when they want a different size and style of
housing. - General interest in increasing the extent of the land areas zoned THAB and Mixed Housing
Urban (MHU). Also to remove the density control in MHU and use development controls and
assessment criteria to manage development and amenity. - Concern that higher intensity zoning has not been applied along arterial roads and busways
and around rail stations. - Explanation sought for the criteria used in applying the zoning patterns. Council explained that
THAB applied around town centres for a distance of 250 metres and then MHU applied for a
distance of 150 metres outside of the THAB zone. More explanation would be provided in
Council’s evidence.
…….
The one in bold is bound to cause quite a bit of debate at the mediation and hearings:
- Most parties maintain that density is not correlated to amenity. Better to regulate amenity, not
number of dwellings or number of people per site or per land area.
The extent of the zones as well will also be a hot topic at the Hearings with general consensus that the Terraced Housing and Apartment Zone, and the Mixed Housing Urban Zone specifically need to be expanded across Auckland.
Other key points:
- Considerable support for less Single House Zone (SHZ) land. Many people questioned why
there was an emphasis on single house development.
….
Too much for my liking that is for sure.
And a key point that I have noted and is in my submission:
- Concern was raised about the interface between the THABs and other zones and how the
controls would ensure appropriate levels of amenity are maintained in the adjacent lower
intensity zoned areas. It was suggested that.- More assessment criteria be added and that additional considerations include sunlight
and daylight controls that take into account compass directions (e.g. differentiate N –W
– E – S). Noting that the orientation of sites affect amenity on neighbouring sites and
that a simple control is not sufficient to address amenity effects. Criteria will need to be
developed. It was suggested the legacy controls be considered and then assessed on
a case by case basis. - More zones should be created and these could be more finely tuned to particular
localities. - The PAUP provisions are “clunky” and won’t deliver the strategic objectives and policies
that the plan anticipates. - A wide site is needed for the controls in THAB zone to work.
- More assessment criteria be added and that additional considerations include sunlight
….
The two bullet points in bold above concerns me and I have mentioned it in my submission. Effectively I have gone for nine zones for Residential rather than the PAUP’s four. I am going to repost a previous post I did before the workshops on why I’ve split the Residential Zones:
Splitting the Zone Hierarchies in the Unitary Plan
Method to the madness
This particular theme has come across both the Centres Zones and at the moment with the workshops the Residential Zones. That is the respective zones in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan are too crude of an instrument to reflect the different geographies of urban Auckland.
That is the base zones as set up in the Unitary Plan treat Auckland as a homogeneous geography. Well Centres wise Manukau Metropolitan Centre is very different to Papakura or New Lynn Metropolitan Centre yet all three are placed under the same Metropolitan Centre Zone. Southern Auckland under Mixed Housing Urban Zones are different in their geography to the Isthmus sitting under Mixed Housing Urban Zones. But yet the objectives, polices and controls through the base zones for both the Isthmus and Southern Auckland Mixed Housing Zones are exactly the same.
To get around this we have what is called Overlays that then sit over the top of the base zone of a given area. There is an Overlay for just about everything you can think of planning wise that might be applied over a base zone. The problem? The more Overlays the more complex the Unitary Plan becomes and the more costly it becomes to both develop property or implement the Unitary Plan itself. Another consequence is the ordinary citizen then gets lost and there goes your participation rates – through the floor.
Solution?
Split the zone hierarchies up and in doing so absorb some over the current overlays into the new base zones objectives, polices and controls.
Meaning?
Rather than look for the base zone and what that zone means in the Unitary Plan text followed by looking up whatever overlays there are scattered through the rest of the Plan, the splitting and absorbing would mean you only need to look in one place – usually (okay two because you will be checking the maps initially as well).
More zones and less overlays is less complex than less zones and more overlays. More zones especially with the Centres might seem complex but the reverse is actually true. Because again more zones means less overlays and less complexity. It also means the new zones with the absorbed overlays (some overlays that is) are more reflected to the specific geographic “concerns” of that given area.
Residential Zone Splitting
Currently there are four residential zones in urban Auckland. They are:
- Terraced Housing and Apartment Zone
- Mixed Housing Urban Zone
- Mixed Housing Suburban Zone
- Single House Zone
I have proposed the following:
New Zone Residential Classes to replace the D.1.4 Single House Zone to D.1.7 Terrace Housing and Apartment Zone of the Unitary Plan
| Relief Sort | Existing Unitary Plan Objectives and Policy to be used for the new zones |
| D.1.4 |
D.1.4 Single House Zone – Objective and Policies |
| D.1.5 |
D1.5 Mixed Housing Suburban Zone – Objective and Policies, AND D.1.6 Mixed Housing Urban Zone – Objective and Polices |
| D.1.5 Residential Classic Medium Density Zone |
D1.5 Mixed Housing Suburban Zone – Objective and Policies, D.1.6 Mixed Housing Urban Zone – Objective and Polices, and D.1.7 Terrace Housing and Apartment Objective Policies |
| D1.7 |
D.1.7 Terrace Housing and Apartment Objective Policies |
| D1.7 |
D.1.7 Terrace Housing and Apartment Objective Policies |
| Residential Standard High Density Zone(Would be found in Metropolitan, Super Metropolitan, and City Centre Zones as an “overlay”) | D.3.2 City Centre Zone Objective and Polices, and D3.3 D3.4 Metropolitan Centre Objectives and Policies |
| Residential Intensive High Density Zone(Would be found in Metropolitan Centre, Super Metropolitan Centre, and City Centre Zones as an “overlay”) | D.3.2 City Centre Zone Objective and Polices, and D3.3 D3.4 Metropolitan Centre Objectives and Policies |
Remembering some overlays would be absorbed into the new zones cutting down the need for as many complex overlays as we currently have. As I would rather be going to a single point in the Unitary for information on what I can and can not build on a zone rather than through the entire thing thanks to the complex overlays.
Here is how the above proposal would absorb some of the height overlays that can be cast over the existing proposed Unitary Plan zones especially the Terraced Housing and Apartment Zone
New Residential Zone Basic Development Controls (maximum height development controls) for Unitary Plan
| Relief Sort | Consequential Changes |
| Residential Standard Low Density Zone | Two Storeys Maximum permitted, Three Storeys a Restricted Discretionary Activity |
| Residential Intensive Low Density Zone | Two Storeys Maximum permitted, Three Storeys is a Restricted Discretionary ActivityApartments and Terraced Housing are non-complying |
| Residential Classic Medium Density Zone | Up to three storeys as permitted activity. Four Storeys is a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Above four storeys is non-complying |
| Residential Standard Medium Density Zone | 3-6 storeys permitted. Above 6 storeys and below 3 storeys on any new development is noncomplying |
| Residential Intensive Medium Density Zone | 3-8 storeys permitted. Above 8 storeys and below 3 storeys on any new development is noncomplying |
| Residential Standard High Density Zone | Subject to rules such as those prescribed in the Business Zone definitions |
| Residential Intensive High Density Zone | Subject to rules such as those prescribed in the Business Zone definitions |
And from there you work through the development controls and translate them from the existing proposed zones into the respective new zones above.
But the point being through adding more zones and less overlays complexity is removed and development is easier to do (as well as compliance).
Refinement does need to be done as well but that can hopefully be done in mediation before the Hearings start.
——————
Link: https://voakl.net/2015/06/23/splitting-the-zone-hierarchies-in-the-unitary-plan/
Talking Southern Auckland 