The Residential Zones and The Unitary Plan

Some outlines on what is going on with the vexed residential zones

While the weekend basically a large pile after Labour’s Phil Twyford remarks about who is buying what real estate in Auckland there was another piece on Auckland housing that slipped entirely under the RADAR.

It was a Herald piece on the Volcanic View Shafts, Residential Zones, and the Unitary Plan.

Conflicting points of view

By Geoff Cumming 

Aucklanders tend to take their picturesque volcanoes for granted. But as Geoff Cumming discovers, plans for more high-rise living could wipe out some of our favourite city vistas.

“It’s ludicrous,” says Margot McRae, the heritage campaigner and playwright.

“They are shooting themselves in the foot with the idea that getting rid of the [height limit] will improve Devonport. It will, in fact, ruin its main attraction.”

What attracts visitors to Devonport is, in fact, two things — the low-rise heritage buildings along its main drag and the overarching presence of Mt Victoria (Takarunga), she explains.

If some landowners have their way, those close-up glimpses of the maunga could largely disappear — lost in places, reduced in others — behind a high-rise curtain.

It’s not just Devonport where battle lines are drawn: views of all of Auckland’s famous volcanoes are in the firing line as big landowners and property developers seek changes to the Auckland unitary plan.

The draft plan promotes intensive development to greater heights in most town centres, commercial and residential zones, particularly on the isthmus.

But the “allowable” heights in many places are gazumped by other planning tools such as character overlays and, lesser known, volcanic viewshafts — where heights are limited to protect views of the maunga and other volcanic features.

These “viewshafts” and related Height Sensitive Areas (HSAs) have worked since the mid-1970s to protect views of the volcanic cones. With new ones added over the years, they currently protect views from 87 vantage points. The view of Mt Wellington from Pakuranga Highway; the view from the northern approaches to the harbour bridge — over height-restricted city office towers — to Mt Eden; the view to North Head and Rangitoto from the Museum; Mt Eden again from Tamaki Drive: these are “regionally significant” views that contribute to Auckland’s identity as a harbour city built on a volcanic field.

What the height limits save is all those glimpses, those intimate views as you walk along the street … That view of Mt Victoria just looms over you, and the main street relates to it magnificently.

Margot McRae

Many district and local views are similarly protected — allowing Aucklanders to “connect” with the cones. The views may be fleeting; they may not be outstanding (the maunga have suffered enormously since European occupation), but they reinforce what planners call a “sense of place”.

As the all-powerful Regional Policy Statement (RPS) says, the cones are “islands of naturalness, of open space and green that interact with an urban landscape … They set this region apart from other cities in the world.”

But what happens if many cones lose their prominence (from near or far) as the wall of high-density apartments and commercial blocks rises? The unitary plan allows 4-8 storey development in suburban town centres, four storeys in business zones, three-level apartments in many residential areas and up to 18 storeys in “metropolitan centres” such as Newmarket.

……..

Full story and source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11478950

Given that workshops were held recently on the Residential Zones in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and that mediation is due to start at the end of the month I was concerned the Herald not being entirely factual here especially with the bit in bold.

So much more out there than the Auckland City Centre (CBD)
So much more out there than the Auckland City Centre (CBD)

I have pushed for corrections to the Herald but in essence these are the clarifications I put forward:

Feedback and Corrections sought after:

But what happens if many cones lose their prominence (from near or far) as the wall of high-density apartments and commercial blocks rises? The unitary plan allows 4-8 storey development in suburban town centres, four storeys in business zones, three-level apartments in many residential areas and up to 18 storeys in “metropolitan centres” such as Newmarket.

Using the term High Density is incorrect and in the context used is a subject term that alters the narrative of the article.
Density is used in both how many dwellings or buildings in a set area as well as number of people in a set area as well.
It is accepted (with simplicity) with the Unitary Plan that:
  1. Under 3 storeys is both low-rise and low density 
  2. 4 to 8 storeys is mid rise and medium density 
  3. 9 storeys and above are high rises and high density 
Thus your phrase “wall of high density apartments and commercial blocks” is incorrect owing to that high density and high-rise (9 storeys and above) are contained to the City Centre Zone, 9 of the Metropolitan Centres, and Pakuranga Town Centre. 
Your phrase on 4-8 storeys for the Town Centres is correct but remember this is medium density development.
Your phrase on 4 storeys in business zones is incorrect as “Business Zones” include the following under the Unitary Plan:
  1. City Centre Zone
  2. Metropolitan Centres
  3. Town Centres
  4. Local Centres
  5. Neighbourhood Centres
  6. Mixed Use Zone
  7. General Business Zone
  8. Office park Zone
  9. Light Industry Zone
  10. Heavy Industry Zone
For sake of accuracy and objective factual reporting you need illustrate which Business Zone you are referring to as all ten have different development (and height) rules.
Your “Three Storey Apartments in many residential areas” is incorrect owing to the fact apartments can only be built in the Terraced Housing and Apartment Zone (or the Business Zones) which is no more than 5% of residential zoned urban zoned land in Auckland. The zone you are most likely referring to is the Mixed Housing Urban Zone in which while it does allow for three storeys, “apartments” are a Non Complying activity for this zone at the moment. The MHU only covers 10% of the urban area at the moment
Your phrase about the Metropolitan Centres being 18 storeys is half correct but still needs a correction.
Two of the ten Metropolitan Centres have height restrictions below the 18 storeys otherwise used.
  • Newmarket Metropolitan Centre has height restriction of 8 storeys in the Proposed Unitary Plan owing to those volcanic view shafts
  • Papakura Metropolitan Centre has an 10-11 storey height restriction
I have attached a Council presentation on the Residential Zones currently heading to Unitary Plan mediation.
I need not remind people of the importance of factual accuracy especially when dealing with a document as complex, controversial and far-reaching as the Unitary Plan. 
Inaccuracies especially ones deemed subjective thus alter the rhetoric of an article and in this case create undue effects on Unitary Plan submitters, the Unitary Plan Hearings Panel and their mediators, and the Auckland Council. Those undue effects coming from wider public subjective criticisms built on journalistic inaccuracies muddling their way into the Hearings processes and thus ultimately possibly giving wrong influences when clear heads are needed. 

………

In other words if false subject presumptions enter a Unitary Plan Hearings debate over a particular topic, submitters and the Council have to get around those first (consequently wasting time) before the actual material is then dealt with objectively.

The Centres are controversial enough and the Residential Zones are going to be a white-hot issue. Inaccuracies especially subjective rhetoric ones are not going to help any one at all.

Below is a short overview of the Residential Zones in the Unitary Plan followed by what has come out of the workshops thus far for these zones. From there mediation happens then the Hearings in October.

Basic Outline of the Unitary Plan Residential Zones

*Note: there are more of the above related to the respective sub topics within the main Residential Zones topic. I can get them on request

Workshop Outcomes for the Residential Zones

More on this as the Hearings approach in October

My first solution following submission to Unitary Plan
My first solution following submission to Unitary Plan