Phase Two of City Building to get under way

 

To provide a quick context:

1. 2010-2013 was the City Planning Stage with the Auckland Plan and Draft Unitary Plan
2. 2013-2016 is the City Building Stage – Phase One with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan under way while Special Housing Areas and the City Centre kick-start building activity
3. 2016-2022 will be the City Building Stage Phase Two with the Unitary Plan live and major urban works including the City Rail Link under way

 

On Thursday the Auckland Development Committee will be deliberating over what is called the Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland spearheaded by Panuku Development Auckland.

 

 

From the Auckland Development Committee Agenda – Item 12 Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland

Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland

File No.: CP2015/20078

Purpose

1. To outline the results of the Urban Location Analysis project.
2. To seek endorsement for the results of this project to be provided to Panuku Development Auckland for their consideration.
3. To outline the next steps for future engagement and decision making on ‘Type 1’ programmes for Panuku Development Auckland to lead on.

Executive Summary

4. As part of the Development Auckland transition work stream, the Urban Location Analysis project was set up to establish recommended locations to focus Panuku Development Auckland’s (Panuku) new ‘Type 1’ urban redevelopment programme.  A Type 1 programme is one that will require a high custodial, long term approach to redevelopment (i.e. such as the redevelopment activities occurring at the Auckland Waterfront).
5. This project was facilitated by council’s Growth and Infrastructure Strategy Team, in collaboration with the wider council family.  Progress was reported through various groups in the transition work stream, including the Steering Group, the Board Advisory Group, a Mana Whenua hui and the Auckland Development Committee.
6. The Auckland Development Committee has had three workshops in June, August and September 2015 to steer and guide the project – this included considering assessment criteria and weighting preferences of the criteria.
7. The work to date acknowledges and builds on the significant amount of strategic, statutory and non-statutory planning work that Auckland Council and CCOs have engaged in on a region-wide and area specific level (i.e. plans, policies, strategies and initiatives).  The project focused on data collection and on delivering a clear set of criteria to allow for comparative analysis of potential redevelopment locations.  This helped to create a transparent decision making framework to identify Type 1 locations options.
8. The work done through this project, and the focus of Panuku especially as it relates to Type 1 locations, is integral to council priorities (such as Spatial Priorities and Special Housing Areas).  The results of this project helps Panuku focus within Spatial Priority Areas for example, and also assists our infrastructure providers with some of their own investment decisions.
9. The results of the detailed assessment and final set of priority locations are:

a)   Manukau	d)  Newmarket	g)  Mt Eden Station
b)   Otahuhu	e)  Northcote	h)  Avondale
c)   Onehunga	f)  Takapuna	i)  Henderson

10. The location analysis information and results can now be passed over to the Panuku to complete the process – the Board can shortlist Type 1 locations from the results of this project and develop a Type 1 programme.  In addition, Panuku will also consider and prioritise the existing portfolio carried over from Auckland Council Property Limited and the treatment of these projects into other less custodial programmes.  Panuku will seek to develop a view on the full range of programmes (including the next order Type 2 and 3 locations) they will take forward across the Auckland region and will engage further with Councillors, local boards and communities on this before the end of the year.

11. At this point the recommendations in this report will allow the new Panuku Board to consider the potential Type 1 locations identified, so they can establish a recommended shortlist to bring back to this Committee for endorsement.  This will occur firstly by way of a workshop in November and then to the scheduled December Committee meeting.

Recommendation/s That the Auckland Development Committee: a)      recommend the results of the Urban Location Analysis to Panuku Development Auckland for their consideration in its Type 1 programme. b)      request Panuku Development Auckland to report back to the 10 December 2015 Auckland Development Committee meeting with their recommendations, for the Committee’s endorsement, of its Type 1 programme shortlist specifically, but also Type 2 and 3 programmes generally.

……..

Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/284137508/Auckland-Development-Committee-Agenda-October-2015#page=24

 

In short it will be worked through between Panuku Development Auckland, the Auckland Development Committee and it seems the wider communities of Auckland to develop a short list of three of the nine candidates mentioned above to be actioned on as Type 1 urban renewal projects. The rest I am going to take it and if possible will slot into the Type 2 category if viable to do so.

 

So the ultimate of all questions is which of the nine current short listed urban areas for Type 1 urban renewal (see the agenda item for the meaning of Type 1, 2 and 3) would go through for the final three for final recommendation to the December Auckland Development question.

Before I make my short list here is the wider context on how the original nine got there:

Results

28. The detailed assessment of the potential development locations has revealed some key locations that score very strongly and others that are more sensitive to the criteria used.  This has been shown through the use of different criteria weighting scenarios.  There are also a set of locations that do not score as strongly relative to the others and would be less likely to be part of the final set of high priority locations.
29. Weighting preferences were expressed by the Auckland Development Committee through workshops.  Whilst there were some slightly different weighting scenarios, the consensus settled around a preference for a largely equal weighting to be applied to the criteria used.
30. Based on the criteria, the analysis concluded the overall ranking of the potential development locations outlined in Figure 2 below.  The size of the segments in each bar highlights the contribution to the location’s score for each of the six objective groups.

Figure 2: Location Assessment Results

31. When considering these results, the transition work stream Steering Group provided a direction that the locations within the Tamaki Redevelopment Company boundary and the City Centre should not be taken forward as options.  This is because there are already delivery agents in these areas and it is implicit that Panuku will continue to work in these areas as part their Type 1 programme.  Therefore Glen Innes, Panmure and the Aotea/Karangahape Road Precincts were excluded from the final set of high priority locations.  All three of these locations score very well relative to the others, which underlines their importance as locations for Panuku involvement.
32. The ranking outlined in the location assessment also helped determine which locations would be prioritised and which will drop out given they failed to score well.  A subset of locations consistently scored in the bottom third of the rankings using different weighting scenarios as a test of robustness.  As a result, a cut off score of ‘40’ was used and the following locations were removed for further consideration at this stage: Royal Oak, Westgate, Albany, Point Chevalier and Morningside Station.
33. Therefore, the final set of high priority locations to be provided to Panuku are:
34. a)           Manukau (within Spatial Priority Area)
35. b)           Otahuhu (within Spatial Priority Area)
36. c)           Onehunga
37. d)           Newmarket
38. e)           Northcote
39. f)            Takapuna (within Spatial Priority Area)
40. g)           Mt Eden Station
41. h)           Avondale (within Spatial Priority Area)
42. i)             Henderson
43. These results serve as an indicator of which locations score best against the multiple criteria used, and the data assessed will assist Panuku to understand the value and opportunities in each of these locations.  Profiles of each location using key data and information that was considered in the location assessment will be outlined for Panuku to consider.
44. Stage D, the final stage of the project, will now move forward under the leadership of Panuku.  Further analysis of these locations will be undertaken in order to arrive at a final shortlist of 2 to 3 locations that Panuku will recommend to the Auckland Development Committee through its Board, and which will constitute the ‘Type 1’ programme. 
45. Panuku will also seek to develop a view on the full range of programmes (including Type 2 and 3 locations) they will take forward across the Auckland region and will engage further with Councillors, local boards and communities on this before the end of the year.

……………..

Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/284137508/Auckland-Development-Committee-Agenda-October-2015#page=24

 

 

My Final Three for the Panuku Development Type 1 Urban Renewal Program

1. Manukau
2. Otahuhu
3. Henderson

 

Why these three?

Now remember, Aotea/K-Road, Panmure and Glen Innes are excluded for reasons stated by Development Auckland above.

But for Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson the biggest stand out for me (apart from Manukau’s score) and on the score sheet was the ‘Community’ score. Community was scored by the following metrics (can be seen in the document I will have embedded at the bottom of the post):

• Community Readiness
• Community Facilities
• Deprivation Index
• Maori Wellbeing

I know during the Area Plan and Unitary Plan exercises that the communities serviced by Manukau (Otahuhu-Pukekohe and arguably the northern Waikato) as well as the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board were keen on Manukau to be intensified and undergo large-scale urban renewal over the next 30-years. Henderson and their community and Local Board are the same as well with intensification (given that Henderson like Manukau are both Metropolitan Centres) and urban renewal. Manukau and Henderson are surrounded by areas of high social deprivation as well (Manukau is in the core of The Southern Initiative while Henderson would be the core for a Western Initiative) so any works by Development Auckland on Manukau and Henderson will have to bear this in mind. Manukau and Henderson are also surrounded by large Maori populations as well so their wellbeing again must be considered with any work undertaken by Development Auckland. As for community facilities Manukau is a civic hub for Southern Auckland with Council service centres and offices, police headquarters, Manukau District Court, MIT and AUT tertiary campuses, and Government departments like ACC sprinkled around the place. Henderson is the same with police, courts, Unitec, Council service centres and offices, and respective Government departments as well.

So both Manukau and Henderson community wise are set up from the get-go AND most of all would have community backing for which if you did not then things for Development Auckland will not be going far.

As for Otahuhu most of the above for what I said about Manukau and Henderson applies minus some civic functions as well as Otahuhu is serviced by a Town Centre not a Metropolitan Centre. But again like Manukau and Henderson the community is behind their Centre (Otahuhu) and providing Development Auckland takes them on the journey the urban renewal of Otahuhu will be accepted more readily than if not taking the community on the journey.

 

Market scoring for Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson is low compared to others on the scale and is a major case why these three places need to be in the Type 1 listing Development Auckland has created. If the Market scoring was higher than Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson would be more suited to Type 2 where the urban renewal is more market driven and Development Auckland while still in partnership it would not be leading as hard as with Type 1.

 

As we know a lot of land in Manukau is owned by Auckland Council through Development Auckland. Any privately owned land is often more-so in big parcels making urban renewal on both Council and private land much easier than a Centre with smaller more fragmented sites like Henderson.

 

 

Scale, and Enablement/Timing was a peculiar issue given the bus network gravitates around Manukau and that Manukau has the Manukau Station on its western flanks. I wonder if Development Auckland was using the old or new bus network to look at bus accessibility to Manukau. As for rail well if the Manukau South Link was built then accessibility to Manukau would be as good if not as great as the roading network around and to Manukau. So hint hint guys and get the Link built as part of this urban renewal drive by Development Auckland.

Otahuhu also has good Enablement/Timing given that it has Otahuhu Station/Bus Interchange and the Otahuhu Town Centre Interchange in which buses will pass through both (as well as the trains with the station). Henderson is a bit lower on the scale but still accessed easily enough by bus and train.

Looking back at Scale I am wondering if planning rules by Council are preventing higher scores for Otahuhu, Manukau and Henderson. I know the Auckland Council Development Capacity (ACDC15) models for the Unitary Plan showed nine of the ten Metropolitan Centres (Takapuna being the exception) non-viable for terraced housing and apartments. That said Takapuna on Development Auckland’s scale is even lower for Scale than Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson. So it begs the question given the “Scale” score is based on the Unitary Plan rules are those rules more in the way than actually helping. I have argued through the Manukau Super Metropolitan Centre debate that the Unitary Plan rules as they stand proposed by Council are the biggest hindrance!

 

Finally we have Capital Complexity which Manukau scored some of the highest marks while Otahuhu will in the middle range and Henderson non-existent. Looking at Development Auckland’s criteria for Capital Complexity it seems Manukau is very much “Deliverable” in terms of redevelopment (urban renewal) as a market proposition despite a low “Market” score. I am interpreting this as once Council has laid down a Manukau City Centre Master Plan like the City Centre Master Plan and kick starts some public works in Manukau like Wynyard Quarter the market will pretty much come to the party and get cracking with new urban development. This means Council paying more attention to Manukau than the last five years but with what Development Auckland is proposing exciting times are in store of Manukau providing Council follows through.

Otahuhu and Henderson are by the looks of it going to need a bit more public works through Council than Manukau would in a relative sense before the market started kicking in doing its part. But given the absolute potential Otahuhu and Henderson hold for Auckland and the communities the higher amount of public works from Council for these two places especially with high community engagement and buy in the investment would be most prudent.

 

Conclusion

Manukau, Otahuhu and Henderson would be my three prime picks to take through as Type 1 Panuku Development Auckland urban renewal projects. The Community score for all three was the main stand out for these three places and each of them have their respective strengths and weaknesses in being carried through for the final three Type 1 Panuku Development Auckland projects.

I will go further in-depth on Manukau as a Type-1 Panuku Development Auckland on Wednesday as two pieces of work can be easily incorporated into Manukau to get at least that Type 1 project off the ground next year (Annual Plan willing).

 

 

In the meantime what do you think from the proposal put forward by Panuku Development Auckland?