The Centralised Master (Community) Plan
In the last Draft Auckland Plan Series post I gave an introduction and outline into the land use and transport aspects of my submission. In particular the post looked at the Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation system I had devised, and the two LADU methods also devised in the submission. The two LADU methods (f0r both Greenfield and Brownfield land use) were; Centralised Master (Community) Plan (CMCP) and the Semi-Liberal Planned District (SLPD). Both methods had to follow the Regional Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies (R-LADU-P) also mentioned in The Draft Auckland Plan (#2) (Series) post as basic requirements for a healthy (yet still affordable and economically viable) physical AND social environment.
Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi Liberal Planned District Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation briefs can be found by clicking on the respective hyper link and going to PAGE 14 of the submission document on Scribd.
The Centralised Master (Community) Plan is where the subject LADU is performed under a strict prescription criteria. The reason behind that is due to the land or area having:
“significant value or consequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCP’s could not be left strictly to more market forces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).”
Basically so called sensitive areas in Auckland would be put under the CMCP-LADU method. These sensitive areas (as per Table 8.2 Page 132 of The Auckland Draft Plan (Urban Auckland)) are:
- International City Centre
- Metropolitan Centres
- Any urban (or rural) centre marked with an (*) in Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan
The reason why those areas were placed under the CMCP-LADU method was due to their sensitive nature in Auckland and could not be left to the more liberal Semi Liberal Planned District LADU method. The sensitivity ranges from large economic, social environmental and/or physical environmental effects the areas bullet pointed above have and thus in my opinion need a LADU method that is performed:
“under a strict prescription. That prescription would provide the covenants on land allocation, land utilisation, urban design and “rules” around what types of activities or future activities that could or could not be carried out.”
The Draft City Centre Master Plan provides an extensive and comprehensive example of what a Centralised Master (Community) Plan can look like. The Draft Waterfront Plan could also be another example of a CMCP based on the sensitive social and physical environmental effects the area has in and for Auckland. In any case both examples are indicative on what a CMCP can do.
However with time short and only just me and my computer, I could only focus on selected areas for the CMCP LADU method however room was left for further development if Auckland Council takes up the idea in the final Auckland Plan.
The areas I thus focused in my submission were:
The above mentioned areas had significant value or consequences and were therefore put under the CMCP-LADU method. If the CMCP-LADU method is adopted into The Auckland Plan then the following would occur:
Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers would need to work together to form the Centralised Master (Community) Plans to takes these centres forward for the next 30-50 years. However while developing a CMCP, the primary goal of “The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Sustainable while still making Auckland „The Most Liveable City.” So rule of thumb, the CMCP (as one person said) if printed on A4 paper should be no thicker than an average person‟s thumbnail – anything thicker means it is too complex and/or inefficient.”
Detailed individual Central Master (Community) Plans for the five areas mentioned above will be not attached or added to this submission per-se. For one the idea of a CMCP has to be approved by Auckland Council first in finalising The Auckland Plan, second if a CMCP model of land allocation/development/utilisation is adopted then a second phase of “planning” has to be undertaken in order to create the CMCP. That planning work would and should be down collaboratively with Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers. That planning work would be done either in preparation for the Unitary Plan or the Long Term Plan.
As quoted it would happen through the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan that is set out for both the Auckland Council and the Local Boards (both affected with the CMCP or not). However I am a bit concerned as the Long Term Plan (the action plan and budget (including rates) mechanism ) is already drafted and can not be easily changed despite public consultation that will happen next month. I am wondering if The Draft Auckland Plan is already set regardless of its public consultation that happened last year and thus the Long Term Plan is a natural follow on from it.
In any case, my submission mentioned five areas that I had placed under the CMCP-LADU method due to their significant value and/or consequences to further development.
The next round of posts on The Draft Auckland Plan Series I will look at each of the five areas in my submission mentioned under the CMCP-LADU method and why.