Tag: Government

Simplifying the Rules?

·

What Does Section 4 of the Unitary Plan Mean?

 

Section Four of the Unitary Plan is arguably the most important part of the entire Unitary Plan. Section Four contains all the RULES and definitions of those rules that are seen in the Unitary Plan – and also does one’s head in on the way out. One has to remember that the Unitary Plan is a document based on our Resource Management Act 1991 and subsequent amendments as they come from Wellington. What activities are permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary, discretionary, non complying and prohibited are all spelt out in the Unitary Plan and the definitions provided in the RMA.

Unfortunately the RMA is a cumbersome document (I have a copy here at home) and could be easily one of three (what I call) pieces of super legislation New Zealand have. By super legislation I mean it is beyond thick as a brick in size, has language that would baffle most people and has the greatest effect on most ordinary citizens’ lives. Of course the other two pieces of super legislation that we all love to have would be Tax Law and ACC 😛

With a cumbersome document like the RMA comes an equally as cumbersome document we know as the Unitary Plan. At what ever pages thick and language that will leave 99% of the city befuddled (paraphrasing Orakei Local Board Chair Desley Simpson) you can see why residents and business might get upset with the Unitary Plan.

 

Where am I going with this?

Recently there was a major outcry on Mixed Housing Zones and what was entailed with them. In short as it has always been with a MHZ you can build a two storey (eight metre) house as of right – it is a permitted activity under most existing plans and the upcoming Unitary Plan. Where things get interesting is that you can build a three storey (10 metre) high house (not quite sure you can do Walk Up apartments though) providing you meeting the resource consent and urban design controls in place. This is because such an activity is classified as a Discretionary Restricted Activity per the RMA. Again this piece was already in most existing plans and is again in the upcoming Unitary Plan. So nothing different per se.

I believe what might have people “interested” is what does Restricted Discretionary Activity mean? In the Unitary Plan and as set out in the RMA it means:
4.1.4.3 Restricted discretionary activities

Resource consent is required for a restricted discretionary activity. Council may approve or decline a proposal for a restricted discretionary activity. The Unitary Plan specifies the matters over which council has restricted its discretion. Council’s consideration of the proposal, and the ability to refuse the application and impose conditions, is restricted to these matters.
The Unitary Plan uses this approach where it is possible to limit discretion to specific effects associated with an activity or development, which need to be assessed.

A permitted activity as a comparison is:

4.1.4.1 Permitted activities
Resource consent is not required for a permitted activity if it complies with all the relevant rules in the Unitary Plan. The Unitary Plan uses this approach to provide for activities to be carried out as of right, provided certain controls are met. If an activity does not comply with one or more of the relevant controls it is not a permitted activity. In those instances the activity will fall into one of the activity categories below and will require resource consent.
Existing uses
The RMA permits certain existing land uses, which were lawfully established, to continue despite contravening a rule in the Unitary Plan. These activities have existing use rights, but must satisfy the provisions outlined in s. 10 and s. 20A of the RMA.
It is the responsibility of the person claiming existing use rights to demonstrate they comply with the relevant sections of the RMA.
Certificates of Compliance (CoC)
An application can be made to council to obtain a CoC for a permitted activity. A CoC certifies that the development is fully complying. Section 139 of the RMA outlines the role of consenting authorities and environmental protection agencies in issuing CoCs. A CoC is treated as if it was a resource consent.

To provide the relevant Section Four material and what activities are what to the five residential zones I have these embeds

4.1 General Provisions

4.3.1 Residential Zones

And the Mixed Housing Zone document which all the Councillors and Local Board members have sitting in their email boxes but have not publicly released to their communities. The document is a public document and meant to be discussed with residents and businesses

 

Now from here a two prong situation arises.

First is that I do not like Restricted Discretionary Activities as it gives a central planner too much power away from the community. Yes we have to weigh up private property rights of the individual but for activities to be lugged under the RDA class means there is going to be more than a minor impact and those in the immediate vicinity might want to be notified. You know – a no surprises policy. The Centralised Master Community Plan and Semi-Liberal Plan District methodologies I am working on would restore a more community based approach to planning and assist a no surprises policy.

Second Prong is that the language in Section Four is a total dog and will do anyone’s head in. It even does my head in and I am supposedly clued up with planning, the RMA and the Unitary Plan. If the “planners” language is confusing people on what can actually happen in a Mixed Housing Zone then I don’t blame them for their confusion.

While this might need a rewrite of the RMA itself, maybe Council could to simplify the language their end and run a traffic light system for the class of activities followed by basic plain English of each of the lights/categories. Example:

  • Green: Permitted Activities
  • Yellow: Controlled Activities (usually activities that produce emissions or other pollutants that can be controlled); and Restricted Discretionary Activities (more relevant to residential zones and their subsequent activities)
  • Orange: Discretionary Activities
  • Red: Non Complying Activities

No need to mention Prohibited Activities as that is usually controlled by Central Government and often refers to things either toxic or nuclear in nature.

With a traffic light set up followed by basic plain English definitions if someone was to engage on an activity within one of the five residential zones; the citizen in question might have an easier time understand the rules and not be so confused.

I might work on simplifying and setting up a Traffic Light kind of system for the Unitary Plan but, not until after my submission is handed in by May 31.

In saying that; a well-informed citizen equipped with the knowledge and an understandable plan is a happy citizen. The opposite is a confused and angry citizen.

Maybe Council needs to work on its English in the Unitary Plan a bit better. Oh and lots of pictures – for pictures speak a thousand words (and save paper 😛 )

 

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

 

Generation Zero: Support on Public Transport

· 1 Comment ·

Press Release from Generation Zero

 

On

 

Increasing Support for Public Transport Investment

 

I have certainly not forgotten about Generation Zero and their efforts for more balanced transport funding. This was from them today over the latest UMR Poll in regards to transport funding support levels:

 

From Scoop.co.nz – Scoop Media

Poll shows Govt’s dinosaur transport plans behind the times

Monday, 25 February 2013, 3:41 pmPress Release: Generation Zero

Poll shows Government’s ‘dinosaur’ transport plans behind the times

25 February 2013

Youth organisation Generation Zero has endorsed a recent poll by UMR research showing that support for spending on public transport has doubled over the last 20 years.

When asked whether they preferred Government money being spent on motorways and public roads or on public transport, 48 per cent of survey participants supported spending on public transport – in contrast, 37 per cent supported spending on motorways and public roads.

The poll by UMR Research shows the changing times in New Zealand with a reverse from 1992, when 43 per cent of those surveyed preferred Government money to be spent on motorways and other public roads, compared with 25 per cent support for public transport as the priority spending candidate.

Generation Zero spokesperson Louis Chambers said, “It’s time for the Government to get with the times on transport funding in New Zealand.”

The centrepiece of the Government’s transport strategy is to spend over $12 billion on its seven so-called ‘Roads of National Significance’.

To raise the money for these motorways, the Government has had to raise fuel taxes and is amending the Land Transport Management Act to allow the New Zealand Transport Agency unlimited borrowing capacity with only a signoff from the Finance Minister required.

Meanwhile, the Government is refusing to fund smart transport initiatives like the Auckland City Rail Link, and the National Land Transport Programme 2012-15 shows that for every dollar invested in new infrastructure for rail, buses, walking and cycling, 20 dollars will be spent on new state highways.

“This poll shows that New Zealanders understand our transport future can’t look like the past, and smart cities need smart transport systems to support them,” said Mr Chambers.

“But the Government doesn’t seem to get it – spending billions on unnecessary and uneconomic motorways like the Kapiti Expressway at the expense of vital smart transport projects like the City Rail Link.”

“The Government’s dinosaur transport plans will entrench ‘business as usual’, locking us into increased carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil. As young Kiwis, that’s not what the future we want to be handed.”

“It’s time to deliver New Zealanders the better public transport systems that they’re calling for, but this will only be possible if we stop throwing money at these motorways of madness.”

About Generation Zero:
Generation Zero is an independent youth organisation seeking to catalyse action on climate change in New Zealand. For more information see:
www.generationzero.org.nz
www.facebook.com/GenerationZero

ENDS

——————————————————

The UMR poll was pretty convincing and I am willing to support Generation Zero in their call made above about our Dinosaur Central Government being that – Dinosaurs in regards to these Roads of National (Party) Significance.

BR:AKL also continues to support Generation Zero’s 50:50 transport funding campaign. 😀

An Auckland Housing Redux

·

Battle on Housing Goes On

 

BR:AKL Has Viable Alternative Urban Land Use “Policy” Already

 

 

And I bet we are all sick of the Housing Affordability Debate swinging from one extreme to the other and back again; both at central and local government levels, both by the centre-left (social authoritarian section) and centre-right (neo-conservatism). The conservatives from both sides of the political spectrum are basically bashing each over the heads trying to score “up-man” points on one another with housing, yet really don’t offer what WE really want in housing (it is what THEY want in housing and telling US how and where to live). Interestingly Social Liberals (from the left), Neo Liberals (centre right) and even the libertarians (down the bottom of the political compass) have gone extremely quiet on housing and urban land use policy.

 

This is rather a shame as the liberals could very well offer some viable alternatives that we (the residents and businesses) could be very well-looking for. You know “US” making our own choices and working in a collaborative  manner and shape OUR CITY, OUR WAY (not the Government (Local and Central’s) way). Now before I post the “redux” on a social liberal‘s view for “housing” just a quick differentiation between how a social liberal and neo liberal would achieve similar goals.

 

What Social and Neo Libs share the same in housing:

  • Planning: Liberalising the planning rules and requirements (like ditching minimum parking requirements, setbacks, landscaping, etc. – basically getting planners out of the road)
  • No monopolies on construction goods (Fletchers would be “broken”)
  • Zoning: basically zone and let the people and developers do the rest (apart from Master Plans)

 

What Social and Neo Libs do not share the same in housing:

  • Provision of social housing provided by The State (not councils). Social Libs would allow it, Neo Libs not
  • Community Master Plans. Social Libs would allow a strict prescription based plan and development to occur in some areas (Town Centres), Neo Libs would still do the zone and let the people and developer do the rest right across the board

 

As for the “Redux” here it is; my social liberal (and well read) Submission to the (then) Draft Auckland Plan where extensive mention of land use was made out:

 

Unfortunately though despite the hearings and constant lobbying, this extensive submission gathers (digital and actual) dust sitting in the draw. So while the conservatives bludgeon each other and boring us with no actual solutions, this liberal document waits for some brave political soul to bring it into the light and see it through in execution.

 

More to Ponder Over

·

Needing Help?

 

While I have one “Thought” post on ice as I check that it won’t land me in the crap here is something else to think over while on holiday:

From NZ Herald:

Kerre Woodham: Nats run out of petrol

In what should have been a lovely, relaxing wind-down to the year, I found myself getting wound up instead.

Normally, talkback in the week before Christmas is full of callers ringing in with lovely stories of family get-togethers and their own personal Yuletide traditions, and we wish each other well for the holiday season. Nice, warm, fuzzy stuff.

This year, however, the news of a fuel tax hike on the same day the Remuneration Authority announced a pay rise for MPs – backdated to July 1, what’s more – had us incensed.

Bill English said he needed to impose an extra 3c a litre on petrol six months from now because he wanted to meet his target of a surplus by 2015. Growth has slowed right down, mainly because of rising unemployment, hence the tax.

I thought John Key said that by cutting income tax rates we would be able to stimulate the economy. Guess that didn’t work. I thought Key said that he would be able to stem the flow of New Zealanders to Australia by building a competitive economy and offering after-tax earnings on a par with those across the ditch. Well, that hasn’t worked, either.

There are now more people moving to Oz under National than there were under Labour. But instead of ‘fessing up and conceding nothing the Government has come up with has worked, the Prime Minister has produced a classic example of Orwellian double-speak.

Akshally, says Key, moving to Australia is a GOOD thing for New Zealanders to do. They’ll see the world, gain experience – no, just like everything else, Key is comfortable with the numbers of Kiwis farewelling this country.

Well, I’m not. Why can’t he just concede that this politics lark is a darn sight more difficult than he thought it would be? National was voted in because they promised voters they had the answers. They’d be a breath of fresh air. They were business people who knew a thing or two about making money, not academics who’d spent most of their lives in ivory towers.

Well, they may know how to make money for themselves but they don’t seem to have any answers when it comes to making the country richer.

If, after four years of government, the best strategy they can come up with to produce a surplus is to raise the fuel tax, they are devoid of initiative and bereft of imagination.

Prices will rise because of the increased cost of transportation so the fuel tax will affect everyone in this country, not just motorists.

And don’t give me that nonsense about needing the money for roads of national significance – most roads of national significance are tolled. So we already pay a fuel tax. That will be increased. And then we pay a toll. Fabulous.

There are those who say it’s only going to be an extra $3 a week for motorists – not even the price of a cup of decent coffee. That just shows how wide the gap between the haves and the have-nots has become. Many people on low incomes haven’t been inside a snazzy cafe for years.

Why doesn’t the Finance Minister ask his parliamentary driver to use the fuel card to fill up the Beemer and take him for a drive to areas where people are really doing it tough? I’d like to see him tell those people that an extra $156 a year coming out of their pockets is neither here nor there.

I really hope 2013 is the year that National stops blaming the country’s poor performance on the recession and starts coming up with the innovative initiatives they promised us.

 

So some thoughts:

  1. Are we stuck for a lemon for a Government
  2. Is National on Empty and if so how long on empty
  3. Can anything be done by government to move this nation actually forward
  4. Are voters ready to make the hard choices including maybe weaning ourselves on big items like Working for Families?
  5. What are your ideas to move us forward.
  6. Are we ready to maybe swallow that dead rat and do something requiring  some sacrifice short-term for long-term gain – even if it goes against one’s ideology (The City Rail Link being the prime example)

 

I have a few ideas but will go into them sometime in the future. But for starters as I said above: “Are we ready to maybe swallow that dead rat and do something requiring  some sacrifice short-term for long-term gain – even if it goes against one’s ideology (The City Rail Link being the prime example)” – I am ready to commit to that sacrifice and go with moving the CRL forward. Call it the Gibbs gut feeling knowing the CRL is the most logical and pragmatic start in a range of options to be rolled out over the next thirty years to move Power Shift Auckland Forward.

 

But I shall leave you with those thoughts and maybe some ideas to help the government or more to the point getting this nation forward.

 

In the mean time, hopefully the ex-cyclone system otherwise was known as Evan doesn’t drown your Christmas out.

 

Have a Good Christmas Folks

And see you all next year! 😀

 

Housing, Housing, Housing

·

Is The Housing Situation in Auckland That Hard to “Solve?”

 

I see the Main Stream Media and Central Government have  got on the bandwagon about Auckland’s housing affordability situation. Much as I hate to say it, the MSM I am having no issues with reporting the news (when they do) but I am having issues with Central Government interfering in what is a debate between Council and its ratepayers.

I say that as two particular articles have cropped up from the NZH in regards to housing affordability:

First article

Govt to open up more land for houses

By Adam Bennett , Kate Shuttleworth

Prime Minister John Key says fast-tracking the supply of land will help solve the housing affordability crisis.

The Government is to work with councils to open up more land for development as it seeks to rein in New Zealand‘s high house prices.

Finance Minister Bill English will unveil the Government’s response to theProductivity Commission’s inquiry into home affordability after the Cabinet meets today.

He said it would act to address one of the main issues identified by the commission – a lack of land for building new homes – but the package was a broad programme.

“There isn’t really one simple initiative that changes the way the housing market works.

“It’s a very complicated beast so I wouldn’t get expectations too high about changing the trajectory of house prices next week.”

The commission focused on the need to free more land on city fringes for home-building, but Mr English said some of the best opportunities for development, particularly for low-priced housing, were within cities.

 

And the second article – actually an opinion piece

National’s affordable housing package lacks any substantial detail

By John Armstrong

Package? What package? No wonder National avoided over-selling the contents of their plan to make housing more affordable. The plan looks more like a rough first draft.

As Annette King, Labour’s housing spokeswoman noted, the Government’s long-awaited announcement was a combination of “considering new ways”, “undertaking more inquiries”, “doing more work” and “undertaking evaluations”.

The lack of detail serves to illustrate one thing: when it comes to increasing the housing stock, there is not a lot central government can do unless it is willing to spend big bikkies.

 

The two parts I am going to raise were both in bold in the first article:

“Prime Minister John Key says fast-tracking the supply of land will help solve the housing affordability crisis.”

Opening up supply of the land will help and was mentioned in the Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan and the Civic Forum (that I attended) for the Unitary Plan. What it needs is Council to follow through with the plans and get opening up that land now rather than later. So no need to worry John, already ahead of you there mate.

 

And from the Minister of Finance:

“The commission focused on the need to free more land on city fringes for home-building, but Mr English said some of the best opportunities for development, particularly for low-priced housing, were within cities.”

Well that seems to be more hitting the point on the head there. And the easiest way to accommodate what the Minister is saying is to:

  1. Zone appropriately
  2. Lower the cost of construction
  3. Lower the regulation hurdles to build

Get on top of those three points via adopting the Keeping It Simple Stupid philosophy and you might find the above points going some distance (but not all) into helping get on top of our housing affordability and supply situation.

 

I was pondering over my coffee this morning a few things. First of all acknowledging that a house is deemed affordable when the price of purchasing your house is not more than three times above the total gross income of the people going to be paying the mortgage for that house. Four times above the income is indicating stress but still okay, but anything above five times the income (Auckland is at 5.3-6.0 times) is deemed unaffordable and the situation needs to be addressed FAST!

The second thing I was pondering over was; who is actually getting in the way of solving the housing affordability situation here in Auckland. Traditionally I would stick my boot into our planners, however after the Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan last Saturday I concluded that actually our Planners can and are redeeming themselves here are actually not the ones in the way for the most part. I told our planners at the Civic Forum that the biggest hinderance to urban development were our planners and they simply need to get out of the road. That point still stands in my eyes but to a lesser degree now after talking to them at length on Saturday. Planners have their shot at redemption if they can work with the Local Boards and ratepayers in a multi-way partnership as urban development occurs. Saturday showed the potential there from our planners in working with that partnership with the Local Boards and the ratepayer and I am hoping that potential can develop and flourish (rather than go backwards and me having to stick the boot back into them again – which I don’t honestly want to do as I do that enough with our beyond hopeless CCOs).

Now I know there are planners reading this who I talked too  on Saturday and my message is this: Lets work together (planner, ratepayer and Local Boards) in developing an outcome forward for Auckland and its development through to 2040. The foundations were laid on Saturday and a lot of good faith and will was set at that Civic Forum. I extend my hand as a ratepayer to you – our planners as I don’t want to stick the boot in no more to you guys. I have ideas, you have ideas, we all have the same outcome as the Civic Forum showed, lets work together rather than apart. And that I make as a serious genuine offer. As for the ideas I have, you can read my rather extensive submission to The Auckland Plan which I will translate over to submissions for the Unitary Plan in due time. Oh and even though I am advocating the decentralisation of the urban development processes, Planners will be still flat-out if not even more flat-out as they buddy up with the Local Boards in delivering and providing advocacy during urban development phases 😉 !

 

So then if Planners are not getting in the road, then who is?

Sorry hate to say it but it is our Councillors and Central Government Politicians and in my next post, I am dedicating my boot to you both and how YOU are causing the housing affordability situation…

 

For Auckland Council Planners Consumption – My Submission to the Auckland Plan, and due to be translated to the Unitary Plan submissions

 

 

Unitary Plan as Thick as a Brick

· 2 Comments ·

Unitary Plan On the Path to Already Fail

 

To quote me from Facebook:

“When the Unitary Plan appears to be thicker than your average Bible at home, you know there is something VERY wrong here – with our planners and planning process…”

 

Now hopefully that is not true; but after I asked this morning in Facebook to those who have seen the Unitary Plan in its preliminary stages, I am rather not looking forward to seeing the Unitary Plan thus far hopefully next week. The actual answer to my question on the thickness was this: “it’s so thick it’s stupid,” so confidence in the Unitary Plan has already gone down the toilet – cute…

 

Yesterday in my K.I.S.S post I said this in regards on the Unitary Plan and simplicity:

The Late Owen McShane taught me that any “plan” over a thumbnail in thickness (on A4 paper – no cheating with A3) is a: dead weight, too complex, and albatross around the city and ratepayers neck. I would be a case of Gin that the Unitary Plan is going to be thicker than my thumbnail to the point it is going to be thick as my fist (yes that means the plan makes a fist of things). The K.I.S.S rule needs applied to the unitary plan, but to do that in benefit of the city, 3/4 of our bureaucratic and Stalinist Planning Department in Council would be all out of a job. Maybe that might be a good thing?

Thumbnail in thickness being the absolute maximum that ANY operating plan should be! Well it seems the Unitary Plan is going to fail that little test so I devised some crude measurements here.

I measured the thickness of thickest and largest Bible in the house; the NIV Life Application Bible standing at 48mm (4.8cm) and some 2385 pages in thickness. I also measured the thickness of my thumbnail which stood at 18mm (1.8cm) which means in theory the Unitary Plan using A4 paper (A3 for any maps – I’ll be generous there) should not be thicker than 20mm (2.0cm) at the absolute maximum. However again that does not seem likely.

So lets take a look at some pictures (and yes they are crude) for reference to thicknesses here folks:

 

 

9mm (94 pages) in thickness (or half a thumbnail) when both my submissions to the Auckland and Long Term Plans are combined. With 18mm being the thickness of my thumbnail (make it 20mm for a tolerance factor) and applying the K.I.S.S rule quoted above, the Unitary Plan should not be longer than 200 pages or both my submissions doubled up in thickness. But no we are seriously looking at a massive behemoth that is looking to be as thick as our largest Bible at home.

Heavens sake what is wrong with our planners – do they not understand thrift and simplicity? Obviously not or I would not be writing this post.

 

However I have some good news folks for all those who like simplicity, efficiency and wanting Council and planners to get the heck out of the our lives (and the road too). I am off to the “Civic Forum to discuss the Auckland Unitary Plan” on Tuesday 23 October and Saturday 27 October at Auckland Town Hall. So ideas abound once I get my first glimpse of this Unitary Plan. And yes I shall endeavour to “shrink” the Unitary Plan so it is no thicker than one’s thumbnail in the line of two of my eight fundamentals for a Better Auckland:

  • Strong but no interfering Governance: Meaning Council  shows active and real leadership but does not interfere with the daily lives of residents and businesses
  • Stay out of my way: I believe in the following strongly “Individual Freedom -> Individual Choice -> Individual Responsibility (oh and do not forget the consequences)”   I am an adult who can make choices for myself (whether it was right or wrong), treat me as such rather than a child.

 

So lets hope that at this Civic Forum this crucial fundamental will apply:

  • Listen and Engage: God gave us two ears and one mouth. In my line of work you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth. Not the other way around as that is usually monologue and the fastest way to get your ears clipped. Same applies to civic institutions:  you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth unless you like getting your ears clipped… Oh and remember some days all the person wants you to do is JUST LISTEN to their little piece – as all we want some days is just to get it off our chests.

 

Dialogue not monologue (from the bureaucrats and Councillors)!

BR:AKL will run commentary as I attend this Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan and the outcomes from it.

 

Stay tuned as I strive for you a Better Auckland – and hoping like anything the Unitary Plan does not become as thick or thicker than my Bible as that would be really thick!

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light –
To a Better Auckland

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL