Tag: Unitary Plan

Checking in on Height and Metro Magazine

·

Enquiry away with Council

And Apparently I got a mention in the July Issue of Metro

 

I have sent an email away to Council seeking clarification around the “themes” to which our submissions are being codified against. This has been done after a comment was raised by Mark Thomas of Orakei Local Board in regards to the issue of height and my comment on the first workshop that looked at height in particular.

The said comments were reflected in my “Update on Unitary Plan Submission Counts” in particular Mark’s comment:

And the top “themes” submitted on are:

  • “Rezoning requests”,
  • followed by ‘Natural Environment”,
  • “Residential”
  • and “Transportation”.
  • Oddly, height (which doesn’t need speech marks because you know what it means) is not a theme submissions are being coded against….

 

The extract from my email back to Council outlining the query and reason for the clarification around the issue:

Okay this is leading to confusion amongst my readers and even myself. Here we had the workshop on “principles of development” in regards to our centres in particular height yesterday.
Yet at this point in time knowing that height was a major issue right across the city (including where I live in Papakura and where I often conduct business in Manukau) (not just three particular areas that were in the MSM) it is not a theme in which submissions are being codified against – unlike zoning which is a theme (the biggest one) and being codified for.
Further more I know from blog correspondence that quite a few individualised submissions (that is those that were not pro-forma) when mentioning height as a “theme,” those particular submissions often had alternatives for the heights that were recommended in the Draft UP (including my own submission).
So height is not as a theme submissions are being codified against – yet we have individualised submissions talking about it as a theme and often with alternatives in contrast to the UP?

Once I get a reply back from Council in regards to issue I will post it back into the blog. Seems things have evolved from being just a blogger and commentator to now blogger, commentator and investigative journalist. Ah well such as the nature of the beast that is social media.

 

As for Metro Magazine; apparently I have received a mention in the editorial section of July’s issue of Metro Magazine. I believe it might be in relation to my Unitary Plan Twitter Spam but, will have to check. I shall get my copy of Metro today and take a look and if so inclined stick it up on the blog tomorrow.

In saying that make sure you get your July issue of Metro for some winter reading (Simon the invoice is being sent to you for that little spiel later today 😉 )

 

The Next Steps for the Unitary Plan – All That Feedback and What Happens

·

A Series on this Round of the Unitary Plan before it goes to Formal Notification

Part Three: What happens to all that feedback?

 

The question actually is how do the planners, Local Board and Auckland Plan Committee members (the Councillors) wade through 22,700 pieces of Unitary Plan feedback.

I have not been to Level 22 of the Council building where the planners are busy trudging through all that feedback we sent in and either codifying our replies or sending the more “technical” stuff off for a further look. But, from what I have heard and been briefed on the task is a major undertaking and one I would not envy in a hurry.

As a recap from Part One of this series this is what essentially happens with your feedback:

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FEEDBACK?

In short three things can happen depending on what you sent in.

If it was pro-forma (and there was 6,500 pieces from 35 groups that did this) it is essentially tallied up and totals assigned to set “topics.” Stuff done on an Excel sheet.

If you wrote an individual submission it can land in one of two places in the codifying exercise. All individual submissions are collated, summarised and codified according to “topic” and will be sent for political direction – usually the Auckland Plan Committee. If in your individual submission you decided to go highly technical (and some did) then your piece is worked over by senior planners and topic experts at a finer level. Your technical points will then be “addressed” accordingly.

To make the point clear; it can be taken that for individual submissions that are collated will be presented and reviewed at direction setting workshops via The Auckland Plan Committee. Collated information is divided by topic and will be worked over by experts who will flesh out the concepts from the submissions and again presented for direction setting at the Committee. I do wish them luck trying to codify and collate my 104 page monster with it covering I think 10 different issues.

…

 

Now Council have pointed out that not all submissions (especially those pro-forma’s) will be raising unique points (hence how the top 5 themes are deduced). Because of this the Council is able to effectively and efficiently build a summary analysis of that particular group of feedback (a theme) which is then fed back to the workshops and Committee.

This codifying and summary analysis (as well as working on the technical and unique material (Manukau as a Second CBD is deemed a unique point)) allows for staggering the discussions of the Unitary Plan with high priority issues going first (currently height and centres). At each workshop the Committee and Local Board (chairs at the moment) have access to the relevant summary analysis material which guides their decision-making and recommendations for direction setting by the Auckland Plan Committee.

Meaning? Lots and lots and LOTS of meetings around tables drinking filter coffee and eating a pile of scones. It also means in reporting the Auckland Plan Committee meetings as they happen I am going to get a numb backside for sitting on a chair for six hours and me hating the cursed air conditioning in Town Hall which plays havoc with my eyes.

So that is basically this is what is happening with your feedback at the moment. I am getting snippets from Local Board Chairs after the workshops some issues that are cropping up. While the debate is robust and Councillors are behaving themselves, the most common issue I am getting is that the summary analysis on the feedback is lacking. That is the codifying has not advanced enough to get anything meaningful from our feedback to the Local Board Chairs so they can work on our points raised with the committee. An issue that will need to be looked at.

 

A Brief Insight to the Inner Workings?

A thought had come to  mind and I am going to email this to the Council tomorrow. Maybe the media could take a guided tour of the process from: those people codifying on Level 22 (some has seen it already but others not), to a snippet of a workshop (say 30 mins of the workshop in action and nothing confidential being discussed at that particular moment) then the Auckland Plan Committee (which is open any how) where the decisions are finalised up.

Why such a guided tour?

To get a snap shot on what goes behind out of the public sight (but not our minds) might go a small way in improving Council’s “comm’s” effort after its C rating by our Deputy Mayor this week. Also the snap shot would keep the city in the loop outside of media releases and help give a better understanding what is happening out of our sight and more to the point why.

Yes we know workshops should be full and frank discussions but for just a 30 minute glimmer the city might be able to just appreciate that little bit more the inner workings of an apparatus that consumes our money.

As I said I’ll email council and give it a crack. Can’t promise much though but one can try.

 

In Part Four of this series I shall take a look at the zoning changes (which is the number one theme in the Unitary Plan right now) as well as the Southern Rural Urban Boundary/

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

 

 

From Yesterday’s Workshop

·

Sorry Folks Have Not Got Much Here

 

Yesterday in my “The Next Steps for the Unitary Plan – Those Workshops” post I made mention that the Auckland Plan Committee and Local Board Chairs held their first workshop. The workshop was on “the principles of development” around our centres – in particular height (which is not being codified as a theme against from our feedback).

In the same post I also made mention that at the end of each workshop a public statement will be released for our consumption. Despite a small glitch from the Council I have that statement which reads the following:

Heights discussed at first Unitary Plan workshop
Today elected members of Auckland Council attended the first post-engagement workshop following feedback on the draft Unitary Plan.
 
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said the workshop brought together Local Board Chairs and the Auckland Plan Committee members to talk through the principles governing heights in centres and give interim direction on how changes will be made to the draft plan.
 
“The political direction that came out of today’s workshop is that, while we all agree we need a range of heights across our centres, we would like to see greater refinement to allow for variety within a centre where it is appropriate.”
 
The direction-setting workshops, which will be held over June and July, reflect the main topics in the 22,700 pieces of feedback Aucklanders gave over 11 weeks of engagement.
 
“We have started with centre heights as our first topic, as they set the framework for the level of development in other parts of Auckland. 
 
“Proposed height limits for Auckland’s metropolitan, town and local centres have been widely debated, with clear argument coming through from each side of the debate. Our challenge for heights is to get the balance right and I believe we can do that,” said the Deputy Mayor.
 
Work will now start to refine the principles relating to height in centres as directed. These will then be presented for discussion at the next Auckland Plan Committee.
 
For further details on the feedback and the next steps in the Unitary Plan process, please see the Shape Auckland site.

 

Sorry folks that is all we have right now. Unless a Councillor or Local Board Chair would like to make a further statement this is all we (the city) have to go with for now. And I am going to assume it will be like this until the July 2 Auckland Plan Committee where all the workings of the workshops reach the committee and are discussed in the “open.”

In saying that I will go and ask about the situation that arose to this comment yesterday:

  • Oddly, height (which doesn’t need speech marks because you know what it means) is not a theme submissions are being coded against….

Follow up to that bullet point and my Part Three post will come up later today.

 

 

Update on Unitary Plan Submission Counts

·

Thought You Might Want to Know

 

I just picked this up on Facebook (after the Great Facebook Crash of 2013) from Orakei Local Board Deputy Chair Mark Thomas in regards to an update on some of the Unitary Plan feedback and themes. While Mark has posted it on his page I will repost it here so it is a bit easier to read.

Update through on unitary plan submission numbers/issues.

They are still being collated but in terms of local board submissions, it’s now:

  • 2,074 from Devonport-Takapuna with 1,167 pro-forma; (56% pro-forma)
  • 1,663 from Orakei with 181 pro-forma; (11% pro-forma)
  • 1,468 from Albert-Eden with 46 pro-forma. (3% pro-forma)
  • Then Kaipatiki and Hibiscus & Bays on 1,354 and 1,314 (897 and 692 pro-forma). (66% and 51% respectively with Pro-Forma)

Counted numbers are at 15,710 but total is apparently around 22,000 (including social media comments!). Of course it’s quality that counts (!)

And the top “themes” submitted on are:
  • “Rezoning requests”,
  • followed by ‘Natural Environment”,
  • “Residential”
  • and “Transportation”.
  • Oddly, height (which doesn’t need speech marks because you know what it means) is not a theme submissions are being coded against….

And that is the latest at hand with the feedback and top themes so far.

Of course Mark’s post did attract comments including from me:

 

  • Ben Ross I’ll comment about the Pro-Forma’s later. But for the rest of it Mark it is a case of WTH? Okay so they are not codifying height so then I ask why is there an entire workshop around that particular issue today? Desley and Penny?

    As for Rezoning Requests can someone ask for Council to be extremely specific here. It is those in residential and rural zones wanting a change from say Mixed Housing back down to single housing, and Rural Zoning to full urban zoning. Is it Business zones being changed? Or are the Centres being asked to be up or downgraded from their current UP categories?
  • Desley Simpson Ben ask Penny- still on principles an hour late already – lots of discussion
    • Ben Ross Ask her to check her FB please then as I have tagged her. And an hour late already? Somewhat expected although still that deserves my  face
  • David Thornton Thanks for the update Mark – as I have been preaching from day 1 ‘Zoning is the critical issue’ because every piece of land in Auckland has been re-zoned in the draft UP, and that is a recipe for chaos.
  • Desley Simpson And officers still not able to feedback as we request for useful 
    input/ discussion
    • Ben Ross Yeah a bit pointless when not all 22,700 pieces (including Social Media (of which I made up around now 12% of total Social Media comments (ooops))) have been codified yet
  • Desley Simpson Indeed!!!

 

And at that I shall leave you with Captain Picard’s double face-palm moment – for when one face palm will simply not cut it

 

 

Unitary Plan Feedback

· 2 Comments ·

Series Covering the pre notification round

 

I am making my way back from the Media Briefing on where we are with the Unitary Plan by the two Penny’s. Once back at base I will start writing up will become a series on the Unitary Plan prior to formal notification.

In brief though this is what was mentioned:

  • 22,700 pieces of Feedback
    • 6,500 of that was pro-forma by 35 different groups (so around a third of all pieces of feedback)
  • Council is still codifying the issues and responses. We won’t specifically know “topics” until the end of next week
  • Hot Topic Issues were though: height (which starts being looked at tomorrow) and zones (they are up for changes – both residential, business and the centres)
  • Three “reference”groups to be established: Universal Design, Heritage, and Significant Ecological Areas
  • Extensive work with Local Boards
  • Formal Notification date will be set most likely in August
  • Council admits its communication arm needs quite a bit of work (especially if blogs were taking up the slack quite a bit)

So as I said, I will get the first full post up hopefully by 6:30 tonight. After that a series will start on this pre-notification period in keeping YOU – the City up to date. It also means I have to revisit my company business model a bit – especially if a “media” arm is spun off here.

Tamaki Redevelopment

·

Seems It is Finally Going?

 

I picked up this particular article in the Herald this morning in regards to Tamaki.

From the NZH

Leg up on cards for low-income areas

By Simon Collins 5:30 AM Tuesday Jun 18, 2013

Intensive housing project of 6000 homes and ideas for attracting new businesses and training organisations will help revitalise eastern suburbs around Tamaki estuary.

 

Auckland‘s low-income suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt England and Panmure will roughly double in population under a draft plan for more intensive housing to be unveiled today.

The urban “regeneration” project, which could add up to 6000 new homes to an existing 5050, is expected to be one of the first “special housing areas” with fast-tracked resource consent processes under a housing accord signed last month by Housing Minister Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

 

The target of 6000, included in the accord, makes it the biggest housing development scheduled in Auckland and twice as big as the 3000-unit Hobsonville development.

It covers the area between West Tamaki Rd in the north and the Panmure Basin in the south, including 2880 Housing NZ homes, about 1160 owner-occupied houses and just over 1000 private rental properties.

Unlike other developments, the draft Tamaki strategy also includes 11 other social, economic and environmental elements, as well as housing, designed to make the area more liveable despite doubling the population density.

 

The area is among Auckland’s most deprived, with a 2006 median income of only $20,000 and an employment rate of only 52 per cent, compared with 65 per cent across Auckland. Sole parents make up almost half the area’s families.

But the strategy sees opportunities for more jobs and training by attracting new businesses, redeveloping under-used land along the existing railway and encouraging training agencies such as Manukau Institute of Technology, Unitec and Te Wananga o Aotearoa to take over parts of Auckland University‘s Tamaki campus, which the university plans to sell as it develops a new campus in Newmarket.

 

…

 

Aims of the project

1. Cultural identity
Work with iwi and heritage groups to protect cultural landmarks; run community events; facilitate a weekend or night market; include public art in all major projects.

2. Healthy, happy children
Support early childhood education through Tamaki Learning Champions; support e-learning and driver’s licence training; promote child-friendly parks.

3. Health and recreation
Support sports clubs to increase sporting participation; support an integrated family health centre; support watersports facility at Panmure wharf and multi-sports facilities at Dunkirk Reserve.

4. Safety
Support Maori wardens and Maori and Pacific youth groups.

5. Education
Work to keep educational courses when Auckland University sells its Tamaki campus.

6. Employment
Support services for beneficiaries returning to work, eg, CVs, financial literacy; use Tamaki Redevelopment Company jobs as stepping stones to other work.

7. Economic development
Attract new businesses; use housing developments to foster construction industry businesses.

8. Innovation
Develop affordable housing; support social finance initiatives for social enterprise and small business.

9. Urban environment
Work with council to redevelop Glen Innes town centre, including shared spaces for pedestrians and cars; also to redevelop Panmure town centre.

10. Housing
Work with Housing NZ to decide which houses to keep or redevelop; build or promote a range of housing types, including affordable housing; buy or sell land to create development parcels.

11. Natural environment
Use environmentally sustainable practices, eg, solar power, collected rainwater, sustainable materials; develop paths along Tamaki River and connecting green spaces; support community gardens.

12. Transport
Work with private investors to reopen former Tamaki railway station and develop park-and-ride facilities.

Have your say

*Celebrating Community Day, Glen Innes town centre, this Saturday, 11am-2pm.
*Panmure flea market, Sunday June 30, 9am-noon.
*Glen Innes Kulture and Kai market, Saturday July 6, 8am-1pm.
*Online: tamakimakingithappen.co.nz

…

You can read the article over at the Herald site itself

But it seems after years if not decades of procrastination this large brownfield redevelopment project is slowly getting under way. Not without controversy mind you in regards to the relocation of state houses in the area.

I remember back in 2010 when I was a University of Auckland Master of Planning Practice student in my second semester having to trot out to Glen Innes and “research” the area. The purpose behind that being that as the second urban design paper of the course (there were two at the time) I/we (the class) had to produce a redevelopment paper for Tamaki and present it to the residents and businesses.

I still have that final development paper gathering dust and cobwebs stored away along with other “mothballed” urban design work I wrote as a student back then.

In the end the paper scored an ‘A-‘ and received favourable reviews. Again like my previous Wynyard Quarter urban design piece (which also go a ‘A-‘) it was deemed controversial but, only because I went macro (rather than micro like the class did) in the design work (so take the whole area rather than a set small area) and did something entirely different to what the rest of the class did.

It also showed my natural knack for urban and transport design rather than the Resource Management Act based stuff (that the bulk of the Masters was) which I found incredibly boring and mundane. And before someone pipes up, yes I just did a 104 page submission to the Unitary Plan which owes its life to the RMA itself (being an RMA based document). However, while I did make mention of Section 4 – the rules; the bulk of the submission had very close links to urban and transport design and management (the zones and the centres). I think I could put this all down to two decades of Sim City for my urban and transport design and management knack – thanks Maxis.

But, back to the paper: After the paper was marked it was intentioned that communication links between Tamaki and myself would be kept open. It never happened after one meeting when communications went cold at the other end. More to the point I was no longer fussed with the developments in Tamaki after 2010 despite an A-grade paper that was ahead of its time gathering the dust in some draw somewhere in the house. 

 

So I see this article crop up about Tamaki and go read it. Afterwards I go brush the cobwebs off the Urban Design piece I wrote three years ago. I suppose I still give a fuss about Tamaki even if the Council and Government apparatus are treated in suspicion.

Good news is that I have a digital copy of my Tamaki Redevelopment Project paper from 2010. You can have a read on what I proposed three years ago and compare to what is being proposed and built today. It does make interesting comparisons.