Tag: Unitary Plan

And Orsman got SERVED

·

Media3 – The Unitary Plan Debate

And a Nice Mention too

 

Tuesday night I made my up to Mt Eden from Papakura to watch a recording of Russell Brown‘s Media3 program. The show was broadcast last night just after 11pm and can be found either online at TV3 or you can wait for the repeat on Saturday morning.

The main topic I was there for was Russell interviewing three journalists (or an editor in the case with Metro Magazine) over the media’s coverage of the Unitary Plan. The three journalists were:

  • Simon Wilson of Metro Magazine
  • Todd Nial of Radio NZ
  • Bernard Orsman (yes Orsman) from the NZ Herald

The discussion trundled along and was covering the fact that Council did balls up the sales pitch of the Unitary Plan rather badly. I would tend to agree on that regard against the Council with having to run the blog hard in providing information more clearly than Council did or could. But, as Desley Simpson of Orakei Local Board; the Unitary Plan was written by planners for planners and 99% of the city are not planners. Well I am not a planner strictly by University qualification – I am a Geographer and Political “Scientist”. As a Geographer though I still understood the Unitary Plan and what it meant. Although the planning discipline could be argued it was born out of Geography and that Geographers dabble in the planning discipline quite a lot (go Geography as the mother of all sciences and arts with what it encompasses). That understanding would provide assistance to those in Auckland through the first round of Unitary Plan feedback

But I digress

And so Russell facilitated the debate on with the Main Stream Media covering the Unitary Plan and the panel of three journalists continued to make their points until…

Bernard Orsman of the NZ Herald basically having his backside served to him on a silver platter by Simon Wilson. If you have not watched the particular Media3 then I recommend doing so before continuing here.

While I have seen it in the States, having the Main Stream Media serve up one of their own in NZ is something not often seen here. And as I mentioned just earlier Orsman got served – on extremely biased coverage against the Unitary Plan that included blatant misinformation coming from some Right Wing quarters (which got heavily debunked here and in other blogs).

Orsman while looking shell-shocked at being served tried to justify himself through he providing “balanced coverage” and that others are entitled to opinions.

Cue from Russell his mention of myself and Auckland Transport Blog on our extensive, balanced and leading coverage on the Unitary Plan through our blogs. Coverage that would earn the praise of the Deputy Mayor even though some days I was harsh against the Council in some aspects of the UP!

Again Orsman said after the “cue” said “they are entitled to our opinion” after which I think there was silence from him. Soon after the debate session ended.

And so that was the Media3 recording on the Unitary Plan discussion to which it was time to mix and mingle.

I was joined by Ryan and Sudhvir of Generation Zero and were talking to Russell, Simon and Todd on a wide range of issues with the Unitary Plan including angles wanting to be covered but could not due to time limitations.

Orsman I think decided to snob us but not that I am particularly fussed.

Also I was talking to mayoral candidate John Palino who was watching the Media3 recording as well. A good discussion on all things Auckland

At the conclusion of the mix and mingle session  was time to head back home. A good night and a good discussion on the Unitary Plan

Thanks Russell for the mention and I can say Tuesday night was a good night in watching the recording (with its serves) and the mix and mingle afterwards

Experience from the Unitary Plan – Part Two

·

Part Two of my reflections of the last 11 weeks with the Unitary Plan

April: Community Meetings and THAT Bridge

 

April would prove to be the busiest of months for me in regards to clocking up the kilometres across the city attending community meetings on the Unitary Plan. By the end of it I would have attended around 14 community Unitary Plan meetings and a Civic Forum right across the city (apart from West Auckland).

April would also prove to me a more “heartbreaking” month as a folly from Auckland Council led to anger and upset for residents down in Southern Auckland. The cause? A (which ended up being called “THAT”) bridge that spanned from Karaka to Weymouth over the Manukau Harbour. That bridge had shown up in  the Unitary Plan – Rural Urban Boundary Addendum as a “possible option” needing to be built somewhere down the track.

The only catch was that the bridge showed up in all three southern RUB options and has not even been “vetted” by Auckland Transport and NZTA yet. When pressed and after a more heated meeting in Weymouth did the Deputy Mayor and Chief Planning Officer realise “oops” and got a new set of RUB maps out with the bridge removed. The only problem was that the horse had already bolted on the issue and was continued to be further fuelled by a group known as the Karaka Collective.

While the Collective would give a presentation in May on their options (and I have their literature as well), it was basically known that certain landowners were looking at having their land come under potential development options through the life of the Unitary Plan. It was also known that they were keen on the bridge to act as a short cut in skipping out State Highway One. However, the negative consequences to both the Karaka North and West development as well as the bridge would be deemed too high on existing Karaka and Weymouth residents. If the bridge was to be built it should have been done 70 years ago before Weymouth was truly established. But, now it is too late and alternatives must be found. In essence we await Council’s decisions on the southern RUB before formal notification on the Unitary Plan. Once known then the next stage of the “battle” begins…

 

While things were heated in Karaka and Weymouth over the Unitary Plan and THAT bridge, things were also running high in St Heliers.

It is of note that in these meetings I would usually sit quietly with my notebook and pen and take notes on the proceedings. These notes would form commentary here on the blog as well as any “battle plans” required in the Unitary Plan feedback round. After the meetings I would talk to people (ranging from the Deputy Mayor to planners, to Local Board members and councillors, to residents) in their thoughts and seeking out dialogue. This dialogue (especially in Weymouth and St Heliers) would form two battle-plans (or rather alternatives) that I later drew up. I would ask questions in the meetings later in the game but, were only done so at the Southern Auckland meetings.

The St Heliers experience was an interesting one. What would be deemed at first pretty much naked hostility towards to main Council and the planners became in fact a community giving a damn and trying to seek out a solution not only for their own place but also the wider city. What would give the initial reaction to St Heliers was a piece from Eye-On-Auckland on NIMBYism that would set the city off. It also woke the Main Stream Media up and set off some of the more shrill-aspects of opposition to the Unitary Plan. Those shrill-aspects would eventually lead to near daily debunking on not only my blog but, else where as well.

With the Weymouth and St Heliers experience though came two alternatives from here. The first was more widely publicised – the Special Character Zone, while the second in staving off THAT bridge was a more quiet and behind the scenes affair.

Both alternatives have landed in my feedback to the Unitary Plan with other people using the Special Character Zone concept as well. Again we await the council to point out what changes they have made to the Unitary Plan prior to formal notification to see what we essentially got.

 

While Weymouth, Karaka and St Heliers would be more “noisy” meetings I did attend the Civic Forum in Manukau which was a more tame affair. In saying that though the discussion was lively as the future of Southern Auckland through the Unitary Plan were debated at length. Four main aspects would come out of that forum which were:

  1. The socio-economic and demographic consequences behind the level of intensification indicated in the Unitary Plan
  2. Height on the Town Centres
  3. Zones and Centres needed a rework
  4. Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland

While all four points would end up mentioned in my own feedback to the Unitary Plan, Manukau as the Second CBD would be an idea that was picked up and ran with all the way to the Auckland Plan Committee last month.

 

So was April a busy month? In the terms of clocking up those kilometres it sure was. But the final month of the Unitary Plan feedback would prove to be the actual busiest month for me. How? Find out in my next “Experience from the Unitary Plan” post.

 

Experience from the Unitary Plan

· 1 Comment ·

Part One of my reflections of the last 11 weeks with the Unitary Plan

 

Writing this while listening to Q & A on TVNZ-on-demand is going to be an interesting exercise. Reactions on Susan Wood’s interview with Mayor Brown at the end of this post.

My own experiences with the Unitary Plan at this stage of the (long) game has been real interesting and an eye opener (and that is still being an underestimate as well) since the launch on March 15.

The Unitary Plan was launched on March 15 with the first round of engagement with the wider city having just closed (on May 31). I was in Australia on holiday when the Unitary Plan was launched and was not back until a week after the launch. But, once back in the country the extensive and leading independent commentary on the Unitary Plan would begin.

“Part One” in my experience journey of the Unitary Plan – essentially the first four weeks (March 27-April 2) was reading sections of the Unitary Plan and attending my first round of community Unitary Plan meetings.

The particular sections of the Unitary Plan are (and would be what I would submit on):

  1. Section 3 – The Zones and Centres
  2. Section 4 – The Rules and Definitions
  3. The Rural Urban Boundary Addendum (which includes the two new “taxes”)

The first round of community meetings would be on the North Shore and out in the East. However, a Council run Civic Forum was also run in Manukau which I attended.

 

This part of the experience with the particular three sections of the Unitary Plan will be the learning and networking part. Brushing up on what the Unitary Plan has installed for me personally and the wider city, seeing initial reactions from communities, and forging or strengthening relationships with both ordinary people and key players were occurring in this part. All this work in the part would be required later on as the UP debate became increasingly political and divisive from some quarters.

But keeping the commentary balanced (the Deputy Mayor has acknowledged my opposition to some aspects of “The Clunker” but also keeping mature through keeping the commentary balanced on both sides (what works and what does not work)) and running those thought-provoking alternatives – all starting from Day One is what kept me honestly sane as well as acting a moderator to a very hot reactor about to meltdown (the reactor being the city, the fuel being the Unitary Plan).

I suppose the question is; ‘Would I do this all again?’ Would I be a moderator plunging myself into a very hot reactor that could meltdown any time – again? The answer is yes I would and will actually be doing so again. Again being when the Unitary Plan goes for formal notification at the end of the year.

My next “Experience from the Unitary Plan” post will cover the month of April. The month where the commentary was running hot, the alternatives running hotter, the Rural Urban Boundary saga running white-hot, and the opposition finally getting a clue on the UP.

All here at Talking Auckland

Oh and as for TVNZ’s Q&A program. Note to TVNZ; get better interviewers who know how to interview. Oh and do your actual homework on the Unitary Plan and who is actually running for mayor. I want dialogue and critique, not Len’s predetermined PR spin and an ill-informed panel looking at our Super City elections…

 

 

Submission Sent

·

105 Pages and The Room Smelling of Toner Later

 

Finally after 28 days (I was in Australia for part of the Unitary Plan feedback process) my submission to the first part of the Unitary Plan is in with Council.

You can see the feedback below which still only covered a select area of the UP. I have filed different submissions at different stages however on other aspects of the Unitary Plan including:

  • Parking Regulations
  • Transport
  • Social Infrastructure
  • Social Development
  • Water
  • Planning methodologies (although again mentioned in this submission)

 

I must apologies in advance in regards to my submission. As I imported blog posts from here into the submission, some ease of reading aspects might have been lost. All commentary on the Unitary Plan can be found here: https://voakl.net/category/planning/urban-planning-and-design/unitary-plan/

And so where next?

Unitary Plan coverage will continue although at a lesser pace until the next round begins – most likely notification later this year.

But other areas requiring commentary have come up such as Port of Auckland, my favourite – Auckland Transport, and now the elections.

A massive thank you to my readers throughout the Unitary Plan process. The UP has not been easy nor without its controversies. But pressure will continue Council as the UP and Rural Urban Boundary go through their next phases.

My Submission

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

 

 

Legitimate Concerns with the Unitary Plan?

·

What Do you Think?

 

With the Unitary Plan feedback due to close on Friday, we are still getting rumblings on the Unitary Plan popping up in the media. This particular one came up in the Herald this morning – and was not written by Orsman (meaning I will pay attention):

Support for draft plan ‘fading fast’

By Wayne Thompson

Local boards urge mayor to slow things down as ‘enhanced engagement process’ causing confusion.

 

Mayor Len Brown was urged to slow down the process. Photo / NZPA

EXPAND
Mayor Len Brown was urged to slow down the process. Photo / NZPA

Support for the draft Unitary Plan is “melting faster than snow in sunshine” amid widespread anxiety over intensive housing proposals, say the leaders of three local boards from Orakei, Manurewa and Hibiscus & Bays.

In a joint statement, the leaders say the 11-week so-called “enhanced engagement process” for the pre-notified new rule book for growth has confused the public and lacks credible evidence of the effects of higher-density zoning.

Public comments on the draft plan will be accepted up to 5pm on Friday and so far 3000 individual comments have come in.

However, Orakei Local Board chairwoman Desley Simpson predicted a low response from the usually outspoken eastern suburbs people.

Most people were “in the dark” about the council’s disclosure, after nine weeks of presentations, that 70 per cent of the area was proposed for a mixed housing zone, with a maximum height of three storeys instead of two.

They would have wanted a say if they had known that was the case, she said, and urged Mayor Len Brown to slow down the process, which is scheduled to produce a final draft version for public consultation in September.

Manurewa Local Board chairwoman Angela Dalton called on the council to show its evidence in favour of planning for 7000 extra houses in the area. The board’s own market research – presented to the council – showed it was unlikely to happen.

…

You can read the rest of the article over at the Herald.

There are several messages cropping up here:

  1. Participation in the Unitary Plan process thus far
  2. Evidence on Council’s methodology behind aspects some zoning like Mixed Housing Zones and the Centres (especially in Town and Local Centres)
  3. The next round of engagement with the Unitary Plan

 

In the case the of participation, the best way to hear the rumblings is listen to this (it is free but you do need to register first) http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/2253/cr-wood—unitary-plan-notification-delay/1

After that I would recommend reading my “Skewing of the Unitary Plan” in regard to the demographic skewering of Unitary Participation to see where we are at (and the imbalance as well)

With regards to “Evidence on Council’s methodology behind aspects some zoning like Mixed Housing Zones and the Centres (especially in Town and Local Centres);” I have seen a post from Phil McDermott that covers aspects of this and will repost his thoughts later today.

In regards to the next round of engagement with the Unitary Plan; it will be with Local Boards and Key Stakeholders (I got ranked as a Key Stakeholder by Council in regards to the UP – whether I participate in this next round is yet to be seen) around June-July. This is per the resolution moved by the Auckland Plan Committee this month. What this next round with entail and how much effect it will have in reshaping the Unitary Plan is yet to be seen.

 

So legitimate concerns with the Unitary Plan or full of wind? Comments below. My own opinion currently is; allow the May 31 deadline to pass. However, I am interested to see what this next round with Local Boards and Key Stakeholders will entail. More to the point will that particular round have any real grunt in getting changes through in reshaping the UP…

Time will tell

 

Belmont and the Prime Minister

· 3 Comments ·

Hmmm…

 

For once it is not Orsman doing a piece on the Unitary Plan in the Herald. Meaning I might get a 10% chance (rather than a -100% chance with Orsman (although his last three articles were actually quite good (although did he actually write them or take his meds prior))) of it being balanced (to a degree we allow the media in some sway here).

This article from the NZH today: “Belmont intensification ‘madness’” has three themes running today. The first theme is an embed of a NewstalkZB interview on the Unitary Plan with Leighton Smith and the Prime Minister. The second theme was on Belmont, the UP and a surprising admission. The third theme was one I call ‘From the Files of the Loon Bin.’ The Loon Bin theme was also addressed by the Prime Minister in his ZB interview as well.

The First Theme

The Prime Minister was questioned on aspects of the Unitary Plan by Leighton Smith. The interview trundled along well enough looking at aspects of the Unitary Plan. Points made by the Prime Minister were:

  • Recognise Brownfield and Greenfield urban development will happen
  • People will choose to live in apartments
  • Three year formal notification period
  • We are not China thus will not cap growth (ties into the third theme)
  • Auckland essentially has critical mass behind thus will attract growth – something I mentioned here: “Growing Up“
  • Been concerns from the leafy suburbs of Auckland (North and Isthmus) – but Leighton Smith did point out correctly Papakura from the South with us facing down 18 Storeys being a Metropolitan Centre under the UP.

Just a note from the above: WILL PEOPLE STOP FORGETTING SOUTH AND WEST AUCKLAND PLEASE WITH THE UNITARY PLAN DEBATE. AUCKLAND DOES EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH SHORE AND CENTRAL ISTHMUS… SHESH… 

As for the Second Theme – Belmont

I recommend going and reading the article “Belmont intensification ‘madness‘” to see some interesting insights there. In short Belmont being constrained where it is with only one two-lane road in and out of the area (and serving Devonport as well) makes the area not suitable for much intensification. Even if Auckland Transport was bold and manage to get Lake road to be a 2 lane road with the shoulders allowing a high frequency (10 minute) buses on their own bus lanes, Belmont could support nothing more than a Local Centre (three storeys under my alternative) with surround areas classified as Low Density under my alternative to the UP:

  • Low Density Zone: Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small-scale infilling as well). This also includes three storey super large houses with 5-8 bedrooms at the discretion of the Local Board through its Area Plan

What was more interesting was this admission made in the article:

It was possible the whole of the Belmont sector could be rezoned depending only on planners’ exercise of discretion in favour of a developer.

“No neighbour’s consent is required and there is no right of appeal to the decision,” Mr Keenan said. “We consider that to be undemocratic and abhorrent to us.

“I was 35 years in legal practice and a lot of my client were developers. I can tell you from experience: do not repose the character of our communities in the hands of the developers. It’s a very bad idea.”

Food for thought when you get ready with your formal submissions on the Unitary Plan at the end of the year.

As for the Third Theme which the Prime Minister commented on in his interview:

In East Auckland, Tamaki Housing Group spokeswoman Sue Henry took to the council 673 submission forms collected from residents.

“A lot of the forms have still not come back,” she said.

“We strongly object to the Unitary Plan proposal of uprooting existing communities and enforcing multistorey intensified slums on residents.

“We want Auckland’s growth capped and intensification proposals scrapped in their entirety, because there is a better way of doing it.”

Using the word “slums” will have me disinterested straight away. Despite some dodgy developments over time, Auckland does not have slums and will not be going down the path towards slums. So using the ‘slum’ term is hyper-sensationalist!

As for capping growth; what the PM said in his interview and what I say all  along. We are not Communist China. We are a Western Liberal Democracy and as such growth is going to always occur. I would recommend to Sue Henry to read my “Growing Up” post as Auckland is no longer a backwater village – but, an international city! I also see she put no alternative forward (although did the Herald leave it out).

So the Herald article? Balanced compared to what can be trotted out

Unitary Plan Feedback is due May 31, make sure you get yours in if you want a say on how your city, your home will develop over the next 30 years.

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