Tag: Unitary Plan

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

 

2040 Has an Alternative

· 3 Comments ·

Thoughts and Comments?

 

2040 Auckland and the Character Coalition have released a statement and letter on their alternative for the Unitary Plan. Please not I am not endorsing or disagreeing (yet), just seeking YOUR thoughts on what they have to say.

From 2040 Auckland and the Character Coalition

Auckland Mayor Len Brown and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse meet Auckland 2040 Group for

Urgent Talks about Unitary Plan

 

Auckland 23 May 2013

 

In response to mounting public outrage following Auckland 2040’s disclosure of the implications behind critical elements of the draft unitary plan, Auckland 2040 Founders Richard Burton and Guy Haddleton met this week with the Mayor, and Deputy Mayor for intensive discussions.

 

The meeting was constructive, with the Mayor willing to consider proposals put forward by Auckland 2040 for amendments to the plan. He also expressed a commitment to have a fair and meaningful dialogue with Auckland 2040 over the next few months, stating that the Unitary Plan would not be notified in September until 80-90% of the issues were resolved.

 

Following the meeting, Auckland 2040 has submitted their proposals in a letter to the Mayor and is now awaiting feedback.

 

Comments Richard Burton, “I look forward to the healthy public debate that will emerge from our proposal and our participation in on-going discussions with Council”

 

Letter to Auckland Mayor below:

 

22 May 2013

 

His Worship the Mayor

 

Our thanks to you and Deputy Major Ms P Hulse for taking the time to meet with Auckland 2040 and the Character Coalition yesterday. We were very pleased to read in the NZ Herald that you agreed with much of what we said.

 

A fundamental issue in looking at the future growth of Auckland is the extent to which Auckland is likely to grow over the next 30 years. That Auckland is growing and will continue to grow is undisputed; it is the rate and extent of growth which is at issue. Significant under or over estimation can have profound effects on future planning. We request that Auckland City:

 

  • Be completely transparent in revealing the statistical justification for Council’s 1,000,000 population increase forecast for the next 30 years

 

  • Reconsider the Auckland population estimate of 1,000, 000 additional population over the next 30 years to align with Statistics NZ Medium estimates. Overseas cities generally adopt the Medium estimate in planning for growth and then monitor that estimate over time, with adjustments up or down depending on actual growth. The High estimate as used by Auckland Council may overstate actual growth by as much as 50%. Overstating the population increase has serious implications on infrastructure and the need for high density intensification and or greenfields development.

 

 

The Draft Unitary Plan has been prepared on the basis of an additional 1,000,000 population over 30 years. Even if Auckland reaches such growth levels, it will not happen overnight but rather in a progressive incremental manner. It is thus logical to release land for intensification and green field’s development in a staged manner. To zone immediately 56% of Auckland’s residential areas for unrestrained, scattered apartment development is neither logical nor staged. Neither would immediate release of greenfields land sufficient for 400,000 people be logical or staged. Fortunately no-one is suggesting the latter.

 

We are not opposed to intensification, nor apartment development. We are opposed to scattered, un-planned, uncoordinated developments with no or inadequate consideration of urban character values, heritage values or infrastructure and no community consultation.

 

Certainty in an urban framework context is of fundamental importance to most people living in or buying into neighbourhoods. While alteration or addition of dwellings is largely accepted, structures introducing a different, more discordant building form are strongly opposed. Many residential areas have a mature character with established dwellings and streetscapes. Some have a dominant heritage character. Many of the most popular areas have had significant infill, but the infill is of a similar character to the existing housing so is accepted, albeit reluctantly in some quarters. Apartment buildings are a very alien building form in those streetscapes and the uncertainty of whether this form of development will occur in “my street” is what is galvanizing Aucklanders to object to Council’s proposals.

 

Auckland 2040 and the Character Coalition request that Council approach the Unitary Plan in a more planned and staged manner. Specifically Council should reduce the amount of land zoned for apartment development and instead have a more targeted focus providing development opportunities while preserving most of the existing residential areas.

 

If demand indicates more apartment zoned land is required, Council can undertake the appropriate neighbourhood or town centre studies with meaningful community involvement prior to release of more land for redevelopment. If full structure planning is required prior to release of greenfields land then why should not the same apply to intensification proposals within the existing urban area?

 

The following proposals should be considered in the context of the above statements. We request the Auckland Council give consideration to the following proposed amendments to the Unitary Plan:

 

 

  1. The introduction of a new residential Infill Zone which allows one and two storey buildings only and permits infill at a density of one unit per 350m2 net site area. This zone to be applied to the majority of the residential areas and in particular to residential areas which:
    1. Retain a strong residential character of 1 –2 story dwellings ,or
    2. Have significant heritage values, or
    3. Are close to sensitive environments such as the coast, lakes, volcanic cones, or
    4. Have been subject to considerable infill development, but which retain predominantly stand-alone housing, or
    5. Have topographical challenges which would tend to increase the adverse effects of apartment buildings

 

  1. The Mixed Housing Zone be restricted to areas in close proximity to town centers or selected arterial routes with good roading, public transport and infrastructure and which do not have the characteristics in (1) above.

 

  1. The Terrace House and Apartment Zone be confined to areas immediately adjoining inner city or Metropolitan Centres, plus the major town centres subject to (5) below.

 

  1. Development controls to be reconfigured to address adjoining property effects, and height limits to be restricted by full discretionary activity status, including public notification and affected party’s consents for exceeding height.

 

  1. That Metropolitan, Town Centre and neighbourhood studies be undertaken with community involvement to determine the most appropriate zoning mix after due consideration of existing urban character, heritage values, infrastructure and traffic. That Council reconsider town centre studies undertaken by previous council’s or Environment Court decisions affecting specific areas and incorporate the principal findings of those studies/decisions into the Unitary Plan.

 

 

  1. That should Council determine that additional intensification is warranted in the future due to increased demand, Council undertake structure planning of the areas where intensification is planned. Such structure planning should be similar in scope to that required for greenfields planning and have an aim of achieving a significant degree of community consensus.

 

 

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposals in a constructive manner with Council and senior staff.

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Guy Haddleton, Auckland 2040

Richard Burton, Auckland 2040

Sally Hughes, Character Coalition

 

 

About Auckland 2040

 

Auckland 2040 is a newly formed grass roots organization of non political residents passionately concerned about the future planning and shape of Auckland. Its web site is www.auckland2040.org.nz

 

Comments and thoughts in the comment box below

 

Press Release From Auckland Council

·

Need More Gin

 

Okay I am getting press releases from Auckland Council personally now as they get sent out into the public domain and press offices. Took me by surprise a bit…

Ah well might as well copy paste it into here:

From Auckland Council

Media release
23 May 2013
One week to feedback on draft Unitary Plan
Aucklanders have one week to feedback on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse is urging people to make sure they have had their say.
 
“We are undertaking the largest planning process in New Zealand’s history, creating a rulebook that will guide Auckland and how it grows over the next 30 years.
 
“I never expected anything less than robust debate and passionate views on this plan and it is great to be getting so much feedback. This is exactly why it was released as a draft – so everyone would have the chance to be involved before the more formal step of notification.  We wanted to consult and listen and change the plan to ensure we develop the best plan possible. 
 
“With a week left to go in this period of informal engagement, I want to remind Aucklanders that the purpose of engaging on a “draft” draft plan is so we can change and adjust things according to feedback. We have always said we will reshape the plan and we will,” said the Deputy Mayor.
So far about 3,000 individual pieces of feedback have been received, 11,000 people have attended the Unitary Plan events, and more than 70,000 people have visited the council’s Unitary Plan website,shapeauckland.co.nz.
 
“The plan is large and deals with some complex issues. A lot of people have never gone through a district plan before and are not aware of what the current rules say.
 
“If people have specific questions or need help using the plan, please call Council on 09 3010101 so our team can help. There is misinformation out there so we encourage you to contact us if you have queries on rules, overlays, zones or using the maps.
 
“I have attended many events since the launch and have heard from thousands of Aucklanders, passionate about where they live and about the future of their communities and their city. I have reassured Aucklanders that we can hear their concerns and will listen.
 
“We will be going through all of the feedback in June and July to see where changes need to be made.”
 
To find out about the remaining community events and how to submit feedback by going to shapeauckland.co.nz. Feedback closes 31 May.
How to have your say
  • It’s easy to give your feedback and we want to hear all views
  • Leave a comment on on one of our blogposts – it can be short, detailed, in support, what you would change, tweak etc
  • You can fill out a Unitary Plan feedback form
  • Comment on our facebook page, or tweet @aklcouncil using the hashtag #shapeauckland
 
Feedback based on facts
 

Apparently looking at the Shape Auckland webpage it has been release under the Deputy Mayor’s name.

I think I need another Gin

Ah well – stranger things have happened

Lessons from British Columbia in Electoral Races

·

Lessons too with The Unitary Plan

 

This particular article was given to me via Facebook and has some very poignant lessons on elections, and “selling” the Unitary Plan:

B.C. election offers lessons for politicians everywhere

From advertising strategies to mobilizing young voters, politicians have a lot to learn.
By: Michael Byers Published on Thu May 16 2013

 

The main thrust of the article was going on about an incumbent long thought to lose only to win and cause a large shock that even caught the premier out. Tactics and some sober reminders were also pointed out which I should go through point by point in regards to the UP but, touching on the mayoral race as well.

 

From The Star.com

Christy Clark’s re-election was a political shocker of seismic proportions. Nobody saw the victory coming: neither the pollsters, nor the pundits, not even the premier herself.

Across Canada, across the electoral spectrum, politicians and their advisers are scrambling to understand what occurred. Here’s an initial assessment, from my vantage point close to the front lines.

 

  • Positive campaigning is about demeanour, not substance. It’s about conveying optimism and empathy, about connecting with potential voters and inspiring them to turn out. Christy Clark did this well; Adrian Dix did not. And you never, ever, say that you’re running a positive campaign. Just do it!

Speaks for itself with a mayoral campaign. As for the Unitary Plan it is one of the things I try to do when running balanced commentary on this vast document. Yes I will go into attack mode (as Orsman and some conservatives find out quickly) but, that is going to be covered in another point in this post. Yes The Clunker can reign confusion and anxiety but the idea is not to go cause a self-fulfilling prophesy and fuel those negative emotions. Empathy for those that have anxiety (which is legitimate) and optimism for that despite a lousy hand from the Unitary Plan as it stands now, things CAN get better. I suppose empathy and boundless optimism with the Unitary Plan is what is keeping me from going off the deep end for this long as it stands. At the same time real alternatives are being crafted and presented for which all are being received favourably by most sides of the spectrum (you can never impress a NIMBY if you push change or even progress (so some battles you can never win)). All from running a positive campaign approach

 

 

  • Incumbents have to be held to account. Barack Obama’s “yes we can” campaign was leveraged explicitly on eight years of Bush administration failures. The B.C. NDP should have campaigned hard against the major scandals from the B.C. Liberals’ 12 years of power, including the deceptive introduction and shamefaced retraction of the HST. They should have campaigned against British Columbia having the highest child poverty rate in Canada, and against Clark’s personal proximity to the scandal-ridden sale of B.C. Rail.

Again this speaks for itself if one wishes to run against Len. As for me with the Unitary Plan and holding those to account; well the Penny’s (Hulse and Perrit) will get me asking questions if I am lost or don’t like something in particular with the Unitary Plan. Pretty much standard “operations” with a civic body and a planning document. Depending on how such questions are answered will influence whether I go positive or on the attack. Thus far I have not needed to go on the attack against the Penny’s. However holding Local Board Members and Councillors’ feet to the fire is something I will do more readily in regards to the UP. Those like Angela Dalton and Desley Simpson seem to be the exception rather than rule in not having to hold their feet to the fire. Why? Because they do their job and display empathy to all despite the UP being not the easiest document out there. And because both Angela and Desley do their job properly (and extended to Calum Penrose, Mike Lee, Sharon Stewart and Chris Fletcher) I get along with them well when sorting out the crap hand dealt to all of us with the Unitary Plan. We might not all agree but that is democracy and makes for healthy debate and stronger resolutions.

However with the good comes the bad. And there are those I will be holding their feet to the fire over the Unitary Plan. I do not tolerate scaremongering or deliberate misrepresentation from elected members on aspects of the Unitary Plan. The Three Storey House and Walk Up Apartment issue is the most recent case where I have (and rather sadly) gone on an attack path against some of the elected members (which ironically is our more conservative members who have an infamous name that has the word blue in it). This attack has happened because of their deliberate misrepresentation over the three storey housing issue which the subject matter has always been in the Unitary Plan. It would have helped if those particular members actually read their own legacy District Plans which formed the new rules  in regards to three storey buildings in the Unitary Plan

So people will be held to account where required – pure and simple with no apologies for it…

 

 

  • Attack ads work, at least if they are directed against real weaknesses. Adrian Dix did change his position on the Kinder Morgan pipeline halfway through the election campaign. He did wrongly backdate a “memo-to-file” while serving as chief of staff to an NDP premier in 1999.

Attack ads don’t work in NZ too well. Whale Oil and David Farrar would be the better people for opinions on this. But yes to me they do work when executed right and as part of a multi-prong campaign. Especially when an opponent has real actual weaknesses. This also applies with the UP when I go on the attack.

 

 

  • Never show up at a shootout with a Nerf Gun. Attacks have to be countered, and strongly, before they cause lasting damage. This can require launching a retaliatory attack — ideally, again, one that is directed against a real weakness.

Well no ahem Sherlock. Anyone with half a brain should know that. It is also like taking a knife into a gun fight – you will not win… Speaking of which I am listening to a Morning Report piece on the Unitary Plan where this bullet point I am commenting on comes into effect. If a journalist is on to it which they were in this piece, showing up to a shoot out with a Nerf Gun is only going to hurt and it did. As for the bullet point in itself, something that needs to be learned in NZ. Although I measure I will try to use if I get caught in a shootout (to varying degrees of success)

 

 

  • Most people, rather than voting on detailed policies, make their choice on the basis of some broader narrative. The economy matters, but detailed solutions — like Adrian Dix’s beloved “skills training” — do not. The people who are hurting most in tough economic times are also those who, because of a lack of time, education or civil engagement, may be most receptive to simple messaging.

Yep as I learned that in Political Marketing at the University of Auckland. It is also the reason why I get friends to assist me to simplify my documents on the Unitary Plan so that is not only easy to read but encompasses a broader narrative for the readers out there.

 

 

  • Progressive parties need to address the felt desire of many progressive voters for cross-party electoral co-operation. A clear commitment to introducing proportional representation immediately upon being elected could help to draw third party supporters toward any progressive party with a real chance of winning. Unfortunately, the B.C. NDP believed it could win successive elections within the “first past the post” system. Federal Liberals and New Democrats please take note!

Take note those seriously running for office. Failure to do will get you buried. I wonder if this particular bullet point rings out why the Centre Right, Local Government lot in Auckland have been failing with the Super City. It could very well be a lesson for them to take note before the Centre Left increases its majority further.

 

 

  • Pollsters have trouble accounting for lower turnout among some parts of the population. Young people are still not voting, and inspiring them to do so is the single greatest challenge facing progressive political parties today. Twitter and Facebook are no replacement for face-to-face relationship-building. Christy Clark lost her own seat because of a young and energetic B.C. NDP candidate who forged thousands of personal connections the hard way.
A pet problem in getting sections of the population to vote. Still Len managed to pull it off and might very well do so again in these elections with nothing impossible in this stage of the game. As for the Unitary Plan and face to face relationship building; it is the main reason why I headed out across the city to listen to the UP community meetings and gauge people’s views on it. The jetsetting around the city meeting different people has helped frame commentary on the Unitary Plan. The relationship building is also helping when drawing up those alternatives and then putting them out there for people’s thoughts. I supposed the measured successes of the Special Character Zone, and the Manukau as The Second CBD of Auckland work has resulted in the face-to-face relationship building. Seeing faces is often best compared to seeing “Facebook.”

 

  • There are no second chances. The key organizers of the B.C. NDP campaign were the same people who lost the 2009 provincial election. The campaign manager was Brian Topp, who was the early front-runner in the 2011-2012 federal NDP leadership race. With all due respect to Dix, who would have made a remarkably good premier, politicians who want to win cannot allow friendships to shape their choice of campaign teams.

Hmm Banks got a second but not a third chance however, with the UP there is no second chance once it goes into full operation. The bullet point makes a sober reminder when assembling teams to advance any project. Surrounding yourself with Yes-Men that pander to your ego and maybe Small Man Syndrome is going to be the fastest way to be both attacked by all sides and fail at the same time. You always need strong teams and teams that have people who will either go outside the square in thinking or disagree with you if something is utter crap. These kind of teams are winners and serve a reminder to both those with the Unitary Plan and those running for office the stakes in getting this aspect oh so wrong.

 

So we have sobering lessons from Canada that apply here in Auckland. I recommend having a deep thought session about this while I go debunk a piece said on Radio NZ this morning.

THAT 10 METRE – 3 STOREY HOUSE – The Sequel

·

Auckland Transport Blog Reports

 

 

YAY!

One of the few times I will  move faster than Captain Kirk’s Enterprise in reblogging someone else’s post. But after some banging one’s head against a wall with Mixed Housing Zones and Three Storey Houses, the boys at ATB got a post of their own up on this touchy subject.

 

Before I do the “reblog” just a quick remark in light of an email last night on my original 3-storey house post.

 

It is in regards to Restricted Discretionary Activities that the 3-storey houses and Walk-Up Apartments fall under per Section 4 of the Unitary Plan. In the matter of Restricted Discretionary Activities with Mixed Housing Zones I am seeking full clarification with the Unitary Plan team. This might take a small amount of time so please bear with me as I await information from the planners.

 

As my own view on it:

I do  not agree with Restricted Discretionary Activities as set out in Section Four of the Unitary Plan. As it gives power to a central planner on a non-notified basis, it would go against my Centralised Master Community Plan and Semi-Liberal Plan Districts that hand most basic planing development/oversight to the Local Boards. Version 1.0 of the CMCP and SLPD can found in my submission to the Auckland Plan.

 

 

Now for the Reblog

 

ATB has finally gotten up their take on those three storey houses and Walk-Up apartments:

By Matt L, on May 20th, 2013

I’m not sure whether it is driven out of selfishness or just a sheer lack of understanding but the opposition and reporting of the unitary plan now seems to be bordering on lunacy. Almost the entire concern about the unitary plan so far seems to have been in relation to height limits. First the focus was around the heights of apartments but opponents of the plan have now moved on to the height limits in the mixed housing zone. For these opponents even three stories seems to be scary so thanks to Google, I went for a look around some of their neighbourhood and look at what I found:

…

You can see the rest over at ATB through clicking the blue hyperlink above

 

While writing this the thought someone commenting on taste and decency of the three storey residential buildings in ATB’s respective post had struck my mind. Remember this which I used to kick the debate off this end?

San Fran 3 storey houses

 

Patrick who put up the photo first over on Twitter does not even like the look of those San Fran Ladies. To me those lower photos in ATB’s 3-storey post have me scratching my head from me going ewwww at some of the buildings. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and will always kick off a never-ceasing Merry-Go-Round debate. So if you are going to comment, please do so on urban design controls and if you feel inclined the Restricted Discretionary Activity business. If you do comment on the RDA please note my position above with the CMCP and SLPD.

 

But thank you Matt and ATB for getting your local version post up on three-storey houses and Walk-Up apartments.

 

Auckland Plan Submission CMCP and SLPD Extract Version 1.0