Auckland 2040 Unitary Plan Meeting at Takapuna

A very social occasion. Around 400 turned up on Sunday afternoon to a well-publicised public meeting in the hall at Takapuna Grammar School. They had feedback forms on their chairs.

Interestingly, as I came in outside the school building I was approached by a young guy and handed Auckland Council's "Unitary Plan: myths busted"  pamphlet. So. you could say Auckland Council was represented at the meeting. But no speaking rights...

There was a lot of chat as people read their handouts. 400 is a goodly number. Apparently Auckland 2040 has been organised for less than 2 weeks. Its objective is to get 50,000 submissions into Council by May 31st.

The power point projector was fired up. Petitions being signed. Interested people being signed up. All go....

The main presentation was by Richard Burton, a retired Town Planner with 30 years experience working for developers mainly. He went through the implications of the Mixed Use zone (affecting almost 50% of urban Auckland), and put up images that he'd obtained he said from Auckland Council to illustrate the development potential of the Unitary Plan zone for mixed use housing areas. He explained how height controls and height to boundary rules would be changed...

The  he went on to describe the Terrace Housing and Apartments zone, and the possible developments that would be permitted.

The audience was very attentive. His presentation was a careful Town Planner presentation and all the more credible because of that. TVNZ and TV3 were there, so was NZ Herald.

Here the cameras catch a picture of the zone map which residents were referred to, to check what zone their property was under.

The politicians had front row seats. From right to left here we have Cameron Brewer, Dick Quax and George Wood - cllrs from Auckland Council. Cllr Ann Hartley was also present - but she was too far to the right for me to get a good picture....

Here is Grant Gillon and his son who is also a Local Board member, and further along the row is Takapuna/Devonport Local Board members Jan O'Connor and Dianne Hale. Mike Cohen was also present somewhere....

There was quite a lot of content to the presentation, then the MC of the meeting, a Takapuna local, Mr Haddleton (in the blue shirt), ran a Q and A session which worked very well I thought. He came up with all the questions that people might want to ask, and got Mr Burton to answer them. Very informative...

People took notes and referred to their handouts, some preparing their submissions.

It was a terribly well behaved meeting. Very North Shore. I saw veteran protestor Penny Bright there. Not sure there was much fertile ground among the audience for her revolutionary approach. Though when I left, I found myself walking with a sprightly blue-rince woman. I asked her what she thought of the meeting. "We need a hikoi", she said. "All these resolutions are so tame". I was surprised. "We need to march on Council. All of us. That's the only way to make them listen..." And she strode into the sunset.... 

Meanwhile, back in the meeting there were questions from the floor. One bloke asked about the Auckland Housing Accord. I was a bit taken aback by Richard Burton's response. "The Special Housing Areas in greenfield and brownfield. I think that's a good idea. Completely separate from the unitary plan process..."  He failed to mention that it is Central Government and Auckland Council doing the selection of these areas. Seemed unconcerned by the fact that Central Government was about to step into Auckland Town Planning.  

After the questions, slides were put up listing what Auckland 2040 stands for:  "focusing intensification into localities well served by roading, infraastructure and public transport; undertaking centre-based studies to determine the appropriate level of intensification for each centre; protection of character of residential neighbourhoods; meaningful community involvement in areas of planned intensification..."

This slide lists a number of resolutions that were put to the meeting pretty much without dissent.

One "rethink the plan" point listed in the feedback form was of concern to me. It was the last one. It asks Council to re-evaluate the greenfields versus intensification balance in the plan. I would strongly oppose that submission - having sat for years trying to slow sprawl into Auckland greenfield land. The emphasis for compact city planning needs to be on mechanisms to achieve change - rather than blanket zoning controls that permit an unregulated free markets approach. The meeting heard from one resident who insisted that the city was growing and that it needed to change in some way to accommodate that need. I felt the meeting was short-changed a little on planning information about housing diversity, and about the housing needs of the broad demographic - including active retired people (who don't want a big house and garden), and young people who would like to start with an apartment not too far from where they grew up.

Toward the end the meeting heard from Sally Hughes of the Character Coalition. She explained this had started with concern over the risk of loss of heritage and character buildings and landscapes if the unitary plan went ahead as drafted. And that the had recognised that concerns over urban character extended into many Auckland urban landscapes. She suggested there was as many as 100 different groups, each with upwards of 100 members or supporters.

I think we are seeing a little more of the iceberg of residential dissent here in Takapuna. Auckland Council needs to respond to the fact that it has not handled the unitary plan well - when it comes to compact city form. The unitary plan is claimed to be the "implementation tool" for the Auckland Plan. Unfortunately it is not, or if it is, it is woefully inadequate.

Changing a city's urban form, from the vernacular of low density sprawl - some leafy and high quality, is something that can only happen neighbourhood by neighbourhood. It has to be staged. Plan changes need to follow community consultation, actual urban planning (not planning that is only concerned with zone changes), and community buy-in.

Beware of Auckland Growth Engine

Leave no stone unturned in pursuit of economic growth.

Could be the epitaph of several recent New Zealand Governments.

Consider the low hanging economic fruit of dairy farming irrigated by waters mined from rivers and underground reserves. Not a lot of local opposition. Some inconvenient pollution science from Regional Councils to be dismissed and shelved. And there's fossil fuel mining onshore. But the Forests and Birds of this world have made this a tough one to bring to market. Not forgetting the odd mining accident making the safety rules more expensive. And off-shore oil exploration and mining. Again - not a lot of local opposition - but Greenpeace and Maori interests have resisted.

And now it's Auckland that's being opened up for mining.

Auckland is the latest target for central government driven plans to pump-prime the growth engine by deregulating the development of Auckland's rich urban and rural landscapes.

Make no mistake. This is planned. Might be a bit lumpy - the planning that is - but it's part of the market-led economic growth plan that began with the Resource Management Act, was consolidated in the Local Government Act, and has been institutionally put in concrete with the establishment of the Super City.

Those who dismiss planners as those who do urban design, grant resource consents and sign off building permits are wide of the mark. The real planners in New Zealand are those designing the policies and the legislation that open up New Zealand's resources for development by private sector investors.

Most Urban Planners in Auckland are fighting a rear-guard action now, trying to manage the destruction of communities and neighbourhoods that is often associated with unregulated and careless development.

When the natural resource being developed is a river on the Canterbury Plains, or a coal reserve in native bush, the environmental effects are largely felt by natural ecosystems - though sometimes interconnected human activities can be affected - such as recreational fishing and tourism.

But when the receiving environment for development is a piece of city, a piece of urban landscape, it is not ecosystems that are affected - it is local communities and local neighbourhoods and long term residents. Ecosystems that have survived urbanisation are also affected of course - such as bird populations when trees are removed, freshwater ecosystems when more sediment is discharged into healthy streams, and inshore marine ecosystems.


Central Government has more or less come to the end of its strategic plan to enable the development of more diary farms. It is also between a rock and hard place when it comes to more fossil fuel mining. The new frontier for development and economic activity now are New Zealand's cities - especially Auckland.

Auckland is being readied for mining, and the pathway is being cleared. That is an essential part of the plan. Obstacles need to be legislated away, inconvenient institutions and regulations removed, political deals done, so the road is clear for investors and developers.

The Sky City Convention Centre project is an outstanding example of this.

Forcing the release of greenfield land to enable quick and easy profits at the edge of Auckland, quickly gobbling up infrastructure capacity funded by ratepayers, is another example. The argument that this will produce affordable housing has always been unfounded. :Living on the edge of a city, far from schools, shops and employment, is not where people on low incomes would choose to live given a choice.

Government is determined that Auckland's greenfields be opened up for mining by property developers and speculators. They will erect buildings, but they won't lay the foundations for a community or a neighbourhood. This is what the much denigrated urban planners would like to see, and strongly believe should be provided as part and parcel of any land development. Not so the free market planners in Council and Government. Their focus is feeding the growth engine.

The most vulnerable resource that is being laid open for urban mining is Auckland's existing urban landscape. I do agree that parts of Auckland's sprawling urban landscape - and the communities and people that live in those areas - would benefit from some intensification that delivers a greater variety of housing types and sizes and also additional amenity like a cafe and a corner shop. But that is not of interest to the growth engine.

The impact of urban mining in Auckland comes in two parts: foreign investment and unregulated development.

We have just sold our family home in Devonport. Down-sizing. Want to live closer to the Devonport village. So we've been in the market for a while. Talking to real estate people. They want to talk about intensification plans, but what they talk mostly about is the number of buyers from China attending auctions, making cash offers, and snapping up homes in the $700,000 to $1,000,000 price range. This phenomenon has accelerated in the past couple of months they tell me. While some families from China will live in these homes, many are simply land-banked - confirm the real estate people. Two of these are next door and have been empty for a year. There is no obstacle to this investment. In fact it's Government policy.

My experience and advice suggests foreign investment in Auckland houses is the single biggest driver for recent house price increases on the North Shore of Auckland.

Releasing land at the edge of Auckland may increase housing supply, but it will not slow demand from foreign investors for existing houses within good school zones.

On budget day we heard that Government will intervene in Auckland's urban development market if Council doesn't make it easier for urban mining. This statement follows hard on the heels of the so-called Auckland Housing Accord. I think the Accord is a bad joke because there is not a cat in hell's chance of Auckland Council getting its act together to open up Auckland's urban landscape for the sort of developer-led mining and redevelopment that Central Government has in mind.

Why? Because the community will revolt and rebel that's why. The tip of the iceberg is revealing itself. Nimbyism some say. Wrong. Sleeping giants in Auckland's tranquil suburbs are being awakened. Much as the greenies awake when they see bulldozers gather to divert rivers for irrigation or clear-fell bush before mining. Developer led infill and speculative intensification scares the hell out of the locals.

The free market planners will laugh over their lattes. They saw it all coming. Auckland Council will look feeble and its unitary plan for urban intensification crumble as the peasants revolt. The bulldozers might not roll in the suburbs, but the growth engine will roar and be fed because the Accord will force Auckland Council to release more greenfield land anyway.

If Auckland Council stands for the people it won't sign the Accord as it stands, and it will recognise that the Unitary Plan provisions for compact city development need the support and buy-in of communities.

Otherwise it's another win-win for developers and investors.

Mangawhai Fails Going Concern Test

There are all sorts of definitions of being a "Going Concern". It seems that when the bunsen burner got put under Kaipara District Council (KDC) last year by Central Government (because of the Mangawhai EcoCare Sewage scheme fiasco), the banks were anxious to protect their loans, and needed to be reassured that KDC was indeed a going concern.

The banks wanted reassurance that KDC would meet its obligations in regard to the loans. I haven't seen the precise wording of any contract that may exist between KDC and the banks, but it could be expected to spell out the interest rate, dates when the loan would need to be re-financed and such like. Presumably adequate reassurance was given - because the loans are still in place today.

That's one way of looking at KDC as a going concern. The bank's way. There's also the ratepayers perspective on what is a going concern, and what is not a going concern.

If you've followed this saga, you'll be broadly aware of the financial history. Goes like this:

Between the years 2005 and 2007 KDC made decisions that were unlawful in terms of the Local Government Act (KDC concedes this in the Validation Bill) and borrowed money. Because ratepayers were not consulted no-one knew how big these loans were. In fact between the years 2007 and 2011 the KDC issued no rate demands relating to the loans. It appears that any interest that was owed, was paid, capitalised, and simply added back to the loans. Then in 2012 KDC proposed a Long Term Plan (2012-2022) with huge rate increases to make loan payments. This resulted in widespread protest action and to Government intervention last year - when commissioners were appointed (to fix up the mess).

This was when the banks wanted reassurance.

Following advice from Dept of Internal Affairs KDC developed and adopted (without consulting ratepayers again) a substantially different Long Term Plan (2012-2022) which also provided for rate increases to pay interest on the loan - but was silent on the loan principle itself apart from assuming that new development levies would provide a capital revenue stream. 

 That brings us to this year, and the Draft Annual Plan (2013-2014) (DAP) that is under consultation and finalisation now. In fact Commissioners came to Mangawhai Heads on Wednesday to hear oral submissions from ratepayers. At its heart the DAP proposes a revised approach to the management of debt and advises how the Commissioners believe the Ecocare debt should be “attributed” to ratepayers. Put simply the debt of $58 million has been attributed as follows:

• $13.4 million to those existing Mangawhai households that have not paid the full connection fee already
• $18.4 million to the whole Kaipara District
• $26.2 million to future developments over the next 30 years

The DAP also includes ways and means for the interest that is payable on this debt to be paid by ratepayers, and how this will be apportioned across the district.

This posting is about whether KDC is a going concern or not. My personal focus on the DAP was its plan to allocate or attribute responsibility for $26.2 million of debt to future developments (within the EcoCare catchment) over the next 30 years.

The growth assumptions for the Mangawhai EcoCare catchment area are set out in the DAP. These predict that in each year from 2012/2013 to 2015/2016 there will be about 34 new properties each year (1.6% growth rate), and that the capital contribution paid from each of these will be $17,590.

This rate of development would generate around $598,000 in hard cash each year to be ploughed into reducing the debt.

Then in the years 2016/2017 to 2021/2022 the growth rate will increase to an average of about 59 new properties each year (2.5% growth rate).

The Deloittes audit report that came with the DAP states that assuming a rate of growth and development that will generate this revenue could be wrong, and that if the growth estimates are wrong then the budgeted  chunk of debt would not be cleared by development contributions. I was concerned that the DAP growth rates were optimistic, so I asked KDC for information. The questions I asked and the answers I received in an email dated 1May 2013, follow:

What monies were received by KDC in the 2011/2012 year, that were paid as Development Contributions for EcoCare?

Answer: $54,114

How much of this money was used to retire EcoCare debt?

Answer: None has been applied as yet, we are picking it up as we finalise the proposed amendment to the Long Term Plan 2012/2022.

What monies have been received by KDC in the 2012/2013 year so far, that were paid as Development Contributions for EcoCare

Answer: to date $82,837

How much of those monies have been used to retire EcoCare debt?

Answer:  None has been applied as yet, we are picking it up as we finalise the proposed amendment to the Long Term Plan 2012/2022.

My purpose in asking the questions is based on my understanding that when preparing a budget for the years ahead - particularly the next couple of years, it's sensible to base it on what happened in the last couple of years. You can see that for the full year 2011/2012 $54,114 was received (against a budgeted revenue figure set out in the DAP of $598,000).

And for the current financial year (which has not ended yet by the way), $82,837 was received - with two or three months to go (year end is June 30), against a budgeted revenue for the year of $598,000. 

This loan is unaffordable by the local community.

Going concern? Don't think so.

Auckland Housing Accord Dissent

The fine print is where the devil is in the Auckland Housing Accord which is to be governed by Mayor Len Brown, Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, Minister of Housing Nick Smith and Deputy Minister of Housing Paula Bennett.But it has to be agreed by Auckland Council's governing body first.

Auckland Council's media release describes the accord like this:

"...(The Accord) proposes a streamlined consenting process for new housing developments. This process will be subject to the rules of the notified Unitary Plan, which will reflect feedback now being gathered from Aucklanders in the current public engagement process.
“It’s right that government and the council work together to address the immediate housing challenges facing Auckland,” says Len Brown.
“This won’t solve all of our housing challenges, but it will ensure we work in a coordinated way with government to enable more pace around home building and create options for affordable homes."

The Accord (which at the moment is between those named above), explains why it is needed, how it will work and what it is designed to do.

These bullet points are extracts from it. They have been selected by me to illustrate how the Accord would apply to brownfield areas of Auckland (ie existing suburbs):

• ...it is agreed that to meet the current and future housing needs of Auckland, interim measures need to provide for a mix of greenfield... and brownfield.... housing development.
• ... the essential agreement in this Accord is for... Government to provide Council with additional powers to grant special approvals and consent new land and housing developments;
• ....  the Accord is conditional on Government passing legislation that provides new flexible powers to streamline consenting processes for .... residential development proposals.
• Under the terms of this Accord the Auckland Council will be granted certain powers.
• The legislation will enable Special Housing Areas (SHAs) to be identified by Council and jointly approved by Council and Government.
• SHAs are brownfield and greenfield areas inside the proposed Rural urban Boundary (RUB), identified for the purpose of urban development, mainly for housing...
• An SHA is not subject to the provisions of the operative Regional Policy Statement (RPS)... or any other operative District Plan.
• Any party may propose to Council for consideration Qualifying Developments within an SHA, as per the notified Unitary Plan that are: predominantly residential,.... have the capacity  for 5 or more dwellings...in brownfield areas;  a maximum of 6 storeys....
• Applications for Qualifying Developments will be determined under the following criteria: ....that sufficient and appropriate infrastructure is or can be provided to support this development; meet all the relevant provisions of the Unitary Plan...
• All Qualifying Developments are...required to give consideration to the provision of affordable housing and/or first home buyer purchase. Conditions of consent may include requirements for a proportion of the development to include affordable housing....
• Consent for Qualifying Developments in brownfield areas will be subject to:  being within a Mixed Housing Zone or Terrace and Apartment Building Zone identified in the Unitary Plan;  special limited notification... adjoining landowners with a 20 day time limit; an Independent Panel, appointed by Council, hearing submissions and making decisions; scope of submissions being limited to matters of discretion as provided in the unitary plan;  Panel decisions being final for developments up to 3 storeys
• Council and Government acknowledge the importance of agreeing targets....
• These targets will need to be achieved mainly by private housing developers... This Accord is about providing the conditions for private investment in housing and will require the Council and Government to work closely with the development sector...

It is hard to read and appreciate this Accord as a planner, and not come to the conclusion that these are draconian measures indeed. What it will permit is for anybody to buy enough sections to hold 5 dwellings, pretty much anywhere in Auckland's existing urban landscape (because that's how widespread the relevant zonings exist under the draft Unitary Plan), and, provided the Council has determined that these are within a Special Housing Area, approval for medium density development will be given a fast track process.

(BTW - who will identify the Special Housing Areas? Like a zone within a zone - but one that needs Government to agree with Council. Man oh man. Who runs Auckland?)

What this Accord does is permit the Unitary Plan, when (and if) notified in September, to have regulatory effect immmediately in respect to housing developments in Brownfield and Greenfield areas that are in SHA's agreed by Council and Government. Council wants the Unitary Plan to have effect when notified - rather than in 2016 - after submissions etc. The Accord is a deal between Government and Auckland Council. The deal is: Council releases land now within the RUB for Greenfield development (there will be SHA's for this); and Government passes special legislation to enable Council's brownfield intensification plans (in the Unitary Plan) to have effect upon notification.

Who needs to consult and obtain community buy-in when you can get Council and Government to gang up on neighbourhoods, and fast track consent for any developer who can get their act together? The fact that the panel that hears these applications will have their discretion restricted is a clear signal that matters relating to height, density and all sorts of other matters that would be dealt with in a comprehensive planning approach would not be within their discretion.

To say this Accord is about genuinely increasing the supply of affordable housing is a bit of a joke. Words like "give consideration" and "may" don't demonstrate real commitment to affordable housing at all. I conclude that this Accord is more about giving developers a hand to engage in piecemeal intensification across Auckland. By definition an unplanned, market led approach to urban development.

If both parties to this agreement were serious about putting a genuine piece of affordable housing legislation through Parliament, there would be public dollars on the table, linked into a requirement for a quota of affordable homes to be provided in each SHA, in some sort of public private partnership. The mechanism for this in Australia and Britain for decades has been Housing Trusts. Private developers remain an essential part of the process. But they are not the be-all and end-all that is at the heart of this Auckland Housing Accord - which can only rub salt into the wounds of communities already concerned by the Unitary Plan's one track approach.

Auckland's Shameful Deal with Wellington

Radio New Zealand advises today:

The Government will on Friday announce plans it hopes will ease the housing shortage in Auckland, including faster sprawl into some rural areas.
Radio New Zealand's Auckland correspondent understands a pre-Budget deal has been done to fast-track parts of the Auckland Council's long term development blueprint, even though the council is reluctant.
Auckland is estimated to be short of 30,000 houses.
The Government believes that increasing land supply will slow rising house prices, and accelerate construction.
It is understood to want an announcement in next week's Budget.

Listening to the item Aucklanders hear that a deal can be expected between  Auckland Council and Central Government to the effect that Auckland Council's Unitary Plan intensification plans can be fast-tracked into effect, provided that Auckland Council releases more land at the Rural Urban Boundary for development.

There is no principle in such a deal. It is pure political pragmatism. It will deliver lowest common denominator urban outcomes because it is utterly reliant on the market to deliver liveability. If this deal goes through Auckland Council will have failed to protect the public interest from shonky infill and shabby intensification which is unconcerned with the urban amenity of green spaces, shops, schools, public transport, and community development.

It will be an imposition on Auckland communities of an unregulated development market, while Auckland Council quietly absolves itself of critical planning responsibilities for existing urban neighbourhoods.

The Auckland Council will feel it has achieved something - but it will be at the expense of its vision of making Auckland more liveable. The Government will get what many of its supporters want - easy profits from growth and development - with the social costs born by existing communities.
These are desperate measures. They reflect badly on a Council which says it wants liveability but behind those comforting words takes hasty actions which will take Auckland communities, neighbourhoods and suburbs backwards in terms of liveability.

The only people who will directly benefit from this sort of decision are developers and land owners wanting a quick uplift in land value.

Shame on you Auckland Council.

Previous relevant posts:

Reflections on Auckland Planning: Unitary Plan Pros & Cons

Aug 21, 2011

Penny Pirrit Manager Regional and Local Planning for Auckland Council. Presenting Auckland Council's current ideas about consolidating all of Auckland's RMA planning documents into one plan, one Unitary Plan, at the University of ...

Reflections on Auckland Planning: Public Interest and the Unitary Plan

Jul 09, 2012

One of the major planning tasks and headache for the amalgamated Auckland Council is the requirement to produce a single Unitary Plan under the Resource Management Act (which itself is under further pressure for ...

Reflections on Auckland Planning: Writing a Sprawl Repair Manual ...

Dec 02, 2012

Those preparing the Unitary Plan seem to be adopting a Zone Control approach as the main implementation tool. Thou shalt conform with the Zone. This is causing a variety of reactions ... More importantly - the challenge is to come up with ways that motivate the community to make the change - rather than them feeling the change is being imposed on them by a draconian Council zone. Here's a few extracts from the US thinking.... For sixty years, Americans have ...

Reflections on Auckland Planning: Milford U-Turn and Unitary Plan

Oct 03, 2012

There is considerable public and professional disquiet about the process that has been agreed by Auckland Council for the development of the Unitary Plan. This is to be in Two Phases - which can be seen also as Phase 1 ...

Belmont Devonport Public Meeting - Reflections on Auckland Planning

May 05, 2013

Near the top of his list was the fact that Lake Road is bad now, and there are not credible plans to fix it; that there was no evidence of Master Planning by the council - it would just be a developer buying up 2 or 3 adjoining lots and then ... The meeting heard the viewpoint of those organising the meeting: that the unitary plan encourages construction to 4 storeys (14.5 metres); puts no limit on density but encourages high-density development, and effectively discourages ...

Intensification Planning is More than Zoning

Today (Friday) the piece below was published in edited form in NZ Herald.

It was mainly triggered by the sequence of community meetings that are happening now. It was also informed by Future Intensive: Insights for Auckland Housing a report that has been released by Transforming Cities, part of the National Institute of Creative Arts and Industries at The University of Auckland. The report is an evaluation of Auckland medium density case studies in New Lynn, Albany and Onehunga, that:

• Evaluates the effectiveness of urban planning instruments to deliver housing intensification.
• Establishes how well the housing developments have met resident’s expectations, aspirations and needs.
• Analyses house price dynamics in selected medium density developments.

But my opinion piece was inspired by: Planning for Higher Density - Concepts of privacy in Auckland’s culture of housing by David Turner. Which is a thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Planning, University of Auckland, 2010. Anyone who is involved in planning for the intensification of Auckland should read this thesis which is publicly available (50Meg).

The original text of my Op Ed piece follows (it contains relevant extracts from Future Intensive: Insights for Auckland Housing and other information that was edited from the NZ Herald piece.)

Auckland Council's draft Unitary Plan is under attack as people engage with its implications for their backyards and neighbourhoods. The question confronting city planners and councillors should be how to fix the plan, rather than walking away from it in an election year.


Intensification is at the heart of it. Increased density and apartment living is part and parcel of delivering the Auckland Plan's vision of a compact and sustainable Auckland. The Unitary Plan is described as the implementation tool to make that vision a reality on the ground. On the same ground where Auckland's existing communities and neighbourhoods live today, and have lived for the last hundred years. Therein lies part of the problem.


Another part of the problem is that the Council, developers and home owners are governed by planning legislation enacted in 1991 in a political climate that favoured a market economy, and rejected state intervention or regulation of private property rights. The Resource Management Act (RMA) was intended to ensure a speedy, developer-friendly process, and put as few obstacles as possible in the way of development, while paying some attention to the idea of sustainability. 


However the RMA is silent on neighbourhoods, does not mention urban form, and is not interested in what makes a community. It implicitly assumes these sorts of matters will be managed by the market economy.


The Council is the meat in this sandwich. It is between between communities fearful of change to their backyards and legislation presuming the market knows best how to deliver an Auckland that is the most liveable city in the world.


With its emphasis on enabling the development rights of private property owners the draft Unitary Plan is consistent with the RMA. It is clear about maximum allowable heights for housing in the different residential zones. It is clear about setbacks from neighbouring properties. It is clear about what private property owners can do as of right on their land - especially when they buy a couple of adjacent properties. 


That is the message that emerges loud and clear. Permitted building heights, minimum lot sizes, density entitlements. Music to developers' ears. 


It should come as no surprise that existing residents, neighbourhoods and communities are responding, now they can hear it too. They understand it. It affects them. They are taking action.


But many people are responding positively to another part of the compact city message. Generation Zero welcome the vision of affordable inner city apartment living with active nightlife on the doorstep as portrayed in the "Friends" TV program. Active retired couples welcome the idea of a secure lock-it-and-leave-it style home in a community setting with a gym, near their children's families, and without the need to look after a private lawn and garden. New settlers are coming to New Zealand from cities where medium density living is the norm and choose to live in familiar feeling developments where they can build local communities.


A research report Future Intensive prepared for Auckland Council by University of Auckland summarises in-depth interviews with hundreds of medium density development home occupants at Albany, Onehunga and New Lynn. Three quarters of them were born outside New Zealand and most were from China. The report states: "A high proportion of respondents expressed the view that their housing met their social needs. This view was strongest among Ambrico Place respondents, where the agglomeration of residents with Chinese origins appears to have created a supportive environment, with easy access to services and products that met their cultural needs."  


Auckland's quarter-acre pavlova-paradise development pattern is not for everybody, and it's not affordable for everybody now as increasing population brings increased economic activity and higher land value per hectare. But it is an enduring vernacular urban form of housing and settlement that is a big part of the kiwi dream. It's about talking with agreeable neighbours over the fence, borrowing tools, sharing recipes, being invited across the road to a family barbeque, kids walking to school and growing up together, walking to the corner shop for an icecream, kicking the ball at the park, mowing the lawns, sitting outside in private, and having a beer and watching the rugby with someone who's got Sky.

The RMA and the Unitary Plan are silent on such things but I would argue these freedoms are at least as important to Auckland's existing residential property owners as their private property development rights. Especially when there is a perception their way of life is threatened by an urban form that is alien.

The first medium density developments at Albany were a failure because planners and developers didn't think beyond the building. So the District Plan was changed.  Future medium density  development would only be permitted if local shopping, a green space, and public transport with a fifteen minute frequency of service, were not more than 500 metres walk away. Great idea, but unworkable because there was little coordination between public and private development activities.

Auckland Council has previously indicated that the Unitary Plan would be built on Area Plans (one for each of the twenty-one Local Board areas), with Precinct Plans for specific neighbourhoods. This has not eventuated. As far as I am aware only two comprehensive area plans have emerged - one each from Onehunga and Hibiscus and Bays. Again this is not surprising. Local Boards are under-resourced. And they are structurally a part of Auckland Council and inhibited from acting independently.


Even if they could act independently they would be powerless when it came to influencing decisions about transport infrastructure improvements and the need to increase local school capacity to meet the needs of an increasing population.

So what to do?

First of all, Councillors and Planners need to recognise the scale of urban change that is embedded in Auckland's compact city vision, and appreciate the extent of cultural change that will be required for it to be implemented.

Secondly, the approach to implementation of intensification needs to change from a simplistic city-wide zoning approach to a much more targetted precinct by precinct or neighbourhood by neighbourhood approach, where specific plan changes are promulgated once community buy-in has been obtained, and where appropriate Council intervention and involvement has been agreed and budgetted.

Auckland is a place of diversity and difference. Its urban planning needs to respect that and build from the ground up, not just the top down.

Waterfront Theatre Shared Spaces

Midnight in Moscow. Read on for explanation of relevance....

This image (and all the rest in this posting) have been prepared by BVNArchitecture. Last week I did a posting about a new creative space on Wynyard Quarter.... not knowing about the detailed design work that's been going on. Then  on Friday I went to the theatre.Midnight in Moscow by Auckland Theatre Company. And in the reception area was a large display of the proposed theatre on Wynyard....

The theatre is tucked in behind the ASB building. Shown by the arrow here...

This architect's view of the proposed Waterfront Theatre on Wynyard is from Halsey Street - at night. You can see the rear of the ASB building to the right. The blurb about the theatre states the project has arisen: "as a result of ASB's decision to move its HQ into the Wynyard Quarter and will comprise a fit-for-purpose stand alone 600-seat theatre, which integrates with a 200-seat auditorium in ASB's development...". 

I comment here that this "community gain" arising through a creative partnership between ASB, Auckland Theatre Company, Auckland Council grant support, private donations, and Waterfront Development Agency involvement is an exemplar/recipe that can be replicated elsewhere on Wynyard Quarter. 

This is the same perspective during daytime - according to the architects. It is important to note that the view point is from Halsey Street. This street will continue to operate as a street carrying traffic - including the tram line. So there's some licence in this image. But it's good to see visuals which emphasise pedestrian friendly transport systems. The public space of greatest interest is tucked between the buildings....

Here is how the architects see it. This is a very wide angle perspective - which tends to overstate the size of the public space. The theatre building protrudes into the space - and does not present an active frontage. Which is a lost opportunity and a risk. The blurb describes this space as: "an open courtyard which can host outdoor performances, screenings and community events, creating a dynamic destination for all visitors to the Wynyard Quarter to enjoy...".  I think this open courtyard is a very important opportunity which must not be allowed to fail because it falls between two or three planning stools (ASB, Auckland Theatre Trust, Waterfront Development Agency). This is precisely what happened to the equivalent space in Dublin (see last 3 images in this posting). What you see there now in those images of Dublin's waterfront around its waterfront theatre is the result of the first attempt failing (through lack of good design), causing the Development Agency to commission designs from a famous American Landscape Architect, Martha Schwartz, which were then implemented by the Dockland Development Agency. The building architects might hope that people will enjoy this courtyard. But it will only succeed if good landscape design thinking is applied.

This is the rear of the proposed theatre, viewed across Madden Street. Again - great to see lots of people in the architect's picture - but the reality is that unless care and attention is applied to the design of the central courtyard, how the uses of it are shared (for example - what assumptions are that it will be available for casual parking, as a corridor for access to ASB's carparks, as a service lane for deliveries?). These are the kinds of activities that will kill the vision that leaps from these images. 

Think about "Midnight in Wynyard". Think about what is needed in this courtyard to truly make it a destination, a public courtyard that is successful, a place for people, adding to the experience of Auckland's waterfront.

Intense Meeting - Belmont Devonport

This is Belmont, Devonport, North Shore City, Auckland. It's one of the areas targeted by the Draft Unitary Plan for intensification - terraced housing and apartment buildings to 4 storeys. (3 more than what you see here - including many hectares of residential land). And to the right of the photo is Lake Road - the only road in and out of Devonport. Poor for cars, and poorly served with public transport....

On Sunday, a public meeting was convened by concerned residents at the Rose Centre. The guy with the microphone is Tony Keenan. He explained they'd received a leaflet from Grant Gillon (a member of the Kaipatiki Local Board), outlining what the Unitray Plan might mean for the Belmont area. That led to a few neighbours talking, another leaflet drop, and the meeting itself...

They were very organised - maps on stands and a data-show with power point presentation. Submission forms were also available. Tony Keenan summarised a number of the concerns of residents. Near the top of his list was the fact that Lake Road is bad now, and there are not credible plans to fix it; that there was no evidence of Master Planning by the council - it would just be a developer buying up 2 or 3 adjoining lots and then being able to develop high-rise as of right.

Here a neighbour explains some of the concerns. The meeting heard the viewpoint of those organising the meeting: that the unitary plan encourages construction to 4 storeys (14.5 metres); puts no limit on density but encourages high-density development, and effectively discourages the retaining of single dwellings in the zone; would lead to more people living in Belmont but with no provision for improving public transport or roading access along Lake Road, or more schooling, or for better shopping and services in Belmont....

Grant Gillion chaired the meeting. He spoke to the power point presentation and dealt with what he described as the various myths behind the unitary plan. First up was his critique of the million extra people in 30 years assumption - using Govt statistics to rebut that. He also challenged assumptions about whether the intensification would genuinely lead to the development of affordable housing. He cited the comparative example of Vancouver Housing. 

He put up some images of how  4 storeys could look - and there was debate from the floor about this - some arguing that good quality terrace housing might e attractive - but that it would need to be carefully planned. Grant also made the point that to do this well - across Auckland (because it's not just a problem from Belmont or Devonport), is that it requires careful staging and planning. It should not just be left to the market.

The meeting was full of familiar faces, all interested. This was the first opportunity for this area of Devonport to hear about and discuss the implications of the Unitary Plan for their neighbourhoods. I got the strong sense that for them it was rushed. That this scale of change takes time to get right. Local people have lived here for several decades. It's home to them. One man said he felt a split was being driven between young and old - they say the young ones want apartments and affordability and we are the ones that are stopping them. (ED: This was an interesting comment. Young people do support intensification and apartments. There is a generational change. Rather than a split, this change will need to be managed community by community. One single unitary plan zone change is part of the mechanism for this - but it's only one part.) 

Some excellent points came from the floor. One was that Te Atatu and Devonport share similar geographic character - they are peninsulas, with one central main road in and out. Assuming the same intensive zones will work across Auckland - without regard for geography and difference was a nonsense, one man said. Another pointed out what a joke it was to refer to Belmont as a "town centre". A few shops, liquor outlets, a chemist and pizza hut - does not a town centre make. Requires a lot of imagination, one woman said.

The meeting ended with a resolution opposing the unitary plan as it applied to Belmont. In discussion there were conflicting views about whether the resolution should apply just to Belmont, or to Devonport as a whole. Some saying they felt they couldn't make a decision for the whole of Devonport when it was a Belmont meeting. Because of the media coverage many attended from further afield. They said they felt the points made at the meeting applied to the whole of Devonport - not just Belmont.

A useful meeting. Probably should have happened a year ago...

RMA: Tragedy of Commons

I was asked to speak about the national implications of proposed changes to the RMA at a recent (21 Feb) Lexis Nexis conference in Auckland. The topic of my talk was "What does the RMA actually protect". I began with the easy thing - private property rights.

I made these observations about the regulation of "the house next door":

* The private properties are fenced (enclosed), have clear boundaries, and their ownership (title), is clear and agreed;

* The environmental issue or property right (privacy) is clearly defined, readily measured, and could be argued in court (if necessary);

* Compliance with the regulation can be readily administered and managed;

* Property privacy is protected and enforced

What about the house by the beach? This is different from the house next door, mainly because the owner would like to protect the investment from the sea and tidal action and storms and suchlike. But the RMA has changed things somewhat from old common law days. The natural environment has to be considered. So the observations are a little different:

* The private properties are fenced (enclosed BUT subject to erosion), coastal land is well defined (subject to erosion), ownership (title) is clear and agreed (but see Maori rights?)

* The issue or property right (ability to build a house) is defined, readily measured, and can be argued in court (but subject to retention of healthy coastal environment which is not so easily measured)

* Compliance with the regulation can be administered and managed (but there is a grey area)

* Property development rights are protected and enabled (subject to health of coastal environment, Maori issues)

This issue has become contested in New Zealand because of the impending sale of state assets reliant upon water for their energy. Who owns the water. How is it protected and for what? And what does the RMA have to say about it? Some guidance on this question comes from looking at how Government dealt with ECan.

The expert advice Government commissioned in advance of sacking the Council included that Council: "The organisation (resource consenting) is science led rather than science informed – and this has implications in how responses to applications are prepared and officers attitude prior to, at and after the hearings…. (and) …There is insufficient consideration given to the fact that the purpose of the RMA is to weigh environmental, social, cultural and economic matters. ECan’s focus is mostly on ‘natural’ environmental matters…"

This advice is critical of good science. It is a clear precursor to efforts to weaken the RMA and align it with the needs of development and private property. As we see here - perhaps the RMA can work well for simply defined private property.

More recently MfE has been directed by Government to do away with State of Environment Reporting at regional level. MfE will do that centrally. The idea that environmental effects would be measured and assessed at local level is further undermined. Might be OK for private property - yours and mine - but not other ecosystems. How does this stack up in my assessment of regulatory effectiveness?

* Impossible to “enclose or fence” river water, so ownership is difficult to define

* Water takes can each be readily measured, but cumulative effects downstream not easily measured

* Metering of water takes allows monitoring and take compliance, but monitoring of local effects made more difficult if centralised

* Property rights for water takes are enabled, but only loosely related to cumulative effects

The following words are drawn from the writings of Garrett Hardin: "The Commons. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of man and beast below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?"

This utility has one negative and one positive component….

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

….adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another....

But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy.

Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited.

Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.

Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

So what do we do. How do we manage this…?

Option 1: fence off bits of the commons and sell them as private property

Option 2: keep it as public property, but allocate the right to enter and use parts of it. Allocation might be on the basis of wealth, an auction system, some sort of merit based system, or a lottery, or even on a first come – first served basis to long queues

Option 3: …?

What about pollution…?

We put sewage, chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water…

We put noxious gases, climate changing gases into the air…

The rational man finds his costs of discharging his wastes into the commons (resource consent fees, compliance fees, and best practicable option treatment) are less than the costs of purifying his wastes before releasing them…

This is true for everyone. We continue to foul our own nest while we behave as independent, rational, free-entrepreneurs…

Thinking about the commons, how does the RMA stack up in regulating it?

* Impossible to “enclose or fence” water, fish, air, so ownership is difficult to define

* Local water pollution can be measured, but cumulative effects difficult, same with air

* Enforcement not about law, but about enforcers - people – and who watches them?

* Who decides when enough is enough

* Is this about science and technology, or is it about human values and morality?

Creative Place on the Waterfront

This was the view from my room with a view, while I sat there enjoying it for a while. (That's my leg in the foreground.) Very pleasant it was too. Nice and comfy.... don't even have to mow the lawns...

You can just make me out on the sofa. Very sheltered from the prevailing wind. A real suntrap in the morning.

That sofa, with its rugs and cushions, is so inviting...

A drawcard to passersby.
Postcard pictures.

New Creative Space on Wynyard

A new public space is emerging on Wynyard Quarter. A space between buildings. You probably haven't seen it yet, because all those fences and construction barriers make it hard to see.... 

It's an interesting shaped space, quite big. Enclosed by buildings, but open to the wider street network. Has a lot of potential - because it's enclosed - shelter from the storm. Activation potential is very attractive...

This picture might give you a clue. Of one of the buildings that frame this creative space. To the right you can see a street. Halsey Street in fact. The proposed hotel site is just across the street. So it forms another part of the frame. of this creative space, if that's how you look at these places...

Now I've given the game away. The ASB building is on one side of this creative square...

This aerial shows the space. The top framing building is the ASB building. To the left is fish-processing (the blank concrete wall presents a fantastic canvas for mural, projection...), but what of the square building at the bottom of the frame? That's the proposed theatre. A THEATRE. On Wynyard. Attracting night and day patronage. Cultural comings and goings...

This is an aerial of how Dublin Docklands Development Agency handled a similar opportunity.  The checkerboard building at the top of the public space is a hotel. The building at the bottom of the frame is a commercial office. And the building on the left - facing the square - is the Grand Canal Theatre (in fact it was built to integrate with the hotel and office developments.)

Here's the theatre. Dusk. Patrons gather on the space outside...

At night the square is lit up and hosts all sorts of cultural activities.

I appreciate that the space I have described on Wynyard is not right on the water - but it's got a lot going for it as a creative opportunity.