“Governance arrangements for the Auckland Regional have been a cause of concern for at least the past 50 years”, begins the policy statement introducing Government’s Bill to abolish Auckland’s existing Councils next year, and establish the merged Auckland Council.
There is no mention in that policy statement of successes banked in recent years thanks to accelerating implementation of the Auckland’s Regional Growth and Land Transport Strategies.
No governance system is perfect. There are always winners and losers. While there is widely acknowledged room to strengthen regional governance, it is important that Auckland does not lose momentum through governance changes that risk derailing good city building work in progress.
Exemplary projects in recent years include: Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; the New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; Manukau Station and FlatBush development managed by Manukau Council’s land development Council Controlled Organisation; and the North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.
Projects like these were envisioned by the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy when it was adopted by the region in 1998 to manage Auckland’s growing pains of wasteful sprawl, damaging infill development and congestion. The strategy called for a Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) to protect rural land, and areas of higher density development at existing urban centres and along public transport corridors.
Little happened on the ground initially because land development patterns envisioned by the strategy required changes to Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore District Plans, and because public transport services in Auckland were poor.
None of the urban regeneration projects mentioned above could have proceeded without District Plan and funding changes that enabled them, and which also enable and incentivise adjacent private property development projects.
Changing District Plan provisions for part of a city to enable higher density development is a non-trivial task. A city’s District Plan has legislative status. People and communities manage their interest in land and buildings accordingly because the District Plan provides the framework for assessing resource consent applications.
Plan Changes are intensely political activities. Again, there are winners and losers. Private property rights are affected. Public realm amenity is affected also.
According to Ministry of Environment data, about thirty District and Regional plan changes – some privately initiated – are handled each year by Auckland authorities. From start to finish the more controversial of these take several years to become operative. Processing time is in direct proportion to the level of public interest and concern. Plan changes relating to Milford Shopping Centre and St Lukes Shopping Centre are amongst the more challenging District Plan changes in process today.
Plan Change hearings are typically heard by elected Councillors, who are accountable for any supporting policy decisions. Plan Changes are not the same as resource consent decisions that are often delegated to officers or independent commissioners.
Under current governance proposals Auckland will be served by just twenty councillors. They risk being overwhelmed by the policy and hearings workload of District Plan changes, particularly if these follow the exemplary charrette process adopted by Waitakere City Council in achieving public buy-in for its New Lynn regeneration Project.
The 1998 Growth Strategy aimed for 80% of Auckland’s increase in population being accommodated within Auckland’s existing urban area, and the remaining 20% in greenfield development. Initially, as Auckland’s councils developed implementation plans, the opposite occurred. Most of the increase in population was absorbed by greenfield development.
But by 2006, 88% of Auckland’s growth occurred within the MUL, with some spillover development accommodated in lifestyle blocks. By 2008 Auckland CBD had been transformed from a sleepy commercial centre to a mixed use city-that-never-sleeps full of apartments and city dwellers. Similar changes for Takapuna, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket and Manukau CBD are envisaged. Detailed local planning will be essential.
Community Boards lack the scale and resources for this work.
Auckland has been wasteful of energy as well as land, with 56% of that energy being used in the region for transport alone. The Regional Energy Database administered by Auckland Regional Council estimates that people and businesses in the region spend $3.4 billion per year on energy for transportation. That is a huge economic burden.
When transport energy was cheap and roads were relatively uncongested, Auckland’s sprawling land use patterns barely affected the region’s economic performance. But that is not the case today, and the situation will worsen as fossil fuels become scarce.
Auckland’s Land Transport Strategy was adopted in 2005 after being supported by all the region’s Councils. It called for a significant shift in investment from motorways to passenger transport systems. Part of that strategy was to free up motorway space for freight transport. This year showed the highest number of passenger transport trips since 1985, and the highest number of rail trips since 1955.
Recent years have seen significant progress in delivering the Growth Strategy on the ground and the Transport Strategy on road and rail. The benefits of that progress will be felt for decades to come. But there is a long way to go. It is essential that changes to governance do not send Auckland back to a future dominated again by low density sprawl and motorways.
And you can see - as a matter of interest - how NZ Herald ran it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577017
Their edits are always interesting, and usually helpful. For students of journalism...
No comments:
Post a Comment