Fixing Auckland Planning Framework

This diagram depicts the conceptual framework I developed to assist in communicating the findings of the research I conducted about Auckland planning towards a dissertation for the MPlanPrac degree which was about spatial planning. (You can download the research report from the link at the end of this blog.) The diagram contains in the four sectors the main activity types of local government in New Zealand. These activities include what might be described as the core requirements of local service delivery (roads, water services, rubbish collection, dog control, libraries and parks for example) in terms of the Local Government Act and environmental regulation and natural resource use planning in terms of the Resource Management Act (consenting, monitoring and environmental reporting for example). Local government is also empowered to undertake initiatives which promote economic development and private investment, and to engage in community development projects such as place making and heritage protection. Economic development initiatives could include new roading projects or the provision of public transport infrastructure. Community development projects might include the provision of housing for the elderly, affordable housing incentives, and sports and recreation partnerships. City level strategies for these four types of activities are contained in the District Plan and the Long Term Council Community Plan. Regional level strategies such as the Regional Land Transport Strategy and the Regional Policy Statement also affect city development, as do certain central government strategies.

This diagram adds another layer to the conceptual framework. This represents the extent of integration or joined up governance that exists between the different functional activities of local government. This diagram is thus a picture of ‘nicely rounded’ local government. It is a picture of integrated and coherent local government. It is the ideal that might be achieved with integrated regional planning and coordinated engagement with local and central government agencies.

This final diagram is a depiction of one of the most significant problems besetting Auckland’s local governance now, and one which is at risk of intensifying under the proposed governance structure for Auckland which envisages separate entities for network infrastructure. The RMA’s environmental regulatory functions have been in place since 1991 and are now well bedded into the institution of local government. This has inevitably led to a silo approach to activities in that sector that is underlined by the separate ‘State of Environment’ reporting noted in the research, and the associated and highly particular set of indicators that go with that activity. Regulatory functions are typically well separated from core council service functions which in any case are described by other pieces of legislation, further underlining this separation. The Local Government Act came into effect a decade after the RMA and while the Act’s overall purpose of seeking an integrated approach across the four well-beings is consistent with sustainable development best practice, along with its requirement to prepare long term plans, it is quite another matter to change the silo patterns that exist in local government institutions. My experience of LTCCP preparation in the Auckland region is that these plans are little more than the old single year Annual Plans with more of the same plus inflation for the next nine years. They cannot be described as strategic plans. My research also shows the development of indicator led approaches to the preparation and measurement of Long Term Council Community Plans also has a long way to go in Auckland. These fall well short of even being pre-cursors to local spatial plans. By contrast Auckland’s relatively long history of regional transport strategic planning is reflected in the quality of these strategies, and in the depth of the associated indicator sets. But transport strategies that have been prepared without proper integration with land use planning - let alone economic and community development planning - are destined to perpetuate Auckland’s silo approach. Finally, it should be noted that central government driven infrastructure projects intended to promote regional economic development but which have not been conceived and planned in a way which also promotes community development risk further concretisation of Auckland’s silo approach. Auckland planning will not be fixed by a nationally driven spatial plan. Nor will it necessarily be fixed by the current restructuring. You can download my final research paper from here: http://www.joelcayford.com/JoelCayfordBestPracticeIndicatorsandAucklandSpatialPlan.pdf