Auckland Councillors are beginning to engage with the beast known as the Unitary Plan which aims to integrate seven District Plans (Rodney, North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Franklin, Papakura and Auckland Regional Policy Statement. If you want a little background comment on the Unitary Plan process then I suggest you check out this blog posting.
Attempts are also being made now to ensure integration with Hauraki Gulf plans which are being prepared under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (this is difficult for a variety of reasons including the fact the Marine Park also falls under the jurisdiction of Environment Waikato).
At Auckland Council yesterday, one of the twenty Local Boards presented its Local Area Plan for receipt by Auckland Council. This Board was Hibiscus and Bays which has clearly been to considerable effort to engage its community and get Board members to agree to a pretty steep growth plan. The Area Plan provides for 24,715 new dwellings, of which 14,105 will be accommodated in land that is currently zoned for residential development including the Long Bay Structure Plan area.
According to the officer presenting the plan local consultation was "Street by street", there were ten workshops....
It was pointed out that these Area Plans are the local expression of the Auckland Plan, and that the Unitary Plan that is now under development will have rules and policies which give effect to Area Plans - provided the area plans are consistent - one assumes - with Auckland Council decisions about the Unitary Plan itself.
The Unitary Plan Process
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 being done (planned to be done at this stage) by the current council (which finishes its term in October 2013). Phase 2 will be a task for the new incoming Council after the 2013 elections.
Phase 1 of the Unitary Plan process is what is happening now. This includes:
- March - June 2013 draft Unitary Plan released for "informal" feedback
- June - July 2013 officers review feedback and respond to it
- August 2013 officers report the updated draft back to Council
- September 2013 plan to be finalised for "possible" notification
This is an incredibly tight time-frame for something that will have such a direct impact upon Auckland, its people, Auckland's built form, the environment, and economic prosperity.
Phases 2 of the Unitary Plan is the hearing of submissions and suchlike and finalisation of the Unitary Plan for adoption by the new (elected in 2013) Council. How the Council proposes Phase 2 will be managed is where a second set of issues arise:
- An appointed Judge will hear submissions
- No cross-submissions will be allowed
- Council is seeking a law change so that neither the Unitary Plan, nor any of its provisions, can be appealed to the Environment Court - except on points of law
At the meeting yesterday, Herne Bay Residents Association made strong submissions about this process. The speaker was Christine Cavanagh who was accompanied by Paul Cavanagh QC. I don't have a copy of the presentation - but recommend it. Good reading. Good speech. Among the points she made that I noted:
- "without the threat of an Environment Court appeal, there will be little motive for Council to listen to submissions..."
- "you are working behind closed doors - with central government - and shutting out 1.5 million people...."
- "we pay the CEO, planning staff, councillors.... we pay you ... have you forgotten about local democracy...?"
- "don't make this an election issue..."
In her presentation Christine listed a number of Ratepayer Associations and Special Interest Groups that are opposing Council plans for Phase 2. Before I go on I would comment that I support the idea of Council adopting a robust set of planning instruments that will enable compact city development - and provided there has been adequate consultation and the community are onside - then I am not averse to the final plan being adopted without the option of appeal to the environment court. I do not support those with deep-pockets manipulating the plan for private gain.
Milford Plan Change
Which brings me to the Milford Mall redevelopment and Plan Change. You may not be from North Shore, but believe me, this issue is a test case for all of Auckland.
In a nutshell, this is about a medium/high density redevelopment proposal for Milford Mall - which is just up the road from Takapuna. Milford is a North Shore coastal town/village which has been identified in regional planning documents as suitable for medium/high-rise development. The North Shore District Plan - which is now part of Auckland Council District Plan (until that is changed by the Unitary Plan) - provided for high density development (I haven't had the time to research this detail, but it is part of the process now in front of commissioners).
It appears that the Auckland Plan - which is non statutory, but does have some status - used different words in describing the Milford area. I understand it uses the words: :1 to 4 floors, and 5-8 floors, and in exceptional circumstances 9 or more floors...."
The land at issue is owned by a single developer who has been trying for about 6 years to obtain a plan change which will allow a mixed use development of the site - including shops, apartments, and which contains several high rise towers. Residents are concerned about various effects including shadowing, dominance, and changes to the village feel of Milford town centre. Right now commissioners are considering submissions. Very recently a senior planning officer changed his stance on the plan change from being in support of it, to opposing it.
All very interesting and difficult for all concerned.
This is a test case that will be followed very closely by Auckland's development community and by various ratepayer and community groups. It is fundamentally about the acceptability - or not - of the idea that is at the heart of the Auckland Plan. That is part of the liveable city vision. And that is compact city form. It is about medium and high density development in parts of Auckland, in existing town centres. In existing town centres like Milford.
It will be interesting to see what the Local Board (Devonport and Takapuna) have to say about Milford in their Area Plan (remembering how the Hibiscus and Bays Plan above provides for more than 24,000 new homes). Equally, it will be interesting to see how the Unitary Plan provides for developments such as the one proposed at Milford.
Should medium and high-rise development be "permitted activities" in parts of Auckland? There will always be residents who argue "Not in my backyard" for all sorts of human reasons. And of there is an opportunity to oppose a neighbouring medium/high-rise development then they may form a group to do that. The question is: will the Unitary Plan encourage or enable that form of civil resistance to Medium and High-Rise development?
Unless the Unitary Plan shows leadership in this regard, medium and high-rise developers will likely concede, throw in the towel, and concentrate on investing in land at the Rural Urban Boundary - as the line of least resistance for new residential development.
And the Auckland Plan will be just another compact city strategy lacking necessary implementation tools.
This is an important issue which makes me wonder about the wisdom of fast-tracking the Unitary Plan. Much of Auckland is not ready to accept Medium/High density in their neighbourhood. There are many reasons for this not least of which include: leaky building syndrom;, poor quality tiny apartments that were developed in Auckland CBD a few years ago; poor impression of medium density and high density developments. Auckland has begun to address this with some of the developments that have been completed in Newmarket and Waitakere.
It is likely that more needs to be done to win the hearts and minds of Aucklanders, to avoid rebellion against a quick-fix Unitary Plan.
7 comments:
In a nutshell, this really is an example of progress being stymied....
Joel, this is a great report.
Thank you.
You are right about this:
"the Milford Mall redevelopment and Plan Change.... issue is a test case for all of Auckland."
And about this:
"Much of Auckland is not ready to accept Medium/High density in their neighbourhood. There are many reasons for this not least of which include: leaky building syndrome; poor quality tiny apartments that were developed in Auckland CBD a few years ago; poor impression of medium density and high density developments."
To this already long list, I would ad that Aucklanders are also weary of increased competition for/loading on public space, infrastructure and amenities, as well as angry over so many instances of heritage and/or character buildings being demolished to make way for the H/M density development.
I would even suggest that they worry - intuitively, or consciously - about the heavy dependence of H/M density housing on vital services (power; water; sanitation) coming from somewhere else, and what might happen in case of disasters, cuts, shortages, price hikes. On your own section, you've got some options.
I am talking about resilience. The Main Issue of the 21st century.
So I think you are wrong when you suggest:
"It is likely that more needs to be done to win the hearts and minds of Aucklanders".
How? By brainwashing them into belief that we should live like they live in Europe, because it's cool? Or that we should increase our densities because this is more 'environmentally sustainable' (a 40 years-old planning dogma, now rejected by a growing number of experts and authors)?
Or perhaps we should win their hearts and minds by demonstrating with good urban design project that H/M density development can actually look and work well and not cost too much?
I like this last possibility but it would take too long. First, 10 years to get enough of such projects up; then another 10 years for the new reputation to take hold, i.e. replace the old one.
I am afraid we do not have 20 years on our disposal.
I think you are wrong blaming the people. Blame the Plan. It is ideologically driven and exaggerates an otherwise worthwhile goal. Intensification is OK in principle and Auckland needs some of that prescription. But to prescribe that 70% of new growth be accommodated this way, as the Plan does, is sheer nonsense. More likely 30 %.
--Dushko Bogunovich
You are right about the difficulty of promoting medium to high density to the majority of Aucklanders - who love their space.
There is also the question of affordability (both in initial construction and living costs for residents) that needs to be taken into account - and high-density when it is done well is usually offered at the premium end of the market - therefore, impacting on local communities but of benefit to only the lucky few.
The Salvation Army report on housing in Auckland was released a couple of months ago and makes for interesting reading.
If local and national government got organised - they could provide a test case of sustainable development along the lines you suggest. I know Auckland Council and MP's were at a conference where a non-profit model for housing in Canberra was shown - but my sister, who was there - said the Housing Minister's eyes glazed over when talking about sustainable housing and salt and pepper approach to diversity. Comments were made about releasing land - how predictable. I find it incredible that Auckland is not approaching housing with strategic tools and resources to implement them. Successful redevelopment of affordable sustainable communities (not just houses) would go a long way to persuade other communities of the benefit of a medium/high density living choice. I personally would prefer a seed fund of $10.6 million spent on this than on V8 racing in Pukekohe.
Paula Crosswell
Good to get some discussion. I don't agree with the Frank Lloyd Wright utopia advocated by Dushko. That is what has led to much of the urban outcomes we see in Auckland. I think Dushko's vision is driven more by architecture and building design ideas, than it is by urban planning issues of affordability (limited provision of medium density apartments in towns for example), infrastructure needs of sprawl, and loss of horticultural land other urban planning issues.
I believe Auckland has to find ways to provide for greater residential density in parts of the region. The institutional place for this is the Unitary Plan and the Auckland Plan supplemented by mechanisms that encourage that, and by initiatives that will help the broader community see the need for, and wisdom of change, so that implementation is enabled.
Frank Lloyd Wright does not have the answers Auckland needs.
I have sat thru 2 weeks of Hearings on the Milford Mall saga, and as a local resident, I wont roll over. Its got nothing to do with ' not in my backyard ' but everything to do with being sensible and reasonable. Goodness me, we have not even undertaken 2 and 3 storey apartment developement in Milford and its surrounds, without the need to take the huge quantum leap to 12 and 17 storey highrise as proposed. All these consultants running around making wild assertions, and trying to predict Auckland 30yrs out from now because of the Auckland Plan,was almost laughable to watch if it wasnt such a serious a matter..Auckland has evolved the way it has evolved, but now we seem to be getting into the game of crystal ball gazing..We dont need medium or high density in town centres. There are plenty of houses for sale in the real estate window, and in the property magazine..This Supercity thing has some running around with schemes of grandure, when all we need is just to get on with normal life. The worst effect from the Milford fiasco is that the developer is trying to sideline the community now, before he reaches the resource consent stage. If an applicants presents a proposal that is reasonable, valid, structured, and involves the community in which in intends to alter, then the road ahead would not be so long, and cost him and the community valuable time and money..But when you do not consult, and when your proposal will change the complete fabric of a small township for forever, then what does one expect. When a developer comes along an proposes 12 and 17 storey towers, and further proposes that no part of it is Non Complying, and therefore will not require community input at the resource consent stage, then you might as well give it to him on a plate, and any other developer for that matter..The applicant knew that his proposal did not comply with certain aspects of the District Plan ( and it is those provisions he is seeking to change, not those of the Auckland Plan ). If this is a test case, then it has fallen on just a handful on local residents to make sure that the rest of Aucklands residents and ratepayers, get a voice in the future..
It is hard to see how the Commissioner's can approve the Proposed Milford Centre Highrise Apartment application under Sec 76(3)RMA, when the Plan Change was lacking substantial evidence in regards potential adverse effects on the environment, for anyone to arrive at a fully informed opinion. Asking that that matter be left to the future resource consent stage, defeats the purpose of a Plan Change.
what is the significance of the spatial dimensions of the issue of the Milford Highrise
Post a Comment