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.