Auckland Plan = Step Backwards

The Mayor Len Brown said it all this morning on National Radio as he talked up the economic growth targets of the Auckland Plan. Describing the Plan itself he said, "frankly, this is the easy bit, now we have to achieve it...". Radio New Zealand commentary this morning noted that, "Central Government supports most of the Auckland Plan...." It's not hard to see why:

• The Metropolitan Urban Limit - which has largely held firm since 1998 and which still contains substantial developable land - has been relaxed significantly, opening up development opportunities and quick profits for those holding land at the edges whose advocates were very squeaky wheels during submissions;
• The challenge of meeting the need for affordable housing within existing city communities has thus been side-stepped (they can live in new houses in greenfields and form new markets for greenfield developers with new infrastructure costs heavily subsidised by existing ratepayers);
• Despite setting a significant increase in passenger transport targets, the Auckland Plan strongly emphasises investment in roading infrastructure for cars.

Central Government has made no secret of its support for these initiatives, and has Auckland Council's arm up its back by with-holding financial support for major public transport projects backed by Council and the wider Auckland community.

The Auckland Plan could be described as a balance. But that would be charitable.

It was always open for Auckland Council to seize the Compact City baton, and develop a set of grunty policy tools, support frameworks and incentives that would deliver the vision on the ground. There was room for that in the Spatial Plan specification enshrined in legislation by Central Government. Instead Auckland Council has fallen into step with central government's policy direction that New Zealand's economic development be led by urbanisation catalysed by motorway building and roading, as well as port expansion. And so history repeats. Auckland's embryonic plans for more responsible and self-sufficient development are stymied again, (though I am relieved that following well organised and effective public reaction, Auckland Port Expansion Plans are on ice pending a review....)

I understand that the finished Auckland Plan looks very beautiful. No expense spared. But then most development prospectus documents look and feel like that. Glossy. Thick paper. The very best photographs. Endlessly edited. Give confidence to investors. Let the market deliver growth and prosperity to all of Auckland.

We've tried that. It doesn't work for large parts of the Auckland population who live in crowded houses, have to drive long distances to work, shop, go to school, whose energy costs are increasing ahead of inflation, and whose children and parents have few options to own their own homes in the neighbourhood. The market is not interested in developing the self-sufficient communities that are central to delivering a compact and efficient city.

Supporters of the Auckland Plan argue that the old urban limits and plans to contain 75% of new population within existing boundaries "are not achievable", and that even maintaining population growth within the relaxed target of 60% (plus I hasten to add some 1400 hectares of new greenfield land for business), "might not be achievable".

Of course it won't be achievable. Especially if Auckland Council does not take its planning responsibilities seriously, and if it leaves these sorts of planning outcomes to the development market.

You only have to look at the latest piece of Auckland greenfield development that is happening at Hobsonville, North West Auckland to see what happens when the market takes over. The original vision for this inner harbour community was of a mixed development with employment, village centre, and an integrated mix of state housing and high quality private development. That was the plan the Auckland Regional Council was presented with when I was on that Council, and when we had the job of signing off the relevant District Plans. I was one of those arguing that development needed to be staged to ensure the mixed vision was in fact steadily implemented on the ground. With triggers before the next stage could proceed. Man oh man did Waitakere City Council and assorted developers kick back against that idea.

Trust us they said. Don't constrain the market.

What has happened? First up Central Government walked away from funding any State Housing there. Next up Super City had the job of finalising various appeals outstanding. No such thing as Chinese Walls now. The self-sufficient community vision for Hobsonville has now been reduced to an expensive coastal development with big box shopping - like you see at Westgate and Albany Mega Centre. These are not communities. These are development opportunities.

These are the future communities that will be permitted under the Auckland Plan.

Submission 1: Draft Auckland Plan

Introduction The Council is to be commended in planning for the Britomart Rail Loop project, and in clearly stating related implementation and funding strategies. This long term project can be a transformational for the city. However, every long term plan has short term objectives and short term projects which will inevitably come due for delivery before the Britomart Rail Loop. The Council’s plan integrity and prioritisation principles will be tested in these early projects. The Government Foreword to this first Auckland Plan is a surprisingly good read, and demonstrates a fundamentally correct understanding of what spatial plan is. At s.19 we read: “…spatial planning is fundamentally strategic and focusses on the long term development of cities and their communities…”, and at s.21 “…the Government believes that effective spatial planning has the potential to help realise these opportunities to improve Auckland’s economic and productivity performance and the efficiency of its urban form… and connectedness…” Again I reiterate that the proof of the pudding in this plan, will be in what is funded, and what is not funded in the early years. Early projects set the trajectory and the pattern for the future of Auckland Council. Citizens will be able to draw a line through the first initiatives and extrapolate into the future, make predictions, as to the likely future Auckland can anticipate – whatever the fine words are in the Draft Auckland Plan. Urban Expansion in Rural Villages With little justification, the Draft Auckland Plan (DAP) identifies Warkworth and Pukekohe as two of its 8 growth priority areas. This is more than a little concerning for those of us who have participated in the planning of Auckland Region for the past decade. These areas are outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). Warkworth is not on a public transport corridor. Helensville is also mentioned as a future area for similar treatment, and , like Warkworth, it is thirty kilometres or so outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit and not on a Rapid Transit quality public transport corridor. The DAP does not appear to distinguish between the type of growth or the different controls that might be appropriate for growth that would be enabled in those rural townships, compared to centres that are within the current MUL. My experience with growth in Albany, and with reaching settlement with Waitakere City Council over the way in which planning for future urban land there should be provided for, gives me cause for concern. I believe Auckland Council must treat these rural development opportunities with a great deal of caution if it intends to avoid the adverse effects that arise from poorly controlled urban expansion. I note that the DAP refers to staging and triggers for development. However, so too, did the plans for Albany, Hobsonville and Westgate. However those controls have had little effect on what happened. Most developers are determined to get quick returns from these new greenfield developments. Residential development goes in first, and the new owners commute into Auckland and further south for work. Once that has happened there is little stomach for the development of local built amenity (shops, cafes, commercial activity, light industrial places of employment….). Vancouver is an interesting exemplar for this matter. It has adopted what it calls “complete communities” approach to the planning of urban expansion. “Thus it has a strategy of “complete communities” and planning and development policies which support that strategy. The objective of “complete communities” is that each community develops so that there is enough local services, employment and basic retail to satisfy the needs of new residents. They don’t have to drive to get those services as soon as they move in. Of course residents can choose to go further afield if they want to, but they don’t need to. That is the essence of that approach to planning the development of new villages. New Zealand’s track record in the field of greenfield development is littered with examples of the market failure to provide for complete community outcomes. Any reliance on RMA planning instruments for these outcomes is destined to fail – simply because the RMA is a free-market development instrument. If the Auckland Council wants “complete community” outcomes – then it must plan appropriately for them. This same criticism and concern applies to land that can be, or is zoned urban within the MUL.

Submission 1: Planning for place-based projects needs to include robust staging criteria and prescriptions for development that will ensure the basic housing, employment, and social service needs of new communities can be met within or close to the newly developed places. This approach to be known as: Complete Communities.

Auckland: Are You Ready for More Sprawl?

This blog: contains an introduction to Auckland's MUL policy; a short account of what Government's agenda appears to be; plus some useful international accounts looking at the need to provide for all of the costs of development - when making the case for/or against sprawl.

In my time serving as an elected representative in Auckland local government (12 years), I came to the firm view that there were three local initiatives that will make a difference to the direction, economic efficiency, and social equity of Auckland's development:

• the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) policy enshrined in the Auckland Growth Strategy


• the ability to charge Developer Levies on new land use developments


• the strategy to transfer $1 billion (over 10 years) from State Highway development to Public Transport investment

Like many large Western cities enthralled by the American Post War motorcar and motorway miracle, Auckland has battled with the consequences (eg escalating travel demands and congestion), and struggled to plan its way out of the trap we all find ourselves in. My research suggests that Vancouver - while I agree it's not perfect - found itself in the same trap around 20 years ago - and after adopting a growth strategy - has managed to change the direction of its development to one which more strongly supports compact development over the taking of rural land for edge urban development. But it has been hard, and there is always that temptation and pressure from those seeking the quick returns of new subdivision.

A few years ago I was invited by Connal Townsend to attend an informal meeting of the Property Council. I was asked to share my ideas and thoughts about the Growth Strategy and Public Transport investment. A number of major players in Auckland's property development industry were present. Some were very direct in their criticisms of Councils when attempts were made to progress "brownfield" redevelopment within existing urban environment. "Too hard", was the catch- phrase. "Not worth the candle".

But probably the most honest was the comment, "Joel, if you ask me to choose between buying an investment block just outside the MUL, or buying a CBD block for redevelopment, I'm going to buy the rural block everytime. You guys are going to fold...."

Around the same time I found myself sitting next to back-bencher Phil Heatley in a plane. He spoke of the frustration of being in Parliament all those years, but without the ability to influence anything. I talked about Auckland and its development. He made no secret of his distaste of the MUL, but he seemed very uniformed about Auckland issues. He left me with the clear impression that: "the MUL would be gone by lunchtime, when National gets into Government."

I accept that Auckland's planning has needed change and improvement, to provide stronger incentives around compact development and urban regeneration projects, as well as lining up the funding institutions to assist where holding costs become a major stumbling block. It was never enough just to have a tight strangle hold on the metropolitan urban limit.

Councils have been reluctant to rezone urban land to allow for greater densities and building heights. The rhetoric of "dog boxes" and "rabbit hutch apartments" has been enough to make local communities take fright, and take to the streets to stop any change in their neighbourhoods. NIMBY'ism can be a very powerful thing. But it also stands in the way of a city region fighting to provide the range of housing types and sizes and environments, to meet the very diverse needs of Auckland's cosmopolitan community.

These failures and problems are among those that led to calls for Auckland's local governance to be strengthened, so that its plans and strategies could be actually implemented. Then there was a change of Government. And the reins of change have been seized by those with rather different priorities. The recession has added urgency to Central Government's determination to deliver short-term growth and productivity. Public funded infrastructure is a big part of its program to generate jobs and keep unemployment from getting above 7% (but it is).

And now we have Nelson's very own Dr Nick Smith (Minister of Environment), working with Whangarei's Phil Heatley (Minister of Housing), and pushing a very strong pro development, pro growth, pro "affordable housing", program, which appears to have at its heart the goal of doing away with Auckland's Metropolitan Urban Limit.

"Pushing the Boundaries" was the title of an excellent Saturday Review piece in the NZ Herald last Saturday (13th Feb 2010: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10625802)

It was a good 2 page spread on what is in store for Auckland as the next stage of Government land use planning reforms gather speed. Key quotes:

Smith: "Smith linked restrictive zoning and consent laws to NZ's poor productivity and economic growth..."

(My Comment: In fact the major cost drag on Auckland's economy is the sheer energy and time cost of transport. A full 13% of Auckland's GDP is expended in transport. This compares very unfavourably with modern Asian cities (6%), and European cities (8%). Smith is really only speaking about the gold rush that comes from new land being released. Developers love that gold rush profit, but for a long time afterwards those who buy into it pay excessively for transport and other costs. I suspect Smith is only interested in short term gains - not long term development. Smith has never understood Auckland.)

Heatley: "our drive comes from the fact that property proces have increased hugely ... locked out first time buyers... the biggest propertion has been the land cost, not the cost of building..."

(My Comment: This is the classic case of Heatley wanting to externalise infrastructure costs. Land costs today - because of developer levies - now include some of the related infrastructure costs - roading, 3 waters. For North Shore these "land development costs" can be up round $30,000/housing unit. And even thenm this figure does not adequately cover the full costs of new infrastructure. BTW these developer levies are much less for a new lot built in the heart of existing urban setting.)

The cheapest housing in Auckland is in the South West. It's where a lot of deprived and low income families live. This is Auckland's urban wasteland. Many households live in rented accommodation. But that's not where the bulk of the family income is spent. In fact it is spend on transport. There is very poor public transport here. So - no alternative travel options. Shops and employment and education options are all a decent car trip away. So every mission requires a car trip.

Big families, big cars, cheap and energy inefficient cars. That is what Auckland people get when "affordable housing" is built at the edge. Surveys are showing that a sizeable number of these households are spending upwards of 30% of the household income on transport. These families will not be able to afford to buy a house - not because it may be too much for them - but because their transport priorities must come first - and it is these costs that mean they cannot afford to buy a house. That is the reality.

I was a commissioner with Cllrs Walbran and Glenn for a private application to ARC to release land from outside the MUL for 1000 houses at Papakura. The development application was to build 1000 houses. That was it. Nothing else. No shops. No public amenity like a school or a kindy or anything else to relieve the expense and pain of being isolated away from the services and amenity that most Auckland dwellers have come to expect as normal to urban life.

Agreeing to that development would condemn many more households to lives in relatively cheap houses, but with huge transport and access costs that would have to be born and paid for every day. It is these costs that need to be included when assessing affordability. Let alone the social costs associated with isolation, loss of sense of community etc. These are the long term costs of poorly planned - but apparently "affordable" housing.

These costs need to be counted and included.

This is the lesson from other countries and other cities that have though about these matters rather more deeply than our Ministers. A good summary of papers and reports for and against can be found at: http://www.psrc.org/assets/2032/appIF14-sprawl.pdf

That report contains a good summary of arguments for and against sprawl. I reproduce it here:

Arguments in Defence of Sprawl	Counter Arguments
• Development is cheaper in suburban/rural areas	• True, but real costs are not measured. Adjoining municipalities often subsidize the more extensive and less efficient infrastructure needed for sprawl development.
• The additional cost of sprawl is privately provided indicating people’s willingness to pay more for sprawl and their desire for sprawl	• Again, real costs are not reflected in the price of sprawl development. Adjoining municipalities often subsidize the more extensive and less efficient infrastructure needed for sprawl development.
• People prefer low density development over high density development	• Survey results showing more people preferring low density development can be misleading due to varying perceptions of "high density." Surveys that use visual examples are more useful and show that many are willing to sacrifice low density and more square footage for better designed homes with a range of nearby amenities.
• Residential development in rural areas produces public revenues in excess of public costs	• "Working" land, such as in agricultural production provides revenues in excess of public costs.
• Commutes are shorter in suburbs	• Due to growing suburb-to-suburb commuting, travel to work may be shorter for many workers, but more trips are necessary because of separated uses. Trips are longer and there are few alternatives for those who can’t drive.
• Cars are the most versatile form of transportation and as cars get more fuel efficient and less polluting, environmental impacts will no longer be a concern	• Cars are still a long way from being environmentally friendly, but even if they were totally clean, it does not solve the problem of loss of wildlife habitat, resource consumption, traffic congestion or traffic fatalities resulting from sprawl type road infrastructure and lack of sidewalks or bike lanes. Auto dependent development also prevents non-drivers from having choices in how to get around. 32% of the U.S population can’t drive.
• We are able to grow more crops with less land and labour, so prime farmland being lost to development is bunk	• The problem is where and what land is being lost. Productive farmland close to urban centers is being lost. New land could be brought into agricultural production but often at high economic and environmental cost. Also the farther farmlands must move from urban centers—where the consumers are—the more inefficient it is to bring products to market, especially for smaller farms selling their produce in local markets.

Table. Prevailing Arguments in Defence of Sprawl and the Counterarguments

This debate is only just getting started in Auckland.

I hope that Auckland Regional Council can lift its head from trying to shoehorn a $97 million cruise ship terminal onto Queens Wharf, and extract the labour of its expert staff from being forced help for the Auckland Transition Agency, to engage with this issue, and drive a strong public debate in defence of the regional development policies it has been responsible for adopting and championing.