Sunday, May 19, 2013

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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't say I'm surprised at all about the response from citizens. The Region has been trying for a decade and a half to try and get 'selective' intensification implemented but for some reason Auckland City and now Auckland Council planners seem want to (unnecessarily) take on the community in their own residential backyards, when intensification is best carried out initially in Auckland's under-utilised commercial zones centred on public transport. Council staff recommending turning down apartments in Milford town centre and then promoting intensification, in an ad hoc manner, over most of the North Shore just does not make sense to me. Other round of infill housing where no one one ends up with a backyard or a view is not the right approach IMO.

Mike said...

I agree that Auckland Council has failed to properly consult and engage local communities as part of its Unitary planning exercise. Unfortunately the modus operandi of most modern Western government organizations seems to be to claim that they are keen to listen and then do exactly the opposite.

Another grievous shortcoming of the draft plan is its failure to provide for a clear path to a more sustainable built environment.
Section 4.2.5.4 says:

"The purpose of these rules is to ensure all new development containing five or more dwellings within a site and large scale commercial and industrial buildings are designed to: operate efficiently to minimise the use of energy and water resources, contribute to minimising environmental impacts by reducing emissions, create healthy and comfortable living and working environments"

This giant loophole will allow many more homes to be built with insufficient insulation, excessive energy consumption and inadequate systems for conserving and recycling water. The end result will be increasing demand for energy, fresh and waste water which could be avoided if the sustainability requirements were extended to ALL new buildings (new commercial buildings of less than 5,000 m2 are also exempt). Instead, existing ratepayers will be expected to bear the cost of these externalities.

This seems exceptionally short-sighted for a plan that is supposed to be a foundation for the next 30 years. I hope you can find time to post your views on this important issue.

Larry Mitchell said...

Hate to rain on anyone's parade Joel but there is the small matter of the financing for Waitakere's plans including paying for their truly excellent rail/Council HQ and other expensive! projects.

And it is not as if the WCC ratepayers have high average household incomes! to pay for such extravagances

The WCC went into the Auckland Council amalgamation with debts per ratepayer of over $13,000 when the average for the other Auckland Councils was closer to $3K per ratepayer.

WCC would have faced major financial issues (as also would have Rodney) if they had remained solo.

I wonder how many AC ratepayers really appreciate the extent of the cross subsidy this represents given that these two areas arising as a result of the AC's debt pooling policies and by not distinguishing predecessor Council debt positions. Just a thought ... ANYONE CARE?

Sunday, May 19, 2013

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.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't say I'm surprised at all about the response from citizens. The Region has been trying for a decade and a half to try and get 'selective' intensification implemented but for some reason Auckland City and now Auckland Council planners seem want to (unnecessarily) take on the community in their own residential backyards, when intensification is best carried out initially in Auckland's under-utilised commercial zones centred on public transport. Council staff recommending turning down apartments in Milford town centre and then promoting intensification, in an ad hoc manner, over most of the North Shore just does not make sense to me. Other round of infill housing where no one one ends up with a backyard or a view is not the right approach IMO.

Mike said...

I agree that Auckland Council has failed to properly consult and engage local communities as part of its Unitary planning exercise. Unfortunately the modus operandi of most modern Western government organizations seems to be to claim that they are keen to listen and then do exactly the opposite.

Another grievous shortcoming of the draft plan is its failure to provide for a clear path to a more sustainable built environment.
Section 4.2.5.4 says:

"The purpose of these rules is to ensure all new development containing five or more dwellings within a site and large scale commercial and industrial buildings are designed to: operate efficiently to minimise the use of energy and water resources, contribute to minimising environmental impacts by reducing emissions, create healthy and comfortable living and working environments"

This giant loophole will allow many more homes to be built with insufficient insulation, excessive energy consumption and inadequate systems for conserving and recycling water. The end result will be increasing demand for energy, fresh and waste water which could be avoided if the sustainability requirements were extended to ALL new buildings (new commercial buildings of less than 5,000 m2 are also exempt). Instead, existing ratepayers will be expected to bear the cost of these externalities.

This seems exceptionally short-sighted for a plan that is supposed to be a foundation for the next 30 years. I hope you can find time to post your views on this important issue.

Larry Mitchell said...

Hate to rain on anyone's parade Joel but there is the small matter of the financing for Waitakere's plans including paying for their truly excellent rail/Council HQ and other expensive! projects.

And it is not as if the WCC ratepayers have high average household incomes! to pay for such extravagances

The WCC went into the Auckland Council amalgamation with debts per ratepayer of over $13,000 when the average for the other Auckland Councils was closer to $3K per ratepayer.

WCC would have faced major financial issues (as also would have Rodney) if they had remained solo.

I wonder how many AC ratepayers really appreciate the extent of the cross subsidy this represents given that these two areas arising as a result of the AC's debt pooling policies and by not distinguishing predecessor Council debt positions. Just a thought ... ANYONE CARE?