There has been a lot of public focus on the PAUP which is only one leg of the three legged stool that supports the implementation of urban growth and development in Auckland. The other two legs are area and regional spatial plans; and public realm funding planning.
But first a look at the PAUP and where it stands. The guts of the IHP's recommendations are set out in 28 points here. The main growth related recommendations are within the first five:
2. Focus urban growth on centres, transport nodes and corridors to achieve a quality compact urban form.The hairy big number in here is "400,000" - a bigger number than most were expecting, and even bigger than Government Ministers were calling for. Most of this growth is within the existing urban fabric - hence the general impression that the recommendations are more "up" than they are "out".
3. Retain the Rural Urban Boundary but expand it to include 30 per cent more land and enable it to be changed by private plan changes.
4. Enable a development pattern to meet demand for the next 30 years and double the feasible enabled residential capacity to exceed 400,000 dwellings.
5. Ensure sufficient capacity for the next seven years.
No stone - or volcanic cone - has been left unturned in the recommendations in the search for development capacity within Auckland's existing urban area. Many interest groups will be concerned that areas of Auckland or features they wished to see protected from development, have lost much of the protection that previously existed (volcanic cones, pre-1944 houses), in the face of economic evidence produced for property development interests (including but not limited to the Property Council).
These groups will now be considering their options which will include legal options, and making representations to Council not to accept some of the recommendations, or to consider specific changes to the plan that will maintain or improve the status quo. I can imagine that some IHP members will have anticipated this resistance. It appears to me that a number of the final changes in the IHP recommendations, which have come as a surprise to some, have arisen from final Council submissions which contained new evidence that has not been able to be contested by other parties. It came late with those final Council submissions. Never a good thing in a public hearing process to admit evidence that has not been subject to public scrutiny. However, given a reasonable case from advocates which reaches some sort of threshhold, there may well be justification for Council to change specific IHP recommendations.
One thing is for sure: the advocates for freeing up land for development and adding fuel to Auckland's property boom will also be in Council's ear big time, holding it to the line that has been established with the IHP, and trying to get some more land freed for development at the edges.
The Gaps (cracks) in Auckland Development Planning
There have been two persistant - but largely ignored - elephants in Auckland planning since before amalgamation in 2010. The reasons for this studious ignorance are likely to be just a continuation of Auckland's speculative planning history. Auckland is a city of un-implemented master plans (apart from the De Leuw Cather motorway master plan). Auckland's urban growth coincided with the popularity and convenience of the automobile. That history is well documented. What is less well documented is the consistent failure to provide for the public realm commensurate with private residential and commercial urban development. The public realm in an urban setting is not provided by the market or by speculation. Its component parts have to be planned spatially as part of any private development, and they need to be paid for. There has been reluctant recognition from the odd Minister that sewers and roads need to be paid for to enable new residential and commercial developments to go ahead - but they want the cheapest and lowest cost versions installed - at costs that will not upset the market.
When I was a councillor at North Shore City Council (affectionately known by councillors in other Auckland cities as "North Shore Shitty Council"- because of the leaking sewer networks), the big project was raising rates to pay for sewer repairs. The network had been built quickly and shoddily, to accommodate rapid urbanisation. The roads and the roading network was much the same. Takapuna Borough Council presided over the development of an urban form almost entirely devoid of urban parks. Maybe it was felt that being near Takapuna Beach was enough. I mention these aspects of the public realm. To that list can be added: schools, hospitals, libraries, and museums. And under-pinning that list of infrastructure is the notion that the people who live together in a city, live public community lives, as well as private lives. And that social and community values including tolerance, appreciation and understanding of cultural difference and diversity are developed through rubbing alongside each other in the public realm.
These sorts of ideas and values are not shared in self-selecting enclaves in social media, or at home where birds of a feather tend to live together. Slight digression. But back to my theme. Bruce Lilley was also a councillor at North Shore, and while standing up for sewer repairs he famously said, "a city is more than pipes..." A round of applause and support.
The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - and its IHP version - will deliver little in the way of new development in the Auckland region without the other two legs of the planning stool being put in place.
The Auckland Plan - required by Auckland's special amalgamation legislation - is little more than an uncosted wishlist of projects and developments. Area Plans and Precinct Plans are the necssary precursor to any urban redevelopment and intensification which integrates with an existing urban setting. It is through involvement in these sorts of plans that the local community sees itself, line of sight, from where they are now, to where they will be post development, and at various 5 year (for example) stages throughout the duration of the redevelopment. Spatial plans are visual so everybody can see and understand what is anticipated and expected. Including visualisations of the new public realm, but also indications of different housing typologies. Spatial plans are practical renderings of possible futures which can be engaged with by ordinary members of the community - who find it difficult to interpret zoning maps and other planning speak language.
Area Plans need to be supported by the very best data. Costs and benefits for all stakeholders - not just speculators salivating at the uplift potential their models predict. Urban redevelopment has to be a partnership including the central government agencies tasked with education and health infrastructure. All aspects of the public realm need to be paid for.
This remains an enormous gap in (crack) in Auckland's planning system. Legislative changes have forced Auckland Council increasingly into the role of being Central Government's policy implementation arm in town, with the single goal being economic growth and increased construction activity. But despite that energy and force, the fact remains that New Zealand is still a democracy, and Auckland's existing residents will increasingly demand a real say, and stake, in how Auckland develops and grows. People have a strong sense of what is fair and right, interms of who pays for what, and who benefits from betterment and value uplift. The fact that Auckland Council is still struggling with a Government that is reluctant to give it the financial tools and incentives needed for intensification and commensurate public realm is a poor reflection on the governance of this country.
Auckland Council will soon vote to change aspects of the IHP's recommendations. As it should. It would be helpful if it also voted to the effect that Central Government must now, at this juncture, fix the cracks, provide the legs needed for urban redevelopment.
No comments:
Post a Comment