NZ Planning Institute Steps Up to MBIE

(Conflict of interest: I work at NZPI in the role of policy adviser.) Growth and housing affordability are major planning issues in many parts of urban New Zealand. Issues of almost crisis proportions. A raft of proposals and initiatives have been advanced by Central Government. Many of these are aimed at changing the country's planning systems. Most are short term measures. The NZ Planning Institute's 2,500 members are at the coalface - or perhaps more sharply - they are the meat in the sandwich. Much of the blame for the crisis has been heaped on the planning profession. 

Mistakenly. 

For a hundred years the economic job of the planning profession has been to correct the plethora of market failures that have erupted and which continue to erupt in unregulated urban developments left purely to market forces. Twenty five years of RMA urban planning appears to have removed from public consciousness a good understanding of what good planning is and achieves, and what planners do. 

Which is why NZPI is stepping up to rebuild that understanding. 

Below is an extract of high level commentary from its recent submission to MBIE's proposals for Urban Development Authorities.....

4. NZPI welcomes in principle the NZ Government Urban Development Authority (UDA) initiative that is being developed with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The UDA discussion document, along with an associated Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) outlines proposed legislative changes that:

…will enable publicly-controlled urban development authorities to access powers to acquire parcels of land and then plan and oversee the necessary development. Developments could include housing, commercial premises, associated infrastructure, and amenities including parks, community spaces or shopping centres…(MBIE, Feb 2017. Pg 5, Urban Development Authorities, Discussion Document)

5. The discussion document states that the framework for the proposed legislation is intended to:

…enable local and central government:

• To empower nationally or locally significant urban development projects to access more enabling development powers and land use rules; and
• To establish new urban development authorities to support those projects where required. (MBIE, Feb 2017. Pg 19, Urban Development Authorities, Discussion Document)

6. While NZPI supports this intention, because it plugs a planning gap that NZPI has submitted needs to be fixed, NZPI is concerned at the limited process that has been followed to develop the proposals, that some of the proposed powers don’t go far enough, and that some go too far – especially because they could undermine property and participation rights at the core of good planning. It is of particular concern that the reasoning given for UDAs is to streamline and accelerate development whereas our understanding of the UDA approach is to enable transformation over time. More generally NZPI considers that key issues with the proposals as drafted include the lack of transparent decision-making and meaningful engagement, and Ministers having overriding decision powers. In terms of good strategic planning, NZPI questions how an assessment of effects can be conducted for development plans that are not set within the local regional and city policy framework.

NZPI’s high level comment: Lack of consistency with Productivity Commission advice

7. The Government proposes that the new legislation provide an enduring legislative tool-kit to meet the ongoing needs of urban development. NZPI notes that while Productivity Commission (PC) findings (dated 2015 and earlier) have provided a significant policy input to the design of the current proposals, this input does not include the Better Urban Planning findings and recommendations released earlier this year. These include recommendations in support of spatial planning; economic instruments including betterment or value uplift levies or taxes to fund infrastructure; and land value rating instead of capital value rating. These are major recommendations for planning legislation reform, and NZPI submits that further policy and legislative design work is needed on the UDA proposals to ensure relevant PC findings are properly incorporated.

NZPI’s high level comment: Insufficient evidence and case study analysis

8. NZPI is concerned that the rationale offered for the UDA proposals does not include an examination of urban regeneration and redevelopment projects that have already occurred in New Zealand (especially in Auckland) under current legislative arrangements. Well documented examples include: Britomart, Wynyard Quarter, New Lynn, Hobsonville, Tamaki and Whenuapai – all of which have been planned and have been or are being implemented within the jurisdiction of the RMA and in accordance with relevant planning instruments and processes (such as district plan changes). These case studies provide opportunities for a fact based assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of New Zealand’s current urban redevelopment framework, thus providing a policy basis which can be used to justify and support legislative change and intervention. As it stands the discussion document does not clearly define the problem, or provide sufficient evidence, to justify its proposals.

NZPI’s high level comment: Proposals should prioritise urban redevelopment

9. While NZPI generally supports the urban focus of the proposals, it notes the scope of the proposals as drafted appear to encompass greenfield development proposals. These are currently provided for using structure plan methods. Providing for fast-tracking or out of sequence processing of greenfield developments could conflict with long term growth planning and infrastructure investment. Urban development authority legislation needs to prioritise urban regeneration, brownfield sites or redevelopment.

NZPI’s high level comment: Strategic objectives “to accelerate/streamline” inadequate

10. NZPI considers that policy interventions to address specific urban planning issues need to be comprehensively considered alongside other urban development objectives and strategies. We note “the intention of these legislative changes is to accelerate development through streamlined land acquisition, planning and approval processes…” and that a development plan is required stipulating how a stated set of strategic objectives are to be delivered. NZPI generally supports spatial planning for the successful development of an urban environment and considers that proposed development plans should be in the form of spatial plans. NZPI cautions against planning, even spatial planning, that is limited to accelerating development. The planning for future housing or business development needs to be an integrated process which includes all elements that make a successful, livable city. These include locations for employment, social and public services and facilities, transport networks, and other infrastructure, parks, reserves and community amenities and facilities. The strategic objectives of a proposed development should provide for all of these outcomes, otherwise there is a risk that the resulting urban redevelopment project will deliver an unsuccessful and unlivable piece of city.

11. NZPI considers that the legislation should require strategic objectives for a project to include a set of measureable urban indicators specifying the delivery of minimum public good outcomes. These could be drawn from ISO 37120:2014 (Sustainable development of communities – Indicators for city services and quality of life) and include: square metres of public recreation space per capita; number of public transport trips per capita; green area per capita; jobs/housing ratio. Project specific indicators might also measure the proportion of affordable homes. The Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) Congress 2017 focussed on urban growth and included presentations emphasising the important role such indicators play in the success of urban regeneration projects in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth in particular. (NZPI can provide information about relevant case studies.)

NZPI’s high level comment: Planning profession is collaborative, rather than coercive

12. NZPI’s vision is that planning is a valued profession essential to achieving a better New Zealand. Its strategic objectives include championing the profession and supporting planners in their work and workplaces. To that end NZPI has generally encouraged and supported planning that provides for local aspirations and which takes a collaborative approach. Noting that its members will be instrumental in much of the implementation of urban development authority proposals and powers, NZPI is interested in ensuring that planners will be appropriately empowered by these provisions in the planning and facilitation of good urban redevelopment. While recognising the “stick and carrot” nature of some aspects of planning, NZPI is concerned at the weight given to coercive powers (such as compulsory purchase) and limitations on local participation, which could force planners into professional roles which ignore local aspirations and are not collaborative. NZPI considers there needs to be a greater range of powers and tools available that enable, incentivise and encourage urban redevelopment so that coercive and compulsory powers are much more of a last resort.

There are a number of other submissions on NZPI's website. Whichever major party forms the next government,  NZPI is anticipating significant change to NZ's planning systems.