When it came to the affordable housing issue in Auckland, which included declining social housing stocks, the previous Government did indicate it was prepared to spend a modest amount of money, but mostly chose to legislate and regulate. It is important to remember that the planning and institutional context for Auckland's housing affordability issue includes: supercity reforms; new Auckland Council policies including the Auckland Plan (with a target of 5% GDP growth/annum for the region); the Unitary Plan; adoption of high immigration/high population growth scenario.
The global context post the 2008 financial crisis has also formed an important backdrop to Auckland (as it has for Sydney, Brisbane, Vancouver, London and other cities increasingly seen as safe places to invest the enormous capital accumulations that have been derived by private interests in China, Middle East, India and Russia).
Auckland's population growth strategy (drawn from Stats NZ's medium growth scenario) had largely served the region's planners well from the mid 1990's to 2010 or so - though I have seen analytical work suggesting that Stats NZ's population projections for Auckland have been consistently conservative. Since that time Auckland's population growth - both permanent and temporary - has accelerated sharply, leading to sharp increases in house prices, and putting at risk central government and Auckland Council economic growth plans.
The previous Government's regulatory and legislative interventions to correct this burgeoning problem included: several changes to the Resource Management Act including a National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS UDC); the creation of Special Housing Areas (and accompanying fast track planning provisions). Ministerial responsibility for this raft of changes largely remained in the Ministry of Environment. Its wide-ranging and perhaps scatter-gun approach set of interventions are described by some as the "spray and walk-away" approach. On the sidelines, but increasingly centre stage has been the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Under the previous Government MBIE took on responsibilities for new provisions in the NPS UDC largely relating to economic and social outcomes. MBIE has also led reform initiatives that will allow the establishment of Urban Development Agencies with significant powers including compulsory purchase and land amalgamation to enable urban regeneration projects to proceed.
In the background, the Hon Bill English was responsible for progressing a further reform agenda developed with the powerful and well-resourced Productivity Commission (its work has included investigations into affordable housing, land for housing, and most recently a first principles look at NZ's urban planning system).
All of the above was underway when the Government changed at the General Election, since when announcements have been made and interventions proposed that could affect Auckland and its citizens directly, and which appear to have been prepared with little regard for Auckland's local planning processes and systems.
Key announcements which I think are highly problematic are:
- build light rail from Queen Street to Auckland Airport
- delete the Rural Urban Boundary from the Unitary Plan
- change the public transport mode proposed on SH16 to Westgate from bus to light rail
Light rail from Queen Street to Auckland Airport. The idea of light rail starting in Queen Street has been round for almost a hundred years because of the trams that used to run there, and which were connected to tramlines across the isthmus. My principle concern about this proposal is that the SkyBus service already exists. I have used it regularly about once a month for as long as it has existed. Sure it can improve (run all the way down to Quay Street/Custom Street; do away with the feeder; insert a few bus priority signals along the route; improve the bus terminus at the airport; provide priority lanes for the bus at the airport so parking congestion doesn't slow it) but it provides a 12 minute frequency service now, about 35 minutes trip time pretty much any time of day, used already by mix of local and tourist passengers. Second concern: while the Central Rail Link doesn't run exactly parallel to Queen Street it does cover a smilar catchment as the proposed Light Rail route for part of the way. This must affect any cost-benefit assessment of the proposal. And thirdly, when I chaired ARC's transport committees, the most frequent advice about proposals for rail from airport to CBD, was that the best option was to take rail from the airport to the Puhinui Station (near Wiri), and provide an interconnection with the Southern rail line which goes direct to Britomart. I recall this option was part of NZ First's election program.
Delete the RUB from the Unitary Plan. This announcement shows very limited understanding of what the Unitary Plan provides for, in terms of permitting development to occur outside the RUB. The Unitary Plan already provides mechanisms for such development - including structure plan processes and suchlike. There is no need to abolish the RUB if the objective is to enable development to occur outside it. There is general recognition among planners and those who have been engaged in regional planning processes that the elephant in the room for urban development on undeveloped land both inside and outside the RUB is who pays for the infrastructure needed. Primarily the cost of transport infrastructure - mainly roading. That is the fundamental planning issue that needs to be resolved through central government action. Adding uncertainty to the issue of rural land outside the RUB being urbanised in the near future, simply encourages further land-banking and speculation that has bedevilled implementation, investment and actual on the ground development.
Change the public transport mode proposed on SH16 to Westgate from bus to light rail. It has taken years to progress the land use and funding planning for a busway along SH16. A busway to a similar specification and equivalent to the very successful Northern Busway. Planning for the SH16 busway corridor - including all of the exit and entry ways - provides for land use developments at those points, but, more importantly it provides for those buses to leave the spinal infrastructure of the busway itself, and run along arterial roads and local connectors - many of which will include bus priority measures (such as traffic lights and bus priority lanes). Light rail trains cannot jump the tracks and run up arterial roads as buses can. Sure, in future, when capacity of the busway has been reached, that is the time to consider a higher carrying capacity mode - which might be light rail, but it might be something different. Transport technologies are changing very quickly. In 20 years better systems amy be available to upgrade to from bus systems - which is the pathway planned into the Northern Corridor busway.
Perhaps it is important for a new Government to be acting, doing things in the honeymoon period. But it is disturbing to to see it stepping heavily into the role that Local Government legislation has allocated to Auckland Council. Its elected Councillors have already had their planning powers undermined by a steady shift of decision-making powers to an independent hearings panel, and by transport planning being transferred to Auckland Transport.
Relevant Ministers would be the first to object if their abilities to intervene were shifted to senior figures in their ministries. Elections, the responsibility for taxation, and the ability to decide how money is spent are linked in a democracy. The same applies to Auckland Councillors who decide on rates and other revenue gathering methods, and then decide how the money is spent, and are accountable for it. Those simple ideas of local democracy need to be respected.
No comments:
Post a Comment