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.

Auckland Plan - Users Guide

The Auckland Council has published 4 plans and invites submissions from citizens. These must be in by October 25th. Through NZ Herald, Deputy Mayor Hulse worries there might be more than 3000 submissions and they might not be able to be heard. Apparently - in law - any citizen who wants to be heard can request to be heard, and Council must meet that need. Cllr Hulse is seeking advice about this.... it's a worry...


Unfortunately, the documents are massive.

The Draft Auckland Plan alone is 250 pages long.

The Draft Economic Development Strategy is over 100 pages.

The Draft City Centre Masterplan is around 200 pages.

The Draft Waterfront Plan is estimated to be around 300 pages.

That's around 800 pages total. I've looked briefly at the Auckland Plan and it's a dense read. You can get printed copies, and you can download files from the Council website. But as Brian Rudman reports today in his NZ Herald column, these files are huge and even caused his computer to hang.

So. It's a big ask. Rudman's advice is to download the questionnaires and enter your feedback into them. That's not a bad idea. You can meaningfully submit without reading 800 pages.

Click here to go to that webpage. It has links to the plans, and links to submission forms.

But you probably miss the real objectives behind these plans.

My two decades of experience of Auckland "Long Term Planning" suggests that it is not really about long term planning at all. It is really about short term projects and short term thinking. Auckland local government institutions - despite their history - have a remarkably short term focus. Apart from motorways. But then those were planned by Central Government's Ministry of Works years ago. Even the North Shore Busway was planned as mitigation for a motorway project, by Transit, the nation's motorway provider.

What happens in Auckland "long term planning" is that it all crystallises in those pages at the back where actual projects get listed. The ones at the top get built. The rest don't. It's pretty easy really.

Why do we think short term - especially in Auckland? I'd like to introduce some new thinking here. National cultures can be described according to the analysis of Geert Hofstede. These ideas were first based on a large research project into national culture differences across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries. Studies identified and validated four independent dimensions of national culture differences, with a fifth dimension added later.

A good link about these ideas is here.

The cultural dimensions are:

• Power Distance
• Individualism
• Masculinity
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Long-Term Orientation

I won't go into detail here, but just summarise the key cultural differences between New Zealand, Japan and Sweden. I should point out that these assessments are averages. They are not immutable. They change over time. They can be recognised and compensated for - in planning terms. But they shouldn't necessarily be given into. Especially if planners recognise the problem caused by doing as we have always done (A: You get what you've always got....).

So. Comparisons. See the table. Hofstede’s Power Distance Index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. NZ's score indicates a low acceptance that power be distributed unequally. Which you'd expect.

Individualism is the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. NZ's score is high. Influenced by a mix of free market entrepreneurialism, and the happy anarchy that many NZers have.

Masculinity versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM studies revealed that (a) women’s values differ less among societies than men’s values; (b) men’s values from one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different from women’s values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women’s values on the other. The assertive pole has been called ‘masculine’ and the modest, caring pole ‘feminine’. This is one of the interesting ones for NZ to look at - not so much the difference between NZ and Japan, but the difference between NZ and Sweden - one of the caring Nordic countries. Read in NZ planning - look out for male bullying.

Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it ultimately refers to man’s search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’. Again, NZ is much less tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity than Sweden. Read: NZ unhappy with uncertainty in planning (though the process of planning is uncertain by its nature, though not of its findings in the end).

Long-Term Orientation is the fifth dimension of Hofstede which was added after the original four to try to distinguish the difference in thinking between the East and West. From the original IBM studies, this difference was something that could not be deduced. Therefore, Hofstede created a Chinese value survey which was distributed across 23 countries. From these results, and with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on the East, long term vs. short term orientation became the fifth cultural dimension.

Below are some characteristics of the two opposing sides of this dimension:

Long term orientation:
-persistence
-ordering relationships by status and observing this order
-thrift
-having a sense of shame

Short term orientation:
-personal steadiness and stability
-protecting your ‘face’
-respect or tradition
-reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts

While NZ scores on a par with Sweden, what makes this an interesting cultural aspect of NZ institutional behaviour, especially how local Government institutions behave, is its relationship with Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance.

Could it explain why Auckland Local Government is characterised by male bullying (high masculinity score), pet projects (reciprocation of favours and gifts), blaming others (protecting your 'face'), no genuine consultation (discomfort with uncertainty)? Food for thought.

Politicians and others with an inside track in this major Auckland Council planning exercise make sure their projects - their pet projects - are in there somewhere. Near the top preferably. Doesn't really matter about the long term vision. It will never happen. Just make sure my project happens.

My experience of Auckland local government politics reinforces this. Want to know what happens immediately after most council elections? Generally the mayor meets with councillors - one on one - and asks them, "what do you really want to deliver in the next three years. For your area. What project is really important to you...?"

And councillors, once they get over the realisation that this is how it's done, answer the question. The mayor makes a list. Knows what to do.

These projects have nothing to do with long term planning. They are usually ill-thought-out and populist. maybe you think I'm being a bit cynical. Long term planning is paralysis by analysis and we'll never build anything. Might as well build something.

That's how we get Cruise Ship terminals right to the end of Queens Wharf that will stuff the waterfront up for the public long term. It's how we get the crazy idea that Warkworth should be an intensively developed satellite town - part of the sustainable growth strategy. It's how we get a railway station at the least justified option at Parnell. It's how we get a ferry service to Takapuna.....

To name a few pet projects that have crept onto these 800 pages, and been prioristed, without adequate justification. Proper justification would demonstrate how those particular projects contribute to the delivery of long term goals AND demonstrate in a robust manner that of all other options that exist, the chosen project is the best use of public money.

I would like the submission process and timetable to be a time when people discover or uncover these pet projects lurking in the fine print of these glossy publications, and out them. So that they can be exposed and be subject to the submissions they deserve. Long term planning should not be manipulated by turning it into a vehicle to deliver pet projects and populist promises.

Come on Auckland Council. Look in the mirror and learn from past behaviour. Auckland neither wants nor needs an action reply of past planning practices.

Unitary Plan Pros & Cons

She did a good job. Penny Pirrit. Manager Regional and Local Planning for Auckland Council. Presenting Auckland Council's current ideas about consolidating all of Auckland's RMA planning documents into one plan, one Unitary Plan, at the University of Auckland "Fast Forward 2011" lecture on August 17th. In this posting I will report from my notes of the lecture, interspersed with a few comments and questions that occurred to me as the lecture unfolded.... The lecture began with the Mayor's Vision - that Auckland become the world's "most liveable city". Comment: I decided I'd look up "liveable" in Google. One of those words that drive me nuts because I don't know what they mean. Try it. Google first of all asks you if you mean "loveable". When I insisted on liveable, it gave me this meaning: "fit or suitable to live in or with" and added: "Familiarity information: LIVEABLE used as an adjective is very rare...."

This isn't the graphic that came up in Penny's presentation, but it more or less is. The planning structure has the Auckland Plan at the top - as I understand it that is essentially the Spatial Plan required by legislation. The Implementation Plans include such things as the Regional Transport Plan. To the right is the LTCCP or Long Term Plan required by the Local Government Act. The subject of this lecture was the Unitary Plan which is the term used to describe what will happen to Auckland's current set of Resource Management Act (RMA) planning documents - which include the 7 District Plans (prepared by Franklin, Papakura, Manukau, Auckland, Waitakere, North Shore, Rodney Councils) and the Auckland Regional Policy Statement. I presume they also include plans like the Air, Land and Water Plan. We were advised there would be 3 scales of integrated planning, making up the Auckland Plan. There would be the Auckland Spatial Plan at the top of this hierarchy of documents, then Area Plans, then Precinct Plans. Comment: The definition of the regional Spatial Plan is clearly geographic - rather than issue led. As such it is of the type of Spatial Plan favoured in Europe a decade or so ago. Penny advised there will be 21 Area Plans - one for each Local Board area. These would be integrated land use and infrastructure plans for each Board area, and be "place-based". Interestingly it appears that the plans already prepared by Auckland City Council for Auckland Isthmus will not be redone, "because they were recently completed..." This part of the presentation was accompanied by a predictable picture of how high the pile of RMA planning documents stands (about 2 metres high), and commentary to the effect that some of the plans were past were past their use-by dates (some are past their review-by dates - for example North Shore City Council). Comment: This did make me wonder about the stormwater and wastewater network discharge consent work that has been done by Councils, and also the Integrated Catchment Management Plans. Where will all that fit? It appears Auckland council has considered a range of approaches to preparing the Unitary Plan. various options were considered. Apparently Council wants, "the whole kahuna". That everything should be put into one RMA plan. Though it appears that the Gulf Islands RMA plans will be excluded "because they are recent". Another Auckland exception. The goal is to notify the draft Unitary Plan in the early part of 2013.

Penny explained that that it is anticipated that the Auckland Plan will be finished early in 2012, and that there would be pressure to implement it through plan changes and private plan changes, unless Auckland Council can get the Unitary Plan finished qucikly enough... Comment: Man oh man. Quick intake of breath here. For the Auckland Plan to cut the mustard it really needs to be based upon the 21 Area Plans. Is there a cat's chance in hell of getting those done in the next 6 months, to build the Auckland Plan upon? Unlikely. More likely is the Auckland Plan will be done first, and later, much later, it will be divided up into 21 Local Board Plans. The Auckland Plan alone is a very big ask for a new organisation.... We were advised there were three big challenges to getting the Unitary Plan done: the RMA itself, the 3 year political cycle, and expectations. The RMA issues were interesting. The RMA is not about outcomes, it is about effects. The Unitary Plan needs to be about positives, not just about negatives. Penny explained that the Unitary Plan needed to be defensible. Her guidance is that the RMA needs to be "set aside" in order for the new Auckland Council to be able to produce a defensible plan. Identify areas of the Unitary Plan that disagree with the RMA. And then negotiate with Government and MfE to change the RMA. Comment: Wow. Big call. About time. Not sure what Dr Smith will make of this though. Penny advocated strongly "we need to stick our neck out, take the risk, and what we do might need to be tested in the Environment Court..." Comment: This is another big call. It's a bit like what Auckland Regional Council needed to do in defending the MUL, the Metropolitan Urban Limit, as a method that was appropriate in terms of the RMA in enabling integrated management of natural resources... We were advised that Auckland Council has already put submissions in to Central Government to remove RMA appeal rights to plan changes, and new plans - because those changes represent strategic statements of the Council. Another big call. I can't imagine various land owners agreeing to this. They will want to protect their property rights till the cows come home. But I agree. How can a Council control natural resource use, when it's going to be dragged into the Environment Court where some notion of "balance" and a "judge's weighing of issues" can put at risk a broader call." The next part of Penny's presentation was a bit irritating. And Penny did say her tongue was a little in her cheek as she spoke to us. There are four lots of expectations: 1) Developers want certainty 2) The community wants involvement in all applications - except their own 3) Interest groups are quite prepared to waive private property rights in the public interest, and "are the hardest groups to deal with" 4) Designers who want flexibility in process to do what they think is best and not be fettered by rules... Comment: Where do you go with this Penny? It has always been this way. And as the public learns more and expects more, then more involvement and participation will be required. It's one of the reasons for those parts of the RMA. Which are steadily being eroded - by the way. Land use planning has been, and always will be, a contest. Whether it is between short term and long term interests, whether it's private property rights vs the common good, whether it's central government forcing the hand of local communities. You cannot short-cut these processes - unless you want revolt... And we know the political cycle is short, making it hard to take councillors along. Penny then went on to talk about another layer of Unitary Plan working issues: - certainty vs flexibility (includes process vs outcome, rules vs criteria) - level of intervention (lessons from the past, doing it right for the right reasons) - integration of regional and district (RMA reqs, remove duplication, ensure env protection) At this point Penny digressed a little and stated that "the market approach does not work", in the context of learning from the past. Comment: I agree. The market is mainly interested in making a profit. There are plenty of examples of market failure in RMA planning. But how do you rate the chances of Central Government changing the RMA to provide for more Council certainty and intervention in land use planning and resource management? And there are more issues: - affordable development (over 300,000 homes are needed, these need to be safe, warm, healthy and affordable, "whether they are designed by an architect is irrelevant to many...." - public good vs private rights (impact on private rights, heritage and character debate, what sort of tools are needed to relieve burden on private interests carrying public interest) - capacity to deliver (Penny's view: we must deliver a planning process that can be delivered without undue cost. She was very critical of those who are arguing that the Unitary Plan review must be "design led...") Comment: I agree here. What does "design-led" actually mean anyway? It's another example of no-speak. A bit like sloppy use of words like "sustainability", "amenity", and even "planning".... if planning means everything then perhaps it means nothing... Why do I say this? Ok: Every leaky home was designed. Architecture is a design-led process. Some wonderfully design-led homes are leaking homes. What went wrong? The hopes behind the words "design-led" are another example of hope over experience. Here we need concrete experience to lead the unitary plan work. Not some undefined design. Penny ended with a list of principles for the Unitary Plan. The Unitary Plan needs to: 1) give effect to the Auckland Plan; 2) be innovative; 3) be user friendly; 4) be outcome focussed; 5) have minimum repetition; 6) use illustrations and diagrams; 7) ensure planning gain outweighs planning pain. Comment: The main question I was left with: "Is simple necessarily good? and for whom?". I feel that the pressure to harmonise (remove duplication) risks bland planning ironing over diversity in urban landscapes. As if one size fits all. That's what we see in Brisbane after 80 years or so of uniform regional planning. I can understand why councillors might yearn for simplicity - the whole kahuna - but there's a big risk here of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Think where the calls are coming from for simplicity and unformity. Think what's broke and fix that. Don't repeat the whole mistake of regional amalgamation (where we lost a lot) and do the same again with District Plans. In my experience the devil is in the detail in land use planning. Many fine-grained rules are there to protect the living quality of different residential and commercial environments in different parts of the region. If you really want a "liveable city", think of that definition of the Mayor's vision: fit or suitable to live in.... That is what those plans and rules were built over time to protect. Don't destroy them just because they seem complicated. Life is complicated. And it doesn't get easier by throwing out the rule book.