spinofflive
The steeple of NZ’s biggest casino. Photo: Dave Rowland/Getty Images
The steeple of NZ’s biggest casino. Photo: Dave Rowland/Getty Images

OPINIONAucklandAugust 15, 2016

Spinoff editorial: The war for Auckland is over. Long live the war!

The steeple of NZ’s biggest casino. Photo: Dave Rowland/Getty Images
The steeple of NZ’s biggest casino. Photo: Dave Rowland/Getty Images

Hallelujah! The Auckland Council has signed off the Unitary Plan, the crucial rulebook for the city’s future. But there remains plenty to fight for, write Hayden Donnell and Toby Manhire

The biggest battle of the War for Auckland has been won with barely a teaspoon of blood spilled. In a stunning, gravity defying moment the Auckland Council has voted to support the Unitary Plan, a blueprint paving the way for as many as 422,000 new homes in Auckland by 2040.

In four days of hearings debating the version of the plan returned by the Independent Hearings Panel, and the recommendations of Council staff in response, councillors went a long way to destroying their reputation for haplessness, with Mayor Len Brown leading largely efficient, constructive and good-humoured meetings of Auckland’s governing body. Yes, there was a fair bit of BS along the way, mainly from Mike Lee, and, yes, it was kind of pathetic that there was no overarching moment when each councillor was obliged to vote in support or opposition to the plan, but, look, today we make peace with the 20 men and women of the Auckland Council. We’ve even begun to learn to love Dick Quax.

The Sky Tower responds to news that Auckland could be OK after all. (Photo by Dave Rowland/Getty Images)
The Sky Tower responds to news Auckland might not be totally fucked after all. (Photo by Dave Rowland/Getty)

The council has rubber stamped the vast majority of the plan as sent back by the independent panel. There are a few changes, including the reinstatement of minimum sizes for apartments, a reduction in the threshold where developments must apply for resource consent from five dwellings to three, and rejection of residential zoning at the volcanic cone Crater Hill and near the Okura estuary.

There are some good changes councillors failed to make. Most notable was their decision not to reinstate protections on 2213 mana whenua sites across Auckland. The sites are not vital to the future development of the city, and protecting them would have been an important symbolic move to suggest that we, as a city, are at least vaguely aware that the majority of us were here second at best.

But the plan is passed, and it’s mostly good – even those disenfranchised by removal of the mana whenua protections will benefit from the good which comes from a vastly increased housing supply. Though there remains a sense of inevitability about legal challenges in the Environment Court, with 20 working days for limited appeals to be lodged after it is publicly notified on Friday, for all intents and purposes, this is over.

Why did the dragging feet of the council all of a sudden start busting out moves worthy of Parris Goebel? A combination of reasons, probably: the concentration of minds around the problem of housing as the issue dominated headlines for most of the year; the overwhelming signals of consensus from parliamentary politicians and the knowledge that blocking the plan would invite central government intervention; the mind-focusing impact of an election heaving into view; the fact that “leafy suburbs” were, comparatively speaking, unaffected by increased intensification in the final maps; and sheer fatigue – no one was so bloody minded as to want to run yet another lap.

And on top of all that, where were the other lot? Plucky little websites, for example, hellbent on mounting faintly hyperbolic bellicose campaigns in support of a modern, compact Auckland, emitted a warbly war cry, charged over the hill and found a battlefield full of apartment-loving peaceniks. There were a few nimby howls, some garden-variety letters to the editor, but an almost complete absence of any coherent opposition to the plan. Was it because Welsh acting legend turned Auckland 2040 figurehead Richard Burton was over in France when it came out? Had the villa-owning Boomer army lost their passion for kidnapping Auckland and returning it to the 1950s?

This warpaint-wearing elder gang turned out to be a harmless crew of environmental crusaders. Photo: Hayden Donnell
This warpaint-wearing gang turned out to be a harmless crew of environmental crusaders. Photo: Hayden Donnell

One thing’s for sure: they lost. The plan is passed, and for the first time in its existence, Auckland has a sensible, coherent growth plan that covers the whole region.

But it’s too early to start popping the corks. Actually, forget that: pop as many as you like, just get to bed at a reasonable hour because the War continues tomorrow. The local body elections are just around the corner, and there are only around 1.6 candidates standing. Bill Cashmore – a hero of the plan hearings – has happily already been elected unopposed. But at the moment it looks as though the council will be comprised of Phil Goff, Cashmore, Quax, and a series of cardboard cutouts of Mayor Robbie. They may perform better than the last lot, but a sparsely populated field is not necessarily a recipe for competent, pro-density local government. If voters don’t turn up, we could end up with a bunch of under-qualified councillors voting down many of the gains the outgoing council has made in the last few days.

We’re going to be campaigning hard during the local body elections. We want to back councillors who will support the objectives of the Unitary Plan; who don’t want to leave the city’s younger and poorer residents locked out of the market, struggling to pay for poor quality rentals, or even living in cars.

Then there’s central government. It doesn’t have any more excuses. Nick Smith has got his wish for more land supply. Bill English can’t deflect to council when asked who’s to blame for the housing shortage. Council has passed a plan that allows for an oversupply of houses in Auckland. Now the government has to make sure those houses get built, while at the same time reining in rampant property speculation across the region. No pressure or anything, but how it performs on these matters may shape the next election and, in all likelihood, its legacy.

To the barricades.

Keep going!
UnitaryPlanGenZero860

AucklandAugust 15, 2016

The Unitary Plan is all but passed. What’s it about again? Here’s an explainer for laggards

UnitaryPlanGenZero860

The new rulebook for Auckland development is almost certain to be approved by Council today. It means a final goodbye to the half-gallon, quarter-acre, pavlova paradise, and that’s a good thing, writes Leonie Freeman, former general manager of Housing New Zealand.

Make an acronym of Unitary Plan and you get UP. That’s apt: the adoption of the plan will come to be seen as a key moment in the Auckland Story.

The Plan begins with the right question: what’s the requirement for housing based on measurable future demand? It forecasts an increase of somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million new residents in Auckland by 2041. Meeting that demand means finding more than 400,000 new houses over the next 25 to 30 years. It aims to achieve that by:

1. Going up: 64% of the new capacity is found within existing urban areas

2. Going out: 36% of the capacity is in new urban areas, made possible by letting out the Rural-Urban Boundary by 30% over the period.

There’s a strong focus on short-term solutions, a response to the mess Auckland currently faces on the housing supply front. The plan makes provision for 131,000 dwellings to be found over the next seven years.


Click here for The Unitary Plan explained in gif form …

compacttt


It’s goodbye to the Half Gallon, Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise – though in truth, that’s been little more than an urban legend for many Aucklanders for some time now. This plan represents a pivotal moment for Auckland not just because it asks the right questions but because it seems to supply a series of good answers. For the first time we actually have an integrated, consistent, long-term strategy for our city. It’s a massive improvement on the old jigsaw puzzle of individual plans for each of the councils that had to be merged to form the Super City.

It starts with the zoning. In simplifying the residential zoning types to just six, the plan prescribes a dramatic reduction of the area dedicated to the traditional one house on a section – by 22% on average across the city and by more than 42% in the central isthmus.

The area zoned Mixed Housing Suburban (allowing up to two houses of up to two storeys per section) increases by 5%. The Mixed Housing Urban category (where you can build up to two houses of up to three storeys without resource consent) increases dramatically, by nearly 48%. Town Houses and Apartments (four to six storeys), focused on intensification around town centres and transport hubs, grows by more than 25%.

Critics of the plan have already spotted what they see as anomalies. Chief among them is the fact that councillors are now giving up on prescribing affordable housing – there is no specific provision in it around affordability. However, the mechanism proposed to achieve affordable housing was complex and would have been formidably difficult to implement and monitor. In fact, it was a mechanism that could potentially have produced perverse outcomes, actually reducing the efficiency of the housing market.

But that doesn’t mean the Unitary Plan dodges the affordability dilemma. Instead, it is designed to procure affordability by:

  • enabling a significant increase in development capacity to match demand
  • permitting a much greater range of housing sizes and types
  • supporting intensification in the centres and key public transport hubs
  • not imposing undue implementation costs.

The old density provisions have also gone in the Unitary Plan, so no density requirements at all for the Mixed Housing Suburban/Urban and townhouse/apartment zones. Note that this doesn’t mean you can build as many units as you want on a site. What it means is that you have to analyse each site individually to understand what you can do with it. Development controls on factors such as height, height in relation to boundary and building coverage all remain.

Much of the reasoning for the removal of the specific density provisions was that, inevitably, they lead to an inefficient use of land. They encourage maximising site development through building larger units. This, in turn, crowds out the potential for smaller dwellings to be built and has an impact on affordability, since the larger units are usually more expensive. No density limits should enable considerably greater housing capacity and housing choice.

The last of the apparent “anomalies” I want to consider here relates to cultural heritage/mana whenua. On the face of it, the removal of specific cultural heritage/mana whenua provisions, like the removal of the affordability and density prescriptions, may seem to contradict the intention of the planners. However, as the plan was refined and developed, this was an area identified as needing considerably more work. Some 3,600 sites and places of value under mana whenua were identified by means of the New Zealand Archaeological Association database of sites, rather than by a searching consideration of mana whenua values or the degree of significance of those values case by case.

The Unitary Plan, therefore, recommends a two-tier approach to protection of sites that are special to mana whenua (similar to that which will apply in the interim for historic heritage buildings) – acknowledging there is further work to be done in developing a comprehensive schedule.

The interim approach is, rather than setting in stone a blanket designation and then putting home builders to the effort and cost of having it removed, a designation can be applied for, relative to a particular building or site.

A lot of the plan is mind-numbing in its jargon and complexity. At times it feels like a series of small steps for the planners – but it’s a giant leap for Auckland.

It won’t, of itself, create additional homes. But it provides land owners, developers and the suppliers of infrastructure – transport, water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity and telecommunications networks – with clear ground rules to be able to get on and deliver. And, above all, it clears away the accumulation of crap that has done so much to frustrate us in building with urgency to meet demand.

So, what next? The councillors are working through the plan as returned by the Independent Hearings Panel now. They’re not far away, with a decision expected as early as this afternoon. They have the final say, which is the proper way of doing things in a system of representative government. By August 19th, we’ll be looking to them to provide real leadership in this space for our city rather than knee-jerk or populist posturing.

The right decision will be an overwhelming endorsement of the Unitary Plan. It’s in this Council’s hands to empower Auckland to move, as it must, UPwards, outwards and onwards. So much better than, downwards, inwards and backwards, don’t you think?

The War for Auckland is a Spinoff pop-up section devoted to the 2016 Unitary Plan and local elections. To support our journalism, click here.