Auckland's Unitary Plan to be softened

Property

Auckland Mayor Len Brown tells Radio NZ his council's Unitary Plan will be watered down with some changes 'too much too soon'

15th May 13, 9:49am by Gareth Vaughan

Len Brown

Auckland Council's draft Unitary Plan, its blueprint for the city's development over the next 30 years, appears set to be watered down with Mayor Len Brown accepting some proposed changes may have been too much too soon, Radio NZ reports.

The height of apartment blocks in coastal areas and the pace of housing intensification will be re-thought, Brown said.

The pace of change in some areas might slow and some proposed increases in building heights could be reduced, Radio NZ reports.

The draft Unitary Plan sets out plans to accommodate up to another one million people in Auckland with 60% of new development happening within the city's existing urban boundaries, and the balance taking place in satellite towns such as Warkworth and Pukekohe. See an interview on the plan with Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse here.

Brown told Radio NZ the council is bowing to pressure and acknowledging developing Auckland into an "international city" won't happen overnight.

"Change needs to be done with the community, and over a period of time, so we absolutely will maintain the integrity of the plan but make some changes to bring our community with us," Brown said.

Consultation on the plan is open until May 31.

The consultation thus far has featured several rowdy community meetings.

"It has been by far the most intense and well frequented engagement that I've ever had in all of my community public life," Brown told Radio NZ.

"In some of the meetings there has been some high level of emotion, particularly in the coastal townships. It has just been outstanding."

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

35 Comments

by 2 Tooth Bora | 15th May 13, 11:00am 1368572444

Stop farting around and trying to please everybody!

Auckland needs a strong leader whos going to make the tough clear decisions and get on with what needs to be done for the future.

Aucklands biggest down fall has been the Council whom always struggles to address the tuff descisions and get what needed done. One hopes we don't end up with a half baked solution.

What community - define? Who were those people at the meetings? A very small portion of the greater community. The community well continue to evolve and adapt with new faces.

People need affordable housing close to main employers or transport hubs.

How hard is that to do. Why has it taken so long?

Stop pandering to the over priced property ponzi scheeme. It has been proven housing must be three times the average salary. Not 80% of ones income, disposable income would be better spent on families or in the economy.

Make descision and get on with it stop procrastinating, be a real leader and make the big descisions for the majority, not a select few, just get on with it.

As Bob Dylan put it "Admit that the waters around you have grown and accept that soon

you'll be drenched to the bone, your old road is rapidly agin, please get out of the new one, if you can't lend your hand, for the times they are a-changin"

by bob | 15th May 13, 12:14pm 1368576880

" Who were those people at the meetings?"

There was a photo posted somewhere of one of those meetings - some would say it looked like mostly grey haired, grumpy old people for whom affordable housing is not an issue and who would be unlikely to live long enough to actually see any signifigant changes under the Unitary Plan if it was made operative tomorrow. I wouldn't make generalizations like that myself.

by Kiwi | 15th May 13, 11:54am 1368575687

Driverless cars could completely change Auckland's growth management plans.

Google’s vehicles have already driven more than 400,000 miles without an accident and are beginning to be legalised in US states.

...

By allowing people to relax or work as they commute, they will deal a devastating blow to public transport in all but the densest, most congested areas.

...

The biggest US think-tanks, universities, forecasters and corporations are busily trying to work out how, not if, the world will change as a result of driverless cars, and who the winners and losers will be.

...

It will be possible to cram in far more cars into existing roads, driving at much faster speeds. Simulations of intelligently controlled intersections from the University of Texas suggest that they perform 200 to 300 times better than current traffic signals. Self-driving vehicles will have the ability to “platoon”, acting almost like train carriages on motorways, increasing lane capacity by up to 500pc, according to research from the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

...

Driverless cars will once again boost the value of suburbs and country living, and their house prices: far more people will be willing to commute much longer distances to work or school. This will encourage cities to become even more sprawling, putting massive pressure on existing planning rules. The premium on living centrally will be reduced, albeit not eliminated because of congestion, which means there will still be a need for some urban rail services.

...

In 20 years’ time, the demand will be for far more car journeys and more roads, reversing the trend of the past decade and the recent resurgence of the railways. We will be entering a new golden age for car travel. By then, Cameron’s HS2, due in 2032, will be just another useless white elephant – a tragic reminder, as if any more were needed, of just how bad Britain’s ossified government is at anticipating the trends of the future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/10028288/HS2-is-already-obsolete-David-Cameron-should-be-preparing-the-UK-for-self-driving-cars.html

It seems like Driverless cars are a reason to build out and not up.

Before Len starts spending billions to remake a city it might pay to think seriously about a driverless car future.

by bob | 15th May 13, 12:07pm 1368576429

Given the success and widespread adoption of personal helicoptors for commuting...

http://www.paleofuture.com/storage/1950%20helicopters%20tinsley%20paleo-future.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1312655959501

... I am very excited about the free energy driverless car.

by Kiwi | 15th May 13, 12:45pm 1368578727

Some people have to actually see the future to believe it, others can imagine a different world without actually seeing it and those types actually change the world.

by powerdownkiwi | 15th May 13, 12:56pm 1368579369

Kiwi - nobody - but nobody - changes the requirement for energy.

No amount of cognitive cogitation alters the laws of physics.

Nor increases the amount of any finite resource.

Nor supports unlimited growth - exponential growth - within a set of finite parameters.

Mind you, I acknowledge you didn't say "change for the better". I'll grant you they can change it. in other ways..... :)

by Kiwi | 15th May 13, 1:11pm 1368580261

The Sun is an almost infinite source of free energy.

Solar is getting better and cheaper all the time. Li-ion battery storage is going to get a lot cheaper.

We could end up having a surplus of free energy. Cars are going electric.

Transportation problem solved?

Yes, change can be for the worse.Congressmen who decided that we didn't need any laws to stop Bankers from blowing up the World's financial system was a change for the worse.

by steven | 15th May 13, 1:46pm 1368582375

Hi Kiwi, no transport problem not solved.

You need to do some serious reading on batteries, the source of the raw materials for them and the end cost, ie supply is limited, and manufacturing clean room complex so its unlikely that they will ever be mass produced. For instance today a MiEv is $65k and lasts 12 years, 3 times the cost of a petrol car and at most 2/3rds the life span. Lets say those costs can be halved, how many ppl today could be a new car for $35k? unless on 5 or 7 years HP? (so its real cost is way more) How long will it take to get the technology to that price point? 10 years? 20 years? Of the lithium is pretty much one or 2 mines in the world and that is that?

How do you put batteries in hvy transport? ie lorries? farm tractors? cant currently be done.

Sun's energy isnt infinite there are only so many watts per sqm and with inifiite growth ie doubling ever so many years you would be surprised how soon we'd use that up.

regards

by Kiwi | 15th May 13, 2:10pm 1368583843

Raw Materials

As electronics proliferate around the world, South Korea plans to meet demand by extracting lithium from seawater, according to a new report.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/south-korea-plans-to-extract-lithium-from-seawater/13645

Watts/sqm

The solar power-plant maker has released a peer-reviewed paper claiming that solar-thermal electricity could power 90% of the US grid, with enough left over for plug-in hybrid cars.

it would represent "less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines, and a tiny fraction of the land currently in agricultural use."

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/ausra-solar-power-around-the-clock-enough-for-90-of-us-grid.html

If this was true for Solar thermal then I think it is also true for solar electric panels.

by steven | 16th May 13, 9:33am 1368653607

Energy return on energy invested....getting lithium from water with a PPM of almost nothing should tell you,

a) the process will be very expensive, more than many ppl can pay. This also means EV's wont get cheap as fossil fuel cars.

b) Most importanly no one in their right mind chooses to extract a raw material so dilute unless there is no other option.

c) That should speak volumes of how the peak lithium output is already seen as way to low to meet expected demand.

"solar plant maker", so a vested interest, peer reviewed? that will be interesting to check out, URL, cant see anything in your link (that works, the PDF isnt available) "http://www.ausra.com/" is no longer valid, so they went bankrupt? http://venturebeat.com/2009/01/29/ausra-lowers-sights-on-solar-plants-c… but a 5 year old non-peer reviewed, clueless journalist. So economic downturn makes the idea not profitable, ie ppl cant pay. See EROEI.

NB When do hybrids charge? usually over-night and at home, no sun over-night. So then car parks with charge points, and the cost per week for that? Or the grid needed? US has no National grid, so 2 Trillion for that...if the states allow cross border poer lines which they dont want.

regards

by powerdownkiwi | 16th May 13, 8:13am 1368648793

Kiwi - it's like going back, yet again, to teach a new intake class.

Yes, we will end up on solar, and/or secondary solar (wind, hydro). No, it won't support BAU. I'm a past co-chair of Solar Action, live off-grid, have friends converting Rav4's to electric, ride an electric bike..... but;

Batteries - regardless of enthusiasm - are a weight to lug around, far in excess of a tankful of gas, and currently somewhere between 40-50% of global electricity is fossil-fuelled. That's at peak pumping-rate, so we will have to triage something to build the new infrastructure. No, it won't be enough, and it won't be in time. Too many other resource scarcities, too many other demands on a dwindling real supply of energy.

And solar isn't a physical feedstock; bitumen, fertiliser, plastics (oddly enough, 3D printers need feedstock) etc.

Yes, banking is one of the problems - but the whole capitalist/growth system has to change, or ultimately we alter things to the point where we die. Pretty interesting, the mental disconnect. We all understand you can suicide by feeding the exhaust into the closed car, but somehow can't grasp that we're running the same game on a global scale.

You live as you do now, thanks to a capital system which screws 3rd world folk out of the opportunity to farm their own land for themselves, creates the Bangladesh working-conditions, and fails to value social or environmental impacts, just values 'profit'. It has no way of stopping itself, but it will stop, Better that the cessation is controlled.

by steven | 16th May 13, 9:46am 1368654396

Its worse though, with a new class they,

a) have got enough intelligence to get into uni, ie can apply it to research. think and apply logic to reach sound, justified conclusions.

b) Have a real interest in and affinity for the subject(s), if they are going to pass anyway.

c) have no cast in stone fringe political beliefs that you have to prise off them.

So this is more like groundhog day, than a new term/year.

regards

by notaneconomist | 16th May 13, 10:53am 1368658412

PDK - there is a huge difference between captialism and a corruption.

by powerdownkiwi | 16th May 13, 11:59am 1368662360

Not in terms of outcome, there isn't. I don't care if the folk in the boardroom think they're 'nice' or not, their obligation is to maximise profit, then to maximise that, then to maximise that.

You call it 'making a surplus' - and confuse it with sustainability.

The problem - and if you've ever played Monopoly, you'll have experienced it - is that the strong bget stronger, and the weak mortgage themselves out of the game.

I appreciate that by denying that such is the case, you can deny responsibility for what happens in Bangladesh, Bhopal or Nigeria, but some of us see things for what they are.

Question as it relates to this thread is; how much more expensive would housing be if we didn't rely on repressed others for cheap fuel and other resources?

by notaneconomist | 16th May 13, 3:49pm 1368676154

PDk - stop spreading fear there is plenty of room for everyone and maybe you should study the worlds population demographics not Malthus. I can't believe that University down there funds and wastes time on very unscientific issues such as the sustainability and anti-capitalist propoganda that is being preached.

From the Over population - making of a myth website.

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house. ( you can do your own figures to get actuals for up to date info).

There are partsof the world that if farmed properly could be the food bowl for the entire worlds population. Now just what part of the above do you think is unsustainable. This could be the answer to some of your other concerns.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fos…

Of course the strong are going to get stronger they are exercising and honing their skills. You have the choice to take action or be stationary.

There is abundance and opportunity everywhere. You just got to take action. You might not always get it right and you will get knocked and screw up but like a small child learning to walk you get back up and give it another go.

by waymad | 15th May 13, 1:19pm 1368580797

Howz zis fer a scenario:

RT's Tiwai smelter goes pots up (was gonna say tits but that's just gross)
NZ hydro energy supply thereby goes up by 15+ (plus because 15 is the fraction that Tiwai currently (sorry) consumes of a total that includes thermal plus geothermal)
We plug a whole buncha Toyota Priuses or similar into that released energy gap via Duly Certified Extension Leads
which 'lectric power increment, being an already sunk cost, an already raised lake, yada yada, is not an incremental cost to the environment or to the Exchequer (been longing ter use that word fer a while, now)
The 'lectric cars get retrofitted with Android drivers or other electron-torturing goodies
Productivity improves and economy lifts as all those people work during their commute, just exactly like London Tube pax do
The Meridian float, secure now all that 'lectrical capacity is being Gainfully Employed driving Awklanders to and fro, - er - Floats
and, Best of All, the Unitary Plan can now allow for Lifestyle Block Conversions to urban density, as the Commute Externality fades down to a Sustainable (at a nice comfy level of Comfort) level.

Win-win-win-win-win, I'd say.

Except of course for the Cassandra types...for them, the Munch Scream stays as their role model.

by bob | 15th May 13, 1:37pm 1368581848

Luckily the elements required to build batteries are endless...

by steven | 15th May 13, 1:53pm 1368582783

really? so we are on a flat earth then? I must tell the spanish inquistion they were right after all.

Even if that were the case the energy cost and return to gather and process such abundance isnt.

regards

by bob | 15th May 13, 2:19pm 1368584396

Did I need to add a /s tag?

by powerdownkiwi | 16th May 13, 8:23am 1368649413

Waymad is an interesting mix. Gets lots of it, and thinks, but needs to read Ted Trainers 'The Transition to a Sustainable and Just world'. Unlike me, he thinks we have to be altruistic to survive; reading his book, I'm wondering if he may be right.

Yes, thedisplacing of Tiwai would be good, and yes, electric transport is - qualifiedly - good.

But productivity improves and economy lifts? Spare me. To work? Again, what work, doing what to what, expecting to buy what with the proceeds?

Better rural hub clusters (they were called towns and villages) but the bigger problem is reducing overall consumption - which would be made easier with population reduction.

by steven | 16th May 13, 10:19am 1368656346

"population reduction" now there is a taboo topic. We cant even discuss not having anymore than there are now without huge emotion.

Therefore nature will in its indifferent way sort it out.....then of course its the swapped lifeboat scenario.

Disappointing for a so called rational and thinking species.

regards

by KH | 16th May 13, 10:47am 1368658077

New Zealand population reducing down to about one million. There would be huge financial benefits. Would take about 100 years. Think that we would not have hear about the Auckland rail loop anymore. Or envisage sending money north to pay for it.

And the country would be a marvellous place to be. Once again you would be able to sail into a deserted Northland bay. And camp on the beach for the whole summer.

I think we could manage that. And the rest of the world could do so as well.

by bob | 15th May 13, 1:35pm 1368581711

It's 2013. I was promised that by now I'd be able to holiday on the moon, not have to work 'cos machines would do it all, hoverboards, artificial Intellegence, zero disease (thanks to human geneome mapping), segways for all and other cool s*&t.

I guess for every true visionary there's a few thousand sci fi fans.

by Andrew R | 15th May 13, 10:24pm 1368613467

Pity that all of Auckland had to be converted into roads to cater for the driveless car miracle (so called). I have two bridges for sale you might be interested in ....

by kin | 15th May 13, 12:06pm 1368576361

The so called Unitary Plan was not really a plan, more like aspiration....so Len gets to test his popularity and reelection chances...so far he is fine tuning his Unitary Plan accordingly to the "aspirations" of Aucklanders....and his reelection chances.

As for affordable housing in Auckland, where was the word " affordable " ever mentioned ?

by bob | 15th May 13, 12:17pm 1368577073

Len realises that the people who want affordable housing are not the same people who vote in local body elections.

by Gareth Vaughan | 15th May 13, 5:05pm 1368594302

Len Brown's interview with Radio NZ came hot on the heels of this "myth buster" press release from the council;

Unitary Plan: myths busted Mis-information is being spread about the draft Auckland Unitary Plan, which is causing misunderstanding and unnecessary concern amongst our communities. We welcome your feedback but it is important that it is based on facts and what is actually being proposed, rather than myths. You have less than three weeks - 31 May – to submit feedback. Below are the most commonly incorrect statements being made about the draft plan and the correct situation. Myth 1: Your house could be taken off you and be demolished to make way for terraced housing and apartments. Fact: Nobody will be forced to change their way of living. Auckland Council does not have the power to take your property from you. Nothing will ever change on your property unless you as the property owner decide to renovate, build or sell. Myth 2: Auckland Council is trying to attract 1 million more people. Fact: Auckland Council is not trying to attract more people nor does it have a target for another 1 million people. We are however prudently planning for it. The figure of 1 million is based on the Statistics New Zealand high growth rate, which has made predictions about Auckland’s population for the next 30 years. Most of the growth will be from Aucklanders having children and migration from within New Zealand. Myth 3: Apartments are planned in every neighbourhood. Fact: They won’t appear in every neighbourhood. In fact the proposed terraced housing and apartment building zone will make up only 7% of Auckland’s total residential land use. Myth 4: High density = high rise. Fact: No. The majority of future Auckland housing will remain at two storeys. Increased density will be achieved by allowing for well-designed housing options on smaller lots. Multi-level dwellings in residential areas will be only between four and six storeys, not high-rise which is considered over nine storeys. Some of the areas proposed for terrace housing and apartments already have apartments of this height. Myth 5: Aucklanders do not want to live in apartments. Fact: Many Aucklanders already choose to live in apartments. There are 3-4 level apartments across Auckland. Those choosing this lifestyle are not just younger Aucklanders or students but baby boomers who are downsizing their property for low maintenance living. Myth 6: The draft Unitary Plan will allow for rows of badly designed block buildings and shoeboxes. Fact: Quality design for our city’s future development and public spaces is a top priority under the proposed Unitary Plan rules. Some of what’s been built in Auckland in the past has been too small, not enough variety, and not well designed. The rules for minimum unit sizes is proposed to be 30sq m plus a mandatory 8 sq m outdoor living space. There cannot be a building solely made up of units of a minimum size as there are limits on how many of one type of unit a building can have. The draft Unitary Plan sets design controls, which will be supported by the Auckland Design Manual. Myth 7: There is not adequate protection for heritage homes. Fact: The draft Auckland Unitary Plan provides more protection for character and heritage homes than currently exists. The Plan recognises that a balance is needed for homes of historic character. It proposes a set of rules and controls that acknowledges Auckland‘s distinctive villa and bungalow suburbs and that a number of factors are needed to fairly evaluate what homes should be protected from demolition or removal. At the same time, it recognises that some residents want to have the ability to make changes to their home. While these evaluations are being done, the Plan proposes an interim blanket protection for all pre-1944 buildings. Myth 8: The Council is deliberately creating a divide between the young and old. Fact: Auckland Council is involving all Aucklanders in the discussion about our city’s future and we are not singling out or favouring any particular section of our diverse community. We are getting feedback from all ages. Myth 9: Infrastructure and transport are ignored in the Unitary Plan. Fact: Planned new developments will only occur with adequate infrastructure in place. The draft Auckland Unitary Plan sets out rules to ensure safe, efficient and secure development, operation and upgrading of infrastructure. The Plan has specific sections on infrastructure. However, it is wrong to expect that the Plan deals or must deal with all aspects of infrastructure. Myth 10: If a terrace house or apartment is built next to me, I will experience shadowing, loss of privacy and sunlight. Fact: The draft Plan has specific rules that will protect the privacy, sunlight etc. of neighbours that apply to all such new apartment developments. They include height in relation to boundary (daylight access rule) and privacy rules. Myth 11: We don’t need to change anything. Fact: When Auckland’s eight councils amalgamated, there were 14 different district and regional plans. The council is still operating under these plans, many of which are out of date, have inconsistent rules and are more than 10 years old. The Government required the new Auckland Council to create a single Unitary Plan for the whole of Auckland under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It is needed for us to implement the 30-year Auckland Plan and create the world’s most liveable city. Myth 12: My property has a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) which means everything from trimming a tree or clearing any vegetation will require resource consent and I can never develop the land. Fact: SEAs are about protecting unique native plants and animals but council recognises that protection must be balanced against individual property owners’ rights to use and manage their land. Minor vegetation pruning and trimming, pruning of trees within 3m of a dwelling, maintaining existing tracks, ecological restoration and emergency works to protect people or property would all be permitted. A consent would be required to clear indigenous vegetation (e.g. for new building sites). A consent for a first house site on undeveloped SEAs where no alternative exists would always be granted. There would be no cost for processing these consents in relation to SEA.

by bob | 15th May 13, 5:30pm 1368595823

Facts are no good for making dramatic headlines in our major daily tabloid.

Facts are no good for getting elderly Nimbies worked up - and it's very healthy for them to get worked up occassionally.

by waymad | 15th May 13, 8:14pm 1368605686

Good reporting, GV.

I think that Myth #13 was, however, missed from your otherwise excellent missive.

#13 The Plan says nothing about Housing Unaffordability as measured by the Median Multiple.

Fact:

The Unitary Plan will tackle housing unaffordability head-on by a combination of actions which target the following Council-influenced factors:

Release 2-3 year's worth of supply of developable land immediately to force down the prices per lot
Introduce a zero-fees and zero development contributions policy to remove development taxes under the Coucnil's control
Waive inspection fees for housing which is estimated to be built as a house+land price of 3 times MM, or less
Introduce a 1000% rating differential on land within the RUB which can be developed for urban density but for which no credible, imminent development plan has been lodged with Council. Proceeds of this tax will fund the zero-fees and DC's policy, above.
Introduce a rating differential on lifestyle blocks which could be reasonably densified in the opinion of the Council's Urban Plannerators.

Hey, we can Wish!

by powerdownkiwi | 16th May 13, 8:30am 1368649833

And then? And then? And then?

How many hectares are required to support a person? Where are the extra ones coming from? And then where are they coming from? And then where are they coming from?

And is it better to stop the process before it stops itself - in overpopulated squalor?

by Stephen L | 15th May 13, 5:12pm 1368594725

Len Brown seems to have managed it all pretty well:

Float a plan that tests a fair number of boundaries, metaphorically and literally, but more or less meets most long term needs.

Get some inevitable resistance.

Compromise back some way, with a caveat that plans need detailed reviewing every 7 years anyway.

In the meantime get the government more or less to endorse the plan, despite their initial antagonism, and their competing party affiliation.

Not a bad effort, it seems to me.

by Asia Expat | 15th May 13, 5:59pm 1368597567

I still wouldn't vote for him, however I agree very well played. Personally, I'm very happy that he's listened to constituents that let's face it he didn't need to please. Our coastal suburbs are hopefully more or less preserved as is for some time, whether they be full of grey haired nimbys or not.

Personally I never got it. Proponents said development would be a long way away, but still backed change. It makes no sense to change anything if it has no effect. Weasel words perhaps?

by Andrew R | 15th May 13, 10:28pm 1368613722

I wonder how many of those in coastal suburbs concerned about mulit story buildings travel to Europe and admire multi story buildings in coastal towns in Italy, France, Spain, ....?

by JimboJones | 16th May 13, 5:55am 1368640507

I thought we lived in a democracy? Shouldn't we vote on this? Just becase a few thousand NIMBYs don't like the plan, does that mean it needs to be watered down?

by JimboJones | 16th May 13, 6:04am 1368641044

I live in Mt Roskill. There is the potential for a very good bus system into the city - I believe it is already the most used bus route in NZ. The former Auckland council was going to create 24x7x7 bus lanes down dominion road to make this bus route significantly better. But a handful of shop owners and other weirdos opposed it so it was scrapped. No one ever asked how many were in favour of it!! This decision will potentially cost the Auckland economy millions in lost productivity - but at least a few carparks have been saved!

The problem with these types of consultations is that only the opposition turn up - the people happy with a plan don't go to the consultation.

With the internet it would be possible to have a referendum at very low cost - why don't the council do that with the unitary plan? Hopefully the oldies don't have the internet and can't oppose every little change!