Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's Unitary Plan befuddlement
146 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
The Panel will upon reviewing all the evidence and submissions before it make its recommendations to Council
I'm talking only about this phase of the process, where council is a submitter, not the party that decides what to recommend. Certainly, after that they swap hats and decide which recommendations to accept and reject.
-
Denial of any influence by the Herald.
It is too easy to panic politicians in election year, particularly in local body elections where the turnouts are usually low. It is easy to fill a public hall on local issues that are close to people's homes and may affect their property values, and it is easy for individual politicians to be persuaded that a packed hall represents a popular uprising.
...Plenty of us live next door to a double storey house without concern. But one more storey has the citizens in revolt, or so too many council members fear.
Let's acknowledge the courage of those who are willing to defend the revised Unitary Plan and see it through.
-
Property Council blasts councillors for opposing a properly-intensified city.
Auckland Branch President Phil Eaton says soaring house prices are creating systemic social injustice, inequity and major economic risk.
“Let’s be absolutely clear about this. The councillors who have withdrawn their support to rezone and upzone suburbs to allow for more houses have done so at the expense of Aucklanders, because they want to come back after the local elections.
...Scaremongering by local politicians has residents believing their suburbs will be covered in high-rise apartments, when realistically less than 6% of suburbs will have apartments with more than three storeys: up just 1% from the previous version of the PAUP.
-
RNZ's Todd Niall reminds us of the missing voices.
The new debate has yet to address the question of whether the views of existing residents should hold more weight in long-term decisions about an Auckland in which future generations will live.
It's something the Productivity Commision called a "democratic deficit" in it's report on Using Land for Housing.
"Homeowners exert disproportionate influence over council decision-making, often to conservative effect, as they seek to protect the value of their property," it observed.
Higher density housing is seen as crucial to produce more affordable housing in a city where the median house price is equivalent to ten times the median household income.
Density impacts not only this year's owners and voters, but those 10 and 20 years in to the future, posing a challenge to this year's politicians.
-
Marc C, in reply to
It is not that simple. Some property owners are keen on intensification, as that allows them to develop and intensify, and earn more on existing land. Others own homes because they chose to live in certain neighbourhoods, and they detest having rules changed, so that their neighbourhood will be opened up for major changes, that they never wanted.
The Productivity Commission has in earlier reports favoured more sprawl. Yes, there can be a kind of “democratic deficit”, but most that do not own homes dream of owning a standalone home or at least a terraced house at some stage in their lives.
A study or report shows light on what people prefer or are prepared to make concessions on, but overly intensified residential areas do not really seem to be the preferred option for most:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/planspoliciespublications/technicalpublications/tr2015016housingwedchoosewithappendices.pdfMost people prefer to live in detached dwellings. Only if they face too high financial restraints will people make compromises and not live in detached dwellings. About 25 percent would prefer units (possibly also terraced housing included in that) and only 23 percent would be prepared to live in apartments. I doubt many like the Hobson Street type high rises, and most of the 23 percent would prefer a three to four level apartment block, offering sufficient day- and sunlight, greenery and so to make it liveable.
But sadly some Auckland Council planners have interpreted some of the findings in a way, saying 48 percent would generally prefer non detached housing, that also meaning potentially in apartments.
We must not forget also the earlier feedback process on the Draft Unitary Plan, where people generally, not just ratepayers, could express their views. And then high rises, and too densely built areas were opposed by a clear majority.
A good mix is needed, where it is appropriate, but all this can only be achieved by following a proper process. Not only property owners are allowed to make submissions, all Auckland residents affected by the Plan.
And besides of the property owners there have been very high numbers of submissions by developers and other vested interest holding parties, which weighs the hearing process towards their favour, given the majority of submission points come from a minority of submitters. Yet they have also endless legal and planning experts to their avail, which the ordinary citizen cannot afford, unless being organised in a resident's association or so.
It is sadly like with the general elections, a large number of people do not bother to submit, while they could, same as nearly a million did not bother voting in the general election last year. Going on about democracy is nice, but there is choice, if only people would use it. Question is – why do so few bother submitting when it affects their future?
-
Marc C, in reply to
Per square metre apartment buildings cost more to build than ground level, low rise housing. The land can perhaps be used more efficiently, but look at the provisional evidence presented on zoning under Topic 081 in the Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process, by Kyle Balderston, on behalf of Auckland Council, and you can see that even with more capacity, more high rises, the housing that will be built will not be cheaper, it will not be affordable for the vast majority of people, given the present market situation.
-
How much is the air up there?
;- ) -
Sacha, in reply to
A good mix is needed
Even after building more intense housing forms for the next few decades, most available dwellings across the region will still be single detached ones. Plenty of 'choice' for people who want those. Not so much for the rest of us. Increasing numbers of migrants, travelled NZers and young people do not aspire to live in isolated suburbs that requiire a car to go to the dairy.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Most people prefer to live in detached dwellings. Only if they face too high financial restraints will people make compromises and not live in detached dwellings.
I thnk we can agree many people face financial restraints in the current ridiculous Auckland housing 'market'. From p4 of the report (p10 of the PDF):
Although this research is not an exercise in measuring housing affordability, it is interesting to note that 23% of respondents could not afford any of the options provided in the survey, given the financial and household information they had provided.
From the same page:
Just over half (52%) chose detached dwellings as their final choice, 25% chose an attached dwelling (a joined unit), 15% selected a low-rise apartment and 8% selected a high-rise apartment.
I have worked with Regan Solomon who signed off this report. I therefore trust the integrity of the approach they used to find these figures. Thanks for the link.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Even after building more intense housing forms for the next few decades, most available dwellings across the region will still be single detached ones.
Ah, from p5 of the linked report (p11 of the PDF):
The results suggest that there is a mismatch between the current supply of dwelling typologies and the housing that Aucklanders would choose, if it were available. However, this mismatch appears to be decreasing with recent consents more aligned with the preferences expressed in this research.
Housing is developed to meet the needs of households at the time it is built. These needs and preferences change over time but housing is long lived. This leads to the mismatch between current needs and preferences and the existing stock of dwellings.
While a key finding is that the majority of households will still prefer stand-alone detached housing, it appears that this demand is more than satisfied by the existing stock of housing. The gap exists in terms of a shortfall in the numbers of attached dwellings and apartments.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the housing that will be built will not be cheaper, it will not be affordable for the vast majority of people
and that is a very real problem, I agree.
-
Zach Bagnall, in reply to
A study or report shows light on what people prefer or are prepared to make concessions on, but overly intensified residential areas do not really seem to be the preferred option for most:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/planspoliciespublications/technicalpublications/tr2015016housingwedchoosewithappendices.pdf82% of respondents were Auckland home owners..
-
Marc C, in reply to
That may be so, but were they the only ones asked, or the only ones who bothered to respond? As I wrote above re participation in this PAUP submission and hearing process, the same seems to apply to such surveys, which were not only offered to take part in to property owners, same as the local body elections do not only allow ratepayers to vote. And the general elections are not only allowing taxpayers to vote.
People have the choice to participate, why do they not bother?
Is it the slap happy easy going, too laid back JAFA attitude that is to blame, or something else?
How can we plan or change policies, be more inclusive, democratic and fair, when people do not participate, I wonder?
-
Sacha, in reply to
People have the choice to participate, why do they not bother?
Most people have more immediate calls on their attention. We really can't blame them for that. Researchers constantly struggle with sample composition and this survey is no exception (p14, = p20 of PDF):
Efforts were made during recruitment and sampling to ensure that the final sample represented a variety of household types across Auckland, as it was considered by the research team that household composition plays a key role in driving housing needs and requirements. Despite best efforts, smaller households and single-parent households were slightly under-represented in the final sample.
With respect to individual characteristics of the respondents, it should be noted that Māori, Pacific and Asian people, and those in younger age groups (under 40 years) were also under-represented, when compared to the general population. Where appropriate, the results have been weighted to address this.
-
Sacha, in reply to
How can we plan or change policies, be more inclusive, democratic and fair, when people do not participate, I wonder?
By investing enough in our processes to reduce the various barriers to involvement; and by being scrupulous about acknowledging who was not at the table.
-
Marc C, in reply to
The ones “at the table” during mediation and hearings are mostly the legal and planning and other expert representatives of the parties with very vested interests at stake.
And having seen and heard what goes on, I am not surprised that most in public would be rather insecure, afraid even, to face these well versed persons, who know every angle of the RMA, other statutes, about the whole system, the ordinary person would have to struggle with.
What is happening is not just happening by coincidence.
And when it comes to the hard on hard battles, the legal submissions are fired off, who can keep up with that?
Indeed, the local body administration here in Auckland needs a firm shake-up, and starting with following due process, and by adhering to natural justice would be a humble start, I suggest, to generate a minimum sense of faith in what goes on.
-
Matt at TransportBlog sums up the stoush so far.
-
Giovanni recently mentioned the term "creative destruction" on Twitter regarding economic over-reliance on commodities that are slumping in price. I immediately realised that the Unitary Plan could be thought of as a form of creative destruction - architecturally, socially and financially. And why there's loud opposition to it from those who like to call themselves free-enterprisers.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Matt has generally supported wider scale intensification, and seems to support Generation Zero, doing the same. The writer of this post is also supportive of the same.
I notice how Matt is being somewhat cynical, criticising those opposing certain newly proposed, non notified zoning. He writes that these changes are just minimal and that opponents consider two storey houses “high rises”. This is leading the discussion into absurd territory. I seriously wonder whether he has only selectively read presented evidence on the PAUP.
While overall zone changes by area may not appear that significant, the devil lies in the detail. In evidence before the Panel Council has adopted the position that 5 to 7 levels should be the standard for ordinary THAB zones, which is not two storeys. MHU residential developments are now going to allow 11 metres (extra for roof design, perhaps more height even as “bonus provisions”), depending on the zoned area. Some argue that one could fit three storeys in under that kind of rules system.
MHU zone rules, and also objectives and policies covering that residential zone, have been changed significantly, abolishing density provision and replacing the notified plan development controls with much more discretionary ones applied by using design and other aspects, on which assessments will be made on a case by case basis.
There has been the introduction of “bonus provisions” for so-called affordable housing, which allows another storey on top of existing zone ruled allowable levels in many areas, where a developer may provide some minimum affordable housing (which would not really be that affordable at all, given median house prices in Auckland).
So the argument is not two storeys being unreasonably considered “high rises”, which is rubbish, the argument is about the details of mostly residential zone objectives, policies and rules that come with zoning.
The late stage of the hearing is about geographical zoning, not about the rules and so, that was already covered in earlier hearings. But with the earlier hearings we know Council’s position.
And changing the provisions for MHU and also MHS, even THAB, with abolishing also minimum dwelling mix, with abolishing or significantly changing certain other requirements like for storage, outlook space and so forth, that has resulted in a Plan that looks very different to the notified one. That is the main issue, I fear, and the fact that Council now also wants zoning changes that are not even based on submissions, that angers some, rightly so I find.
I support intesification of good standard, good design, in suitable areas, to certain degrees, but I take issue with the way Council has gone about during the hearing, and it was originally Council that prepared the notified PAUP, and it is again Council, that has reacted on pro intensification lobbyists and submitters, to reverse changes made after the Draft Plan discussions. Arguing Council is presently just a submitter is BS, as the Council is Plan presenter, and submitter, and will in the end decide what to accept or not, which the Hearing Panel will recommend one way or another.
-
Sacha, in reply to
He writes that these changes are just minimal and that opponents consider two storey houses “high rises”.
He says no such thing. Cr Walker and the coastal nimbys have been calling 3 storeys "high rise". A tiny part of the region will be zoned for buildings any higher than 3.
Some perspective from Matt's article:
Overall the changes weren’t all that much. Those that did move generally only changed by a small amount and combined 78% of all residential areas were still limited to two storeys while a further 17% was limited to three storeys.
You are most welcome to express an opinion but please stick to actual facts when you use them.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Well, putting in a photo of two level suburban homes, and putting this below it does basically suggest what I wrote:
"According to those opposing the Unitary Plan, these are high-rise and shouldn’t be allowed."So I stuck to the facts, which is what was written in Matt's blogpost!
http://transportblog.co.nz/2016/02/16/the-unitary-plan-roller-coaster/
It seems it is acceptable to exploit visual imagery and present misleading information when it comes to the Transportblog, Generation Zero and others supporting what you prefer, but it is not fair, if Auckland 2040 may in some cases do the same.
-
Sacha, in reply to
a photo of two level suburban homes
Most of that row have clearly visible garages beneath them. They are also in one of the surprisingly densest residential parts of Auckland - Ponsonby, Freemans Bay, etc.
-
Marc C, in reply to
I see two levels, if there is a garage under the ground, or half under the ground in perhaps one home, that does not equal a three storey residential home, I would think, certainly not for the majority on the photo.
As for the chart above the photo, it shows that MHU has increased from 11 percent of total zoned residential areas to 17 percent, that is in itself a roughly 50 percent increase on what was notified, not that marginal, I would think.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Yeah that's about enough arguing over a photo caption. Believe whatever you want and we will let other readers make up their minds what it means.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Thanks for providing that link to the other Transportblog post, which is interesting. Yes, such inner city heritage residential areas are offering some good examples of more intense residential development, and what can be done.
But while this is so, why do we then have such groups as this, of people cherishing living there oppose much of what Council propose and want?
http://www.greylynnresidents.org.nz/
I suppose they only speak for “some” residents, but they seem to have significant support.
Or do you have blind support for developers, who are responsible for many failed developments in the past, to do a better job in the future? Do you support Housing NZ, simply wanting enablement to use the land they have to build up higher, no matter what, as long as it is economical, means cheap, for "social housing" future ghetto dwellers?
Let us look at the successful track record of HNZ over recent decades.
We need good provisions and rules, to avoid that future mistakes happen, I think, and so far I am not sufficiently convinced by what Council has presented so far (not all is bad, but there are too many concessions to developers and builders now).
Post your response…
This topic is closed.