PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL AND DISTRICT PLANNING DOCUMENTS UNDER THE LGAAA

RMLA

28 June 2005

Peter FullerGlaister EnnorBarristers & SolicitorsAucklandTelephone: 09 356 8243Facsimile: 09 356-8248Email: peter.fuller@glaisterennor.co.nz

1. Introduction - Key themes

• Significant changes • Real physical consequences• New planning approach? • Impacts of the policy• Potential benefits and costs• Resourcing the implementation• Outcomes?

2. What can be agreed• Smart Growth - Growth Management • Associating land use and transportation• Reducing congestion• Improving:

– Passenger transport,cycling, walking– Urban design – Engineering design– Quality of life– Air and water quality

• Diverse, vibrant healthy communities• However, the detail is complex!

3. Refuge in “cliches” • “Urban sprawl” - “urban obesity”

– Today’s urban sprawl may be tomorrow’s heritage zone

• “Death by a thousand cuts”– The Waitakere Ranges have been protected for

urban Auckland - how much protection do they need from it?

– Consent to “farm” the suburbs?

• “Dealing with congestion by adding more lanes is like dealing with obesity by loosening your belt”

– Remove some lanes?

4. Mixed messages?• Rate of growth?• Concern about “urban sprawl” - 70%• Concern about “infill housing” - 70%

– Poor quality developments– Building Act/code deficiencies– Inadequate planning - e.g. provisions for open

space– Community impacts

• Vision and values?• Who pays for the “public good”?• Site specific v strategic?

5. Key Parts of the LGAAA• LTLUC are required “to provide for

integrated land transport and land use provisions”.

• S3 - purpose to integrate/make provisions consistent with the RGS

• Appendix A - definitions• Section 40 • Schedule 5

Section 40

Extent of land transport and land use changes -

(1) defines what a change is

(2) change must be integrated

(4) “A land transport and land use change and any decision of the Environment Court on an appeal against the change must not

(a) extend the metropolitan urban limits set in the ARPS unless the ARC agrees;…”

6. Relationship to the RMA?• Section 75 - DP must not be “inconsistent”

with operative RPS • Amendment Act - DP to “give effect to” RPS• s39: RMA applies except to extent that it is

inconsistent (see also s43)• Hierarchy of instruments: RPS v RGS?• Scope of LTLUC?

– Effect of notified changes wider than just “transport related” land use and intensification?

• Jurisdiction of the EC?

7. Regional Planning - Context• “Okura” caselaw - MUL endorsed• Regional Growth Forum - ARC Committee• Regional Growth Strategy (1999) - “Growth

Concept” (node and corridor intensification)• Memorandum of Understanding• Sector Agreements (Sub Regional) • Largely non-RMA processes• Participation in process?

8. RPS Chapter 2 - Strategic Direction • 2.3 Growth Strategy - Vision to 2050

– Containment - 70% new growth within existing urban area

– Intensification around selected nodes and corridors

– 10% increase in metropolitan area over 50 years (5000 ha)

• Issues– Need to accommodate growth - section 5– 1.3 million by 2016 (operative RPS) - 1.75

million by 2026, 2.1mil (2050)

(Issues Cont)

– “Accommodating future growth through continual expansion is unsustainable and contrary to the RGS”

– Visual separation between urban & rural– Protection for productive soils & rural and

coastal character– Urban amenity improvements– Land use and transport integration to manage

adverse effects

9. Objectives

• Compact, well designed urban form served by integrated multi-modal transport system

• Network of high density centres and corridors

• Health, well being & quality of life

10. Strategic Policies/Methods

1. Containment

2. Urban Structure – Alignment with LTCCP

– 20 years capacity

– Minimum densities - Methods 2.6.6 (5&6) and Appendix H - minimum heights to ensue the “efficient use of land” at selected locations and increase support for PT

3. Urban Design– diverse, vibrant livable and attractive

environments

– sense of place

Policies/Methods (Cont.)

4. Landuse and Transport Integration– 2.6.11.1(d) inappropriate land use/subdivision

not to compromise transport network?– 2.6.11.1(g) urban activities within rural areas

will be prohibited

6. Rural Areas– 2.6.17(3) countryside living limited to provisions

in current district plans and variations notified before 31 March 2005

11. Chapter 4 - Transport • Transport network to support compact

urban form• Increasing person carrying capacity rather

than accommodating more vehicles • Reducing

– motor vehicle use– community severance and environmental effects

• Improving walking and cycling• Travel Demand Management• Adverse health effects reduced

12. Planning Processes• Appendix A• Links to LGA 2002 and Long Term

Community Plans• Integrated Catchment Management

Planning– Developers now excluded from process?

• Structure Planning – Process changed– 2005 Guideline on SP

13. Definitions & Schedule 1• New Definitions;

– Future Urban Areas– Limits to rural and coastal settlements– Urban activities – Urban growth

• Schedule 1– Growth Area Types – Sub-regional Centres & Town Centres (high

density centres and corridors)– Future Urban Areas (green-fields)

14. RPS Change No 7

• Requested by WCC• Three shifts to MUL

– Massey North– 2 areas in Hobsonville

• Under LGAAA• ARC right of veto under s40 ?

15. Underlying Philosophy? • “No surprises policy”?

– Clawback of MfE influence over operative RPS?

– Case law (Dye/Arrigato, Catholic Diocese)– Political context ???

• People and the environment?– Confining the extent of the “mess” by holding

the “line”?– Meanwhile, behind the line…….?

• Creativity and flexibility?– Non-complying applications?

16. Outcomes: Environmental• 2.7 “Strategic” results anticipated• Reduced adverse effects?

– Air & water quality?– Inputs and outputs for a city: capital, energy,

water, food, materials etc - what is the net result?

– Does intensification really have more “benefit” and less “adverse effects”?

• Efficacy of policy?– Private vehicles: Land use controls v

congestion pricing?

17. Social• Impacts on existing communities?

– “Social Implications of Growth” - quote– Community severance by transportation

recognised, but…??? – “Profile” of communities that will be required to

change the most?– The power of communities to manage the

environment?

• Who will be living in the “nodes and corridors”?

• Infrastructure - schools/open space

18. Economic• Development opportunities/capacity?

– Supply and demand from different sectors

– Business land

– Effect of rezoning -

– Greenfields - 100ha year - 1500 homes/3,500 people?

• “Efficient use” of land resource– 1900s - 415m2/person

– 1980s - 609m2/person

– 2000 - 483/m2/person

• Alignment with “market” demand?– Location of nodes and corridors

ACC nodes and corridors

Economic (Cont)• Who will pay for implementation?

– Development Contributions Policies– Rates– User charges– Central Government?

• Is intensification “cheaper”?– Infrastructure upgrades etc

19. Legal - Administrative• Consistency of the LGAAA changes with

the RGS?• Interpretation of the RGS?• Relative “authority” of ARC and territorial

authorities?• S41 - Hearings panel “recommendations”?• Role of the Courts?

– Determination of “fair and reasonable”?

• Powers of local authorities?

20. Conclusions• Impacts of policy will depend on particular

interests ;– Landowner in an identified Town Centre? – Whitford landowner wanting to subdivide?

• Limits of regulation? • Ability to deliver on key elements?

– Passenger transport, quality urban living environments, affordable housing

• “Physical determinism” - land use/urban design?

Conclusions (cont.)• Overseas “lessons”?

– Feudal and Federal

• The “private” and the “public” realm eg; use of space, provision of transportation

• Auckland intensified too quickly and too much?

– Quality - caveat on the RGS

• Top down v bottom up planning? • Policy “cycle” dynamics?• Choice?• What “price” LGAAA?

21. Key Question?• Is strict containment necessary to achieve

intensification around passenger transport nodes and corridors?