Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Russell Brown,
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.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Zach Bagnall,
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?
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
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?
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Swan,
Much of what will be "controlled" is left to be discretionary to Council consent issuing staff. So while that may be true as you say, there will be discretion about infringements that may be allowed, and no number for this is specified. Also have they wiped the dwelling mix requirements for THAB and MHU, so a developer does not need to provide such, and can basically build apartment blocks that only consist of 30 square metre sized studio apartments, with little storage (also deleted) and little clarity about how zoned areas will look like once development is in full process.
Developers can fit in as many dwellings as they can, while Council can offer discretion re infringements, and that means many residential property owners that may have new larger scale developments go up next door to their lot will have too little certainty as to what it will all look like. Heights are now 11 metres in the MHU, and with so called “bonus provisions” for affordable housing may even be higher, as I have heard.
But it is all still only “proposed”, and the Panel will have to decide on what to recommend and what not. The Plan will be very different from the notified version, that at least is for sure.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Ben Ross,
Well, all this modeling, about which I am informed, should perhaps have been done a few years ago, before the plan was finally drawn up and then notified. To use these models now as an excuse to suddenly redraw notified residentially zoned areas, to do away with density provisions for the MHU zone, to radically change the development controls, to allow yet more heights and density for the so-called THAB zone and to make many more changes, many NOT based on any submissions, that raises serious questions about natural justice.
So Council did not do their homework before presenting the notified plan, and as we know the draft plan was stiffly opposed by many who objected to too great heights and up-zoning, hence the somewhat more moderate notified plan.
I know you and some others just love the opportunity of intensifying most of Auckland, but there are legal aspects to consider, so Council stuffed up themselves, and continue to stuff up with the out of scope zoning.
It will be up to the Panel to set the clear boundaries now, re what is acceptable and should be recommended, and what not, not an easy task for those sitting on it.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Sacha,
"I have a lot of sympathy for that. Media have done an appalling job of explaining the process, to the extent that many Aucklanders believe it is the Council making these zoning decisions, not an independent panel.
Nor do enough of us grasp that this whole process was dictated in the supercity enabling legistation pushed through by Act and the Nats. Council can't change it."
You are not quite correct there. The Panel will upon reviewing all the evidence and submissions before it make its recommendations to Council, which will happen later this year, and then it is up to Council to decide which recommendation to accept or not. If submitters are unhappy with that they can go to the Environment Court, that is if they have the resources to do this.
So it is NOT the Panel that decides as such, they only make recommendations. And re the explaining of the process, that is not the responsibility of the media, it is the responsibility of the Council who notified the Plan, and to some degree of course also the Panel, to explain to the ordinary residents what they need to do to be heard, to put in submissions and so forth. That is why stuff gets notified, and it should so with sufficient guidance and info.
The media do largely not bother with the Plan and the hearing process, because it is so complex, and one needs good insight and understanding to get the grips of it. With the media we have now, there is damned dim chance that we get any useful info at all about what goes on during the hearing, even RNZ have in my view done a poor job in this.
And it is true, the Panel and hearing process were established on law that was passed under this government, same as the Greater Auckland realities that Rodney Hide oversaw. Democracy was the last thing they had on their mind. Hence the actual hearing is now dominated by the well represented vested interest parties, plus Council, and large submitters like Housing NZ, who shape the Plan as they see fit. I would not put much hope into a more social and affordable housing offering Auckland with what goes on.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Russell, the AUP as it is now, after many proposed new changes, abolishing density rules for Mixed Housing Urban, changing the whole development control approach, adding more discretion and allowance for additional heights, and also significantly changing many other parts (objectives, policies, rules) does look very different to the notified version.
The same applies to the zoning for other areas, which has been significantly changed again for certain residential and some business areas.
You may be happy with your Mixed Housing Urban zoning, but others face having THAB or MHU zones brought in, that were not notified for their particular areas. Hence those that relied on the notified Plan, and thought, ok, I can perhaps live with that, they now face very different realities.
As the Panel recently decided on some issues that were raised re Council's preliminary zoning, there is no chance for people to now put in submissions, that means those that relied on the PAUP as notified, which though has been changed substantially, cannot enter the hearing process.
That is what has made some residents and ratepayers very angry, and I understand why. A hearing should consider submissions on the notified Plan, and proposed changes should stay within reasonable scopes, or if this path is left, then major changes should usually be pursued by way of a plan change that needs to be notified. The latter is not happening.
So the Panel will have to be very careful in what recommendations they will make, being bound by natural justice, which means, some proposed changes by Council should not be allowed, as they are not based on submissions on the notified Plan.
-
Penny Pirrit, who initially handled the Unitary Plan for the Council before it got handed to John Duguid, did get quoted in the Fairfax story on how the Council works through writing up the evidence it sends to the Panel. She explained that the proposal put forward by the Council is only a preliminary position and that any out of scope changes are based on the feedback Council received from the public in the earlier stages of the process.
Ah, yes, Mr Ross, you work as a consultant, as I understand, who do you consult when it comes to development in Auckland, I mean, who do you work for, and who pays you, or are you doing all this merely from the good of your heart, for social or other concerns?
That aside, you should perhaps mention that the whole submission hearing process on the AUP has mostly been dominated by large submitters, one being Council itself, but also such as Housing NZ, who have put in hundreds of submission points. There are some developers and large business submitters, same as some institutional ones, who have also put in hundreds of various submission points, also on zoning matters.
So when you go on about Council considering "feedback" when preparing their Primary Evidence, you do obviously mean the numbers of submission points that were received, the bulk of which were by only a few dozen large submitters with vested interests, employing legal, planning and other experts that any ordinary citizen and resident cannot afford.
Most individual submitters will only have put in one or a few submission points and mostly on sensitive topics like zoning, which are about to be heard now. But few have the professional expertise to really know how to draw up and present effective submissions and evidence that will be given much merit. Many will simply be concerned only for their own property, a house or small business, and never have a full understanding of the whole Unitary Plan containing thousands of pages. Few will ever have read more than Council's picturesque leaflets and handouts, or glossy brochures.
The RPS, that is the Regional Policy Statement, was also very much influenced by mediation and hearings dominated by a few big players, and few ordinary residents or ratepayers will have known much of what was being discussed.
The way Council have changed the notified Plan beyond recognition in many parts actually does raise serious questions about natural justice not being followed. And the Panel hearing the whole matters, has been given powers by this government, that allow it to make recommendations or offer guidance that is not necessarily based on any submissions. They have immense amounts of discretion and power, which in itself is a worry.
I know of people involved in the hearing, and some are furious at the handling of certain topics, rightly so, I would say.
It is only full time people like you, Mr Ross, who have the time and also knowledge to work the system to your or your clients' benefits.
What we will be getting is a huge property development bonanza that will offer us zilch in regards to affordable housing, we will have endless blocks of apartment blocks in some intensified areas, high rises, which cannot go high enough for you, going by your submission, and future ghettos being built, following bad examples that were followed overseas.
Council has made massive changes to some zoned areas, as I noticed, and it is indeed very questionable how they can get away with it, saying so many submissions supported this, when the bulk of these come from just a few developers or other submitters, who have vested business interests.
For all concerned, look at Mr Balderston's Evidence on the IHP website, who has for Council presented some figures on recent models for feasibility and capacity of development. Strangely there is almost nothing that can be called affordable housing, that is the result of much research and projections.
The PAUP is a very flawed Plan, same as the Auckland Plan was, which cannot be implemented, as Council is already years behind targets, especially for housing construction and infrastructure development. And that is partly because the Auckland residents have realised what costs would come on them.
So good luck with your submission and efforts.