1. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL AND DISTRICT PLANNING DOCUMENTS UNDER THE LGAAA RMLA 28 June 2005 Peter Fuller Glaister Ennor Barristers & Solicitors Auckland Telephone: 09 356 8243 Facsimile: 09 356-8248 Email: peter.fuller@glaisterennor.co.nz

2. 1. Introduction - Key themes Significant changes Real physical consequences New planning approach? Impacts of the policy Potential benefits and costs Resourcing the implementation Outcomes?

3. 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!

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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;…”

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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)

11. (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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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 ?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. 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

22. 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

23. ACC nodes and corridors

24. Economic (Cont) Who will pay for implementation? –Development Contributions Policies –Rates –User charges –Central Government? Is intensification “cheaper”? –Infrastructure upgrades etc

25. 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?

26. 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?

27. 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?

28. 21. Key Question? Is strict containment necessary to achieve intensification around passenger transport nodes and corridors?