ben's auckland plan submission

8/3/2019 Ben's Auckland Plan Submission

1/54

2011

Benjamin W Ross

10/31/2011

Submission to Draft Auckland Plan


2/54

Submission to the Draft Auckland PlanBenjamin W. Ross

1 | P a g e

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan should have One Goal: To accommodate employment

and economic activity in supporting a healthy social and physical

environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan

has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and

restoring Affordability to residents and businesses while still making

Auckland The Most LiveableCity.

2011

Compiled by Benjamin W. Ross

87A Hillside RoadPapatoetoeAuckland 2025New Zealand

[Papatoetoe/Otara Local Board Area]

[email protected]: 0278591988
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/54


2 | P a g e

Layout of Submission1. INTRODUCTION2. THE EXISTING AND HISTORIC CONDITIONS OF AUCKLAND3. OUTLINE4. SECTION ONE:LAND USE5. SECTION TWO:TRANSPORT6. NOTES7. CONCLUDING REMARKS8. ABBREVIATIONS9. REFERENCES/CITATIONS


4/54


3 | P a g e

IntroductionThe Goal:To accommodate employment and economic activity in supporting a healthy social andphysical environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan has to follow theobjective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and restoring Affordability to residents and businesseswhile still making Auckland The Most LiveableCity.

That is the goal of this alternative plan (through this submission) or more to the point vision forAuckland over the next thirty years. Through focusing on land use and transportation, this submissionaims to restore simplicity, certainty and affordability to the residents and businesses of Auckland. Thesubmission agrees in principle with most of The Draft Auckland Plan (in Section B, Section D (exceptPart One of Section D), Chapters Seven, Eight and Eleventhe rest this submission in particular hasno opinion on) with sections of particular aspects of The Draft Auckland Plan commented on.

Land use was simplified into two models of what would be called LandAllocation/Development/Utilisation objectives. The idea behind simplifying land use was to minimisewhat has affectionately called DURT or Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxes that the existinglegacy plans and in-part the current Draft Auckland Plan in its current draft form. If simplification ofAucklands Plans can be realised, then DURT that ultimately costs affordability and economicprogress this city so heavily relies on can be minimised of not eliminated. One LandAllocation/Development/Utilisation model was a more centralised model (as would be seen inexisting community master plans) whiles the other was more open and left the market toallocate/develop/utilise the land as required (to a point).

However land use in this submission also had two strict criteria that had to be followed. These twocriteria in regards to urban design would ensure while choice remains, minimum standards are

adhered two to ensure a healthy social and physical environment for everyone here now and for futuregenerations.

The vision behind the transport proposal in this submission was designed to move away fro m thePro-This or Pro-That style of politics that has seen and marred Aucklands Transport for over fiftyyears. Thus items about Aucklands Transport in this submission were designed to recognise that car(especially), bus, truck and rail will be with the city for a long time to come and that people should beallowed travel choice (bearing responsibility and consequences for their choice as well). As a result amore balanced multi-modal alternative transport vision was written in this submission that inc ludedboth road and public transport infrastructure provisions. These provisions are ultimately designed tocomplement the dual (Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi-Liberal Planned District) LandAllocation/Development/Utilisation models of land use over the next thirty years.

This is my submission to The Draft Auckland Plan and where I would like Auckland to be by 2040.Time was short in assembling this submission and I wish more time was provided in order to give amore comprehensive opinion on the entire submission. However due to limited time and resources,focus was around land use and transportationwhich have the greatest bearing on the city and itspeople and businesses.

I thank you in for considering this submission in advance.

Benjamin W Ross


5/54


4 | P a g e

The Existing and Historic Conditions of

AucklandSection B (Auckland Now) of The Draft Auckland Plan outlines the existing and historic conditionsof Auckland. For the most part this submission agrees with what is outlined in this section with oneexception: Part B (of Section B)Climate Change and Energy Security.

Again for the most part Auckland (and New Zealand) is vulnerable to energy supply shocks as the cityand nation relies highly on imported fuels. However a mix of traditional (fossil fuel) and new(renewable) energy supplies (rather than a skew towards new) need to be implemented to helpAuckland make Auckland more resilient to future energy shocks.

Whether one likes it or not traditional energy sources will be with us (Auckland and beyond) until at

least the end of this century and the Land Use and Transport ideas mentioned in this submissionacknowledge that fact. Measures can be taken to improve the quality of the social and physicalenvironment while traditional energy supplies are still being used. Measures such better fuel quality,better vehicle maintenance and making newer vehicle fleets (that are more fuel efficient and kinder tothe environment) more affordable will go along way in reducing Aucklands carbon foot print withoutshocking the economy if more drastic measures were introduced. Sound urban and transport designprinciples also go some distance in reducing the increasing need for energy and the enlarging carbonfoot print. Making sure every residential house is warm and dry will assist in energy consumptionbeing reduced from constant heating and cooling through fires, gas and heat pumps/air conditioning.Sound urban and transport design would allow efficient movement of people and goodsfor anefficient transport network reduces energy consumption lost through otherwise inefficient transportmovements. Sound Urban design would look at houses and commercial buildings utilising passivemeans of cooling and heatingagain to reduce energy consumption needed for more active modes.

Through natural progression, Auckland will move away from traditional energy sources as newenergy sources become more economically viable. I would be against trying to force the city awayfrom traditional energy use unless one wants affordability to be thrown out the window, consumersand producers will switch over on their own accord if the alternative is better then the original its allabout freedom of choice.

This is how I see the progression through the energy sources (in this case transport) from traditional tonew over the next 100 years.

Traditional (Oil based)Hybrids (as a complement not as a replacement)Electrics (as a complement not as a replacement)Synthetic Fuels (coal based as New Zealand and Queensland have enough coal for at least

100 years)Hydrogen fuel cells (as a total replacement for of traditional and synthetic fuel sources)

Mitigation techniques can be done to improve our energy security and the ever changing climate butit must not send the city backwards as the already unaffordable becomes even more unaffordable.


6/54


5 | P a g e

Outline

The basic outline of this submission is to provide commentary and alternative ideas on the DraftAuckland Plan that would allow Auckland to be affordable and economically prosperous insupporting over two million residents by 2040.

Outline as follows1. Land use Outline2. Transport Outline3. Urban Design Outline


7/54


6 | P a g e

Land Use Outline

Objective: Adopting a mixed model of intensification of existing urban areas AND sprawl incurrent Greenfield sites to accommodate Aucklands growth in an affordable manner.

Note: Areas on this list might already be included in official Auckland planning documents; howeverI have listed these areas as areas of opportunity for Auckland to grow.

Areas for sprawl to occur at: Drury^ West Papakura^ Westgate Hobsonville East Takanini^ Airport Kumeu Wiri*^

Areas for intensification to occur at: Wynyard Quarter^ New Lynn Takapuna Tamaki^ Manukau City Centre^ Papakura Central^ Papatoetoe Central (Hunters Corner) Pukekohe Otahuhu Penrose/Southdown/Onehunga#

See Appendix Map for illustration of the above areas*Wiri for both intensification and sprawl#Urban redevelopment

For the sake of brevity and limited resources available this submission will comment (where it can) onthese following areas:

Wynyard Quarter Areas south of the CBD from the lists above marked with (^)


8/54


7 | P a g e

Transportation Outline

Objective: To complement the land use ideas set out in this submissionin allowing transport choiceand efficiency across the Auckland Region

This submission will focus on what are considered major transit links needed in Auckland to improvethe efficiency of the regional transit network. These links are not limited to:

Eastern Highway Inner City Rail Link and AMETI Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment South-to-Manukau Rail Link completion Rail Station re-deployments/additions (where required) Future Proof the following lines:

Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri) Botany Line South West Line North Shore Line

Also, a priority system would be added on reallocating the priorities on building AucklandsTransport Network through until 2040.

However again for the sake of brevity and limited resources, this submission will only be commentingon transportation infrastructure mentioned in the bullet points above, High Occupancy Vehicle lanesand bus lanes will not be mentioned unless necessary.


9/54


8 | P a g e

Urban Design Outline

Good urban design to ensure safe, affordable and healthy environments (both physical and social) isessential. The New Zealand Urban Design Protocol published by the Ministry of Environment in 2005sets out a framework that should be followed by both Auckland Council and developers alike.

Whether Auckland follows centralised Master Plan developments, the Huston-Texas liberalistic styleof development (as reported in the following article by Unconventional Economist; How to solveAustralian Housing Supply (Economist, 2011)1 or going mixed model; the city has to get its urbandesign right first time if Auckland wants to achieve the Mayors goal of Most Liveable City.

Furthermore with urban design, Auckland must be careful in how we design our urban environment aswell. What could be a great design on paper and start off well enough when paper turns to reality,over time that reality and its environment degrade due to actual poor planning. When undertakingeither a Centralised Master (Community) Plan or a Semi-Liberal Planned District LandAllocation/Development/Utilisation exercise, good urban design principles (and per the 2005 UrbanDesign Protocol) must be adhered to in order to create and sustain a healthy physical and socialenvironment (that is still affordable). An (Auckland) Regional

Land/Allocation/Development/Utilisation-Philosophies list is created in forming a simple urban (andtransport) design framework that allows a healthy physical and social environment now and in yearsto come will not adding to the Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxation (DURT) Pile

1http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/AccessedSeptember 2011
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/


10/54


9 | P a g e

The Details1. Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation)2. Transport


11/54


10 | P a g e

Section One

Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation)


12/54


11 | P a g e

Introduction

How does Auckland best allocate and utilise its land efficiently and optimally so that the goal of beingthe Most Liveable (and affordable) City can be realised.Options suggested (but are not limited to) are the (Centralised) Master (Community) Plans where

development follows a strict centralised prescription and land users then follow a strict usagecovenant, to a Neo Liberalistic deregulated market approach where the Council allows the market toallocate and utilise the land per market forces (as seen in Huston, Texas). In this submission Iadvocate more a mix model of land allocation and utilisation to accommodate jobs, residents andsupport systems for Auckland.By mixed model I mean utilising systems from various urban development and management optionsand using them for Auckland. This is due to the belief that a single option one size fits all wouldutterly fail to respond to Aucklands current and future land use needs. In essence both the(Centralised) Master (Community) Plan and to an extent a more liberal option of land use have theirplace in Auckland providing some simple guidelines are followed.

The guidelines for Land Allocated Development and Usage are: Follow and Implement the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol Follow these philosophies:

Would you and your family live here happily? Would you work here happily? Would you and your family use this recreational space while feeling safe? Would it be something you would allow your next generation to inherit? Not contravene the principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (i.e. the land

allocation/development/utilisation will not create severe adverse effectsor simplyput, lower the amenity of the surrounding existing physical and social environment)

As for planned land allocation and usage, I have outlined different areas out in Auckland for different

modes of development. As in the Outline, these following areas have been allocated types ofdevelopment to be undertaken:Areas for sprawl to occur at:

Drury^ West Papakura^ Westgate Hobsonville East Takanini^ Airport Kumeu Wiri*^

Areas for intensification to occur at:

Wynyard Quarter^ New Lynn Takapuna Tamaki^ Manukau City Centre^ Papakura Central^ Papatoetoe Central (Hunters Corner) Pukekohe Otahuhu Penrose/Southdown/Onehunga#

See Appendix Map for illustration of the above areas (that are outlined (^))*Wiri for both intensification and sprawl

#Urban redevelopment


13/54


12 | P a g e

For the sake of brevity and limited resources available this submission will focus on these followingareas:

Wynyard Quarter Areas south of the CBD from the lists above (marked with ^)

Each development area that this submission will focus on will have either one of these developmenttype options:

Centralised Master (Community) Plan Semi-Liberal Simplified District Development Plan or simply put; Semi-Liberal Planned

District

See map next page for an overview of the areas mentioned in this submission


14/54


13 | P a g e

Overview of areas outlined in submission (Scale is 1:250:000 @ A3 paper Size) 2

2 Sourced and adapted from:http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/(accessed October2011)
http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/


15/54


14 | P a g e

Methodology of Land Use (LandAllocation/Development/Utilisation)

Overview

The goal is to allow Auckland to develop and grow under a system that is Simple, Efficient, Thrifty,and Affordable while still making Auckland The Most Live ableCity. So how can we allocate,develop and utilise Aucklands finite land supply in the most efficient manner but still hold to theprinciples of being affordable and environmentally (physically and socially) sound. What I proposemixed model system of land allocation/development/utilisation that would be best suited toAucklands diversified needs. The mixed model system would comprise of two elements:

Centralised Master (Community) Plan Semi-Liberal Simplified District Development

Both elements of the mixed model will still have to however comply with these basic requirements: Follow and Implement the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol Follow these philosophies (The (Auckland) Regional Land

Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies): Would you and your family live here happily? Would you work here happily? Would you and your family use this recreational space while feeling safe? Would it be something you would allow your next generation to inherit? Not contravene the principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (i.e. the land

allocation/development/utilisation will not create severe adverse effectsor simplyput, lower the amenity of the surrounding existing physical and social environment)

A Centralised Master (Community) Plan is where the subject land use is performed under a strictprescription. That prescription would provide the covenants on land allocation, land utilisation, urbandesign and rules around what types of activities or future activities that could or could not be carriedout. Centralised Master (Community) Plans would utilised in areas that have significant value orconsequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus landallocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCPs could not be left strictly to more marketforces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).

A Semi-Liberal Planned District is where the subject land use is performed under more flexibleoperations than land use under a CMCP scheme. The SLPD Model would be split into twosubsections; one subsection dealing with already utilised land (so brownfield type development orexisting residential), the other subsection dealing with greenfield developments. However the

principles of the Semi-Liberal Planned District model of land allocation/development are the same.The principles of an SLPD being:

Follows the R-LADU-P bullet pointed above Works collaboratively with local community

Achieves the desires of the local community (or region) in question

Delivers affordable, efficient and desirable products or outcomes to the community or region

Should not require excessive Council intervention due to the final product of a SLPDapplication having a negative effect (contravening the Philosophies mentioned above)


16/54


15 | P a g e

Centralised Master (Community) Plan

Using Chapter Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan as a reference point for urban (re)development,certain areas of Auckland would be (in this submission) allocated for land/development/utilisation

using the Centralised Master (Community) Plan model. Primarily areas recommended for urbanintensification would be considered for a CMCP however areas recommended for urban sprawl (suchas Hobsonville) could also be considered for a CMCP if the area has significant value orconsequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land

allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCPs could not be left strictly to more marketforces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).

Using Table 8.2 (page 132 of the Auckland Draft Plan (Urban Auckland)), I have recommended theseareas be subject to the CMCP model of (re)development:

International City Centre Metropolitan Centres Any urban (or rural) centre marked with an (*) in Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft

Auckland Plan Tamaki

These areas mentioned above all have significant value or consequence if altered on a whole scalelevel. Once the Auckland Plan is activated Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to theInternational City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers would need to work together to form theCentralised Master (Community) Plans to takes these centres forward for the next 30-50 years.However while developing a CMCP, the primary goal of The Plan has to follow the objective ofbeing: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Sustainable while still making Auckland The MostLiveable City. So rule of thumb, the CMCP (as one person said) if printed on A4 paper should be nothicker than an average persons thumbnail - anything thicker means it is too complex and/orinefficient.

Again keeping the submission at a manageable length, these following areas would be focused on forCMCP development:

Wynyard Quarter Manukau Papakura Sylvia Park Tamaki

Areas in South Auckland with the (*) beside them (page 132 of the Draft Auckland Plan) will be

ignored in this submission but if the CMCP model is adopted then individual plans will be needed tobe done for those areas.

Detailed individual Central Master (Community) Plans for the five areas mentioned above will be notattached or added to this submission per-se. For one the idea of a CMCP has to be approved byAuckland Council first in finalising The Auckland Plan, second if a CMCP model of landallocation/development/utilisation is adopted then a second phase of planning has to be undertakenin order to create the CMCP. That planning work would and should be down collaboratively withLocal Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone),stakeholders and developers. That planning work would be done either in preparation for the UnitaryPlan or the Long Term Plan.

However an outline of the four CMCPs mentioned above will be included in this submission.


17/54


16 | P a g e

Outline of the five Centralised Master (Community) Plans

Wynyard Quarter.

As a former University of Auckland Planning student, an assignment that was given to mewas to develop a plan to renewal a section of the Auckland Waterfront. I chose Wynyard Quarterand developed a basic Centralised Master (Community) Plan that would form a very basic frameworkin reallocating, redeveloping and re-utilising the land at Wynyard Quarter. While redevelopment hasalready started at Wynyard Quarter since my CMCP was developed (in 2010), the plan itself (seeseparate attached document Planning 701Assignment Two: Area Chosen for Study: WynyardQuarter, Auckland) still illustrates what can be done for the rest of the area.

In brief it was planned for Wynyard Quarter to have substantial mixed development coupled withgenerous amounts of public spaces; in order to generate an area with not only high amenity value tousers and to the wider city, but to generate as much return for the city as possible (while still sociallyand physically (environment) sound).

Again see the separately attached document for the Wynyard Quarter CMCP.

TamakiAgain as a former planning student, the area of Tamaki (consisting of Panmure, Tamaki,

Point England and Glen Innes) was studies as an assignment. The ultimate goal of the assignment wasto create a Community Transformation Plan that would form a framework of redeveloping the Tamakiarea. A separately attached document called Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative,Community Transformation Plan (Tamaki Reconnected Program) was the final published documentoffering a framework in reallocating; redeveloping and re-utilising the land in Tamaki. Please consultthe separately attached document for details.

Tamaki presents a unique opportunity as well for redevelopment. The Tamaki Reconnection Programif modified slightly to encompass a large catchment area for redevelopment would provide the perfecttest bed for both the Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi-Liberal Planned Districtdevelopment models. If the CMCP and SLPD models of land allocation/development/utilisation areadopted, then a localised plan for the Tamaki area in collaboration with stakeholders and the LocalBoards affected would need to be drawn up.For more on the Semi-Liberal Planned District allocation/development/utilisation model, see theSLPD subsection (page 25).


18/54


17 | P a g e

Manukau

Manukau (or rather the Manukau City Centre) is a cluster of mixed use development rangingfrom residential to commercial office and services to light industry linked by various transit modes.Manukau is also surrounded by multicultural residential communities and smaller town centres,

medium industry, community facilities/parks, institutes, the Manukau Harbour and Tamaki Strait,Auckland International Airport and all things rural. Yet Manukau City Centre seems under realisedand utilised for the importance it serves to not only southern Auckland, but the rest of the city and thenation.

A Centralised Master (Community) Plan for the Manukau City Centre area would recognise theimportance of the city centre and surrounding area, and allow stakeholders to be engaged incollaboration of the re-allocating/developing/utilising of land. In saying that the CMCP has torecognise one main limitation - the height restrictions imposed. Manukau City Centre is situated underthe pain approach/take off path for all flights in and out of Auckland International Airport and anydevelopments have to be recognising the limitation. So land use has to be smart and efficient in orderfor the area to realise its maximum potential.

One thing I am wary of is this massive focus on the Auckland CBD for activity and development. Ibelieve having such a highly centralised core would be a detriment to the wider city and especially tosouthern Auckland. Thus in developing the Manukau CMCP, the idea behind this CMCP would be toturn Manukau into a literal second CBD (of Auckland).

Allowing Manukau City Centre to become the second CBD of Auckland would allow businesses,residents, visitors and institutions to enjoy the economies of scale in going about their activities seenin an intensified core type development. Being close to the international airport, three state highways(1, 20 and 20B), the railway (for both passengers and freight) and two arterial roads (Great SouthRoad and Route 30 (Cavendish and Te Irirangi Drives)), Manukau is well served by transport linksthat would feed into an intensified area.

Outside of the Manukau City Centre CMCP would be a Fringe Development Zone that wouldsupport around the central core area. I had first coined Fringe Development Zones when I wrote the2010 Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative, Community Transformation Plan as aformer Masters of Planning Practice Student at the University of Auckland. Quoting from page 24 of

that report: The fringe development zone again allows spill over intensification of the residentialinside the zone, to form a seamless connection between the hub and the rest of theneighbourhood. The spill over from project two into the fringe zone would allow the land to bereutilised as medium density housing rather than the low density it currently is. However aseparate sub community plan would need to be drawn up to manage the intensification of thefringe zone(s) effectively. But the basic idea is use a fingered approach by producing strips of

medium density housing with low density housing and park in between each medium densityhousing strip.

The Fringe Development Zone for the areas surrounding the Manukau CMCP zone would bemodified to allow mixed use development (so commercial and industrial as well as residentialrather than exclusively residential). The FDZs would be classed under a Semi LiberalDevelopment Plan and be treated as such (see section of SLPD on page 25) unless furtherintervention was required. Like the Tamaki FDZs, the Manukau FDZ would allow a seamless

transition from the renewed high density core of Manukau City Centre to the existing areasaround the core (often low density). The FZD in Manukau again like Tamaki would have a subcommunity plan at the respective local board leveleven though the FDZ is deemed a SLPD

area. However the idea of the sub community plan would be a more of a Memorandum ofUnderstanding so that both the community through the Local Board(s) and developers understand


19/54


18 | P a g e

each other before any development goes ahead. This MoU (which would be required in allSLPDs) would allow developers and local communities to interact on future development, thislocalised interaction would be seen as more efficient, thrifty, simple and responsive to the needsof the affected community rather than interacting with a cumbersome centralised regulatory bodyas of current. More on SLPDs on page:


20/54


19 | P a g e

Map Overview of Manukau CMCP and FDZ-SLDP (Scale @ A3: 1:15,000)3

3 Sourced and adapted fromhttp://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/(Accessed October2011)


21/54


20 | P a g e

The Southern Initiative Commentary

It is mentioned from Section 214 to 216 (Pages 35 and 36) of The Draft Auckland Plan that aSouthern Initiative would be utilised for the southern Auckland area which includes Manukau CityCentre. The initiative seems to be a list of interventionist policies to assist those who are especially

well off in Southern Auckland and is being championed by The Mayor and his office. Policies includehousing initiatives to reduce overcrowding and improving housing quality, focus on up-skilling child-raisers (parents and guardians), massive focus on early childhood education, up-skilling the youth andraising educational achievement. Look do not get me wrong; while South Auckland needs attentionfor its population to realise their full potential and live happy healthy fulfilled lives, the question begsto be asked why Auckland Council. The ideas being put forward in the Southern Initiative policy inmy honest opinion belong to the domain of Central Government (partnering with private and publiclocal service providers)NOT local government! If Auckland Council wants to really assist inhelping South Auckland then the best thing that the council do is get its urban planning RIGHT!

The best way Auckland Council can contribute in the ideas mentioned in the Southern Initiative toassist those in South (and might as well be wider) Auckland is in its Urban Design. If Auckland

Council can do and reach these objectives then it (Council) would have gone some distance inaddressing the depravity in Southern Auckland (my home):

Allow enough residential dwellings to be built efficiently and affordablyand by being builtthe dwelling are flexible enough to cater for residents demands (big houses for collectivefamilies, apartment for young professionals on the go etc.)

Transit links that are flexible, innovative and reliable in moving everyone around quickly andefficiently (that means a mix of road, rail, bus)

Enough quality land available and served by a decent transit system for commercial andindustrial development (employment for people)

Allowing existing commercial and industrial zones to be redeveloped as needed efficiently to

allow existing resources to be reused and create further employment Cut the DURT!

Make sure the urban design of residential neighbourhoods and employment centres areconductive in either allowing a healthy social and physical environment and/or in being adesirable place to either live or work in (or set up/maintain a work place)

So if Auckland Council focused on the basics and getting it right as it is tasked to do as well as dosome DURT busting (or maybe listen), just maybe the Council would be doing its bit helping SouthAuckland reach its potential.


22/54


21 | P a g e

Papakura

Papakura according to Page 132 of The Draft Auckland Plan is to be classed as a metropolitancentre like Manukau, Sylvia Park etc.; in doing so that would make Papakura the most southernmetropolitan centre in wider Auckland. I support Papakura becoming such a centre for two reasons:

1. Its potential to become a more utilised and vibrant place to work, conduct ones business andliveespecially that Papakura supports a wide rural/urban split2. To allow the Papakura Town Centre to support the needs of a growing area with multiple

large scale developments planned or under way (Addison, Addison/Mill Road Sector,Papakura East, Papakura South, Drury and Ramarama)

Papakura unlike Manukau City Centre is not well served in comparison by transport links. PapakuraTown Centre has only the two lane Great South Road running through the middle of it as the centresmain north/south link. This road link is also the primary thoroughfare for commuter buses which arelikely to get held up in any congestion along the Gt. South Road without significant works beingcarried out to improve capacity of the road (either 4-lanes or T3 lanes). State Highway One (SouthernMotorway) does not form the most efficient link for traffic going to or from Papakura heading

north/southbound either. The main reason being the distance needing to access or leave the motorwayeither using Papakura or Takanini Interchanges is deemed considerableit is either a seven minutetrip down Beach Road and accessing or leaving the motorway on a non-signalled interchange, or a tripdown a congested GSR with out of phased and short gap-distanced signals to reach the alreadycongested Takanini Interchange. Further complicating ones trip on the motorway is the congestionfaced on the 4-lane Southern Motorway between Papakura and Takanini (city bound) and Manurewato Papakura (south bound), this congestion will only get worse as the Papakura/Takanini area grows(both under intensification and greenfield developments). The solution to that motorway congestionissue however is simple yet would offendthe anti-motorwaypro public transport only brigade the solution being:

1. Four Lane the Great South Road from Drury Interchange to Takanini Interchange and use thenew lane additions as T3 lanes during the peak commuter period.

2. Expand the southern motorway to six lanes until also the Drury Interchange

My reasons for the solutions above will be mentioned in the Transport Section of my submission, butin short, the widening needs to be done to avoid strangulation of the Papakura/Takanini/Drury areas.

As for rail, Papakura is well served by the Papakura Railway Station and associating park-n-ride carparks. In saying that, improvements of the rail station (already under planning), park-n-ride andconnecting bus facilities and other rail corridor improvements need to happen in order for Papakuraand the surrounding areas to be better served by an efficient rail network. However these rail issueswill be addressed along with roading needs in the Transport Section of the submission.

Bearing the limitation in transit options currently available to Papakura, the possibility of an extra30,000+ residents and expansion of employment opportunities; the Papakura CMCP would need to beresponsive and adaptive to the needs of the community. Effectively the approached used in Tamakiand Manukau (creating collaborative sub-plans with Local Boards (representing stakeholders) anddevelopers) CMCPs would be adopted and adapted for Papakura. Papakura Town Centre and theimmediate surrounds would be intensified (what maximum limit is to be yet determined) with transitlinks improved (see the Transport Section of this submission). Outside of that zone would be theFringe Development Zone that allows the transition between the higher density core and the lowerdensity existing surrounds. Again with the Tamaki and Manukau FDZs, the areas will be subject tothe Semi-Liberal Planned District model of land allocation/development/utilisation.

A map of the Papakura CMCP and FZD is attached (page 23).


23/54


22 | P a g e

When developing Papakura as a metropolitan centre, some minimum requirements would be neededto make Papakura a vibrant and viable metropolitan centre. This is especially if the area fromTakanini and Addison to the north, Mill Road to the East, Papakura East/Red Hill to the south east,Karaka to the west, and Drury to the south will be developed or developed over the next thirty years.

Minimum Requirements for the Metropolitan Centre being:

Capable of delivering extended civil services (such as)o Council services

Planning and Regulatory (able to access property and title reports, filingresource consents, gaining information for resource consents and planningissues)

General Information enquiries Able to pay for items such as: rates, dog registration, parking fines, other fees

o Enlarged Library Serviceso Enlarged Post Office (might seem silly but services need to expand when an areas

population increased dramatically)

o Making sure the Papakura District Court is able to keep up with any demand fromincreased population growth

o Other Central Services like the WINZ or Housing NZ office Capable of handling a high capacity multi-modal transit system (road, rail, bus, bike, active)

Capable of having community centres enlarged (as community centres well utilised can createa focus point (events) for the community

The minimum requirements for a metropolitan centre outlined above would not be just limited to anupgraded Papakura; it would be the minimum requirements for ALL metropolitan centres. The logicbehind it being with population growth comes an increased demand for civic and community centres.Focusing and enlarging such services would allow service delivery for an enlarged population in anefficient manner, it would also allow for one-stop shopping of such civic/community centres when

citizens, business and visitors come to the metropolitan centre to conduct their affairs. It might also berealised that extended and enlarged civic/community services within a metropolitan centre couldbecome a focal point (or an anchor) for the centre itself. The idea is not far fetched as those whoprovide services that would require frequent contact with the civic service (developers,charity/community groups, consultants etc.) could want to be based near by for efficiency gains(while telecommunications can minimise travel, travel would still have to occur and businesses mightbe looking at keeping travel to a minimum). So allowing the expansion of civic services at ametropolitan service would be a wise investment for Auckland


24/54


23 | P a g e

Map Overview of Papakura CMCP (Scale @ A3: 1:8,000)4



25/54


24 | P a g e

Sylvia Park

Table 8.2, Chapter Eight, Page 132 of The Draft Auckland Plan lists Sylvia Park as a MetropolitanCentre. I would disagree in classifying Sylvia Park as Metropolitan Centre compared to Tamaki(which is not a Metropolitan Centre under The Auckland Draft Plan but should be and is in this

submission) due to limitations for Sylvia Park.

While Sylvia Park is well served by road and rail connections (State Highway One, South EasternHighway, Mt Wellington Highway, Eastern Rail Line) compared to Tamaki (just the Eastern RailLine), the majority of the surrounding land is and utilised as light to medium industry. I would evenstruggle to see how Sylvia Park could be classed as a town centre let alone a metropolitan centre.Sylvia Park has no town centre per say compared other places like Panmure, Otahuhu, Glen Innes andeven Ellersile unless you count the Sylvia Park Mall as the Town Centre. To make Sylvia Park a towncentre or even a metropolitan centre would need to provide: extended civic services (mentioned in thePapakura CMCP), improved the transit connections (the area is constantly congested during the day),more green public space and the possibility of relocating nearby industry to allow more mediumdensity residential and commercial space to be built.

However with industrial land already at a premium even if more industrial Greenfield developmentoccurs, I would be very reluctant at forcing industry out of the Sylvia Park area and replace it withcommercial or residential. However if market forces impose such a change, then so be it the centralregulatory body and Local Community Board have to be ready to provide the provisions needed (civicservices, recreational space and supporting infrastructure).


26/54


25 | P a g e

Semi-Liberal Planned District

Using Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan as a reference point for urban(re)development, areas of Auckland (not under a Centralised Master (Community) Plan or protection

order) would be (in this submission) allocated for land/development/utilisation using Semi LiberalPlanned District

Like the Centralised Master (Community) Plan, the Semi-Liberal Planned District once the AucklandPlan is activated Local Boards, Auckland, stakeholders and developers would need to work togetherto form the Semi-Liberal Planned Districts to takes communities (and Auckland) forward for the next30-50 years. However while developing a SLPD, the primary goal of The Plan has to follow theobjective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and affordable while still making Auckland The MostLiveable City. So rule of thumb, the SLPD (as one person said) if printed on A4 paper should be nothicker than an average persons thumbnail - anything thicker means it is too complex and/orinefficient.

The Semi-Liberal Planned District Model of land allocation/development/utilisation draws primarilyon Texan model5 of urban planning (with limitations) AND draws on aspects seen in the CentralisedCommunity (Master) Planin short/brief, the SLPD slightly more regulation to it then Texas, but notas much as currently in Auckland.

An article by the admin of the Auckland Transport Blog title: Taking a Fresh Look at PlanningRegulation gives some extremely useful insight into the planning dilemma that faces Auckland. Ipersonally find the article refreshing and in a strange sense of irony the article gives a sense ofunderstanding behind the methodology of the Semi-Liberal Planned District model. Thus the finalideal of the SLPD is to allow a decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic andaffordable approach to LADU!

The main crux of the SLPD would come from the: decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative,efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU. This is how the crux or ideal would beachieved:

Under SLPDs the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Community Boardrather then the centralised Council

Council provides a statement of intent (The Auckland Plan) and action plan for Auckland(Auckland Long Term Plan) over the next period of time

Council provides a mediation service when there is a dispute with an SLPD

Council assists Local Community Boards with resources required when an SLPD is beingcarried out

SLPD follows the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (mentioned page14)

Simplified Zoning

Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developer (allowing greaterflexibility and response to community concerns and needs/desires)

SLPDs would deal with the rest of Aucklands LADU that is not under a CMCP or other protectiveorders (such as regional/national parks or heritage areas (marked by (*) in Chapter 8 of the DraftAuckland Plan).

5http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/(AccessedSeptember 2011)
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/


27/54


26 | P a g e

SLPD and DURT

Efficiency, simplification, desirability and affordabilitythese are the objectives the SLPD model ofLUAD. Currently in Auckland, the planning documents used for LAUD are complex and extremely

dense (in document thickness)leading to the consequence of DURT formingDURT being Delays,Regulation, Uncertainty and Taxes (McShane, 2011)6. High amounts of DURT from planningcomplexities and density leading to LADU inefficiencies. The ultimate consequence, make Aucklandless affordable and desirable to live, educate and work in, thus the idea behind the SLPD-LADU is tolessen (or eliminate) the LADU-DURT.

DURT does the following

1. Delays: Delays in Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation as applications are delayed bywhat is deemed excessive regulations and plans

2. Uncertainty in LADU as private land owners and developers try and guess or figure out whatthey can do with their land (again owing to complexities of Aucklands planning documents)

3. Regulation: excessive regulation (as illustrated various contributors to Auckland planning)causes multiple effects ranging from inefficiencies of the bureaucracy, to stifling LADU,over-inflation of costs due to inefficiencies, to stifling ones choice in all matter of things

4. Taxes: This includes fees, contributions and levies often imposed excessively due to pointsmade out in Point #3 (regulation)

To lessen the LADU-DURT and improve affordability in the city I recommend these solutions(outside of adopting the Planning Philosophies):

Decentralised basic Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation to Local Community Boardsand their communities

Simplify Zoning

Bulk Fund Local Community Boards

Adopt the Golden Rule that if a plan of any kind is thicker than a persons thumbnail, then thePlan has failed (as it is too complexthus leading to DURT)

Recognise the following:o Auckland is heterogeneous patch work of different communitiesthe city is not and

should be treated or planed for as a super homogenous cityo People want choice on how, where and what they want to live ino People are individualstheir thought processes and actions are often on an individual

basisnot collectiveo Cars (regardless of power source) are going to be with us until at least the end of the

centurycars are also the ultimate form of individual freedom, choice and expression

in status and movemento Aucklands population is heterogeneous so the city plans for a heterogeneous

populationnot a homogenous one

Adopt KISSKeep it Simple Stupid

And rememberits the Economy Stupid. If the city economy is hindered by DURT, then thecity becomes unaffordable, inefficient and undesirable to live, work or conduct business in

The SLPD is the main DURT busting weapon that Auckland needs to achieve the goal a plan that isSimple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Affordable while still making Auckland The Most LiveableCity.

6http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6(accessed September 2011)
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6


28/54


27 | P a g e

The Semi Liberal Planned DistrictLand Allocation/Development/Utilisation has two main DURTbusting pieces of ammunition: Decentralised basic Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation to LocalCommunity Boards and their communities AND Simplified Zoning.

Decentralising basic LADU to the Local Community Boards allows greater flexibility, collaboration,

response to the needs and desires of the community and final delivery of LADU outputs. These meritsthrough decentralisation allow for greater efficiency and affordability to the community and widercity through the minimising of the DURT (that would be currently found in Aucklands centralisedplanning model). However, the central regulatory body at Auckland Council still has a part to play indecentralised SDLPs. The central body is still charged will allocating primary infrastructure (water,electricity, waste, telecommunications, main roads and city wide public transport, etc.), so to avoidbeing out of sync with the Local Community Boards and their plans, the central regulatory bodywould be collaborating with local community boards and providing guidance required to achieve citywide outputs and outcomes.

A basic summary on page 28 indicates how the central regulatory body (Auckland Council and thebureaucracy) interacts with local community boards, developers and stakeholder when LADU is

carried out (both under SLPD and CMCP models).

There is nothing stopping local community boards teaming up together when undertaking an SLPD-LADU program - in fact this encouraged (under the watchful eye and guidance of the centralregulatory body) when planning for large scale (or higher density) commercial or industrialdevelopment. However if local community boards can not cooperate together in achieving the primarygoal, then the central regulatory body must be given dispensation to take over the LADU process.

Another piece of ammunition in the SLPD-LADU DURT busting arsenal is to simplify zoning.Paragraph 22Page 4 of the Housing Affordability in Auckland (contained in the Minister of LocalGovernments letter to Auckland Council) states a review and the Ministers desire to move alwaysfrom the current constraint model of LADU to a model that allows more mixed development. The

paragraph also states that to achieve the goal of moving away from the constraint model to moremixed open LADU; we (Auckland Council and the city actual) need to use zoning controls,innovative approaches to development levies and relaxation of containment strategies (that (can)cause further declines in housing affordability). In the Auckland Transport Blog post Taking aFresh Look at Planning Regulation the author stated that we over plan rather then under plan and as aresult the city gets itself into all sorts of pickles (refer to the blog post for such pickles). I agree onboth arguments there, Auckland does over plan (on LADU details rather than LADU form) and has anovertly excessive LADU constraint policy (through the Metropolitan Urban Limitsto be replaced byeven more stricter Rural Urban Boundary). The Semi-Liberal Planned District for LandAllocation/Development/Utilisation aims to simplify the LADU process through simplified zoning.


29/54


28 | P a g e

SLPD-LADU in action

In a strange sense of irony, the Minister for Local Government and the Auckland Transport Blog (ger)call for focus for urban form7 (Arbury, 2011) rather than detail. Where the irony lies is that through

zoning, expectations (the philosophies) and understanding (Memorandum of Understanding) wouldallow focus on urban form that allowed the primary goal (as stated in the title) to be achieved.Essentially Council lays the zone, the Local Board and developer work together to develop the area,Council oversees aspects such the street network and the end result is a development. This is notedin the final paragraph (in effect) of the Auckland Transport Blog post previously mentioned. Whatmakes the entire situation most ironic is that the basic concepts mentioned here in this paragraph (andform that crux for the SLPD-LADU) are found in certain particular urban simulation game that hasbeen around for over two decades.

The Sim City franchise (the most recent being Sim City 4released in 2003) gives the mayor toolsto develop his or her city oftheir dreams per-se; the ultimate in Sim City 4 is the zoning tool. InSC4, the mayor has three types zones with three types of density limits (in each zone) to chose from

in their quest to achieve a particular urban form. The basic street network inside an SC4 zone istechnically built as part of the zone by the developer rather than the central council. However themayor has final control and oversight of the basic street network for a particular zone in some morecustom-made rather then conventional is required. With SC4, basic infrastructure such as water andelectricity are again technically provided by the developer rather then the council. This leaves themayor with the task of providing major infrastructure provisions such as:

Main Roads (although SC4 allows the mayor to build motorways, in New Zealand that isdone by central government)

Public Transport Provisions (bus, rail, ferries etc.)

Main Water Pipelines/Treatment/Dams/Water Towers

Waste Handling

Civic (not dealt with in this submission) Parks and recreation (dealt differently in this submission)

Electricity (dealt differently in New Zealand)

So in the end the SLPD-LADU model follows a hybrid of Houstons method of urban planning and(to a limited extent) the (although simplistic and maybe crude compared to reality) techniques used inSim City Four!In short this is how the SLPD-LADU would work:

Council provides its goal/vision for the wider city over a period of time

Council provides a framework on how it would like to reach that goal

Council and the Local Community Boards begin the SLPD-LADU Process by:o Created a SLPD which maps out the local areas intentionso Zoning or rezoning beginso Memorandum of Understanding between Council (if required), the Local Community

Board and developers in developing the land (but complies with the Region LADUPhilosophies previously mentioned)

o Development begins Development is then underway with the developer having to provide these basic provisions

inside the zoning areaeffectively zone or zoned district or districts:o Water infrastructure for the districto Electricity infrastructure (in coordination with the local lines company)o Telecommunications infrastructure (in coordination with whoever is contracted to

provide phone/broadband cabling

7http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/(Accessed October 2011)
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/


30/54


29 | P a g e

o Basic park/recreation facilities (set a minimum percentage of total developed areawithin the zoned district (except for pure industrial land)(percentage to bedetermined at a later date))

o Basic street network (that can be readily connectable to the main transit system)o Allow for provision of a mass transit system if one is required (often in medium and

higher density zoning districts) After completion, the corresponding infrastructure of the zoned district would be allowed and

capable of connecting to the existing city infrastructure

Now questions raised are:

Where does this zoning fit in

How is this Semi-Liberal

How does one finance such a district type development

This is where the article Look to Texas to solve Australian housing supply8 (Economist, 2011) hasideas on how the SLPD-LADU could work through using municipal utility districts to assist inproviding infrastructure to support development (or redevelopment) and allow the end product to be

more affordable to end users such as residents or businesses.

Quoting the blog article at length: In the suburbs of Houston, developers often assemble parcels of

5,000 to 10,000 acres, subdivide them into lots for houses, apartments, shops, offices, schools, parks,

and other uses, and then sell the lots to builders. The developers provide the roads, water, sewer,

and other infrastructure using municipal utility districts, which allow homebuyers to repay their share

of the costs over 30 years. At any given moment, hundreds of thousands of home sites might be

available, allowing builders to quickly respond to changing demand by building both on speculation

and for custom buyers

Houston developers allow homebuyers to pay off infrastructure costs over 30 years, impact fees ordevelopment charges require up-front payments often totalling tens of thousands of dollars. The

difference is crucial for housing affordability: since development charges increase the cost of new

housing, sellers of existing homes can get a windfall by raising the price of their houses by an amount

equal to those charges, thus reducing the general level of housing affordability.

Furthermore the article illustrates what a Municipal Utility District is:

Heres a break-down of how the MUD system works:

Utilities are installed and maintained by the companies (electricity, telephone etc) since they

receive the revenue.

The developer has to install the roads.

Large subdivisions are allocated areas for parks and schools.

The developer installs the sewerage and water and gets it back from theMunicipal Utility

District.

MUD is a special-purpose district that provides public utilities (such as electricity, natural gas,

sewage treatment, water, and waste collection/management) to the residents of that district.

8http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/(AccessedSeptember 2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Utility_Districthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Utility_Districthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Utility_Districthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Utility_Districthttp://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Utility_Districthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Utility_District


31/54


30 | P a g e

MUDs are formed by a vote of the area, and represented by board of directors who are voted

on by the local people.

The MUD borrows money via the bond market to pay for building (via the developer) and

operating (via the MUD) these services. The MUD bonds are then repaid via taxes on the

home owners of around 1% of the home values per year.

Schools are also built and funded via bonds and repaid via the same taxes on the

homeowner.

The last bullet point could be an idea for central government to help provide more public schools asthe population grows (rather than drawing down state owned assets)1`.

Effectively the above answers the how does Auckland finance a growing city question of SLPD-LADUs, the next two question are How is this Semi-Liberal and Where does zoning fit in. It isthe zoning aspect and regulatory function provided by the central regulating body that makes the

scheme semi-liberal rather than liberal like Texas.


32/54


31 | P a g e

The Zoning System

While I advocate what Houston, Texas has done (to a point); I believe Auckland needs slightly morerestrictive controls to prevent expanding and/or development running away. This is where the zoning

and zone district sizes come into play. Using the zoning system in Sim City 4, I have created ten basiczones which in its ultimate regulatory form control the maximum density or building capacity limits.Further limitations to the liberal LADU model in Texas is the fact any development has to follow the2005 New Zealand Urban Protocol and The Region Land Allocation/Development/UtilisationPhilosophies mentioned earlier in the chapter.

The modified zoning controls are split into three main categories (with a possibility to create a fourthif needed) with each category having various sub categories. The three main categories are:residential, commercial and industrial (the fourth being (if needed) rural).

This is how the zones would work for a SLPD-LADU in dictating the building capacity limits(Derived from Pages 29-30 of the Sim City 4 Deluxe Edition Manual (Maxis, 2003)) 9:

Residential:

Low Density Zone: Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small scale infillingas well)

Medium Density Zone: Smaller Apartments and condominiums (terraced housing andwalk up apartments would be built in this zone)

High Density Zone: This allows your towering residential blocks to be built

Commercial:

Low Density Zone: Your small businesses like gas stations, the local dairy, newsagents etc.(The small type of stores you would see in a local town centre.

Medium Density Zone: This would allow medium size commercial buildings (e.g. up to 6-7stories high and/or a floor area of 3000sqm) (this is where you would see a medium sizedsupermarket (like the Countdown at Papakura or New World at Papatoetoe. Or the medium

sized commercial office buildings seen next to the Ellersile Rail Station. Or a small

shopping plaza like Hunters PlazaHunters Corner, Papatoetoe)

High Density Zone: Skyscrapers, mega-malls, large supermarkets (like the Countdown atManukau City)

Industrial:

Agricultural Zone: Speaks for itselffarms, cows, sheep, horticulture, viticulture

Light Industry Zone: Small scale warehouses (like the National Mini-Shed storagecomplexes) and industrial type services (usually a small or a medium enterprises seen in

places like Onehunga, East Tamaki and Penrose) Medium Industry Zone: Medium sized warehouses, factories and high-tech industries.

These types of industries would be associated with places like Fletchers Tasman Insulation

plant in Penrose, the Sleepyhead Factory in Otahuhu, Bluebird Food Processing in Wiri,

logistic centres like Mainfreight and Daily Freight in Westfield and Penrose and the Lion

Nathan Brewery Factory in East Tamaki

Heavy Industry Zone: not a very common sight in New Zealand compared to Australia, wedo not have car manufacturing plants for example. However Auckland does have arguably

a few heavy industry sites such as Glenbrook Steel Mill, Blue Pacific Metal Mill in

Otahuhu, the Fletcher Plant in Penrose and extremely large logistic centres like the Port of

Tauranga Metro Port at Southdown. Per-se Auckland would not zone for heavy industry

9 SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition Manual, Maxis, Electronic Arts, California, USA. pp.29-30


33/54


32 | P a g e

however medium industrial zones should be open to allowing heavy industry to be

developed on a case by case basis

Agriculture I have included under general industry as I believe it is up to the individual land owner todo as they wish with their land (as long as their activities do not cause adverse effects to the

environment and if they do, those effects are mitigated properly). However if separate agriculturalzoning is required then these are the sub categories.

Agriculture/Rural Zone

Large-Scale: your large dairy, sheep, beef or crop farms (minimum size 75 hectares)

Medium Scale: farming operations mentioned above but between 5-75 hectares

Small-Scale: your small scale stuff (under 5 hectares), this is where lifestyle blocks would fitin as well

When zoning for a SLPD you can mix two zones together to form mix development. An examplewould be zoning medium density residential and medium density commercial together. This allowsthe Local Community Board and the developer to do several things with the newly mix zoned land

(the best way would be to give a chronological example):

1. New SLPD is created and the zone for the area is a Medium Density Residential/Medium

Density Commercial (Mix) Zone

2. Developer begins development with low density residential dwellings and commercial

facilities ) infrastructure and parks will be already provided for by the R-LADU-P and

Memorandum of Understanding Provisions)

3. As land values increase and/or demand for the land increases, the zone district begins to

intensify (a separate resource consent should not be needed as the original consent at the

time of the creation of the SLPD allowed the medium density development) (you would start

getting buildings that have commercial on the bottom two floors and apartments on the

other top four floors on limited scale basis inside the district)

4. Infrastructure (roads and P/T provisions) upgrade5. Land Value or demand continues to increase allowing the district to intensify as the market

sees fit (you would start getting buildings that have commercial on the bottom two floors

and apartments on the other top four floors on a more wide scale basis inside the district)

6. District reaches limit according to the zone density sethowever the district is relatively

free (as per the R-LADU-P) to redevelop as required. Or the district could be up-zoned to a

higher density.

There should be no need for any council interference what so ever if the SLPD works properly and theR-LADU-P is not contravened. The district would be allow to change, mature and re-change (or staythe same) as the needs of the community or wider city change. This (and the reason behind the SLPD)allows the greatest flexibility and response mechanisms to the ever changing dynamics of the localand wider community of Auckland. The flexibility and semi-liberal nature of this model of LADUwould ideally bust the DURT Auckland sees currently and go some distance (due to the DURTbusting) in restoring affordability to residents, businesses, institutions and community groups.Effectively under an SLPD all the council (and central government to a point) has to provide is theprimary infrastructure, large parks and civic services, the rest is left to those responsible looking afterthe district.


34/54


33 | P a g e

SLDP-LADUwhere to do it

All that leaves is where to apply the SLPD-LADU to Auckland; and the simple answer is the ENTIREURBAN region (including rural settlements as per Schedule 2, page 109, Chapter Seven of The Draft

Auckland Plan) except the following areas: Areas mentioned for CMCP development

Areas marked (*) in Chapters Seven and Eight of the Draft Auckland Plan (usually done sofor heritage reasons)

Areas that are Regional, National or border Maritime Parks

Heritage or culturally sensitive sites

Areas or catchment areas of critical infrastructure (fresh water reservoirs, pipelines, hightension transmission wires (unless they are going to be buried)

[For Rural LADU outside of the rural settlements and any Greenfield development see below]

By applying the SLPD-LADU Model to the entire region (with the exceptions taken into account), the

2005 Urban Design Protocol recognised and R-LDAU-P implemented; the need for constantplanning and regulation would be minimised and the concept of property rights more recognised thanit is now or the current form of The Auckland Plan will allow. The Rural Urban Boundary would andshould not exist if the city wants to achieve affordability for its citizens as believe me the last thingpeople will thing about is the environment if they struggle to make ends meet due to AucklandPlanning driving affordability out of reach.

If one is wondering how would Auckland create SLPDs through the zoning system, chapters sevenand eight of The Draft Auckland Plan give some ideas on how you would what zone in an SLPD. Theaccompanying table below provides a guide on what zones would be appropriate mainly forbrownfield development. More specifically, Schedule OneUrban Centres Hierarchy (page 131,

Chapter Eight, The Draft Auckland Plan) and Schedule TwoRural Settlements Classifications(Chapter Seven, page 109, The Draft Auckland Plan) provide adequate explanations on what eachcentre or settlement classifications, these explanations were used to provide a foundation on whattype of model of development (CMCP or SLPD) would best suited. As for Greenfield development,each Greenfield Development would be zoned on a case by case basis as the Greenfield area wasopened up for development (Consult submission in Long Term Plan for a more details).


35/54


34 | P a g e

:For existing urban or developed areasRural (As per Chapter SevenSchedule TwoPage 109, the Draft Auckland Plan)

Classification Suggested Zoning Maximum Notes

Satellites

Medium Residential and

Commercial, Light Industry

Area surrounded by Industrial

Agricultural Zoning

Rural and Coastal

Settlements

Light Residential and

Commercial


Agricultural Zoning. Areas marked

with (*) have potential for medium

residential or commercial in the

future

Rural and Coastal Villages

Restricted Light Residential

and Commercial


Agricultural Zoning or other

protected/sensitive areas. Areas

marked with (*) have potential for

further light residential or

commercial in the future

A Note on Rural Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

While I have left the option open for simplified rural zoning in this submission, I have noted that the

Draft Auckland Plan has a Rural Activities Category for rural LADU. Schedule One - Rural ActivityCategories (Chapter Seven, pages 107-108) outlines LADU categories for Aucklands different ruraltypes in an attempt to watch over the rural landscape of Auckland. Upon reflection I agree with thedraft in the Draft Auckland Plan for the Rural Activity Categories. If a separate agricultural zoningwas needed (outside of the blanket Industry: Agricultural Zonementioned on page __ of thissubmission) then adapting the optional Agricultural/Rural Zoning to the Rural Activities Categorieswould be a viable and sound idea. Country Area Living Description (Page 108, Chapter Seven, TheDraft Auckland Plan) for example would be assumed to be adapted with the Agricultural/Rural Small Scale SLPD zoning. The zone or CALD area would be ideal for allowing a transitionbetween urban and rural while being future proofed for any expansion type Greenfield development.


36/54


35 | P a g e

Urban (As per Chapter EightTables 8.2 and 8.3Pages 132 and 133, and Schedule One on page131; The Draft Auckland Plan)

Category CMCP/SLPD

Suggested Zoning

Maximum Notes

International City

CentreCMCP N/A

Covered by the Draft City

Centre Master Plan

Metropolitan Centres CMCP N/AIncludes Tamaki. Excludes

Sylvia Park

Any Urban or Town

Centre in the Draft

Auckland Plan

marked with a (*)

CMCP N/A

Due to surrounding social or

physical environment

sensitivity

Town Centres SLPDMedium Residential

and CommercialIncludes Sylvia Park

Local Centres SLPDLight Residential and

Commercial

Possibility for up zoning for

medium commercial and

residential - but on a case by

case basis

Urban Growth

CorridorsSLPD

Medium Residential

and Commercial

Has potential for High Density

Residential and Commercial,

but that needs to be explored

in depth first

Existing Industry SLPD

Review each area for LADU

and redevelopment

possibilities

Notes on Urban Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

When dealing with Industrial Zone LADU, whether it be on existing Brownfield sites or Greenfieldsites, responsibility in allocating the an SLPD with industry zoning in it would fall to the allocatedcentral regulatory body (Auckland Council) rather than the Local Community Board. However thecentral regulatory body would have the obligation to inform and enter dialogue with the LocalCommunity Board (or Boards) affected when Greenfield industrial zoning is undertaken. Noobligation would be required any redevelopment in existing industrial areas (Brownfield sites).


37/54


36 | P a g e

Final Remarks on Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

Affordability and good economic progress without DURT strangulating both must come first forAuckland. If the city is affordable and economic progress is moving along without hindrance, you

would find that achieving the goals of looking after ones environment might be just that moreattainable. If the city is unaffordable to live and conduct business in, then economic progress stalls asbusiness and residents are under stress to make ends meet. If that happens then the environment wetreasure so much would become second fiddle to eking out a living first.

So if the goal of The Auckland Plan is to be Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, Affordable while still makingAuckland The Most Liveable City then the current DURT pile that is making the opposite of theintended goal happen must be eliminated best as possible! A plan like all other things can be as simpleor as complex as one makes it, my vision and LADU model are trying to simplify planning so thatpeople can conduct their affairs in a manner that is efficient and thrifty and most of all the end productwas affordable. By keeping the plans simple; then Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxes thatarise from overtly complex operation would be eliminated!

Centralised Master (Community) Plans and Semi-Liberal Planned Districtstrying to Keeping ItSimple Stupidaka DURT Busting.


38/54


37 | P a g e

Overview of Takanini East Greenfield Development Area (See separate LTP submission for fulldetails)Scale @ A3 1:25,000

10



39/54


38 | P a g e

Overview of Papakura Greenfield Development Area (See separate LTP submission for full details)Scale @ A3 1:25,00011



40/54


39 | P a g e

Section Two

Transport


41/54


40 | P a g e

Overview

Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrates the vision for Aucklands transport over thenext thirty years (until 2040). Map 11.1 on page 162 (Chapter Eleven) of the Draft Auckland Planillustrates the Auckland Councils vision of Aucklands Strategic Transportation Network by 2040.

While Map 11.3 on page 170 (Chapter Eleven) of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrates Aucklands toptransport projects through until 2040.

My brief assessment of the entire chapter and these two mentioned maps came to these followingpoints and/or conclusions

That the chapter while relatively brief for projects that would cost the city and nation billionsof dollars does give a comprehensive list of projects for the city that would be deemed necessaryover the 30-odd year timeframe

I agree with most of the transport projects in Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan, Ibelieve some alterations are need to what should be done/built, what shouldnt be done or built andmoving projects backwards or forwards time wise.

The city as a whole needs to be creative while absolutely realistic in paying for these transportprojects. We as a city cannot entirely rely on rates, debt and central government to constantly stumpup the funds needed. Alternatives such as tolling, public-private partnerships and even maybe a polltax need to be seriously considered and debated maturely (something our left-right wing factions inAuckland seem they cannot do on a regular basis)

We as a city need realise some cold hard truths about our city, how we live, move andconduct our affairs, and where we want to end in 2040!

Before I go on with my alternative objectives for Aucklands Transport, some truths need to berealised first. These truths not only come from evidence sourced academically, but from onesexperience and reality of living and working in Auckland and interacting with fellow Aucklandcitizens in the same regard. In my opinion, it is ones experience and (perception of) reality of living

and working in Auckland that would form the best foundation for planning Aucklands transportneeds. In simple terms every single Auckland citizen and business would be a transport planner, eachuses a mode of transport (if not multi-modal) and can give what they think needs to be done to maketheir (and often others) transit trips easier and more efficient as they are the ones (rather than relyingon planners solely in their Ivory Towers) that would be using the transit system. My submission forAuckland Transport is more based on my experiences and perceptions of reality of the AucklandTransport system rather than using overseas models (as one former Prime Minister said: ("NeitherKeynes or Marx, nor indeed [Milton] Friedman, was a New Zealander and the one economic truth

that every Minister of Finance should accept is that you cannot take a blueprint from some othereconomy, slap it on this country, and expect it to work"- Sir Robert Muldoon)the same applies toplanning and transport principles)


42/54


41 | P a g e

My Transport Rationale

Maps 11.1 and 11.3 in Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrate the Auckland TransitNetwork and projects through to 2040. In this submission I am tweaking around Councils vision into

something I believe more viable (economically, environmentally and socially) for the city. Myrational acknowledges the fact that I do not agree entirely with the compact city ideal of The DraftAuckland Plan. Rather than this 75:25 split between brownfield/intensification and greenfield splitwhich I see as driving affordability out of households and businesses reach, I advocate (which is alsoconstant with my Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation section of my submission) more of a50:50 split between the two LADU fields. This 50:50 split would achieve the following: choice ofhousing and business locations, affordability and economic progressso as a result transport wouldbe moulded around the 50:50 split.

Apart from a few major things/changes, again I agree mostly with The Draft Auckland Plans visionfor Auckland Transport system. Therefore the transport section of this submission deals with thosemajor things/changes and my priority system of what should be done over the next thirty years inAuckland. Again for brevity, this submission focuses on the Central Business District and south (butincluding areas near the Eastern Rail Line).


43/54


42 | P a g e

Those Major Transit Links

As mentioned in the Outline, this submission will focus on what are considered major transit linksneeded in Auckland to improve the efficiency of the regional transit network. These links are howevernot limited to:

Eastern Highway and AMETI Inner City Rail Link Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment South-to-Manukau Rail Link completion Rail Station re-deployments/additions (where required) Bus route reallocations and priorities Future Proof the following lines:

Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri) Botany Line South West Line North Shore Line

These links again would be constant in providing an efficient transit network for a city and LADUallocation around the 50:50 Intensification/Greenfield development split. These major transit linkswould also assist in the Plans main goal around affordability (and economic progress). Howeveragain for the sake of brevity and limited resources, this document will only be focusing physicalinfrastructure development, adding bus or T3 lanes on existing infrastructure will not be mentionedunless necessary.

Detail, ideas or alternatives mentioned in this submission for The Draft Auckland Plan are insummary form only. Full technical details and implementation strategies of transportation mentionedin this submission will be in a (separate) submission for the Auckland Long Term Plan.


44/54


43 | P a g e

The EASTDOR Eastern Highway and AMETI

In 2002 a report called the Eastern Corridor Strategy Study (EASTDOR) was publishedoutlining the potential of a highway running parallel to the Eastern Rail Line and to Manukau City via

Ti Rakau and Te Irirangi Drive. The Eastern Highway was also designed to allow a Rapid TransitSystem to be connected to the wider Rapid Transit Network for greater efficiencies and realisation ofpublic transport in Eastern Auckland. Unfortunately the Eastern Highway was scuttled when the (nowformer) Auckland City Mayor John Banks was replaced by (now former mayor) Allan Hubbard andan alternative AMETI was put forward.

AMETI is effectively a patch work design of improving local roads to assist traffic (private, freightand public) moving through the area. I do not agree with AMETI at all and believe the EASTDOREastern Highway should be built by 2018 as viable thoroughfare for private, public and freight traffic.Section 3.5, page 17 of Eastern Corridor Strategy Study Final Report provided three different optionthat could have been chosen from: Local, Sub-Regional and Regional. I would ask those looking atthis submission to refer to the above mentioned section of the EASTDOR report 12 for further details

on the three options. If the original project did go ahead, it would have been acceptable and viable tostart with the Local Function option first and then upgrade progressively as demand for the arterialincreases. However nearly ten years have passed and the population and demand for transport hascontinued to grow, with the need for this highway now more urgent than ever.

I will not go into the technical details of the original EASTDOR report nor the correspondence on themerits of the project. But essentially this highway (modified to the now changed environment) built atminimum the Sub-Regional Function level (4-lane expressway with provisions of bus lanes ifrequired, maximum speed of the highway 80km/h rather than 50km/h for the Local Function Optionand 100km/h for the motorway Regional Function option) to allow Auckland to move in a moreefficient manner AND allow travellers an alternative to the congested State Highway One.

The good thing is that a technical report on b

ben's auckland plan submission

Documents