A number of council recommendations on urban growth have already been changed following mediation. These include a minimum 5 years’ supply of land zoned for development (well short of the supply certainty developers want) and stipulations for new villages (not banned, but discouraged).
Planning consultant Chloe Trenouth outlined the main changes proposed for section B2.1, Providing for growth in a quality compact urban form, in December:
- Amend Objectives 2 & 4 and Policy 1 to strengthen the provisions to achieve a quality compact urban form by clarifying that growth is to be contained within the rural:urban boundary and urbanisation is to be avoided outside that boundary
- Amend Objective 3 to clarify that higher residential densities are appropriately located accessible to the rapid & frequent service network & urban facilities
- Insert a new Policy 1A to avoid new towns & villages outside the rural:urban boundary to support the efficient provision of infrastructure and protection of rural & coastal environments
- Amend Policy 2 to clarify where higher residential densities are enabled in neighbourhoods close to centres, rapid & frequent service network, or large urban facilities, and that adequate infrastructure is a proviso for all development as well as the management of reverse sensitivity effects on significant infrastructure & industrial activities, and
- Insert a new Policy 5 to enable a wider range of housing choice & densities in neighbourhoods to meet the needs of the growing & diverse population.
For section B2.3, Development capacity & supply of land for urban development, Ms Trenouth proposed these changes to growth provisions:
- Amend Objective 4 to clarify that development of land zoned future urban is to occur in a staged, timely & integrated manner aligned with the provision of infrastructure
- Amend Policy 1 to clarify its intent to maintain sufficiently unconstrained development capacity within the rural:urban boundary to accommodate a minimum of 5 years’ residential & business growth at any one time
- Amend Policy 3 to clarify that structure planning is required in future urban land within the rural:urban boundary and that urban development is to be avoided in specific locations where practicable
- Amend Policy 4 to require the staging of structure planning & rezoning of future urban-zoned land, have regard to the council’s land release programme and to enable co-ordinated & efficient provision of infrastructure. Amendments also strengthen the requirements to align growth with infrastructure (including significant infrastructure), and
- Insert a new Policy 8 & regulatory & non-regulatory methods to encourage comprehensive planned redevelopment & rezoning in appropriate locations within the metropolitan area 2010 to increase development capacity.
Ms Trenouth also proposed some key amendments to the growth provisions in B2.5, Rural & coastal towns & villages:
- Amend Objective 2 to require growth within unserviced villages to be contained within the urban areas existing at the date the unitary plan becomes operative,
- Amend Objective 3 to require growth in towns & serviced villages to be contained within a rural:urban boundary or, where a rural:urban boundary has not been established, within the urban areas existing at the date the unitary plan becomes operative,
- Amend Policy 1 to clarify that it only applies to proposals to expand existing rural & coastal towns & serviced villages where a rural:urban boundary is not yet defined and where there is a safe & efficient transport connection as well as efficient & well performing wastewater networks with additional or planned capacity. Additional amendments seek to clarify in Policy 1(k) the specific areas & places where urban development associated with expansion proposal should be avoided, and
- Delete Objective 4 & Policy 3 so the issue of new towns & villages outside the rural:urban boundary is addressed in B2.1 (to provide a centralised location for rural:urban boundary-related growth issues).
Links: Unitary plan addendum, rural:urban boundary
Unitary plan section 32 report
Capacity for growth studies
Darroch for Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa NZ, 2010 housing market assessment
Articles in the series:
UP1: The PAUP, the MUL, the RUB, the RPS & the LRP – the what-the?
UP2: Council tells panel the evidence backs compact city, and new urban boundary will work
UP3: Paper on preferred form an important backgrounder
UP4: Fairgray doesn’t fix on the far horizon, but says million new Aucklanders will fit in
UP5: Rule changes would shorten land supply and discourage new villages
UP6: McDermott argues for better ways than compact city to accommodate growth
UP7: Burton sees the antithesis of good planning, but says the compact city can work
UP8: Crucial question: Who will control land release?
Attribution: Hearings, submissions, supporting documents.