Capacity will be created for 422,000 new dwellings to be built in Auckland by 2041, if the Auckland Council votes to accept a raft of recommendations it's just been presented by a government-appointed panel of experts.
An Independent Hearings Panel has revealed how it believes the Auckland Unitary Plan should look, having received more than 10,000 pieces of evidence and listened to 249 days of hearings.
It maintains the region should be re-zoned in such a way that 422,000 new dwellings could be built by 2041 - 22,000 more than projections deem necessary and 209,000 more than the Proposed Unitary Plan notified by the Auckland Council made possible.
It also suggests Auckland's Rural Urban Boundary be expanded by 30%. The plan got a cautious initial thumbs-up from the Government, which said "it appears to meet many of the housing objectives for Auckland".
The Panel says its plan: “Enables a development pattern that is capable of meeting residential demand over the long-term and that is errs towards over-enabling capacity."
It proposes creating capacity for 270,000 new dwellings to be built in urban areas, 23,000 in live-zoned land in new urban areas, 14,000 in rural zones and 115,000 in Future Urban zones (unlikely to be available in the next seven years).
You can see the maps of how the Panel proposes Auckland be rezoned to enable these extra dwellings to be built here.
In summary, the Panel calls for the following zoning changes across the region:
Single house zone: One house per section
Area reduced by 22%
Mixed housing suburban zone: Four houses up to two storeys per section without resource consent
Area expanded by 5%
Mixed housing urban zone: Four houses up to three storeys per section without resource consent
Area expanded by 48%
Terrace housing and apartment building zone: Apartments of up to five storeys, and in some cases, six or seven storeys
Area expanded by 25%
Furthermore, the Panel suggests the Plan:
- Retains the Rural Urban Boundary, but expands it to include 30% more land and enables it to be changed by private plan changes.
- Focuses urban growth on centres, transport nodes and corridors to achieve a "quality compact urban form".
- Removes density controls in residential zones.
- Deletes the pre-1944 building demolition overlay - ie removes some protections for homes built before 1944.
- Enables the growth and development of new or existing rural towns and villages.
- Enables a development pattern to meet demand for the next 30 years and doubles the feasible enabled residential capacity to exceed 400,000 dwellings.
- Deletes provisions for framework plans and enables comprehensive consenting processes for subdivision, including earthworks and provision for infrastructure.
- Protects historic heritage places and retains special character areas.
- Provides for affordable housing choices with a mix of dwelling types.
The Panel has gone with the Council's proposed strategy of accommodating 60-70% of the growth in housing supply within the existing urban areas through intensification of suburbs, with the remaining 30-40% being generated in new 'greenfields' areas.
The Auckland Council now has until August 19 to consider the Panel’s recommendations and decide whether to accept or reject them, bringing the five-year process of developing a Unitary Plan to an end.
The Council will discuss the recommendations at a series of public meetings between August 10 and August 18, with the aim of wrapping the process up before the local body elections on October 8.
It will be tough for the Council to make changes to the Panel's recommendations. If it rejects a recommendation it must explain why and provide an alternative solution that is within the scope of submissions made on the 2013 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
The Council may be eligible for a 20 working day extension if it gets permission from the Minister for the Environment.
Those who want to appeal the recommendations in court are limited in their ability to do so.
You can lodge an Environment Court appeal if you made a submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Council rejects a Panel recommendation related to the topic you submitted on.
Those who made submissions can also lodge appeals to the High Court on points of law.
If the Council accepts a Panel recommendation that is identified by the Panel as beyond the scope of a submission, anyone, whether they made a submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan or not, can lodge an appeal with the Environment Court if they believe they will be "unduly prejudiced by the decision".
The law makes provisions in relation to appeals for decisions on designations and heritage orders.
Here is the statement Environment and Building and Housing Minister Nick Smith issued. For more on Smith and Labour Leader Andrew Little, see this story.
Independent panel’s report welcomed
The Government has today welcomed the release of the Independent Hearings Panel’s recommendations on the Unitary Plan, saying the new plan is crucial to Auckland’s future, Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith says.
“Auckland’s current planning rules date back to the 1990s, seven different councils and 400,000 fewer people. The Independent Hearings Panel has done a good job of addressing the complex issues and balancing the competing interests.
“The new plan is by its nature a complex document as it affects the development rules on more than 550,000 property titles, as well as the issues of water management, air quality and the marine environment. I am encouraged by the high-level briefing on the plan’s content received from officials today. The new plan appears to meet many of the housing objectives for Auckland. It will take time for both ministers and government agencies to comprehend the full detail.
“We acknowledge the reported back Unitary Plan poses a major challenge for the council. Auckland previously could not resolve the tension between the old regional council wanting a tight metropolitan urban limit and the district and city councils wanting more growth outwards. This confusion resulted in too little provision for growth and the current housing challenges. The strength of a single Auckland Council is that this issue will be resolved.
“The Government has confidence that Mayor Len Brown and the council understand how important the new plan is to Auckland’s future. We will be giving the council clear air to make a considered decision. We also have officials working to ensure a smooth transition from the SHAs to the new Unitary Plan, to maintain the momentum we have achieved in new home construction.”
123 Comments
Regardless of personal opinions being made about "sophomoric" can we refrain from suppression of peoples right to expression?
Adults CAN handle such things!
I and others have noticed of late a wee bit too much censorship going on.
Otherwise just remove the comment section altogether along with that tea towel of a flag!
There are heaps of other places where you can shout, make up 'facts', indulge in personal abuse, and generally be uncivil when talking about public policy positions and the people who have to make those decisions.
We want to be the place where issues are debated. I don't want conversations here to get grubby and personal.
We don't want to be a place where people who haven't grown up, slinging anything that they have at hand trying to bully their way into the conversation. If you want to do that, take your 'free speech' elsewhere.
Hope that is straight enough for you.
Should we take things like our sarcasm, humour, and cynicism elsewhere also? Just all become boring commentators with not an ounce of human emotion on show? What is a debate, discussion worth without passion?
I'm all for removing gross profanity and slander etc. As for things like "making up facts"? Ummm, pretty sure just about every MP would be guilty of that one, yet I along with others are continually force fed their rubbish on a daily basis regardless. If only we could be so quick to censor that!
None of us are above criticism. If we are then we do have a problem alright.
I agree, there needs to be some balance between aesthetics and intensification.
Ultimately, the plan is going to make a huge difference in increasing housing supply.
Some who knew this was coming purchased properties next to each other i.e. even with these restrictions, there will be improved intensification while minimizing slums from being developed....
I think it means you can subdivide your property only if yours and the 'new' section have 6m (circle) outdoor space i.e. garden/courtyard/grass area in addition to the new dwelling, must be separate to driveways and your own 6m circle. So every property must have a big bit of wasted space on it to comply.
There are some good diagrams in the plan eg this one.
Note that an 'outlook space' may be within the site, over a public street, or other public open space, so technically it doesn't have to be on your section though practically most of it would probably end up being so.
If you have a 15m wide site and you want to build 4 townhouses down the site, it requires there to be a 6m distance from the window of the living room to the side boundary.
So effectively, the townhouses would have to be set back 6m from the boundary, and you will need a 3m access strip on the other side of the townhouses along the other boundary. that leaves you with 6m in between which isn't deep enough for a townhouse.
there will be design solutions potentially to get around it but it's not easy. And it could lead to odd building forms
It will mean you will often need site amalgamation to occur, which is a big barrier (ie. need to buy up multiple properties)
It's a problem....
they just made where i live and the surrounding neighbourhood all high density, ie for apartments so i guess if i sit tight for another ten years should make my land and my neighbours whom all dont have second houses on the back of our sections much richer.
in saying that might have to get together with our block and all sell at once like they do in aussie to get a great price
http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/castle-hill-megalot-property-sa…
I think they have it wrong, there is no public transport close by, its miles away from trains, not an area you would buy into for views, the only positive is close to one of the biggest employment areas in auckland and over time I am guessing will become low wage cheap apartments and will turn into a getto.
In my mind they should have made it ten miles down the road where their are harbour views and a walk across the bridge to a train station and town centre
for me though it is all positive as I am looking to move south in the next ten years so will up my purchasing amount
Maybe. But it is more likely that increased density is already priced into the property. The AUP has been online for years now - and the council shooting it down was never really on the cards.
Of course both you and are assuming that property prices are set by rational agents. That seems unlikely.
It also suggests Auckland's Rural Urban Boundary be expanded by 30%.
Question: does the term "Auckland's Rural Urban Boundary" refer to:
A - the Rural Urban Boundary around Auckland the City (contiguous urban area).
B - the sum total of all the various Rural Urban Boundaries of Auckland the Region (discrete urban zones).
If A: we are still going to be about 40% shy of a normal growth requirement of a normal city, but this is good first step and will make things slightly better.
If B: we are repeating the same idiotic planning that got us into this mess and embarking with the largest sprawl fuelled rates increases ever seen.
Update: And the answer is "B" - most of the extensions to "Auckland's Rural Urban Boundary" occur miles into the countryside far away from Auckland. We get a little bit north from Long Bay, small bit north of Albany, a tiny amount more west of Henderson Valley, a reasonable chunk around Alfriston, some by the airport and that is it.
The majority of the expansion to "Auckland" occurs in Warkworth, Orewa/Dairy Flat, Kumeu and Pukekohe - same plan, but now with even more sprawl.
Which they will never do and likewise the council will not be changing its approach. The review we just had was a joint government/council effort.
So here is the plan:
Step 1 - vote against Labour/Greens in the local body elections, because Len Brown/Penny Hulse drew up the RUB.
Step 2 - vote for Labour/Greens in the parliamentary elections, because Labour/Greens oppose to the RUB.
I wonder if they will upgrade that crazy Hill Street/SH1 junction in Warkworth before they build all the houses? Also, don't fancy having to drive down the northern motorway in rush hour along with all those new Orewa and Warkworth residents for a job in Auckland!
Grrr - look at the zoning along Riddell road on the north side of Glendowie. In the original (non-dense) submission this was single-house (going to multi house as one got close to St Heliers). In the new it is mixed housing suburban EXCEPT for the few houses belonging to NZ's richest man (Graham Hart) and a handful of his neighbours. What possible justification is there for this? Either the whole neighbourhood should be mixed suburban or those currently single house zone should remain as such (given this is a peninsula not well connected to public transport). This smells very fishy to me!!
And will any of this add any extra sections in the immediate future to alleviate the present crisis. How many of these extra dwellings will only eventuate after long drawn out processes and slow evolution of the nature of the suburbs affected. Much of this relies on people deciding to sell their present homes which will not happen at the stroke of a pen. People will not do this with out a strong financial incentive, so already crazy prices will have to be increased further to encourage them out of their homes. The Ponzie scheme continues. I cannot see this delivering anything that will be remotely affordable to FHB for several decades.
Like the governments previous "cures" this will be very slow to implement, under deliver, favour it's wealthy mates and at best very underwhelming. The only solutions that I can see that will have any meaningful and timely impact will be found on the demand side of the equation. Namely curbing immigration, foreign investment, property investors speculation and frenzy, and tax policy.
In Mixed Housing Suburban and Urban zones up to 4 houses is PERMITTED - if you comply with the rules (which allow more than current Res6 etc) you don't need to apply for Resource Consent. The moment it's Operative - assuming Council say yes - you can lodge for building consent.
Good to see some sort of plan.
Seriously though, do you Aucklanders really think it will improve your standard of living, with so many more people flocking in, it will be that congested.
Traffic will be appalling, quicker to walk.
Christchurch will become more and more popular with people looking for a quality lifestyle and still affordable and with plenty of opportunity!
I think unless you have a very big site the current rules will limit development to about 1 home per 400 sq m in the mixed house suburban areas.... simply outlook and height to boundary will do this, means that many suburbs will end up looking similar to current St Heliers density....
Agree re congestion, try driving around suburban Sydney in the weekend
I'm an Architect who graduated in Urbanism in Switzerland. I worked in Europe, the USA and NZ. I also live in central city Auckland. We MUST densify, we must accept this plan. I implore the Auckland Council to accept it and not be petty. The plan may not be perfect but it so much better than the status quo. Forget about the NIMBY's, look at the greater good, there will always be unhappy people, ignore them
Good grief. Nimbys aren't "New Zealand". They are just a vocal subgroup in a localised area. Changes in someone else's backyard are usually ok for these folks.
A "good plan" or good public policy might require change. Someone won't like change if it applies to them. But that shoudln't affect the adoption of a "good plan" or other "good public policy".
All of life requires adjustment at some times. You can't freeze everything just based on a few complainers.
C'mon David - you are better than that
Any theory should meet all tests
In just the past week there has been several cases of community complaints in lower-socio-economic areas of Manukau where the residents collectively objected to the area being used as a dumping ground for sex-offenders next to schools
Don't tell me that's not nimbyism
David last night Little made a comment on One News about not wanting house prices to fall to protect those who "bought a house in good faith". Are not NIMBY's the same? They bought their properties in the faith that the value of the property will be protected in some way. If the Unitary Plan undermines that value how is that different?
interesting comment, so if in government and some advent happens to drop house prices, will they step up to help out the banks and people or let the market sort itself out.
we are in this mess because of 20+ years of bad policies which look no closer to being changed, and if in government from his statement I see a reluctance to change them, but like this government just tinker
I don't give two figs about the banks, that's private business that has actually helped make the situation worse. I do feel for first home buyers. I don't believe the commentators who claim that a significant drop in the price of houses will have a negative impact on the economy (other than paper values). I do believe any action that makes houses significantly more affordable for Kiwis (that's us who live here) will have a significantly positive effect on the economy.
Is it really that plausible to have affordable housing (without them being slums/cheap apartment blocks), without bringing house prices down a reasonable amount? As this appears to be what Andrew Little and Labour along with other political parties wants to achieve.
According to Longitudinal Immigration Survey: New Zealand (LisNZ) – Wave 1 the top reasons given for migrating to NZ are:
Relaxed pace of life or lifestyle
Climate or the clean, green environment
A better future for my children
Employment opportunity
Friendly people
Safety from crime
Join family members
Easy access to outdoor or sporting activities
Educational opportunities
Marry or live with a NZ spouse or partner
Political stability
Economic conditions
To study
Accompany family members
Other
Aspects Migrants liked most about NZ
Climate or natural beauty or clean and green
Friendly people or relaxed pace of life
Can achieve desired lifestyle
Safety from crime and violence
Recreation and leisure activities
Small population
Education system or educational opportunities
Having family here
Political stability and freedom or lack of corruption
Cultural diversity
Job opportunities
Good provision of services
Good housing
Lack of inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions
Economic conditions
Other
None
…
http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/LISNZ/…
I'm pretty sure twice as many houses means twice as many people which means twice as many cars.
if you want to live in this environment try moving to England or Europe or India or china. It challenges my brain that you immigrate here and then want to make it like where you came from.
Okay Yvil. Instead of not being surprised that my brain is challenged please explain. Why did you come to live on the other side of the planet away from family and friends and your mother tongue.
Think back to what attracted you to NZ and ask yourself if your not selling it out.
Perhaps some personal greed has changed your original considerations of what is a quality life.
My guess is you'll cash in your capital gains and get out of Dodge.
Northland Hippy, thanks for asking.
I've come to live in NZ 24 years ago because I fell in love with a kiwi (of Korean descent) girl. I have stayed here this long and I will keep staying here because I think NZ is a beautiful, peaceful country with decent opportunities to make a good life for oneself. I think the lifestyle is fantastic (not the highest earning country but a great balance between earning and leisure). The most important aspect though, is the Kiwi mentality which, in my view, strikes a wonderful balance between work and play.
I lived in Christchurch until the Earthquake when I lost my house then moved to Auckland 4 years ago. I would never return to Chch (sorry old Chch friends) as I find Auckland so much better to live in. It's much warmer, more open minded, more international (cuisine, events sporting or music) it has beautiful beaches that are warm work opportunities are better. So for me there's no surprise Auckland is growing so fast and will continue to do so. Of course that poses some challenges, traffic and property prices and the Unitary Plan is an attempt to ease these challenges.
The plan does very little to manage it better. We need density near train stations and along main bus lines (e.g. along T2 corridors). It has some of that but also a lot of infill where frequent public transport won't and can't run. Also the computation on new houses is highly dubious as most home owners don't want to (or can't without removing house) subdivide but I think they are assuming we all will.
Going to be really great living in Auckland.
All those lovely shoebox apartments are going to be marvellous bringing up kids, just like the ghettos overseas.
Surely there is more to life than having to live like that?
Seriously, why would you really want to stay living in Auckland.
Bet my last dollar that most people are going to want to bail out for a better lifestyle south, but then if you have only lived in Auckland it is all you would know!
How long is it going to travel from the outskirts into town in the future.p?
I had a family from japan stay at my house. When they got back the kid (toddler) cried upon entering the apartment (as had been running around on the lawn). Also I asked a young Japanese guy what he would do if he had money and he said "this" referring to my modest house and garden.
The yes, bring it on group, perceive that they will make lots of money.
The immigrants group want to bring family and friends as its still better than where they came from.
The average Kiwi group are busy working and raising families and trust the media and trust that their politicians are making good decisions.
The stop it now group are considered to be party poopers and are shouted down and vilified, just ask Winston.
Zachary, in dollar terms I suppose it is good for the owner of the section.
Don't believe though that most young third generation kiwis will long term want to be couped up in an apartment. Think of those great balcony barbecues?
Personally never lived in Auckland but have been there many times.
Yes there are plenty of things to do if you can get to them on time, but wouldn't live there even if I was paid to, and will get worse.
You can believe what you like about Chch being shakey etc. but I am telling you that the opportunities both financially and for your own wellbeing leaves Auckland for dead.
All this building is going to take along time and with the new lending rules in this past week or so it is going to be very interesting times for Auckland.
I was really thinking about the implications of those with cross-lease properties rather than freehold sections. A cross-lease is rather limited unless you own both. We don't see much development of cross-lease properties because of the perceived difficulty of getting consents. It's hard to even make a minor change. Will developers seek to buy both cross-lease properties in order to build denser housing? Maybe someone will buy a cross-lease and then offer the other owner a super price so the section can be returned to freehold. Quite a gamble though. Or will owners of cross-lease properties snap up the other cross-lease if it comes up for sale thus increasing the price of these properties?
I have often thought we should get rid of most cross-leases. The council could get a huge windfall by rubber stamping transition to freehold for a fee of something like 50k. Not sure what the ramifications would be.
The Euphoria will soon be over of Unitary plan as it may or may not help in long run but what is required now is action on part of the government to curb speculation.
Breather for government as unitary will be in news/ media for sometime but than reality will hit as buble will grow bigger and than will have to act like Australia and Canada.
Big money means BIG money is waiting to fly out from China and NZ is too small an island for that money by which they can buy NZ not once but number of time and are doing. Anyone reading this comment or experts just turn and see near around you to see if it is happening or not.
Government will have to act to curb overseas buyer and the only question is When and not If same as bubble will burst and question is When and not If.
How correct amam. Supply is good but to come out of the current housing crisis government will have to act on non resident buyer, wheter they like it or not. Supply in itself can never be a solution without puting measure to control demand.
Infact now is the chance for government to come out with some measures on overseas buyer as will be very effevtive comprehensive measure along with rbnz tool which has been introduced and debt to income ratio tool that may also be introduced.
Will the govrnment act and surprise..can be a game changer for national
does anyone know what the price of the cheapest apartments or terraced houses are likely to be in the inner suburbs?
You would think that if there was going to be all this demand and requirement to build massive numbers of homes then Fletchers etc. could name their price for the product and wouldn't be cheap!
If the RBNZ also brought in the loan to income at say 5x then this might limit Most first homers to a shoebox apartment rather than a standalone home.
"A couple who moved from London to raise their young family in New Zealand are "devastated" by the latest plan." NZ herald
I thought they were devastated because they didn't get up zoned - but turns out they are upset because they did. Most people who just got a huge financial gain so they could move to a nicer part of town with a smaller mortgage would be celebrating. Not the attitude that built the empire.
Go read the article - How to create instant NIMBY's
The couple spent a long time choosing their property to raise their young children, now find the properties either side have been bought up by developers for terraced housing
Instant NIMBY's - read the feedback in the comments below the NZHerald article
JK says anyone trying to control house price is barking mad.
His intention is clear from his action and word that come what may house price should keep on going up.
So all this unitary plan and all is a farce for first is too far fetched and will take years and is all only to divert atention from taking actual measures and secondly providing more opportunity to speculators to play.
He has understood the pulse of the speculators and elite few whom he is supporting at the cost of the nation but has failed to feel the anguish developing and will prove to be harmful for the country but does he care.
Sorry but Auckland is the real "Capital" of New Zealand and without the current population living here and sensible building and infrastructure to support it like a fast rail link to the city this country is going to go down the toilet. As it stands we currently just cannot add more houses. If you drive each day in Auckland you will notice its already gridlock, hell I cannot even get to south Auckland in the WEEKEND without a traffic snarl up in one direction or sometimes both. Auckland needs very careful planning and its not just about throwing up yet MORE leaky homes. Personally I don't see much change. If they build they will still be too expensive for FHB so then they have to sell them so investors buy them and rent them back to FHB. There are so many things that need to change to correct the current situation and its not going to happen.
Does this mean that all homeowners who have some extra land, especially in mixed housing suburban classification, can start building additional dwellings without much hassle ?
What about cross lease properties ? Will the other property owners in the same land area have any say/objection to increase in density ?
Have a house am lucky but is this the set up that one wants. Create a panic situation and then push your agenda of unitary by pressurizing Council (Says the report is prepared by independent but is under government so can understand how independent, it will be) and changing the social fabric.
Change but think and change nothing is good when done in panic mode, government is asking all to act but what about infrastructure, now where it takes 45 Minutes to reach office will take an hour and half so have to plan sensible and COUNCIL SHOULD NOT BE BULLIED BY GOVERNMENT FOR THE SITUATION IS CREATED BY GOVERNMENT.
Why Leave Auckland, that is not the solution, Auckland is mine and we Aucklander's instead of leaving Auckland should make people who are and have destroyed leave.
If someone is ill we do not kill them but treat them, so anyone suggesting leaving Auckland for the greed of politicians in barking mad - in the words of our PM.
Running away is not the solution. Politicians forgets that time has changed - Result is uprising in Egypt, Brexit, Europe, USA..........If they feel NZ is in another part of the universe, is wrong.
Council should weigh the pros and cons of the Unitary Plan and should not allow government to bully them for if anything goes wrong, national will be quick to blame the council as that is what they are good at.
Even if they accept should do it with all the conditions like infrastructure, etc and put it back in the governments court that is accept with condition that benefits Auckland and not government as National Party is just trying to divert attention and hide behind Unitary plan as elections next year.
Capacity for 420,000 new homes. How many of those will actually get built? The greenfield developments can happen quickly but for most existing areas to get to the potential density would mean removing the existing dwelling(s) and replacing them. Either this won't happen on houses will be built at lower density to more easily fit on the site.
Assuming 100% greenfield development and 50% brownfield development gives Auckland only 287,000 more houses. This is 11,500 per year versus the 16,000 required per year (and we still need to make up a 30,000 shortfall).
Where is the man power, equipment power, materials power and infrastructure power for all these huge numbers of houses to be built in the time frame envisaged ? What if circumstances change, black swans happen, or another GFC comes along ?
Let us try to build 15000 houses in the next year and see how it goes on target.
Then we can build on that experience, pun not intended.
I've been going around a few of the secondary schools recently with my kids who are moving up from Intermediate, and I wasn't surprised to see that the kids are still being influenced into sciences and arts, and not hard tech subjects. Far more options to do dance and media studies, than woodwork and engineering.
I suppose we will just import the labour we need, as we are told immigration is good for the country, will we start importing some real skills we need instead of chefs?
Ask Government all that unitary plan and all is fine(Though is a cover up so that you run away from your responsibilities) but what are you doing now to control the demand as in economy neither supply nor demand is in isolation and both have to be tackled to get the desired result - ASK any experts.
Just one small thing appears to have been overlooked - how are all these people going to move around the city? Surely not on the roads? Unless double-storey roads are planned........think gridlock 24/7. Oh, perhaps a small percentage will catch a retarded train, if they can get to their local station by car in the first place.
Several comments seem to confuse cause and effect. Auckland IS a growing city, it HAS traffic problems and property prices ARE sky high. These are not "caused" by the proposed Unitary Plan, the Plan is trying to address the lack of housing folks, not the other way around.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.