Land use and the regulations around it continues to feature in rural-related conversations. Apart from the growth of unfettered carbon forests, the focus for some time has been on urban sprawl encroaching upon valuable and limited lands with high value soils.
Even larger cities, with the government edict for residential housing to be able to go to 3 stories, are not immune from changes being applied. The threats of housing and rezoning on often the most productive food producing lands are obvious to most with most of these areas close to major urban areas and in limited supply.
Most of these soils have developed from river silts over years of flooding and additional organic matter from plants over time. The notable exception being the Pukekohe soils, where much of Auckland’s food is sourced, which were developed initially from volcanic ash falls up to 25,000 years ago, plus the addition of organic matter.
These soils extend into the Waikato but the Pukekohe soils with their close locality to Auckland and milder winters leading to higher production are considered more valuable and more under threat.
Areas around most other major centres in the North and South Islands also have highly productive and suitable lands under threat.
It’s worth noting that the proximity to large centres helps in the containing of food costs with generally better climates, transport logistics and the necessary labour available.
With this as a backdrop, in 2019 the government set in process a review to come up with a National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). This got cabinet sign off last week. The changes require councils to identify, map and manage highly productive land to ensure its available for primary production.
Perhaps unfortunately, land that is already the subject of an approved plan change to rezone the land ceases to be highly productive land from the date the plan change becomes operative, even if the change is not yet included in maps in an operative regional policy statement. Minister for Agriculture has said “Over the last 20 years, about 35,000 hectares of our highly productive land has been carved up for urban or rural residential development, while 170,000 hectares of this land has been converted to lifestyle blocks”.
Auckland City Council which is arguably affected the most by the new regulations (perhaps with Wellington) while seeking some clarification over some of the new standards does appear to be in general agreement with the plan and sees it as leaving less wriggle room for developers and reducing costs for Council if and when they contest applications.
However, while valuable land may get better protection, an Environment Court last year said Auckland’s urban sprawl was accelerating and predicted to consume another 31,270 hectares in the next 35 years. This obviously needs to be North or South (if correct) and will add to the continuing transit debate Auckland has.
Given the limited easy access Wellington (and other North Island cities) has to available land a likely outcome will be the (continued) growth of Christchurch. In a statement which is likely to have contributed to Auckland’s Council seeking further clarification, the Ministry for the Environment said the NPS-HPL did not give councils any new powers to reject private plan changes. However, it does change the issues they must consider when assessing them. “Generally, we expect once implemented… there will be fewer plan changes and a clearer strategic direction”.
Perhaps adding to the interest around this is the Christchurch City Council's decision to say No! to the government’s plan to enforce Tier 1 cities to introduce housing intensification standards. While the decision of the Council is largely likely to end up being symbolic it does point to the fact that many believe that not all cities should be treated the same and Christchurch is quite different to Auckland and Wellington. It is up to the Government to now respond. Given the upcoming local body elections, this issue may become quite a political hot potato in the Canterbury region.
9 Comments
Christchurch wants to prevent people from intensifying on their own urban land, as do many in Auckland and Wellington councils? Such NIMBYism has a high cost to ratepayers, with sprawl being far more expensive to service and maintain.
This analysis indicates that sprawl imposes more than $400 billion dollars in external costs and $625 billion in internal costs annually in the U.S. - Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
While the University of Ottawa's Suburban Sprawl study found suburban household's annual cost to a city was ~$3,462 compared to an urban household's $1,416.
NIMBYs in councils refusing to allow intensification closer end up driving up costs and rates for everyone.
Again, if all you have is a hammer (and sickle in Labours case) then everything looks like a nail.
But let's start with one fundamental problem with the plan. IE most of the farmers don't agree with it. After all, it was they who sold the land in the first place at the big developer dollars. They could have put a covenant on it to limit its use and value to rural only. But no, after the crocodile tears about how much they love the land, took the money.
Secondly, many councils will be in two minds as for many, no further development can take place off their last connections which means they will have to hit up existing ratepayers more, rather than fund growth and upgrade of failing existing infrastructure via greenfields levies and rates. And for others, they will use their interpretation of 'highly productive land' as a subjective way of stopping developments based on ideology that has nothing to do with the soil type.
The idea of protecting elite soils etc. is the right idea, but without also opening up as a presumptive right to build on all the rest of the land that does not fit that criterion, as they do in jurisdictions that have very affordable housing, then they will be further limiting supply.
It's just one Cluster@&*# after another.
Already there. It's called Rolleston.
Situated at the junction of the West Coast branch line and the SI main trunk rail network, it boasts two inland ports, a development-levy-free industrial area yclept Izone, and, best of all, it lies outside the cold dead hands of CCC.
All true, but of course, they are one of the first to apply the restrictions on surrounding farmland.
And while the Izone is great, it is interesting that as a council-developed project they granted themselves dispensation against paying levies but won't give that same benefit to others.
Yes, there are some great opportunities for regional centers, but of course, their local leaders all have a Witty Mitty complex and really would like to have the grandeur of being a leader of something bigger.
Thus they are all just an Auckland Cluster*%&# awaiting to happen.
This obviously needs to be North or South (if correct) and will add to the continuing transit debate Auckland has.
Nope. Not obviously at all.
Auckland currently expands by extra urban sprawl. It is forbidden to build new suburbs on land adjacent to most of the existing suburbs, because these locations are too close and compact for Auckland Council. Instead development is encouraged to rapidly expand exurban towns and villages, because these locations are further away and more difficult to commute from.
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.