Excerpt of the SLPD-LADU Idea provided from the Submission to The Draft Auckland Plan 2011.

Benjamin Ross

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 Liberal Planned District Like the Centralised Master (Community) Plan, the Semi-Liberal Planned District once the Auckland Plan is activated Local Boards, Auckland, stakeholders and developers would need to work together to form the Semi-Liberal Planned Districts to takes communities (and Auckland) forward for the next 30-50 years. However while developing a SLPD, the primary goal of The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and affordable while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City. So rule of thumb, the SLPD (as one person said) if printed on A4 paper should be no thicker than an average persons thumbnail - anything thicker means it is too complex and/or inefficient. The Semi-Liberal Planned District Model of land allocation/development/utilisation draws primarily on Texan model1 of urban planning (with limitations) AND draws on aspects seen in the Centralised Community (Master) Plan in short/brief, the SLPD slightly more regulation to it then Texas, but not as much as currently in Auckland. An article by the admin of the Auckland Transport Blog title: Taking a Fresh Look at Planning Regulation gives some extremely useful insight into the planning dilemma that faces Auckland. I personally find the article refreshing and in a strange sense of irony the article gives a sense of understanding behind the methodology of the Semi-Liberal Planned District model. Thus the final ideal of the SLPD is to allow a decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU!

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

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 be achieved: Under SLPDs the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Community Board rather than 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 being carried out SLPD follows the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (mentioned page 14) Simplified Zoning Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developer (allowing greater flexibility 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 protective orders (such as regional/national parks or heritage areas (marked by (*) in Chapter 8 of the Draft Auckland Plan).

SLPD and DURT Efficiency, simplification, desirability and affordability these are the objectives the SLPD model of LUAD. Currently in Auckland, the planning documents used for LAUD are complex and extremely dense (in document thickness) leading to the consequence of DURT forming DURT being Delays, Regulation, Uncertainty and Taxes (McShane, 2011)2. High amounts of DURT from planning complexities and density leading to LADU inefficiencies. The ultimate consequence, make Auckland less affordable and desirable to live, educate and work in, thus the idea behind the SLPD-LADU is to lessen (or eliminate) the LADU-DURT. DURT does the following 1. Delays: Delays in Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation as applications are delayed by what is deemed excessive regulations and plans 2. Uncertainty in LADU as private land owners and developers try and guess or figure out what they 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 points made 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 Boards and 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 the Plan has failed (as it is too complex thus leading to DURT) Recognise the following: o Auckland is heterogeneous patch work of different communities the city is not and should be treated or planed for as a super homogenous city o People want choice on how, where and what they want to live in o People are individuals their thought processes and actions are often on an individual basis not collective o Cars (regardless of power source) are going to be with us until at least the end of the century cars are also the ultimate form of individual freedom, choice and expression in status and movement o Aucklands population is heterogeneous so the city plans for a heterogeneous population not a homogenous one Adopt KISS Keep it Simple Stupid And remember its the Economy Stupid. If the city economy is hindered by DURT, then the city 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 is Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Affordable while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City.

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

The Semi Liberal Planned District Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation has two main DURT busting pieces of ammunition: Decentralised basic Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation to Local Community 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 merits through decentralisation allow for greater efficiency and affordability to the community and wider city through the minimising of the DURT (that would be currently found in Aucklands centralised planning model). However, the central regulatory body at Auckland Council still has a part to play in decentralised 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 avoid being out of sync with the Local Community Boards and their plans, the central regulatory body would be collaborating with local community boards and providing guidance required to achieve city wide outputs and outcomes. A basic summary on page 28 indicates how the central regulatory body (Auckland Council and the bureaucracy) 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 SLPDLADU program - in fact this encouraged (under the watchful eye and guidance of the central regulatory body) when planning for large scale (or higher density) commercial or industrial development. However if local community boards can not cooperate together in achieving the primary goal, 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 22 Page 4 of the Housing Affordability in Auckland (contained in the Minister of Local Governments letter to Auckland Council) states a review and the Ministers desire to move always from 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 more mixed 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 a Fresh Look at Planning Regulation the author stated that we over plan rather then under plan and as a result the city gets itself into all sorts of pickles (refer to the blog post for such pickles). I agree on both arguments there, Auckland does over plan (on LADU details rather than LADU form) and has an overtly excessive LADU constraint policy (through the Metropolitan Urban Limits to be replaced by even more stricter Rural Urban Boundary). The Semi-Liberal Planned District for Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation aims to simplify the LADU process through simplified zoning.

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 form3 (Arbury, 2011) rather than detail. Where the irony lies is that through zoning, expectations (the philosophies) and understanding (Memorandum of Understanding) would allow 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 noted in the final paragraph (in effect) of the Auckland Transport Blog post previously mentioned. What makes the entire situation most ironic is that the basic concepts mentioned here in this paragraph (and form that crux for the SLPD-LADU) are found in certain particular urban simulation game that has been around for over two decades. The Sim City franchise (the most recent being Sim City 4 released in 2003) gives the mayor tools to develop his or her city of their dreams per-se; the ultimate in Sim City 4 is the zoning tool. In SC4, 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 is technically built as part of the zone by the developer rather than the central council. However the mayor has final control and oversight of the basic street network for a particular zone in some more custom-made rather then conventional is required. With SC4, basic infrastructure such as water and electricity are again technically provided by the developer rather then the council. This leaves the mayor with the task of providing major infrastructure provisions such as: Main Roads (although SC4 allows the mayor to build motorways, in New Zealand that is done 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 in Sim 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 intentions o Zoning or rezoning begins o Memorandum of Understanding between Council (if required), the Local Community Board and developers in developing the land (but complies with the Region LADU Philosophies previously mentioned) o Development begins Development is then underway with the developer having to provide these basic provisions inside the zoning area effectively zone or zoned district or districts: o Water infrastructure for the district o Electricity infrastructure (in coordination with the local lines company) o Telecommunications infrastructure (in coordination with whoever is contracted to provide phone/broadband cabling

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

Basic park/recreation facilities (set a minimum percentage of total developed area within the zoned district (except for pure industrial land)(percentage to be determined 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 supply4 (Economist, 2011) has ideas on how the SLPD-LADU could work through using municipal utility districts to assist in providing 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 or development 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 the Municipal 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.
4

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

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 as the population grows (rather than drawing down state owned assets)1`. Effectively the above answers the how does Auckland finance a growing city question of SLPDLADUs, the next two question are How is this Semi-Liberal and Where does zoning fit in. It is the zoning aspect and regulatory function provided by the central regulating body that makes the scheme semi-liberal rather than liberal like Texas.

The Zoning System While I advocate what Houston, Texas has done (to a point); I believe Auckland needs slightly more restrictive 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 basic zones 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 the 2005 New Zealand Urban Protocol and The Region Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies mentioned earlier in the chapter. The modified zoning controls are split into three main categories (with a possibility to create a fourth if 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))5: Residential: Low Density Zone: Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small scale infilling as well) Medium Density Zone: Smaller Apartments and condominiums (terraced housing and walk 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 6-7 stories high and/or a floor area of 3000sqm) (this is where you would see a medium sized supermarket (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 Plaza Hunters Corner, Papatoetoe) High Density Zone: Skyscrapers, mega-malls, large supermarkets (like the Countdown at Manukau City) Industrial: Agricultural Zone: Speaks for itself farms, cows, sheep, horticulture, viticulture Light Industry Zone: Small scale warehouses (like the National Mini-Shed storage complexes) 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, we do 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

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

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 to do 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 agricultural zoning 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 fit in as well When zoning for a SLPD you can mix two zones together to form mix development. An example would be zoning medium density residential and medium density commercial together. This allows the 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) upgrade 5. 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 set however 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 the R-LADU-P is not contravened. The district would be allow to change, mature and re-change (or stay the 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 local and wider community of Auckland. The flexibility and semi-liberal nature of this model of LADU would ideally bust the DURT Auckland sees currently and go some distance (due to the DURT busting) 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 the primary infrastructure, large parks and civic services, the rest is left to those responsible looking after the district.

SLDP-LADU where to do it All that leaves is where to apply the SLPD-LADU to Auckland; and the simple answer is the ENTIRE URBAN 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 so for 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, high tension 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 constant planning and regulation would be minimised and the concept of property rights more recognised than it is now or the current form of The Auckland Plan will allow. The Rural Urban Boundary would and should not exist if the city wants to achieve affordability for its citizens as believe me the last thing people will thing about is the environment if they struggle to make ends meet due to Auckland Planning driving affordability out of reach. If one is wondering how would Auckland create SLPDs through the zoning system, chapters seven and eight of The Draft Auckland Plan give some ideas on how you would what zone in an SLPD. The accompanying table below provides a guide on what zones would be appropriate mainly for brownfield development. More specifically, Schedule One Urban Centres Hierarchy (page 131, Chapter Eight, The Draft Auckland Plan) and Schedule Two Rural Settlements Classifications (Chapter Seven, page 109, The Draft Auckland Plan) provide adequate explanations on what each centre or settlement classifications, these explanations were used to provide a foundation on what type 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 was opened up for development (Consult submission in Long Term Plan for a more details).

For existing urban or developed areas: Rural (As per Chapter Seven Schedule Two Page 109, the Draft Auckland Plan) Classification Suggested Zoning Maximum Medium Residential and Commercial, Light Industry Notes Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning. Areas marked with (*) have potential for medium residential or commercial in the future

Satellites

Rural and Coastal Settlements

Light Residential and Commercial

Rural and Coastal Villages

Restricted Light Residential and Commercial

Area surrounded by Industrial 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 Activity Categories (Chapter Seven, pages 107-108) outlines LADU categories for Aucklands different rural types in an attempt to watch over the rural landscape of Auckland. Upon reflection I agree with the draft in the Draft Auckland Plan for the Rural Activity Categories. If a separate agricultural zoning was needed (outside of the blanket Industry: Agricultural Zone mentioned on page __ of this submission) then adapting the optional Agricultural/Rural Zoning to the Rural Activities Categories would be a viable and sound idea. Country Area Living Description (Page 108, Chapter Seven, The Draft 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 transition between urban and rural while being future proofed for any expansion type Greenfield development.

Urban (As per Chapter Eight Tables 8.2 and 8.3 Pages 132 and 133, and Schedule One on page 131; The Draft Auckland Plan) Suggested Zoning Maximum N/A

Category International City Centre

CMCP/SLPD CMCP

Notes Covered by the Draft City Centre Master Plan Includes Tamaki. Excludes Sylvia Park

Metropolitan Centres

CMCP

N/A

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

SLPD

Medium Residential and Commercial

Includes Sylvia Park

Local Centres

SLPD

Light Residential and Commercial

Possibility for up zoning for medium commercial and residential - but on a case by case basis Has potential for High Density Residential and Commercial, but that needs to be explored in depth first Review each area for LADU and redevelopment possibilities

Urban Growth Corridors

SLPD

Medium Residential and Commercial

Existing Industry

SLPD

Notes on Urban Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation When dealing with Industrial Zone LADU, whether it be on existing Brownfield sites or Greenfield sites, responsibility in allocating the an SLPD with industry zoning in it would fall to the allocated central regulatory body (Auckland Council) rather than the Local Community Board. However the central regulatory body would have the obligation to inform and enter dialogue with the Local Community Board (or Boards) affected when Greenfield industrial zoning is undertaken. No obligation would be required any redevelopment in existing industrial areas (Brownfield sites).

Final Remarks on Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

Affordability and good economic progress without DURT strangulating both must come first for Auckland. 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 more attainable. If the city is unaffordable to live and conduct business in, then economic progress stalls as business and residents are under stress to make ends meet. If that happens then the environment we treasure 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 making Auckland The Most Liveable City then the current DURT pile that is making the opposite of the intended goal happen must be eliminated best as possible! A plan like all other things can be as simple or as complex as one makes it, my vision and LADU model are trying to simplify planning so that people can conduct their affairs in a manner that is efficient and thrifty and most of all the end product was affordable. By keeping the plans simple; then Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxes that arise from overtly complex operation would be eliminated! Centralised Master (Community) Plans and Semi-Liberal Planned Districts trying to Keeping It Simple Stupid aka DURT Busting.

Overview of Takanini East Greenfield Development Area (See separate LTP submission for full details) Scale @ A3 1:25,0006

Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)

Overview of Papakura Greenfield Development Area (See separate LTP submission for full details) Scale @ A3 1:25,0007

Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)