Transcript THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE FORM

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL AND
DISTRICT PLANNING DOCUMENTS UNDER THE LGAAA
RMLA
28 June 2005
Peter Fuller
Glaister Ennor
Barristers & Solicitors
Auckland
Telephone: 09 356 8243
Facsimile: 09 356-8248
Email:
[email protected]
1. Introduction - Key themes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Significant changes
Real physical consequences
New planning approach?
Impacts of the policy
Potential benefits and costs
Resourcing the implementation
Outcomes?
2. What can be agreed
•
•
•
•
Smart Growth - Growth Management
Associating land use and transportation
Reducing congestion
Improving:
– Passenger transport,cycling, walking
– Urban design
– Engineering design
– Quality of life
– Air and water quality
• Diverse, vibrant healthy communities
• However, the detail is complex!
3. Refuge in “cliches”
• “Urban sprawl” - “urban obesity”
– Today’s urban sprawl may be tomorrow’s
heritage zone
• “Death by a thousand cuts”
– The Waitakere Ranges have been protected for
urban Auckland - how much protection do they
need from it?
– Consent to “farm” the suburbs?
• “Dealing with congestion by adding more
lanes is like dealing with obesity by
loosening your belt”
– Remove some lanes?
4. Mixed messages?
• Rate of growth?
• Concern about “urban sprawl” - 70%
• Concern about “infill housing” - 70%
– Poor quality developments
– Building Act/code deficiencies
– Inadequate planning - e.g. provisions for open
space
– Community impacts
• Vision and values?
• Who pays for the “public good”?
• Site specific v strategic?
5. Key Parts of the LGAAA
• LTLUC are required “to provide for
integrated land transport and land use
provisions”.
• S3 - purpose to integrate/make provisions
consistent with the RGS
• Appendix A - definitions
• Section 40
• Schedule 5
Section 40
Extent of land transport and land use
changes (1) defines what a change is
(2) change must be integrated
(4) “A land transport and land use change
and any decision of the Environment Court
on an appeal against the change must not
(a) extend the metropolitan urban limits set
in the ARPS unless the ARC agrees;…”
6. Relationship to the RMA?
• Section 75 - DP must not be “inconsistent”
with operative RPS
• Amendment Act - DP to “give effect to”
RPS
• s39: RMA applies except to extent that it is
inconsistent (see also s43)
• Hierarchy of instruments: RPS v RGS?
• Scope of LTLUC?
– Effect of notified changes wider than just
“transport related” land use and intensification?
• Jurisdiction of the EC?
7. Regional Planning - Context
• “Okura” caselaw - MUL endorsed
• Regional Growth Forum - ARC Committee
• Regional Growth Strategy (1999) - “Growth
Concept” (node and corridor intensification)
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Sector Agreements (Sub Regional)
• Largely non-RMA processes
• Participation in process?
8. RPS Chapter 2 - Strategic Direction
• 2.3 Growth Strategy - Vision to 2050
– Containment - 70% new growth within existing
urban area
– Intensification around selected nodes and
corridors
– 10% increase in metropolitan area over 50
years (5000 ha)
• Issues
– Need to accommodate growth - section 5
– 1.3 million by 2016 (operative RPS) - 1.75
million by 2026, 2.1mil (2050)
(Issues Cont)
– “Accommodating future growth through
continual expansion is unsustainable and
contrary to the RGS”
– Visual separation between urban & rural
– Protection for productive soils & rural and
coastal character
– Urban amenity improvements
– Land use and transport integration to manage
adverse effects
9. Objectives
• Compact, well designed urban form served
by integrated multi-modal transport system
• Network of high density centres and
corridors
• Health, well being & quality of life
10. Strategic Policies/Methods
1. Containment
2. Urban Structure
– Alignment with LTCCP
– 20 years capacity
– Minimum densities - Methods 2.6.6 (5&6) and
Appendix H - minimum heights to ensue the
“efficient use of land” at selected locations and
increase support for PT
3. Urban Design
– diverse, vibrant livable and attractive
environments
– sense of place
Policies/Methods (Cont.)
4. Landuse and Transport Integration
– 2.6.11.1(d) inappropriate land use/subdivision
not to compromise transport network?
– 2.6.11.1(g) urban activities within rural areas
will be prohibited
6. Rural Areas
– 2.6.17(3) countryside living limited to provisions
in current district plans and variations notified
before 31 March 2005
11. Chapter 4 - Transport
• Transport network to support compact
urban form
• Increasing person carrying capacity rather
than accommodating more vehicles
• Reducing
– motor vehicle use
– community severance and environmental
effects
• Improving walking and cycling
• Travel Demand Management
• Adverse health effects reduced
12. Planning Processes
• Appendix A
• Links to LGA 2002 and Long Term
Community Plans
• Integrated Catchment Management
Planning
– Developers now excluded from process?
• Structure Planning
– Process changed
– 2005 Guideline on SP
13. Definitions & Schedule 1
• New Definitions;
– Future Urban Areas
– Limits to rural and coastal settlements
– Urban activities
– Urban growth
• Schedule 1
– Growth Area Types
– Sub-regional Centres & Town Centres (high
density centres and corridors)
– Future Urban Areas (green-fields)
14. RPS Change No 7
• Requested by WCC
• Three shifts to MUL
– Massey North
– 2 areas in Hobsonville
• Under LGAAA
• ARC right of veto under s40 ?
15. Underlying Philosophy?
• “No surprises policy”?
– Clawback of MfE influence over operative
RPS?
– Case law (Dye/Arrigato, Catholic Diocese)
– Political context ???
• People and the environment?
– Confining the extent of the “mess” by holding
the “line”?
– Meanwhile, behind the line…….?
• Creativity and flexibility?
– Non-complying applications?
16. Outcomes: Environmental
• 2.7 “Strategic” results anticipated
• Reduced adverse effects?
– Air & water quality?
– Inputs and outputs for a city: capital, energy,
water, food, materials etc - what is the net
result?
– Does intensification really have more “benefit”
and less “adverse effects”?
• Efficacy of policy?
– Private vehicles: Land use controls v
congestion pricing?
17. Social
• Impacts on existing communities?
– “Social Implications of Growth” - quote
– Community severance by transportation
recognised, but…???
– “Profile” of communities that will be required to
change the most?
– The power of communities to manage the
environment?
• Who will be living in the “nodes and
corridors”?
• Infrastructure - schools/open space
18. Economic
• Development opportunities/capacity?
– Supply and demand from different sectors
– Business land
– Effect of rezoning – Greenfields - 100ha year - 1500 homes/3,500
people?
• “Efficient use” of land resource
– 1900s - 415m2/person
– 1980s - 609m2/person
– 2000 - 483/m2/person
• Alignment with “market” demand?
– Location of nodes and corridors
ACC nodes and corridors
Economic (Cont)
• Who will pay for implementation?
– Development Contributions Policies
– Rates
– User charges
– Central Government?
• Is intensification “cheaper”?
– Infrastructure upgrades etc
19. Legal - Administrative
• Consistency of the LGAAA changes with
the RGS?
• Interpretation of the RGS?
• Relative “authority” of ARC and territorial
authorities?
• S41 - Hearings panel “recommendations”?
• Role of the Courts?
– Determination of “fair and reasonable”?
• Powers of local authorities?
20. Conclusions
• Impacts of policy will depend on particular
interests ;
– Landowner in an identified Town Centre?
– Whitford landowner wanting to subdivide?
• Limits of regulation?
• Ability to deliver on key elements?
– Passenger transport, quality urban living
environments, affordable housing
• “Physical determinism” - land use/urban
design?
Conclusions (cont.)
• Overseas “lessons”?
– Feudal and Federal
• The “private” and the “public” realm eg; use
of space, provision of transportation
• Auckland intensified too quickly and too
much?
– Quality - caveat on the RGS
•
•
•
•
Top down v bottom up planning?
Policy “cycle” dynamics?
Choice?
What “price” LGAAA?
21. Key Question?
• Is strict containment necessary to achieve
intensification around passenger transport
nodes and corridors?