Thread by @morehomesnz

We will be delivering live coverage here on Twitter, as @AklCouncil Planning Committee, chaired by @DarbyatCouncil, votes on the final direction for implementing the NPS-UD.

nzherald.co.nz/nz/heritage-v-…

@AklCouncil @DarbyatCouncil The meeting is set to start at 10am. You can of course watch the live stream here:

@AklCouncil @DarbyatCouncil We are now underway with a roll call.

@AklCouncil @DarbyatCouncil P.s. you can view the agenda here:
infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2022/06/P…

@AklCouncil @DarbyatCouncil All public submission requests were declined, including ours, on the basis the item is already under consultation.

We will be hearing input from 10 of the Local Boards though

@AklCouncil @DarbyatCouncil First up Albert-Eden Local Board Chair Margi Watson.

Positive they have concerns about the impact of too much special character protection within walking distance of rapid transit and town centres

https://twitter.com/ScootFoundation/status/1542071463150120961?s=20&t=oTfHik8hchBgKhPQ2mLn6Q

@AklCouncil @DarbyatCouncil This "severely limits the potential for new dwelling with implications on emissions and Auckland becoming a compact city"

Next up Devonport Takapuna LB…

Their view is the NPS-UD is a one size fits all approach (it’s not) and the Unitary Plan already follows the principles of the NPS-UD (it doesn’t)

Basically oppose everything. They have also repeated the misinformation that the Auckland Unitary Plan provides enough capacity.

It does not provide enough to allow the market to meet demand or provide housing choice in typology and location

Great question from @HendoWest regarding shifting funding to the areas facing the brunt of intensifcation

@HendoWest They invite councilors to come visit the lights on "character" houses in Devonport.
This is followed by a poor joke around free wine and pizza for Councillors. As if the wealthiest neighbourhoods don't already have better access to elected officials and democratic participation

@HendoWest We encourage Councillors to go and visit the cold, over crowded housing all across our city instead. No fairy lights can mask the cold mouldy homes that dominate our central and most accessible suburbs

@HendoWest Anyway moving on to a more positive submission from @BrookeLoader and the Henderson Massey LB

@HendoWest @BrookeLoader They support the intensification in their area, which is facing the most out of all Local Boards. The restrictions in other areas are inequitable as they force more development into areas that aren't receiving enough investment in water, transport and social infrastructure

@HendoWest @BrookeLoader p.s. sorry we are running a few minutes behind the livestream

Henderson Massey do support some restrictions around the foothills of the Waitakeres

Now Kaipātiki LB

First point: Their area along with Devonport Takapuna had some of the highest submissions. Again this is reflective of the fact people in wealthiest suburbs generally have the most time available to participate in the flawed consultation process

Positively? They are only pushing for Special Character OUTSIDE of the walking catchments. However all in all, both Local Board seem to miss the point that special character is not a qualifying matter under the NPS-UD and MDRS.

To be fair they have been mislead by @AklCouncil

@AklCouncil Now to Orakei LB

@AklCouncil Special Character is not a qualifying matter.

Furthermore, overseas research indicates you need theoretical capacity of 10 times your demand for the market to deliver multi-family housing. 2.49m is not enough

@AklCouncil Interesting, the submitter (Troy?) from Orakei is a certified IHP commissioner. Says that the government does not explicitly say special character must be removed and the Council's approach does not need to be so risk adverse.

This contradicts legal advice we have seen

@AklCouncil Continues with misinformation that special character does not affect affordability. This contradicts simple supply and demand theory

@AklCouncil Next up @JonTurnerNZ on behalf of the Puketāpapa LB

@AklCouncil @JonTurnerNZ Intensifying around frequent and rapid transit 💯

@AklCouncil @JonTurnerNZ Rightly points out that plenty of intensification is occurring in areas without a frequent bus route. Why would we block development in the areas served with good public transport?

@AklCouncil @JonTurnerNZ There is the ability to protect heritage through other legal and planning mechanisms

@AklCouncil @JonTurnerNZ One of many examples of the frankly ridiculous special character areas have been applied.

@AklCouncil @JonTurnerNZ Our Perimeter Block Housing proposals can keep large areas of open space in every street block to reduce impermeable surfaces

@AklCouncil @JonTurnerNZ @JonTurnerNZ again highlights the existing plan focuses intensification in areas like Te Atatu without frequent transport and limited shops

Hilarious that Cr Watson questions their support for the MDRS as it enables more development further out and this will impact emissions, yet he is one of the strongest advocates on Council to make density illegal in over 40% of the area within 5km of the city centre

Next up Waitemata LB, Richard and Alex

Such a mixed submission...

Awesome to hear Alex Bonham calling for Perimeter Blocks and more design review of high density developments

Waitemata supports upzoning and enablement of perimeter blocks along our Frequent (every 15 minutes) routes. Also the design of our streets is super important!

Some great points here. What makes the "special character areas" great is the streets, greenery and open space. We can develop these areas while maintaining these awesome things!

Question from Cr Sawyers around when affordability will be achieved. As @DarbyatCouncil points our Richard isn't the council economist, but he does raise that affordability for purchasing a home is 4 times your income. Auckland is well past 10 times the median household income

@DarbyatCouncil Final? LB input from the Whau team

Although only 3% of submitters on the draft were from the Whau LB they were overall supportive of density and perimeter block changes. They have become of familiar with with density on the back of the Unitary Plan changes in 2016 and the benefits, but want to see better design

Great question: "If special character areas are retained or are extended, how will councillors ensure equity of services and assets to those local board areas undergoing the most intensification?"

Cr Walker challenges whether Whau LB have looked at walking catchments properly.

The response: They are effectively submitting on something that is already occurring in their area.

The NPS will have little impact beyond providing the opportunity to improve design outcomes

There will now be a break and then the following items will be worked through. We will not provide coverage for all of these and will resume on Item 14

Also notable comment from @DarbyatCouncil, there will be a break during Item 14 for council to go into private discussions to receive legal advice. The livestream will then restart for the vote on direction

Council have now gone into the confidential session. This is expected to be around 30 minutes

It has now been over an hour the council has been in confidential session. Perhaps some juicy debate on the legal advice on the NPS-UD?

Here are the recommendations that Councillors will be voting on shortly. (it's a lot)

Highlight has to be increasing heights in the following Local Centres to 6 storeys where they are surrounded by THAB zone (5 storeys)
Albany Village
Balmoral
Botany Junction
Dawsons Rd
Eden Valley
Greenlane West

list continues...

Greville Road
Grey Lynn
Kepa Rd
Lynfield
Mangere East
Meadowbank
Meadowlands
Ranui

Also enabling heights of 5 storeys in Neighbourhood
Centres where they are within the area of THAB zone (5storeys) just makes sense to deliver a more consistent built form and enable more shops and local services

Aaaannnddd we are back!

Presentation now from General Manager for planning

Here is what Council must implement

Starting with the city centre...

The NPS-UD requires enablement of heights and urban form to realise as much development as possible

Guidance from ministry for the environment says this means removing unnecessary or unreasonable barriers

Here are the principles that council endorsed earlier this year for the city centre. Unlimited height in the city centre would be the starting point, with restrictions stepping it down from there

Current approach concentrates development around Queen St

The third image shows what would be possible with no controls

They then modelled keeping special height and precinct controls.

Really clear where the viewshafts are taking affect. There was also concern around the eligibility of the city centre and heights at the edge where the city centre borders other areas

So today they are seeking endorsement for a new approach.
Generally the current limit across the city centre is 50m. This would increase to 75m across most of the city centre zone.

A 3D view of these heights

Council Staff: It is our opinion this will deliver a better built form outcome and deliver significant increase in capacity

Questions on the City Centre proposal from Councillors. From Cr Simpson. "I am concerned about the shading that will occur on the domain"

Staff, we have done shading assessments on open space in and outside the city centre. We are proposing to protect those open spaces

So there will be some additional controls around those public open spaces, like there already is for Emily Place under the current plan

Cr Hills "what is the overall capacity increase from this change?"

Staff: we don't have a final number yet with more work to do but most sites are going to be 60-70% increase in capacity

Follow up from Hills. Is there anywhere with unlimited height?

Staff: We are proposing no general height controls in the core area and remove floor area controls which are currently 13:1

Cr Walker: "has there been any consideration to shading and wind on the street level given our streets are comparatively narrow?"

Staff: "yes we will be keeping our wind controls which are in the current plans."

Q from Cr Coom about the light rail corridor over the city centre

Staff: This will likely be removed. It is not our intention to constrain development in the city centre with this

Another question from Simpson about shading on Albert Park.

Staff: further work will be done, existing protections which are quite extensive on Albert Park will be kept, detail will provided in final S32 report

Rightio: Now to walkable catchments... We submitted that these should go further with 1200m from Metro and Rapid Transit and 2400m from the City Centre

Auckland Council's own research found the median distance walked to most stations in the existing rapid transit was greater than 800m

Now to enabling heights and densities around centres that reflects the services and opportunities they provide.

In short: #MoreHomes near people's Daily Needs

Approximately a dozen neighbourhood centres within the walking catchments of metro centres or rapid transit stops, that will be upzoned to match the surrounding built form

Question from @DarbyatCouncil on why the walking catchment from the city centre is from the edge and not the centre of agglomeration.

Staff: it is defined by the NPS-UD as a requirement to measure from the edge

@DarbyatCouncil Staff: some of the literature would say the city centre catchment should be 1500m or 2000m, we are going for 1200m to acknowledge the edge does not have all the services.

@DarbyatCouncil This is why submitted that it should not only go further but be mixed use around the city fringe to support more local services

https://twitter.com/morehomesnz/status/1533574689502937088?s=20&t=u5KB-3teTR_BrHm3QGnJpA

@DarbyatCouncil Cr Fletcher asks about walking catchments and those with lower ability.

As staff explain: walking catchments are a tool, it is not an expectation that everyone can walk but rather uses an average of what someone can do. Others will cycle or scoot, some may bus

@DarbyatCouncil Councillors will get to see the updated zoning maps on July 6 for feedback. August of course is the final deadline

@DarbyatCouncil Cr Walker: with particular reference to St Mary's Bay. Were the MFE guidelines provided and used on this...

Goes on to mention the many factors like hills and crossings that make an area walkable.

This is all being considered in the final recommendations.

@DarbyatCouncil Now to Deputy Mayor Cashmore: Will any of the catchments be Mixed Use

Staff: We would have loved to look into this, and we will in the next plan change, we haven't done the work or have the capacity to change this. It is a good point though

@DarbyatCouncil Cr Hills: Enquires about larger walking catchments for the city centre given the guidance supports larger catchments and submissions from public supporting greater intensification around the city centre

@DarbyatCouncil Response: It should be flexible. Factors like topography, severance and access to services need to be considered. Further opportunity in the workshop on July 6

Again this is why we submitted for Mixed Use around the city centre!

@DarbyatCouncil Cr Hills also enquires on mixed use.

Staff: "we don't have the evidence to blanket mixed use. It will have to be a future piece of work." Also "It is not within scope of the intensification instrument"

@DarbyatCouncil Cr Coom: enquires about chapter 20 stating the sentiment for larger catchments was not supported by residents associations.

@DarbyatCouncil Follow up from Cr Coom: what is the recommendation from MFE for walkable from the city centre

Staff: 800m is minimum from rapid transit, there is no specific guide for city centre, but it does say different (higher), again mentions the literature can support further

@DarbyatCouncil Cr Watson: Argues residents should be relied upon for how far is walkable in their neighbourhood. What could go wrong with that?

More and more discussion around St Mary's Bay.

*they have more at stake* - Cr Watson

Cr Cooper highlighting that people will cycle and scoot as well as walk, and this will be even quicker, another reason why small walking catchments do not make sense

Q from Cr Sayers on capacity.

Council mention the 900k units in the existing plan and this will significantly increase this. Potentially to greater than 3m

Although staff are right to mention capacity does not deliver more homes, the more theoretical capacity, the more opportunity to develop.

Supply-demand theory would indicate the cost of buying land to redevelop should become cheaper and easier and it is less scarce.

Q from Sayers around this not delivering affordability.

Some of this is relative affordability. Townhouses and apartments in wealthy suburbs will never be cheap but they will be relatively cheaper to stand alone homes in the same area.

It is also about housing choice! Enabling people to have a home that suits their stage of life.

Also prior to the pandemic the AUP had been successful in increasing supply and housing prices and rents had slowed. Mortgage holidays and low interest rates are the primary cause of the recent jump

Good q from Cr Henderson, why wasn't mixed use prioritised.

Staff: we prioritised the mandatory items from the NPS.

Actually, there was no requirement to survey all the character homes which has been the focus of the council work to date

Cr Fletcher questions the support and that "if councillors barely understand it how can the general public" 🤔🤔🤔

Staff point to the public feedback supporting intensification in the walking catchments

Further discussion and points from Cr Fletcher with a focus on elderly people and those with disabilities.

This is often used against intensification but most existing stand alone homes do not suit people either. Yes there is room for improvement in the building code though

Now to qualifying matters... after an extension of time is voted for... and that's carried

Council staff recommending NPS-UD qualifying matters for:
- Subdivision controls
- Precinct controls
- Water and wastewater constraints
- SCAs

Cr Darby talking about a qualifying matter for transport - suggests it might not be legal under the NPS-UD but that they might try and introduce one anyway

Staff: "this would require site by site analysis to be legal, which would be very hard"

(it's 4:30, we're on our second live-threader, and we still haven't started talking about Special Character yet!)

We'd really like to know the answer to this too!

https://twitter.com/cjhamblin/status/1542364668353601536?s=20&t=amkptYooxB3sexuEO4aFwQ

The Mayor is currently suggesting that the medium density standards will be a disaster because they'll be underserved by transport.

We agree that we need more houses in the right places - which is why we need to enable more development near transit instead of having big SCAs

A great point on transport provision from Friend of the Coalition Matt Prasad:

https://twitter.com/matty_prasad/status/1542366298830950400?s=20&t=amkptYooxB3sexuEO4aFwQ

Very frustrating - we want to give people the choice to live in places with high quality transport - something we don't currently do

https://twitter.com/HaydenDonnell/status/1542367739112673286?s=20&t=amkptYooxB3sexuEO4aFwQ

Time for questions on qualifying matters.

The Mayor asks: "can we require suburban parks to have shadowing restrictions? why can we only do this in the city centre?"

Staff: "We haven't had time to do the site by site analysis for this"

[Is this because they've spent all their time doing site-by -site analysis of special character restrictions?]

Question from Cr Hills: "Are we able to preserve restrictions around parks and ecological areas?"

Staff: yes, this is already part of the RMA as it stands. This won't be a single-house zone (because that's no longer legal) but there will be something similar

Staff from Watercare currently talking about infra constraints. Says the constraints will be resolved over time and that infrastructure qualifying matter would be time-dependent

Cr Dalton asking about a transport qualifying matter. Asks if there's a way to get legal advice on some way to do site by site analysis that's not as labour-intensive

Cr @HendoWest says he opposes a transport qualifying matter.

"If there's not enough transport, why can't we just put more bus routes on? Why can't we just put transport where the people are?"

[We absolutely agree, Shane!]

Cr Walker launches a tirade about how bad the transport issues will be before finishing by asking "why can't we do it!?" [a transport qualifying matter]

[Because you have to do a site-by-site analysis, Cr Walker!]

Brief editorial interjection here: the drafting of the NPS-UD to make qualifying matters subject to site-by-site analysis has been fantastic. The clear intention of the councilors this afternoon seems to be to undermine the intent of the law

We're adjourning now for 10 minutes before the discussion on Special Character Areas begins. Whew. Time for a cuppa and a stretch.

...aaaaand we're back.

Taking a couple of panadol in preparation for this section

This section starts off with a quick summary of the recommendations from Council staff and then we're straight into questions.

but first: an amendment from Crs Simpson and Coom

Cr Simpson says that SCAs are important but that if they support all of the SCAs they are likely to get overridden by the independent hearing commissioners and potentially "lose more than they otherwise would"

Not sure at this point what the amendment is.

Cr Hills asking about the restrictions in Devonport. What will be retained?
Staff: 90% of the Devonport SCAs will be retained

When our opponents say that "only 3%" of Auckland will have SCA restrictions, they're being misleading. As evidenced by this answer, huge amounts of certain areas will be completely protected if these Councillors get their way

Cr Hills: "in areas with rapid transit and also SCAs, the need for transport capacity might outstrip need for special character - if we're talking about transport qualifying matters, why would we stop development there?"

Nobody seems to be able to definitively answer this (very good) question from Cr Hills except to say that "it's a balancing act".

Concern all around that they might be retaining too much special character for the plan to be legal

that panadol thing wasn't a joke btw

Some discussion happening now about the particular percentage figures of special character to be retained within walkable catchments

We're still talking about the proposed amendment

Cr Henderson: if this amendment passes, what's the number of new sites that will be retained? Where?

Answer: About 1,400 sites. Not sure where they will be

Cr Henderson pushes on this answer. Will the additional protected sites be in Central Auckland? North Shore? where?

"Is it fair to say that we don't know what the consequences of passing this amendment will be?"

Answer: "yes, that is fair"

We're currently talking about an amendment that will affect an arbitrary number of sites in some arbitrary places in Auckland. Nobody can say for sure where or how many exactly. These sites have been graded based on someone looking on Google Maps Street View

Mayor: "how did we arrive at these thresholds for special character? how are we confident the IHP commissioners will approve this?"

Staff: "We're confident that 66% [of a particular SCA] is defensible in front of the IHP"

Mayor: "if you didn't include the dwellings graded as a 4 in your initial proposal but we're adding it in now, are you confident this can be defended in front of the IHP?"

Staff: "yes"

Cr Walker: "The Special Character groups have done significant analysis to determine which areas are good to protect. Why can't we use this?"

Staff: "Yes this makes it easier, but we have to be satisfied ourselves, and satisfied enough to defend this in front of the IHP"

Cr Fletcher points out that this is a 'governance judgment issue'. [We agree!]

She wants more time for Council to decide on this issue and delay making a decision as the Council is doing for the Light Rail corridor

Megan Tyler (Council head of strategy) is talking about the Light Rail corridor now. Talking about delaying it because the route and stations aren't confirmed and they don't want to do two plan changes over it

It does seem like Cr Fletcher has asked for more time in order to figure out how to game the legislation

https://twitter.com/EnzerEnzer/status/1542398003822338048?s=20&t=neEAfKbeHJz5YHr5myVeiA

Cr Walker is asking about design standards and rooftop solar panels. "Not even enough space for recycling bins!"

[We agree with the need for plan changes to accommodate high-density living - which councillors could deliver on on August 4]

Cr Walker is quite irate that this is going to make the climate crisis somehow worse.

[We're not sure how opposing better land use in our inner suburbs does anything except encourage more carbon emissions, Cr Walker!]

Cr Darby says that MfE and MPs have been clear that the Council will not be given any more time or any special legislation.

[We're very pleased that the Parliamentary parties are holding the line on this issue]

The meeting has been adjourned again until 7:25pm. Join us then for continued coverage.

As we wait for the Councillors to return, we're yet again handing over the live-tweeting baton...

Having finishing inquiry, they're moving to debate.

Cr Watson (deridingly) quotes Minister Parker: "Auckland Council needs to stop trying to protect entire suburbs, and focus instead on specific heritage buildings".

Cr Watson seems both dually concerned that new low-rise apartments and townhouses are miserable "filing cabinets" while also being too expensive for anyone to afford.

On Cr Coom's amendment to include lower quality buildings in the definition of special character, Cr Henderson: "the only thing we can be clear on this amendment is that it will further damage attempt to house Aucklanders that need it..."

"...in favour of single sites in well located places that actually don't have much heritage status *at all*, according to our own data"

"Councillors, we're talking about an unspecified amount of housing in unspecified places, in what amounts to a vote on the vibe of the thing, rather than anything tangible for Aucklanders."

Deputy Mayor Cashmore re-iterates the Mayor's point that including more houses in the SCAs could risk losing at the Independent Hearings Panel.

IMSB Member Tau Henare: "I haven't heard the word 'Māori', or 'tangata whenua', or even 'matawaka' throughout this whole day..."

"...we might get hung up on protecting special character, I get hung up on providing homes..."

"I've got 16 apartments less than 20 metres away from my home... I like the fact that just around the corner, there's going to be a whole new lot of whanau living in Te Atau peninsula"

Cr Dalton: "the conversation here is mixed between heritage and special character. I support heritage ...but we've also got to consider the needs of the region... what we want is for people to live close to frequent transport networks."

"Yes, that includes reducing emissions. I got stick for voting for the parking strategy, for the cycling plan, and I'll get sick for this - but I will be consistent. The city has no choice but to change."

Cr Walker launches into his speech wholeheartedly agreeing with the amendment to strengthen special character, saying the Auckland Unitary Plan is working and sufficient

Cr Walker was among the councillors who voted hardest against enabling more housing the Unitary Plan in 2016.

Mayor Goff launches into an unusually animated speech reiterating that adopting the amendment will hurt their case in front of the commissioners.

The Mayor believes that capacity is not the issue, its infra.

But the point of the NPS-UD catchments is that there is plenty of infra capacity we can use around rapid transit and major employment hubs.

Cr Cooper: "The same people make the same arguments. They say they want a more compact urban form, they say they want to reduce emissions, but when it comes to the hard decisions they'll go and vote for their area. We just can't do that."

"The less development that you get in areas closer to the centre, in the inner suburbs, in places near good transport -- the intensification just comes out to the far-flung suburbs where there is no proper transport. That just causes them more harm."

Amendment to strengthen special character loses 10-11

Fantastic speech from Cr Henderson: "we've seen months of effort trying to minimise and remove housing supply in this city. We've enabled and maintained entire communities in centrally located areas to act as gated communities without the gate."

"I want to speak up for people who spent last night in a garage or a car or a couch. I want to speak up for people showing up to a rental with 30 other families there where landlords can name their price so they're struggling and heartbroken"

"I want to speak up first home buyers that have stood by heartbroken as well as their ability to own a home and set down roots with their families has slipped away month-on-month for years."

"I want to speak up for kids who are concerned about climate emissions. I want to shout out to member Tau Henare tonight - I thought that was a fantastic korero - cause I want to talk about our tangata whenua & our tangata pasifika. Where is THEIR heritage in all of this?"

"We haven't been talking about people who have felt forced out of their homes from the 70s onwards in centrally located areas of Auckland. Places like Ponsonby, places like Grey Lynn. We all know the histories around there."

"I want to speak up for people who want to live centrally. They want to locate closer to where they work, closer to where they study. Beautiful neighbourhoods to walk to work or take public transport. "

"A beautiful life for Aucklanders. That's the kind of thing we should be providing as the council. What do we offer them as this council? We've just spent months trying to restrict housing supply for these people, in areas where housing is most needed."

"We've got gone to the public and said we should lock away 41% of the land within 5km of the city centre. Outrageous. Heritage homes are protected by the legislation! They'll continue, no matter what we do, because we're conflating special character and heritage."

"While I'm mythbusting, one thing I've heard tonight: 'this will do nothing for affordability'. If that's your view, you should go talk to PwC, Sense Partners, you might want to go talk to the NZ Infrastructure Commission's director for economics -- they all disagree with you."

"I want to talk more about our leadership here as we've promised Aucklanders that through the climate emergency we'd do something about their future."

"We've been advised today that somehow when you build homes that are closer to work and study and remove those transport emissions, somehow that doesn't matter. Or somehow it makes it even worse. That's outrageous."

"We continue to build outwards and ask people to drive to work. We continue to build over vital food in Franklin because housing has to go somewhere. Let me be clear: if we're serious about climate we have to act now to allow more building in central Auckland"

"We have inequality coded in the DNA of planning our city. We've welcomed new West Aucklanders with open arms as we've borne the brunt of housing for 12 years. All we ask is fairness. Areas of Auckland that have not taken on housing, you can. Do your bit."

Cr Watson points to the painting of the villa hanging on the wall of the chamber and says that the loss of a quarter Aucklands heritage will the legacy of the Mayor. Gets told off by the Chair, and snidely remarks "maybe get someone to make another code of conduct complaint, eh?"

Committee Chair asks him to withdraw, refuses to. Darby takes away his speaking turn.

The committee has become a chaotic mess trying to vote clause by clause on the final report.

They did this with no display of what they were voting on. Meeting was closed but no idea what outcome was.