3. Options for change: Planning and urban design

The 20 options in this chapter reflect the UTAG’s main recommendations, along with additional options to address the problems identified by officials (set out in chapter 2). A full list of the UTAG’s recommendations is available in its report to the Minister.

The options for planning and urban design are grouped into four categories that broadly match the problem issues in chapter 2:

• 3.1 Recognise urban environment in the RMA framework
• 3.2 Greater national direction and clarity
• 3.3 Spatial planning – enhancing it for Auckland and implementing it for other regions
• 3.4 Improve tools.

The options are numbered consecutively, from 1 to 20. Where an option specifically reflects the UTAG’s recommendations, this is indicated in brackets after the description of the option. Government has not yet identified its preferred option or package of options from the range presented in this discussion document. Your submissions will help inform this decision

 

Playground, Oriental Bay, Wellington – PhotoNZ

3.1 Recognise urban environment in the RMA framework

Two options have been identified to provide increased recognition for the urban environment within the RMA. These are:

1. Broaden definitions to include the urban environment to strengthen the ability of the RMA to adequately recognise the urban environment. Specific options include:
   1. modifying the definition of ‘environment’ to specifically include the urban environment [UTAG recommendation]
   2. extending the definition of ‘amenity values’ so that it addresses the quality of the urban environment to a greater extent [UTAG recommendation].

1. Amend the RMA to recognise the benefits of a quality urban environment by making specific reference to it in:
   1. section 6 (matters of national importance to recognise and provide for) [UTAG recommendation] and/or
   2. section 7 (other matters for which to have particular regard) [UTAG recommendation].

There is debate as to whether amending sections 6 or 7 is the most effective or appropriate way to ensure a stronger focus on the urban environment. Including reference to the quality of the urban environment in sections 6 or 7 would ensure explicit consideration was given to this. However, there are potential costs and limitations to this approach, including:

• adding to the long lists already contained in sections 6 and 7 may reduce the impact of being on the list
• an unclear intent for any amendment could attract litigation to interpret its meaning.

There is also some evidence from recent experience that inclusion in sections 6 or 7 is not sufficient by itself. An analysis of case law suggests that the recent addition of ‘renewable electricity generation’ to section 7 was not enough to improve consistency and certainty.^{Footnote 33} Therefore an NPS is now under development for renewable electricity generation in order to establish the national significance of benefits associated with it in decision-making under the RMA.

3.2 Greater national direction and clarity

Previous consideration has been given to providing greater national direction and clarity to the priority that central government places on the urban environment. In 2008, an NPS on Urban Design was proposed. Public feedback confirmed that an NPS would help ensure that the quality of the urban environment was recognised in RMA decision-making.^{Footnote 34}

The feedback suggested that:

• the NPS include high-level principles of good planning and urban design that result in a quality urban environment and related benefits
• that those principles should apply to a range of scales of urban environment – ie, regional, metropolitan areas, cities, towns, neighbourhoods, individual spaces and buildings.

The UTAG supported the scope of such an NPS to complement the existing RMA focus on the natural environment. The UTAG also recommended that it include high-level issues, such as providing land supply and addressing housing affordability. It also considered that the NPS be renamed ‘built environment’, as the term ‘urban design’ is ambiguous, being both an outcome and an activity.

Based on those recommendations, the following options are put forward to rename and/or extend the scope of the proposed NPS to provide greater direction and clarity about the significance central government places on competitive and successful cities:

3. Provide for the scope of the NPS to:
   1. include policies to require local authorities to provide an adequate supply of land to meet future urban growth demands – ie, at least a 20-year period [UTAG recommendation]
   2. include policies requiring the consideration of housing affordability in decision-making, and regional and district plans under the RMA [UTAG recommendation].
4. Rename the NPS from ‘urban design’ to the ‘built’ or ‘urban environment’ [UTAG recommendation].

3.3 Spatial planning – enhancing it for Auckland and implementing it for other regions

Government’s programme to further New Zealand’s economic objectives consists of six policy drivers including regulatory reform and investment in infrastructure. Government is interested in improving our planning system by reducing regulatory red tape, improving the use of incentives and getting better value for money from infrastructure investment. This involves looking at the ability to reduce the current levels of litigation, prescription, and long protracted processes; moving from a rules based and compliance heavy system to one that uses incentives to drive changes; more timely implementation; and improved co-ordination in decision-making.

Background to spatial planning

As part of its March 2009 report, the Royal Commission recommended that a new unitary council for the Auckland region — since called the Auckland Council – should develop a spatial plan to provide an overarching vision for Auckland, guide growth management, better align land-use and infrastructure investment, and simplify and streamline the regional and district planning framework.

The Government recognised that the spatial plan would be a key factor in realising a successful outcome from the governance reforms, and so confirmed it as part of its policy response to the Royal Commission’s recommendations. The subsequent Local Government (Auckland Council)

 

Aerial view of Auckland city – PhotoNZ

Amendment Act 2010 was drafted to both confirm the spatial plan requirement, and provide some high-level direction about what the Auckland spatial plan should contain.

Given the importance of Auckland’s economy to New Zealand, and the potential of the spatial plan tool, it has been a key focus of the planning and urban design reform. The potential of the spatial plan tool to be applied more widely outside of Auckland is also being considered,

The Government recognised that a spatial plan is a tool that will help the Auckland Council deliver on its regional aspirations, and also help central government deliver on national objectives. More importantly, it is a tool that can help ensure that central and local government objectives are well aligned.

The Government is also keen to reduce the number of planning documents whilst avoiding a cumbersome, overly prescriptive process. Ensuring this occurs will require careful consideration of how the Auckland spatial plan fits in with, and relates to, New Zealand’s broader planning and infrastructure investment framework. Matters that require future consideration include:

• whether the spatial plan should supplement or replace existing regional strategic planning instruments (such as the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Regional Policy Statement) to simplify the planning system
• the strength of the relationship between the spatial plan and other regulatory instruments (such as district plans) to make it more effective
• the relationship between the spatial plan and national-level planning and strategic documents (such as the National Infrastructure Plan (NIP), Transport Government Policy Statement (GPS), and national policy statements under the RMA) to provide clearer direction
• the role that central government will play in developing and implementing the spatial plan in Auckland to improve co-ordination between central and local government
• appeal rights on the spatial plan to reduce costly litigation and drawn out processes
• the applicability of spatial planning to other areas of New Zealand.

The UTAG considered spatial planning and made specific recommendations for achieving an effective higher-level planning framework for New Zealand, with a focus on Auckland in the first instance.

Options for Auckland spatial planning are outlined below, followed by options for how spatial planning can apply to other regions.

Options for spatial planning in Auckland

Seven options have been identified to enhance spatial planning in Auckland, including streamlining and simplifying the planning system:

5. Retain the current spatial planning legislation, which provides flexibility for the Auckland Council in developing and implementing the spatial plan.

Alternatively:

6. Simplify the planning framework for Auckland by:
   1. using the Auckland spatial plan to incorporate either the:
      1. the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Auckland Regional Policy Statement or
      2. the Regional Land Transport Strategy [UTAG recommendation]
7. replacing RMA plans (ie, regional policy statement, regional and district plans) for Auckland with a requirement for a single unitary plan [UTAG recommendation].
   1. Improve the effectiveness of the Auckland Spatial Plan by giving it an appropriate level of statutory influence^{Footnote 35} on regional and local RMA,^{Footnote 36} LGA^{Footnote 37} and LTMA^{Footnote 38} plans by requiring these to either:
   2. ‘give effect to’^{Footnote 39} the Auckland spatial plan or
   3. be consistent with’^{Footnote 40} the Auckland spatial plan [UTAG recommendation] or
   4. ‘having regard for’^{Footnote 41} the Auckland spatial plan
   5. consider the Auckland spatial plan on a voluntary basis.

Final decisions on the strength of influence that the spatial plan has on other plans and decisions will need to be taken into account in considering how to implement these options. These could include matters such as transaction and compliance costs, and the time frame for implementing any change.

There are related options to balance the rights of individuals and Māori and to ensure that the proposed spatial plan is robust, while reducing costly litigation and improving certainty for investors and the community. The strength of the legislative influence of the spatial plan on other plans and decisions is a core consideration for these safeguard options. The following options have been identified:

8. Reduce litigation and improve the certainty of decisions, while providing safeguards during development of the spatial plan by either:
   1. providing for:
      1. i. full appeal rights on the spatial plan or
      2. limiting appeal rights to points of law
   2. and/or providing for a statutorily prescribed consultation process instead of the Special Consultative Procedure under the LGA, that:
      1. ensures effective multi-party engagement in regional strategic direction-setting and/or
      2. improves iwi/Māori participation in resource management decision-making
   3. and/or during the development of the spatial plan, requiring an independent specialist review of the spatial plan to test its evidence base, robustness, affordability and coherence, and provide recommendations to the Auckland Council. The Auckland Council to publicly report its response to the recommendations of the review before it adopts the spatial plan.
9. Provide for review of the spatial plan by:
   1. amending the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to require the spatial plan to be reviewed every three years, with defined responsibilities for the Government and the Auckland Council in the review process. Neither party can force a review in between the three-year period [UTAG Recommendation]
   2. amending the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to require statutory linkage with the LTCCP and require the spatial plan to be adopted at the same time or up to 1 year prior to adoption of the LTCCP. [UTAG Recommendations].

Figure 2: A possible spatial planning model for Auckland illustrating plans and the level of statutory influence each has on the other

 

Read a description of this image

Options to clarify central government’s role in Auckland’s planning

Urban planning is most often considered a local government issue. However, central government has a major impact on cities through policy making and regulatory and funding decisions. It and its agencies also act as developers, investors, capability builders and providers and operators of infrastructure and services.

The UTAG made a number of recommendations aimed at better co-ordinating local and central government decision-making. This involves central government being much clearer about Auckland’s role within the national and international context and what central government’s specific interests are. While the Government is keen to be clearer about its interests in planning, current budgetary decision-making criteria and process will still apply to both central and local government investments proposed in the spatial plan. Specific options include:

10. Mechanisms for central government to influence the Auckland spatial plan:
    1. a GPS that sets out the Crown (or national) objectives for Auckland [UTAG recommendation] and/or
    2. require ministerial certification that the Auckland spatial plan complies with all GPSs, before final adoption by the Auckland Council [UTAG recommendation] and/or
    3. make more effective use of existing mechanisms to express Government priorities and direction, including NPSs and NESs and/or
    4. express central government priorities and objectives in a policy mechanism, such as the National Infrastructure Plan and/or
    5. use the spatial plan as the mechanism for engagement between central government and the Auckland Council.
11. Central government using suitable and appropriate mechanisms to direct its entities, agencies and departments, and funding agencies to:
    1. give effect to a GPS for Auckland [UTAG recommendation] and/or
    2. be consistent with the adopted Auckland spatial plan in decision-making [UTAG recommendation] and/or
    3. have regard to the adopted Auckland spatial plan in decision-making and/or
    4. reflect central government’s priorities and objectives for Auckland in their statements of intent.

Options to consider extending spatial planning with legislative influence to areas outside of Auckland

Various forms of spatial planning occur across New Zealand on a voluntary basis. There are a number of options for extending spatial planning with legislative influence^{Footnote 42} to areas outside of Auckland. As is the case with the Auckland region, any extension of spatial planning to other regions would apply to urban, rural and the coastal marine areas within that region.

We are interested in feedback on how spatial planning with legislative influence could apply outside Auckland. The options are:

12. Regional spatial planning with legislative influence to be:
    1. limited to Auckland only or
    2. implemented on a voluntary basis by regions, but only available for those regions facing growth pressures and subject to significant levels of local and central government investment in infrastructure and services or
    3. mandatory in all regions facing growth pressures and subject to significant levels of local and central government investment in infrastructure and services or
    4. implemented on a voluntary basis by regions, for all regions or
    5. mandatory for all regions.

If spatial plans were to be extended outside of Auckland, the timing for adoption would need to take account of the timing of planned review of planning documents, such as regional policy statements and district plans, to minimise the disruption and additional costs.

3.4 Improve tools

Seven options are identified to improve the effectiveness of the tools available to develop, support and maintain quality environments.

Options to improve plans

13. Introduce a national template for local and regional plans.

    This would be developed by central government. A standardised template would provide a common structure for plans, include a set of common definitions and enable national provisions set through NPSs and NESs to be clear and consistent. Because local government needs to remain responsive to local issues, the national plan template would only contain provisions for matters of national importance, where national direction is required, or where it has been agreed that there is a need or benefit for national consistency; for example, providing for infrastructure.

    New provisions could be incorporated into the RMA to allow a local authority to request an exemption from provisions in the NTP from the Minister for the Environment (or EPA) where provisions in the NTP are not applicable, unreasonable, or impractical in the jurisdiction of the local authority.

14. Stage the implementation of a national template plan for NPSs and NESs:

    Stage one would be the consolidation of all relevant NPS and NES provisions into a new chapter at the beginning of each plan, with cross references to these national provisions within the plans. Stage one would take two years. Stage two would occur over a five-year period and would see a standardisation of plan structure. The order of chapters common to all plans would be set out and each chapter would include the relevant national direction.

15. Provide for the production of a combined NPS and NES as a single document to give greater certainty in the implementation of national direction and save cost and time for local authorities.

    This would enable complete national policy and rules (standards) packages to be prepared on any given topic of national importance, or where national consistency is required, and provided to local authorities as a single document. The combined NPS and NES could be used as a way of developing complete provision sets for the national plan template or could function independently if the national template plan idea did not proceed.

Options to improve the quality of urban design

16. Establish a National Urban Design Panel: This panel, possibly supported by regional panels, could work with territorial authorities and infrastructure agencies, including private infrastructure providers, to develop projects and strategic design proposals. The panel could also provide expert review of nationally and regionally significant policy, plans and projects as and where needed. [UTAG recommendation]
17. Establish a Government Architect: Government Architects are used in Australia at the state level (Victoria), and in the United States of America at the federal level. Their role in a New Zealand context could include:
    • providing an advocacy role for good urban design and architecture
    • providing expertise on regionally or nationally significant projects
    • assisting with the outputs required of public private partnerships (PPPs) and their design component
    • chairing a national urban design panel
    • supporting the implementation of a NPS
    • enabling Government to lead by example by requiring good quality design in the development and construction of its buildings and the buildings it leases.

 

Cafes in Chancery Lane, Auckland city – PhotoNZ

Options to improve land assembly

The aim of these options is to create large areas of land and scales of economy to improve the viability of quality urban redevelopment. Creating large areas of land relies on a range of tools to assemble land.

Efficient land assembly aims to improve the urban environment for communities and businesses, and contribute to the improvement of land supply, housing choice and affordability. Internationally, a range of mechanisms are used to achieve land assembly, including the use of compulsory land acquisition in specific places that require regeneration. Options for improving land assembly include:

18. Relying on existing methods and processes to amalgamate land, including purchase, negotiation and joint ventures.
19. Extending the scope of the Public Works Act (PWA) to ensure that local authorities are able to compulsorily acquire and amalgamate land for major urban regeneration projects provided:
    1. some form of central government oversight is required as a safeguard [UTAG recommendation] and/or
    2. the power to compulsorily acquire land for urban redevelopment should be used as a tool of last resort [UTAG recommendation] and/or
    3. power to compulsorily acquire land should be limited to specifically defined works and /or
    4. Māori land is not able to be compulsorily acquired under any circumstances.
20. Develop new tools for land assembly, ie, development of comprehensive development plans to engage landowners previously uninterested, or unable, to develop their land; increasing the ways to share land while retaining freehold title; review of tenure options and land management models to increase methods for land-sharing.