The Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback Submission PDF Mode

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan
Benjamin Ross
TotaRim Consultancy Limited 89 Arimu Road Papakura Auckland, 2110 022 336 4789
t o t a r i m . c o n s u l t a n c y @ t o t a r i m . c o . n z
5/31/2013
The Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback Document
May 2013
Benjamin Ross TotaRim Consultancy Limited Papakura Auckland
Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net
Page 1
Page 2
Contents
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 A Prelude Auckland Growing Up and the rest of the Nation ............................................................... 6 Growing Up ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Auckland and its Growing Pains......................................................................................................... 6 What I Am Going to Cover in this Document ........................................................................................ 11 Why I am covering the respective points here in this feedback document ......................................... 12 Brief recap on The Draft Unitary Plan as it currently stands ................................................................ 13 400,000 homes and one million people where are they going to go? .............................................. 15 My Housing Mix using the shapeauckland.co.nz Housing Simulator ................................................... 17 My Housing Mix in Auckland .............................................................................................................. 17 The Zones: My Alternative to the Unitary Plan Zones .......................................................................... 25 Context drawn from my blog starting with Residential Zones ........................................................ 25 Context drawn from my blog starting with the Unitary Plan Business Zones .................................. 31 The Clunker and Business Zones .......................................................................................................... 31 Their Business Zoning and My Commercial and Industrial Zoning................................................. 31 A Comparison ................................................................................................................................... 31 T H E B U S IN E S S ZO N E / C O M M E R C IA L ZO N E C O M P A R IS O N ......................... 38 Refined Definitions of Alternative Zonings for the Unitary Plan ...................................................... 41 Methodology of Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation) ............................................... 43 Over Intensification with the centres who gets upgraded and who gets downgraded. Also covered is redrawing the height restrictions imposed on some centres ........................................................... 55 Manukau and St Heliers; special places deserve special recognition as one size does not fit all with the Unitary Plan .................................................................................................................................... 59 St Heliers and the Special Character Zone proposal abridged version .......................................... 60 Manukau The Second CBD of Auckland; Full Version .................................................................... 62 The Rural Urban Boundary in Southern Auckland: ............................................................................. 100 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 103
Page 3

Introduction
On March 15, 2013 the Auckland Council formally launched the Draft Unitary Plan for (informal) feedback from the city Auckland. In short the Draft Unitary Plan is the following: From the website www.shapeauckland.co.nz The plan will set out what can be built and where, shaping where we live, where we work and how we look after the things we value in both our urban and rural areas. Or from http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/xc.enquire/default.aspx The Unitary Plan will be Aucklands planning rulebook, setting out where and how our city grows in the future. This rulebook is the next step in bringing Auckland together. It will replace former regional and district plans with one document focused on delivering the vision of the Auckland Plan, to make this worlds most liveable city We Auckland have until May 31st to give our feedback on this Unitary Plan on; what we do like, what we dont like, and what we might want as alternatives to what is in the currently in the Draft Unitary Plan (what we might want to see to be changed). This document is my feedback on the Unitary Plan before it comes back out for formal notification and submission in September 2013. As I believe there are both good parts of the Unitary Plan that I agree with, and parts I do not agree thus want changed in the Unitary Plan; this document my feedback will cover certain points thus far that I will make out in the What I am going to cover section of this feedback document. This feedback document will be drawing on the inspirations seen in the wider community as I go about various engagements from community meetings to civic forums. This document will be drawing on and referencing my submission to The Auckland Plan as well as my personal blog Talking Auckland (http://voakl.net ) where I am running Unitary Plan commentary. As a result of the scoping work undertaken to prepare this feedback for the Unitary Plan, I ask that Auckland Council consider this document seriously along with all its points made. This document does not set out a NIBMY-ism approach but a more pragmatic alternative approach to aspects of the Unitary Plan that I believe is best for Auckland which is both my and our home and city. I would like to thank Auckland Council for their time and resources in the Unitary Plan process and for considerations arising from this feed back
Ben Ross Managing Director TotaRim Consultancy Limited
Page 4
Page 5

A Prelude Auckland Growing Up and the rest of the Nation
Growing Up
Posted on April 14, 2013 by BR:AKL_Admin01
Auckland and its Growing Pains
The Herald this morning is running four (sorry not five as I earlier stated in a post) on Auckland, our rural communities, and the pressures both face. You can read each of them by clicking on the respective links below:

City bursting at its seams, rural areas struggling Devastation in wake of urban drift Estelle Sarney: Sense of community lost as rolls expand Ministers without a clue
No need to go on about the last piece which is from Matt McCarten, but you can gather a sense on annoyance some in the city would have in two South Island Ministers dictating to the largest city of NZ how it should go. For the other three they go about Aucklands expansion at often the expanse of the regions (the rural sectors) and the apparent loss of community the city will face as the city grows. I am not going to quote verbatim those articles (meaning go read them yourself) but more draw on interpretations from what the articles were trying to draw on.
Page 6
RURAL AND AUCKLAND
The rural centres are crying out (again) that they are suffering from loss of population while Auckland continues to grow at admittedly rather formidable speed. You will hear about the consequences both social and physical this kind of situation entails but it is nothing we have not heard nor seen before. New Zealand has gone through three phases (the third is still pretty much happening) of this large rural-urban shift and it happens elsewhere in the world. The first shift for us would have been the 1950s and 1960s (our Golden Age) as New Zealand enters the post modern age with massive science and technological advancements occurring. At the same time there was a baby boom as a result of the conclusion of the Second World War and both this and science would have compounding effects in the first wave. People moved from the country to the city as advancements made agriculture and horticulture more productive and less labour intensive. At the same time we had a mass surge in manufacturing (the blue-collar worker) which all bring people to the city; with the rewards and utter misery it would entail. This was the first phase of the great country-city movement. The second phase of the country-urban shift arguably came in the 1980s as the manufacturing sector declined and the service/professional sector (white collar) took off. While we still had technological and scientific advancements, the advent of what would become the digital and professionalism ages would cause more people to come to the city to chase those opportunities (and again the misery and rewards it would bring). The rise of centralisation, rationalisation and globalisation (as it would be termed in the 1990s and 2000s so the Neo Liberal agenda) would have been a catalyst again as farms merged and often became corporate factories (as such) for the second wave of people movement. The third phase of the great country-urban shift is currently under way and is a legacy of the second wave. You could argue that it is still the second wave but a new aspect has cropped in and no it is not immigration as that has been there since 1840. This aspect is Critical Mass and Auckland has pretty much hit it. Critical Mass is when a city grows to certain size where resulting growth is from the perpetual motion of growth feeding in on itself. Auckland is just shy of 1.5 million people and due to hit 2.5 million by 2040 at current speed. It means Auckland can house up 40% (currently 31%) of the nations population by 2040 and this brings in new dynamics to the game. Auckland continues to draw in from the rural and manufacturing sector from outside its borders, but the citys sheer size and mass means it becomes recognised internationally and attracts elements not possible while smaller. Heavier and larger manufacturing, more global and larger professional services become attracted to Auckland because of its population and existing
Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net Page 7

services and this fuels population growth. More people leave the rural sector as opportunities dwindle and see out what the big city has to offer (and again the rewards and misery this brings). We are seeing this now as The Third Wave as Auckland has hit critical mass and now grows upon itself in a non-stop perpetual motion. Auckland is now a world major city!
AUCKLAND AS A MAJOR CITY
Auckland is deemed a major city more to the point according to Wikipedia: Auckland was classified as a Beta World City in the World Cities Study Groups inventory by Loughborough University.[6] A Beta World City is (Ill put all the levels there for a comparison):
Alpha++ cities are New York City and London, which are vastly more integrated with the global economy than any other cities. Alpha+ cities complement London and New York by filling advanced service niches for the global economy. Alpha & Alpha- cities are cities that link major economic regions into the world economy. Beta level cities are cities that link moderate economic regions into the world economy. Gamma level cities are cities that link smaller economic regions into the world economy. Sufficiency level cities are cities that have a sufficient degree of services so as to not be obviously dependent on world cities.
You can check where Auckland sits and who our Beta neighbours are by clicking the Beta World City link above.
But what it shows is that Auckland is no longer that gangly teenager of a city most of us are used to city. Auckland is growing and maturing into its place as an adult playing with the big boys in the Global City scale. We are no longer a small little backwater village or even hick village that one might have seen in the 50s and 60s. That era has long gone and is well behind us although looking at the NIMBYism lot you would not think so. Auckland is playing with the big boys now on a world stage and there is simply no way of stopping it. As a result Auckland must allow progression through the life of the (progressive) Unitary Plan and live up to the ranking we have

been given as a Beta Level Global City. This does not mean we go down the mega tower road of our northern neighbours. No Auckland is still Auckland and is unique. But it means we must be prepared for perpetual growth and progression and all it brings with it bad and good. We can mitigate the bad and encourage the good but; it must be done right with the right mind frame that we are no longer hicks in a village or the little kid in a big room full of adults. We Auckland are a young adult maturing into an adult-adult and we play with the adults now not the kids. Our Unitary Plan and the people must recognise this if we are to go forward. BR:AKL recognises this and writes the submission to The Unitary Plan reflecting the situation before us. The rest of the city needs to realise the situation too. And again it does not mean we lose our uniqueness and who we are, but it does mean we are adults on a global state thus act like adults on a global stage. Not some kid throwing their toys out of the sandbox
Page 9
Page 10

What I Am Going to Cover in this Document
The Unitary Plan as it stands is over 510 pages worth of large full colour maps and over 1200 pages of text if I was to have it in hard copy form. The Draft Unitary Plan covers a vast array of topics as a rulebook on Auckland that I could never be able to comment on them all. As a result I will be focusing on specific areas of interest (that I have) from the Unitary Plan and giving feedback on those specific areas accordingly. The points I will be covering (in order of this list) in this feedback document are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Why I am covering the respective points here in this feedback document 400,000 homes and one million people where are they going to go? My Housing Mix using the shapeauckland.co.nz Housing Simulator The Zones: My Alternative to the Unitary Plan Zones using work from my Auckland Plan submission this will include: a. Implementing the Centralised Master Community Plan (CMCP), the Semi-Liberal Plan Districts (SLPD), and the Municipal Utility District (MUD) b. Reworking the zones including adding, deleting, or modifications to the Unitary Plan Zones using zone definitions from my submission to the Auckland Plan Over Intensification with the centres who gets upgraded and who gets downgraded. Also covered is redrawing the height restrictions imposed on some centres Manukau and St Heliers; special places deserve special recognition as one size does not fit all with the Unitary Plan The Rural Urban Boundary in Southern Auckland: a. Which of the three options per the Rural Urban Boundary Addendum b. Why I chose that particular RUB option c. How it would work (this will tie in with Point 8) and its affects to wider Auckland d. How it affects me personally Any other notes and observations from the Unitary Plan Conclusion(s)
5. 6. 7.
8. 9.
Urban design will be covered in multiple points rather than just one set specific point. These points however cover the often regional perspective of the Unitary Plan although there are some local aspects as well (Papakura being my home). Each point and sub-point will have its own dedicated section in this feedback document.
Page 11

Why I am covering the respective points here in this feedback document
The Unitary Plan stands at 7000 pages long including the maps covering a vast array of topics. It would be near impossible for an individual to comment on every single aspect of the plan regardless of timeframes given. Thus particular sections of high interest to me and the wider city (Auckland) will be instead looked at commented on in this submission.
The main points I am covering are the zones, housing mix, the Rural Urban Boundary, planning methodologies and urban design controls. Other aspects such as transport, physical and social infrastructure are and will be mentioned in this submission. These points are not just of interest to me through my own interests but, interests to all of Auckland. Interests to Auckland as the points to be covered in this submission have major if not critical impact depending on whether the execution of the Unitary Plan has positive or negative consequences.
As this part of the process is only seeking informal feedback on a draft-Draft Unitary Plan rather than a full formal submission, material will be in a more overview narrative rather than (extra) detailed and specific on individual points. The full formal submission when the Unitary Plan goes for notification is when I will provide the full written details on aspects of the Unitary Plan chosen.
Page 12

Brief recap on The Draft Unitary Plan as it currently stands
Straight from the shapeauckland.co.nz on the Unitary Plan (and the Rural Urban Boundary): The draft Auckland Unitary Plan (March 2013)
The draft Auckland Unitary Plan (March 2013) proposes consistent and clear policies and rules on how we use our land and protect our environment for public feedback between 15 March 2013 and 31 May 2013. The draft Auckland Unitary Plan does not have any legal standing under the Resource Management Act 1991. It explains in draft form what rules would apply to your property by using the techniques of zoning, overlays and precincts. It will provide answers to questions like: Do you need a resource consent (planning approval) for a house? What are the rules around additions and alterations to houses? Can you put apartments above shops? Can you operate a business from your home? It also outlines the draft rules for protecting Aucklands historic heritage buildings, cultural heritage and natural environment, including notable trees building in coastal areas and on prime productive land protecting our water resources, from streams and lakes to the sea The draft Auckland Unitary Plan (March 2013) includes maps showing zones (including business, rural and residential zones), overlays and precincts. These can be accessed through councils draft Auckland Unitary Plan GIS viewer.
Addendum to the draft Auckland Unitary Plan - Rural Urban Boundary and additional tools for enabling affordable neighbourhoods Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) options and housing affordability proposals are contained in the Addendum to the draft Auckland Unitary Plan. The Addendum and supporting documents present options for where and how Greenfield urban growth may happen over the next 30 years - these options will feed into the next stage of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Work has progressed on determining options for a RUB in the south, north and north-west of Auckland. By clearly defining where urban growth can and cannot go, this will help us plan for and accommodate expected population growth over the next 30 years. Housing affordability, and how this is planned for and funded, has also been considered alongside the draft Auckland Unitary Plan, with two options proposed: sharing land value uplift from rezoning, and inclusionary zoning. Your feedback on these issues will help to decide where the proposed RUB will go and how affordable neighbourhood proposals are to be provided for. This will then feed into the Auckland Unitary Plan that will be notified later in the year.
Page 13

You can have your say on these options and proposals at www.shapeauckland.co.nz
Merging 14 legacy planning documents into one super document is and was never going to be easy. It was also going also never going to be easy producing a single document in plain simple English from legacy plans full of planning speak. But the Unitary Plan has done that although still large and too large at that at 7000 pages including maps.
This submission gives a general narrative on my views for and against the Unitary Plan
Page 14

400,000 homes and one million people where are they going to go?
According to Part B of the Auckland Plan and based on projects by Statistics New Zealand, Auckland could grow by another one million people by 2041. Low end projects have Auckland growing by 500,000 people which is still quite formidable in the life of the Unitary Plan. Regardless of which figure Auckland grows by the people needs to be housed, employment centres provided and transport corridors to move around (amongst other needs as well). To me personally I would plan for the high projected target of one million people through the life of this Unitary Plan. This means 400,000 new homes at the minimum (2.5 people per house on those figures), employment centres, and supporting infrastructure to boot all within the Auckland Region. Why? Because for these reasons: 1. We can scale back development through the life of the Unitary Plan if population growth slows 2. If population growth does slow then we end up with an infrastructure surplus to the needs of the city. While not particularly good in some regards it is much better than an infrastructure deficit from under projecting population growth. The deficit will cause overcrowding, overloading and harm to the city and its people 3. Infrastructure surplus can mean slowing down infrastructure building for a set people of time. It means for once we have actual infrastructure in place before the people. This is called future proofing which Auckland is pretty hopeless at most times
So with a possible extra million on the way where are they all going to go? The Auckland Plan calls for a flexible 60:40 Brownfield : Greenfield split in urban development. This means up to 40% of our urban development can go onto Greenfield sites. Note the phrase uses; up to. This means flexibility up to 40% in how much of that 40% we use for Greenfield development. If Auckland uses say 35% for Greenfield then that means 65% of the rest of urban development happens as Brownfield or intensification works.
Page 15
Page 16

My Housing Mix using the shapeauckland.co.nz Housing Simulator
To look at the basic overall narrative with my submission to the Unitary Plan, the Shape Auckland Housing Simulator provides a crude but basic concept. My respective blog post below gives an outline at my attempt to on the simulator
My Housing Mix in Auckland

Attempt One using Shape Auckland Housing Simulator Auckland Council has released today an interactive housing simulator for YOU to experiment around with in how you as a theoretical Auckland Unitary Plan planner would fit in those extra 400,000 new dwellings for those one million extra people over the next thirty odd years. You can find the simulator HERE!
So I decided to play around with it and follow through my idea of the housing mix for Auckland in line with my submission to the Auckland Plan which called for 60% development in Brownfield Land (often intensification) and 40% in new Greenfield sites. This is what I got as I went through the process:
STAGE ONE HOW YOU ARE INTRODUC ED TO THE SIMULATOR
Opening shot of the simulator when you open it
Page 17

You can see the sliders which controls what housing goes where, the total you are giving and how many short or surplus you will be in with housing
S TA GE TW O MY FI RS T AT T EMPT
My first solution following submission to Unitary Plan
You can see I have an actual surplus. More on this in a moment but first a shot on where the sliders were:
STAGE THREE THE METHODOLOGY OF MY CHOICE
What I came up with to give my take
For all pictures, click for full resolution


As I mentioned earlier I support 40% of all new development in Greenfield zones with 60% in existing urban areas (Brownfield zones). But what you can see is that I actually have a surplus of housing stock by around 8,700 available if Council went through with what I have proposed. But there is a reason for this it gives flexibility to both the Council and the City with its growth options. One flexibility is that if our population growth goes higher than currently forecast, then the extra houses would be readily available on hand as back up. It possibly means Auckland has a buffer of 26,400 34,800 people from the surplus stock on hand. (This is assuming that each new dwelling holds an average of 3-4 people in it) Another flexibility option in the surplus housing stock seen in my solution is that it gives me some play around room with other factors in determining growth parameters such as:
Able to take back the Greenfield meter (Countryside converted to residential from 160,000 (40%) to 150-155,000 (35-37%) or knocking out Pukekohe West in the Southern RUB) Lower the Metropolitan Centre height limit to 15 storeys from 18 stories (I already have in the original simulator knock back the Town and Local Centre maximum heights from 8 storeys to 6, and 4 stories to 3 respectively)
Move the mix of homes to around 51% small or multi-unit from 55%, and for the large from 45 to 49% Lower or increase (depending which other meters were moved) Increase in Residential homes (large and small) from anywhere between 30-35% to compensate and keep the Extra Homes Needed either at zero or in surplus
Now if I reduced the Metropolitan Centre height limit from 18 to 15 storeys, and increased the increase in residential home limit (so intensification) from 33 to 34% this is what I get with a surplus at 5,200 dwellings
Page 19
Alternative if reducing Metro Centre Height Limits
Now while I dont mind dropping the limits on the Metropolitan Centre height proposa l, I am weary of dropping them too much before a metro centre becomes non-viable due to the building limit too low and not enough critical mass to get the high density development sought after in a the metro centres. Of course a developer would ever go to 15-18 storeys if the surround infrastructure and economic conditions permitted them in doing so this is especially as I have no height limit on the City Centre.
You might have noticed I have dropped the height limits on town and local centres from and to:

Town Centre: 8 storeys to 5 storeys Local Centre: 4 storeys to 3 storeys
This would be in line with my current thinking around places like Milford that are actually facing over-intensification under the current Draft Unitary Plan/Clunker more than what is required. I also believe 3 and 5 storeys is more viable and with better amenity with the reduce heights I have proposed. It also seems in dropping the Town and Local Centre heights I still get an actual surplus of housing stock available. BUT, I want to allow some density in these two centre classes to allow for critical mass in supporting commercial,

civic and community enterprise one would expect from such a centre to the residents and the wider city.
So in summary using the Housing Mix Simulator and sticking to my 60:40 Brownfield:Greenfield policy through the Auckland Plan this is what Auckland would get: City Centres (existing CBD and Manukau City Centre): no height limit Metropolitan Centres: 18 storey height limit Town Centres: 5 storey height limit (through all Town Centres) Local Centres : 3 storey height limit (through all Local Centres) Increase in residential homes (Brownfield intensification): 33% Mix of Houses: 55% small or multiunit | 45% large Rural converted into residential: 160,000 homes of 40% Greenfields
There are however a couple of things to note between the Housing Simulator and some alternatives that I am running: 1. Centres have altered with new definitions and some places either being upgraded or downgraded a. Large Town Centres would carry a 8-12 storey height limit (Papakura as an example of a Large Town Centre rather than a Metropolitan Centre) b. Manukau being upgraded from a Metropolitan to a City Centre Zone reflecting the Second CBD concept 2. Definitions of housing sizes between this submission and Councils definitions might vary. These are the definitions I use from international common planning practice for housing and apartment sizes: a. Small House: 2 bedrooms b. Medium House: 3 bedrooms c. Large House: 4 bedrooms d. Super Large House: 5-8 bedrooms e. Walk Up Apartments: 3 storey apartment block with no lift provided f. Low Rise: up to four storeys lifts need to be provided per building code g. Mid Rise: 4 12 Storeys h. High Rise: 12+ Storeys i. Super Tall: Over 300 metres j. http://voakl.net/2013/05/18/missing-something-with-the-unitary-plan/
Page 21

These differences between the Unitary Plan and my own definitions would need to be worked on in merging the two in order to translate material from this submission to practicality out in the actual city.
This is the enlarged image of my attempt on the Housing Simulator:
In conclusion, the basic mix of residential housing follows the 60:40 Brown:Greenfield urban development lines I submitted on to the Auckland Plan in 2011. This mix in my opinion is a middle of the road option between excessive Greenfield development (sprawl) and over doing it with Brownfield development (intensification). The lowering of the height limits in the Town and Local Centres remove the over-intensification approach currently seen in the Unitary Plan. Yet even with the lowering of the height limits in the Centres I still get a housing surplus of 8,700 dwellings. This does not include introducing the Large Town Centre definition alternative with a height limit set to
Page 22

8-12 storeys, nor include upgrading Manukau to a fully-fledged City Centre Zone with no height limit (but subject to Auckland International Airport approach path rules). But the mix suggestion used here does follow the flexibility and liberal choice model for both the city to cater for and the individual residents needs. Flexibility and liberal choice is the key for a happy healthy city, not inflexibility and no choice
Page 23
Page 24

The Zones: My Alternative to the Unitary Plan Zones
The alternatives covers both the residential and business zones set out in the Unitary Plan. Initial work on my alternatives with the zones was carried out for my submission to the now operative Auckland Plan. Since then further expansion of the alternative zone work has been done with the following alternative suggested in place of the current Unitary Plan zone system.
First some context drawn from my blog starting with Residential Zones
The Clunker and Residential Zoning

Posted on March 28, 2013 by BR:AKL_Admin01
Their Residential Zoning and My Residential Zoning
A Comparison
One of the biggest teeth gnashing happening with The Clunker (Unitary Plan) is the residential zoning being proposed that will control what kind of development can occur in a residential or mixed use area (if mix applies). The particular teeth gnashing can be broken down into two parts: 1. The Clunker is over intensifying most residential areas by around double 2. This leads to this point in which the current Clunker Zones are too rigid and not flexible enough for the actual community to adapt to
BRIEF GLIMPSE AT POI NT ONE: OVER-INTENSIFYING RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY DOUBLE
One thing I am constantly hearing is that while people are expecting some intensification as areas move from low density to medium density or medium density to high density residential zoning they believe Council is over doing the intensification by usually double. For example in Milford on The Shore which is proving to be a key battle ground is shaping up between resident and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse (who is the lead charge with The Clunker slash Unitary Plan); the town centre is forecast to be zoned with 8 storey medium density apartments, the surrounding flanks at 4-6 storey apartments, with the suburb actual looking at two-storey intensive housing most likely similar to the double storey stuff at Addison down my way.
Page 25

Now I took an educated punt and did some discussion from those at Milford. I said why not do these:

Town Centre at 4-5 stories Surrounding Flank using Addison Type two storey houses (this would be called near
Terrace) or Three Story walk-up apartments (could even be terraced housing at that level)
The main suburb leave as is but allow lot sizes to be shrunk to a minimum of 450m2 (I live on a 510m2 property) if demand allows it
Note: The Town Centre would be mixed residential and commercial use so you could see commercial on the ground and first floor and residential on the rest
What I proposed got more agreement and acceptance for those concerned with Milford providing that there was; strong urban design parameters and that the Local Board oversee the operation with Council backing and resources
Now I would be at a hazard of a guess this argument and subsequent compromise with Milford is most likely to happen right across the city with over-intensification. I know it is about to happen in Papakura with that area (my area) up for 18 storey buildings in the immediate town centre and most likely 8-stories in the flanks which is where I am exactly (I can see Papakura town centre from my back deck). Even though Papakura is deemed a metropolitan centre in the Auckland Plan, there is no way on this side of 2050 that the area could ever support 18 stories. The town centre can be zoned for 6 stories maximum right now with the surround flank basically on low density residential at 500m2 sections and the odd walk up 3-storey apartment. You might be able to get 8 stories around 2030 but I doubt especially when Manukau City Centre (the Core of South Auckland and second Core of Auckland) is only 12 minutes by train and 7 minutes by car.
Page 26
THE ZONE COMPARISON
I have embedded below the zones from the Unitary Plan a.k.a The Clunker has five primary residential zones while at the moment I have three although it will be soon five as I expand on low and medium density zones. The Clunker has these following residential zones:

Single House Mixed Housing Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Large Lot Rural and Coastal Settlement
What I have (including the new two sub zones (expanded on later)) these following zones (from my submission to the Auckland Plan) Residential:
Low Density Zone (two specific zones here): Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small scale infilling as well) Medium Density Zone (two specific zones here): 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
The Unitary Plan residential zones are described in brief here: Single House zone -Zone description The zone provides for suburban, open and landscaped living environments and is applied in many areas throughout Auckland including serviced rural and coastal villages. This zone is characterised by detached, low-rise, one-two storey dwellings surrounded by areas of open space for landscaping and leisure environments. It is not anticipated that large amounts of subdivision or multi-unit development will occur in this zone due to the minimum site size requirements. However, there is an opportunity to create a smaller, subservient dwelling within the main existing dwelling, provided the external appearance of a single large dwelling is retained. The conversion of a single dwelling into two dwellings will provide for different family needs or may be used to generate additional rental income without subdividing the property.
Page 27

Mixed Housing zone - Zone description This zone is the most widespread residential zone in Auckland. It enables two storey housing in variety of sizes and forms detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, town houses and terraced housing and low-rise apartments. The variety of housing types and sizes provided for will increase the supply of housing, create diverse neighbourhoods and provide housing choice. This zone encourages new development patterns by providing increased housing densities with the highest density levels enabled on large sites with wide road frontages. The basis for these provisions is that the larger the size of the site and the wider its frontage, the greater the opportunity to integrate the development into the neighbourhood and provide a range of dwelling types. Over time, the appearance of neighbourhoods within this zone will change but they will retain their suburban residential context. A resource consent is required in this zone where five or more units are being built on a site. A key part of the resource consent process will be determining if the site is of a size, shape, slope and with sufficient street frontage to achieve quality residential development. The zone provisions also ensure that development does not detract from the amenity and character of adjoining development or sites. Nonresidential activities are provided for but the range is limited to those which include a residential component or will benefit the local community.
Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone - Zone description This zone allows urban residential living in the form of terrace housing and apartments. The zone is located around metropolitan, town and local centres, frequent public transport stations and along some frequent transport routes. The purpose of the zone is to make efficient use of land and infrastructure, increase the supply of housing and ensure that residents have convenient access to services, employment, education facilities, retail and entertainment opportunities and public transport. This will promote walkable neighbourhoods and also foster a sense of community and increase the vitality of centres. The zone provides for the greatest density, height and scale of development out of all the residential zones. Buildings of four to six storeys are allowed depending on the scale of centre the zone adjoins and to achieve a transition in height to lower scale residential zones. This new form of development will lead to a change from a suburban to urban residential character and a moderate to high degree of visual change. Low density development is discouraged and midrise multi-unit residential living is encouraged. This increased density requires a high standard of design. A resource consent is required for all forms of residential development in the zone. A key part of the resource consent process will be determining if the proposal makes efficient use of the site and achieves quality design outcomes. Larger sites, and in particular sites with a consistent width of at least 20m, are capable of a wider range of unit types and can achieve better onsite amenity and design outcomes. This zone also provides for range of non-residential activities so

that residents have convenient access to these activities and services while maintaining the urban residential character of these areas.
Large Lot zone - Zone description This zone provides for large lot residential development on the periphery of urban areas. Large lot development is appropriate in these locations because of one or more of the following factors:

it is compatible with high quality landscape areas the land is not suited to conventional residential subdivision because of the absence of reticulated services or there is limited accessibility to reticulated services there are physical limitations such as topography, ground conditions, instability or natural hazards where more intensive development may cause or exacerbate adverse effects on the environment.
To manage adverse effects, larger than standard site sizes are required and building coverage and impervious surface areas are restricted.
Rural and Coastal Settlement zone - Zone description This zone applies to unserviced rural and coastal villages located outside urban areas in a variety of environments including highquality landscape areas and coastal areas. These settlements rely on onsite disposal and treatment. Due to factors including servicing, infrastructure and accessibility constraints and, in some cases, their sensitive character, only limited or no growth is anticipated.
Bit of a mouthful there but you can get the basics of the proposed residential zones although it is missing on what and where any residential tower over eight stories might go although you might find them contained to the CBD and some metropolitan zones around Auckland
Page 29

Now my proposed zones in its current form are due to be expanded to cover the array of housing options however, if I was to overlay with The Unitary Plans residential zones then this is how it would look: Unitary Plan Zone
BR:AKL Zone
Note
Single House
Low Density
Under LD1 Sub Zone
Mixed Zone
Low and Medium Density
Under LD2 and MD1 Sub Zones
Terrace Housing and Apartments
Medium and High Density
Under MD 1 and 2 Sub Zones if medium density
Large Lots
Special Zone
Case by case and to be dealt with separately
Coastal and Rural
Low Density, Rural Zone or Special Zones
Dealt specifically to area
The table with the proposed Unitary Plan residential zones and my alternative will be shown at the end of this section
Page 30

Context drawn from my blog starting with the Unitary Plan Business Zones
The Clunker and Business Zones

Posted on March 29, 2013 by BR:AKL_Admin01
Their Business Zoning and My Commercial and Industrial Zoning
A Comparison
March 28 I wrote a comparison post on The Clunkers intended residential zones and my residential zones (from my Auckland Plan submission). As I mentioned in that particular post (THE CLUNKER AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING), work is still being done as I flesh out my alternative proposed residential zones but, you can see the basic framework and comparisons thus far. While I am still fleshing out my residential zones, I will present my first glimpse into my commercial and industrial zones in comparison to The Clunkers.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUS TRIAL ZONING A BUSINESS ZONE COMP ARISON
The Unitary Plan (that is The Clunker) has a section that deals urban development around what would be employment centres that is called Business Zones. Unfortunately The Clunker does not distinguish via its Business Zones the difference between commercial and industrial zones, whereas my Auckland Plan submission zones do (dedicated separate commercial and industrial zones). This would make things in my opinion somewhat more complex than needed when dealing with employment centre zoning if the current Clunker Business Zones stuck. These are the current Unitary Plan Business Zones (I will embed the document at the bottom of this post):
Page 31

The Unitary Plan Business Zones:

City Centre Metropolitan Centre Town Centre Local Centre Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use General Business Business Park Light Industry Heavy Industry.
The BR:AKL Commercial and Industrial Zones Note: There is a rural zone in the industrial set. Please ignore this for now as I will deal with this when I come to the Unitary Plan Rural Zones.
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 67 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. Box or Bulk Retail like the Manukau Supa Centre or Takanini South-Gate applies here as well. 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)
Page 32

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 however medium industrial zones should be open to allowing heavy industry to be developed on a case by case basis
As for mixed commercial/residential zoning, I shall address that in a later post. The Clunker descriptions on the individual business zones City Centre zone - Zone description The city centre is the top of the centres hierarchy and plays a pivotal role in Aucklands present and future success. The zone seeks to ensure the city centre is an international centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living. To improve the vibe of the city centre environment, the zone permits a wide range of activities to establish in most parts of the city centre. The zone also manages activities that have the potential to adversely affect the amenity of the city centre. The Unitary Plan enables the greatest level of development in terms of height and floor area to occur in the city centre. Within the city centre itself, development potential is concentrated in the core central business district. Development potential reduces towards the ridgeline and transitions to lower heights on the waterfront and landward periphery. The zone manages the scale of development in order to protect important historic heritage places, sunlight admission to parks and public spaces, and significant views to the volcanic cones and other landmarks. The significant height and scale of buildings in the city

centre increases their visibility from many places, affecting the quality of both public and private views at local and citywide scales. In addition to managing the scale of development, the zone manages the quality of building design to ensure new buildings successfully integrate with the city centres existing built form and public realm to create an attractive and recognisable skyline. The city centre makes an important contribution to our sense of identity. Within the city centre are precincts and overlays, which have their own distinct features and character. Precincts and overlays may have additional management provisions.
Metropolitan Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to centres located in different subregional catchments of Auckland. The centres are second only to the city centre in overall scale and intensity and act as hubs for high frequency transport within their catchments. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high density residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Zone provisions, in conjunction with rules in the other business zones, reinforce metropolitan centres as locations for all scales of commercial activity. Precincts and overlays, which modify the underlying zone or have additional provisions, apply to some of the metropolitan centres. Generally, however, to support an intense level of development, the zone allows for highrise buildings. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General Commercial Frontage overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centres public realm.
Town Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to suburban centres throughout Auckland, the satellite centres of Warkworth and Pukekohe, and the rural town of Helensville. The centres are typically located on main arterial roads, which provide good public transport access. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Provisions enable buildings between four to eight storeys high, depending on the characteristics of the centre. Increased height within the centres will facilitate increased office and residential living opportunities at upper floors. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail or General Commercial overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role.

Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centres streets and public open spaces.
Local Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to a large number of small centres throughout Auckland. The centres are located in areas of good public transport. The zone provides for the local convenience needs of surrounding residential areas, including local retail, commercial services, offices, food and beverage, and small-scale supermarkets. Large-scale commercial activity is discouraged. Provisions allow for buildings up to four storeys high, enabling residential use at upper floors. New development within the zone requires resource consent so that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centres streets and public open spaces.
Neighbourhood Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to single corner stores or small shopping strips located in residential neighbourhoods. They provide residents and passers-by with daily retail and commercial service needs. Buildings of up to three storeys high and residential use at upper floors is permitted. Development is expected to be in keeping with the surrounding residential environment.
Mixed Use zone - Zone description This zone is typically located around centres and along frequent public transport corridors and major road corridors. It acts as a transition area, in terms of scale and activity, between residential areas and the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones. It also applies to areas where there is a need for a compatible mix of residential and employment activities. The zone provides for residential and smaller scale commercial activity that does not cumulatively affect the viability of centres. Where the zone is adjacent to the city centre, metropolitan centres and larger town centres, buildings up to six storeys in height are permitted. In other areas where the zone applies, buildings up to four storeys are permitted. Provisions do not specifically require a mix of uses on individual sites or within areas, but buildings should be adaptable so that the uses within them can change over time. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail or General Commercial overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the

zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of streets within the area and public open spaces.
General Business zone - Zone description This zone provides for business activities that may not be appropriate for, or are unable to locate in, centres. This includes activities ranging from light industrial to limited office and large format retail activities. Large format retail is preferred in centres but it is recognised that this is not always possible. Large format retail activities are appropriate in the General Business zone only when this does not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones. Although the application of the zone within Auckland is limited, it is an important part of the Unitary Plans strategy to provide for growth in commercial activity and manage the effects of large format retail. Small retail activities are not appropriate in the zone as the presence of these activities, in combination with large format retail, will effectively create an unplanned centre. Residential activity is also not envisaged due to the presence of light industrial activities and the need to preserve land for out of centre commercial opportunities. The zone is located in areas close to the City Centre, Metropolitan and Town Centre zones or along identified growth corridors, where there is good transport access and exposure to customers. The design of development within this zone is expected to contribute to an active street edge.
Business Park zone - Zone description A business park is a location where office type business activities can group together in a park or campus like environment. This zone enables moderate to intensive office activity and some ancillary services such as gymnasiums, child care and food and beverage outlets. These high amenity and comprehensively planned business areas are located adjacent to high frequency public transport networks. The zone is designed to recognise the existing business parks of Smales Farm and Central Park. It has a limited future application, as new office activities are expected to locate within and reinforce the roles of the city centre, metropolitan centres and town centres. Where new business parks are proposed, limits are expected to be put in place on the amount of office that can establish within these parks.
Light Industry zone - Zone description This zone provides for light industrial activities that do not generate significant unpleasant or noxious odour, dust or noise emissions. This includes light manufacturing, production, logistics, storage, transport and distribution activities. Due to the industrial nature of the activities,

sensitive activities such as residential, office or retail activities that are not related to the predominant use onsite are not appropriate. An exception is made for trade suppliers, motor vehicle sales and garden centres, which may locate in the zone subject to location and traffic considerations.
Heavy Industry zone - Zone description This zone provides for industrial activities that may produce unpleasant or noxious odour, dust and noise emissions. Air quality emissions standards that are different to the rest of Auckland will often apply. A key attribute of the zone is that it contains sites large enough to accommodate large-scale low intensity industrial activities. Sensitive activities are not appropriate in the zone and buildings are expected to have a mainly functional standard of amenity. The zone is typically located close to key freight routes.
Like my comparisons for the residential zones I do have them in table form for commercial zones an existing industrial but, the Unitary Plan is more vague with those particular industrial zones. However what makes this more difficult in the comparison is that I have two distinct separate planning aspects for commercial centres in Auckland. They are called the Central Master Community Plan (CMCP) which is a highly prescriptive form of planning, and the Semi-Liberal Plan District (SLPD) which is my signature liberalised planning approach. Rural and Coastal settlements and Satellite Towns also were separated and categorised as well. Also you will see residential zones in there as well as I flesh out mixed zoning. These are the respective comparisons which mostly draw on the same names as The Clunkers individual business zones:
Page 37
THE BUSINESS ZONE/COMMERCIAL ZONE COMPARISON
Category
CMCP/SLPD
Suggested Zoning Maximum
Notes
International City Centre
CMCP
N/A
Covered by the Draft City Centre Master Plan
Metropolitan Centres
CMCP
N/A
Includes Tamaki. Excludes Sylvia Park
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
Possibility for up zoning for medium commercial and Light Residential and residential but on a case by Commercial case basis
Urban Growth Corridors
SLPD
Medium Residential and Commercial
Has potential for High Density Residential and Commercial, but that needs to be explored in-depth first
Existing Industry
SLPD
Review each area for LADU and redevelopment possibilities
Page 38

Now if you are wondering where some zones mentioned in The Clunker would go in comparison to my alternatives this is what I have devised so far:
Neighbourhood Centres are the same as the above table Local Centres, but no up zoning and not as much commercial zoning as the Local Centre Business Parks are would (although deemed obsolete in The Clunker for future development) either en-mass low or medium commercial per my alternative zones depending on the amount of office space per site and worker density
City Centre and Metropolitan Centres (although reviewing some areas marked Metropolitan in The Clunker) are the only areas in Auckland where High Density Residential and Commercial (per my alternative descriptions) would go
Urban Growth Corridors I will cover in separate posts per The Clunkers definition of Future Urban Zone and Strategic Transport Corridor pieces The Clunkers General Business Zone is covered by my Medium Commercial Density as mentioned above Mixed zones I am getting to later on
As for rural, satellite and coast towns: Classification Suggested Zoning Maximum Notes
Satellites
Medium Residential and Commercial, Light Industry
Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning
Rural and Coastal Settlements
Light Residential and Commercial
Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning. Areas marked with (*) have potential for medium residential or commercial in the future
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
Page 39

CMCPS AND SLPDS
These are posts in their own right and I will cover them shortly. They have been mentioned today in-depth with my class of zoning and urban control lay outs. So bear with me if you have no idea what a Central Master Community Plan or a Semi-Liberal Plan District is just yet.
The table comparing the Unitary Plan Business Zones and my alternative zones can be found end of the section.
Page 40

Refined Definitions of Alternative Zonings for the Unitary Plan
Residential Zones
Zone Type Low Standard Density Zone
What can be built Mostly single family homes to be built. Some infill allowed Minimum Lot Size 450m2 Mostly single family homes to be built. More intensive infill allowed Minimum Lot Size 300m2 Ranging from single homes through to Walk-Up Apartments and Terrace Housing Minimum size lot for single house is 300m2 Ranging from Walk-Up Apartments and Terrace Housing to 6 storey apartments Ranging from Walk-Up Apartments and Terrace Housing to 8 storey apartments Allows up to 12-15 storey Apartment Towers 15 storeys or higher
Notes Two Storeys Maximum permitted, Three Storeys a Restricted Discretionary Activity Two Storeys Maximum permitted, Three Storeys is a Restricted Discretionary Activity Apartments and Terraced Housing are non-complying Up to three storeys as permitted activity. Four Storeys is a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Above four storeys is non-complying 3-6 storeys permitted. Above 6 storeys and below 3 storeys on any new development is noncomplying 3-8 storeys permitted. Above 8 storeys and below 3 storeys on any new development is noncomplying Subject to rules such as those prescribed in the Business Zone definitions Subject to rules such as those prescribed in the Business Zone definitions
Low-Intensive Density Zone
Medium Classic Density Zone
Medium Standard Density Zone
Medium Intensive Density Zone
High Standard Density Zone
High Intensive Density Zone
Note in regards to definitions and alternatives stemming from embedded blog articles used in this submission: LD1 = Low Standard Density Zone LD2 = Low-Intensive Density Zone MD1 = Medium Classic Density Zone MD2 = Medium Standard Density Zone and Medium Intensive Density Zone
Page 41

Commercial Zones
Zone Type Low Classic Density Zones
What can be built Small Business developments such as: dairies, gas stations and newsagents
Notes Restricted to two storeys in height. Expected to be found in Neighbour Centres. Three Storey buildings are a Restricted Discretionary Activity Expected to be found in Local Centres. Four plus storeys are a noncomplying activity
Low Standard Density Zones
Up to Three Storeys
Medium Standard Density Zones Medium Intensive Density Zone High Density
4-6 storeys. Also restricted floor space of up to 1500m2 4-8 storeys. Also restricted floor space of up to 3000m2 9 stories plus and no restriction Below 8 stories on any new on floor space development is a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Business Zone Centre Rules also apply if height limits are mentioned there.
In regards if a residential and commercial zone are placed together causing a mixed zone or a Centre zone has been placed. Basic rule of thumb is that the individual class (residential or commercial) follows their respective zone maximum. In most cases like residential class with like commercial class will have been matched up.
Page 42

Centralised Master Community Plans and Semi-Liberal Planned District
A recap from my Auckland Plan submission on CMCPs and SLPDs
Methodology of Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation)

Overview
The goal is to allow Auckland to develop and grow under a system that is Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Affordable while still making Auckland The Most Live able City. So how can we allocate, develop and utilise Aucklands finite land supply in the most efficient manner but still hold to the principles of being affordable and environmentally (physically and socially) sound. What I propose mixed model system of land allocation/development/utilisation that would be best suited to Aucklands diversified needs. The mixed model system would comprise of two elements: Centralised Master (Community) Plan Semi-Liberal Simplified District Development Both elements of the mixed model will still have to however comply with these basic requirements:

Follow and Implement the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol Follow these philosophies (The (Auckland) Regional Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies): Would you and your family live here happily? Would you work here happily? Would you and your family use this recreational space while feeling safe? Would it be something you would allow your next generation to inherit? Not contravene the principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 (i.e. the land allocation/development/utilisation will not create severe adverse effects or simply put, lower the amenity of the surrounding existing physical and social environment)
A Centralised Master (Community) Plan is where the subject land use is performed under a strict prescription. That prescription would provide the covenants on land allocation, land utilisation, urban design and rules around what types of activities or future activities that could or could not be carried out. Centralised Master (Community) Plans would utilised in areas that have significant value or consequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCPs could not be left strictly to more market forces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).
A Semi-Liberal Planned District is where the subject land use is performed under more flexible operations than land use under a CMCP scheme. The SLPD Model would be split into two subsections; one subsection dealing with already utilised land (so brownfield type development or Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net Page 43

existing residential), the other subsection dealing with greenfield developments. However the principles of the Semi-Liberal Planned District model of land allocation/development are the same. The principles of an SLPD being:
Follows the R-LADU-P bullet pointed above Works collaboratively with local community Achieves the desires of the local community (or region) in question Delivers affordable, efficient and desirable products or outcomes to the community or region Should not require excessive Council intervention due to the final product of a SLPD application having a negative effect (contravening the Philosophies mentioned above)
Page 44

Centralised Master (Community) Plan
Using Chapter Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan as a reference point for urban (re)development, certain areas of Auckland would be (in this submission) allocated for land/development/utilisation using the Centralised Master (Community) Plan model. Primarily areas recommended for urban intensification would be considered for a CMCP however areas recommended for urban sprawl (such as Hobsonville) could also be considered for a CMCP if the area has significant value or consequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCPs could not be left strictly to more market forces (as would be seen in a Semi-Liberal Simplified Planned District development).
Using Table 8.2 (page 132 of the Auckland Draft Plan (Urban Auckland)), I have recommended these areas be subject to the CMCP model of (re)development: International City Centre Metropolitan Centres Any urban (or rural) centre marked with an (*) in Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan Tamaki
These areas mentioned above all have significant value or consequence if altered on a whole scale level. Once the Auckland Plan is activated Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers would need to work together to form the Centralised Master (Community) Plans to takes these centres forward for the next 30-50 years. However while developing a CMCP, the primary goal of The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Sustainable while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City. So rule of thumb, the CMCP (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.
Again keeping the submission at a manageable length, these following areas would be focused on for CMCP development:
Wynyard Quarter Manukau Papakura Sylvia Park Tamaki
Areas in South Auckland with the (*) beside them (page 132 of the Draft Auckland Plan) will be ignored in this submission but if the CMCP model is adopted then individual plans will be needed to be done for those areas. Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net Page 45
Detailed individual Central Master (Community) Plans for the five areas mentioned above will be not attached or added to this submission per-se. For one the idea of a CMCP has to be approved by Auckland Council first in finalising The Auckland Plan, second if a CMCP model of land allocation/development/utilisation is adopted then a second phase of planning has to be undertaken in order to create the CMCP. That planning work would and should be down collaboratively with Local Boards, Auckland Council (mainly in regard to the International City Centre Zone), stakeholders and developers. That planning work would be done either in preparation for the Unitary Plan or the Long Term Plan.
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
1
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ (Accessed September 2011)
Page 46

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!
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).
Page 47

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, overinflation 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
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6 (accessed September 2011)
Page 48

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 o
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.
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 Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net Page 49

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 than 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.
Page 50

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 choose 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 than conventional is required. With SC4, basic infrastructure such as water and electricity are again technically provided by the developer rather than 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!
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/ (Accessed October 2011)
Page 51

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 o 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.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ (Accessed September 2011)
Page 52

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. 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.
Page 53
Page 54

Over Intensification with the centres who gets upgraded and who gets downgraded. Also covered is redrawing the height restrictions imposed on some centres
The extraction from my own below gives my own thoughts and alternatives to the issue of height in the draft Unitary Plan.
It is all about Height!

Height and The Clunker
I hope Council does not mind me doing a duplication job today on their blog post about height and setbacks. Of course all references and credits will be provided as per normal. The biggest concern that the Unitary Plan is causing with residents and communities right now is the height and setback rules. Each zone or centre has urban design rules attached that control at what height and what set back your building has to be in order to comply with the Unitary Plan (unless you want to go through a very long-winded Resource Consents process). I will duplicate Shape Aucklands blog post on heights and setbacks below as well as give an indication from my end what the maximum heights should be in some of our centres. Of course all this will be part of my submission to the Unitary Plan come May 31. From Shape Auckland On Heights and Setback Rules
DETAILED FACTSHEET ON CENTRES: BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACK CONTROLS
Aucklands city centre, metropolitan centres and town centres are where public and private sector investment tends to be focused. The draft Auckland Unitary Plan aims to enable that role to strengthen over the decades to come. These centres are where retail, employment and facilities such as public transport, libraries and public spaces and are concentrated. Allowing for additional height in some of these centres (compared to existing height limits) not only ensures that people

have greater choice of homes; it also enables more businesses and residents to be closer to a wide range of goods and services. How the centres and other business areas affect the residential areas and open space areas around them is critical, and so the draft plan proposes a series of height and setback controls to minimise impacts without overly limiting the growth that can be achieved. This is an important balance to reach, and so will be a key area of feedback on the draft plan. Its also important to note that the draft plan proposes urban design assessments for all new buildings in centres (other than the small neighbourhood centres), as well as for the Business Park, Mixed Use and General Business zones. The purpose of this is to ensure quality buildings that relate well to their surrounding area.
ALTERNATIVE TO THE CENTRES
I might as well post my attempt in redefining some of the heights here with these centres seeming I have gone on about over intensification. Following my submission to The Auckland Plan and my first attempt on the Housing Mix Simulator this is what I have so far subject to further refinement
Proposed buildings heights in centres: Proposed maximum height of centres
Metropolitan Centres Albany, Botany, Henderson, Manukau, New Lynn, Papakura Maximum 72.5m (18 storeys)
BR:AKL Alternative Stays as is per Housing Simulator attempt. However redefining of Metropolitan and Town Centre zones underway. Trade off being considered lowering Papakura to 10-12 Storeys and raising Manukau to 24-26 storeys. Manukau also under consideration to be rezoned as City Centre Zone
Page 56

Newmarket, Sylvia Park, Takapuna, Westgate/Massey Subject to special rules such as volcanic cone sightline As is although Metropolitan and Town Centre Zones are being rewritten
Town Centres Avondale, Glen Innes, Milford, Maximum Newton/Upper Symonds 32.5m (8 Street, Northcote, Manurewa, storeys) Onehunga, Ormiston, Pakuranga, Panmure, Royal Oak, Three Kings BrownsBay, Glen Eden, Glenfield, Highbury, Highland Park, Orewa, thuhu, Papatoetoe Devonport, Ellerslie, Hunters Corner, Mangere, Mt Albert, tara, Parnell, Pt Chevalier, Ponsonby, Pukekohe, Remuera, Stoddard Road, Sunnynook, Takanini, Te Atatu, Warkworth, Whangaparaoa St Lukes, Howick Maximum 24.5m (6 storeys) Lowered to 5 storeys per Housing Simulator Mix
Lowered to 5 storeys per Housing Simulator Mix. Some to be lowered to four storey
Maximum 16.5m (4 storeys)
Stay as is although some are likely to be either moved to Local Centre definition or upgraded to 5 storeys
Specific overlay provisions
To fall under new Special Character Zone provisions. St Heliers and Ponsonby to be placed in SCZ zone as well
Local Centres All local centres Maximum 12.5-16.5m (3 or 4 storeys) Three Storey Maximum across all Local Centres
Neighbourhood Centres
Page 57

All neighbourhood centres Maximum 12.5 (3 storeys) Lowered to Two Storey. Three Storey to be considered case by case basis
You can see the PDF version this table HERE You can also find the Council PDFs on its heights and setbacks here
Concepts such as Special Character Zones have not been introduced yet in this submission but, will be done so in a later section. When formulating the alternatives outlined here in this submission, the 400,000 new homes requirement was always at the top of mind when altering any hierarchy and height limits with the centres. Thus with the lowering or increasing of height limits of respective centres in my alternative to the Unitary Plan (as well as up or downgrading centres into other categories) does not affect the 400,000 new homes requirement set out in both the Unitary and Auckland Plans.
Page 58

Manukau and St Heliers; special places deserve special recognition as one size does not fit all with the Unitary Plan
One perception with the draft Unitary Plan is that it treats the city as a one size fits all homogenous mass. This homogenous city would have its planning done by a central body and unresponsive to the needs of the individual communities or sub regions of Auckland. If that homogenous perception is wrong then Auckland Council need to fix that perception before the Unitary Plan goes for formal notification.
While Council sorts out the homogenous perception stemming from the Unitary Plan, I do wish to bring to attention in this section on Auckland as an actual Heterogeneous City (Heterogeneous being diverse and mixed (which the city is)). As the city is heterogeneous, planning needs to recognise this concept if we are to plan properly for the city. My Centralised Master Community Plan (CMCP) and Semi-Liberal Plan Districts (SLPD) are two alternative methodologies that recognise Auckland as a diverse city and allow for responsive planning from the Local Boards rather than central Council and its bureaucracy. The CMCP and SLPD concepts are explained in the ____ section of this feedback. In this section I will be looking at two specific locations in Auckland and why the Unitary Plan needs to be able to recognise the heterogeneity of our city. The two locations are Manukau City Centre and St Heliers. Manukau and St Heliers could not be more chalk and cheese in their comparisons to one another. These places in all respects are different apart from one thing; the need to be treated as individual but different places under the Unitary Plan. Both examples to be used here draw on my previous work in regards to either the Auckland Plan or the draft Unitary Plan. Both examples use both of my alternative planning methodologies (CMCP and SLPD) in reflecting the heterogeneity of our city Auckland. St Heliers I will be using the Special Character Zone in as an example of an area that could need special recognition outside of the Unitary Plan standard zoning frame work. The abridged version will provide in this feedback submission while the full version is still being worked on privately. The Manukau example will be drawing on my Manukau as a Second CBD of Auckland work that was presented at the Auckland Council, Auckland Plan Committee on March 14 2013.
Page 59

St Heliers and the Special Character Zone proposal abridged version
Improving the Unitary Plan for Local Centres and Town Centres Special Character Zones and Community Master Plans Abridged Version 1.0
Benjamin Ross
view.of.auckland@gmail.com http://voakl.net
Full version of presentation can be found at: http://voakl.net/2013/05/03/back-from-orakei-presentation/
Why do we need Special Character Zones?

The Auckland Council Unitary Plan (UP) takes a standardised broad brush approach with only a small number centre classifications and residential and commercial zonings. This approach does not suit all centres and suburbs and is not really necessary to achieve the objectives of the UP. In particular, we need a mechanism to allow for more local input to protect local character. St Heliers and Mt Eden are examples of where the SCZ might be used but there are others. What is a Special Character Zone? Special Character Zones would be independent zones in the Unitary Plan. The Special Character Zone would not be tied to the requirements of any centre classification nor tied to any residential and commercial zone types currently in the draft Unitary Plan. Policies for land use in the SCZ would be governed by a Community Master Plan developed by the Local Board and endorsed by Council. A Special Character Zone give recognition to a specific area that has character or significance that makes it stand apart from the rest of the city. Such significance or character could be from: Character arising from history and heritage Physical Geography or Location (e.g. close proximity to the coast or a volcano or potential to hinder view shafts to a isthmus volcano (Mt Eden) Human Geography (having significant cultural character that makes the area unique from the rest of the city
To have a Special Character Zone applied would require the Local Board and community in question to justify to Council the need for a SCZ in terms of the three points above and lack of fit with the standard Unitary Plan approach. Once an area has been designated as a Special Character Zone it triggers the requirement for the Local Board concerned to draw up a Community Master Plan with (say) 6 months to control the land allocation/development/utilisation for all land and buildings inside the SCZ.
Special Character Zone Fringe Zone

In my submission to the Auckland Plan and especially around areas that had CMCPs, I would create a surrounding Fringe Zone that acts as a transition between the SCZ and wider areas of Auckland. You would otherwise get this boundary effect between the two distinct planning methodologies that would stick out like a sore thumb visually. These fringe or transition zones would
Page 60

also have their own set of rules to govern the development of their own separate plan that would bridge the CMCP area and the wider Auckland zones. For St Heliers and acronym meanings see my full presentation Also like the Special Character Zone for St Heliers which can be translated to other areas in Auckland, so can the SCZ Fringe Zone.
Centralised Master Community Plans (CMCP)

The current version of a CMCP is: A Community Master Plan is where the subject land use is performed under a strict prescription. That prescription would provide the covenants on land allocation, land utilisation, urban design and rules around what types of activities or future activities that could or could not be carried out. Centralised Master (Community) Plans would utilised in areas that have significant value or consequences (both positive and negative) to either the surrounding area or the entire city thus land allocation/development/utilisation inside these CMCPs could not be left strictly to more market forces.. While the CMCP idea still needs to be refined to reflect changes in the planning and governance environment, it basically works like this (in regards to a SCZ in place):
Under CMCPs the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Board rather than the centralised Council Council provides a statement of intent (The Auckland Plan), an action plan for Auckland (Auckland Long Term Plan) and the basic planning rules through the Unitary Plan - over the next period of time (which is through to 2041) Local Board writes the SCZ - CMCP Council provides a mediation service when there is a dispute with an CMCP Council assists Local Boards with resources required when an CMCP is being carried out CMCP follows both the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (below), and the policies set out in the Special Character Zone Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developers (allowing greater flexibility and response to community concerns and needs/desires but still in recognition of the Special Character Zone)
Where to next?
I recommend that the Orakei Local Board work with other Local Boards and their communities work to refine the terms for Special Character Zones and the CMCP concept and how they could operate. There would need to be some informal consultation with Auckland Council and its planners. The Special Character Zone and Centralised Master Community Plans are not either Unitary Plan Overlays or Area Plans. Those two provisions do not cover the three points a Special Character Zone would cover. Auckland Council has begun working on individual plans for Local Centres and the SCZ approach could fit in with the wider application Council intends for individual plans. Once refined; the concept would go to the Council Governing Body for approval.
Page 61

Manukau The Second CBD of Auckland; Full Version
Manukau
The Second CBD of Auckland
Booklet Version
Ben Ross Managing Director TotaRim Consultation
May 2013
totarim.consultancy@totarim.co.nz
Page 62
Contents
Contents
Foreword................................................................................................................................................... Purpose and Introduction ......................................................................................................................... Presentation Content Layout .................................................................................................................... Challenges: How we see Auckland in both the sense of planning and identity ....................................... Is Auckland in fact a Megaopolis/Megalopolis? ............................................................................... Seeing Auckland as Three Distinct Metropolitan Areas.................................................................... Manukau as the Second CBD: A Methodology on why Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland ..... Can Auckland Support TWO CBDs ........................................................................................................ The Existing CBD and Manukau City Centre.......................................................................................... Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. References ................................................................................................................................................ The Maps (Enlarged) .................................................................................................................................
Page 63
Page 64

Foreword
In this presentation; I am not asking for a decision right now on upgrading Manukau from a Metropolitan Zone to a City Centre Zone thus allowing Manukau to be recognised as the Second CBD of Auckland. What I am doing through this presentation and booklet provided is to provide clarification around the Manukau idea before my submission is handed in May 31 for the draft Unitary Plan. The clarification is around: 1. Is Auckland a Megaopolis? 2. Does Auckland in fact have Three Metropolitan Areas? 3. Can Auckland support two (if not three) CBDs?
Page 65

Purpose and Introduction
Auckland is a heterogeneous city of over 1.4 million people as of 2013. We are basically a patch work collection of: villages, town centres and employment centres (industry, the CBD and Manukau), flanking suburbia and rural places that have mish-mashed together to form what we know as Auckland. This patch work has been a part of Aucklands history ever since it was founded in 1840. We (the people) have grown up with this patch work uniqueness of Auckland then, now and will do in the future. It is part of Aucklands sense of identity. At the moment Auckland has a draft Unitary Plan underway for feedback and subsequent development. It can be interpreted through the Unitary Plans subsequent guiding document The Auckland Plan and thus the draft Unitary Plan that our civic leaders and planners however, see Auckland as a homogenous city. By homogenous I mean the Unitary Plan sees Auckland rallying around primarily the existing CBD as its core with the rest of the region one urban sprawling mass. In doing so some of our larger existing centres (the Metropolitan Centres) are treated with the same homogenous (standardised) broad brush under the Unitary Plan, relegating their history and sense of identity these larger centres have within both their local and wider community. My submission to the Unitary Plan will cover the ten Metropolitan Centres in greater detail. In this presentation I am focusing on Manukau as Aucklands C BD.
Thus the purpose of this presentation is to look at upgrading Manukau from a Metropolitan Centre to a fully-fledged City Centre Zone on par with the existing Central Business District (CBD). In doing so this presentation will look at three questions to challenge our planning mind set in both how we see Auckland, and whether Manukau is already the second CBD of Auckland. Those three questions are: 1. Is Auckland a Megaopolis? 2. Does Auckland in fact have Three Metropolitan Areas? 3. Can Auckland support two (if not three) CBDs?
All relevant BR:AKL blog posts and supporting links for this presentation will be attached to this booklet. Manukau - The Second CBD of Auckland
Page 66

Presentation Content Layout
This presentation covers three different prongs that give rise to Manukau already acting as the second CBD of Auckland. The first prong will be looking at challenging our current presumptions about Auckland as a single mass surrounding a single Central Business District. The question being raised is whether the fact Auckland is a Megaopolis/Megalopolis and why I believe Auckland such a Megaopolis. The second prong again is a challenge on our current presumptions of Auckland. This time whether Auckland as a whole is either one massive metropolitan area or in fact three distinct interlinked metropolitan areas. How you answer the challenge is how you would see the planning for Auckland. Again for me I see Auckland as three distinct and interlinked metropolitan areas contained in one sprawling Megaopolis. The third prong looks at Manukau as the Second Central Business District of Auckland. This particular prong will take a more methodology approach in the reasoning behind my call for Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland. Material from my BR:AKL blog will be translated back into this booklet providing the methodology in calling for Manukau to be recognised as our second CBD. Towards the end of this presentation; recommendations and the conclusion will be given in ways Auckland Council could possibly proceed in allowing Auckland to have more than one recognised CBD in the region.
Page 67

Challenges: How we see Auckland in both the sense of planning and identity
Is Auckland in fact a Megaopolis/Megalopolis?
This first challenge I give to Auckland Council is how they see Auckland. Is Auckland in fact a Megaopolis/Megalopolis made of different but distinct metropolitan areas rather than one sprawling entity as the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan would suggest.
From my BR:AKL post: QUESTION: AUCKLAND METROPOLIS OR MEGALOPOLIS/MEGAPOLIS?

QUESTION: AUCKLAND METROPOLIS OR MEGALOPOLIS/MEGAPOLIS Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on April 21, 2013 3 Comments (Edit)
Something to think about

As I have been chatting away to various people on the concept of Manukau being a second CBD in Auckland; two interesting and thought-provoking questions popped up. They were:
Can Auckland be looking at THREE CBDs by 2040: the existing CBD, Manukau and Albany (or Takapuna(something the North Shore can figure out itself)) Is Auckland an actual metropolis or in fact a Megaopolis/megalopolis As for the tri-CBD question; another time and another debate. Right now it is the metropolis/Megaopolis/megalopolis question for Auckland Now before someone pipes up about the world megapolises and megalopolises being massive areas with tens of millions of people, I want you to put that world relativity concept behind and think of a New Zealand and literal Greek concept of the terms. The best way to convey the information is an information dump from Wikipedia METROPOLIS
A metropolis is a very large city or urban area which is a significant economic, political, and cultural centre for a country or region, and an important hub for regional or international connections, commerce, and communications. The term is Greek and means the mother city of a colony (in the ancient sense), that is, the city which sent out settlers. This was later generalized to a city regarded as a centre of a specified activity, or any large, important city in a nation. Urban areas of fewer than one million people are rarely considered metropolises in contemporary contexts.[citation needed] Big cities belonging to a larger urban agglomeration, but which are not the core of that agglomeration, are not generally considered a metropolis but a part of it. The plural of the word is most commonly metropolises.[1]
Page 68

Etymology and modern usage
This is a Greek word, coming from , mtr meaning mother and , plis meaning city/town, which is how the Greek colonies of antiquity referred to their original cities, with whom they retained cultic and political-cultural connections. The word was used in postclassical Latin for the chief city of a province, the seat of the government and, in particular, ecclesiastically for the seat or see of a metropolitan bishop to whom suffragan bishops were responsible. This usage equates the province with the diocese or episcopal see. In modern usage the word has come to refer to a metropolitan area, a set of adjacent and interconnected cities clustered around a major urban centre. In this sense metropolitan usually means spanning the whole metropolis (as in metropolitan administration); or proper of a metropolis (as in metropolitan life, and opposed to provincial or rural).
METROPOLITAN AREA (TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION)
A metropolitan area, metro area or metro is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing.[1] A metropolitan area usually comprises multiple jurisdictions and municipalities: neighborhoods, townships, cities, exurbs, counties, and even states. As social, economic and political institutions have changed, metropolitan areas have become key economic and political regions.[2]
Now there is no denying Auckland does have a metropolitan area, the catch is and this is where the megas come in is how we seen that densely population urban core (often seen or used in a mono-centric core model)
MEGAPOLIS AND MEGALOPOLIS
A megalopolis (sometimes called a Megaopolis or megaregion) is typically defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas. The term was used by Oswald Spengler in his 1918 book, The Decline of the West, and Lewis Mumford in his 1938 book, The Culture of Cities, which described it as the first stage in urban overdevelopment and social decline. Later, it was used by Jean Gottmann in 1957, to describe the huge metropolitan area along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. extending from Boston through New York City; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland and ending in Washington, D.C.
Before I go post the twin Greek definitions I want to point something out highlighted in red above: defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas. With Auckland this could stem from a duo or even poly centric core model where you have more than (borrowing from the Metropolitan Area terminology): a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing. While drawing a long bow on a world scale, for a New Zealand scale this could be drawn as true especially with Auckland. Examples being the CBD itself and its Metropolitan Area which could be defined as the old Auckland City Council area and extending in part to West Auckland, while Manukau City Centre had its metropolitan area which was everything south of Otahuhu and the Tamaki Estuary. Two distinct separate parts of Auckland (only combined technically by just the new Unitary Authority called Auckland Council) with two very distinct senses of identity between the two Metropolitan Areas (being the isthmus and Southern Auckland).
Page 69

Thus is we treated wider Auckland that has a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas (now this would include the North Shore entity as well) then we do have by definition a megalopolis/Megaopolis. Let me draw on the two Greek definitions:
Definitions
A Megaopolis is a Greek word that derived from Greek: - great and Greek: city therefore literally a great city. The metric prefix mega- represents the number of million (1,000,000) in the metric system. A megalopolis, also known as a megaregion, is a clustered network of cities with a population of about 10 million or more.[1][2][3] America 2050,[4] a program of the Regional Plan Association, lists 11 megaregions in the United States and Canada.[1] Literally, megalopolis in Greek means a city of exaggerated size where the prefix megalo- represents a quantity of exaggerated size.[5] Megapolitan areas were explored in a July 2005 report by Robert E. Lang and Dawn Dhavale of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.[6] A later 2007 article by Lang and Nelson uses 20 megapolitan areas grouped into 10 megaregions.[7] The concept is based on the original Megalopolis model.[3]
As I said ignore the world concept and look at it on a New Zealand concept here as it has to do with our planning.
Megaopolis: Great City and representing one million. While great city might be a subjective term giving different interpretations of it, wider Auckland is the only city with over one million people. You could say Auckland is a Great City due to its world global city ranking (Beta) and its economic/population clout the city has in NZ. So on those literal terms alone Auckland is a Megaopolis and should always be treated as such.
Megalopolis: Now this is where it gets interesting on definition and planning fronts. Auckland housing 34% of New Zealands population and its sheer size topography wise compared to other urban areas in New Zealand could give the feeling compared to the world Auckland is a city of exaggerated size for where it is. However, again depending on how one sees Auckland is depending on if you would term it Metropolis or a Megalopolis/Megaopolis. Also the term you pick and hold to is how you would see in a planning sense how Auckland should be planned through the Auckland and Unitary Plans. Those who see Auckland as a Metropolis would support the compact city mono centric core (the Metropolitan Zones are not cores) that could treat the city in a homogeneous manner in the sense of identity currently portrayed in the Unitary Plan). Those who see Auckland as a collection of cities and towns often with distinct metropolitan areas or centres bundled together by a massive urban sprawl. They would see Auckland in the sense of identity as a heterogeneous manner and thus the planning should be reflective of that (thus often opposed to the compact city mono-centric core model). So again: Is Auckland a Metropolis or a Megalopolis/Megaopolis? How you answer that question is how you would plan and see Auckland through the life of the Unitary Plan. And it is a question that needs to be again asked.
In my eyes if I took the literal meanings I would see Auckland as both a Megaopolis AND Megalopolis: Both in the fact that I see Auckland as three distinct metropolitan areas (North Shore, the Isthmus including West Auckland, and Southern Auckland (everything south of Otahuhu and the Tamaki Estuary)) as chain all adjacent to each other forming that Megaopolis/Megalopolis.
Page 70

The fact that Auckland is a Great City over one million people and in terms of economic and social/cultural prowess to both New Zealand and the world. Auckland is ranked a Beta Minus in the Global Rankings and has the potential to hit Beta Plus ranking when we get our act together. It also means as a Beta city we are up there playing with the Big Boys of the World. All this makes Auckland a Great City thus a Megaopolis in those terms. And the final fact that Auckland could be deemed a city of exaggerated size due to holding 34-40% of the countrys population, a figure only to go up as we head to 2050; plus our sprawling mass of over one million people allow the term Megalopolis to apply.
The question now is after that challenge to you is: Do you see Auckland as a Megaopolis/Megalopolis and if so how would that change your perspective in planning for Auckland. My answer to that is nothing yet as you need to recognise a second component behind the Megaopolis situation first before changing your planning tact. I had mentioned it earlier in: Auckland as three distinct metropolitan areas (North Shore, the Isthmus including West Auckland, and Southern Auckland (everything south of Otahuhu and the Tamaki Estuary)) as chain all adjacent to each other forming that Megaopolis/Megalopolis.
Page 71

Seeing Auckland as Three Distinct Metropolitan Areas
This is my second prong and challenge to how you see Auckland. How many distinct metropolitan areas you see in Auckland? It comes down to interpretation but one definition is:
METROPOLITAN AREA (TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION)
A metropolitan area, metro area or metro is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing.[1] A metropolitan area usually comprises multiple jurisdictions and municipalities: neighborhoods, townships, cities, exurbs, counties, and even states. As social, economic and political institutions have changed, metropolitan areas have become key economic and political regions.[2]
Now this is where it gets interesting for Auckland. You can safely argue that Auckland has a densely populated urban core (the CBD/Downtown) with its less populated surrounding areas sharing industry, housing and infrastructure. But, in the same flip side right at this moment you can argue that the Auckland region has two densely populated cores (different scales next to each other but still similar to their surrounds) with a third on its way (another debate). Those two urban cores would be the existing Central Business District AND Manukau City Centre. Both the CBD and Manukau City Centre have densely populated urban cores and are flanked by less populated surrounding areas sharing industry, housing and infrastructure. Okay you would say thought that Manukau and the CBD share the same surround less populated areas, housing, industry and infrastructure hence Auckland is one Metropolitan Area not three (the North Shore is the third but I am leaving it out in this presentation). I would turn around and say look between 1999 and 2010 when Auckland City and Manukau City were two distinct areas and treated as such. A quick look and Manukau City shows:
Manukau is a metropolitan centre of Auckland, New Zealand. The suburb is located 23 kilometres south of Auckland CBD, and is in the Manukau ward, one of the thirteen electoral divisions of the Auckland Council. The name Manukau, from the Manukau Harbour west of the city, is of Mori origin, and means wading birds,[citation needed] although it has been suggested that the name of the harbour was also sometimes rendered as Mnuka, meaning a marker post with which an early chief is said to have claimed the area.[1] Manukau was governed by the Manukau City Council until November 2010, when the entire Auckland region was amalgamated into a single Auckland council. The area still has a strong economic central business district, known as Manukau city centre, but is no longer an independent city. The area is now governed by the Auckland Council. The area immediately to the south of the Otahuhu isthmus, as far east as Maraetai and Kawakawa Bay including Howick and Clevedon, and as far south as Manurewa, was previously known as Manukau City, however it should
Page 72

not be confused with the suburb of Manukau. All former suburbs of Manukau City are now governed by the Auckland Council.
The city has been treated as independent and to most in Southern Auckland it still has that sense of identity as an independent city despite the unitary authority make up today. If we take this and the historic isthmus and Southern Auckland development then; I would argue that we (leaving the North Shore out for now) two distinct metropolitan areas. Also remember what I said about Megaopolis: A megalopolis (sometimes called a Megaopolis or megaregion) is typically defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas. Again leaving the North Shore out for now; Manukau City and Auckland City are being seen as two distinct adjacent Metropolitan Areas as a rough chain to give form to the Auckland Megaopolis.
The accompanying map outlines the distinct metropolitan areas in Auckland
Illustrated are the three distinct metropolitan areas within the Auckland Megaopolis (as I see it). Also seen is the existing CBD along with the 10 Metropolitan Centres (although ranked differently) from the current draft Unitary Plan. The ranks are included in this particular map as they will be used and explained fully in my feedback in to the Draft Unitary Plan. However, if Auckland was to be treated as a Megaopolis of three distinct metropolitan areas you can see how the ranking of the centres within each metropolitan area and wider come into play. How does this challenge and change ones plannings perspective of Auckland then?
Page 73

Currently it perceived from the guiding Auckland Plan that Auckland is a mono-centric core, sprawling metropolis. Transport wise because of this mono-centric core nature we have a spokeand-wheel transit system where the wheel is the CBD and everything else spokes out from it. This creates a compounding situation where we have an over-focus on the CBD in regards to transport with everything focused on getting in and out of the CBD at the expense of local and even cross-city transit commuting. Furthermore as we gain another million more in our city our strain on the spokeand-wheel transport system (stemming from our Mono-Centric Core over focus) will be even more strained as you funnel people over long distances into single central point. To me that probably why the $60 billion Auckland Transport Integrated Transport Program is deemed a failure with congestion only to get worse under its regime. It is because of this mono-centric, single metropolitan area focus further reinforcing the spoke-and-wheel model of the transport system. The over-focus of the CBD in regards to transport flows onto scarce city resources also being funnelled CBD often at the expense of the centres and wider city. The Metropolitan Centres in the Unitary Plan will still play second fiddle to the CBD through the Unitary Plan. This is because of our over-focus and reliance on the Mono-Centric Core Model Single Metropolitan Area set out in the Auckland Plan (that guides all other plans from it). So saying we have a poly-centric core model through the Auckland and Unitary Plan is rubbish and that can be seen in the Unitary Plan definitions of a City Centre Zone and Metropolitan Centre.
From my MANUKAU AS THE SECOND CBD OF AUCKLAND

City Centre zone - Zone description the city centre is the top of the centres hierarchy and plays a pivotal role in Aucklands present and future success. The zone seeks to ensure the city centre is an international centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living. To improve the vibe of the city centre environment, the zone permits a wide range of activities to establish in most parts of the city centre. The zone also manages activities that have the potential to adversely affect the amenity of the city centre. The Unitary Plan enables the greatest level of development in terms of height and floor area to occur in the city centre. Within the city centre itself, development potential is concentrated in the core central business district. Development potential reduces towards the ridgeline and transitions to lower heights on the waterfront and landward periphery. The zone manages the scale of development in order to protect important historic heritage places, sunlight admission to parks and public spaces, and significant views to the volcanic cones and other landmarks. The significant height and scale of buildings in the city centre increases their visibility from many places, affecting the quality of both public and private views at local and citywide scales. In addition to managing the scale of development, the zone manages the quality of building design to ensure new buildings successfully integrate with the city centres existing built form and public realm to create an attractive and recognisable skyline. The city centre makes an important contribution to our sense of identity. Within the city centre are precincts and overlays, which have their own distinct features and character. Precincts and overlays may have additional management provisions.
Page 74

Metropolitan Centre zone - Zone description this zone applies to centres located in different sub regional catchments of Auckland. The centres are second only to the city centre in overall scale and intensity and act as hubs for high frequency transport within their catchments. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high density residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Zone provisions, in conjunction with rules in the other business zones, reinforce metropolitan centres as locations for all scales of commercial activity. Precincts and overlays, which modify the underlying zone or have additional provisions, apply to some of the metropolitan centres. Generally, however, to support an intense level of development, the zone allows for highrise buildings. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General Commercial Frontage overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centres public realm.
Most Metropolitan Centres at the moment and in the Unitary Plan will be nothing but glorified large Town Centres in what they might become and who they will serve. The main difference between a place labelled Metropolitan Centre now and 2041 is the amount of people in them. The centres will still be doing the same thing in 2041 as they are now more Town Centre than Metropolitan Centre. And in 2041 we will still have this over-focus on a CBD that drains the resources out of the rest of the city; all because of the focus on Auckland as a Mono-Centric Core with one large metropolitan area.
However, if Auckland is seen as three distinct metropolitan areas with two cores (so Dual-Core); the planning aspects change considerably. If Auckland has two CBDs supported by their respective metropolitan areas two distinct changes occur. Auckland will be one sprawling mass and a Megaopolis with a Unitary Authority but, heading down the two distinct cores and three distinct metropolitan areas. This would give rise to resource and even employment allocation being more evenly spread around the city (rather than an over-focus on one area in Auckland). With resources and employment being more evenly spread round the city from the dual-core model, it means supporting areas would feel the economic flow on effects and be in a better position to support themselves. Enterprises could be very well served in a dual-core model by being closer to the action and not facing the transport impediments currently faced in our mono-centric core over-focus. Workers could be closer to home with the also flow on effects two cores would give saving time and money being stuck in traffic criss-crossing the city as they would be now. More money could be pumped back into local economies and the wider Auckland economy from dual cores and supporting infrastructure and services are established in areas not viable right
Page 75

now. This would also raise local amenity, morale and further opportunities all from the dual core model. Transport wise I have pretty much mentioned above in regards to transport habit and need change. Yes the City Rail Link needs to be completed as other region-wide links however, with commuters being closer to employment centres stemming from the dual cores you get less cross-city congestion into one specific place than now. More localised travel could stem off from the dual core model and specific focus would have to flip over in how to handle transport for two cores not one. Also rather than the bulk of your traffic going in and out of one point as in a mono-centric core model, you now have it going to two places per the dual-core model. This can rise to cross-city commuting and subsequent requirements to facilitate that cross-city commute. Our transport planning would need to change to cope with highly localised and wider cross-city community than now as our provisions for localised and cross city commuting do not exist as of current and in the future per the Unitary Plan. There is an actual third change from going Mono-Core to Dual Core in the case of sense of identity. I will cover this in the next part explain the methodology of Manukau being the Second CBD of Auckland.
So: Do you see Auckland a Megaopolis with three distinct but adjacent metropolitan areas rather than one massive metropolitan area? I do see Auckland as that Megaopolis with its three distinct but adjacent metropolitan areas. As such the Auckland Megaopolis should be running at the moment two CBDs with the potential for a third in the near future (by 2041). This means our planning aspects need to change to accommodate the dual-core model which is something we can easily do. Just need a fresh mind set in doing so.
Why Manukau as the Second CBD? The next part will explain.
Page 76

Manukau as the Second CBD: A Methodology on why Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland
I believe Manukau should be the Second CBD of Auckland and the fact the city can support two CBDs rather than one. These two blog posts go through the methodology behind my call for Manukau to be the Second CBD of Auckland.
MANUKAU AS THE SECOND CBD OF AUCKLAND Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on April 8, 2013 5 Comments (Edit)
Can Auckland Support TWO CBDs The Existing CBD and Manukau City Centre
The Civic Forum on The Unitary Plan held at the old Manukau City Council council chambers last Saturday discussed the proposed business zones in the Unitary Plan. You can read my full previous post on Business Zones from my previous THE CLUNKER AND BUSINESS ZONES commentary. Two things that did come up that I am going to specifically comment on today were: 1. 2. Does the Business Zones (specifically the Metropolitan Zones) mean anything to you or are they actually arbitrary names with no meaning what so ever Can Auckland support two CBDs like the Sydney CBD/Parramatta example from our Australian cousins. If Auckland were to follow this concept, we would have Auckland City Centre (the existing CBD) and Manukau City (Centre) (it is already named and deemed a city centre in most geographical cases). Just a quick note on Manukau from Wikipedia:
Manukau is a metropolitan centre of Auckland, New Zealand. The suburb is located 23 kilometres south of Auckland CBD, and is in the Manukau ward, one of the thirteen electoral divisions of the Auckland Council. The name Manukau, from the Manukau Harbour west of the city, is of Mori origin, and means wading birds,[citation needed] although it has been suggested that the name of the harbour was also sometimes rendered as Mnuka, meaning a marker post with which an early chief is said to have claimed the area.[1] Manukau was governed by the Manukau City Council until November 2010, when the entire Auckland region was amalgamated into a single Auckland council. The area still has a strong economic central business district, known as Manukau city centre, but is no longer an independent city. The area is now governed by the Auckland Council. The area immediately to the south of the Otahuhu isthmus, as far east as Maraetai and Kawakawa Bay including Howick and Clevedon, and as far south as Manurewa, was previously known as Manukau City, however it should
Page 77

not be confused with the suburb of Manukau. All former suburbs of Manukau City are now governed by the Auckland Council.
In this case for the purpose of this post I am referring to that strong economic central business district, known as Manukau city centre. To provide further clarification on the Manukau City Centre you can see this map below, although I do note it is a rough approximate and I might have incorporated the flanks of the Manukau City Centre that are actually part of the Manukau suburb.
Manukau City Centre Area
To also provide clarification in to my logic behind this I am going to paste below the Draft Unitary Plan definitions of a City Centre Zone, a Metropolitan Zone and a Town Centre Zone; as well as some extracts on Parramatta, Australia. From The Unitary Plan and my previous commentary on Business Zones:
City Centre zone - Zone description the city centre is the top of the centres hierarchy and plays a pivotal role in Aucklands present and future success. The zone seeks to ensure the city centre is an international centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living. To improve the vibe of the city centre environment, the zone permits a wide range of activities to establish in most parts of the city centre. The zone also manages activities that have the potential to adversely affect the amenity of the city centre. The Unitary Plan enables the greatest level of development in terms of height and floor area to occur in the city centre. Within the city centre itself, development potential is concentrated in the core central business district. Development potential reduces towards the ridgeline and transitions to lower heights on the waterfront and landward periphery. The zone manages the scale of development in order to protect important historic heritage places, sunlight admission to parks and public spaces, and significant views to the volcanic cones and other landmarks. The significant height and scale of buildings in the city
Page 78

centre increases their visibility from many places, affecting the quality of both public and private views at local and citywide scales. In addition to managing the scale of development, the zone manages the quality of building design to ensure new buildings successfully integrate with the city centres existing built form and public realm to create an attractive and recognisable skyline. The city centre makes an important contribution to our sense of identity. Within the city centre are precincts and overlays, which have their own distinct features and character. Precincts and overlays may have additional management provisions. Metropolitan Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to centres located in different sub regional catchments of Auckland. The centres are second only to the city centre in overall scale and intensity and act as hubs for high frequency transport within their catchments. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high density residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Zone provisions, in conjunction with rules in the other business zones, reinforce metropolitan centres as locations for all scales of commercial activity. Precincts and overlays, which modify the underlying zone or have additional provisions, apply to some of the metropolitan centres. Generally, however, to support an intense level of development, the zone allows for highrise buildings. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail Frontage or General Commercial Frontage overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centres public realm. Town Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to suburban centres throughout Auckland, the satellite centres of Warkworth and Pukekohe, and the rural town of Helensville. The centres are typically located on main arterial roads, which provide good public transport access. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Provisions enable buildings between four to eight storeys high, depending on the characteristics of the centre. Increased height within the centres will facilitate increased office and residential living opportunities at upper floors. Some street frontages within the zone are subject to a Key Retail or General Commercial overlay. Key retail streets are the focal point of pedestrian activity within the centre. General commercial streets play a supporting role. Development fronting these streets is expected to reinforce this function. Rules for the overlay are incorporated in the zone rules. New development within the zone requires resource consent in order to ensure that it is designed to a high standard which enhances the quality of the centres streets and public open spaces.
In regards to Parramatta, Sydney, Australia; both from Wikipedia PARRAMATTA
Parramatta (pron.: /prmt/) is a suburb of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.[3][10][11] It is located in Greater Western Sydney 23 kilometres (14 mi) west of the Sydney central business district on the banks of the Parramatta River. Parramatta is the
Page 79

administrative seat of the local government area of the City of Parramatta. Part of the suburb is shared with the City of Holroyd LGA.[2][3][4] Parramatta, founded in the same year as Sydney by the British in 1788, is the oldest inland European settlement in Australia and is the economic capital of Greater Western Sydney and the sixth largest central business district in Australia.[12] Since 2000, Parramatta has seen the consolidation of its role as a government centre with the relocation of agencies such as the New South Wales Police Force headquarters and Sydney Water,[13] from the Sydney CBD. Simultaneously, major upgrades have occurred around the railway station with the expansion of Westfield Parramatta, the creation of a new transport interchange, and the on-going development of the Parramatta Square local government precinct.
Commercial area
Skyline of Parramatta Parramatta is a major business and commercial centre, sometimes called Sydneys second central business district. Parramatta has many high density commercial and residential developments. It is home to Westfield Parramatta, which is the fifth by gross leasable area.[27] Church Street is home to many shops and restaurants. The northern end of Church Street, close to Lennox Bridge, features al fresco dining with a diverse range of cuisines. The southern end of Church Street features many Chinese restaurants and extends past Westfield to Auto Alley, named for the prevalence of car dealerships. Immediately south of the CBD Church Street is known across Sydney as Auto Alley for the many car dealerships lining both sides of the street as far as the M4 Motorway.[28]
CITY OF PARRAMATTA
The City of Parramatta is a local government area in the western region of Sydney, situated on the Cumberland Plain, approximately 25 kilometres (16 mi) west of the Sydney central business district, in the state of New South Wales,Australia. The City occupies an area of 61 square kilometres (24 sq mi) and is the eleventh most populous (166,858 as the 2011 Census) local government area in New South Wales, and the twentythird most populous local government area in Australia. The City houses the Parramatta central business district, the second largest employment destination for the metropolitan area after the Sydney CBD. The area was formed in 1861 as the Municipality of Parramatta and became The Borough of Parramatta in 1867, eventually becoming the City of Parramatta in 1938. In 1948 ErmingtonRydalmere, Dundas, Granville and Parramatta councils were amalgamated. The Lord Mayor of the City of Parramatta is Cr. John Chedid, a member of the Liberal Party.
Page 80
Upon looking at this; it seems Auckland might head down the very same path as Sydney with a large sprawling metropolis and two functioning CBD districts. Sydney has; Sydney CBD and Parramatta, while Auckland has; Auckland CBD and Manukau. HOW I SEE IT IN TERMS OF: DOES THE BUSINESS ZONES (SPECIFICALLY THE METROPOLITAN ZONES) MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU OR ARE THEY ACTUALLY ARBITRARY NAMES WITH NO MEANING WHAT SO EVER
To me the Metropolitan Zone is a redundant term as the ten current places placed in that zone in the Draft Unitary Plan and the operative Auckland Plan (Page 261) they are:
Albany Botany Henderson Manukau New Lynn Newmarket Papakura Sylvia Park Takapuna Westgate/Massey North Now apart from maybe Newmarket, Westgate/Massey North (this is depending on the extent of Greenfields growth in the north-west), New Lynn (although smaller), and of course Manukau; the rest of the places listed here are nothing more than glorified Town Centres and should be treated as such. In my opinion we have a mix up between what an actual town centre is and what a local centre is (both are in the Auckland and Unitary Plans) and extensive reworking needs to be done there. But if I look to the strict definition of a Metropolitan Zone and a Town Centre Zone; Newmarket, New Lynn and possibly Westgate/Massey North would be suitable and have the best potential for 18 storey tower development over the next 30-years and fulfil its purpose that it was zoned for. The North Shore lot I have left out as I need to take another look at them closely but if I had to place a so called Metropolitan Zone on the Unitary Map then maybe Albany. But in saying that Albany would not become a true Metropolitan Centre for at least 25 years, so for now it is just a glorified Town Centre. With Manukau I do not believe it is a Metropolitan Zone at all. But is not a glorified Town Centre like the others above mentioned neither with Manukaus strong economic, cultural, and education virtues already in position. Something the other places apart from Newmarket do not currently have at a critical mass level (to make the centre viable) nor will have for at least 20 years. Manukau with its extremely close proximity (even more close than the existing CBD apart from the Port of Auckland) to transport routes (road, motorways, rail, airport, Wiri Inland Port belonging to Port of Auckland, bus routes, logistic centres), industry, flanking commercial enterprises (retail and office), population centres (South and Counties Auckland), education hubs (AUT and MIT), and civic institutions (IRD and ACC have offices either within Manukau City Centre or just on its flanks), and already pre-established strong activity in all the
Page 81

previous mentioned is prime for massive expansion and upgrading to easily rival the Auckland CBD. Those looking to build A-Grade space right on a pre-established medium to high density city centre that is fully linked, but no pay existing CBD A-grade prices would see Manukau as a perfect enterprise opportunity. Heck with the airport only 15 minutes away (compared to at least 30 mins from Downtown Auckland) and future rail lines to the airport making the trip even faster (Manukau to Airport?) and capable of some stunning views of Auckland (only need to go 5 storeys up to start getting views) I can see the potential in Manukau truly strengthening its economic credentials. With all this enthusiasm and potential for Manukau, the question is can it act as our (Aucklands) second CBD or core? IT BRINGS ME TO THIS QUESTION: CAN AUCKLAND SUPPORT TWO CBDS LIKE THE SYDNEY CBD/PARRAMATTA EXAMPLE FROM OUR AUSTRALIAN COUSINS. IF AUCKLAND WERE TO FOLLOW THIS CONCEPT, WE WOULD HAVE AUCKLAND CITY CENTRE (THE EXISTING CBD) AND MANUKAU CITY (CENTRE) (IT IS ALREADY NAMED AND DEEMED A CITY CENTRE IN MOST GEOGRAPHICAL CASES)
That question has already been answered as Auckland has been supporting twin CBDs since 1989 when Manukau City development really took off. And I cannot see why Auckland cannot support two City Centre Zones (Auckland CBD and Manukau City Centre) now. Manukau City Centre serves as the primary service hub and central business district for all of Southern Auckland (from Otahuhu south) whether it be other businesses or industry, or the residents. Those in Southern Auckland might often more readily identify Manukau City Centre as their centre (of business (whether it be retail, employment or saying pay the bills) while downtown Auckland is virtually a tourist attraction to take the family to (rather than do business). Manukau as a city centre is also more flexible and adaptable to those it mainly serves Southern Auckland due to extremely close proximity. More response than the existing CBD either could be. I personally see Manukau (I live in Papakura) as my central business district where I conduct my business that my local centre might not provide such as: more retail choices, alternative places like Bunnings for hardware, eating and meeting places (this includes movies), and with my new enterprise under way a place of businessbusiness. Auckland CBD is a place where I go to if I have to deal with Town Hall (which is frequent as it is) or as a tourist attraction (which I tend to avoid anyway). And I do see Manukau as more adaptable to serving my everchanging needs more so than the existing CBD (this is being emphasised in me setting up an enterprise and soon to take on employees and contractors). Manukau if it were to be upgraded from a Metropolitan Zone (which is redundant any how so it needs a rework and has too many in that category if the name were to stick) to a fully-fledged City Centre Zone like the existing CBD, then Auckland will follow the same path as Sydney CBD and Parramatta as twin urban city centre cores. Ironically Sydney CBD and Parramatta while they would compete as dual CBDs, they would also complement each other in an economic and cultural sense as well as both serve needs of their clients. This competition yet complementation approach with Auckland City Centre and Manukau City Centre would work in a similar manner to Sydney CBD and Parramatta; if someone had the vision and guts to see this through. I will be submitting in my feedback to the Draft Unitary Plan what I stated in my submission to the Auckland Plan but , with a few additions two basic things: 1. The Business Zones especially the now: Metropolitan, Town and Local Centres need to be reworked as they are mostly meaningless with existing centres in the respective zones also needing to be recategorised.
Page 82

2. Manukau be upgraded to a fully-fledged City Centre Zone like the Auckland CBD and treated as such. Manukau is already a second CBD and core of Auckland, lets formalise that and allow the Manukau City Centre to operate to its maximum potential and better serve Southern Auckland, its people, and its enterprises!
Manukau City Centre as an actual City Centre because it is part of the puzzle for a Better Auckland
An Extract from my: THE CLUNKER AND ME (2) + A NOTE ON MANUKAU post
JUST A QUICK POINT ON MANUKAU I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CITY CENTRE ZONE DESCRIPTION:
City Centre zone - Zone description The city centre is the top of the centres hierarchy and plays a pivotal role in Aucklands present and future success. The zone seeks to ensure the city centre is an international centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living. To improve the vibe of the city centre environment, the zone permits a wide range of activities to establish in most parts of the city centre. The zone also manages activities that have the potential to adversely affect the amenity of the city centre. The Unitary Plan enables the greatest level of development in terms of height and floor area to occur in the city centre. Within the city centre itself, development potential is concentrated in the core central business district. Development potential reduces towards the ridgeline and transitions to lower heights on the waterfront and landward periphery. The zone manages the scale of development in order to protect important historic heritage places, sunlight admission to parks and public spaces, and significant views to the volcanic cones and other landmarks. The significant height and scale of buildings in the city centre increases their visibility from many places, affecting the quality of both public and private views at local and citywide scales. In addition to managing the scale of development, the zone manages the quality of building design to ensure new buildings successfully integrate with the city centres existing built form and public realm to create an attractive and recognisable skyline. The city centre makes an important contribution to our sense of identity. Within the city centre are precincts and overlays, which have their own distinct features and character. Precincts and overlays may have additional management provisions.
Manukau already fulfils most of the elements in bold already and will have the same positive and negative issues around sunlight plus amenity as the existing CBD. Manukau already allows for unlimited height and floor space development (economics allowing) but the Metropolitan Zone would restrict that off. Manukau if it does go full speed ahead in its development as an international centre for business and learning, innovation, entertainment, culture and urban living (which it is already anyhow) then it is already a CBD and a true regional hub not a sub-
Page 83

regional hub like the Metropolitan Zones would be. The skyline will be affected if Manukau takes off so it needs the same care as the CBD otherwise it might end up blocking view shafts as well. Manukau City Centre also impacts on our sky line already and again like the CBD needs to be managed as such. The Council says: The city centre makes an important contribution to our sense of identity. Well that is a social construction an individual might attach to the CBD, for others the CBD is nothing but a tourist trinket or even a place to avoid like the plague, or a bane on the rest of the city as it sucks up all our resources. Manukau City Centre in itself makes that important contribution to our sense of identity the sense of identity to SOUTHERN AUCKLAND which houses close to (I researched this further) over 403,000 residents or anywhere between 26-34% of the region/city population. Metropolitan Zoning for Manukau insults Manukau and her peoples sense of ide ntity that is held by them. A Metropolitan Zone is:
Metropolitan Centre zone - Zone description This zone applies to centres located in different sub regional catchments of Auckland. The centres are second only to the city centre in overall scale and intensity and act as hubs for high frequency transport within their catchments. The zone provides for a wide range of activities including commercial, leisure, high density residential, tourist, cultural, community and civic services. Zone provisions, in conjunction with rules in the other business zones, reinforce metropolitan centres as locations for all scales of commercial activity. Precincts and overlays, which modify the underlying zone or have additional provisions, apply to some of the metropolitan centres.
Note that the term: makes an important contribution to our sense of identity is missing for the Metropolitan Centre Zone description? Manukau could be very well threatened in losing that sense of identity so placed as the primary regional hub of a very large part of Auckland. Again my MANUKAU AS THE SECOND CBD OF AUCKLAND illustrates what Manukau already has in place and how it is ready to go.
I have made commentary about Manukau being the Second CBD of Auckland before. Back in 2011 I wrote in my submission to the then Draft Auckland Plan on how the fact Auckland should be supporting two Central Business Districts. This is an extract from my submission along with the original development map. Please note that the original development map has changed with my submission to the Draft Unitary Plan currently being written.
From my Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan: Manukau Manukau (or rather the Manukau City Centre) is a cluster of mixed use development ranging from residential to commercial office and services to light industry linked by various transit modes. Manukau is also surrounded by multicultural residential communities and smaller town centres, Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net Page 84

medium industry, community facilities/parks, institutes, the Manukau Harbour and Tamaki Strait, Auckland International Airport and all things rural. Yet Manukau City Centre seems under realised and utilised for the importance it serves to not only southern Auckland, but the rest of the city and the nation.
A Centralised Master (Community) Plan for the Manukau City Centre area would recognise the importance of the city centre and surrounding area, and allow stakeholders to be engaged in collaboration of the re-allocating/developing/utilising of land. In saying that the CMCP has to recognise one main limitation - the height restrictions imposed. Manukau City Centre is situated under the pain approach/take off path for all flights in and out of Auckland International Airport and any developments have to be recognising the limitation. So land use has to be smart and efficient in order for the area to realise its maximum potential.
One thing I am wary of is this massive focus on the Auckland CBD for activity and development. I believe having such a highly centralised core would be a detriment to the wider city and especially to southern Auckland. Thus in developing the Manukau CMCP, the idea behind this CMCP would be to turn Manukau into a literal second CBD (of Auckland).
Allowing Manukau City Centre to become the second CBD of Auckland would allow businesses, residents, visitors and institutions to enjoy the economies of scale in going about their activities seen in an intensified core type development. Being close to the international airport, three state highways (1, 20 and 20B), the railway (for both passengers and freight) and two arterial roads (Great South Road and Route 30 (Cavendish and Te Irirangi Drives)), Manukau is well served by transport links that would feed into an intensified area.
Outside of the Manukau City Centre CMCP would be a Fringe Development Zone that would support around the central core area. I had first coined Fringe Development Zones when I wrote the 2010 Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative, Community Transformation Plan as a former Masters of Planning Practice Student at the University of Auckland. Quoting from page 24 of that report: The fringe development zone again allows spill over intensification of the residential inside the zone, to form a seamless connection between the hub and the rest of the neighbourhood. The spill over from project two into the fringe zone would allow the land to be reutilised as medium density housing rather than the low density it currently is. However a separate sub community plan would need to be drawn up to manage the intensification of the fringe zone(s) effectively. But the basic idea is use a fingered approach by producing strips of medium density housing with low density housing and park in between each medium density housing strip.
Page 85

The Fringe Development Zone for the areas surrounding the Manukau CMCP zone would be modified to allow mixed use development (so commercial and industrial as well as residential rather than exclusively residential). The FDZs would be classed under a Semi Liberal Development Plan and be treated as such (see section of SLPD on page 25) unless further intervention was required. Like the Tamaki FDZs, the Manukau FDZ would allow a seamless transition from the renewed high density core of Manukau City Centre to the existing areas around the core (often low density). The FZD in Manukau again like Tamaki would have a sub community plan at the respective local board level even though the FDZ is deemed a SLPD area. However the idea of the sub community plan would be a more of a Memorandum of Understanding so that both the community through the Local Board(s) and developers understand each other before any development goes ahead. This MoU (which would be required in all SLPDs) would allow developers and local communities to interact on future development, this localised interaction would be seen as more efficient, thrifty, simple and responsive to the needs of the affected community rather than interacting with a cumbersome centralised regulatory body as of current.
Page 86
CMCP and SLPD definitions can be found in my original Auckland Plan Submission here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74829024/Ben-s-Auckland-Plan-Submission
Page 87

Since my submission two years ago there have been changes. These maps give an illustrative look at Manukau Manukau City Centre as Current
Southern Auckland Metropolitan Area
Page 88

An Alternative to Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland
Using the Draft Unitary Plan GIS system with the zones activated you can see how I had highlighted changes to the existing area to support Manukau as a Second CBD. Effectively what was originally the Metropolitan Centre zone has been converted to the Core City Centre Zone. This would be where the unlimited height regime takes place and the tallest towers allowed being located in the wider Manukau City Centre Zone. Of course airport flight path rules apply but, otherwise pretty much go for it (while adhering to good urban design protocol rules). Beyond the core area to the north and south is the Main Manukau City Centre Zone. This allows for city centre type mixed commercial and residential development (plus public space) to occur but at the 20 Storey Height Limit to allow a phase down back to the surrounding existing residential areas. The entire Manukau City Centre Zone area would come under Centralised Master Community Plan rules in the Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation per my submission to the Auckland Plan.
On the north and south fringes of the Manukau City Centre Zone(s) is the Manukau SLPD Fringe Development Zone. Again for the Fringe Zone:
The Fringe Development Zone for the areas surrounding the Manukau CMCP zone would be modified to allow mixed use development (so commercial and industrial as well as residential rather than exclusively residential). The FDZs would be classed under a Semi Liberal Development Plan and be treated as such (see section of SLPD on page 25) unless further intervention was required. Like the Tamaki FDZs, the Manukau FDZ would allow a seamless transition from the renewed high density core of Manukau City Centre to the existing areas around the core (often low density). The FZD in Manukau again like Tamaki would have a sub community plan at the respective local board level even though the FDZ is deemed a SLPD area. However the idea of the sub community plan would be a more of a Memorandum of

Understanding so that both the community through the Local Board(s) and developers understand each other before any development goes ahead. This MoU (which would be required in all SLPDs) would allow developers and local communities to interact on future development, this localised interaction would be seen as more efficient, thrifty, simple and responsive to the needs of the affected community rather than interacting with a cumbersome centralised regulatory body as of current.
You will have noticed I have placed down some medium industrial zoning to the west of State Highway 20 along Puhinui Road. This allows two things: 1. Relocation of any existing industry or business inside the proposed Manukau City Centre Zone to a nearby area as Manukau goes under Gentrification 2. Expansion of Wiri industrial base and employment centre to cater for more jobs as Manukau and Southern Auckland continue to grow. The area is easily serviced by road and the future Airport Rail Line. Currently the area rezoned for medium industry is market gardens and paddocks. Note: Medium industry is per the definition in my Auckland Plan Submission: 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
So some reasonable sized industrial complexes theoretically could go on that new land.
Page 90

Recommendations for later Unitary Plan deliberations
Three recommendations to Auckland Council in regards to Auckland and the Unitary Plan: 1. Recognise Auckland as a Megaopolis 2. Recognise the Auckland Megaopolis as three distinct but adjacent metropolitan areas 3. Allow Manukau to become the Second CBD of Auckland and have Auckland function with two cores not one (Metropolitan Centres are not Cores they are treated as glorified Large Town Centres)!
Page 91

Conclusion
Again I am not asking for a decision right now on upgrading Manukau from a Metropolitan Zone to a City Centre Zone thus allowing Manukau to be recognised as the Second CBD of Auckland. What I am doing through this presentation and booklet provided is to provide clarification around the Manukau idea before my submission is handed in May 31 for the draft Unitary Plan. The clarification is around: 4. Is Auckland a Megaopolis? 5. Does Auckland in fact have Three Metropolitan Areas? 6. Can Auckland support two (if not three) CBDs?
I said yes to all three questions above and gave my reasons why in each case. Auckland is in fact a Megaopolis and Megaopolis as the city is: over one million people and growing, is a Great City, a city of exaggerated size in relation to New Zealand, and have a chain of three adjacent metropolitan areas within its regional boundaries. Auckland is no longer a sleepy city or village; we are a Megaopolis and up there with the big boys in the world now with our Global City Beta ranking. So as a Megaopolis Auckland is and we need to think and plan like a Megaopolis.
The presentation also stated that Auckland was made of three distinct metropolitan areas: the North Shore, the Isthmus (including West Auckland), and Southern Auckland (south of Otahuhu and Tamaki Estuary). These three metropolitan areas have developed from Aucklands historical growth and have created a sense of identity unique to those areas. While Auckland is a Megaopolis and should plan as one, remember the definition of Megaopolis. It is a case of think global act local (globalisation saying). We plan as a Megaopolis but also act local in recognising our three unique identities (the metropolitan areas) and planning for them as well. It means changing our planning (urban and transport) from a spoke and wheel model seen in the current Mono-Centric Unitary Plan with an over-focus on the CBD, to a model where we have three interlinked metropolitan areas within Auckland and two cores. This means a greater chance of more localised urban and transport development/evolution as well as a greater chance of more cross city rather than single focus point commuting as we have now. It also means with three metropolitan areas within the Auckland Megaopolis, you have (at the moment) two (to be three later) cores hence Manukau as the Second CBD of Auckland.
Finally I made the case for Manukau being the Second CBD of Auckland. It means not only upgrading Manukau from a Metropolitan Centre to a City Centre Zone the same as the existing CBD, but also a change in mind set and planning noted in the Megaopolis and Three Metropolitan prongs. Manukaus history and sense of identity to Southern Auckland were also mentioned as reasons why
Page 92

Manukau is a City Centre and not a Metropolitan Centre. Info graphics were also produced to illustrative some indicative alternative zonings for the Manukau City Centre.
This information will be translated over into my full submission for this stage of the Unitary Plan process for Council consideration. For now this information is for clarification purposes on the Manukau as a Second CBD concept.
Page 93

References
http://voakl.net/2013/04/21/question-auckland-metropolis-or-megalopolismegapolis/ http://voakl.net/2013/04/08/manukau-as-the-second-cbd-of-auckland/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/74829024/Ben-s-Auckland-Plan-Submission
Page 94

The Maps (Enlarged)
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99

The Rural Urban Boundary in Southern Auckland:
From Talking Auckland Rural Urban Boundary, the South End
http://voakl.net/2013/03/27/the-rural-urban-boundary-south-end/
I am going to look at the Southern Rural Urban boundary where upwards of some 57,400 new Greenfield dwellings could end up depending on the option. This kind of Greenfield development stems from the Auckland Plan calling for 60% of urban development to happen in Brownfield land with the other 40% in new Greenfield land. The Southern Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) is one such spot (the others being in the North and North West of Auckland) where some of that 40% is meant to go.
For those wondering what a Rural Urban Boundary is, please check THIS LINK from the Unitary Plan on its description.
As for the Southern RUB there are three development options Auckland can take with this Greenfield Land (which is 15 minutes away from where I live by car). You can see all three options layered over a GIS Map and a GIS Map with an Issues and Constraints Overlay as well as each of the three options below in the embed below:
View this document on Scribd
The two GIS maps (pages one and two) have dwelling capacity limits for each of the Greenfield zones depending on which option is taken.
Personally I am in favour of the Draft Southern RUB Options Corridor Focus (Page 4 of the embed) which contains primary urban development to Drury and Karaka (Cores K and D), along the State Highway 22 and North Island Main Trunk Line rail corridor, the North East Pukekohe flank, and the Pukekohe South East flank. This option keeps the main development either near existing development or along a transit corridor making infrastructure provisions (Drury and Paerata Rail Stations) and access more easier than the other options such as those that include Karaka North and West. Per The Unitary Plan there is an option to retain a green belt between Pukekohe and Paerata which would provide a wildlife corridor as well as park space. While development is kept away from the highly valuable Pahurehure Inlet which according to the maps contains colonies

of wading sea birds. In any case that area slated as Karaka North and West if need be can be converted either into lifestyle blocks with strict covenants or over time into a new regional park and green lung for the ever-growing Auckland (which is what I would prefer Council would do (like an Ambury Farm or Puhinui Reserve set up)). I have also noted as potential transport link from Whangapouri to Weymouth via a new bridge over the inlet as well as talk of a new waste water treatment plant. With me preferring the corridor option thus Karaka West and North not being developed but actually wanting to be flipped over to lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve I can not see the need for a transit link through that area connecting to Weymouth. That link would create a rat-run from State Highway 20 at the Cavendish Drive Interchange, down Roscommon and Weymouth Roads (Route 17), over the new bridge, down the new transit link and through to State Highway 22 just north of Paerata rather than containing it to State Highways 1 and 22. That kind of rat running would lower the amenity of the new Greenfield developments and do nothing to solve congestion issues. As for the waste water treatment plant, well with Karaka North and West no longer under development you can away plop the new plant there out of the urban road but near the potential outfall site.
Submission wise I am going to follow through and recommend to Auckland Council that the Corridor Option for the RUB being the preferred southern Greenfield development options, providing there is:

A green belt maintained between Pukekohe and Paerata New waste water treatment plant is built That transit link over the Inlet is not built What was labelled Karaka North and West either be allowed to be converted to Lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve seeming wading birds live in those areas And that Auckland Transport will build the Drury and Paerata Mass Transit Interchanges (rail and bus station, and park and ride)
I will keep tabs on this and see which way Council swings on this once the Unitary Plan becomes near operational whenever that may be
Page 101
Page 102

Conclusion
As mentioned at the beginning of the document, this is feedback is only giving basic narratives on changes needed with the Unitary Plan. More detailed and fine grained work on the proposed changes mentioned in this document will be forward once formal notification of the Unitary Plan is under way. By no means all the aspects in the Unitary Plan have been covered in this document. But the areas that have been mentioned do have great impact on how Auckland will be shaped for the next thirty years. I do hope Council and the planners give what has been mentioned in this document extensive consideration. Any queries and I can be reached via email for a written response. We now await any changes made to the Unitary Plan stemming from this feedback period and before the Plan is notified.
Page 103
Page 104

The Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback Submission PDF Mode

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback Submission PDF Mode

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

The Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback Document

Benjamin Ross TotaRim Consultancy Limited Papakura Auckland

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross Managing Director TotaRim Consultancy Limited

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Auckland and its Growing Pains

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

RURAL AND AUCKLAND

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

AUCKLAND AS A MAJOR CITY

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

My Housing Mix in Auckland

STAGE ONE HOW YOU ARE INTRODUC ED TO THE SIMULATOR

Opening shot of the simulator when you open it

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

My first solution following submission to Unitary Plan

What I came up with to give my take

For all pictures, click for full resolution

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Alternative if reducing Metro Centre Height Limits

Town Centre: 8 storeys to 5 storeys Local Centre: 4 storeys to 3 storeys

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

This is the enlarged image of my attempt on the Housing Simulator:

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

Ben Ross, TotaRim Consultancy Limted. www.voakl.net

Feedback to Draft Auckland Unitary Plan

The Clunker and Residential Zoning

Their Residential Zoning and My Residential Zoning

BRIEF GLIMPSE AT POI NT ONE: OVER-INTENSIFYING RESIDENTIAL AREAS BY DOUBLE