|
Auckland
Development Committee
15 September
2016
|
|
Productivity
Commission's Better Urban Planning draft report
File No.: CP2016/19709
Purpose
1. The
purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of Auckland Council’s
submission to the Productivity Commission (“the commission”) in
response to its Better Urban Planning draft report.
Executive
summary
2. The
Productivity Commission released its Better Urban Planning draft report on 18
August. The council’s response to the commission
is due on 3 October and is set out in the draft submission (Attachment A).
3. The
main purpose of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry is to “review
New Zealand’s urban planning system and to identify, from first
principles, the most appropriate system for allocating land use to support
desirable social, economic, environmental and cultural outcomes”. The
inquiry is not intended to provide a critique of previous or on-going reforms
to the legislation that make up the urban planning system.
4. The
Productivity Commission’s Better Urban Planning inquiry is being
undertaken in the context of significant central government urban planning
reform including: the Better Local Services work programme; Resource Management
Act reform; a natural resource sector agencies review of the resource
management and planning system; and its implementation of the work programme
arising from the commission’s previous Using Land for Housing inquiry.
5. The
inquiry’s final output will be a report to government identifying a range
of alternative models for the urban planning system and a framework against which
current practices and potential future reforms in resource management, planning
and environmental management in urban areas will be assessed.
6. Overarching
themes in council’s draft submission are:
i. The inquiry occurs in the context of significant ongoing urban
planning reform. Council is concerned about the integration, phasing and
coherence of that reform programme. Council accepts changes are required
but change has costs and council wants to ensure that the gains from any
reforms outweigh the costs it will impose.
ii. The Auckland Unitary Plan has better enabled development capacity:
the focus now needs to move to funding and delivering infrastructure and
development.
iii. Funding large scale growth poses significant challenges. A
broad range of tools need to be available to support growth but decision-making
on when those tools are used needs to lie with local rather than central
government.
iv. Council values the wider contribution urban planning can make to
broader goals of community well-being, resilience and prosperity.
v. Criteria for assessing current and future planning reforms should
support the treatment of urban planning as a system, should enable focus on
planning for future funding challenges and should enable informed decision
making and public engagement.
vi. The commission approaches land use from a siloed perspective that is
fundamentally inconsistent with our experience of urban planning in practice
and which is also inconsistent with Te Ao Māori.
vii. Some of the commission’s recommendations have significant
unexamined impacts for Māori as a Treaty partner, and may limit interests
of Māori.
|
Recommendation/s
That the
Auckland Development Committee:
a) endorse
Auckland Council’s submission to the Productivity Commission’s Better
Urban Planning inquiry draft report.
b) authorise
the Committee Chair, Deputy Chair and a representative from the Independent
Māori Statutory Board to finalise and approve the council’s
submission on the Productivity Commission’s Better Urban Planning draft
report.
|
Comments
Better Urban Planning Inquiry
7. In
November 2015, Ministers Bennett, Smith and English instructed the Productivity
Commission to
undertake an inquiry into the urban planning framework. This
review is known as the Better Urban Planning
inquiry (the inquiry).
8. The
inquiry builds upon the commission’s previous Using Land for Housing
inquiry in 2015 and picks up on the commission’s key message to
government arising from that inquiry: if government wants to see
substantial improvements in the land supply system more fundamental
changes than those explored in the Using Land for Housing inquiry would
be required.
9. The
inquiry terms of reference identifies the following additional drivers:
i. the
costs, complexity and uncertainty associated with the interaction of planning
processes under the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act and Land
Transport Management Act;
ii. differences
in purposes, timeframes, processes and criteria within the above law;
iii. the
impacts of these laws on the productivity of the wider economy;
iv. the
piecemeal fashion in which the current urban planning system has evolved; and
v. evolution
of international best practice in urban planning.
10. At
a high level, the scope of the inquiry involves identifying options to align
the priorities of actors and institutions within an urban planning framework,
making provision for sufficient current and future urban development and
enabling alignment between national and local priorities and identifying
opportunities for improvement. A critique of previous or on-going reforms to
the legislation that make up the urban planning system is specifically excluded
from the inquiry.
11. Submissions
on the commission’s draft report close on 3 October and its final
report will be tabled in Cabinet by 30 November.
Auckland
Council’s response
12. Council has
worked with Auckland Transport and Pānuku Development Auckland and has
consulted with Watercare Services Limited to develop this response.
Auckland Transport intends providing a separate letter in support of
Council’s submission to be appended to the wider submission and Watercare
will provide a separate submission to the Productivity Commission.
13. Key positions
in the council’s draft submission are as follows:
i. Land
supply in Auckland has been better enabled under the Unitary Plan; the focus
now needs to move to funding and delivering infrastructure and development.
ii. The council
values the wider contribution of urban planning can make to broader goals of
community well-being, resilience and prosperity. The council does not support
the commission’s proposed narrowing of spatial planning to focus on
issues closely related to land use.
iii. The council
supports spatial plans being given more legislative weight in relation to
unitary or district plans (Recommendation 9.1)
iv. The council has
concerns about the amount of central government reform underway and the lack of
clarity surrounding integrated implementation of the planning framework the
reform programme may produce.
v. The council
agrees with the commission that “a future planning system should only
apply rules where there is a clear net benefit [of doing so], and where
the link to the [benefits or costs] are clear”.
vi. The council
disagrees with the commission that the planning system should only be used
“where alternative approaches are not feasible” i.e. as a
policy instrument of last resort.
vii. The cost of funding
Auckland’s infrastructure is a key challenge. The council needs a broad
range of tools to enable it to tailor funding approaches and manage demand for
services in order to maximise efficient provision and use of our existing and
new infrastructure.
viii. The commission approaches land
use from a siloed perspective that is fundamentally inconsistent with our
experience of urban planning in practice and which is also inconsistent with Te
Ao Māori.
ix. Some of the
commission’s recommendations have significant unexamined impacts for
Māori as a Treaty partner, and may limit interests of Māori.
x. The council
considers separating planning from environmental protection law within an urban
planning context could simply exacerbate existing legislative misalignments and
lead to the further deterioration of the environment. The council has
significant concerns about how either of the urban planning legislative
frameworks that the commission proposes could be implemented in practice
(Question 13.1)
xi. Broadly, the council
does not support the introduction of a government policy statement on
environmental sustainability. Within the commission’s proposal to
introduce a government policy statement on environmental sustainability,
council could support the provision of additional central government guidance
enabling the establishment of standardised methodologies and environmental
reporting processes. However, the council has concerns about a number of
other aspects of the proposed government policy statement including how
“environmental lag times” could be taken into account, and how
national priorities are reflected in a local context (Recommendation
8.1).
xii. The
council does not support the proposed central government override powers in
relation to:
- local plan making in limited (unspecified)
circumstances (Recommendation 7.1)
- enabling central government to require
common land use approaches to addressing specific issues (Recommendation 7.1)
- enabling central government to instruct
council infrastructure units to deliver infrastructure where a pre-set price
trigger is reached between developable and undevelopable land (Recommendation
7.1).
xiii. The
council does not support the introduction of a permanent independent hearings
panel (Recommendation 7.7). The council suggests the commission consider
the use of the council-led commissioner model currently enabled under the
Resource Management Act
as an alternative model.
xiv. The
council does not support shifting regulatory responsibilities for environmental
monitoring and compliance away from councils to an
independent authority, such as
the Environmental Protection Agency (Question 13.2).
xv. The
council does not support increased external audit and oversight of
councils’ environmental
monitoring (with some type of trigger enabling central government intervention
if a council’s performance was consistently poor over time). The council
suggests that further analysis be undertaken to identify if there is a link between
compliance efforts by councils and poor environmental outcomes (Question
13.2).
xvi. The
council supports further investigation into the potential for using adaptive environmental
management tools. Widening the environmental management toolkit and
providing the discretion to use the best tool for each given situation or
enabling a
combination of approaches to be used would allow a more flexible and responsive
approach, and enable the approach to be tailored to address complex local
environmental issues (Question 8.2).
xvii. The council supports giving
councils flexibility to select the most appropriate consultation
tool for dealing with the issue at hand and better enabling the full spectrum
of interests to be understood in council decision-making processes and improving
transparency of decision-making. The council considers restricting other participation
would undermine the exercise of local democracy (Recommendation 7.6).
xviii. The council supports the commission’s
findings and recommendations on financing and funding infrastructure. The
council also endorses the potential use of alternative funding mechanisms, in
particular targeted rates “to fund infrastructure investments where
benefits are well defined” (Recommendation 10.2). The council supports
being able to access a broader range of funding tools, this could include the
use of road pricing in the form of congestion management tools and the ability
to use public private partnerships.
xix. The council suggests an
evaluation of the existing use of transferable development rights in
Auckland. This may be useful to assess the merits and possible impacts of
the commission’s proposed approach to transferable development rights
(Question 10.4). The use of this tool could have considerable implications for
the operation of the Unitary Plan.
xx. The council supports
recommendations to build local and central government capability
(Recommendation 9.2 centre of excellence, Recommendation 12.2 central
government urban planning and local government sector capability building,
Recommendation 12.1 environmental science, economics and engagement with
Māori).
xxi. The council can see some merit in
developing a shared process to assess infrastructure investment programmes
although questions the need for institutions or formal processes in all
circumstances (Recommendation
9.3). The council lends this support subject to any learnings from the Auckland
Transport Alignment Project becoming available. The council recommends that the
ability for councils and central government to engage on key infrastructure
also remains available outside of the proposed mechanism.
xxii. The council proposes the commission
reconsiders the idea
of “concept designations” or other mechanisms/tools for the
protection of routes for infrastructure investment to support future
growth. Auckland Transport supports enabling the introduction of
“concept designations” approaches.
xxiii. The council proposes the commission also considers options
for improving the workability of the Public Works Act, particularly where there
may be opportunities to improve outcomes for both affected landowners and
public bodies.
xxiv. The
council proposes more work could be undertaken to address current misalignments
within the three key planning acts.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
14. The approach
in the commission’s draft report is to consider changes to the national
urban planning framework. Their proposed changes are described at a very
high level and many of the proposals require a lot more clarity before both the
national, regional and local impacts can be fully understood.
15. Local board
chairs were invited to attend the workshop with the Auckland Development
Committee. Copies of the materials circulated in preparation for the workshop
were also circulated to all local board members.
16. Any local
board resolutions received will be appended to Auckland Council’s
submission.
Māori
impact statement
17. The
commission asks a number of questions, which could limit
interests of Māori in urban planning to papakāinga, streamlining the
Resource Management Act with Te Ture Whenua, cultural impact assessments, what
central government guidance should be provided to local government to recognise
and protect Māori
interests in planning, and the type of legislative provisions to be
strengthened to provide for Māori
participation in land-use planning. For reference see questions 11.1 to
11.15 in the draft report.
18. The
commission’s draft report does not specifically acknowledge where
recommendations have implications for Māori.
19. The
commission’s draft report was distributed to mana whenua for feedback and
staff attended a hui with mana whenua representatives on 31 August. Staff
identified the key issues discussed in council’s draft submission.
Mana whenua and mataawaka have been provided with a copy of the attached draft
submission and a copy of council’s submission will be circulated once it
is available.
20. The
commission’s suggested approach to separate the treatment of built and
environmental urban planning matters is inconsistent with the wider more
holistic perspective of Te Ao Māori.
21. The underpinnings of some of the other recommendations in the report
reflect a siloed approach to urban planning, which also seems at odds with a
holistic Māori world view, such as a land use focus for urban planning
where the interrelationships with other relevant legislative processes seem to
be separate.
22. The
role of Māori as a Treaty partner in setting national direction at the
central government level
is not clear, and there seem to be reduced opportunities for meaningful
participation in the proposed national Independent
Hearings Panel processes both at the policy setting and consenting
stages.
23. These implications of the Commission’s draft report for Maori
are significant, considering that 85% of Māori reside in New
Zealand urban areas.
24. Feedback
has been received from the Independent Māori Statutory Board and has been integrated
into the draft Auckland Council submission.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Auckland Council Draft Submission to Productivity
Commission Better Urban Planning Draft Report
|
11
|
Attachments
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Toby Shephard - Strategic Advisor
Strategic Scanning
Jennifer Davies - Principal Strategic Advisor
Strategic Scanning
|
|
Authorisers
|
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and
Research
Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy
|
