|
Resolution
number PKTPP/2021/147
MOVED by Member B Shen, seconded by Member H Doig:
That
the Puketāpapa Local Board:
a) support the overall direction of the
discussion document and notes it is broadly consistent with all of the
outcomes in the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan:
i)
Inclusive
communities that are healthy, connected and thriving
ii) Our people speak up and help shape our future
iii) Our environment is protected and enhanced for
present and future generations
iv) Well-planned neighbourhoods and vibrant public
spaces
v) Transport options that are reliable,
accessible and less polluting
vi) Thriving local economy with opportunities to
learn, work and volunteer
a)
support the
proposed vision of the GPS-HUD that ‘Everyone in New Zealand lives
in a healthy, secure and affordable home that meets their needs, within a
thriving, inclusive and sustainable economy’.
b)
reiterate the
importance of holistic wellbeing which means safe and healthy homes and
infrastructure, and economic possibilities to help thriving communities, as
mentioned in the GPS-HUD and the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan.
c)
support the
proposed Thriving Communities Outcome, with these suggested amendments:
i)
note that the only
way to achieve ‘thriving communities’ is to ensure there is
sufficient community, transport and services infrastructure and facilities to
support larger scale communities (as opposed to low density suburbia typical
of areas earmarked for intense development in Puketāpapa)
ii) note that local government needs to be
supported, resourced and funded to undertake planning and parallel delivery
of these community needs. This is because local government has the best
understanding of unique communities’ need, under the principle of
subsidiarity
iii) note that the discussion document states that
“a one-size-fits-all solution for housing and urban development will
not deliver the thriving communities we want”. The local board strongly
supports this statement but would argue that there is a strong basis for
considering Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland as a special case. This is due to
its size, complexity, pace of growth, pace of demographic change, ethnic
diversity and the fact that it has different local governance arrangements to
the rest of Aotearoa / New Zealand.
d)
support the
proposed Wellbeing through Housing Outcome, with these suggested amendments:
i)
support equitable
access to quality housing and genuine housing choice for all its citizens in
neighbourhoods and communities that are walkable, well-planned and have
access to community, as well as essential, infrastructure.
ii) currently, inequitable access to housing means
that some of our most deprived residents are unable to remain in the
neighbourhood that many generations of their whanau have lived in. Moves
should be made specifically to prevent this outcome in ongoing and future
development.
e)
support the
proposed Partnering for Maori Housing and Urban Solutions Outcome.
f)
support the
proposed An Adaptive and Responsive System Outcome, with these suggested
amendments:
i)
seek the addition
of the concept of resiliency to this outcome - in the context of a climate
emergency and other natural disasters to echo Focus Area three
ii) seek the prioritisation of brownfield
development and limiting greenfield development due to the ongoing costs
(financial due to infrastructure and servicing costs, social, and
environmental) as a result of urban sprawl
iii) note that greenfield development should be
limited particularly in light of a climate emergency: to encourage low carbon
lifestyles, decrease resilience issues due to isolation, and loss of
productive soils as per the National Policy Statement – Highly
Productive Land.
iv) seek policy settings that include strong
incentives for a ‘green’ approach to building (for example
mandating the New Zealand Green Building Council ratings for all public
buildings, and tax incentives or rates rebates for retrofitting to meet these
standards, reducing embodied carbon and giving greater consideration to the
life cycles of assets (both in terms of housing assets and infrastructure
that supports them).
v) seek policy settings that ensure that tree protection
and tree planting are both given serious consideration in the context of
housing and urban development.
A) In the context of housing and urban
development this is highly relevant as the inclusion of street trees in any
urban planning can have a significant impact on the overall carbon emissions
of our housing stock and essential infrastructure. It also improves amenity
and contributes to a healthier population. Auckland Council, as a whole, and
many local boards (including Puketāpapa)
have created urban ngahere (forest) strategies. These can assist delivery of
positive tree canopy outcomes in parallel with housing development.
B)
Seek provisions for
trees that are professionally designed into housing development, which
should, by process, be the right tree for the right place, to have protection
after the housing is on sold. This retains the natural character of tree
canopy cover in new or renewed neighbourhoods and allows the tree canopy to
mature. As a baseline, to require a resource consent to remove the tree and
require a replacement where reasonable.
vi) note that greater protection for what little
built heritage remains in our rohe has been consistently identified as a
priority for our communities. The local board would support an approach that accelerates
high-density urban development but also incentivises protection and
restoration of heritage buildings where possible. Partnership with mana
whenua is critical to ensuring that sites of historic significance to
Māori are not only protected, but have their stories told and have the
opportunity to receive Māori names and signage.
vii) note the importance of the Manukau and
Waitematā Harbours, and urban waterways such as Te Auaunga / Oakley
Creek and Wairaki Stream, and the need to advocate for planning and
development frameworks that support positive change for the health of our
waterways.
viii)
note the importance
of sequencing when large housing development is planned, examples from the
Puketāpapa context being:
A) services infrastructure must be funded and delivered
before or in tandem with housing development
B) planning and delivery of community
infrastructure (such as network provisions for schools, medical care, meeting
spaces, open space (parks and reserves) should occur in tandem with housing
development, not afterwards or as an afterthought.
C) public transport infrastructure should be
delivered before housing development to assist mode shift to low carbon
transport modes servicing highly intensified environments
g)
support Focus Area
one, ‘Provide homes that meet people’s needs’, with
these suggested amendments:
i)
note that it is one
of the most diverse areas of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland. It has
particularly high Asian populations and the local board is proud to support
and empower all its diverse communities. To that end, the local board
supports the directions set out in the discussion around provision of housing
to support diverse family structures. That must include provision of
culturally appropriate housing to support large families, and
intergenerational living, and the provision of communal areas in apartment
blocks that cater for wider whanau gatherings.
ii) support the principle of locals being able to
stay locally long term and not be displaced. There is a risk that housing
(including social housing) being driven by the market is currently delivering
a very narrow band of the community need and this leads to displacement of
local family units. There are many examples in Kāinga Ora’s Mt
Roskill South Development where the ‘right to return’ policy is
not effective as family units have outgrown housing typologies that are being
built.
iii) seek that there be Universal Access /
accessibility in housing, at least for a guaranteed portion of housing
developments
iv) support the focus on child and youth wellbeing
but would be interested to understand what emphasis will be placed on housing
for the elderly and disabled, who are also vulnerable and currently
disadvantaged by lack of appropriate housing
v) encourage ‘active edges’ to urban
developments where appropriate, eg along transport corridors, toward open
space, encouraging activation, or mixed-use opportunities.
A) ‘Active edges’ can be defined as
“street frontages where there is an active visual engagement between
those in the street and those on the ground and upper floors of buildings.
Active frontages can provide informal surveillance opportunities and often
improve the vitality and safety of an area”.
B) The Auckland Design Manual also mentions
“Well-designed perimeter developments are desirable in that they have a
strong presence, effectively framing the street, and providing visual
interest and activity which enhances street character” and “street-activating uses
along street edges… mixed use developments contribute to creating
lively street environments when they have active uses at the ground
level.”
vi) encourage more support for mixed-use zoning
and development which can enable people to walk to local shops and increase
activation on the street level around housing increasing passive
surveillance.
h)
support Focus Area
two, ‘Ensure that more affordable houses being built’,
with these suggested amendments:
i)
notes that housing
is more affordable when people live, work and play more locally
i)
support Focus Area
three, ‘Support resilient, sustainable, inclusive and prosperous
communities’, with these suggested amendments:
i)
note that
Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s population growth has consistently
exceeded projections and this, alongside the need to reduce carbon emissions,
means that there needs to be a much stronger focus on compact urban form and
intensive brownfields development.
ii) support Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri:
Auckland’s Climate Plan, which sets a goal of 64 per cent reduction in
emissions from the transport sector by 2030 against a base year of 2016. The
board urges central government to adopt similar targets in implementing the
GPS-HUD. The local board has adopted its own low carbon plan
(“Puketāpapa becoming a Low Carbon Community: An Action
Plan”)
iii) note that there need to be safe places to play
so the relevant open spaces need to be provided (United Nations Article 31)
iv) note that quality of residential environment
is important - currently there are very little controls, encouragement or
incentive for doing good quality development (by best practice urban design
standards). Auckland Design Office has some guides and an urban review panel
but are non-statutory.
j)
support Focus Area
four, ‘Invest in Maori-driven housing and urban solutions’
k)
support Focus Area
five, ‘Prevent and reduce homelessness’, with these
suggested amendments:
i)
acknowledge the
sensitivities around the homeless community where some choose to remain
homeless (for example, to remain a part of a community) or because becoming
homeless was not of their choosing due to aggravating circumstances, and the
different housing arrangements this may require.
l)
supports Focus Area
six, ‘Re-establish housing’s primary role as a home rather
than a financial asset’, with these suggested amendments:
i)
seek reference to
types of housing that may be required for segments of the community that may
not be delivered under a commercially-driven property development model.
ii) note that the government’s current mode
of development is currently prioritised by volume over typologies that suit
specific communities’ needs particularly in brownfield development
where communities already exist.
iii) note that local government can play in the
role of understanding what the community need is.
iv) support exploring alternative ways to owning
one’s home that may be more accessible to some people such as
rent-to-own schemes provided by central government
m) support the Four ‘Ways of
Working’, with these suggested amendments:
i)
note its
commitments to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi)
and supports the directions set out in the discussion around partnership with
Māori and developing appropriate solutions to Māori housing needs
that respects the desire of many Māori people to maintain an enduring
relationship with their whenua.
ii) seek a much stronger emphasis on collaboration
with local government, particularly at the local level (i.e. with local
boards, in the Auckland Council context), on top of the document’s
acknowledgement of a need for collaboration.
A) note that collaboration is particularly
critical around the development of new infrastructure, community facilities
and wrap-around community provisions, and arrangements (including funding)
for its ongoing stewardship and maintenance.
B) note concern about the role of local
government, particularly in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland, in relation to
housing and urban development. The discussion document refers to the GPS-HUD
giving ‘visibility’ to all partners, but the local board is
concerned as to whether central government will provide sufficient certainty
to local government to enable it to undertake local planning (particularly spatial
planning and infrastructure provision) with confidence.
C) note that the significant changes currently
being proposed by central government around housing and urban development,
water and infrastructure provision, and the role of local government itself.
The local board is concerned to ensure that any changes to the local
government do not cause unnecessary confusion or disruption to communities
and that local government will retain its mandate to implement ‘the
four well-beings’ and to provide certainty and continuity to
communities in its provision of local services, assets, planning and
governance. This is particularly relevant in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.
iii) supports the whole-of-system approach adopted
by the present government to address the inter-related issues of housing,
urban development and infrastructure. While the local board acknowledges that
it is necessary to look at local (and regional) governance as part of this,
it notes that local government entities – in particular Auckland
Council – have been attempting to prioritise intensive housing
development for some years but has struggled to meet demand due to a range of
factors, largely beyond their control.
CARRIED
|
