Ben's Auckland Plan Submission

2011
Submission to Draft Auckland Plan
Benjamin W Ross
10/31/2011
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan should have One Goal: To accommodate employment and economic activity in supporting a healthy social and physical environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and restoring Affordability to residents and businesses while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City.
2011
Compiled by Benjamin W. Ross 87A Hillside Road Papatoetoe Auckland 2025 New Zealand [Papatoetoe/Otara Local Board Area] Ben.R001@gmail.com M: 0278591988
1|Page
Layout of Submission
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. INTRODUCTION THE EXISTING AND HISTORIC CONDITIONS OF AUCKLAND OUTLINE SECTION ONE: LAND USE SECTION TWO: TRANSPORT NOTES CONCLUDING REMARKS ABBREVIATIONS REFERENCES/CITATIONS
2|Page
Introduction
The Goal: To accommodate employment and economic activity in supporting a healthy social and physical environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and restoring Affordability to residents and businesses while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City. That is the goal of this alternative plan (through this submission) or more to the point vision for Auckland over the next thirty years. Through focusing on land use and transportation, this submission aims to restore simplicity, certainty and affordability to the residents and businesses of Auckland. The submission agrees in principle with most of The Draft Auckland Plan (in Section B, Section D (except Part One of Section D), Chapters Seven, Eight and Eleven the rest this submission in particular has no opinion on) with sections of particular aspects of The Draft Auckland Plan commented on. Land use was simplified into two models of what would be called Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation objectives. The idea behind simplifying land use was to minimise what has affectionately called DURT or Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxes that the existing legacy plans and in-part the current Draft Auckland Plan in its current draft form. If simplification of Aucklands Plans can be realised, then DURT that ultimately costs affordability and economic progress this city so heavily relies on can be minimised of not eliminated. One Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation model was a more centralised model (as would be seen in existing community master plans) whiles the other was more open and left the market to allocate/develop/utilise the land as required (to a point). However land use in this submission also had two strict criteria that had to be followed. These two criteria in regards to urban design would ensure while choice remains, minimum standards are adhered two to ensure a healthy social and physical environment for everyone here now and for future generations. The vision behind the transport proposal in this submission was designed to move away from the Pro-This or Pro-That style of politics that has seen and marred Aucklands Transport for over fifty years. Thus items about Aucklands Transport in this submission were designed to recognise that car (especially), bus, truck and rail will be with the city for a long time to come and that people should be allowed travel choice (bearing responsibility and consequences for their choice as well). As a result a more balanced multi-modal alternative transport vision was written in this submission that included both road and public transport infrastructure provisions. These provisions are ultimately designed to complement the dual (Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi-Liberal Planned District) Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation models of land use over the next thirty years.
This is my submission to The Draft Auckland Plan and where I would like Auckland to be by 2040. Time was short in assembling this submission and I wish more time was provided in order to give a more comprehensive opinion on the entire submission. However due to limited time and resources, focus was around land use and transportation which have the greatest bearing on the city and its people and businesses. I thank you in for considering this submission in advance. Benjamin W Ross
3|Page
The Existing and Historic Conditions of Auckland

Section B (Auckland Now) of The Draft Auckland Plan outlines the existing and historic conditions of Auckland. For the most part this submission agrees with what is outlined in this section with one exception: Part B (of Section B) Climate Change and Energy Security. Again for the most part Auckland (and New Zealand) is vulnerable to energy supply shocks as the city and nation relies highly on imported fuels. However a mix of traditional (fossil fuel) and new (renewable) energy supplies (rather than a skew towards new) need to be implemented to help Auckland make Auckland more resilient to future energy shocks. Whether one likes it or not traditional energy sources will be with us (Auckland and beyond) until at least the end of this century and the Land Use and Transport ideas mentioned in this submission acknowledge that fact. Measures can be taken to improve the quality of the social and physical environment while traditional energy supplies are still being used. Measures such better fuel quality, better vehicle maintenance and making newer vehicle fleets (that are more fuel efficient and kinder to the environment) more affordable will go along way in reducing Aucklands carbon foot print without shocking the economy if more drastic measures were introduced. Sound urban and transport design principles also go some distance in reducing the increasing need for energy and the enlarging carbon foot print. Making sure every residential house is warm and dry will assist in energy consumption being reduced from constant heating and cooling through fires, gas and heat pumps/air conditioning. Sound urban and transport design would allow efficient movement of people and goods for an efficient transport network reduces energy consumption lost through otherwise inefficient transport movements. Sound Urban design would look at houses and commercial buildings utilising passive means of cooling and heating again to reduce energy consumption needed for more active modes. Through natural progression, Auckland will move away from traditional energy sources as new energy sources become more economically viable. I would be against trying to force the city away from traditional energy use unless one wants affordability to be thrown out the window, consumers and producers will switch over on their own accord if the alternative is better then the original its all about freedom of choice. This is how I see the progression through the energy sources (in this case transport) from traditional to new over the next 100 years. Traditional (Oil based) Hybrids (as a complement not as a replacement) Electrics (as a complement not as a replacement) Synthetic Fuels (coal based as New Zealand and Queensland have enough coal for at least 100 years) Hydrogen fuel cells (as a total replacement for of traditional and synthetic fuel sources) Mitigation techniques can be done to improve our energy security and the ever changing climate but it must not send the city backwards as the already unaffordable becomes even more unaffordable.
4|Page
Outline
The basic outline of this submission is to provide commentary and alternative ideas on the Draft Auckland Plan that would allow Auckland to be affordable and economically prosperous in supporting over two million residents by 2040. Outline as follows 1. Land use Outline 2. Transport Outline 3. Urban Design Outline
5|Page
Land Use Outline

Objective: Adopting a mixed model of intensification of existing urban areas AND sprawl in current Greenfield sites to accommodate Aucklands growth in an affordable manner. Note: Areas on this list might already be included in official Auckland planning documents; however I have listed these areas as areas of opportunity for Auckland to grow. Areas for sprawl to occur at: Drury^ West Papakura^ Westgate Hobsonville East Takanini^ Airport Kumeu Wiri*^ Areas for intensification to occur at: Wynyard Quarter^ New Lynn Takapuna Tamaki^ Manukau City Centre^ Papakura Central^ Papatoetoe Central (Hunters Corner) Pukekohe Otahuhu Penrose/Southdown/Onehunga# See Appendix Map for illustration of the above areas *Wiri for both intensification and sprawl #Urban redevelopment For the sake of brevity and limited resources available this submission will comment (where it can) on these following areas: Wynyard Quarter Areas south of the CBD from the lists above marked with (^)
6|Page
Transportation Outline
Objective: To complement the land use ideas set out in this submission in allowing transport choice and efficiency across the Auckland Region This submission will focus on what are considered major transit links needed in Auckland to improve the efficiency of the regional transit network. These links are not limited to: Eastern Highway Inner City Rail Link and AMETI Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment South-to-Manukau Rail Link completion Rail Station re-deployments/additions (where required) Future Proof the following lines: Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri) Botany Line South West Line North Shore Line Also, a priority system would be added on reallocating the priorities on building Aucklands Transport Network through until 2040. However again for the sake of brevity and limited resources, this submission will only be commenting on transportation infrastructure mentioned in the bullet points above, High Occupancy Vehicle lanes and bus lanes will not be mentioned unless necessary.
7|Page
Urban Design Outline

Good urban design to ensure safe, affordable and healthy environments (both physical and social) is essential. The New Zealand Urban Design Protocol published by the Ministry of Environment in 2005 sets out a framework that should be followed by both Auckland Council and developers alike. Whether Auckland follows centralised Master Plan developments, the Huston-Texas liberalistic style of development (as reported in the following article by Unconventional Economist; How to solve Australian Housing Supply (Economist, 2011)1 or going mixed model; the city has to get its urban design right first time if Auckland wants to achieve the Mayors goal of Most Liveable City. Furthermore with urban design, Auckland must be careful in how we design our urban environment as well. What could be a great design on paper and start off well enough when paper turns to reality, over time that reality and its environment degrade due to actual poor planning. When undertaking either a Centralised Master (Community) Plan or a Semi-Liberal Planned District Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation exercise, good urban design principles (and per the 2005 Urban Design Protocol) must be adhered to in order to create and sustain a healthy physical and social environment (that is still affordable). An (Auckland) Regional Land/Allocation/Development/Utilisation-Philosophies list is created in forming a simple urban (and transport) design framework that allows a healthy physical and social environment now and in years to come will not adding to the Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxation (DURT) Pile
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ Accessed September 2011
8|Page
The Details
1. Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation) 2. Transport
9|Page
Section One
Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation)
10 | P a g e
Introduction
How does Auckland best allocate and utilise its land efficiently and optimally so that the goal of being the Most Liveable (and affordable) City can be realised. Options suggested (but are not limited to) are the (Centralised) Master (Community) Plans where development follows a strict centralised prescription and land users then follow a strict usage covenant, to a Neo Liberalistic deregulated market approach where the Council allows the market to allocate and utilise the land per market forces (as seen in Huston, Texas). In this submission I advocate more a mix model of land allocation and utilisation to accommodate jobs, residents and support systems for Auckland. By mixed model I mean utilising systems from various urban development and management options and using them for Auckland. This is due to the belief that a single option one size fits all would utterly fail to respond to Aucklands current and future land use needs. In essence both the (Centralised) Master (Community) Plan and to an extent a more liberal option of land use have their place in Auckland providing some simple guidelines are followed. The guidelines for Land Allocated Development and Usage are: Follow and Implement the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol Follow these 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) As for planned land allocation and usage, I have outlined different areas out in Auckland for different modes of development. As in the Outline, these following areas have been allocated types of development to be undertaken: Areas for sprawl to occur at: Drury^ West Papakura^ Westgate Hobsonville East Takanini^ Airport Kumeu Wiri*^ Areas for intensification to occur at: Wynyard Quarter^ New Lynn Takapuna Tamaki^ Manukau City Centre^ Papakura Central^ Papatoetoe Central (Hunters Corner) Pukekohe Otahuhu Penrose/Southdown/Onehunga# See Appendix Map for illustration of the above areas (that are outlined (^)) *Wiri for both intensification and sprawl #Urban redevelopment
11 | P a g e
For the sake of brevity and limited resources available this submission will focus on these following areas: Wynyard Quarter Areas south of the CBD from the lists above (marked with ^) Each development area that this submission will focus on will have either one of these development type options: Centralised Master (Community) Plan Semi-Liberal Simplified District Development Plan or simply put; Semi-Liberal Planned District See map next page for an overview of the areas mentioned in this submission
12 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Overview of areas outlined in submission (Scale is 1:250:000 @ A3 paper Size)2
Sourced and adapted from: http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (accessed October 2011)
13 | P a g e
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 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)
14 | P a g e
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. 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. However an outline of the four CMCPs mentioned above will be included in this submission.
15 | P a g e
Outline of the five Centralised Master (Community) Plans

Wynyard Quarter. As a former University of Auckland Planning student, an assignment that was given to me was to develop a plan to renewal a section of the Auckland Waterfront. I chose Wynyard Quarter and developed a basic Centralised Master (Community) Plan that would form a very basic framework in reallocating, redeveloping and re-utilising the land at Wynyard Quarter. While redevelopment has already started at Wynyard Quarter since my CMCP was developed (in 2010), the plan itself (see separate attached document Planning 701Assignment Two: Area Chosen for Study: Wynyard Quarter, Auckland) still illustrates what can be done for the rest of the area. In brief it was planned for Wynyard Quarter to have substantial mixed development coupled with generous amounts of public spaces; in order to generate an area with not only high amenity value to users and to the wider city, but to generate as much return for the city as possible (while still socially and physically (environment) sound). Again see the separately attached document for the Wynyard Quarter CMCP. Tamaki Again as a former planning student, the area of Tamaki (consisting of Panmure, Tamaki, Point England and Glen Innes) was studies as an assignment. The ultimate goal of the assignment was to create a Community Transformation Plan that would form a framework of redeveloping the Tamaki area. A separately attached document called Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative, Community Transformation Plan (Tamaki Reconnected Program) was the final published document offering a framework in reallocating; redeveloping and re-utilising the land in Tamaki. Please consult the separately attached document for details. Tamaki presents a unique opportunity as well for redevelopment. The Tamaki Reconnection Program if modified slightly to encompass a large catchment area for redevelopment would provide the perfect test bed for both the Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi-Liberal Planned District development models. If the CMCP and SLPD models of land allocation/development/utilisation are adopted, then a localised plan for the Tamaki area in collaboration with stakeholders and the Local Boards affected would need to be drawn up. For more on the Semi-Liberal Planned District allocation/development/utilisation model, see the SLPD subsection (page 25).
16 | P a g e
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, 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.
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
17 | P a g e
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. More on SLPDs on page:
18 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Map Overview of Manukau CMCP and FDZ-SLDP (Scale @ A3: 1:15,000)3
Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)
19 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross The Southern Initiative Commentary It is mentioned from Section 214 to 216 (Pages 35 and 36) of The Draft Auckland Plan that a Southern Initiative would be utilised for the southern Auckland area which includes Manukau City Centre. The initiative seems to be a list of interventionist policies to assist those who are especially well off in Southern Auckland and is being championed by The Mayor and his office. Policies include housing initiatives to reduce overcrowding and improving housing quality, focus on up-skilling childraisers (parents and guardians), massive focus on early childhood education, up-skilling the youth and raising educational achievement. Look do not get me wrong; while South Auckland needs attention for its population to realise their full potential and live happy healthy fulfilled lives, the question begs to be asked why Auckland Council. The ideas being put forward in the Southern Initiative policy in my honest opinion belong to the domain of Central Government (partnering with private and public local service providers) NOT local government! If Auckland Council wants to really assist in helping South Auckland then the best thing that the council do is get its urban planning RIGHT! The best way Auckland Council can contribute in the ideas mentioned in the Southern Initiative to assist those in South (and might as well be wider) Auckland is in its Urban Design. If Auckland Council can do and reach these objectives then it (Council) would have gone some distance in addressing the depravity in Southern Auckland (my home): Allow enough residential dwellings to be built efficiently and affordably and by being built the dwelling are flexible enough to cater for residents demands (big houses for collective families, apartment for young professionals on the go etc.) Transit links that are flexible, innovative and reliable in moving everyone around quickly and efficiently (that means a mix of road, rail, bus) Enough quality land available and served by a decent transit system for commercial and industrial development (employment for people) Allowing existing commercial and industrial zones to be redeveloped as needed efficiently to allow existing resources to be reused and create further employment Cut the DURT! Make sure the urban design of residential neighbourhoods and employment centres are conductive in either allowing a healthy social and physical environment and/or in being a desirable place to either live or work in (or set up/maintain a work place)
So if Auckland Council focused on the basics and getting it right as it is tasked to do as well as do some DURT busting (or maybe listen), just maybe the Council would be doing its bit helping South Auckland reach its potential.
20 | P a g e
Papakura Papakura according to Page 132 of The Draft Auckland Plan is to be classed as a metropolitan centre like Manukau, Sylvia Park etc.; in doing so that would make Papakura the most southern metropolitan centre in wider Auckland. I support Papakura becoming such a centre for two reasons: 1. Its potential to become a more utilised and vibrant place to work, conduct ones business and live especially that Papakura supports a wide rural/urban split 2. To allow the Papakura Town Centre to support the needs of a growing area with multiple large scale developments planned or under way (Addison, Addison/Mill Road Sector, Papakura East, Papakura South, Drury and Ramarama) Papakura unlike Manukau City Centre is not well served in comparison by transport links. Papakura Town Centre has only the two lane Great South Road running through the middle of it as the centres main north/south link. This road link is also the primary thoroughfare for commuter buses which are likely to get held up in any congestion along the Gt. South Road without significant works being carried out to improve capacity of the road (either 4-lanes or T3 lanes). State Highway One (Southern Motorway) does not form the most efficient link for traffic going to or from Papakura heading north/southbound either. The main reason being the distance needing to access or leave the motorway either using Papakura or Takanini Interchanges is deemed considerable it is either a seven minute trip down Beach Road and accessing or leaving the motorway on a non-signalled interchange, or a trip down a congested GSR with out of phased and short gap-distanced signals to reach the already congested Takanini Interchange. Further complicating ones trip on the motorway is the congestion faced on the 4-lane Southern Motorway between Papakura and Takanini (city bound) and Manurewa to Papakura (south bound), this congestion will only get worse as the Papakura/Takanini area grows (both under intensification and greenfield developments). The solution to that motorway congestion issue however is simple yet would offend the anti-motorway pro public transport only brigade the solution being: 1. Four Lane the Great South Road from Drury Interchange to Takanini Interchange and use the new lane additions as T3 lanes during the peak commuter period. 2. Expand the southern motorway to six lanes until also the Drury Interchange My reasons for the solutions above will be mentioned in the Transport Section of my submission, but in short, the widening needs to be done to avoid strangulation of the Papakura/Takanini/Drury areas. As for rail, Papakura is well served by the Papakura Railway Station and associating park-n-ride car parks. In saying that, improvements of the rail station (already under planning), park-n-ride and connecting bus facilities and other rail corridor improvements need to happen in order for Papakura and the surrounding areas to be better served by an efficient rail network. However these rail issues will be addressed along with roading needs in the Transport Section of the submission. Bearing the limitation in transit options currently available to Papakura, the possibility of an extra 30,000+ residents and expansion of employment opportunities; the Papakura CMCP would need to be responsive and adaptive to the needs of the community. Effectively the approached used in Tamaki and Manukau (creating collaborative sub-plans with Local Boards (representing stakeholders) and developers) CMCPs would be adopted and adapted for Papakura. Papakura Town Centre and the immediate surrounds would be intensified (what maximum limit is to be yet determined) with transit links improved (see the Transport Section of this submission). Outside of that zone would be the Fringe Development Zone that allows the transition between the higher density core and the lower density existing surrounds. Again with the Tamaki and Manukau FDZs, the areas will be subject to the Semi-Liberal Planned District model of land allocation/development/utilisation. A map of the Papakura CMCP and FZD is attached (page 23).
21 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross When developing Papakura as a metropolitan centre, some minimum requirements would be needed to make Papakura a vibrant and viable metropolitan centre. This is especially if the area from Takanini and Addison to the north, Mill Road to the East, Papakura East/Red Hill to the south east, Karaka to the west, and Drury to the south will be developed or developed over the next thirty years. Minimum Requirements for the Metropolitan Centre being: Capable of delivering extended civil services (such as) o Council services Planning and Regulatory (able to access property and title reports, filing resource consents, gaining information for resource consents and planning issues) General Information enquiries Able to pay for items such as: rates, dog registration, parking fines, other fees o Enlarged Library Services o Enlarged Post Office (might seem silly but services need to expand when an areas population increased dramatically) o Making sure the Papakura District Court is able to keep up with any demand from increased population growth o Other Central Services like the WINZ or Housing NZ office Capable of handling a high capacity multi-modal transit system (road, rail, bus, bike, active) Capable of having community centres enlarged (as community centres well utilised can create a focus point (events) for the community
The minimum requirements for a metropolitan centre outlined above would not be just limited to an upgraded Papakura; it would be the minimum requirements for ALL metropolitan centres. The logic behind it being with population growth comes an increased demand for civic and community centres. Focusing and enlarging such services would allow service delivery for an enlarged population in an efficient manner, it would also allow for one-stop shopping of such civic/community centres when citizens, business and visitors come to the metropolitan centre to conduct their affairs. It might also be realised that extended and enlarged civic/community services within a metropolitan centre could become a focal point (or an anchor) for the centre itself. The idea is not far fetched as those who provide services that would require frequent contact with the civic service (developers, charity/community groups, consultants etc.) could want to be based near by for efficiency gains (while telecommunications can minimise travel, travel would still have to occur and businesses might be looking at keeping travel to a minimum). So allowing the expansion of civic services at a metropolitan service would be a wise investment for Auckland
22 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Map Overview of Papakura CMCP (Scale @ A3: 1:8,000)4
23 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Sylvia Park Table 8.2, Chapter Eight, Page 132 of The Draft Auckland Plan lists Sylvia Park as a Metropolitan Centre. I would disagree in classifying Sylvia Park as Metropolitan Centre compared to Tamaki (which is not a Metropolitan Centre under The Auckland Draft Plan but should be and is in this submission) due to limitations for Sylvia Park. While Sylvia Park is well served by road and rail connections (State Highway One, South Eastern Highway, Mt Wellington Highway, Eastern Rail Line) compared to Tamaki (just the Eastern Rail Line), the majority of the surrounding land is and utilised as light to medium industry. I would even struggle to see how Sylvia Park could be classed as a town centre let alone a metropolitan centre. Sylvia Park has no town centre per say compared other places like Panmure, Otahuhu, Glen Innes and even Ellersile unless you count the Sylvia Park Mall as the Town Centre. To make Sylvia Park a town centre or even a metropolitan centre would need to provide: extended civic services (mentioned in the Papakura CMCP), improved the transit connections (the area is constantly congested during the day), more green public space and the possibility of relocating nearby industry to allow more medium density residential and commercial space to be built. However with industrial land already at a premium even if more industrial Greenfield development occurs, I would be very reluctant at forcing industry out of the Sylvia Park area and replace it with commercial or residential. However if market forces impose such a change, then so be it the central regulatory body and Local Community Board have to be ready to provide the provisions needed (civic services, recreational space and supporting infrastructure).
24 | P a g e
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 model5 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 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 then 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).
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ (Accessed September 2011)
25 | P a g e
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)6. 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, over-inflation 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 o 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
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.
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6 (accessed September 2011)
26 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross 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 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 then 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.
27 | P a g e
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 form7 (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 chose 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 then conventional is required. With SC4, basic infrastructure such as water and electricity are again technically provided by the developer rather then 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! 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
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/ (Accessed October 2011)
28 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross 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 o
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 supply8 (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.
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.
8
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ (Accessed September 2011)
29 | P a g e

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.
30 | P a g e
The Zoning System While I advocate what Houston, Texas has done (to a point); I believe Auckland needs slightly more restrictive controls to prevent expanding and/or development running away. This is where the zoning and zone district sizes come into play. Using the zoning system in Sim City 4, I have created ten basic zones which in its ultimate regulatory form control the maximum density or building capacity limits. Further limitations to the liberal LADU model in Texas is the fact any development has to follow the 2005 New Zealand Urban Protocol and The Region Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies mentioned earlier in the chapter. The modified zoning controls are split into three main categories (with a possibility to create a fourth if needed) with each category having various sub categories. The three main categories are: residential, commercial and industrial (the fourth being (if needed) rural). This is how the zones would work for a SLPD-LADU in dictating the building capacity limits (Derived from Pages 29-30 of the Sim City 4 Deluxe Edition Manual (Maxis, 2003))9: Residential: Low Density Zone: Mostly single family homes to be built (would allow small scale infilling as well) Medium Density Zone: 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 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 6-7 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. 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) 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
SimCity 4 Deluxe Edition Manual, Maxis, Electronic Arts, California, USA. pp.29-30
31 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross however medium industrial zones should be open to allowing heavy industry to be developed on a case by case basis Agriculture I have included under general industry as I believe it is up to the individual land owner to do as they wish with their land (as long as their activities do not cause adverse effects to the environment and if they do, those effects are mitigated properly). However if separate agricultural zoning is required then these are the sub categories. Agriculture/Rural Zone Large-Scale: your large dairy, sheep, beef or crop farms (minimum size 75 hectares) Medium Scale: farming operations mentioned above but between 5-75 hectares Small-Scale: your small scale stuff (under 5 hectares), this is where lifestyle blocks would fit in as well When zoning for a SLPD you can mix two zones together to form mix development. An example would be zoning medium density residential and medium density commercial together. This allows the Local Community Board and the developer to do several things with the newly mix zoned land (the best way would be to give a chronological example): 1. New SLPD is created and the zone for the area is a Medium Density Residential/Medium Density Commercial (Mix) Zone 2. Developer begins development with low density residential dwellings and commercial facilities ) infrastructure and parks will be already provided for by the R-LADU-P and Memorandum of Understanding Provisions) 3. As land values increase and/or demand for the land increases, the zone district begins to intensify (a separate resource consent should not be needed as the original consent at the time of the creation of the SLPD allowed the medium density development) (you would start getting buildings that have commercial on the bottom two floors and apartments on the other top four floors on limited scale basis inside the district) 4. Infrastructure (roads and P/T provisions) upgrade 5. Land Value or demand continues to increase allowing the district to intensify as the market sees fit (you would start getting buildings that have commercial on the bottom two floors and apartments on the other top four floors on a more wide scale basis inside the district) 6. District reaches limit according to the zone density set however the district is relatively free (as per the R-LADU-P) to redevelop as required. Or the district could be up-zoned to a higher density. There should be no need for any council interference what so ever if the SLPD works properly and the R-LADU-P is not contravened. The district would be allow to change, mature and re-change (or stay the same) as the needs of the community or wider city change. This (and the reason behind the SLPD) allows the greatest flexibility and response mechanisms to the ever changing dynamics of the local and wider community of Auckland. The flexibility and semi-liberal nature of this model of LADU would ideally bust the DURT Auckland sees currently and go some distance (due to the DURT busting) in restoring affordability to residents, businesses, institutions and community groups. Effectively under an SLPD all the council (and central government to a point) has to provide is the primary infrastructure, large parks and civic services, the rest is left to those responsible looking after the district.
32 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross SLDP-LADU where to do it All that leaves is where to apply the SLPD-LADU to Auckland; and the simple answer is the ENTIRE URBAN region (including rural settlements as per Schedule 2, page 109, Chapter Seven of The Draft Auckland Plan) except the following areas: Areas mentioned for CMCP development Areas marked (*) in Chapters Seven and Eight of the Draft Auckland Plan (usually done so for heritage reasons) Areas that are Regional, National or border Maritime Parks Heritage or culturally sensitive sites Areas or catchment areas of critical infrastructure (fresh water reservoirs, pipelines, high tension transmission wires (unless they are going to be buried) [For Rural LADU outside of the rural settlements and any Greenfield development see below] By applying the SLPD-LADU Model to the entire region (with the exceptions taken into account), the 2005 Urban Design Protocol recognised and R-LDAU-P implemented; the need for constant planning and regulation would be minimised and the concept of property rights more recognised than it is now or the current form of The Auckland Plan will allow. The Rural Urban Boundary would and should not exist if the city wants to achieve affordability for its citizens as believe me the last thing people will thing about is the environment if they struggle to make ends meet due to Auckland Planning driving affordability out of reach. If one is wondering how would Auckland create SLPDs through the zoning system, chapters seven and eight of The Draft Auckland Plan give some ideas on how you would what zone in an SLPD. The accompanying table below provides a guide on what zones would be appropriate mainly for brownfield development. More specifically, Schedule One Urban Centres Hierarchy (page 131, Chapter Eight, The Draft Auckland Plan) and Schedule Two Rural Settlements Classifications (Chapter Seven, page 109, The Draft Auckland Plan) provide adequate explanations on what each centre or settlement classifications, these explanations were used to provide a foundation on what type of model of development (CMCP or SLPD) would best suited. As for Greenfield development, each Greenfield Development would be zoned on a case by case basis as the Greenfield area was opened up for development (Consult submission in Long Term Plan for a more details).
33 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross For existing urban or developed areas: Rural (As per Chapter Seven Schedule Two Page 109, the Draft Auckland Plan) Classification Suggested Zoning Maximum Medium Residential and Commercial, Light Industry Notes Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning Area surrounded by Industrial Agricultural Zoning. Areas marked with (*) have potential for medium residential or commercial in the future
Satellites
Rural and Coastal Settlements
Light Residential and Commercial
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
A Note on Rural Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation While I have left the option open for simplified rural zoning in this submission, I have noted that the Draft Auckland Plan has a Rural Activities Category for rural LADU. Schedule One - Rural Activity Categories (Chapter Seven, pages 107-108) outlines LADU categories for Aucklands different rural types in an attempt to watch over the rural landscape of Auckland. Upon reflection I agree with the draft in the Draft Auckland Plan for the Rural Activity Categories. If a separate agricultural zoning was needed (outside of the blanket Industry: Agricultural Zone mentioned on page __ of this submission) then adapting the optional Agricultural/Rural Zoning to the Rural Activities Categories would be a viable and sound idea. Country Area Living Description (Page 108, Chapter Seven, The Draft Auckland Plan) for example would be assumed to be adapted with the Agricultural/Rural Small Scale SLPD zoning. The zone or CALD area would be ideal for allowing a transition between urban and rural while being future proofed for any expansion type Greenfield development.
34 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Urban (As per Chapter Eight Tables 8.2 and 8.3 Pages 132 and 133, and Schedule One on page 131; The Draft Auckland Plan) Suggested Zoning Maximum N/A
Category International City Centre
CMCP/SLPD CMCP
Notes Covered by the Draft City Centre Master Plan Includes Tamaki. Excludes Sylvia Park
Metropolitan Centres
CMCP
N/A
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
Light Residential and Commercial
Possibility for up zoning for medium commercial and residential - but on a case by case basis Has potential for High Density Residential and Commercial, but that needs to be explored in depth first Review each area for LADU and redevelopment possibilities
Urban Growth Corridors
SLPD
Medium Residential and Commercial
Existing Industry
SLPD
Notes on Urban Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation When dealing with Industrial Zone LADU, whether it be on existing Brownfield sites or Greenfield sites, responsibility in allocating the an SLPD with industry zoning in it would fall to the allocated central regulatory body (Auckland Council) rather than the Local Community Board. However the central regulatory body would have the obligation to inform and enter dialogue with the Local Community Board (or Boards) affected when Greenfield industrial zoning is undertaken. No obligation would be required any redevelopment in existing industrial areas (Brownfield sites).
35 | P a g e
Final Remarks on Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

Affordability and good economic progress without DURT strangulating both must come first for Auckland. If the city is affordable and economic progress is moving along without hindrance, you would find that achieving the goals of looking after ones environment might be just that more attainable. If the city is unaffordable to live and conduct business in, then economic progress stalls as business and residents are under stress to make ends meet. If that happens then the environment we treasure so much would become second fiddle to eking out a living first. So if the goal of The Auckland Plan is to be Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, Affordable while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City then the current DURT pile that is making the opposite of the intended goal happen must be eliminated best as possible! A plan like all other things can be as simple or as complex as one makes it, my vision and LADU model are trying to simplify planning so that people can conduct their affairs in a manner that is efficient and thrifty and most of all the end product was affordable. By keeping the plans simple; then Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations and Taxes that arise from overtly complex operation would be eliminated! Centralised Master (Community) Plans and Semi-Liberal Planned Districts trying to Keeping It Simple Stupid aka DURT Busting.
36 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Overview of Takanini East Greenfield Development Area (See separate LTP submission for full details) Scale @ A3 1:25,00010
10
37 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Overview of Papakura Greenfield Development Area (See separate LTP submission for full details) Scale @ A3 1:25,00011
11
38 | P a g e
Section Two Transport
39 | P a g e
Overview
Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrates the vision for Aucklands transport over the next thirty years (until 2040). Map 11.1 on page 162 (Chapter Eleven) of the Draft Auckland Plan illustrates the Auckland Councils vision of Aucklands Strategic Transportation Network by 2040. While Map 11.3 on page 170 (Chapter Eleven) of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrates Aucklands top transport projects through until 2040. My brief assessment of the entire chapter and these two mentioned maps came to these following points and/or conclusions That the chapter while relatively brief for projects that would cost the city and nation billions of dollars does give a comprehensive list of projects for the city that would be deemed necessary over the 30-odd year timeframe I agree with most of the transport projects in Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan, I believe some alterations are need to what should be done/built, what shouldnt be done or built and moving projects backwards or forwards time wise. The city as a whole needs to be creative while absolutely realistic in paying for these transport projects. We as a city cannot entirely rely on rates, debt and central government to constantly stump up the funds needed. Alternatives such as tolling, public-private partnerships and even maybe a poll tax need to be seriously considered and debated maturely (something our left-right wing factions in Auckland seem they cannot do on a regular basis) We as a city need realise some cold hard truths about our city, how we live, move and conduct our affairs, and where we want to end in 2040! Before I go on with my alternative objectives for Aucklands Transport, some truths need to be realised first. These truths not only come from evidence sourced academically, but from ones experience and reality of living and working in Auckland and interacting with fellow Auckland citizens in the same regard. In my opinion, it is ones experience and (perception of) reality of living and working in Auckland that would form the best foundation for planning Aucklands transport needs. In simple terms every single Auckland citizen and business would be a transport planner, each uses a mode of transport (if not multi-modal) and can give what they think needs to be done to make their (and often others) transit trips easier and more efficient as they are the ones (rather than relying on planners solely in their Ivory Towers) that would be using the transit system. My submission for Auckland Transport is more based on my experiences and perceptions of reality of the Auckland Transport system rather than using overseas models (as one former Prime Minister said: ("Neither Keynes or Marx, nor indeed [Milton] Friedman, was a New Zealander and the one economic truth that every Minister of Finance should accept is that you cannot take a blueprint from some other economy, slap it on this country, and expect it to work"- Sir Robert Muldoon) the same applies to planning and transport principles)
40 | P a g e
My Transport Rationale
Maps 11.1 and 11.3 in Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrate the Auckland Transit Network and projects through to 2040. In this submission I am tweaking around Councils vision into something I believe more viable (economically, environmentally and socially) for the city. My rational acknowledges the fact that I do not agree entirely with the compact city ideal of The Draft Auckland Plan. Rather than this 75:25 split between brownfield/intensification and greenfield split which I see as driving affordability out of households and businesses reach, I advocate (which is also constant with my Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation section of my submission) more of a 50:50 split between the two LADU fields. This 50:50 split would achieve the following: choice of housing and business locations, affordability and economic progress so as a result transport would be moulded around the 50:50 split. Apart from a few major things/changes, again I agree mostly with The Draft Auckland Plans vision for Auckland Transport system. Therefore the transport section of this submission deals with those major things/changes and my priority system of what should be done over the next thirty years in Auckland. Again for brevity, this submission focuses on the Central Business District and south (but including areas near the Eastern Rail Line).
41 | P a g e
Those Major Transit Links

As mentioned in the Outline, this submission will focus on what are considered major transit links needed in Auckland to improve the efficiency of the regional transit network. These links are however not limited to: Eastern Highway and AMETI Inner City Rail Link Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment South-to-Manukau Rail Link completion Rail Station re-deployments/additions (where required) Bus route reallocations and priorities Future Proof the following lines: Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri) Botany Line South West Line North Shore Line These links again would be constant in providing an efficient transit network for a city and LADU allocation around the 50:50 Intensification/Greenfield development split. These major transit links would also assist in the Plans main goal around affordability (and economic progress). However again for the sake of brevity and limited resources, this document will only be focusing physical infrastructure development, adding bus or T3 lanes on existing infrastructure will not be mentioned unless necessary. Detail, ideas or alternatives mentioned in this submission for The Draft Auckland Plan are in summary form only. Full technical details and implementation strategies of transportation mentioned in this submission will be in a (separate) submission for the Auckland Long Term Plan.
42 | P a g e
The EASTDOR Eastern Highway and AMETI

In 2002 a report called the Eastern Corridor Strategy Study (EASTDOR) was published outlining the potential of a highway running parallel to the Eastern Rail Line and to Manukau City via Ti Rakau and Te Irirangi Drive. The Eastern Highway was also designed to allow a Rapid Transit System to be connected to the wider Rapid Transit Network for greater efficiencies and realisation of public transport in Eastern Auckland. Unfortunately the Eastern Highway was scuttled when the (now former) Auckland City Mayor John Banks was replaced by (now former mayor) Allan Hubbard and an alternative AMETI was put forward. AMETI is effectively a patch work design of improving local roads to assist traffic (private, freight and public) moving through the area. I do not agree with AMETI at all and believe the EASTDOR Eastern Highway should be built by 2018 as viable thoroughfare for private, public and freight traffic. Section 3.5, page 17 of Eastern Corridor Strategy Study Final Report provided three different option that could have been chosen from: Local, Sub-Regional and Regional. I would ask those looking at this submission to refer to the above mentioned section of the EASTDOR report12 for further details on the three options. If the original project did go ahead, it would have been acceptable and viable to start with the Local Function option first and then upgrade progressively as demand for the arterial increases. However nearly ten years have passed and the population and demand for transport has continued to grow, with the need for this highway now more urgent than ever. I will not go into the technical details of the original EASTDOR report nor the correspondence on the merits of the project. But essentially this highway (modified to the now changed environment) built at minimum the Sub-Regional Function level (4-lane expressway with provisions of bus lanes if required, maximum speed of the highway 80km/h rather than 50km/h for the Local Function Option and 100km/h for the motorway Regional Function option) to allow Auckland to move in a more efficient manner AND allow travellers an alternative to the congested State Highway One. The good thing is that a technical report on building the highway is on the shelf ready to go. Auckland (with the assistance of central government) would be able to go through the consent process and have the highway completed by 2018. No need for waiting for another report to be drawn up as the currently on-the-shelf plan could be easily adapted for 2012s environment (from the 2002 environment). If built the Eastern Highway would allow the following: 1. Alternative to State Highway One for those travelling to and from the central city 2. Alternative to SH1 and the steep gradient Grafton Gully for port traffic 3. Provision for a more efficient Rapid Transit Network (buses) along the highway (although rail would be the more preferred RTN option) than using existing roads 4. Faster and more efficient movement of traffic in the Eastern Suburbs wishing to travel more than local distances 5. If future proofed properly at the Quay Street End, would continue as the second harbour multimodal tunnel crossing from the intersection of that highway and State Highway 16 (leading to Grafton Gully) to Esmonde Road Interchange Takapuna 6. Get through traffic off the local roads and onto the highway 7. If future proofed at the Mt Wellington End, would allow a straight East-West connection to State Highway 20, the airport and major industry The Eastern Highway if built would allow the Tamaki Reconnected program to be realised to its fullest extent, as the program (see attached document Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected
12
Eastern Corridor Strategy Study, Final Report August 2002. Provided for the former Auckland City Council
43 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Initiative, Community Transformation Plan) does rely on efficient transit links which the Eastern Highway forms I am neither pro-road nor pro-public transport, I advocate for both as each have their place in the city. The Eastern Highway, coupled with Inner City Rail Line and Third Rail Line between the Port and Papakura would be part of package that would provide the best option in allowing Auckland to move. This package as I would call it (which should be given priority one and two status) allows maximum choice to users on which transit mode/route to pick/use and allow the Plans goal of affordability to be realised. And yes I would use the Eastern Highway to get to and from work in the Central Business District (and to get to the North Shore when visiting) when rail is not an option (timetable limitations and shift work) and State Highway One is also not viable for whatever reason As for funding the Eastern Highway, a $1 car and $3 truck toll (located near where the current Meadowbank Rail Station is) would supplement funding that would come from the general transport fund (unless congestion charges were implemented).
44 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Map of Overview of Eastern Highway (Scale @ A3, 1:100,000)13
13
45 | P a g e
Inner City Rail Link

Will not say much apart from it (the link) needs to be done as soon as possible. HOWEVER the Council must explore all funding options as the current 50:30:16:4 (Central Government, Alternative Transport Sources, Rates, Developers Contributions) split offered if in my opinion not viable. The Council should explore Public Private Partnerships and maybe even a poll tax to help fund the critical rail link. In a separate submission for the Auckland Long Term Plan, I will outline alternative suggestions and implementation strategies for the Inner City Rail Link.
Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment

Please refer to page 16 of the separately attached Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative, Community Transformation Program document for details and methodology behind the realignment project.
South-to-Manukau Link Completion

At the moment the Manukau Branch Rail Line connects to the North Island Main Trunk Link in a northerly fashion. Simply put trains go to and from Manukau north to Puhinui station and beyond. Trains do not have the opportunity of going Manukau-Homai and south direct as the rail turnout at Puhinui does not allow it. This means an inconvenient transfer at Puhinui Station for passengers wanting to go to/from Manukau to/from Papakura. Completing the junction would allow trains to serve south of Manukau in a more direct efficient manner, increasing the efficiency and desirability of the Manukau Line and its benefits to the south end of Southern Auckland. I recommend this as a priority one project to be completed by 2014!
Rail Station re-deployments/additions

To gain maximum efficiency on the passenger rail network stations need to be placed in strategic locations in order to best serve communities and users, as well as maximising efficiencies of the network. Therefore I recommend the following alterations to stations (see maps for illustrative examples): Move Meadowbank station closer to the Meadowbank Tunnel entrance. Make sure station has adequate Park and Ride as well as bus stop facilities. This is especially as the station would be close the Eastern Highway RTN and tolling systems. Re-opening of Tamaki Rail Station. Please see pages 23-25 of the separately attached Tamaki Reconnected: A Tamaki Reconnected Initiative, Community Transformation Program document for details and methodology behind re-opening the station Add Park and Ride as well as bus feeder facilities at Otahuhu station to improve the efficiency and desirability of the station Close Te Mahia station and reallocate Takanini Station next to where the planned Addison Town Centre is proposed to be built. Make sure the relocated station has adequate Park and Ride and major bus feeder facilities Reallocating a station at Drury when Greenfield development in the area occurs. Station to also be provided with again adequate bus feeder and Park and Ride Facilities
46 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross Of course with these alterations on the rail network, reworking of the train timetable will be necessary. The priority system below and a separate submission for the Auckland Long Term Plan will outline the implementation strategy for the Rail Station Redeployment / Addition system.
Bus route reallocations and priorities

In short buses should be complementing not competing against the rail network when the rail network is nearby. Feeder buses using high frequency seated shuttle buses would be feeding passengers in and out of major rail stations. Effectively the buses would feed the station up to two or three kilometre radius from the station and be synchronised with the train timetable and systems. However that radius could be extended in situations like buses serving Howick and feeding city bound passengers into the Panmure Rail Station rather than travelling further on into the city. Where feeder buses cannot feed into a rail station, those feeder buses would feed into major bus stations/stops that would serve larger 72 seat buses running up and down a road RTN.
Future Proofing Rail Lines

These lines should be future proofed for when the need for rail does eventuate: Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri) Botany Line South West Line North Shore Line In most cases a bus RTN (and widening State Highway 20B) serving where the rail lines for the areas bullet pointed above will be adequate for those route until about 2020-2025. Although with major development at the airport especially around freight and logistics, I would recommend to Auckland Council doing a viability study on the Airport Line option to be built from 2015 in handling both passengers AND freight. I would like to know once and for all in a technical report if (what is called in the rail business a Depot Shunt: a small locomotive pulling upwards of 10 freight wagons from a private businesss rail siding to the primary deports at Westfield, Southdown and Wiri) freight shunting services could be provided economically and efficiently to large logistic/freight hubs located at the airport. If it cannot then at least I know formally that it cannot. The priority suggestion will provide an outline of which projects should be done in which order to best serve Auckland.
47 | P a g e
The Priority System

As resources and capital is scarce, a priority system is needed best allocate those scarce resources and capital to extend Aucklands Transport System. This priority system in this submission will be brief with extended details provided in a separate submission to the Auckland Long Term Draft Plan.
Priority One (To be completed by 2018) Building of the Eastern Highway (to the Sub-Regional Standard Option as mentioned in Section 3.5 of the EASTDOR Final Report Realigning the Westfield Diamond Relocating or adding rail stations Re allocating bus routes, improving bus feeder systems to rail stations or bus RTN systems Feasibility Study of the Airport Rail Line including freight option Starting the bus RTN roll out especially along State Highway 20, 20A and 20B South-to-Manukau Rail Link Completion
Priority Two (To be completed by 2025) Completion of Inner City Rail Link Third Rail Line from Port to Papakura Airport Rail Line (if deemed feasible) Second Harbour Crossing South West Rail Line (if freight is still moving to Northland) Rail Electrification to Hamilton (not mentioned or included in this submission)
Priority Three (To be completed by 2040 or optional) Botany Rail Line North Shore Rail Line Upgrade Eastern Highway from Sub Regional Function option to full Regional Function option
This priority system was created in attempt to create an idea on how transportation projects should be rationalised and built over the next thirty years with scarce resources and capital. Priorities can change as the transportation needs change for Auckland. Through creating the basic outline of the Auckland Transportation Network over the next 30 years, and through more technical analysis in the Long Term Plan Submission, it is hoped that Aucklands transport needs will not virtually bankrupt the city and allow the city to be known again for its affordability and economic progress. Also the Auckland Transport Network ideas outline is designed to complement the LADU system also mentioned in this submission. The LADU system proposed in this submission is to allow the submissions goal to be realised and affordability plus economic progress not be strangled by DURT!
48 | P a g e
Concluding Remarks on Transport

The vision behind the transport proposal in this submission was designed to move away from the Pro-This or Pro-That style of politics that has seen and marred Aucklands Transport for over fifty years. Thus items about Aucklands Transport in this submission were designed to recognise that car (especially), bus, truck and rail will be with the city for a long time to come and that people should be allowed travel choice (bearing responsibility and consequences for their choice as well). As a result a more balanced multi-modal alternative transport vision was written in this submission that included both road and public transport infrastructure provisions. These provisions are ultimately designed to complement the dual (Centralised Master (Community) Plan and Semi-Liberal Planned District) Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation models of land use over the next thirty years. Through complementing the transport and Land Allocation/Development and Utilisation objectives and plans, the goal of this entire submission (to make Auckland affordable and thus The Most Liveable City) can be realised. At the same time a basic outline of a three tier priority system for which transportation projects should be priority one and so on. The idea behind the priority system is to rationalise scarce resources and capital for Aucklands expensive transport requirements while being as balanced as possible to provide for all transit modes. A separate submission in the Auckland Long Term Plan will provide a more detailed and technical report into funding and feasibility of the transport projects.
49 | P a g e
Notes
A note of the Port of Auckland It has been noticed that a debate has arisen over the future of the Port of Auckland (New Zealands most important and largest port). Questions have been risen over whether to curtail operation expansion or even relocate the port in its entirety away from the CBD waterfront to allow the public access. It might be wise of the Auckland Council to conduct a full technical report by a private company in partnership with the council and the University of Auckland on what options the city and Port of Auckland have to serve the interests best for the city and the nation. Does Port of Auckland stay and expand, stay and not expand or relocate somewhere brand new?
A note of Local Community Boards While writing this submission and debating with fellow Auckland citizens it occurred to me that a study should be done on the following: Should Local Community Boards be Bulk Funded. Through bulk funding Local Community Boards, each board would get a set amount each financial cycle to use in running day to day operations of their local community. Day to day operations being: Local park and street maintenance Local community hall maintenance Small scale local community projects like a building or park restoration Maintenance of Local Libraries Overseeing SLPD-LADU operations in coordination with the Council (central regulatory body) Bulk funding could allow Local Community Boards more say over the affairs of their local community. It could allow greater efficiencies within the council system as Local Community Boards could respond faster to the needs of their locals than the central council body. It could also allow more community participation in the Local Community Board process with citizens being engaged with their local board over their local affairs. But Auckland will not know unless someone does a study in the feasibility of this idea.
50 | P a g e
Concluding Remarks
This submission was written in response to Auckland Councils Draft Auckland Plan. The purpose behind this submission was to outline a basic vision I would like to see Auckland go through until 2040. A basic outline of land use, transport and urban design / land use principles was included in this submission with more technical details being provided in the upcoming submission for the draft Auckland Long Term Plan. It is an exciting time for Auckland, and a one in a life time opportunity for a united Auckland to map out the next thirty-odd years. We need to get this right especially if we want Auckland to be the most liveable city. And by being liveable I mean affordable for all its citizens and businesses, and being economically prosperous through good economic progress. Auckland can no longer allow the DURT that has strangled the city to continue on for another 30 years, to allow the DURT to remain will not make Auckland the most liveable city but in fact the opposite! So lets as a city get this right the first time in a mature, level headed manner for ours and our future generations sake!
51 | P a g e
Abbreviations
AMETI: Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative CALD: Country Area Living Description CMCP: Centralised Master (Community) Plan DURT: Delays, Uncertainty, Regulations, Taxes LADU: Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation LTP: Long Term Plan (2012-2022) MoU: Memorandum of Understanding MUD: Municipal Utility District R-LADU-P: (Auckland) Regional Land/Allocation/Development/Utilisation Philosophies RTN: Rapid Transit Network SC4: Sim City 4 SLPD: Semi-Liberal Planned District (can be interchanged with SLDP/Semi-Liberal District Plan but both mean the same as SLPD
52 | P a g e
References
Works Cited
Arbury, J. (2011, October 23). Taking a fresh look at planning regulation. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from Auckland Transport Blog: http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-freshlook-at-planning-regulation/ Economist, U. (2011, September 21). Look to Texas to Solve Australian Housing Supply. Retrieved September 22, 2011, from Macro-Business Super Blog: http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ Maxis. (2003). Zone Tools. Simcity 4 Deluxe Edition. California, United States of America: Electronic Arts. McShane, O. (2011, September). On Oil-spills, Demographics and DURT - NBR Column Digging through the DURT. Retrieved September 26, 2011, from Centre for Resource Management Studies: http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spillsdemographics-and-durt?start=6
53 | P a g e

Ben&#39;s Auckland Plan Submission

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ben&#39;s Auckland Plan Submission

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2011

Submission to Draft Auckland Plan

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

The Existing and Historic Conditions of Auckland

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Land Use Outline

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Urban Design Outline

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

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Sourced and adapted from: http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (accessed October 2011)

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Methodology of Land Use (Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation)

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Centralised Master (Community) Plan

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Outline of the five Centralised Master (Community) Plans

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Semi-Liberal Planned District

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

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

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

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/23/taking-a-fresh-look-at-planning-regulation/ (Accessed October 2011)

Furthermore the article illustrates what a Municipal Utility District is:

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

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Rural and Coastal Settlements

Light Residential and Commercial

Rural and Coastal Villages

Restricted Light Residential and Commercial

Category International City Centre

Due to surrounding social or physical environment sensitivity

Medium Residential and Commercial

Includes Sylvia Park

Light Residential and Commercial

Urban Growth Corridors

Medium Residential and Commercial

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Final Remarks on Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation

Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)

Sourced and adapted from http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/ (Accessed October 2011)

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Section Two Transport

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Those Major Transit Links

Submission to the Draft Auckland Plan Benjamin W. Ross

Ben's Auckland Plan Submission

Ben's Auckland Plan Submission