Joining us tonight to discuss if the Unitary Plan is a scam…
Child Poverty Action Group’s spokesperson on housing – Frank Hogan
St Heliers/Glendowie Residents’ Association spokesperson – Bill Carlin
Transport Blog editor and Greater Auckland representative – Patrick Reynolds
On the Phone, Chairperson of the Otara Papatoetoe Local Board – Efeso Collins
and on Skype, Labour Party Housing Spokesperson, Phil Twyford
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It was always the “Plan” to have a Free-For-All-Build anywhere across Auckland. No limits, unrestricted, the Free Market will sort it out?!
This has been the “dogma” from Mbie, ATEED & Council with the SHA’s, AHA’s for the past 4 years. Snake Oil Salesmen peddling this bs to iwi in Tamaki who haven’t settled their Treaty Settlement yet.Telling them to build housing on properties offered to them on account. Meanwhile the beneficiary community wait as well as carry the risks involved with these deals when they go south. The Crown doesn’t indemnify losses on tick?
An interesting discussion here, but who of the honourable gentlemen in this round on Waatea 5th Estate did properly address one factor in the equation, that is on the demand side, being net immigration being at record levels and showing no signs of slowing?
This is some Census data from 2013:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/Pages/censusinaucklandhome.aspx
More info here on dwellings and so forth:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/Documents/aucklanddwellingshouseholdsinitialresults2013census201405.pdf
From page 3 of that last report:
“At the 2013 New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings:
• There were 473,451 occupied dwellings in Auckland –
an increase of 33,750 dwellings (7.7%) since 2006. Average annual growth between 2006 and 2013 for occupied dwellings was 1.1 per
cent – lower than the growth rate of 2001 to 2006 (2.2%).
• The majority of occupied dwellings in Auckland were private dwellings (99.7%, or 472,044 dwellings).
• There was almost no change in the number of unoccupied dwellings in Auckland between 2006 and 2013 – an increase of
30 to a total of 33,360 across the region. This was a significantly smaller increase than the previous inter-censal period, when the
number of unoccupied dwellings had increased by 3,744, or 12.7 per cent”
So according to the recommendations by the ‘Independent Hearing Panel’ (on the Unitary Plan and to Council), we are until the early 2040s going to intensify Auckland (at least enable this) to allow for a population increase of another 700,000 to 1,000,000 and an increase over 400,000 dwellings.
That is a near doubling of the population, creating massive demand, which will not lower prices at all, unless the economy slows significantly.
Such demand will not create a sustainable city, as we are already facing a shortage of water, as Watercare has only capacity for up to another 45,000 homes (as of Sept. 2015).
Why does nobody address this challenge?
Auckland should never have been allowed to sprawl as it has, to a size of close to Los Angeles, and should perhaps be more compact, with outer suburbs being abolished (over time). Nearly doubling the population is hardly the solution to achieve more sustainability and effciencies, as we will have ever more stress not only on water supplies, transport infrastructure, and homes needing to be provided, we will need more health services, schools, ECEs, teachers, health workers, builders, and it goes on and on and on.
Nobody addresses the elephant in the room, all fearing to be labeled “xenophobic”, and so we are heading into more issues and a future failure of city development, which will certainly not be the “most live-able city” Len Brown has tried to sell us.
John Key and his government do not care, they want “growth” for growth’s sake, and more business, more jobs, jobs, jobs, never mind they will not pay a living and enough to buy homes that will in their majority cost over 800,000 Dollars a piece.
Further I ask, what economic benefit, in the form of productivity and value growth, does creation of housing have? Of course it is a basic necessity, needs to be good quality, large enough for the tenants and/or owners to live comfortably, it needs to be well built, and fulfilling all requirements, offers healthy living and security for people.
But homes are not paying a dividend or wage or salary, unless they are let to renters, who pay rent. So the owners that let places earn from it, but the tenants have a high living expense, and without a chance to save for their own home to own, they will simply pay for the benefit of the privileged owners.
A home is not a factory, a business that sells much in the way of products or services, and hence is not as productive in economic terms. We have sadly an over reliance on investment in residential and also commercial real estate, rather investment in more productive economic activity here in NZ.
By simply creating growth in a city by nearly doubling the population, we do of course create some economic growth for the time being, to build homes and infrastructure, but once population growth stops, and all has been built, then the growth stops, unless we switch over to do more productive things with the people.
Are we not simply creating a kind of growth scenario that resembles nothing much more of a pyramid marketing kind of business approach, or even a Ponzi scheme?
Growth of such types, on limited time, will not prepare the country for the future, it is not going to improve anything, unless we create products and services that can be produced and created here, and that can be sold also as exports, to pay for goods we need from other places.
Where is the base to employ the near a million new Aucklanders in this geographical space productively for future generations, in a world with finite resources, I ask?
Patrick Reynolds had no right to have a personal dig at Martyn Bradbury and Phil Twyford. I got very annoyed that he played dirty with those kind of put downs. Thankfully, Martyn Bradbury knew how to handle him.
Funny that Patrick Reynolds a proponent of the “free market’ still wants government intervention.
Patrick Reynolds came across as a knob. I have heard transport blog is pretty good, but with arrogant guys like that representing them – no wonder transport is ridiculous in Auckland if this is the type of person in the ‘progressive’ lobby group.
Ride roughshod over peoples rights, and then tell them you know best even though our public transport using these methods have been a disaster with AT (in the courts for corruption this week) and Auckland Council so incompetent their evidence was thrown out for the unitary plan, but luckily put back in by the ‘independent’ commissioners who are not independent and appointed and paid by the council.
The ‘Independent Hearings Panel’ was appointed by the Minister for the Environment, as far as I can gather. That was an appointment by a National Party member Minister. But it may be hard to prove there was some inappropriate process followed in that. Nevertheless, there are backgrounds that one may investigate, and the conduct and actions of them to judge. One thing to note with some interest is the following:
The Panel’s report and recommendations to Auckland Council showed also the feasibility studies for enabled housing for Auckland:
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/unitaryplan/ihpoverviewofrecommendationsann1.pdf
A memo on page 18 mentions this:
“Patrick Fontein of Studio D4 (SD4) has been engaged by the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to work with Auckland Council (AC) , to review the residential development capacity of the urban Auckland areas, using the IHP’s proposed rules and zoning of areas, using the ACDC Model, as described in the Section below. SD4 have been provided with the proposed IHP changes during the last few months, and these have been fully incorporated into these latest results of the ACDC. Please refer to the IHP’s Report for the details of the proposed rules and zone changes. The urban area definition is also contained within the IHP Report…”
Mr Fontein has been involved in property development for many years, and some of his projects did not work out that well. Despite of this he was part of the “experts” who were running and reviewing the computer models, used to establish how much economically feasible, enabled homes could be created in Auckland over the coming two and a half decades.
Pages 59 and 60 of the report found via the above link show the figures Labour relied on, based on a “maximum return scenario”, which most developers would usually prefer in a liberally applied market situation, which the Hearings Panel have now recommended.
Info on Mr Fontein and his past endeavors:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/fontein-loses-bankruptcy-battle-133654
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4330378/Property-developer-made-error-of-judgement
He is now a “consultant”?! He lobbied strongly before the IHP and also Council, for the kind of “Plan” that has now been recommended.
He was in doing so also representing the business sector on the computer modelling that was done as part of the Unitary Plan hearings process, to provide info on feasibility.
So the report by that Hearings Panel is not only partly based on his work and interpretations, but it bears also his fingerprints.
Please note, page numbers mentioned are the pages in the PDF, not to be confused with numbers on various documents included in it.
REMEMBER, it was THE PANEL, that authorised this appointment, besides of others, to do this work! No wonder the developers got such a strong input in it all, and that should raise valid question about who has worked with whom in the past, and who may have certain leniency towards the outcome now recommended.
Mr Fontein’s present role and business interests:
http://www.studiod4.co.nz/personnel/
Thanks for the info Mike.
Interesting to find out that the commissioners were appointed by the National Government not council. You have to wonder how they can be independent when the government told them what to do and said they would take over if they didn’t.
Like the Supercity all over again, but probably worse as has much worse ramifications for Aucklander’s.
The whole thing is a scam because it was all run through lobby groups anyway giving ‘evidence’ – nobody actually examines this ‘evidence’ and the ‘experts’ are all planners and lawyers paid for by rich lobby groups to get their way in the plan. The National government has already publicly decided the outcome.
Many examples of this happening in Auckland and the fight is not to provide more housing, but make more money in most cases. People were eyeing up the unitary plan to weaken heritage for a long time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11299361
Europe has many systems in place to protect heritage and surprisingly places like the UK still manage to house millions of people, have extremely tight planning rules, while not wrecking their cities and destroying Heritage.
The other issues, is that the unitary plan is so difficult to understand for most people (and the council website is very unfriendly with very difficult user interfaces) is that is by it’s nature of complexity not democratic, let alone by dismissing homeowners who do disagree, as though that is an acceptable reason to disenfranchise people.
Cities are about who want’s to live in them. It is a foolish to override how people want to live, demolish everything by developers who have done a terrible job so far, for a theoretical model of maybe. If you don’t have a solution for a problem, (housing affordability, climate change and transport) then don’t make it worse by pandering to the worst offenders and pretending the market will fix it all. The market is designed to make a profit, not to create healthy societies.
Thanks for that link, Save NZ, I note this with interest:
“Mr Friedlander, seventh on the NBR Rich List with a fortune of $950 million, is media shy and operates his vast property portfolio in Auckland through Samson Corporation and Sterling Nominees.”
So as I see it, we have the youthful, overly idealistic, but also highly naive ‘Generation Zero’ side with people like that, to “intensify” and “grow” Auckland, no matter what, I simply am flabbergasted.
Apart from looking like a Father Christmas wannabe panel, the short answer is that the unitary plan is a scam.
Was disappointed that the panel did not bother covering the scam factor much at all.
Phil spent a lot of time going on about the wrongs of the unitary plan but then announced Labour supported it!!! My God – Labour did it too, strikes again – why do they feel the need to support the Natz underhand and awful policy and attacks on democracy and the poor?
Frank representing the poor, again went on about the wrongs of the unitary plan for the poor but seemed to support it too???
Martin blamed the baby boomers and the middle class which is strange because they don’t even support the unitary plan.
Efeso blamed rich people north of Auckland who again do not seem to support the unitary plan – but he also seemed to support it too.
Patrick supported it, while showing distain for everyone in the panel and who live in Auckland. Nice guy. Sarc. Should be head of planning at Auckland Council or a Natz MP with that attitude.
It’s the rich listers, land bankers, National government, right wing councillers, Asian leaders and the so called poverty groups (for the rich, go figure) like these pushing it through – not the majority of people who actually live in Auckland.
The people in Auckland would prefer to wait for public transport and actually have the plan work effectively. like Bill who said that in his area, the plan over rides it’s own criteria. Ie denser houses but the transport is not there nor is the affordability.
WTF if the unitary plan not about to help affordability and the poor then why appear to support it and blame others who don’t support it for the issues! You not only look stupid but also you only have yourself to blame.
If the unitary plan is wrong, say so and protest until it is fixed. Don’t have a mixed message and attack those that speak out about the lack of democracy and inherent problems of transport and affordability.
And of course nobody mentioned immigration because having record immigration for years in a row has nothing to do with the housing crisis in Auckland. sarc.
We just hear about ++demand issues++ The quickest and cheapest way is to stop the housing crisis is to stop the +++demand issues+++
What a croc – if this debate is supposed to be hard hitting about the unitary plan.
Another strong facilitator and strongly pro intensification advocate is this consultant, who also strongly lobbied for a ‘Super Metropolitan Centre’ zone for Manukau:
https://nz.linkedin.com/in/benrossakl
https://about.me/rossben
Former McDonald’s “Swing Manager” and turned consultant, presently stay home dad, Ben Ross, he wants basically UNLIMITED heights being enabled, just as well the Hearings Panel did not quite go for that madness:
https://voakl.net/2016/07/29/did-the-super-metropolitan-centre-die-unitaryplan-hotels/
https://voakl.net/2016/08/03/future-of-papakura-and-the-unitaryplan/
https://voakl.net/2016/08/01/unitaryplan-debate/
Until Dec. 2012 he worked himself up within “Veolia”, the former French multinational owned Auckland train service, more a train wreck at times, and since then he has his own consultancy. He was a submitter on the Unitary Plan, and has consulted the Council before, same as others, private and public interest parties.
His submission (or part thereof):
https://www.scribd.com/document/298466748/Rezoning-Topic-081-South-Manukau-Primary-Evidence
I am somewhat relieved the Panel did not go there, but it seems the young planning fan and advocate has got enough of his expectations met by their recommendations, to make him excited.
It is all enable, enable, enable and build, build, build, the rules are lax and the outcome will be stuff to worry about. Remember the last time rules were relaxed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis
“The Building Act 1991, which came into effect about 1994, changed building controls from a prescriptive system to a more self-regulated regime. In addition, the Government dropped the apprentice training system for builders and the related building trades. Some developers and builders knowingly or carelessly constructed buildings with numerous faults and short-cuts. An architectural design trend towards Mediterranean-style houses with complex roofs, plastered exterior walls, internal decks and small or no eaves also factored in.[2]”
Let us wait and see what the outcome of this will be, the Unitary Plan version of looser rules.
For those who may be interested, the composition of the IHP that “heard” the submissions on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Judge Kirkpatrick has represented St Heliers’ residents before to protect heritage buildings, so one must ask, why he recommended, with his colleagues, as he did:
http://www.aupihp.govt.nz/profiles/#message
I fear that pressure from government, vested interest parties and so broke them down to make the recommendations they made, favouring developers and those land owners wanting to intensify, all based on the law of the market.
St Heliers’ residents may reflect on previous engagements with Mr Kirkpatrick.
Re this, see the number of consultants, also working for business, or having been in local government before, all somehow with vested interests, as I see it:
http://www.aupihp.govt.nz/profiles/#message
No wonder we got the recommendations they presented.
Info on the final round in the Unitary Plan debate, soon to be voted on by Auckland Council representatives in Committee:
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/82990/auckland-council-staff-suggest-councillors-reject-14-recommendations-made-expert
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2016/08/AUC_20160810_AGN_6585_AT_SUP.PDF
As I expected, only mostly minor changes requested by Council’s planners, as the IHP delivered them a Plan on a silver platter, which they would never have dared dream up themselves (Council planners that is).
Comments are closed.