KEN TREMAINECONSULTING LTD

Spatial Planning

Is it new or just a new name?

Ken Tremaine

RMLA Queenstown Branch Seminar25 August 2011

2

Introduction (1)• Since the new Auckland Council has to prepare a

spatial plan, are there learnings that could be applied to other parts of New Zealand?

• Using experience of growth strategies in Whangarei, Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, the Hawkes Bay, Taupo and Canterbury I will give an overview of:

– the statutory requirement to prepare a Spatial Plan for Auckland;

– ‘Auckland Unleashed’ (the Auckland Plan discussion document); and

3

Introduction (2)

– the relationships between the Spatial Plan, RPS, RLTS and RLTP, District Plans, TYPs/LTCCPs, other strategies, and a future unitary/regulatory plan for Auckland

• Today’s discussion will also consider:

– the limitations of the statutes involved; and

– the need for alignment between RMA 1991 plans and the infrastructure and funding plans prepared under other statutes

4

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – Section 79The starting point for Auckland spatial planning:

• Auckland Council must prepare and adopt a spatial plan

• Spatial Plan purpose: to contribute to Auckland's social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being through a comprehensive and effective long-term (20-30 years) strategy for growth and development

• The Spatial Plan will—– Set a strategic direction for Auckland (integrating

social, economic, environmental, & cultural objectives);

5

– Outline a high-level development strategy that will achieve that direction and those objectives;

– Enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by the Auckland Council (as the spatial planning agency) and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland in accordance with the strategy;

– Provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council.

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – Section 79 (continued)

6

• The Spatial Plan must—

– Recognise and describe Auckland's role in NZ;

– Visually illustrate how Auckland may develop in the future, including growth sequencing and infrastructure provision;

– Provide an evidential base to support decision making;

– Identify the existing and future location and mix of land use activities within specific geographic areas as well as critical infrastructure, services, and investment (including eg. services relating to cultural/social infrastructure, transport, water supply);

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – Section 79 (continued)

7

– Identify within Auckland, nationally and regionally significant:• recreational /open-space areas• ecological areas that should be protected from

development • areas with environmental constraints on

development eg flood-prone or unstable land• landscapes, areas of historic heritage value,

and natural features; and

– Identify policies, priorities, land allocations, and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction and specify how resources will be provided to implement the strategic direction

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – Section 79 (continued)

8

• The Auckland Council:– must involve central government, infrastructure

providers, communities, private and rural sectors, and other parties (as appropriate) throughout the preparation and development of the spatial plan

– must adopt the spatial plan in accordance with the special consultative procedure

– may amend the spatial plan, at any time (in accordance with the above 2 criteria)

– must endeavour to secure and maintain the support and co-operation of central government, infrastructure providers, communities, private and rural sectors, and other parties (as appropriate) in the implementation of the spatial plan

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – Section 80:development, adoption & implementation

9

The Auckland Plan: Step 1 - Auckland Unleashed• Auckland Unleashed: The Auckland Plan

Discussion Document– Proposed Goals– The Big Picture– Auckland Past and Present– People and Quality of Life– People and Economy– People and Environment– People and Place– People and Infrastructure– Implementation, Monitoring and Review

• Released in March 2011 • Submissions closed 31 May 2011

10

The Auckland Plan Timeframes• Document will be available for public consultation

between late August – November 2011

• For adoption by December 2011

• Will underpin the 2012-21 Ten Year Plan especially capital, depreciation and general budget needs

• Auckland Council will operate an integrated rating regime from July 2012

11

Other Initiatives – Local Government Reform

• Central Government is undertaking a review of the local government system called Smarter Government, Stronger Communities: towards better local governance and public services

• The purpose of this review is to consider and address questions relating to:– The structure, functions and funding of Local

Government, including the usefulness of unitary authorities for metropolitan areas;

– The relationship between Local Government and Central Government, including the efficiency of local government participation

• Not sure where this will take spatial planning

12

Other upper North Island Influences

• NZTA Inter Regional Freight analysis

• An Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) - a formal co-operation agreement between Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Northland and Waikato regions and the major metropolitans within these regions

– It is about developing a closer working relationship on mutual interest matters

– The UNISA partners are intending to undertake collaborative work on areas such as economic development, transport and tourism

– There is potential to take this approach further

13

Where is all this stuff currently off to? (1)• It has energised the local government sector to look

at itself• Upper NI regions and TAs are asking: Do we need

to stay on the case here? Where do we fit given Government’s emphasis on growing the Auckland economy? Are we still part of the action??

• The influence of the 8 Cabinet papers prepared (and released in March 2011) to coincide with the public consultation on Auckland Unleashed:  

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Legislative-Reviews-Royal-Commission-on-Auckland-Governance-Index?OpenDocument#spatial

• The recent release of work commissioned by MED on how the Auckland, Hamilton and Bay of Plenty urban economies work (i.e. Ascari report)

14

Where is all this stuff currently off to? (2)

• The tensions between agglomeration investment theory and a wider regional-upper North Island perspective

• The Auckland Unitary Plan will follow during 2012• Some mutually interested councils looking at

shared services and other mechanisms off the back of the Auckland Plan

• The Phase 2 RMA 1991 reforms is currently on hold till sometime in 2012

• Our challenge: what is the role of the RMA 1991 in spatial planning, given the challenges of the RMA processes??

15

How will current spatial plan thinking add value? (1)

• It will sharpen up strategic thinking – Key physical, economic, social and cultural areas– Will assist with developing key linkages and taking

a broader inter-regional perspective

• Integration– Long term land use– Infrastructure– Funding

• It will assist us to better understand development feasibility. Post the GFC very little development is economic though life won’t remain like this

16

How will current spatial plan thinking add value? (2)

• Growth strategies are having to review locations, staging and timing to determine whether development will occur where it is planned, and whether it is still feasible

• There has been a significant drop in land values, developer profits and market confidence

• The loss of DC revenue has caused fiscal stress for some councils

• A number of councils are questioning the pure ‘growth pays for growth’ philosophy

17

Can it happen as a voluntary collaboration - or would it require legislative change? • Auckland – the legislative model is the LGA 2002

• The UDS in Greater Christchurch, Future Proof in Greater Hamilton, SmartGrowth in the western BoP, and HPUDS in Hawkes Bay are all voluntary initiatives under the LGA 2002 which are anchored through:– RMA 1991 (RPS and DPs)– LGA 2002 (TYPs/LTCCPs)– LTMA 2003 (RLTS, RLTP)

• Cannot legislate for effective relationships but a voluntary approach assists relationship development, building of trust, and anchors ongoing implementation

18

Do we need any further statutory amendments? (1)The short answer is yes. But how and when?

• 3 long term statutes RMA 1991, LGA 2002, LTMA 2003 – none fit together well

• Not much Government leadership or will for statutory amendment. MfE thinks the Phase 2 RMA reforms is all we need!!

• Amendments will be required to anchor the Auckland Plan in the RMA 1991

• Central Government will probably enable spatial planning for the growth areas of NZ through the Phase 2 RMA reforms but this is not all we need

• RMA amendments can’t mandate detailed physical/community infrastructure planning or funding. Neither can it link the critical land use and transport funding. Only LGA amendments can do this

Do we need any further statutory amendments? (2)• There needs to be more effective legislative support for

the current range of tools. For example RPS provisions such as urban limits, and residential densities

• Some jurisdictions of the Environment Court want to consider the appropriateness of such tools on a case by case basis meaning that these issues are re-litigated in different regions eg. there are emerging issues in Canterbury where the Court is questioning such tools

• There is no nationwide approach underpinned by agreed implementation tools that have legislative backing or support

• Is it time for a NPS on urban growth management as well as urban design? An opportunity to define the tools

19

Do we need any further statutory amendments? (3)• Should there be a hierarchy of spatial plans/growth

strategies (both regional & sub-regional)? What level of detail should the regional spatial plan contain if it is to be effective?

• Need to rationalise the planning framework so spatial planning is not an addition but supplants the RPS and Regional Plans; the District Plan is but one tool for spatial plan implementation

• Spatial plans could lead the future direction of a region based on the LGA 2002’s 4 well beings. This is a valuable approach as Government retrenches to the centre, has decreasing regional presence apart from Auckland, and planning/decision making becomes more centralised eg health

20

21

Some concluding observations (1)

• A spatial plan is a powerful tool. We do some of it currently in a number of areas, but we need to join up the dots. Need to take a wider, more comprehensive regional approach

• What is done in any particular area will depend on local circumstances. It will always be to a large extent an application of fundamental principles overlaid with ‘horses for courses’

• There are often tensions between a regional council and any large metropolitan as to “who is in charge around here?” Negotiated collaboration like UNISA, has to be agreed before there will be any enduring progress

22

Some concluding observations (2)

• Don’t expect much Central Government leadership. It will be to a large extent a follower rather than a leader here. It will always be happiest championing voluntary initiatives

• Where the Local Government reforms will head (if anywhere effective) is a post election call

• We need to remember that a lot of the tools in the spatial planning toolkit are not new. It’s how we apply them more effectively in response to:– Post-GFC challenges; and– Central Government’s interest in growing the upper

North Island economy

23

Some concluding observations (3)• Also what statutory assistance do we need, when

there doesn’t seem to be a single silver bullet?• Developing a strong inter-statutory relationship

between 3 parallel planning statutes (i.e. the RMA 1991, the LGA 2002 and the LTMA 2003) is the challenge

• If you want to move ahead, get on with it and shape your own outcomes!