According
to the revised Unitary Plan, Auckland is forecast to grow from a population of
1.4 million in 2013 to approximately 2.4 million over the next 30 years. A
Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) will clearly define where urban growth can and can’t
go in that period. The plan also sets a goal of providing 60% of new homes
being built within the existing metropolitan area, the 2010 Metropolitan Urban
Limit (MUL) and 40% outside the MUL in new greenfield developments. The plan
also sets goals for intensification, in terms of lot size, building storey etc.
Supporting
the Unitary Plan are two key documents. One is the 2012 Capacity for Growth
Study which is currently being updated to align with the Unitary Plan. The
Capacity for Growth Study will determine the maximum development capacity in
the Auckland region in terms of residential and commercial developments.
The
other key document is the Population Growth Model, which forecasts the rate of
growth, but does not include non-resident populations such as commercial,
healthcare, educational and visitor activities which also impact on planning
for growth.
To
enable growth, there needs to be alignment with the essential infrastructure
service providers of water, wastewater, drainage (stormwater), transport and
power. This means alignment of capital programmes to ensure all the services
are in place to enable the growth of the city, to provide for the residential
subdivisions, schools, healthcare and commercial activities.
However,
to align the capital programmes, there needs to be a clear understanding of the
time phasing of this spatial development. In the short-term, that is relatively
easy to ascertain. The areas that are already fully infrastructure enabled or
can be enabled quickly have already been identified as Special Housing Areas
(SHAs). It is also relatively easy to forecast the time phasing of growth based
on historical population growth and the percentage of development capacity
already developed.
Forecasting
the time phasing of spatial growth in the medium term outside the MUL is
significantly more challenging and requires a thorough understanding of the
developer community, market drivers and development enablers such as programmes
by other agencies to build education, healthcare and commercial centres. To
identify, prioritise and plan for these developments outside the MUL may be
harder with many developers wanting to benefit from the current upswing in
demand.
Ideally,
development should be market driven. Developers that have the right product at
an affordable price in a desired location should drive growth. People buying
what they want, where they want at a price they can afford.
But
life isn’t that simple. For this to happen all the infrastructure to cater for
all the growth over the next 30 years needs to be in place now, and none of the infrastructure
providers have the capital or human resources or time to enable that level of
market driven choice.
The
infrastructure providers need clarity on staged development - a planned
approach whereby specific areas are scheduled for infrastructure upgrades and
the land then released and re-designated to facilitate growth.
This
approach is not without drawbacks, particularly if the growth doesn’t occur
because the market was misinterpreted. There are plenty of examples in Auckland
where the city invested in infrastructure and the subsequent growth has been
slow and low. This approach also results in winner and losers in terms of land
values. It is in the interests of developers with large land holdings to lobby
Council to ensure the phasing of the release of land and re-designations are in
their interests.
To
circumvent these issues, previous councils, such as Manukau City, took the
approach that the developer is responsible for providing the enabling
infrastructure at their own cost. Thus a developer who wanted to develop a new
subdivision was responsible for the design and delivery of all bulk
infrastructure. This would also service
any upstream developments. Rebates to
the developer may only be distributed over time as Council raised developer
contribution funds from subsequent developers. So, first mover advantages come
with first mover costs. At best, this approach can lead to arbitrary, unplanned
growth combined with high section prices as developers pass on costs to
purchasers. At worst, it can stifle development as the cost of the enabling
infrastructure is too high for a single developer to absorb
Therefore
a debate is required between city planners, infrastructure providers and the
development community. A debate to ensure there is planned spatial growth. That
the infrastructure providers have the clarity and certainty required to
implement and cater for the increased demand. But the debate and the plan must
also be responsive to market demands and not result in winners and losers among the
developers who are ultimately building the future of the city.
This
thought leadership article is by Stephen Finnemore, a Technical Director at
Harrison Grierson.
Back to HG Perspective