SPRING 2016
longer terms. Therefore, planning should (in theory)
be more responsive to market economics.
The objectives of the proposed NPS – UDC apply to
all local authorities. However, some policies will only
apply to local authorities containing high growth
urban areas, while other policies apply to high and
medium growth urban areas.
“There is a risk of
over-regulation from
central government
through increasing the
requirements on councils
to produce housing and
business land assessments
which, in truth, should be
part of the existing
district and regional
planning process.
It is not about strategic
direction but rather,
giving councils sufficient
flexibility to identify
their needs.”
In practice, the NPS – UDC will mean that local authorities in medium or high growth urban areas will
be required to carry out housing and business land
assessments at specified three year intervals. These
assessments will estimate the demand for different
types and locations in order to ensure the supply of
development capacity to meet that demand in the
short, medium and long-term. Such local authorities
must have particular regard to demographic change,
changes in the local economy and information on
the market’s response to planning. This will include
51
future land release and intensification strategies.
There are similar obligations on regional councils
to facilitate the supply of residential and business
development capacity.
ANALYSIS
The proposed NPS – UDC is, without doubt, designed
within the context of the Auckland housing crisis. The
problem is that the proposed NPS – UDC creates a
one size fits all approach and this is difficult to maintain across all the different forms of urban development in New Zealand. The issues facing Christchurch
with the rebuilding of a whole CBD are very different
from the expanding suburbia that is taking place on
the North Shore of Auckland.
A targeted response for Auckland could have been
achieved through amendments to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to specifically
address Auckland’s needs.
As the objectives of the proposed NPS – UDC apply
to all local authorities, the relevance of many objectives in the proposed NPS – UDC to smaller urban
centres is misplaced.
The whole point in having local and regional councils is to address the specific issues facing each locality and region. There is a risk of overregulation from
central government through increasing the requirements on councils to produce housing and business
land assessments which, in truth, should be part of
the existing district and regional planning process.
It is not about strategic direction but rather, giving
councils sufficient flexibility to identify their needs.
There is also a real concern that the NPS – UDC
does not appropriately address infrastructure, instead
relying on the provisions of the Local Government Act
2002 in which councils are able to charge for the cost
of infrastructure to support developments. This is inherently a disincentive to development and results in
‘land banking’ until such time that developers can afford to develop. But it must be appreciated that once
infrastructure is in place, development will occur.
CONCLUSION
Given the New Zealand Law Society’s submission on
the proposed NPS – UDC that the proposed NPS –
UDC is unnecessary, it can only be hoped that the NPS
– UDC is refined in order to provide sufficient flexibility for local and regional councils for the future. There
is a real risk that the short term gains of development
will bring about long-term infrastructure issues that
are seen in the current Auckland transport system.
We need to tread with care.