Contact
Newsagent
Login
Auckland’s single plan is ready to speed up development – deputy mayor
Press Release – Auckland Council
Auckland is gearing up for more development and the Unitary Plan process will be the next step in making that happen says deputy mayor Penny Hulse.
Penny Hulse, who is chair of the Auckland Plan Committee, is responding to reported comments from Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard regarding the supply of land for development.
“Auckland Council is going through a process of amalgamating the various district and regional plans of the previous councils into a single Unitary Plan,” says Ms Hulse.
“We are putting in place a good up-front consultation process and are working with government to consider ways to implement the Unitary Plan in a timely fashion. That will speed up development and economic growth as well as protect our heritage and the environment.
“The Auckland Plan envisages that up to 70 per cent of new dwellings will be built within the current city boundary, while up to 40 per cent will be allowed in new greenfields land. This range allows for flexibility in a time of dynamic change and highlights that there will be plenty of land available to cater for growth.
“Auckland needs to build approximately 13,000 dwellings each year to keep up with population growth. It is important to note that there is currently provision for the development of approximately 18,500 dwellings on already zoned and serviced greenfield land.
“This land can be built on today, subject to the market, and means that current regulations around land-use are not the cause for unmet demand for housing. It is more correct to say that the difficult economic environment has resulted in the downturn in building activity.”
Auckland Council is also working on the Housing Strategic Action Plan that will focus exclusively on the role of council in housing affordability, and will develop options such as leveraging council assets and land in partnership with the private and/or third sector, the Unitary Plan, financial incentives and levies, development contributions and regulatory levers.
“There are a number of factors that need to be considered with regard to housing affordability. Uncontrolled release of land will simply result in uncontained sprawl with current ratepayers having to pick up the high cost of investment in new infrastructure.
“Auckland Council is happy to work with the government to look at ways of getting the Unitary Plan to have an impact as soon as possible so we can get on with developing the city.”
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
The Auckland Council states: “There are a number of factors that need to be considered with regard to housing affordability. Uncontrolled release of land will simply result in uncontained sprawl with current ratepayers having to pick up the high cost of investment in new infrastructure.”
This comment shows the complete lack of faith in markets to limit costs and prices. That ‘uncontained sprawl’ is actually people wanting to build homes when and where they want. The cost does not need to be put upon ‘current ratepayers’. An expansive new subdivision including roads, sewage pipes, power, and all the usual common good needs can be costed into the price of the sections. So that argument is false.
The true rationale is that Auckland Council bureaucrats are captured by the idea that dense cities are desirable. They therefore want to impose that idea regardless of peoples desires expressed in a free market to build their home where and when the prices will allow them to do so.
So the result of Auckland Council policies is unaffordable house prices. It will be interesting to see how long and if central government takes to do something about it.
Miles, your comment is both short sighted and incorrect. To say that unaffordable housing is due to the establishment of an urban growth boundary is misleading. Yes, urban growth boundaries have been shown to increase house prices but not to the extent of Auckland’s over inflated property market.
Dense cities are desirable from a ‘public good’ perspective as they enable (or enforce?) a more efficient use of limited resources and existing infrastructure. And if you factor in the environment costs of allowing further sprawl, which arguably has a comparitively higher impact on those most affected by unaffordable housing, enabling people to build their poorly designed, unsustainable ‘dream home’ in the burbs has an effect on taxpayers that they do not, and would not pay for.
Market faith, pfft. Market Failure.