Auckland Unitary Plan: What are the implications 2?

In the last blog I set out some of the bigger planning issues implicit in the recommended Auckland Unitary Plan providing the physical capacity for 1.5 m dwellings, with 'feasible' capacity within that number for up to 420,000 dwellings, over a 30 year time frame.

In this blog I want to look at the spatial allocation of the 'infill' capacity provided across the region (the 60% of future growth). Why is that important? Surely it is the top line number that is important - the 420,000 figure? At the level of broad demand and supply, yes the top line is important, but Auckland is complex. Its geography of harbours and hills tends to create natural sub regions which reinforce different communities ("I live on the Shore", or "I live out West", for example).

People tend to develop social and community networks within these broad areas and tend to want to stay within their sub region. The region's geography also tends to constrict travel between these sub regions, which further reinforces the sense of a four different urban sectors.  Planning theory would say that these sub regional sectors are important to the social and economic well being of the region. So while the top line is important, in getting to that top line figure it is important not to ignore its composition across the sub regions.

So some useful questions to ask is if the feasible capacity provided in the recommended plan matches past growth patterns and future housing demands in these sub regions; and what about jobs/housing balance at the sub regional level? If the capacity is not in areas of demand, then that implies a question of whether the plan is meeting needs. If housing and jobs are not related, then there will be extra transport issues to address.

The Panel's report does not set out in detail where the 1.5m 'plan enabled' dwelling capacity is provided. The Panel's report only provides details on  'feasible capacity' in residential and business zones, by Local Board area[1]. So the following picture is not a complete picture of where growth may go, given that enabled capacity in the existing urban area is about five times bigger than the estimation of what is feasible. Moreover, there is no certainty that the feasible development will occur where the model says it will occur.

Setting aside those limitations, we can still get a feel for the issues.

Keeping to the bigger picture level, the table below groups the Local Boards into four large sub regional areas. I have dropped out the more rural/greenfields orientated Rodney and Franklin Local Boards from the analysis as the data on feasible capacity is for existing residential and business zones (not future urban or rural land). Table 1 sets out the share of dwellings consented between 2001 and 2016 and the feasible capacity provided by the recommended Auckland Unitary Plan in residential and business zones, across the four urban sub regions. I have used the share of growth and share of capacity to compare the two different data sets.

 Table 1: Dwelling growth versus feasible dwelling capacity

	Share of growth in dwellings 2001-16	Share of feasible dwelling capacity 2015-2040
North	32%	31%
Central	29%	35%
West	10%	11%
South	29%	23%

Figure 1 is the associated bar graph.

Figure 1: Dwelling growth versus feasible dwelling capacity

Note: while the percentage differences may look small, they are of a large number. 

What is interesting is the lesser capacity provided in the south, relative to previous growth patterns. The central area takes a big step up in terms of growth capacity. So is this a move towards greater centralisation of growth, consistent with the quality, compact growth strategy?

The miss match between past and future growth in the south is concerning. 

If we take a closer look at the figures of recent growth and future capacity at the urban Ward level, then we get the following picture of capacity versus recent growth.

Figure 2: Dwelling growth versus feasible capacity by Ward

From this it is apparent that a lot of the extra capacity in the central area is provided in the eastern outer Isthmus - the area in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Ward. Somewhat conversely, the more western Albert Eden Roskill Ward has much less capacity relative to past growth.  So while it's a shift in emphasis towards the outer Isthmus, it's a swing east. Is that reasonable? Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that much of the eastern outer Isthmus has a large proportion of Housing NZ stock. Has its time come to be the main focus of redevelopment (and gentrification?)

When the feasible capacity provided by the Plan is compared to possible demand, as estimated by Statistics NZ[2] (high growth scenario household projections 2013-2038), then at a sub regional level, we get the following picture in Figure 3.

The north has lots of capacity relative to demand, but interestingly the central Isthmus area has relatively less capacity than demand might suggest, even with the lift in capacity set out above. Some of the demand to the west and south will be meet by greenfields growth and so is not covered in the feasible capacity figures set out. 

Figure 3: Dwelling demand versus feasible capacity

Now I would be the first to say that the above analysis is not fool proof. The estimate of future demand takes into account past growth patterns, plus future potential as indicated by current (not proposed) zonings. So there is a degree of circularity to the projections and the capacity figures. Nevertheless, the picture does seem to be that there are some imbalances at the sub regional level.

For the west, the Stats NZ projections suggest growth of 40,000 households, but feasible capacity under the AUP for something like 26,000 dwellings. This is odd as the west seems to have had a substantial upzone when the notified plan is compared to the IHP's recommended plan.  This is where things get a bit odd as the previous modelling of capacity under the Unitary Plan zones as proposed by council through evidence showed that the west had a feasible capacity of 40,000 dwellings[3]. So an upzoning has seen capacity go backwards? This is an issue that I want to come back to. The same situation looks like it has occurred down south. 

When the feasible dwelling capacity is compared to employment growth between 2006 and 2015, then other miss-matches start to arise. Table 3 uses data from Stats NZ business demography data set.

Table 3: Share of employment growth versus share of  feasible dwelling capacity

	Feasible capacity 2016-2040	Employment growth 2006 to 2015
North	30%	22%
Central	33%	38%
West	11%	8%
South	26%	32%

Greater dwelling capacity in the central area is beneficial, as the central area accounts for a large share of employment growth. Less housing capacity out west and up north may be sensible in terms of employment access. The west has never had a strong employment base. The big lost opportunity seems to be the south where employment growth has been strong, along with dwelling growth, but the feasible dwelling capacity provided is lower than is needed.

So my suspicion is that in its haste to get to a big number - 400,000 feasible dwellings - the recommended Plan has not really looked at the implications at the next layer down. I have also seen a possible issue with more physical capacity not really leading to more feasible capacity in two areas where you would think more capacity is important for low to moderate income households - out west and down south. Another thing to look at.

---

[1] See page 60

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/unitaryplan/ihpoverviewofrecommendationsann1.pdf

[2] Sourced from: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Families/SubnationalFamilyandHouseholdProjections_HOTP13-38.aspx

 I have used household projections rather than population projections to avoid having to convert population into dwellings.  One household does not exactly equal one dwelling, but it is close.

[3] See:  file://081a%20Ak%20Cncl%20-%20General%20-%20(JD%20Faigray)%20-%20Economics%20(1).pdf