Auckland Unitary Plan, intensification and open space

In this blog I want to look at the spatial allocation of commercially feasible intensive development and access to open space. When planning for apartments (intensification), rather than worry too much about access to public transport and proximity to services in town centres, should planning look more closely at access to open space in terms of determining where it may be appropriate to locate apartment developments?

In previous blogs I've discussed the policy shift implicit in the latest version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) away from intensification associated with centres and transport routes to intensification based around amenity. This shift is being driven partly from considerations of commercial feasibility. But it is also partly an attempt to widen the base demand for intensification.  Proximity to open space has to be a key part of this.

The PAUP as notified included the concept of intensification around open spaces. The following is policy 2.1.2 in the notified version. I've highlighted the relevant bit:

Enable higher residential densities and the efficient use of land in neighbourhoods:

a.within and around centres and within moderate walking distances from the city, metropolitan, town and local centres

b.in areas close to the frequent public transport routes and facilities

c.in close proximity to existing or proposed large open spaces, community facilities, education and healthcare facilities

d.adequately serviced by existing physical infrastructure or where infrastructure can be efficiently upgraded.

It could reasonably be argued that in terms of actual zonings,  the PAUP as notified did not take forward (c) above in any meaningful way. Most intensification seemed to be driven by (a) and (b), although later moves by council to free up zonings started to bring in more (c) areas. 

The revised version of the policy following the hearing of submission dropped (d) - don't worry about infrastructure constraints, they can be fixed; and added in 'corridors' and expanded out (c) to include employment. Here it is:

(5) Enable higher residential intensification:

(a) in and around centres;

(b) along identified corridors; and

(c) close to public transport, social facilities (including open space) and employment opportunities.

You might say that not much of the urban area is left out of the policy by the time you add (a) + (b) +(c). Of course what the policy doesn't tell you is how much intensification might occur in these different areas.  That comes later on in the Plan.  

 As previously identified, most commercially feasible redevelopment in the existing urban area is in the form of apartment developments. An interesting relationship exists between apartments and open space. Apartments near open spaces sell for more than apartments away from open space. This relationship does not hold for stand alone houses. The relationship for apartments reflects the trade offs involved in apartment living. People accept smaller internal living spaces and less private outdoor space if close to a park. Parks and open spaces also provide secure outlook from apartments. When you are beside a park, there are no concerns  that views may be built out, or sunlight and daylight reduced, by next door development. 

An Auckland Council report[1] has confirmed this relationship:

We find evidence that proximity to parks and public open spaces has a positive impact on apartment prices.2 That is, if we compare two apartments that were equivalent in all respects except distance to the nearest park, we would expect the apartment that was closer to the park to command a higher price. Higher prices in turn reflect the higher level of amenity that apartment owners (or occupants) receive from proximity to a park. Proximity to both regional parks and to local / neighbourhood parks has a positive impact, which suggests that parks of varying significance and size are valued by apartment-buyers.

No surprises there. The higher prices for apartments near open spaces suggest higher demand, which is a good thing. 

The report did not assess access to beaches and coastal areas. My pick would that the price gradient (if that is the right word) for apartments would be even stronger for coastal access and views. 

We can't add much more coastline to the region (unless we go much further north and east), but we can add more open spaces. So to help support and enable more apartment developments:

1. Do we need more opportunities for apartments close to open spaces and
2. Do we need more open spaces?

Equally, will the lack of open space actually hold back apartment development from occurring in some areas? The analysis of commercially feasible development is just a mechanical exercise of costs and returns. It doesn't take into account the many factors that will influence buyers.

I have obtained the following figures on the area zoned open space under the PAUP (decisions version).

Open Space Type	Area (ha)
Open Space - Conservation	34,655.54
Open Space - Informal Recreation	8,410.70
Open Space - Sport and Active Recreation	3,084.03
Open Space - Community	90.96
Open Space - Civic Spaces	3.31

The largest category of open space - Conservation - includes the Hunua and Waitakere Ranges, as well as the large regional parks in outer lying areas of the region.

It is useful to organise the above data by Local Board area. If we drop out the rural Local Boards of Waitakere, Rodney and Franklin, then a lot of that Conservation land is taken out of the picture. 

When open space zoned land is organised by the remaining 'urban' Local Boards we get the following data (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Open Space zoned land (ha), by urban Local Board

If we then relate that open space area to the number of dwellings in the Local Boards, as of 2013, then we get the following figures on open space zoned area per dwelling (Figure 2). This data is converted to square metres of open space per dwelling. The urban area 'average' is identified. The urban area average is about 230m² of open space per dwelling.  This sounds quite generous.

Figure 2: Square metres of open space zoned land per dwelling, 2013, by Local Board

There is no set standard as such in terms of how much open space should be available per dwelling (or per 1000 people). Access to open space (e.g. walking distance) may be more important than gross area. 

But lets set aside those details. What I'm looking at here is the broad picture.

Notice how some of the inner city Board areas have relatively low levels of open space. The quality of that space may be quite high (think of the Domain), but in quantity terms, there is below average provision.

If we then arrange the Local Boards by the number of commercially feasible apartments provided for by the PAUP and compare that to the open space available, we get the following figures.

Local Board	Open space (ha)	Number of possible apartments	M2 of open space per apartment
Maungakeikei Tamaki	512.2	31,192	164
Howick	818.0	22,615	362
Waitemata	250.9	19,318	130
Devonport Takapuna	231.7	18,801	123
Upper Harbour	885.8	17,720	500
Whau	285.3	13,745	208
Hibiscus&Bays	1720.4	11,300	1,522
Albert Eden	268.9	10,170	264
Kaipatiki	644.8	7,793	827
Orakei	533.9	7,674	696
Puketapapa	329.0	6,691	492
Henderson Massey	583.6	2,270	25,71
Mangere Otahuhu	604.8	1,649	36,68
Papakura	265.1	1,339	19,80
Otara Papatoetoe	585.0	666	87,83
Maurewa	779.7	12	649,767

Of course each new apartment does not get exclusive access to this area of open space land. New apartment dwellers will have to share that space with others - existing residents in the area and visitors.

The number of possible apartments could be added to the number of existing dwellings to get a feel for total demand, but total demand also needs to take into account other use of space (like sportfields used by a variety of codes who draw players from across the region).

To keep it simple, I've just looked at the growth side of the equation.  

The data suggests some areas where more open space may help, or where more intensification could be accommodated, given the stock of open space land.

Devonport - Takapuna Local Board has a low level of existing provision of open space and substantial growth in apartments, which doesn't sound good. But it is a Board that enjoys access to good beaches, so probably the lack of open space will not hold back apartment development. On the other hand Orakei Local Board is coastal and has a relatively high rate of open space provision. Could it take more apartment development?  Howick and Hibiscus and Bays might be in the same category.

Away from the East Coast beaches, Mungakeikei-Tamaki, Albert Eden and Whau Local Boards all have relatively high rates of possible apartment development. In these areas, access to open space is likely to be important. But they have relatively low levels of provision of open space.  Will this be a break on achieving the amount of intensification proposed?

At the other end of the scale, places like Manurewa probably will not benefit from more open space in terms of enabling apartment development.  

In my blog of the 12 October 2016, I talked about the role of the middle ring suburbs - how they are expected to take a substantial proportion of growth, but are areas where often there is the largest gap between plan enabled growth and commercially feasible development. Closing that gap could perhaps involve a much more targeted approach to apartments and open spaces in these areas. 

In short: more and better quality open spaces in middle ring suburbs may be more likely to drive apartment development than other forms of intervention. 

---

[1] How Do Aucklanders Value Their Parks? A hedonic analysis of the impact of proximity to open space on residential property values  August 2016 Technical Report 2016/031