Round three: On site parking and RMA decision making

Back to on-site car parking and a housing development in an inner city, 'character' suburb.

This is as an exercise in decision making,  but I must admit I'm beginning to wonder why I ever started the exercise.  I'm trying to work out what the 'effects' are of a largish housing development in an inner city area that will provide limited on-site car parking. The site is located in an area of special character housing, where on-street parking spaces are scarce.

I'm trying to run off first principles in decision making.

So far (see blog 11 November 2018) I have tried to identify what car parking effects (consequences) are being generated by the development. Effects identified are:

1. Number of extra cars in the neighbourhood = 22
2. Number of extra cars looking for kerb side parking = 13
3. Reduction in cars in the region due to inner city location compared to if dwellings were located on the edge of the region = 4
4. Higher rates of public transport use (around a 15 percentage point increase) and lower vehicle kilometres travelled (perhaps 20% less) compared to if dwellings were located elsewhere
5. Increased pressure on existing residents in the area to find street parking spaces and hence more pressure to accommodate cars on site, possibly affecting special character values of the environment. 
6. There may be increased demand for car sharing type services, if parking gets harder to find and so people decide to get by with fewer cars.
7. Additional number of houses accommodated on the development site due to less on-site parking = 2. 

In my last blog on the subject, I added the last effect (relating to housing supply), but now I'm not too sure if this is a 'car parking' effect. But I think I will keep it in for now.

The local receiving environment for these effects could be said to be 'sensitive to pressures' - there are heritage buildings, while there is not much on-street parking available.

As previously noted, these are the absolute effects of the development, not effects relative to what might otherwise happen on the site. There is no 'counterfactual' as such; no alternative option against which to consider the effects against. All I have done is said 'what is likely to occur'?  This may be a bit short sighted as something will happen on the site.

Decision making always involves trade offs and choices to be made. Ideally consequences (effects) are weighted in terms of importance to help make these trade offs.  So now its time to try to work out the significance of the effects, with significance to be identified by looking at the Auckland Unitary Plan. Does the plan say some effects are not relevant, for example? For relevant effects, does the plan say that some effects are more important than others? Does the plan provide any kind of weighting?

But quite how to assess the significance of a car parking ‘shortfall’ is not straightforward. The Auckland Unitary Plan is a bit ambivalent about why on-site car parking needs to be managed. Is it a transport issue or an urban form issue? And if a transport issue, is it about supporting walking and cycling, public transport and reducing congestion; or is it about who gets to enjoy some free on-street parking? The plan kinds of swings between the different issues without being terribly helpful as to which is more important.

Note: the following is not a full analysis of the Unitary Plan's provisions. No responsibility taken if I have missed something important.

First up, I have decided to avoid the front part of the plan and the higher level regional policies. They are relevant to any assessment, but I want to start at the detailed level (and then work up, if possible).

Chapter E27 of the Unitary Plan deals with transport infrastructure and is most relevant to assessing the effects of a parking shortfall.

The most two relevant objectives against which proposals relating to on-site parking should be tested against appear to be as follows:

E27.2 (3) Parking and loading supports urban growth and the quality compact urban form. 

E27.2 (4) The provision of safe and efficient parking, loading and access is commensurate with the character, scale and intensity of the zone.

You might take it from the above that parking needs to be tied back to urban form, amenity and character, rather than who gets first dibs on any on-street parking spaces, or worries about congestion.

This makes sense in the context of this specific case. Residential special character areas are environments where there is often limited on-site parking. The villas and bungalows in the character areas were built when cars did not exist, or car ownership rates were very low.  It is a feature of these areas that streets are not dominated by large garages or extensive on-site open parking and turning areas. And neither should they be.

Does the reference to character and intensity of the zone in Objective 4 mean that if the site in question was developed as 4 or 5 mock villas (rather than the 19 unit development proposed), then no on-site parks would be ok, as that is the character of the area? Develop the site more intensively, then on-site parking is needed to mitigate the effects on the public street parking resource of that extra density? On the other side of the coin of areas not having much on-site parking is that the street parking resource is well used. If villa and bungalow owners cant park on the street close to their home, will that create pressure for them to shoe horn some parking onto their site, with adverse consequences for character and amenity? Quite possibly.

So does the plan acknowledge that minimum car parking  should or should not be pushed in special character areas?

We need to work our way through the relevant policies. First up, policy E27.3.(3). This says:

(3) Manage the number, location and type of parking and loading spaces, including bicycle parking and associated end-of-trip facilities to support all of the following: 
(a) the safe, efficient and effective operation of the transport network; 
(b) the use of more sustainable transport options including public transport, cycling and walking;
 (c) the functional and operational requirements of activities; 
(d) the efficient use of land; 
(e) the recognition of different activities having different trip characteristics; and 
(f) the efficient use of on-street parking. 

Not much about special character areas here. Perhaps urban design and urban form issues come under the term 'functional requirements of activities'? Having said that, the policy feels like it is a transport-related policy: on-site parking is needed to keep the roads flowing, or perhaps there should be no or limited parking to promote public transport.

But is the function of on-site parking requirements to lessen demands on the street parking resource in an area?  This is what existing residents tend to get most worried about. The efficient use of on-street parking is stated as a reason, but what is efficient? Is it really trying to say the equitable use of on-street parking spaces?

Perhaps more importantly, the policy says that you need to to do all of (a) to (f). It is not just a matter of picking out (f). So one summary might be that impacts on street parking is only one, relatively minor matter to take into account when thinking about impacts of on-site parking. When you think about, this is reasonable.

Let's move on. Next up is Policy E27.3.(7). This looks a bit more promising as it refers to ‘flexible’ on-site parking:

(7) Provide for flexible on-site parking by not limiting or requiring parking for subdivision, use and development (excluding office) in the Centre Fringe Office Control area, Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone and Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone (studio and one bedroom dwellings). 

The site I am using in my case study kind of fits with the intention of this policy. It is an inner city site.  However the site does not exactly match the areas listed: the site is not in the city fringe office control area, nor the Residential Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone (although there is some of that zoning across the road, nearby). Interestingly in the Mixed Housing Urban zone small units (studios, one bedroom units) do not need any on-site parking.

This policy seems to say that it is up to the activities in these areas to sort out their street parking issues - don't ask Auckland Transport to try to work out who gets what on-street park. If activities don’t want to provide on-site parking, that is up to them, and if that means lots of competition for on-road spaces between existing residents, businesses,  commuter, and visitors, well they will just have to work through it themselves. Its an  ‘your-on-your-own’ type policy.

Then there is Policy E27.3(8):

(8) Require all other subdivision, use and development to provide a minimum level of on-site parking in recognition of the more limited alternatives to private vehicle travel unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser amount of on-site parking is needed for a particular site or proposal or the provision of on-site parking would be inconsistent with the protection of Historic Heritage or Special Character overlays. 

I think the site falls under this policy as it is not covered by the areas listed in Policy 7. But here there is a bit of  a mix up of outcomes. The policy says that a minimum level of parking is required in recognition of the more limited alternatives to private vehicle travel. But that is a bit odd, given that the site is close to two busy bus routes and close to shops and activities. It is just across the road from Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone which enjoys the same level of public transport accessibility as the subject site and where no on-site parking is needed.

Anyway, maybe that doesn’t matter so much, as the policy goes on to say that having on-site parking could be inconsistent with the protection of special character overlays. Back to the urban form issue, not the transport issue. So that is helpful, but then you do need to ‘demonstrate’ that a lesser amount of on-site car parking would not be inconsistent with special character. It is not a given that you can get by with fewer car parks. Nevertheless, the policy opens a door to character and amenity.

Now, time to turn to the rules.

Two rules apply, as far as I can tell.

First up, Table E27.6.2.4 Parking rates - area 2, activity T44. This rule says for sites in special character areas that are less than 500 sqm in area, then no on-site car parking is required.

Perfect, This rule recognises that requiring on-site parking can harm amenity and character of the special character areas. It recognises the existing environment of these areas as being one where there never was on-site parking to start with. Overtime people have added parking pads and garages, but they are a ‘fit in where you can’ type exercise.

But the site in the case study is greater than 500 sqm in area, so the rule does not apply. Instead the rules of the underlying zoning apply - in this case the Single House zone which requires 1 site per dwelling, not matter what the size of the dwelling (studio or 5 bedrooms).

Why on larger sites in the special character area do you need to provide one park per dwelling, but on smaller sites you don't need to worry?

I guess the idea is that on larger sites there are usually some options to add in car parking in a way that does not completely stuff up special character. But perhaps not. If new buildings are two or three storeys to fit in with surrounding character, then basement parking is unlikely. Surface parking areas could be grouped into ‘courts’ but large areas of asphalt are not really 'special character'. Neither are rows of garages.

If we go back to the development of the Unitary Plan, is there any evidence as to why there is a rule allowing small sites to not have on-site parking, but bigger sites to provide one car parking space per dwelling? This is from the Council's evidence:

A submission has been received outlining the effects that garages and car-parking can have on special character areas. The Special Character (heritage) case team is proposing to amend the underlying zone minimum car parking requirements to help retain or enhance special/historic character values. The approach that has been discussed with the Special Character team is to not have a parking requirement (i.e. no minimum) for Special Character sites less than a certain site area to support the outcome of maintaining and enhancing the coherency and special streetscape character of the historic parts of Auckland. From a transport planning perspective, much of the special character overlay is located in areas around centres and therefore this approach is unlikely to result in any significant concern.

The above para kind of explains how the plan provisions were developed. It doesn't really say why larger sites in the special character areas should have on-site parking. The point about most special character areas being located around centres applies to big and small sites. I think what happened was at some point the urban form objective got overtaken by a transport objective (or perhaps more correctly a transport worry that the street parking might get quite well used and Auckland Transport might get asked to try to sort out the problem).

This not the end of the story. It is possible to apply for a reduction of on-site parking requirements for larger sites. But what matters are assessed when considering such applications? Are they urban form issues or transport issues?

The Unitary Plan has to state what matters the Council will take into account when considering applications to reduce parking (as in this case, a reduction is a restricted discretionary activity). The plan says the following are the matters to be considered:

The Council will restrict its discretion to the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

(6) any activity or development which provides fewer than the required minimum number of parking spaces under Standard E27.6.2(1): 
(a) adequacy for the site and the proposal; 
(b) effects on adjacent activities, on urban form outcomes as identified in the relevant Business Zone and on the adjoining transport network; and 
(c) availability and suitability of alternative parking supply and management arrangements.

This is a very confusing list. It is not clear at all where special character issue fit in, if at all.  The list seems to mostly be about transport effects, not urban form effects. There is reference in (b) to urban form effects in relation to Business areas. It may be possible to refer to another section of the plan (general rules) to drag in special character issues, but this is not clear.

Neither is it clear if demands on kerb side parking is a relevant matter.  Effects on the adjoining transport network can be considered, whatever that is. The word ‘network’ implies traffic generation being the worry, rather than parking. I presume 'alternative parking arrangements'  means arrangements to lease other parking spaces in the wider area.

Oddly, when you look further on into what assessment criteria are used to assess applications to reduce on-site parking,  then special character issues do pop up, as follows:

E27.8.2. Assessment criteria 5 (f):
if a character overlay applies to the site, the extent to which the provision of a minimum car parking requirement would detrimentally affect the character and features of the area or site identified by the overlay.

Taking on board all of the above, is it reasonable to make the following assumptions about the relevance and importance of the effects previously identified?

Effect	Relevance of effect – is the effect relevant to the assessment of effects?	Importance of effect / weight to be applied to the assessment of the effect
Number of extra cars in the neighbourhood = 22	Some relevance– the plan is  concerned with the overall  busyness of an area, and does seek to promote alternatives. However there is no cap on car use, for example.	Not much weight to be given to this effect. There does not seem to be strong link between less on-site parking and fewer cars in a residential area, compared to car parking in retail areas, for example
Number of extra cars looking for kerb side parking spaces = 13	Moderate – the plan does refer to efficient use of kerb side parking spaces	Some importance to be given to this effect. That is, the scale and magnitude of the effect could be considered as being ‘significant”?
Reduction in number of cars in the region due to inner city location compared to if dwellings were located on the edge of the region = 4	Limited – the plan refers to compact urban growth, so maybe there is a connection with regional growth issues, but the link in tenuous.	Not much weight to be given to this effect
Higher rates of public transport use (around a 15 percentage point increase) and lower vehicle kilometres travelled (perhaps 20% less) compared to if dwellings were located elsewhere	Some relevance. The plan does identify density near public transport as being beneficial, while parking should be managed to promote public transport use	Some weight to be given, but the assessment would probably be not too much weight. The plan is kind of neutral on the actual outcome of more use of public transport
Increased pressure on existing residents in the area to find street parking spaces and hence more pressure to accommodate cars on site, possibly affecting special character values of the environment.	Moderate relevance	Reasonable weight to be given to this effect. The plan seeks to maintain the amenities of heritage areas and reduce pressure for the unsympathetic redevelopment of sites to incorporate car parking
There may be increased demand for car sharing type services, if parking gets harder to find and so people decide to get by with fewer cars.	Limited – the plan is not big on mode splits, car ownership and rates of use of cars	Low significance
More houses built due to less space taken up on site by surface parking = 2	Moderate relevance. The plan does refer to compact urban growth and perhaps the National Policy Statement on Urban Capacity is important	Little weight. The plan does not identify special character areas as an appropriate place  for lots more dwellings (despite being inner city and there being high demand)

So what is the summary assessment? Not too sure myself. A couple of things stand out:

1. Considering whether an effect is appropriate in the circumstances, is sufficiently mitigated or needs further mitigation is not straight forward. The above seems a long way away from some sort of negative spillover to be controlled by a simple standard. The process quickly develops into a cost/benefit type analysis. But causal links between effects and consequences (costs and benefits) are not easy to determine. Will more on-street parking really see the loss of special character?

2. The Plan kind of reinforces some effects but not others. In this case, it seems like impacts on special character is important, as well as demands on kerb side parking. Put another way, the plan tends to reinforce the most obvious effects, it does not really emphasize wider effects and benefits like housing supply, traffic generation, public transport and the like, although these are noted. Perhaps in this case, this is the right way to go, but in other situations, is there a trap in plans reinforcing the obvious, immediate effects, and not the systemic effects (when part of the purpose of planning is to lessen the the focus on short term effects and emphasis the long term effects?)