Urban planning can have a beneficial impact on housing supply and affordability by providing an enabling and coordinating framework for urban development and infrastructure provision. Without appropriate advance planning, development can occur in an uncoordinated and ultimately inefficient way. But this level of co-ordination requires setting priorities – there is never enough money or resources to invest in infrastructure to support growth in all areas all at the same time.
The issue is whether there is any thought as to how to manage situations where infrastructure is stretched and there is no funding to increase capacity in the near term. And, if there are possible methods, how well do these methods flow through from the macro to the micro - from regional spatial plans, down into land use plans and thence into planning consents?
To start with, why is it so easy for land use planning and infrastructure planning to diverge? There are a number of reasons:
- Infrastructure upgrades and expansion have long lead times, yet development can happen quickly in ‘market hot spots. This can result in protracted periods of elevated impacts as infrastructure ‘catches up’
- Differing governance levels: While land use is managed at the local level through zoning and related regulations, major infrastructure (like motorways or railroads) is usually planned at the national level.
- Spatial plans do not have strong weight to direct funding plans, which limits their ability to integrate and coordinate land-use planning, infrastructure planning and investment.
- Land use planning focuses on regulating urban space, separating incompatible uses, and managing housing supply. Infrastructure planning often prioritizes aggregate economic benefits and meeting demand for specific services like transport or energy.
- Spatial planning often has a strong theme of ‘equity’ to it. Development potential is not often concentrated, rather development pressures are ‘spread around’, to reduce some areas being ‘picked on’ (keep NIMBYs at bay) or spread around in the hope of revitalising and strengthening run down areas. This means predicting where growth will actually occur can be very difficult.
Added to all of these would be funding constraints; there is never enough money to fix up all infrastructure constraints. Infrastructure always seems to lag growth in brownfields redevelopment and there is always big debates about who pays for upgrades and expansions.
And it is not just the big-ticket items like motorway extensions or new wastewater treatment plants that need coordinating, many of the issues arise at the sub regional level. It is often the ‘trunk’ infrastructure (like arterial roads and waste water 'transmission' pipes) that come under pressure as development steadily occurs. It can be the many infrastructure ‘patches’ that are needed across the city that stretch budgets and resources.
You could say that in the past the main method to manage infrastructure demands was to spread growth around so no one area gets put under big pressure. If growth pressures are modest enough then there is scope and time for infrastructure to be gradually expanded to cope. Muddling along is a reasonable approach.
But as redevelopment pressures build, climates change and much greater housing capacity through upzoning creates the risk of hot spots developing as market pressures get focused on some areas – this may be good for housing supply, but bad for infrastructure provision if capacity is exceeded. But to tackle these issues of misalignment between land use and infrastructure requires more than just coordinating things a bit better.
Various plan-based techniques beyond just listing priorities in plans have been used to try to integrate the timing of land use development with infrastructure provision. These can include:
- Future zoning - future development is signaled by a ’holding zone’, with live zoning dependent upon a plan change. The future zoning shows intent to develop or redevelop an area, with timing of that development dependent upon appropriate infrastructure.
- Deferred zoning – live zoning can be ‘switched on’ once set pre- conditions are meet. This does not require a plan change.
- Triggers and thresholds – development beyond a set capacity (such as number of new houses) requires assessment of infrastructure capacity constraints through resource (planning) consent processes.
These are not watertight methods. Their effectiveness and efficiency is very dependent upon a strong policy framework.
- The timing of infrastructure upgrade projects can ‘bounce around’ as funding and investment priorities vary. This can leave areas stranded, with deferred zonings becoming a permanent, rather than temporary, feature, for example, as necessary infrastructure investment gets diverted to fix the latest crises elsewhere in the region.
- Planning consent applications can and do argue that each development only adds a small load onto infrastructure – not enough of an adverse effect to stop it even where capacity is constrained.
Tracking through the three ‘plan layers’ in the Planning Bill – spatial plans, land use plans and planning consents – there is a strong theme of plans not getting in the way of the provision of infrastructure. There is very little as to how to slow down growth pressures in areas where necessary infrastructure upgrades are not a short- or medium-term priority.
The Expert Advisory Group report on the RMA reforms did say that long-term plans under the Local Government Act 2002 and regional land transport plans under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 should be required to align with spatial plans. Spatial plans should also inform central government funding and budget processes. For example, spatial plans could inform (and be informed by) regional deals, government policy statements, and the Government’s response to the Infrastructure Commission’s 30-year National Infrastructure Plan. Spatial plans will indicate whether infrastructure or other development is planned or needed in the short-, medium- or long-term and how it is intended to be sequenced.
A bit later on in their report, the panels seems to acknowledge that things are a bit more complex.
“Spatial plans will identify strategic priorities at a high level, for example by identifying which future development areas will be prioritised for public investment in the short, medium- and long-term, the preferred sequencing of development with associated rationale, and whether future infrastructure corridors are needed in the next 10–20 years or longer-term. However, spatial plans will not provide detailed timelines for development and infrastructure delivery. Timing would be better addressed through implementation planning as local authorities, central government, infrastructure providers and others will need flexibility to reprioritise actions identified in a spatial plan to respond to relevant changes in regulation, funding, and the environment. It may also be possible to bring some development areas forward in timing; for example, where the necessary infrastructure can be funded by the private sector”.
The Panel saw benefits in a separate coordination document for each spatial plan to address the mechanics of how actions identified in the spatial plan will be implemented, including timing and who is responsible for each action. This is a big ask. The old Regional Growth Strategy of the 1990s required 'sector agreements' that laid out land use and infrastructure priorities for each sub region, while the 2016 ATAP sought to align regional and national transport projects for the Auckland region. Not too sure how well these plans actually worked out.
Turning to the Planning Bill’s content.
Clauses 67 to 70 of the Planning Bill set out the purpose of regional spatial plans and requirements for preparation of the plans. Spatial plans are to set the strategic direction for development and public investment priorities in a region for a time frame of not less than 30 years; and support a coordinated approach to infrastructure funding and investment by central government, local authorities, and other infrastructure providers. They are to promote integration of development planning with infrastructure planning and investment.
Clause 68 says a regional land transport plan under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 must be consistent with the relevant regional spatial plan while the Minister under the LTMA must take into account any relevant regional spatial plan when preparing or reviewing a Government Policy Statement on land transport. A long-term plan under the Local Government Act 2002 must set out steps to implement or progress the actions for which the local authority is a lead under this Part.
Schedule 2 of the Bill says that a co-ordination document must be prepared and adopted. Bu there appears to be little detail as to what should be in a coordinating document and whether it has any weight in lower order proceedings. Experience with coordinating documents is not great.
Sounds helpful. But is it enough? Should one of the purposes of spatial plans be to identify areas where capacity is constrained, not just where development should be enabled?
Granted, this may mean that the door is open for any community to argue that infrastructure is constrained in their local area (and that may well be true) and therefore development should not happen. Does all that hard fought plan enabled capacity rapidly evaporate as infrastructure constraints blossom across the city? Both ‘go’ and ‘no-go’ areas need to be identified.
Clauses 75 to 80 set out the core requirements for making land use plans, including their purpose, standard and bespoke provisions, and core obligations when preparing and deciding land use plans. The land use plan must implement any relevant provision in a regional spatial plan. But if provisions in a regional spatial plan are out of date as a result of new information that supersedes the information used to determine the content of the provision in the regional spatial plan; or there has been a significant change in circumstances or in the physical environment since that provision was decided (for example, a major environmental or economic event), then the land use plan can head in a different direction.
Clause 93 allows for land use plans to make an area subject to future provisions. Clauses 94 to 96 set out requirements in relation to future provisions. It is unclear what these ‘future requirements’ can be and if they can include infrastructure. One explanation of the clauses is that the Planning Bill's future provisions maybe "indicative locations for future designations," which aim to identify and secure land for long-term infrastructure needs within regional spatial plans.
The Bill itself suggests future requirements could cover:
• describing, or specifying performance standards for, any infrastructure that is required;
• specifying events that must occur, including specifying that an agreement must be reached;
• specifying any other condition that must be met.
Clauses 137 to 149 set out the matters that apply when a consent authority considers a planning consent application. This includes any relevant provisions of the land use plan or proposed land use plan and the regional spatial plan or proposed regional spatial plan, if the application is for an activity that is a discretionary activity. Quite what weight will be given to spatial and land use plans remains to be seen, especially in the context of consents managing externalities within a narrow range of adverse effects.
So a mixed bag. It is good to see coordinating infrastructure and land use planning being a function of spatial plans and the potential for ‘future provisions’ to be incorporated in land use plans. This is an advance from the RMA. But possible actions sound one sided. Too much focus on enabling infrastructure and not enough on managing (delaying) the timing of growth to match infrastructure upgrades? Even if it is left to the consent stage to tackle infrastructure capacity on a case-by-case basis there needs to be strong policies to guide assessment.
