Government can either install Commissioners now or in August and cop bigger backlash.
In any case Key will survive as Orakei wont vote for Little in a hurry.
As for Commissioners they can be there until the 2019 elections. Basically means see the Unitary Plan through and most appeals in the Courts. After that we go back to a Governing Body.
Withdraw out of scope changes from the council’s evidence
· Addresses the concerns of some members of the public
· Results in a piecemeal approach as the evidence is completely integrated (geographic areas and in and out of scope)
· A re-write of the expert evidence will be required; and there is no time for that to occur before the specific residential zone hearings commence on 3 March 2016.
· Results in a major disconnect between the zoning maps and the council’s evidence
· Disadvantages submitters who have not filed evidence on the basis they were happy with the council’s position
· Disadvantages submitters who have spent money and time putting evidence together after reading the council’s evidence
· No council planning witnesses to support piecemeal zoning as such an approach is contrary to planning best practice
· No council planning witnesses there to provide a view on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s request for substantial up-zoning
Government reaction this morning from Nick Smith and Bill English was swift.
From Smith on Morning Report:
"The Auckland Council's submissions becomes something of a nonsense" Dr Nick Smith #UnitaryPlan
English is due to give a speech on Auckland housing later today and his reaction given this situation below will be interesting to watch:
This Auckland housing supply shortage is the major reason for NZ's housing affordability crisis and its financial stability risks. #carcrash
Okay so what now?
Well I have to go rewrite my evidence for the rezoning topic given there was out of scope changes made by Council in South Auckland. I am lucky I have a month to get an amendment through but others will not be so lucky.
Transport Blog have outlined the process and the consequences with the professionals as well http://transportblog.co.nz/2016/02/25/unitary-plan-and-the-issue-of-scope/
But ultimately the long term damage is yet to be seen.
There are several avenues we can now go down:
1) We continue as is and hopefully the Panel can make recommendations back to the Council in August. Now given the Panel has tended to more intensification in the past this leads to a rather interesting situation in August with the Governing Body of the Council. I'll go into this further down.
2) Government passes legislation to enshrine the recommendations from the Panel enmass once they have been made bypassing the vote from the Governing Body. Now appeals and Plan Changes can still be made but it skips a potential for a yesterday to repeat (also see below).
3) Government pre-empts off and installs Commissioners thus sacking the Governing Body until a predetermined time. Now both Labour and National have either sacked Councils or DHBs so the precedent is there. Now this is where 1 and 2 also come into the mix and a reason why the Government might just go for Commissioners.
The 13-8 vote was all about process right? Wrong. It was a cover for naked NIMBYism and Councillors protecting their seats this year like 2013. They are not interested in intensification in their area where the NIMBY squad will squawk as they did yesterday.
Now here is the risk. The Panel will now more likely go for even higher intensification than what the Council had put its evidence on as the capacity numbers must match the 60:40 ratio set out in the Auckland Plan. The current PAUP that is going through the hearings does not allow the housing required and we risk of more sprawl. It is the reason why modelling was done and Council subsequently submitted in its now defunct evidence more intensification was needed to avoid more sprawl (which Bill English even wants to avoid).
It can be thus concluded as a result (and despite Burton spinning faster than a washing machine) that Auckland needs to intensify more.
Now given 13 Councillors have basically voted against that increased level of intensification thus reverting back to the PAUP (where we have the mismatch) it can reasonably assumed that that 13 will vote against the recommendations causing the September 16 deadline to be missed (and the SHAs go null and void)
So does Government want that risk in September? Of course not. With political capital in their favour they could install Commissioners without major risk.
Also installing Commissioners means all of Council's evidence could go back into the Hearings relieving the pressure off submitters for a rewrite.
Where will we go though?
The maps would have been out on January 26 when Council released its Primary Evidence for the submitters to either support or rebut on.
Page 20 of this set of Primary Evidence https://www.scribd.com/doc/298937878/081-Ak-Cncl-General-Rezoning-J-Duguid-General-Statement
Deputy Mayor Hulse is correct in regards to the Blue Out of Scope changes regarding residential growth shortages.
In regards to the Pre 1944 Demo Overlay, with the Panel scaling that back significantly it meant the Council could no longer defend applying the Single House Zone so upzoning will occur.
But in regards to the residential capacity shortage, that was the Auckland Development Capacity Model or the ACDC15 report.
The following 9 links have my commentary and material from the Panel on the matter
They are in chronological order of the event happening
http://voakl.net/2015/09/28/unitaryplan-oh-council-wont-like-this-with-the-development-capacity-model-being-pinged/ <<< that one caused the main issues leading to the now Out of Scope Changes in order for the PAUP to comply with the Regional Policy Statement Urban Growth outcomes
I know lots of reading but I hope this helps on the events leading up to today.
One way or the other we are all running busy lives and that includes me with a young family.
The feedback form on the Proposed Unitary Plan had three options:
1) Support the PAUP
2) Support the PAUP but wish to make amendments
3) Oppose the PAUP
I went for number 2 and filed by submission after that.
The "tough" comment will reflect that No. 1 was there on the feedback sheet available online and in hard copy form.
So if you supported the zone over your property it was a case of tick No.1 and write I support that zone for whatever reason you gave. As far as The Panel is concerned you have lodged a submission and could participate in the Hearings when new proposed changes came through if you wished to do so.
Council over 2013-2014 hammered the above fact home despite the noise from the Main Stream Media focusing on everything else.
Ultimately though you have measures available. Once the Plan goes live Plan Changes can be mooted (although Private ones face a 2 year stand down).
Joyce shilling about the Tertiary Policy yesterday was as intelligent as dissing the Prime Minister in the media interviews after Key's State of the Nation on tolls.
Key: Luke Warm to Tolls (translated - it is going to happen)
Joyce: Translated: Fat show in hell....
Hooton picked up on it yesterday on NBR Radio
So then Steven.... Might it have been better to wait for English and Key to respond given they are the leaders of National...
That pretty much confirms the comment I made to Russell yesterday and was picked up on in the original post.
Looking at the MofEnviro's own submissions to the Unitary Plan they do support the 60% Brownfield 40% Greenfield rule as set in the Auckland Plan.
This will present issues again with the Auckland Centre Right establishment which again National should just jettison (as mentioned earlier).
One thing to watch is the talks between Government, Iwi and Panuku Development Auckland around using Crown Land (and most likely Council Land) to get higher density housing going.
Ultimately I think we can chalk two wins as such
2) Intensification supported by the Government
PS am I in Auckland or some alternative Universe :-P
Keep repeating and it happens
Or I just give up