Speech to New Zealand Planning Institute, Auckland Spatial Plan Conference

The Government's expectations for the Spatial Plan

Introduction

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak to your spatial planning and urban design discussion forum.

I welcome the opportunity to outline the Government's expectations of the Auckland spatial plan.

I also want to use this opportunity to place the spatial plan in the wider context of the Government's second phase of reform of resource management.

With the creation of the Auckland Super City only a few months away, there is no better time to focus on these issues and how to make Auckland the internationally competitive city it needs to be.

A Bluegreen Vision of Urban and Infrastructure planning

My thinking about New Zealand's system of urban and infrastructure planning is underpinned by the Bluegreen vision. This vision sets out a clear agenda for bringing economic and environmental considerations closer together.

Tackling environmental problems in New Zealand, especially through the operations of the Resource Management Act, has been synonymous with dispute and adversarial procedures.

The Bluegreen approach instead seeks a more collaborative approach to resource management. 

We need to be smarter in developing ways to make the environment, in this case the urban environment, and the economy work together better.

We do not believe that it needs to be as hard, as slow nor as uncertain as it is. We can and must do things differently.

This needs to happen at the highest level of planning. We need mechanisms that integrate across land use, transport, economic and environmental decisions.

We need to find win wins and design incentives to compel the behaviour we want rather than relying on rigid rules and telling people what to do.

This will involve designing systems that instead build long term, enduring agreements, based on sound science and evidence.

The Challenge

New Zealand is highly urbanised with 85% of the population living in urban areas. It is therefore crucial that we create towns and cities that achieve strong economic growth and provide for the needs of an urban population.   Key amongst these is improving housing affordability.

The current legislative system with which we design, plan and deliver infrastructure and urban development has real problems. If the Government is to achieve its overall economic and environmental objectives these problems need to be tackled.

The Government wants to:

• improve our competitiveness
• deliver a better quality environment for New Zealanders
• attract investment
• increase our productivity
• cut red tape and move to more incentive based systems; and
• get better value for money

Cities and International Competitiveness

A country's international competitiveness increasingly relies on the competitiveness of its major cities.

Cities have to attract businesses and investment which in turn support innovation, growth and the specialised skill sets that underpin the export of goods and services.

Cities must also offer an attractive lifestyle, not only to attract the skilled international workers we need, but also to ensure talented Kiwis choose to stay here and drive our economy.

To ensure this, cities must be both liveable and affordable. And as we know, urban house prices have increased substantially relative to household incomes. 

House prices are now approximately five times the average household income.  In major New Zealand cities, the ratio is around six.

This is a substantial increase when compared to prices between 1970 and 1995 where the ratio was two-and-a-half to three times.  The story is the same for Australian cities.

The cost of housing cannot be considered in isolation. While the availability of credit and interest rates are significant factors in housing affordability, transport costs and land supply are also part of the equation. 

A well designed and planned city understands how transport, land supply and housing type fit together and provides greater choices for addressing affordability. 

Addressing these issues are at the forefront of the Government's reform of resource management, and urban design and planning.

Reform of the RMA

In our first phase of reform, the Government focused on streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act. We have successfully removed roadblocks and improved processes under the RMA so we can achieve crisper decisions in a more timely way.

We have created an Environmental Protection Authority which will enable the efficient processing of major urban and infrastructure projects that matter to New Zealand's economic and environmental performance.

There has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes and the Government is almost ready to progress Phase Two of the Resource Management reforms.

A significant and exciting part of this will be proposals to reform New Zealand's system of infrastructure and urban planning.

Despite having been through a round of reform, there are still significant problems with the RMA. It is my view that the architecture of the Act was not designed well for dealing with urban issues.

To illustrate this point I note that the vast majority of resource consents are around urban issues, like subdivision, like building developments, like side yard intrusions, like urban infrastructure.

Yet if you look at the core of part two of the RMA, there are 10 driving principles in sections five and six. Only one of these makes any reference to the urban environment and that's the provision relating to historic heritage.

I think we've got a mismatch between what the architects of the RMA thought they were designing and what actual practice is about.

The law is biased towards managing the natural environment and natural resources. A key question I have then, is should more emphasis be given to the built environment in RMA decision making?

It is this question that is at the forefront of my thinking around the upcoming reforms to infrastructure and urban planning.

Complexity of Current Arrangements

The RMA and Local Government Act are central to how we plan, develop, and deliver urban development. However development and infrastructure delivery is not just an RMA issue, nor is it just a local government issue. Central Government, the private sector and others are critically involved.

In addition, a third Act - the Land Transport Management Act, makes up our current urban planning system.

These Acts set up a system that is overly complex, tricky to understand and just downright difficult to implement.  This system was not designed as a simple or effective means to plan nor provide for towns, cities and infrastructure.

The result? A confused system - with multiple plans, and multiple planning and consultation processes, and poor integration across sectors.

The Government wants to reduce the number of plans required and allow for better integration across sectors such as transport and land use.

Currently it is difficult for councils to integrate across these plans to develop a smart and implementable strategy for development. While good practice is essential, councils and the private sector are still constrained by the confused and compliance heavy legislative system.

Adding to this confusing system is the fact that there are multiple players who make decisions, which determine the shape and performance of our cities. This includes the decisions and investments of councils, central Government and the private sector.

This is of particular interest to the Government as it is central Government that provides the bulk of money in urban areas.  In Auckland alone, central Government spends more than local government by a factor of eight to one. 

For such a large investment, central Government needs to be clearer, than it has in the past, about the economic and environmental goals we are seeking to achieve. To do so we need a system that allows us to communicate effectively and then work with the councils and the private sector to deliver results.

This will require a fresh approach that will facilitate the alignment of decisions and investment so we get the right infrastructure in the right place at the right time.

To tackle these very problems, earlier this year I established two Technical Advisory Groups, one on Urban Planning and another on Infrastructure.

I tasked the Technical Advisory Groups with tackling the hard questions and to present the Government with a range of options on how to best plan and design our urban environments and infrastructure.

I expect some solutions may lie in the use of mechanisms such as spatial planning and a National Policy Statement on the urban environment.

Spatial Planning

As part of the Auckland Governance reform, Auckland is to have a spatial plan.

Spatial planning is about getting those main decision-makers involved in the development of a region, collaborating to achieve a long term vision. This will necessitate negotiation and agreement between central and local government, the private sector and other key stakeholders on what we are all trying to achieve.

It is the Government's view that this multi party mechanism is necessary for getting the economic and environmental results we expect from our largest city. 

The Government expects the spatial plan to be about the creation of value, rather than just managing the impacts of growth on natural resources.

Spatial planning presents an opportunity to agree how best to use incentives to drive change rather than rely on rigid rules.

It is also the Government's view the spatial plan must be based on sound evidence.

Having all parties agree on what the spatial plan is seeking to achieve will enable targeted decisions making and in turn reduce delays and cost in decision processes. This minimises the scope for argument and litigation, and marks a shift from the current adversarial approach.

The Government considers that the spatial plan presents further opportunities to simplify planning.

As part of the current round of RMA reforms, we are considering how spatial planning could tighten the overall urban planning system for Auckland.  This includes reducing the number of strategic plans required by legislation.

I see no reason for so many plans and planning processes. One strategic level plan that integrates across infrastructure, land use, housing, business and other functions should be all that's needed.

We are also looking at how to ensure the agreed spatial plan is delivered through lower level plans and decision making. This will be critical to delivering results on the ground.

For too long have high level plans for the development of Auckland been devised, only to then flounder at the implementation stage. We need one affordable strategy to be developed, agreed and delivered.

Work is already progressing in preparation for the first Auckland spatial plan. On the establishment of the Auckland Council, local government will work closely with central Government and other stakeholders to get the plan in place.

In addition to the spatial plan, a National Policy Statement covering the urban environment could also set out those principles needed for a well functioning and well designed city.

These are complex issues requiring careful consideration and expert input. 

The TAG groups have brought to bear their experience in providing me with considered advice on these issues.  They have worked hard to develop a set of proposals and I am currently considering their findings.

Next month I plan to release their reports, accompanied by a discussion document for public consultation. I expect this to form the starting point for a conversation on the range of options to improve our urban and infrastructure planning system.

The challenge is not only for the Government but for everyone involved in urban development. Feedback from groups such as yourself will be crucial and I look forward to hearing from you on these challenging initiatives. 

Conclusion

My goal is to create a system of planning that is simple and effective; one that enables people to work together to deliver quality towns and cities and one that is focused on enabling quality urban development and investment.

It is clear to this Government that New Zealand does not have the right urban and infrastructure planning system currently in place to serve the needs of our modern urban population.

The Government recognises our cities and towns as drivers of our economic prosperity. Building well functioning and attractive cities is vital for our international competitiveness.

We also need to get the best out of the major investment that we all have made in them.

This was why the Government instigated the Technical Advisory Groups; to examine these issues and put a range of options on the table.

I look forward to engaging with your sector on how we can better plan for the future of our cities.