There has been a hypnotic quality to the years-long process to create a new rulebook for the burgeoning city of Auckland. And by hypnotic, I mean likely to induce a deep sleep. The very description of the milestone moment this week - "the report of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, containing its recommendations to the Auckland Council on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the Unitary Plan) and the submissions made on it" - is a surefire insomnia cure.
But for all the soporific plannerspeak and bureaucratise, there is a sense that Aucklanders are increasingly awake to the implications of the whole exercise. Yesterday morning's Herald recorded that its coverage of the Unitary Plan redux (which is what I'm calling it in a desperate attempt to add a lick of glamour) was among the most read online stories the day before - behind "Backpackers' real life horror story", but I mean who can resist a bit of backpackers' real life horror stories?
Essentially, the government-appointed panel, after two years of exhaustive hearings, has returned the council a turbo-charged upgrade of its plan. Most of the core principles for growing the city remain from the council's document, but the scale and ambition go a long way further, recognising the reality of what is required to accommodate a rapidly swelling population. The redux paves the way for more than 400,000 new homes over three decades, around a third in the next seven years. In the panel's own words, that amounts to "a doubling of feasible enabled residential capacity relative to that of the notified plan". It heralds a city that goes up, especially in the centre and around the inner city, town centres, transport hubs and corridors, and modestly in suburbs, as well as outwards as much as 30 per cent.
But perhaps the most remarkable thing is the response to this week's publication. On the whole it's been incredibly positive. Not universal, and not without reservations. There have been reasonable concerns aired, for example, about the removal of the obligation on large developments to include a small quotient of affordable housing, with the panel having been, remarkably, "persuaded" by the Government via MBIE and Housing NZ to leave it to the market to take care of that. There are reasonable concerns about the deletion of the "mana whenua overlay", which would scrap requirements for cultural impact assessments on about 3600 sites of potential cultural significance to Maori (though the panel indicate similar protections based on more reliable data might be reasonably introduced down the road). There are a bunch of other reasonable concerns from homeowners and business groups.