District Plan Review … A Balancing Act
Published Bay Buzz Nov 10th 2013 http://www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/7075/
The election noise is
thankfully over. Time to settle back into three more years of ‘head down, bum
up’ ongoing work. One of the projects keeping our public
servants busy is the review of the Hastings
District Plan.
Development rulebook
The District Plan (DP) is a
document legally required
by the Local Government Act to define the nature of development for a district
or city council. In essence, it is a set of rules
dictating what we can and cannot
do as of right in our backyard. It sets trigger points for council involvement
via resource consent processes, as well as
defining good practice and criteria for assessment.
“The Hastings District Plan
provides the means for the people of the Hastings District to manage the effects of the use,
development and protection of the natural and physical resources within the
Hastings District. It guides and controls how land is used, developed or
protected in order to avoid or lessen the impact of any adverse effects.”
By law every statutory
authority must have a DP and must review it every
ten years to make sure development rules remain current, are reflective of community aspirations, as well
as allowing for a sufficient land supply for both residential and commercial/ industrial
activity, economic development and employment growth.
It is an opportunity to
integrate strategic vision and community aspiration
in a statutory document.
The review process
A draft version of the
revised DP was presented in meetings around the district in April into June.
312 submissions were received and public presentations to a hearing committee
were encouraged. Comments were taken on board where council officers saw merit
and each submitter was entitled to a written response.
“As a draft, the Plan has
no legal status under the Resource Management Act. The reason for releasing a
draft, is to give the community a feel for the direction that the Council is
proposing to take in its review, and provide an opportunity to comment on an informal basis.”
A daunting piece of work on
all accounts, but a box has been ticked and the process has moved a step closer
to becoming law.
The ‘official’ draft DP will
soon be notified with all
revisions based on informal comments in place. The public will then have the chance to make formal
comments on the document and go through a formal hearings process.
The timeframe for comments
is 9 November through 14 February, just in time for some holiday reading.
Any aspects of the plan that are not submitted
on become operative by default. A process follows where
submissions are reviewed, a few more boxes are ticked,
and – presto – the District
development direction is cemented for the next ten years.
Development is the word
The draft DP is no lightweight bedside reading! It’s
a copious volume of policy and rules focused on what is and isn’t allowed in
our built environment, compressed into a whopping 1,088 pages.
That’s too much to examine in any detail
in this article. Instead,
I will try to highlight from my point of view –
as a Hawke’s Bay-based, internationally trained,
urban designer – some of the key areas of
change worthy of consideration, scrutiny and applause,
as appropriate.
To get a taste of the draft
DP, I conducted a word search
to identify some of the key focus areas in the document.
The prize for most used
word goes to ‘development’ – 2,372
instances, which rightly confirms that the theme of the plan is district
development! No rocket science there.
The word ‘amenity’ is
counted 1,071 times –
the counter to development and a key concern of the plan and those authoring
it.
The balance between
development and amenity is what the document, in the end, is charged with
brokering. This in itself highlights a fundamental conundrum. Development and amenity have a
strained relationship at the best of times – control versus the free market,
rules versus freedom, the opinion of technocrats versus individual taste, and
of course, the right of the individual versus the greater good.
Other notable words include: manage (1,039),
design (873), parking (722), quality (252), mitigate (229), control (233), density (212), sustainable (210), urban design (128),
and fences (135).
Some interesting ‘laggards’ include: balance (62), versatile soils (49),
architecture (6), and productive soils (5).
New directions
For the last thirty years,
the district has had a ‘one size fits all’ system for controlling residential
development in urban areas – an ‘any development is good
development’ approach that is past its use-by date. The same rules have been applied to a
residential property whether in Central Hastings, Havelock North or Flaxmere.
That is about to change significantly.
A new regime of residential
zoning rules is been launched, the objective of which is:
“To enable residential
growth in Hastings by providing for suitable intensification of housing in
appropriate locations.”
However, the horse has
already bolted on unsuitable infill, which has conspired to destroy the garden
city aspect of the district
over the last thirty years. It is difficult to find a street in Hastings that hasn’t been peppered with infill to the benefit
of a baby boomer’s retirement fund. Low minimum site requirements of
350 m2 have allowed for some fairly
high density, low amenity
areas to develop.
Density of housing development
is measured in Dwellings per Hectare (DPH). Traditional Pavlova
paradise has been around 12-14 DPH, but infill development under
current rules has allowed up to 28 DPH.
Infill development is an
issue much bigger
than the Hastings district; it is at the core of a national debate around
housing affordability and Kiwis’ cultural attitudes to
property and housing. ‘Urban intensification’ is also an issue of national scale. A term that has caused much nimbyism, political wrangling, closed door dealings and PR billings.
Aiming to solve issues of
national significance is optimistic at best for a
district the size of Hastings. Shouldn’t issues of national
scale be left to central government to solve, leaving local government to get on
with what they are best at? We have national standards
for all kinds of things, why not design?
So now, perhaps thirty
years too late for Hastings, rules are about to be put in place redefining what
‘character’ is and what you can
or can’t build where. The District Plan review has thankfully highlighted the
need to maintain ‘character’ in certain areas of Havelock north and Hastings
and has established specific zones of residential character.
Hastings has 13 proposed
Character areas to
which varying degrees of protection apply. They have been identified based on
technical reports and consultant feedback and are generally interested in
maintaining pre-1950s character.
Alongside and overlapping
with areas of character are two other
new zones affecting residential development – the City Living zone and
Comprehensive Residential zone. A general residential zone remains in place,
but minimum lot sizes increase
from 350m2 to 400m2.
Planned intensification
Driven by the regional policy statement (RPS 4) and
the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS), the DP review has
come to the party to lay the groundwork for a housing
intensification program.
‘Planned intensification’,
to assist with meeting future demand for housing in Hastings is to be provided for.”
In the name of protecting
the precious soils, a regional push to counter sprawl has predicated areas
where higher density suburbs could be developed. This current District Plan
review has taken the opportunity put some
detail into HPUDS to allow for ‘strategic’ implementation of policy
and roll out in those HPUDS-specified areas. Some have been
deferred, such as Haumoana/Te Awanga; some have been largely ignored, such as Hastings CBD;
and others have been given a clear
green light, like Mahora.
The choice of areas for
intensification has been based on proximity to commercial zones, proximity to
parks, as well as capacity of existing infrastructure to cope with increased
loads.
Predictions on future
demand are based on
Statistics NZ data and a range of growth scenarios. Figures just released
indicate Hastings District has grown only 5,820 residents since 2001 (from
67,425 to 73,245), or only 0.7% per year (485 people). The HPUDS assumption is
a growth of 6.3 % or 8,255 new Hawkes Bay arrivals in the period 2015 of to
2045.
Creating density
A Comprehensive Residential Zone
has been created to enable what it suggests:
‘Comprehensive Residential
Development’, where multiple residential units are planned in an integrated way and enable better
amenity.”
Minimum lot sizes (250m2 per
residential dwelling, or 40 DPH) are prescribed for comprehensive development to
occur. The premise is that multiple sites could be purchased to create a
super site (minimum 1400 m2) of enough scale to
predicate an integrated development approach much like townhouses of
yesteryear.
Assessment criteria have
been proposed for projects in this zone including “Whether
the development is an appropriate architectural quality,
is aesthetically pleasing
and contributes positively to the surrounding area.” Site orientation and project utilization of
passive solar capacity is one forward-thinking criteria
introduced in this zone.
Methods for evaluation are
not outlined, but there are many models
to draw on. Urban designers and urban
design panels are a valuable resource to other councils in this respect. It
will be interesting to see how the Council’s own development on
Fitzroy Avenue will stand up to the
new assessment criteria of “appropriate” quality,
without being vetted for design quality.
“Comprehensive Residential
Development can occur subject to meeting assessment criteria and evaluation to
ensure it is designed to carefully fit in and respect the particular
characteristics of that area.”
The City Living Zones are based on the idea
of sites closer to the inner city being more suitable to higher density living.
The zoned areas are located
in close proximity to Mahora shops & Cornwall Park, and around local shops
on Heretaunga Street East and the
open space of Queen’s Square and are tagged to provide more choice than what
the current market provides. Proposed site areas are
250m² average minimum with a maximum site size of 350 m².
“The City Living Zone is essential to the
successful implementation
of HPUDS in achieving a more compact urban area.”
These new residential zones
sit in uneasy alliance. The premise of intensification around parks, especially Cornwall Park and Queens Park, is somewhat at odds with the retention of
character.
Minimum site sizes are required for
the comprehensive model, which will mean developers need multiple sites cleared
to create a higher density product. This seems to pose a threat to the character of the area being
developed. Will the assessment
criteria and method
of assessment be robust enough to prevent this from happening?
There is a risk the amenity
of some character zones around parks will be compromised. The plan is trying to protect with one
hand, while allowing an untested model with the
other. That is the
planner’s conundrum. Developers’ yields would potentially double,
with no clear process for targeting development contributions back into the affected community. Meanwhile, existing public amenity can be seen as adding
value to the developer’s project. Not a bad deal.
Higher density living
definitely requires greater access to parks and public space than the ‘garden city’ model. However, this
does not mean higher density housing should be located near existing parks and high public amenity areas. There is potentially a recipe for compromise.
Generally, intensification is targeted in areas with
transport and commercial nodes or along arterials, with large
brownfield sites prioritized. Developers should be
compelled to provide quality public space as part of their planning, placing the responsibility for amenity on developers rather than the community.
Compact cities with a high
regard for design and public space are by necessity the way of the future and
the council should be applauded for taking this approach. The difficulty arises in ensuring quality. A
medium density design guide is in the works; it will be interesting to
see how it adds detail to the DP once published.
We need not approach urban
intensification naively; rather we should take aboard
the options, research and
best practice examples and mistakes of the last
thirty years. Ultimately the DP provides a great opportunity for the region to lead.
We need to be sure there is
robust discussion and understanding of the issues the DP sets out to address in its
proposed re-jigging of residential development rules,
and that the idealism inherent in
the planning profession comes to the fore providing
the means for the people of the Hastings District to manage the effects of
land use, and development.
