Let's get Auckland growing in the right places
For many years Auckland has been grappling with where we put future housing and how we accommodate growth.
Recently, Auckland Council's Policy, Planning and Development Committee agreed to send two options for future housing intensification – Scenarios A and B – to local boards and iwi for feedback.
Scenario A is about doing the legal minimum, Scenario B allows housing intensification along the inner Eastern and Southern train stations, the main bus routes into the city and local town centres.
On 21 July, the committee will decide which option should proceed. It should be B.
I've always said Auckland needs to grow, but it needs to grow in the right places. That means putting more homes where people have access to good transport, jobs, shops and services. It means making the most of the enormous investment Aucklanders have already made in infrastructure like the City Rail Link and stopping the endless sprawl.
I must be clear here. Scenario B is not a radical proposal. In fact, the large majority of suburban Auckland would see no change from the current Auckland Unitary Plan.
Scenario B removes previous PC120 proposals relating to some of the less sensible outer suburban bus routes and what remains is a targeted approach that aligns housing growth with transport investment. Transport on the peripheral in the suburbs doesn’t need the same intensification as the inner parts of the city.
What Scenario B does do is focus additional growth around the places where it makes the most sense and 85 per cent of Auckland would remain as it currently is under the unitary plan. Stations such as Ellerslie, Greenlane, Meadowbank, Ōrākei and Newmarket will all benefit significantly from the City Rail Link once it opens, many of these locations will be just 10 to 15 minutes from the city centre by train. These are currently included in B.
If we were to lock in Scenario A, we would be saying no to many of these opportunities. We would be limiting growth to just train stations on the Western Line and turning down sensible intensification along major transport corridors. That makes no sense.
We would also miss opportunities for carefully considered growth in town centres that already have services and amenities in place.
The consequence is straightforward. We would end up with less intensification in the places where it works best.
Auckland shouldn’t be the world’s biggest suburb and sprawl comes at a cost. It requires new roads, pipes, transport links and community facilities. It locks up infrastructure funding and capacity that could be better used elsewhere. Ultimately, Auckland ratepayers end up paying more.
It also gives us flexibility. It means we give the Independent Hearings Panel a buffer capacity to make decisions based on what they hear from the public, as well as an opportunity to deal with any natural hazard issues.
We should listen carefully to the feedback from the local boards and Iwi. I'm open to changes where proposals don't stack up and to practical improvements where they are needed.
But after years of debate, Auckland should not settle for doing the bare minimum required by Wellington. We need a plan that reflects what is best for our city.
That's what Scenario B delivers.
