01 June 2017
New
Zealand’s first National Policy Statement on Urban Development (Capacity) came
into effect 1 December 2016. Responsibility for implementation is split between
Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Ministry for
Environment (MfE).
NZPI is concerned that
the guidance resources prepared by MBIE focus too narrowly on economic outcomes
and measures while the first objective of the NPS is Effective
and efficient urban environments that enable people and communities and future
generations to provide for their social, economic, cultural and environmental
wellbeing.
The NPS
places new obligations on local authorities to ensure that planning decisions
are based on better information, and land supply for residential and business
use can meet future demand.
Key themes
of the NPS include:
- Enabling
development “upwards” by intensifying existing urban areas, and “outwards” by
releasing land in greenfield areas.
-
Ensuring
that development capacity is not only provided for in plans but is also
supported by infrastructure. The NPS requires development capacity to be
serviced with development infrastructure, with different levels of certainty
for infrastructure provision in the short, medium and long-term.
-
Ensuring
that planning occurs with a better understanding of land and development
markets, and the impact that planning has on these. Local authorities will be
required to prepare a housing and business development capacity assessment and
regularly monitor market indicators to ensure there is sufficient development
capacity to meet demand.
MBIE has
developed written guidance covering:
- How to
prepare a housing and business development capacity assessment,
- Monitoring
market indicators.
And two
computer based resources:
- A
development feasibility tool,
- Online
market indicators dashboard.
These
resources are available now at this link.
(A test version of the dashboard is available at this link)
While NZPI commends MBIE’s engagement with high growth council officials and
developers, and welcomes the guidance materials that are now available, we have
additional guidance suggestions which will enable more effective integration
with good urban planning processes and which we consider will deliver better
urban outcomes consistent with NPS objectives.
Preliminary
NZPI issues and suggestions include:
- Despite the objectives of the NPS including social, economic,
cultural and environmental wellbeing (which are the objectives of good urban
planning), MBIE guidance for the NPS is restricted to economic matters. Council
planning staff need to be aware of this.
- Despite NPS policy requiring Councils to monitor urban development outcomes, MBIE
guidance
is restricted to market indicators, and price efficiency
indicators, with a mention of visitor numbers and empty dwelling numbers – but there
is no mention of indicators relating to social, environmental or cultural
wellbeing (such as numbers of local jobs/resident; amount of green space;
public transport availability). Measureable
urban indicators would specify the delivery of minimum public good outcomes.
These could be drawn from ISO 37120:2014 (Sustainable development of
communities – Indicators for city services and quality of life)
- The MBIE Development Feasibility Model examines the economics of
various options for land development from a developer perspective, and outputs
margin and profit on investment and suchlike. However the financial implications
of various Council options for investing in infrastructure are ignored – though
it appears the data is available. Any assessment of development feasibility requires
an appreciation of the public economics of development alongside the private
economics. The MBIE model can be readily enhanced to provide that functionality.
NZPI anticipates that urban planning work places will have
capacity problems finding staff able to do the analytical work needed to comply
with the NPS. NZPI already has an updated CPD course on the economics of urban
development. However we recognise the NPS triggers a technical competency gap
that will need to be addressed with urgency, and have raised this issue with
both Ministries. Both will need to resource and provide for capacity building
within the planning profession.
