Ministry for Environment Research to support guidance on Future Development Strategies

Transcription

1 Report Ministry for Environment Research to support guidance on Future Development Strategies Prepared for Ministry for the Environment Prepared by Beca Limited 23 June 2017

2 Beca 2017 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing). This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk // NZ // i

3 Executive Summary Introduction In 2016, the New Zealand (NZ) Government released the National Policy on Urban Development Capacity (the NPS). The purpose of the NPS is to direct local authorities to provide sufficient development capacity in their resource management plans for housing and business growth to meet demand. The scope of this research was to conduct research and analysis that identifies international and domestic trends and best practice for urban growth management strategies, and recommendations on what guidance could be developed for councils to assist them to meet policies PC12, PC13 and PC14 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. Throughout NZ, a number of councils have worked collaboratively or individually to produce growth management strategies to direct future growth and development. These growth management strategies are varied in their structure, evidence base and use different mechanisms to achieve the outcomes sought. The strategies reviewed as part of this research have been prepared by Councils who have recognised the significant issues that urban growth presents and who have sought to pro-actively manage growth through the preparation of a strategy. The strategies have been prepared in a statutory context that precedes the NPS on Urban Development Capacity and as would be expected, the existing strategies do not fully address all aspects of policies PC12 to PC14 of the NPS as is discussed below. The information presented in this report is based on analysis of NZ and international growth management strategies, interviews with staff of councils and other agencies responsible for the strategies and discussions with experts within Beca involved in growth management work for councils and other clients. Overview of findings Overall, the research found strengths in existing growth strategies, including a clear definition of a vision and the outcomes sought, a strong governance structure where collaboration had occurred to prepare a subregional strategy, and the definition of locations where growth is anticipated to occur. Growth strategies tended to be weaker in demonstrating an integrated approach to planning of growth and infrastructure delivery, and in the monitoring and implementation frameworks to deliver the strategies. Growth strategies generally provided a pragmatic response in responding to future demand for development and were generally not seen to be radical in their approach to addressing this demand (for example the more standard provision of greenfield land rather than an objective for a high proportion of infill). There was a tendency for growth strategies to focus on the identification of future growth areas and less on the actual delivery framework. It was difficult to measure and comment on how successful a number of growth strategies have been especially when many did not contain monitoring indicators to measure success against. Also in some cases, there were not examples of delivery on the ground as a means to demonstrate effective implementation of a strategy. We therefore look to present best practice examples from the development of growth strategies and the lessons learnt to date, and identify key elements that are necessary in the design of best practice Future Development Strategies. Our assessment also provides recommendations on where guidance should focus to help councils meet PC12, PC13 and PC14 of the NPS on Urban Development Capacity // NZ // ii

4 Gaps in relation to PC12 to PC14 of the NPS (Refer to section for more detail) Table 12 provides an overview of whether strategies meet requirements of policies PC12 to PC14 while being cognisant that they were prepared in a context absent of an NPS. At a high level, growth strategies: Identify the broad location of future capacity to accommodate growth (PC13a). Growth strategies generally defined the location of capacity provided to meet future needs. In some cases, the extent of the area for growth was defined. Provide a degree of certainty regarding how growth is to be managed over the horizon of the growth strategy (PC13(b)). Are informed by a broader strategic framework of documents, both statutory (e.g. Regional Policy Statement, Long Term Council Community Plan) and non-statutory (e.g. Council strategies, plans and policies) (PC13(c)). While the context/ framework that a strategy was prepared within was communicated, references to other strategies and plans was primarily in the context of how the growth strategy was to be implemented. With a number of Councils already having growth strategies in place and subsequent implementation of those strategies giving rise to a number of other plans/ strategies/ implementation methods, the range of inputs to the review of existing strategies and/or preparation of FDSs will be more extensive. While informing the growth strategy, there will be benefits in Council reviewing plans/ strategies together or in close sequence for alignment/ consistency. For example, the Auckland Plan, Unitary Plan, Future Urban Land Supply Strategy as well as the Long Term Plan work simultaneously to outline the Future Growth Strategy for Auckland. These plans and strategies may need to be reviewed collectively to demonstrate that the requirements of the NPS have been met. Have been informed by consultation that has occurred on issues, options and/or a proposal (PC14a). The strategies prepared by Councils to date have been under the Local Government Act and therefore, Councils have had a duty to consult in accordance with Part 6 of the Local Government Act. A useful example of a forum established by a growth strategy which included a broad range of stakeholders is SmartGrowth. The Strategic Partners Forums includes representation from both the public and private sector (although it is noted that there are some public agencies and a broad range of the private sector which are missing). The benefit of the Strategic Partners Forum and more specific Issues Forums (such as the Housing Affordability Forum) is that it provides the opportunity for the consideration of how the strategy is likely to affect the community and ideas from the forums are fed up to the Strategic Partners Forum for consideration (which has meant that the strategy as a whole has become more community led). As stated above, existing strategies were prepared in a policy context, absent of the NPS and therefore, existing strategies do not address all components of policies PC12 to PC14 of the NPS. Those areas where further work is typically required by Councils relate to the following: Demonstrating that feasible development capacity is sufficient to meet future growth (PC12). With feasible development capacity having multiple dimensions (plan enabled, infrastructure enabled and commercial feasibility). As is discussed in the report, the commercial feasibility of development potential has not been presented in the strategies reviewed. This is likely for a number of reasons, including inhouse expertise, the availability of information to determine feasibility, and the absence of a legislative requirement to determine feasible development capacity. An example of where the market attractiveness or feasibility was an important part of assessing and identifying the appropriate pattern and extent of zoning was in the Auckland Unitary Plan Process. The Auckland Council Development Capacity model utilised a multiplicity of variables, including both enabled capacity (by district plan zoning) and market attractiveness. This model was utilised to inform decision // NZ // iii

5 making about the future urban growth over the next years in Auckland. For most strategies reviewed, growth areas were implied to be feasible based on various levels of evidence-base, however the practical and explicit link to secured infrastructure funding and/or a certain enabling process such as permissive zoning/ plan change process was less clear. As these aspects of feasibility develop through implementation, and also through other separate processes (for example Long-Term Plans for funding; plan changes for rezoning and enabling development) it is difficult to specifically gauge from the strategies reviewed, the enabled feasibility. The timing and sequencing of future development strategies (PC13(a)) Few strategies had explicit provision for sequencing of capacity or indicated the timing of capacity in the strategy itself. Inherent within any planning for growth and the timing of development potential being realised is an understanding of infrastructure requirements/ constraints, which Councils will undertake to different degrees. The extent to which sequencing is used will depend on the infrastructure and other constraints that exist. A best practice example of sequencing is the Waipa Growth Strategy, which split capacity according to different periods. This is clearly articulated in words (page 37 of the strategy) and mapping of capacity, for example, page 36, with certainty provided in the pre-conditions and timing for release (example on page 38 of the strategy). The responsiveness of strategies (PC13(b)) Strategies may also specify a review period, as to when a review is to be undertaken. However, this may not provide sufficient flexibility to adapt in periods of unforeseen growth as is sought by the NPS. This may take the form of mechanisms that allow for changes in where growth occurs or the timing of growth for example. Few strategies in a NZ or international context had a specified mechanism to allow for changes without a process of review. The example of a criteria based policy in the Waikato RPS provides one approach, Vancouver offering an alternative. The non-statutory nature of strategies prepared to date provides some flexibility, allowing for amendments under an LGA process. However, this may not be responsive in a timely manner to the extent of what is sought through the NPS. The other two areas where Councils will be addressing NPS requirements but have generally not in the past, is a capacity assessment as required under policy PB1 and demonstrating that there is sufficient capacity at any one time in having particular regard to policy PA1 (PC14b and c). Themes identified Through the review process, broad themes emerged that are considered to be integral building blocks of a successful Future Development Strategy (FDS), and these are Collaboration; Integration; Communication; and Implementation. The following summarise each of the themes and what they cover: Collaboration: Consultation with stakeholders and the wider community in preparation of the evidence base and strategy; inter-agency collaboration, including the processes and governance structures in place during both the preparation as well as the ongoing implementation of the strategy. Integration: Extent to which infrastructure (including hard e.g. roading, 3 waters, and soft infrastructure e.g. schools, community facilities) is integrated into the planning of growth including the areas identified, alignment in the funding and programming of infrastructure, and clarity of responsibilities for delivery across agencies; degree to which an integrated approach is taken through RMA documents and other plans/ strategies to growth management // NZ // iv

6 Communication: The extent to which there is an evidence base and analysis as a foundation for the strategy and how that is communicated; How strategies communicate information on the location, timing and sequencing of growth; presentation of maps, tables, evidence and process of implementation; extent of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders and the wider community in delivery; clarity of the evidence base that has informed the strategy and the quality of that evidence base. Implementation: How effective the strategy has been in delivery on the ground; the framework in place for monitoring and delivery; and the responsiveness built into the strategy to adapt to changes in demand. Across these themes, there are overlaps. An example is the evidence base to inform a growth strategy, which is considered under the four themes above. How evidence base sits under each of the four themes is explained as follows and as the first step in the process of preparing an FDS, it is an important step: Collaboration in preparation of the evidence base, drawing on information across agencies and to achieve consistency in methodology; Integration by understanding constraints and opportunities (including infrastructure requirements) up front and early in the process as part of any evaluation of potential locations, as well as integration across Councils for the same urban area in defining the methodology and information collected for the evidence base. Communication through the collection of information and evidence. Evidence is reliant on working with others e.g. communication with the development sector to understand commercial feasibility of capacity. Also relevant is the extent to which the evidence base and analysis are communicated. Implementation including monitoring the effectiveness of the strategy, which is reliant on a baseline. The research is presented under the four broad themes in the results and analysis section. Broadly they recognise the need to: collaborate well at the start of the process, effectively integrate all necessary elements within the growth strategy, communicate the strategy effectively through the use of maps, tables and information, and for there to be an effective implementation framework. We provide our summary analysis of our findings in relation to these four themes in the summary boxes outlined below. Summary of themes The below sub-sections outline the four essential building blocks required for a successful Future Development Strategy // NZ // v

7 Collaboration Building block 1: Involving and engaging with the right people NZ and international strategies generally provided evidence of community consultation and engagement with the community during development of the strategy. Engagement was undertaken utilising a variety of mechanisms and complied with NZ requirements under the Local Government Act 2002 (as required by PC13(c)). Strategies tended to rely on other processes for implementation and review so did not clearly articulate how the community could be involved in this process. One of the key purposes of working in partnership was to facilitate a more consistent and collaborative approach to planning for an area (in terms of both infrastructure delivery and integrated land use planning). This approach also recognises that the administrative boundaries of local authorities should not get in the way of good planning and service delivery. Successful collaborations (Waipa 2050, Future Proof, Greater Nottingham Core Aligned Strategies, Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Local Strategic Statement and SmartGrowth) involved key stakeholders early in the development process and also included them in decision-making processes. Successful collaborations also had established governance structures with representation from stakeholders. The governance structure was considered to be one of the main successes of the SmartGrowth strategy. Involvement of stakeholders in the decision making processes increased the level of buy-in to the strategy and its delivery, with reliance on stakeholders for the implementation of actions. Collaboration (as presented in the strategies reviewed) tended to have a strong focus on public sector and iwi relationships and a weaker focus on private sector/ developer relationships // NZ // vi

8 Integration Building block 2: Integrating and aligning future development with infrastructure Infrastructure requirements have been considered in decisions on the location of growth in growth strategies. However, in a NZ context, there has not been a significant amount of detail provided in the strategy itself. Of the strategies that specified infrastructure requirements, Waipa was identified as good practice by defining infrastructure requirements by individual growth nodes. Other strategies in a NZ context provided information on infrastructure at a higher level e.g. Christchurch. The level of detail ranged from maps showing infrastructure constraints at a high level to infrastructure requirements for specific localities and that the public or private sector would fund it. A common weaknesses is the alignment with the provision of social infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, community housing, community and sports facilities There were very few strategies in NZ that had explicit reference to Councils regulatory infrastructure and funding plans. The best example was Waipa, which included infrastructure considerations as preconditions for the release of land and identified whether funding was identified in their Long Term Plan. There were varied approaches to achieving alignment between growth and infrastructure delivery in an international context. Some strategies did not provide detail whilst others (such as the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy) demonstrated how funding had been/ was to be secured. Many strategies relied on other documents so did not contain details about alignment with infrastructure funding decisions. In those cases, cross-referencing between documents would be helpful to understand how regulatory and infrastructure funding decisions are aligned. A good practice example from an international context was Nottingham, an example of the approach taken in a UK context. With a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework being for local councils to ensure their Core Strategy proposals are supported by satisfactory infrastructure, Nottingham along with other Councils have prepared an Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This provides a strong link between the growth proposed by the strategy and infrastructure required to support it as well as demonstrating up front work in achieving an integrated approach // NZ // vii

9 Communication Building block 3: Presenting the growth vision and framework in a clear and informative manner Communicating sufficient, feasible development capacity to meet targets: With the exception of West Sussex, growth strategies did not effectively communicate sufficient, feasible development capacity to meet targets in line with Policy PC12. Reasons for this, cited by local authorities, included a lack of resources and robust upfront consultation with the development sector. The absence of institutional knowledge on the economics of development has also been a factor underpinning the absence of assessment of development feasibility. Communicating the location of development capacity: Growth strategies primarily used spatial maps to communicate the broad location of intensification opportunities within existing urban areas, although as shown in Table 5 (in section 4 below) this often does not extend to communicating development capacity in numbers; and Growth strategies generally communicated the location of future greenfield areas on spatial maps. However, as with intensification opportunities, strategies often did not communicate development capacity. Communicating broad timing/sequencing of future development capacity: Growth strategies generally communicated the broad timing of actions to enable development; and Apart from Hamilton, Waipa and Christchurch, strategies did not communicate the sequencing of development capacity. Communicating infrastructure requirements to enable development: Growth strategies were found to use both spatial maps and/or tables to communicate infrastructure requirements, with Waipa providing a good example where infrastructure constraints were identified by location/ area. A robust assessment of infrastructure constraints relied on upfront consultation and collaboration with stakeholders to enable their identification and an understanding of what was required to overcome those constraints. A number of Councils understand infrastructure requirements to enable growth in the short term but this wasn t articulated clearly in the strategies themselves. Balancing certainty and responsiveness Growth strategies generally do not specifically balance certainty and responsiveness. Only Waipa was found to provide a good example (through the use of effective spatial mapping) to provide certainty of the location of development capacity and the ability to respond to changes in demand // NZ // viii

10 Communicating the role of stakeholders: For FDS, communicating who is to be involved and their responsibilities in the delivery process can assist in meeting Policies PC12 and 13; and To communicate the role of stakeholders and their active engagement in implementation requires a robust consultation process at the beginning of the process in preparing a FDS. The quality of information growth strategies are based on: For FDS to be informed by quality evidence, they need to be informed by up to date research and analysis, and have adequate resources and funding to enable this to be undertaken at a local level that is relevant to the context and this can be done through good collaboration and pooling of resources // NZ // ix

11 Implementation Building block 4: Having a clear framework for how the strategy will be realised and reviewed Providing certainty for the provision of development (PC13(b)) The majority of growth strategies had an implementation framework, however there were discrepancies among growth strategies of how much detail these contained. FDS will need a good informative implementation framework which provides certainty for the provision of urban development and they are produced with robust upfront consultation and communication with stakeholders. Both Melbourne and Greater Nottingham had best practice examples of implementation plans. This was due to the level of detail that was presented in these plans. It was evident that a lot of robust upfront consultation had occurred with stakeholders to determine who, how and when projects were to be initiated / delivered. The driving factor behind this detail appeared to be that both the Melbourne and Greater Nottingham strategies had statutory weight and which generated greater interest and responsiveness as part of an upfront consultation process. Also there was more upfront work undertaken on infrastructure delivery to inform the strategy. Growth strategies generally do not contain effective monitoring frameworks, which are considered necessary to inform both certainty of development and responsiveness as required by Policy PC13B. Growth strategies often defer the development of indicators and monitoring frameworks until a later date. A lack of resourcing and funding contributes towards an inability to undertake effective monitoring of growth strategies. In terms of best practice, Coast West Sussex provided a good example of a strategy that clearly outlined annual dwelling supply targets, year on year progress in terms of delivery and commented on how shortfalls were proposed to be met. The basis for this was the level of collaboration with borough councils, and that there was sufficient resources and funding to allow detailed monitoring to occur. In a New Zealand context emerging best practice from Christchurch includes showing live monitoring data of dwelling counts in development areas and this is further presented in section Review timeframes for growth strategies and how they are kept relevant (PC13(b)) There was a lack of specific timeframes for review within growth strategies and many are not currently up to date, which impacts their ability to provide for effective implementation. Ensuring FDS are responsive to changes in development demand and are able to provide certainty under Policy PC13(b) will require FDS to be regularly reviewed. The review of strategies was not deemed to be a priority by some Councils, having regard to other statutory responsibilities. Also with significant growth, growth strategies were not responsive and became irrelevant to the current context. Best practice in this context is that a FDS should specify a timeframe for review and that this occurs. Ensuring there is adequate resourcing and funding to undertake the review process will be important, in light of many Councils stating they had to prioritise resources and funding to other statutory work areas // NZ // x

12 Mechanisms to enable additional growth areas to be included in FDS (PC13(b)) There are few mechanisms contained within growth strategies to respond in a short timeframe, with the only examples being in Vancouver and the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS). In Vancouver local councils can apply to a governance board to make an amendment to the overall Vancouver growth strategy, for example to move the rural urban boundary to supply more land for housing. While outside the Future Proof growth strategy, policy of the Waikato RPS allows for changes to the release of residential and industrial land if certain criteria is met. The WRPS is a good example of how a responsive mechanism can sit outside an FDS and still be effective in managing growth // NZ // xi

13 Best Practice Future Development Strategies On the basis of lessons learned, and the requirements and objectives of the NPS, the characteristics / elements discussed in this chapter are preferable in the design of Best Practice Future Development Strategies. These characteristics are structured according to the four themes. Collaboration Undertaking robust upfront consultation with stakeholders The most prevalent theme that emerged from the research in terms of best practice when preparing growth strategies was the need to undertake robust upfront consultation with stakeholders. To comply with Policies PC12-14, FDS will need to be informative, have a strong evidence base and be able to clearly communicate goals and objectives. Information will need to be obtained upfront and consultation/ engagement undertaken with stakeholders to define key elements such as the: Locality of future development opportunities; Constraints to development; Opportunities for partnership between stakeholders; Sequencing of development; Responsiveness of the strategy; and How goals and objectives will be implemented and monitored. If there are gaps in information sources, this is likely to increase the amount of uncertainty in the strategy, particularly in regards to how councils may enable sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long term. Growth strategies that undertook robust upfront consultation, for example Greater Nottingham, were able to tell an effective story from start to finish of how future development was planned to occur. Collaboration between local authorities to enable pooling of resources A theme of in medium and small scale local authorities in particular was limited resources and funding to undertake monitoring and have a strong evidence base. The ability to combine resources and funding allows local authorities to overcome shortfalls in resources and funding. The sharing of Wellington City s capacity model with surrounding local authorities provided an example of where good collaboration can occur to fill a shortfall in resourcing. Each local authority is likely to have unique expertise and resources that others do not. Collaborating to determine what wider resources are available prevents the need to secure funding to fill voids in the resource base. Integration In planning for growth through the FDS and implementation, integration with planned and future infrastructure is fundamental.this relies on robust constraints and opportunities analysis and good upfront consultation with stakeholders rather than deferring work until a later date. In doing so, consideration needs to be given to all forms of infrastructure. The strategy in Greater Nottingham achieved this well with both hard infrastructure and social infrastructure requirements captured. Consideration of infrastructure needs to also be integrated into the objective and policy framework of the strategy // NZ // xii

14 Communication Clarity of how growth is to be managed and analysis The communication of development capacity, sequencing and timing needs to be clear as this allows stakeholders, the wider community and developers to understand the manner in which growth is to be provided for. This includes clarity of the growth anticipated and capacity in numerical and spatial terms, as well as constraints e.g. infrastructure, and the actions to overcome these. To provide confidence, an understanding is also required of responsibilities and timing for delivery. In demonstrating transparency, there is also a need for the strategy to tell the story of how the proposed pattern of development has been arrived at. This includes the analysis of constraints and opportunities, and decision-making framework, which helps build certainty and trust around the direction the growth strategy is taking. Implementation Preparation of an effective implementation and monitoring framework To provide transparency and accountability, growth strategies must have an effective implementation and monitoring framework. Tracking and measuring how effective growth strategies are in achieving their goals and objectives can provide certainty for stakeholders. Being able to ascertain how effective a strategy is can also influence decisions including changes necessary to meet growth needs. Growth strategies that had both an effective implementation and monitoring framework, such as Coastal West Sussex, were able to show if dwelling targets were being achieved and if not how the shortfall was going to be addressed. Recommendations on where Guidance should focus The following recommendations are made for which next steps are identified (Refer to section 6.0 for more detail). 1. Recommendations related to Policy PC12 Use of consistent models and data, where appropriate, to determine capacity, feasibility and performance indicators Next steps Guidance recommends that Councils facing the same growth pressures work closely together by means of a forum established to aid and increase the dialogue between Councils e.g. Auckland and Waikato District. Data on growth at a sub-regional level and/or within the same housing market is published and shared between authorities. Clear direction of priority to growth and how it is to be effectively implemented through infrastructure provision Next steps Guidance strongly encourages Councils to make single decisions on growth management and the programming/ funding of infrastructure that affect multiple documents i.e. growth strategy, Long Term Plan, avoiding the need to revisit decisions as part of separate decision-making processes // NZ // xiii

15 Guidance strongly recommends that Councils run parallel processes for engagement and background work to inform their growth strategy and other integrated planning documents. Guidance recommends a parallel or closely sequenced process for preparation or review of a growth strategy with other documents including the RPS, Long Term Plans and District Plan. Sharing of resources and the preparation of combined strategies, where possible Next steps Guidance should describe the methods (as above) by which Councils can collaborate, drawing on the examples. Guidance should strongly recommend that Councils in the same urban area engage with one another by forums/ meetings/ workshops to test ideas and explore what works/ doesn t work. The Quality Planning website incorporates a page for Councils to share what they consider to be good practice, lessons learnt. Recommendations for Councils not previously active in urban growth management Next steps Guidance should describe the methods by which Councils can collaborate (see earlier recommendation), drawing on the examples of collaboration in the Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Christchurch. Councils where good practice has emerged share that knowledge, for example a representative of Council is invited to participate in a roadshow or spend a week with each Council that is looking for a more in-depth understanding of best practice e.g. the knowledge and experience of those leading best practice is utilised to assist other Councils, particularly those with less experience. 2. Recommendations related to Policy PC13 Robust upfront consultation with infrastructure providers and other stakeholders Next steps: Guidance strongly encourages Councils to establish forums to bring together a range of stakeholders and other theme based forums. This is resource intensive but can provide gains for the future i.e. overcoming issues early to reduce debate in a statutory review of an RMA document. Guidance encourages Councils to prepare a plan or topic papers, drawing on examples from Waipa and Nottingham on infrastructure and other requirements for growth options/ scenarios, which are prepared in a joint manner between agencies responsible for infrastructure delivery. This is to occur early in the process of reviewing/ preparing a growth strategy and should remain a living document, shared with the community. Government agencies, i.e. NZ Transport Agency, Ministry of Education, Housing New Zealand, MBIE, Ministry of Health, are encouraged to engage with Councils on the contribution they can make to growth management and the preparation of FDSs. Constraints and opportunities analysis Next steps Guidance provides a framework for undertaking a constraints and opportunities analysis, drawing on this research // NZ // xiv

16 Templates are incorporated into the guidance on what an effective constraints analysis looks like, and can be applied by Councils. Examples identified include: A form for evaluating individual sites/ areas against criteria; A form for completing an effective multi-criteria analysis; and A form for inviting views on potential sites that Councils should assess as part of any capacity assessment. Timing and nature of changes proposed to RMA documents Next steps As stated earlier, guidance should strongly encourage Councils to make integrated decisions on growth management and the programming/ funding of infrastructure that affect multiple documents i.e. growth strategy, Long Term Plan, avoiding the need to revisit decisions as part of separate decision-making processes. Guidance requires Councils to specify the timing and responsibility for actions of reviewing/ preparing other documents, particularly the RPS, District Plan and Long Term Plan. This is to provide certainty for stakeholders and the community. Guidance strongly recommends that Councils run integrated processes for engagement and background work to inform their growth strategy and other planning documents. Mapping Next steps The guidance provides examples of the different scales that best practice is produced at and references these as what is expected in growth strategies. For towns, the Waipa example is recommended, and for a larger urban area, Nottingham is recommend, the latter identifying strategic sites. Guidance encourages Councils to communicate the capacity in numbers of how many residential units can be accommodated while clearly documenting assumptions. Guidance requires the timing and sequencing of growth to be illustrated on maps and in a table, while also making it clear of the reasons for the timing/ sequencing and what constraints need to be overcome. Also refer to next steps below. Strategies need to be able to adapt to changes in market demand Next steps Guidance refers to mechanisms that Councils should consider in their growth strategy, the recommendation being to test a criteria based policy that enables: Development of land for housing that is identified for business in the strategy; Development of land outside or as an extension of defined growth areas; and Development of land out of sequence with the pattern defined in the strategy. Enabling growth in an efficient manner without an over-allocation of resources Next steps Guidance recommends that Councils undertake a benefit/ cost evaluation (equivalent to a section 32 process) and/ or apply a business case approach to planning of infrastructure and consider the costs of implementing the strategy over time, while providing flexibility for changes. This could be tested by scenario/ sensitivity testing of alternative options. Councils are encouraged to have a programme manager for managing the process // NZ // xv

17 Development of an effective implementation and monitoring framework Next steps Guidance provides direction on the key components of an effective monitoring framework (Refer to section 5.4.1). Data is shared across Councils and agencies in a transparent manner for efficiency. A champion for leading the delivery of the strategy is appointed i.e. an implementation manager Case managers are appointed for each growth area to manage all aspects and to act as a key contact for stakeholders. Stakeholder forums are established and meet on a regular and ongoing basis to report on the delivery of actions and progress. 3. Recommendations related to Policy PC14 That FDS s be prepared in conjunction with review of statutory documents (Regional Policy Statement and Long Term Plan) or sequenced closely together Next steps Guidance provides direction that Councils should align the programming for preparation of their FDS with the review of statutory documents. Guidance recommends that Councils in their FDS, specify the timing for review of the RPS, District Plan and Long Term Plan to provide greater certainty. That stakeholders beyond local government are involved at an early stage in a collaborative manner Next steps Guidance refers to the methods that can be used to involve stakeholders in a collaborative manner as described above. Guidance that should emphasise the value of stakeholder engagement and involvement in the process of preparing a strategy, including the types of inputs required to provide for comprehensive community outcomes for example service infrastructure; social infrastructure; private developer planning; specific local groups that could add value to strategy planning. Other relevant steps are specified earlier // NZ // xvi

18 Contents Executive Summary i 1 Introduction Key objectives of this research 1 2 Scope Scope of research Selection of Urban Growth Strategies 2 3 Methodology Desk-top Evaluation of Growth Strategies Research Interviews 4 4 Results and Analysis Collaboration Integration Communication Implementation Gap analysis and Key questions 65 5 Best Practice Future Development Strategies Collaboration Integration Communication Implementation 87 6 Recommendations on Guidance for Future Development Strategies Recommendations related to Policy PC Recommendations related to Policy PC // NZ // i

19 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to summarise the findings of a review of growth strategies in both a New Zealand (NZ) and international context to inform the Ministry for the Environment s (the Ministry) implementation programme under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (the NPS), which includes a requirement for the preparation of Future Development Strategies (FDS). This research looks at how local authorities in high-growth and medium-growth areas, as identified in the NPS, are currently managing growth through their existing strategies, and the practice in an international context to managing growth. 1.1 Key objectives of this research The purpose of this research was to review both NZ and international growth strategies to identify any clear trends, emerging best practice and lessons learnt to assist Councils embarking on the preparation of an FDS or review of their existing strategy to meet requirements of the NPS. This research will feed into the Ministry s implementation programme under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity, including the preparation of guidance to support Councils. 2 Scope 2.1 Scope of research The scope of this research was to conduct research and analysis that identifies international and domestic trends and best practice for urban growth management strategies, and recommendations on what guidance could be developed for councils to assist them to meet policies PC12 - PC14 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. More specifically, the report was to provide the following: a stocktake of international growth strategies to identify international trends and best practice; and a stocktake of existing NZ growth management strategies in all high-growth urban areas and a sample of growth management strategies from medium-growth urban areas. This was to include analysis of how current strategies meet policies PC12, PC13, PC14 and the objectives of the NPS on Urban Development Capacity. In preparing a stocktake, analysis was to consider the following questions for both international and NZ examples: The extent that strategies provide certainty for feasible development opportunities in the long term; How they manage private industry expectations about future supply and prices to mitigate land banking and upward pressure on prices; Whether the strategies provide a basis for integrated infrastructure and land use regulatory planning; What quality of information and evidence and analysis are the strategies based on; Whether the strategies are able to respond to demand (is planning responsiveness built into the strategy); Whether the strategies provide a basis for facilitating private funding/ provision of some network infrastructure; To what extent is community discussion/ involvement built into the strategy and review process and at what level (region-wide, city-wide, local); Whether the strategies were developed collaboratively, and if so, what was the process; and // NZ // page 1

20 To what extent the strategies have resulted in aligning Council s regulatory and infrastructure funding decisions. For NZ examples, the research was also to consider: The gaps within existing plans and strategies that will impact council s ability to meet the requirement of policies PC12, PC13 and PC14 of the NPS on Urban Development Capacity; and The extent that strategies provide certainty that Resource Management Act and Local Government Act plans will enable feasible development opportunities in the long term. Drawing on the stocktake, the research was to Identify key characteristics/elements that are necessary and preferable in the design of best practice Future Development Strategies; and Recommendations on where guidance should focus, in terms of individual councils, council types, and specific components of policies PC12, PC13 and PC14 of the NPS on Urban Development Capacity. As agreed, the scope of the project excludes the following: Preparation of content for any published guidance prepared by the Ministry for the Environment to support Councils; Definition of what an FDS looks like or a structure for a FDS; Recommendations on what Councils need to do to address gaps identified in their strategies; and An economic assessment of the effect that existing growth strategies have on market indications including pricing. 2.2 Selection of Urban Growth Strategies The urban growth strategies assessed were as follows: New Zealand High Growth The Auckland Plan (2012); Future Proof (2009); Smartgrowth Strategy (2013); Waipa 2050 (2009); Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (2007); and A Growth Management Strategy for the Queenstown Lakes District (2007). Medium Growth Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (2010); Wellington Urban Growth Plan ; Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy ; Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy 2007; Porirua Development Frameworks 2009; Nelson Urban Growth Strategy 2006; and Residential Growth Strategy 2010 (Palmerston North City Council) // NZ // page 2

21 2.2.2 International The examples drawn on from an international context reflect a diversity of urban environments while remaining relevant to a NZ context. The strategies identified are concerned with managing growth in cities that have similar issues and that necessitates the identification of areas for growth and an integrated approach to managing land use and infrastructure. Canada Metro Vancouver s 2040 Shaping our Future Strategy Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Australia Plan Melbourne The Draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. United Kingdom Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategy 2014 Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Local Strategic Statement Methodology 3.1 Desk-top Evaluation of Growth Strategies The initial phase of the project was a desk-top evaluation of growth strategies, collating information to address specific questions outlined in Table 1. This was expanded on with further questions considered in the context of each strategy to enable a greater understanding and analysis. As agreed with the Ministry, the questions as a focus for the research are outlined in the first column of Table 1. Table 1: Outline of questions used in the evaluation of growth strategies Research question What are the gaps within existing plans and strategies that will impact council s ability to meet the requirements of Policies PC12-14 of the NPS? What is the extent of certainty in the strategies for feasible development opportunities in the long term? How do strategies manage the expectations of the private sector on future supply and pricing to mitigate land banking and upward pressure on prices? Related sub-category question Assessed within the analysis stage of the research How does the strategy/plan identify areas for development? How does the strategy/plan outline what infrastructure requirements are needed for the specific development? Does the strategy/plan separate out how infrastructure will be delivered to accompany the development? Does the strategy/plan specify what actions are required next to trigger development? Is there a clear framework/ pathway for implementation within the strategy/plan? Does the strategy/plan specify how land will be made ready to enable development? How does the strategy/plan justify the need and benefits of the selected development? For the areas identified for growth, does the strategy/plan provide information to indicate constraints to development? Does the strategy/plan provide information on how constraints can be overcome? Does the plan/strategy specify the infrastructure requirements for land to be developed? // NZ // page 3

22 Research question Do the strategies provide the basis for integrated infrastructure and land use regulatory planning? What quality of information and evidence and analysis are the strategies based on? Are the strategies able to respond to changes in demand? Do the strategies provide a basis for facilitating private funding/provision of some network infrastructure? To what extent is community discussion/involvement built into the strategy and review process and at what level (region, city, or local level)? Were the strategies developed collaboratively, and if so what was the process? To what extent have the strategies resulted in aligning councils regulatory and infrastructure funding decisions? Related sub-category question Does the plan/strategy specify the timing of infrastructure delivery in relation to development? Does the flexibility implied by the growth strategy for the delivery of infrastructure get applied in practice? Does Council specify any specific incentives they will undertake to encourage development in identified areas? Does the plan/strategy show how the development will fit into surrounding projects/environment? How does the plan/strategy show the wider benefits to the city of undertaking the development? Do the areas identified for growth align with existing and planned infrastructure and how is this alignment shown? Is there clarity on the responsibility of infrastructure development to keep up with land development? Does the document identify the various 'players' that will influence predicted growth and who they are? Does the document identify who needs to work together in an integrated way to deliver the proposed development? What documents have informed the strategy? What is the period that the strategy is for? Is there an indication of when a review is planned for? Are there mechanisms to enable additional areas to be made available for house/business development within a shorter timeframe that the strategy is for? Is there an identified monitoring framework to track demand/progress towards achieving a strategy s objectives/aspirations? Does the strategy specify stakeholders and responsibilities for infrastructure delivery including private funding/ where can this be found? What opportunities were provided for community input into the strategy? What evidence is there to indicate buy-in/acceptance of the plan? Is the plan written as a document for the community or authority responsible? Are there actions specified for further stakeholder input in implementation of the strategy? Was the plan developed as a partnership between multiple agencies/authorities/ key stakeholders? What structures are in place for achieving a collaborative approach? Is there a link (in the strategy or another document) between the strategy and funding programmes and plans for infrastructure delivery? Is the agency responsible for infrastructure delivery the same as the regulatory authority? Is there evidence of collaboration where separate? 3.2 Research Interviews Following the desk-based review of growth strategies, interviews were conducted via phone or in person if it was practical to do so. While questions were used to frame the discussion, the interviews were conversational, with discussion drawing out: the process for preparation of the growth strategies; the rationale behind the strategies; effectiveness of implementation of the strategies; and answers to questions arising from the desk-based review // NZ // page 4

23 4 Results and Analysis Through evaluation of the information and analysis, four key themes emerged that that were identified, being: Collaboration; Integration; Communication; and Implementation. The analysis in this section is structured according to these themes but also considers the requirements of Policies PC12-14 of the NPS. 4.1 Collaboration Collaborating and engaging with the community and key stakeholders are considered to be essential processes required for the development and implementation of the FDS. Policy 14 of the NPS requires that in developing a FDS, local authorities shall undertake consultation that complies with Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Local Government Act) or Schedule 1 of the Act. Section 82 of the Local Government Act outlines the broad principles of consultation required to be followed by a local authority. Through the interviews with local authorities, it was acknowledged that consultation was required in the development of growth strategies in accordance with the Local Government Act. The methodologies that were utilised to fulfil the principles described in Part 6 of the Act are analysed below. A summary of the research and findings regarding Collaboration can be found in the Executive Summary How do growth strategies engage the community in the development and implementation of the strategy? During development NZ and international strategies generally provided evidence of community consultation and engagement with the community during development of the strategy. Engagement was undertaken utilising a variety of mechanisms. A summary of findings is outlined in the table below: Table 2: Consultation mechanisms Consultation Mechanism A specific consultation phase to obtain community viewpoints Release of draft reports with potential growth scenarios which the public could submit on Strategy which utilised this mechanism Most of the growth strategies analysed in this Report described a consultation phase where the draft strategy was released to the public for consultation and/or more targeted consultation was undertaken Future Proof Palmerston North Upper Hutt Nelson Greater Golden Horseshoe Queenstown Future Proof Auckland Coastal West Sussex // NZ // page 5

24 Consultation Mechanism Community forums for targeted group consultation on particular issues Community surveying and public meetings Consultation from previous plans (such as local area plans) to inform the development of the growth strategy Creation of an Advisory Panel to review and provide advice on feedback received Strategy which utilised this mechanism Smart Growth Future Proof Queenstown Auckland Palmerston North Nelson Queenstown Future Proof Smart Growth Melbourne Hamilton Greater Golden Horseshoe Queenstown Greater Golden Horseshoe Most strategies utilised a number of different mechanisms to consult with the community during development. Some information from pervious consultation on other plans were utilised to inform the future direction of growth. For example, Hamilton City Council had completed significant community consultation on other projects (structure plans for Rototuna, Rotokauri and Peacocke) which was utilised to inform the growth cells. There are number of factors which influence the type and amount of consultation with the community. These factors include: The amount of previous consultation on projects covering similar issues; The appetite of the community to be involved; The location of the growth compared to the population of the existing community; Previous engagement and consultation strategies which have been successful; and The profile of the community or communities being consulted. It is noted that there are likely to be a number of other factors that influence consultation and engagement strategies. It is considered that local authorities around NZ generally understand their obligations under the Local Government Act for consultation due to the consultation which they have to undertake in delivering their functions as a territorial authority During implementation There was varied community engagement during the implementation of the strategy, depending on the tool which was being utilised to implement the strategy. Separate community consultation processes were utilised if the implementation tool was a resource management document including Regional Policy Statements, Plan Changes and/or District Plan reviews. See Figure 1 below which is an excerpt from the Growth Management Strategy for Queenstown Lakes District (2007) // NZ // page 6

25 Figure 1 Process for development and review of the strategy in Queenstown Very few strategies referenced specific community consultation during implementation of the strategy, which is likely to be due to the reliance on other processes for implementation e.g. Long Term Plans (which were also required to comply with consultation requirements under the Local Government Act). Sections of growth strategies on implementation tended to focus on consultation and collaboration with stakeholders (rather than engagement with the community). In the NZ context, exceptions to this were Future Proof, SmartGrowth and Waipa The detail provided in FDSs of community consultation and involvement during review processes differed depending on the level of detail provided about the review process. Many plans did not specify the review period and so the level of community consultation and involvement was also not outlined. When other strategies (such as Long Term Plans and District Plans) are relied upon for implementation, some strategies such as Waipa 2050, Future Proof, and the Hamilton Growth Strategy stated that these documents would need to be reviewed. It is therefore inferred, based on the requirements under the Local Government Act, that consultation would be required and would be tailored to the changes required and communities involved (at a region, city-wide or local level). The governance structure outlined in SmartGrowth, which has a number of community consultation groups which feed ideas back up the structure, enables stakeholder ideas to be fed into the revision of the strategy. There are a number of forums (as shown in Figure 3) relating to different issues (the environment, youth, learning. housing, property etc). From the related interview, comment was made that these have been very useful to obtain grassroots community input and knowledge. The forums have also been integral in the review processes, feeding back ideas of things that could be changed and new initiatives that are considered to be important to the community in respect of these different topics. It was commented that the strategy has been shaped by these ideas and has subsequently become more community led. Review processes internationally tended to be scheduled for every 5 years and similar to NZ, governance structures and implementation processes dictated the level of community involvement in the review process. Interestingly in Nottingham, the council in a Statement of Consultation provides detail of the Council s policy for involving communities when preparing and revising planning documents and considering applications in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations This document clearly demonstrates to the community what consultation has been undertaken for the Nottingham // NZ // page 7

26 City Aligned Core Strategy Development Plan. This level of detail is not provided in NZ strategies or in documents linked to NZ strategies How are stakeholders engaged and involved in the preparation and implementation of growth strategies? Most NZ strategies identified key stakeholders and the importance of their involvement in the preparation of the strategy. These key stakeholders were organisations/groups such as: the NZ Transport Agency; the Ministry of Education; Mana Whenua; and the Ministry of Health. Strategies referenced engagement with key stakeholders during the preparation of strategies but the particular mechanisms that was utilised was not always expressed. For example, what decisions the stakeholders were part of, what departments of organisations were consulted with and the methods of engagement that were utilised. There were a number of strategies that were developed by local authorities/ government departments 1 in conjunction or in partnership with stakeholders. These are described in the table below with a description of the partnership model. The table includes strategies from NZ and overseas. 1 In the context of Australia and Canada // NZ // page 8

27 Table 3: Partnership models and consultation Strategy Who is in the partnership Key elements of the partnership/consultation process with stakeholders Are there developer or stakeholder forums? NZ FutureProof 2009 The three district councils, Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council, Waipa District Council, Waikato Regional Council and Tangata Whenua. These organisations are all project funders. NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) is involved as a major partner recognising the importance of coordinating transportation planning with growth in the Region. There is an independent Chairperson who chairs the implementation Committee. Two elected representatives from the Tainui Waka Alliance and Nga Karu Atua o te Waka are also on the implementation committee. There are also two members from each of the partner councils on the implementation committee (Mayor and Councillor). The Implementation Committee is also a Joint Committee under the Local Government Act 2002 which means that it is carrying out a specific function of council as outlined in the terms of reference. The Future Proof Strategy was developed and adopted in the framework of the Local Government Act. The Future Proof Implementation Committee have utilised this as a justification for their submissions on planning documents being considered (such as on applications lodged with the Environmental Protection Agency) The Implementation Committee has a broad mandate but does not specifically reference developer or stakeholder forums // NZ // page 9

28 SmartGrowth The three partner councils are Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Tauranga City Council and Tangata Whenua provide governance oversight to SmartGrowth. Government agencies play important roles in all aspects of SmartGrowth work (although the partnership is primarily between the councils and Tangata Whenua). In the Partners Forums, there are multiplicity of other agencies who are involved (but are not official partners in the strategy). However, the forum structure is effective as it provides for respective sectors and agencies to be involved in decision making and provide input to the strategy. This includes being involved in the review process. One of the desired outcomes is that we have visionary, collaborative leadership, a strong partnership and provide effective advocacy. There are clear terms of reference which the partners to the strategy have signed up to. The Partners Forum is a unique element (described in the column to the right) as they provide an opportunity for a variety of sectors to be involved, provide feedback and feel included in the process. This has meant that buy-in has occurred in the implementation of the strategy and the partners and stakeholder agencies have been more willing to work together. There is buy-in from Partners and other key stakeholders due to this collaborative approach. The Chief Executives Advisory Group is key to this as they are responsible for promoting SmartGrowth within the culture of each of their organisations and supporting the setting aside of sufficient funding to complete the Strategy. It is noted that the Regional Director of NZTA is on this Forum. Appendix 11 of the Strategy contains a copy of the SmartGrowth Way which describes the approach to collaboration agreed to by each of the SmartGrowth Implementation Partners. There are a number of forums which are established and outlined in the strategy which are: SmartGrowth Implementation Committee SGIC Independent Chairman Combined Tangata Whenua Forum Strategic Partnership Forum Strategic Partners Forum Social Sector Forum Property Developers Forum Housing Affordability Forum Population Ageing Technical Advisory Group Each Partner Forum has clear membership and terms of reference. Waipa 2050 The strategy primarily concerns Waipa District Council but was created in partnership with the following organisations/groups/individuals: Tangata whenua The strategy has evolved through a process involving the community, key stakeholders, Tāngata Whenua and interest groups. These groups are also intended to evolve through Stakeholder or developer forums are not specifically identified // NZ // page 10

29 Greater Christchurch Community Service Providers (such as the Ministry of Education, DHC etc) Transport Providers (NZTA, NZ Rail, Waikato Regional Airport Ltd) Utility Providers Development Community (Chamber of Commerce) Adjoining Local Authorities There are three District Councils and the Regional Council as core members of the partnership (Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City, Selwyn District, Waimakariri District). In addition, the NZ Transport Agency are an original partner to the strategy and have since been joined by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, Canterbury District Health Board and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. a regular review process every 3 years. A Greater Christchurch Group is made up of the partners to the strategy and has a governance level (Councillors), Chief Executives level (Advisory Group), and Management level, comprising managers of each agency. Below this, sits sub-groups at a staff level, primarily representing the Councils. There are clear terms of reference which the partners to the strategy have signed up to. Funding of the strategy s implementation is shared between the Councils who employ an Implementation Manager. Stakeholder or developer forums are not specifically identified. International Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy There are three Borough Councils that have worked in partnership to create the strategy: Broxtowe: Gedling; and Nottingham City. One of the key purposes of working together is to be more consistent in planning for the future of the area and recognise that the administrative boundaries of the local authorities will not get in the way of good planning and service delivery. Between 2009 and 2013 when the strategy was developed, there was extensive consultation which included businesses and developers. Multiple agencies were // NZ // page 11

30 Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2016) The purpose of the strategy is to work in partnership to plan for Greater Nottingham. The Growth Plan is a collaboration amongst the Province, other levels of government in Ontario, First Nations and Metis communities and private and non-profit sectors across industries. By creating a shared vision and working together to prepare aligned policies, it is hoped that it will lead to better and more joined up planning outcomes and make best use of resources by sharing staff and expertise. Along with a shared vision, the councils in the partnership have produced a Greater Nottingham Infrastructure Delivery Plan which also includes and couple of other councils who are in close vicinity. This is to ensure that there is also adequate infrastructure to support proposals of the Aligned Core Strategy. The plan states that it will work with its public sector partners, including municipalities, agencies and other stakeholders to compile and share information needed to support ongoing monitoring required for implementation of the Plan. There is reference to upper and single tier municipalities working in consultation with lower tier municipalities where applicable. However, it is not clear whether this is a true partnership. engaged in preparing and implementing the strategy. 2 Policies throughout the document specifically mention working with developers to protect historic heritage and promote reuse; and to ensure that there are sufficient community facilities in areas which are being developed privately. However, stakeholder forums are not specifically mentioned. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is being pursued with developers and partners and recognises the role which the private market has in the implementation of the Aligned Core Strategy. Stakeholder or developer forums are not specifically identified. 2 A detailed list of stakeholder consultees is provided in Appendix A of Statement of Consultation for the Broxtee Borough, Gedling Borough and Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategy Development Plan Document Part 1 Gedling Borough Council // NZ // page 12

31 Plan Melbourne Plan Melbourne was developed by the Victorian Government and is considered to be a whole-ofgovernment document that guides land-use planning across all portfolios and departments across the Victorian Government. The implementation of Plan Melbourne will be overseen by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in the Victorian Government. It will involve participation of many implementing partners, including government departments, agencies and local councils. Metropolitan Partnerships and other groups will support the implementation of many Plan Melbourne Actions. The Plan is governed by 9 Principles, one of which is Leadership and Partnership. This principle recognises the importance of effective governance, strong leadership and collaborative planning partnerships. This includes maintaining strong working relationships internally at central and local government, between the public and private sectors and the wider public. During the consultation period there was extensive consultation with local government and industry stakeholders. This revealed that partnerships with local government and industry stakeholders were important and that local government needs to be involved in the development and implementation of Plan Melbourne Local government shares responsibilities with the Victorian Government for the implementation of the Plan. Further engagement on partnership arrangements for Plan Melbourne s implementation are occurring this year. Metropolitan Regional Planning Groups have been established to support collaborative implementation of many Plan Melbourne Actions and are tasked with preparing land-use frameworks for each of the metropolitan regions. Stakeholder or developer forums Are not specifically identified // NZ // page 13

32 These Planning Groups feed into the respective Metropolitan Partnerships who are tasked with implementation of Plan Melbourne. The Regional Partnerships have been established through Victoria s Regional Statement (which is a state level policy instrument) // NZ // page 14

33 4.1.3 What was the process of developing strategies collaboratively? The strategies that were developed as partnerships between Councils and key stakeholders are informed by the views of these groups and organisations and, subsequently, through implementation of the strategy. During development of the strategy, key stakeholders were specifically consulted with on the key principles of the strategy and feedback was sought from these stakeholders on draft strategy documents which influenced the vision and direction of the strategies. In particular, local authorities, who were working collaboratively, dedicated time and resource to seek and understand ideas and feedback from stakeholders and have that inform the development of the strategy. There are many NZ examples of what is considered to be good collaboration between local authorities and key stakeholders. Examples include SmartGrowth, Waipa 2050, Future Proof and Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. Together, stakeholders had input to a shared vision for the strategy and assigned responsibility to different groups for the implementation of the strategy. Most growth strategies in NZ referenced specific partnerships with Mana Whenua and consultation with stakeholders during strategy development. The level of partnership was not always formalised in the strategy document and extended to the sharing of resources for monitoring, in the case of the Wellington Region where a shared model is utilised for monitoring population growth and development capacity in the region. A similar approach has been taken by those councils who are involved in Future Proof. This is particularly advantageous as growth inevitably extends across municipal boundaries and sharing resources to understand that growth means that planning is more likely to be collaborative. PC12 requires local authorities to demonstrate that there is feasible development capacity in the medium and long-term. This capacity will inevitably be influenced by the growth and planning in neighbouring territorial authorities so working collaboratively from the out-set to determine development capacity in the region is a key process that has proven successful in the Future Proof Strategy and SmartGrowth Current challenges One particular weakness in processes to date is active engagement and collaboration with the private sector, which is advantageous to help demonstrate that there is feasible development capacity in the medium and long term (both in terms of demand and supply) as required by PC12. Currently, the focus in terms of collaboration with stakeholders during both development and implementation of strategy is within the public sector and primarily infrastructure providers or at least that is what is presented in the strategy documents. The ability for strategy partners to implement their assigned actions in growth strategies appears to be constrained by resource availability and budgets. One key challenge is internal stakeholder funding cycles of central government infrastructure providers not always aligning with the aspirations of growth strategies. This is discussed in more detailed in section 4.2. Collaboration is more challenging the larger the geographic area which the strategy covers. This is due to there being more stakeholders, decision-making processes and specific interests that need to be considered. However, the importance of involving key stakeholder early was expressed during interviews to ensure that there is buy-in as these stakeholders will be relied upon during implementation of the strategy. Figure 2 demonstrates the complexities in Melbourne of consulting with many local authorities in Melbourne during the development of Plan Melbourne. This engagement was critical to ensuring that local authorities would subsequently participate in governance structures required for the implementation of the Plan // NZ // page 15

34 Figure 2 Image outlining the extent of consultation with local government in Melbourne during the development of Plan Melbourne What governance structures are in place for the preparation and implementation of growth strategies? There were varying levels of governance structures outlined in strategies ranging from no reference of a governance structure to multi-layered levels of governance each with their own decision making processes and procedures. Having a clear governance structure that encouraged collaboration was considered to be one of the key ways in which stakeholder buy-in was obtained during the development of the strategies. Good governance was comprised of multi-layered levels of governance, terms of reference outlining the purpose and mandate of each of the groups, strong leadership and a shared vision. Essentially all the organisations required for implementation need to be part of the strategy right from the beginning and meaningfully included in the development and implementation of the strategy. See Figure 3 for an example of the multiple layers of governance in SmartGrowth which has been one of the key successes of the strategy. A lack of governance structure appears to have inhibited some strategies holding councils and stakeholders accountable to actions required to successfully implement the strategy. For example, in Queenstown although the strategy intends to encourage collaboration for implementation and assigns actions to agencies, there is no overarching governance structure. This has meant that implementation has been left up to individual agencies/organisations and there has been little ongoing monitoring of the implementation // NZ // page 16

35 Governance that starts at the highest levels of councils and infrastructure providers, that enables the participation of individuals who have the ability to make decisions on behalf of the organisations they are representing and can commit to implementation (through funding and resources) appear to be the most successful. This is because assigned actions in the strategies are committed to and actioned and a level of trust and confidence in the collaborative strategy and partnership is created. An additional benefit of shared responsibility/accountability and engagement between stakeholders is that relationships are built at multiple levels so there is a shared sense of ownership of the goals and vision of the strategy. The partners are more likely to commit to resources and funding to action the strategy if they know that others will do the same and share the same sense of ownership which is required for implementation to be a success. SmartGrowth has been particularly successful at creating and maintaining multiple levels of governance (which has been key to the implementation of the strategy). As discussed earlier, a unique component are Partner Forums which cover a variety of topics such as housing affordability, property development and the environment (a full list is shown in Figure 3 below). The ideas from these Partner Forums are fed up to the Strategic Partners Forum and the Implementation Committee. This feedback has led to changes in the review of the strategy and provides for a broader base of ideas from the community to be considered by those in the Strategic Partners Forum // NZ // page 17

36 Figure 3 SmartGrowth Governance Structure and Partner Forums 4.2 Integration There are a number of components to achieving an integrated approach and addressing policies PC12- PC14, including: alignment with infrastructure and what infrastructure is necessary to both facilitate and enable growth (PC12); alignment across plans and strategies to achieve effective outcomes. Consistency across plans and strategies including the priorities identified by Council can support the outcomes sought by the growth strategy (PC13c); and integration with existing and future communities and between different activities (PC14(b)) // NZ // page 18

37 This chapter provides an overview of existing growth strategies and the extent to which they achieve an integrated approach, having regard to the points above. A summary of the research and findings regarding Integration can be found in the Executive Summary Whether strategies have provided the basis for integrated infrastructure and land use regulatory planning Do the areas identified for growth align with existing and planned infrastructure and how is this alignment shown? The planning of locations for growth with infrastructure necessitates an understanding from early on in the process of infrastructure requirements. Across the strategies, the level of detail varied in demonstrating this with background documents to strategies providing the basis for an integrated approach. A number of methodologies were utilised to determine and to test development scenarios in NZ. Examples included scenario testing, using growth projections, infrastructure requirements and, in some instances, development capacity, to identify potential future areas of growth. Constraint mapping was also a technique where the requirements necessary to develop land were outlined at a high level within the strategy document (particularly in terms of hard infrastructure such as transport and water requirements). Waipa District Council demonstrated an integrated approach in the preparation of their strategy, which is reflected in the strategy itself (refer to Figure 8) and provides an example of best practice. This began with the development of a Base Case in 2008 which focused on providing a snapshot of the Waipa district in This Base Case was informed by numerous technical reports, described as Profile Statements covering infrastructure, including water, wastewater, stormwater, transport and social services. These statements outlined the current provision/ level of service and gaps within it as well as constraints and opportunities to growth. The Profile statements were then used to provide input to the development of different growth scenarios, being options for how growth could be managed between now and These scenarios were based at a high level on the scenarios developed for Future Proof; however the detail was specific to Waipa. In order to compare the scenarios, each scenario was described as an outcome for 2050 with regards to a number of matters including infrastructure provision. Possible sites were then identified and evaluated against criteria including infrastructure requirements to inform decisions of the sites taken forward // NZ // page 19

38 The steps taken and for which infrastructure was embedded from the start are illustrated below: The level of detail varied in the strategy documents. For example, SmartGrowth outlined corridors within the region that were earmarked for growth and listed the transport infrastructure that would be necessary to facilitate and/or achieve this growth. Figure 4 has an excerpt for Katikati, which is part of the Northern Corridor. The corridor and planning for it was informed by the Tauranga Northern Corridor Study (from 2009) and was subject to an integrated land use and transportation strategy. Since 2009 there were a number of other influences such as growth location, change in land uses and road safety, which led to a review of the strategy and investment priorities. It is intended that within the strategy, the settlement pattern and infrastructure alignment in each growth corridor will be updated and/or amended when infrastructure works are confirmed. This is so that the corridors reflect planned infrastructure works. For example, at the time that SmartGrowth was published a review of the Northern Corridor was being undertaken to reflect changes to SH2 between Pokeno and Tauranga // NZ // page 20

39 Figure 4 Katikati which is in the Northern Corridor in the SmartGrowth. Integration between growth patterns and infrastructure was demonstrated in the preparation of other strategies including the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. During development of the strategy, growth options were identified and there was also an assessment of infrastructure requirements (see Figure 5 below in relation to stormwater infrastructure). Subsequently, through the strategy itself and in implementation, there is an understanding of the infrastructure upgrades that are necessary for development. This level of detail enables plan users to obtain a better understanding of infrastructure which may be required to enable development of an area. It also recognises that infrastructure may not necessarily be planned and private developers may need to take responsibility for providing infrastructure (or partially providing infrastructure). This approach provides a greater amount of certainty to the private market about Council s expectations in terms of infrastructure provision and indicates priority areas for Councils where they are willing to invest in infrastructure // NZ // page 21

40 Figure 5 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Mapping and identification of infrastructure requirements identified in preparation of the strategy // NZ // page 22

41 A good practice example from an international context was Nottingham, an example of the approach taken in a UK context. A National Planning Policy Framework (under which Local Plans prepared by Councils are to be consistent with the principles and policies of) states: Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to: assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. To address this, the group of Councils making up Greater Nottingham, along with other Councils across England, have prepared an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The scope of the IDP is to identify when infrastructure is required, how it is to be delivered and funded and to demonstrate that the Core Strategy can be delivered. It assisted with funding decisions in the public and private sector and responds to as well as informing a number of other documents including S106 contributions (equivalent to Development Contributions), Local Transport Plans, and other service plans. Importantly, the document was a living document subject to ongoing review as development proposals and infrastructure requirements are confirmed. The Nottingham example highlights the strong link that exists between the planning of growth and infrastructure required to support it. It stood out as best practice in demonstrating: Early engagement with providers of infrastructure; Demonstrating an integrated approach; Being responsive to changes as a living document; and Providing certainty for funding decisions. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is recommended as an appropriate mechanism for Councils in NZ to achieve an integrated approach. Some overseas examples took a broader approach in achieving alignment between land-use planning and infrastructure, reflecting the scale, extent of the area and level of detail in strategy. For example, the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide contains a myriad of high level maps outlining future infrastructure provision that is necessary for growth which included township boundaries, transport investments, bike networks and pedestrian activities and major water infrastructure that was needed (Refer to Figure 6 below for an example, which identifies Water infrastructure). Similarly, the Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in Canada identified areas of future growth relative to existing infrastructure (mainly transport and water infrastructure) // NZ // page 23

42 Figure 6: Major Infrastructure (Water infrastructure) in the 30 Year Plan for Adelaide Key weaknesses appear to be the alignment with the provision of social infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc). This may be due to the lack of certainty surrounding the implementation of social infrastructure and other policy decisions which may influence whether it is developed. This demonstrates the necessity to ensure that key stakeholders (such as the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health) are consulted with and included in decision-making about where growth is planned. Obtaining evidence and information about social infrastructure provision in growth areas should be a key part of the decision making process to help inform comprehensive and better community outcomes on the ground. Figure 7 below from the Auckland Plan demonstrates how Auckland Council considered infrastructure and recognises the influence of different types of infrastructure on the pattern of development. While identified as having a lesser impact than other infrastructure, it highlights the need for consideration of social infrastructure alongside other infrastructure // NZ // page 24

43 Figure 7 How different infrastructure was conceptually considered in the Auckland Plan The Greater Nottingham Strategy is a good example of achieving integration with social infrastructure. Embedded in policy provisions are considerations such as the necessity to complete improvements to schools and enabling provision of facilities including schools and health care centres. One of the implementation components to the strategy (the Infrastructure Delivery Plan) was prepared with assistance from main infrastructure and utility providers which included social infrastructure providers. The involvement social infrastructure providers early on in the development of the strategy has meant that the provision of social infrastructure is embedded both in the objectives and policies of the strategy and continues to be considered and aligned with growth during implementation. Overall, strategies have endeavoured to link areas identified for growth to existing infrastructure plans which is a requirement of PC13(c). Alignment was better when strategy preparation included robust upfront consultation with infrastructure providers to determine how infrastructure provision could align with land use planning. For example in Greater Nottingham, and where strategies use tables and maps to show the alignment of infrastructure provision to enable growth areas, for example Vancouver, Smart Growth, Hamilton City. In NZ, plans vary in the amount of detail provided, particularly in relation to infrastructure which is required to enable development. If detail is provided, it is typically at a high-level (such a key transport links and water infrastructure requirements), perhaps so that strategies remain flexible Is there clarity on the responsibility for delivery of infrastructure including evidence that identified infrastructure is included in the infrastructure strategy and the Long Term Plan? Infrastructure requirements tended to be included in the implementation sections of strategies (if there was an implementation component of a strategy). This was generally at a high level and detail was provided in relation to the locality, type of infrastructure, cost and time period. There was also reference to implementation being through the Long Term Plan process but this lacked specificity (what departments in councils would be responsible, which time period in the long term plan and how funding would be decided/allocated). See Figure 8 below from Waipa 2050 which is identified as good practice in identifying the sequencing required for infrastructure delivery in the implementation section of the strategy // NZ // page 25

44 Figure 8 Infrastructure sequencing outlined in Waipa 2050 Outside of existing growth strategies, methods used to date in planning practice for defining requirements and responsibilities for infrastructure delivery include: Rules in District Plans requiring infrastructure ahead of any or a limited quantum of development/ activity; Structure Plans and Outline Development Plans to define infrastructure required, typically for a greenfield area; Developer agreements, being a legal agreement typically between Council(s) and a developer with commitments to infrastructure delivery including what is to be delivered, timeframes, responsibilities and any cost sharing arrangements; and Memoranda of Understanding, being similar to developer agreements but which may be agreement to higher order principles or specific delivery methods. While the mechanisms described above are common in practice in the context of changes to a District Plan or consent process specific to sites or development, they are not typically used at a strategic level in defining locations for growth. However, there is scope for agreements outside any growth strategy to agree at a strategic level on broad locations and the sequencing of growth associated with infrastructure delivery, for example, consistent with a collaborative approach. Through these mechanisms, the detail around infrastructure delivery can be provided. As a consequence, there may be less detail in a growth strategy. However, this is inevitable due to the necessity of further work including structure planning and a greater understanding required for development to occur. Figure 9 is an excerpt from Nelson North Growth Strategy, which identifies an area and states that integrated development will be determined through the structure planning process. This lack of detail provides flexibility but means there is less certainty of development being achieved. It is recognised that a requirement of PC 13 is for the strategy to be informed by other relevant plans and strategies. However, not assigning responsibility for the delivery of infrastructure means that delivery and monitoring become more difficult and no one can be held accountable for inaction // NZ // page 26

45 Figure 9 Excerpt from Nelson Urban Growth Strategy NZ strategies need to include a greater level of detail so that there is responsibility assigned for delivery. Interviews revealed that even if actions were assigned to infrastructure providers, there was not necessarily certainty that planned infrastructure would be achieved due to internal funding constraints and decisionmaking processes, an issue that will remain. Creating strategies in collaboration with providers so that they were included in decision making processes was advantageous for the implementation and review of the strategy. Creating a governance structure where stakeholders could be held accountable is a key feature of SmartGrowth The relationships established in forums from SmartGrowth have meant that future spin off projects related to SmartGrowth (such as Te Tumu Strategic Planning Study) are also successful because it is understood that infrastructure delivery is a key component to growth being achieved To what extent have the strategies resulted in aligning councils regulatory and infrastructure funding decisions There were very few strategies in NZ which demonstrated alignment between councils regulatory infrastructure and funding decisions. This appears to be because many councils utilise the Long Term Plan process for implementation of the strategy, but there is not necessarily clear cross-referencing between documents. The best example of alignment was Waipa 2050 which included infrastructure considerations as preconditions for the release of land. The approximate cost of the infrastructure item and whether or not the infrastructure was identified in the Long Term Plan was also highlighted. See Figure 10 for a snapshot of the table // NZ // page 27

46 Figure 10 Snapshot of the Sequencing and Infrastructure Table in Waipa SmartGrowth 2050 attempted to align actions in the strategy with agencies and resourcing. The resourcing component of the strategy had a funding key outlining whether the action is or is not a priority and who is expected to resource the action (partner staff resources, additional resources or whether it is part of the SmartGrowth Budget). The strategy still ensures that a partner to the strategy is responsible for funding and resourcing an action but arguably does not expressly align with councils and regulatory and infrastructure funding decisions. See Figure 11 below for an excerpt of the table. Figure 11 Example from SmartGrowth of the Integrated Settlement Pattern Table. The red resourcing box refers to the staff and staff being a priority action which requires additional resources The Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy contains Critical Infrastructure Requirements in Appendix B of the strategy. The table demonstrates how critical infrastructure is funded, the lead agency, timescale and the progress to date. Although this integration appeared to only be in relation to critical infrastructure, it demonstrated a level of certainty over funding for these integral projects. Other strategies, such as the Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2016), identified infrastructure strategies that had been launched as implementation instruments of the strategy documents. How these implementation strategies would align with existing funding decision making processes was not specified Integration between housing and business Integration is a necessary component in assessing where growth is provided for. Policy PC14 (b) requires Councils in preparing their FDS to be informed by assessments of capacity under PB1. One component of preparing housing and business development capacity assessments under policy PB1 is an assessment of the interaction between housing and business activities and their impacts on each other. As stated in the Introductory guide to the NPS, this is to inform decisions on the appropriate share of land zoned for housing and business, the location of business land relative to housing and related to this, the effects of activities on one another and reverse sensitivity effects. These matters are encapsulated in the Palmerston North Residential Growth Strategy, which states as follows: There are two main links between industrial and residential growth planning. The first is to avoid possible potential adverse effects which may occur when industrial and residential zones are located in close proximity. This is an issue for much of the existing industrial zone in the City // NZ // page 28

47 The second link is the consideration of the relative locations of industrial and residential zones in terms of ease of access. It is desirable to locate respective zones so that people have the opportunity to live close to their workplace so that the need for travel, particularly by car, is minimised. The identified preferred growth options achieve these aims. The following provides an overview of how each growth strategy considers the interaction between housing and business. The first column conveys whether strategies distinguish areas identified for housing from areas identified for business, which affects the level of interaction considered in the strategy. The second column provide a high level overview of whether strategies consider the relationship between the locations of business and housing including: Proximity of housing and business areas to one another to support sustainable travel to work; and Provision made for residential development around commercial nodes or corridors and/or other forms of mixed use development. The third column considers the interaction in strategies between housing and business at the interface and whether the potential conflict is acknowledged. Analysis follows the table: Table 4 The relationship between business and housing as expressed in the growth strategies Strategy Extent to which capacity broken down by housing/ business Location relationship between business and housing recognised e.g. Nodes. Effects of the interaction between housing and business acknowledged? Auckland Strategy identifies areas of growth and distinguishes between residential living, the density of employment and innovation clusters but does not analyse the capacity of the areas. Yes The strategic direction of the plan and implementation considers the necessity to implement frameworks that considers adjacent and interdependent land uses. Yes The necessity to consider the potential effects of housing and business land uses being near to each other is analysed. Moreover, the need to release more industrial and commercial land in the future is provided for. Christchurch Strategy identifies indicative growth areas but does not distinguish whether they are for business or housing. Nodes identified for commercial activity. Yes Policy supports the location of housing, jobs, shopping, leisure, education and community facilities and services to support sustainable transport choices and reduce the need to travel, especially by private motor vehicle. Yes Growth issues identified incl. that Residential housing can be exposed to excessive noise if located adjacent to transport interchanges or industrial zones. Wellington Strategy identifies indicative growth areas but does not distinguish whether they are for business or housing. Yes The strategy recognises that there needs to be integration between residential and commercial activities (as well as with transport routes and other infrastructure). No Business and housing needs are identified at a high level and discussed, but not the interaction between them // NZ // page 29

48 Strategy Extent to which capacity broken down by housing/ business Location relationship between business and housing recognised e.g. Nodes. Effects of the interaction between housing and business acknowledged? Palmerston North Strategy identifies indicative growth areas but does not distinguish whether they are for business or housing. Yes As per the excerpt copied above the table. Yes As per the excerpt copied above the table. Porirua City Strategy identifies indicative growth areas and at a high levels distinguishes between industrial/business areas and residential land. Yes The location of residential areas is considered in relation to the interaction with neighbouring sites, including commercial sites. Yes High level acknowledgement that there will be conflict between specific objectives and policies and that the issues associated with colocating residential and commercial land-use will need to be carefully managed. Hutt City Strategy identifies indicative areas for both commercial and residential development/growth. Yes The narrative about the commercial and industrial land supply considers proximity to transport routes and existing residential uses. Yes The strategy acknowledges that there will be effects that need to be managed when residential and industrial/commercial land uses are adjacent to each other. Examples of potential mitigation, such as height limits, are discussed briefly. Upper Hutt Commercial areas, the Central Business District and other commercial Areas are identified in a map that is separate to the maps identifying the potential location of residential land. Yes One of the key themes of the Retail Centre considers opportunities in areas surrounding the Upper Hutt CBD for activities that complement and contribute to the vitality of the city centre. Yes Recognises that there should be a reduction or removal of the potential for housing development in more sensitive environments. Nelson Preferred growth options identified at a high level but does not distinguish between commercial or housing. No The future supply of residential and commercial land will be identified in future work. The strategy does identify hubs which includes Yes There is acknowledgement in the strategy about the need to manage the effects of commercial development generally, but this does not both residential and commercial activity. specifically reference the interaction between residential and housing land uses // NZ // page 30

49 Strategy Extent to which capacity broken down by housing/ business Location relationship between business and housing recognised e.g. Nodes. Effects of the interaction between housing and business acknowledged? SmartGrowth Strategy identifies indicative growth areas and at a high levels distinguishes between business areas and residential land. Yes The Settlement Patterns consider the importance and placement of residential land, residential intensification, business land, transport and other infrastructure. Yes The integrated planning and settlement pattern approach alludes to consideration of the effects and interaction between and business land. Future Proof Strategy identifies indicative growth areas and at a high levels distinguishes between business areas and residential land. Yes A node approach is taken to those areas identified for growth within the district which considers the relationship between business, housing and other infrastructure. Yes Policies and objectives address the potential effects of developing business land adjacent to residential land. For example Encourage development to locate adjacent to existing urban settlements and nodes in both the Waikatoand Waipa Districts and that ruralresidential development occurs in a sustainable way to ensure it willnot compromise the Future Proof settlement pattern or create demand for the provision of urban services. Hamilton City Strategy identifies indicative growth areas and distinguishes between industrial/business areas and residential land. Yes Graphical representations and policies are included in the strategy which recognise the importance of considering the proximity of business land near to housing and the importance of creating nodes of development. Yes In Part 3 of the strategy, a network approach is taken which considers the implications and location of growth and how the potential effects need to be managed. Waipa Preferred growth options identified at a high level and in some location in the District distinguishes between commercial and residential Yes For each locality identified as a growth areas, the mix of land use is considered which includes commercial and land Yes The strategy considers the appropriateness and location of infill residential development, greenfield land. and its proximity to transport and housing. development and commercial land in the context of each of the growth cells identified // NZ // page 31

50 Strategy Extent to which capacity broken down by housing/ business Location relationship between business and housing recognised e.g. Nodes. Effects of the interaction between housing and business acknowledged? Queenstown Preferred growth options identified at a high level but does not distinguish between commercial or housing. Yes The narrative about the commercial and industrial land supply considers proximity to transport routes and existing residential uses. Yes The strategy alludes in policy to mix of commercial, visitor accommodation and more intensive residential development in and around these centres, whilst ensuring that the two existing centres remain attractive, vibrant, and important places to residents by providing for a range of housing and business options that will sustain a resident population. As outlined in the table, the majority of strategies recognise the relationship between business and housing in terms of their location and interaction/ potential effects at the interface. The locations for growth, particularly intensification, generally recognise the benefits of housing in proximity to commercial and community services and is reflected in a framework of nodes e.g. Greater Christchurch and SmartGrowth. In respect of interaction between land use activities, particularly at the interface, this is limited to high level principles or policies, particularly where the locations/ areas for growth are not distinguished as to whether they are for housing or business. Reflecting the high level nature of the strategies reviewed, there was limited consideration of matters such as reverse sensitivity which would come through in District Plans as a vehicle for implementing the growth strategy. The approach to date is appropriate, having regard to the strategic level that growth strategies are prepared at. However, an area that growth strategies need to address, which is not apparent in the strategies reviewed, is the any need for protection and/or release of land e.g. from business to housing, where there is a limited supply. An aspect of the introductory guidance to the NPS is the appropriate share of land zoned for housing and business. The use of land, including activities permitted or consented, their density and form, can impact on the capacity available. Examples include: greenfield land, identified for housing, that is subsequently zoned for commercial activities e.g. Belfast in Christchurch; Land in commercial centres being developed for commercial activities in a manner that does not provide for mixed use; and Land identified for industrial activities being taken up by warehousing and logistics, which forces heavy industry to other locations, potentially further from other more suitable locations. In addressing this, it is recommended that strategies provide certainty regarding the outcomes sought while providing flexibility for a change in use or managed release from industrial to residential for example, to be responsive to changes in the market. This could be achieved by: // NZ // page 32

51 Recommendations for Councils to clearly articulate the primary use intended for areas identified for growth; and Provision in policy for release of land, such as criteria for circumstances where land can be considered for alternative use i.e. business land that may be suitable for housing. 4.3 Communication The theme of communication was found to be a critical pillar of best practice growth strategies and is integral to Policies PC12-14 being achieved. Having good communication between stakeholders enables a good information platform to be set which can be used to inform the rest of the growth strategy. A summary of the research and findings regarding Communication can be found in the executive summary How do growth strategies communicate development opportunities in the medium and long term? (Policies PC12 and PC13) Policy PC12 and 13 require FDS to demonstrate there is sufficient, feasible development capacity and to identify the broad location, timing and sequencing of capacity in both future urban environments and existing urban environments. To be effective in meeting these requirements and reflecting guidance on the NPS 3, the strategy should signal to the market that there will be plenty of development opportunities in the medium and long term, while also providing some certainty (for communities, infrastructure providers and developers) about where and when this is likely to be provided. As an overview of how strategies identify and communicate sufficient capacity, Table 5 summarises the techniques used and information presented // NZ // page 33

52 Table 5: How growth strategies define development opportunities Strategy Map/ table of need/ how growth apportioned between different growth areas Map defining capacity in numbers 4 Table defining capacity in numbers New opportuni ties for future urban areas defined Intensificationopportunities for urban future areas defined Future business land areas defined Infrastructure requirements defined Infrastructure defined by greenfield area Other constraints/ opportunities defined in the strategy e.g. protected areas Timing for growth areas defined Sequencing of growth areas defined Affordability of growth areas shown in growth strategy Auckland Christchurch Wellington Palmerston North Porirua City Hutt City Upper Hutt Nelson Smart Growth Future Proof Hamilton City 4 Map of capacity refers to maps that indicate the approximate dwelling capacity of a site // NZ // page 34

53 Strategy Map/ table of need/ how growth apportioned between different growth areas Map defining capacity in numbers 4 Table defining capacity in numbers New opportuni ties for future urban areas defined Intensificationopportunities for urban future areas defined Future business land areas defined Infrastructure requirements defined Infrastructure defined by greenfield area Other constraints/ opportunities defined in the strategy e.g. protected areas Timing for growth areas defined Sequencing of growth areas defined Affordability of growth areas shown in growth strategy Waipa Queenstown Vancouver Greater Golden Horseshoe Adelaide Melbourne Greater Nottingham Coastal West Sussex // NZ // page 35

54 In terms of themes that can be drawn from Table 5 the following observations can be made: Growth strategies generally communicated the location of future residential growth areas for both intensification and greenfield opportunities, timing, constraints / opportunities, existing and future business growth areas, existing infrastructure, infill potential; and Growth strategies generally did not communicate development capacity in numbers, infrastructure requirements by greenfield area/ site, the allocation of growth and potential demand by area, sequencing of growth and development, and dwelling affordability. Growth strategies generally used spatial maps, tables and/or figures to communicate development in the medium and long term. The level of detail communicated tended to reflect the spatial context of the growth strategy, e.g. sub-regional or local. The information presented in a sub-regional growth strategy, for example Vancouver, Greater Golden Horseshoe, and Future Proof, was generally at a high-level, defining growth at a broader level than strategies specific to a district. The purpose of a sub-regional growth strategy was often to set the high-level framework which local authorities were tasked with implementing in local level documents. It was then at this local level through other strategies that more detailed information was presented to communicate how development opportunities were provided. Overall, the following gaps were identified in how growth strategies communicate development opportunities: Communicating sufficient and feasible development capacity; Communicating sequencing of development; and Communicating dwelling affordability and where demand was located in a spatial context. The following sections consider how growth strategies identified areas for growth in the medium and long term in the context of Policies PC12 and PC13 and provide analysis on the findings and observations outlined above How do growth strategies communicate sufficient, feasible development capacity to meet targets? (Policies PC12 and PC13(a)) PC12 requires that FDS must demonstrate sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long term. This requirement necessitates the identification of development capacity in the NPS including its location, consistent with Policy PC13. Development capacity is defined in the NPS as capacity intended for urban development based on provisions of resource management plans and the provision of adequate infrastructure. In addition to these two components, Policy PA1 of the NPS necessitate consideration of whether capacity is commercially feasible. Having regard to the definition, the extent to which strategies communicate or address these different components are analysed below: a. Development capacity - Plan enabled In a NZ context, growth areas identified in strategies are enabled through the zoning of land and other methods including Outline Development Plans, namely for greenfield areas. Within the strategies reviewed, the majority of Councils reference the District Plan and/or plan changes to zone land and/or include provisions in the District Plan e.g. to promote intensification. The nature of changes proposed to the District Plan were also stated across the strategies reviewed in a NZ context // NZ // page 36

55 In general, the strategies specified the timing of changes or a District Plan Review. There were some exceptions to this, which either specified a broad timeframe of short, medium or long term or no timeframe at all e.g. Wellington, Hutt City, Upper Hutt and Nelson, the latter relying on private plan changes to come forward. Table 6 Assessment of the timing, responsibility and commitment in relation to actions in NZ strategies Strategy Action to implement through a plan change/ District Plan Review Commitment to timing (reference to dates) Responsibility assigned Auckland Yes Timeframe specified Council driven through Unitary Plan and Future Urban land Supply Strategy Christchurch Yes Timeframe specified Councils specified Wellington Yes None specified Not specified Palmerston North Yes Indication that work has commenced Responsible agency (PNCC) defined in some instances. Porirua City Yes Timeframe specified Responsible agency defined i.e. Councils Hutt City Yes None specified Not specified. Upper Hutt Yes Prioritisation given to actions but no timeframes Responsible agency defined i.e. Councils Nelson Yes None specified Reliance on private plan changes SmartGrowth Yes Time specified as short, medium, long Responsible agency defined i.e. Councils. Future Proof Yes Timeframes specified Responsible agency defined i.e. Councils. Hamilton City Yes Timeframe specified for review Not specified but implicit that it rests with HCC to undertake the DPR. Waipa Yes Status of changes specified Indication of whether private or Council initiated. Queenstown Yes High level ( ) Prioritisation given to actions Responsible agency defined i.e. QLDC. The subsequent implementation of strategies through these documents is considered under the theme of Implementation. However, the general observation was that Councils are effective in this aspect of delivery // NZ // page 37

56 In some cases where strategies were not kept up to date, the District Plan provided the strategic direction for managing growth and the definition of growth areas through zoning e.g. Queenstown. In an international context, it is through the plans of Councils in Melbourne, and Municipalities in the context of Canada that development is facilitated in growth areas. Again, the growth strategies referenced the documents to implement the growth aspirations but it was other authorities that had responsibility for unlocking the potential through their plans. The UK examples from Nottingham and Coastal West Sussex were two distinct approaches. The Coastal West Sussex Strategic Statement was effectively a bottom up approach, the strategy being an agglomeration of the plans that designated land for housing and business. In Nottingham, the aligned Core Strategy is a document that provides the framework including objectives, policies and methods, below which land is designated by the individual Councils through other local planning documents in the package described as the Local Plan (of which the Core Strategy is an overarching strategic document). The Core Strategy, which identified strategic sites, referenced other plans that designated other sites, providing certainty of the mechanisms to enable growth on the ground. b. Development capacity Infrastructure enabled In addition to demonstrating sufficient development capacity (incl. servicing by infrastructure) under PC12, Councils are to have particular regard to policy PA1. Policy PA1 requires that capacity is serviced with development infrastructure (for short term capacity), or is identified in a Long Term Plan (for medium term capacity) or relevant infrastructure strategy (for long term capacity). Table 5 outlines which growth strategies identified infrastructure requirements e.g. wastewater capacity, road access, which was generally communicated in both a NZ and international context. Strategies that identified infrastructure requirements by individual site/ location included Waipa, Hamilton City, Hutt City and Nottingham, while other strategies as identified in Table 5 identified infrastructure requirements at a higher level. As discussed earlier, few strategies split capacity over short, medium and long term horizons and therefore, an assessment against the different requirements in PA1 cannot be made. Notwithstanding this, Waipa and Nottingham are defined as best practice in articulating infrastructure required and, in respect of the former, whether it is defined in the Long Term Plan. This was a component missing from other NZ strategies and on this basis, existing growth strategies are not demonstrating development capacity to the extent required under the NPS. Figures 12 and 13 show approaches of communicating constraints from Hamilton City and Waipa respectively: // NZ // page 38

57 Figure 12: Excerpt from Hamilton Growth Strategy Figure 12 outlines the proposed Peacocke growth area on a spatial map and lists infrastructure requirements underneath the map including cost estimates. This provides certainty of infrastructure to meet demand but would not satisfy Policy PA1 in that there is no indication of any funding programmed in the Long Term Plan or that infrastructure is identified in relevant infrastructure strategies. The growth strategy also does not address that there is sufficient capacity at any one time. Figure 13 from Waipa 2050 lists infrastructure requirements for growth cells within a table under the headings Preconditions and Timing for Release, Infrastructure Considerations and Infrastructure Item. This approach provides certainty of the constraints to be overcome including programming and timing, in a structured manner. It achieves this by specifying pre-conditions for the release of land and indicates whether funding is programmed in the Long Term Plan. From review, it appears that capacity for different time periods meets the intent of Policy PA1. Short and medium term capacity is serviced or programmed while the longer term is not programmed in the Long Term Plan but is identified for the next review of the Long Term Plan // NZ // page 39

58 Figure 13: Excerpt from Waipa Growth Strategy Greater Nottingham had the most comprehensive assessment of constraints and also used a table to communicate potential constraints to development. Figure 14 provides a constraints assessment beyond that of other growth strategy assessed, which was included within the Core Strategy as an appendix of Strategic Site Schedules and Plans. Through the interview with Greater Nottingham this was largely attributed to the large amount of robust upfront consultation that occurred with stakeholders to inform the growth strategy. This upfront consultation, along with the preparation of evidence to inform the strategy, allowed councils to gain an in-depth understanding of constraints facing identified growth areas. This upfront consultation allows development capacity to be determined early and provides certainty for stakeholder and the community // NZ // page 40

59 Figure 14: Excerpt from Greater Nottingham Aligned Strategy Situations where growth strategies did not communicate infrastructure constraints to development capacity was in circumstances where there was an absence of upfront work / consultation with stakeholders to establish the information required to make an informed assessment. As stated above, the ability to assess and identify constraints with a robust evidence base will help Councils in defining development capacity to meet demand and forms a critical aspect to compliance with Policies PC12 and 13. Of the strategies that communicated infrastructure requirements at a more strategic level, Future Proof provides an example of good practice in the type of information that should be collected as illustrated in Figure 15 below // NZ // page 41

60 Figure 15: Excerpt from Future Proof with identified actions for infrastructure delivery For strategies at a sub-regional level, for example Greater Golden Horseshoe and Melbourne, the onus was for local plans of Councils to identify infrastructure requirements, reflecting the strategic directions of the higher order document. This is appropriate in the context of those strategies, having regard to the extent of the area they relate to. c. Development capacity Commercial feasibility It was apparent from review of growth strategies that the commercial feasibility of development, beyond the provision of infrastructure, in areas identified for growth was not considered. Historically, there has been an absence of assessment on the cost of development, councils in a NZ context often relying on theoretical capacity to demonstrate a sufficient supply of land. Even in an international context, there was no apparent relationship between the capacity identified and the ability of the market to deliver. An example where costs of infrastructure were considered was Palmerston North s Residential Growth Strategy, which has as one objective, to Encourage development in area(s) with lowest infrastructure costs. However, this was distinct from whether development was feasible. d. Certainty that capacity is sufficient to meet targets Policy PC12 also states the FDS is to demonstrate how minimum targets will be met. This necessitates an understanding of how capacity relates back to the growth projected and that sufficient supply is provided for growth. From the review of growth strategies, it was not explicit that the capacity identified was sufficient to accommodate growth over the period of the strategy. An exception to this was Coastal West Sussex, which made it clear that supply was not sufficient to meet targets. In a NZ context, strategies included high level statements that projected population growth could be accommodated within existing and proposed growth areas without linking this with minimum targets or reconciling growth with supply by way of figures // NZ // page 42

61 Communicating the location of intensification opportunities in existing urban areas (Policy PC13(a)) Growth strategies primarily used spatial maps to communicate the broad location of intensification opportunities within existing urban areas, although as seen in Table 5 this often does not extend to communicating development capacity in numbers. Those growth strategies that identified both intensification opportunities and development capacity included Wellington City and Greater Nottingham, who used spatial maps and tables respectively. Figure 16 presents a spatial map from Wellington City s growth strategy, which identifies broad infill opportunities and also provides estimates of dwelling capacity. The broad locality provided by spatial maps in growth strategies has been defined to a finer grain through local level planning documents. Development capacity was not communicated in the absence of technical assessments to establish capacity potential and this can be limited by local authority expertise and resourcing. In the context of the FDS, this can potentially be overcome by councils pooling resources and expertise. It was found that Wellington City has developed a model to determine development capacity and that it is modelling capacity for surrounding councils which is an example of how this can be overcome. Figure 16: Wellington City Urban Growth Strategy Communicating the location and capacity of future greenfield development areas (Policy PC13(a)) As above, growth strategies generally communicated the location of future greenfield areas on spatial maps, however as seen in Table 5, the majority of growth strategies did not communicate development capacity in numbers. Examples of growth strategies that identified both the broad location and capacity of greenfield sites included Waipa and Greater Nottingham, who both used tables to demonstrate development capacity. Figure 17 presents a table from Waipa which provides estimates of dwelling capacity corresponding to growth nodes which are then shown on a spatial map (Refer to Figure 18). In this example, the boundaries // NZ // page 43

62 of the future greenfield sites can be easily defined due to the scale of the map. The scale reflected in this example from Waipa is not common amongst growth strategies, the majority relying on other local level planning documents to refine and provide greater definition to the extent of greenfield areas. In the context of Policy 13 to the FDS, Figures 17 and 18 present an effective way of how both the broad location and development capacity can be communicated for greenfield sites and reflects the upfront technical assessment and engagement to determine capacity and infrastructure requirements. Figure 17: Waipa 2050 Figure 18: Waipa // NZ // page 44

63 Communicating broad timing/ sequencing of future development capacity (Policy PC13) a. Timing of development capacity Table 5 outlines that growth strategies generally communicated the broad timing of actions to enable capacity through both spatial maps and tables. Communicating when future development is expected to occur is important as it provides certainty regarding the provision of future development (PC13B). Figure 19 provides an example from Wellington City of how a table is used to communicate the timing of actions along with the priority rating for Council and Figures 17 and 18 from Waipa above show how timing can be communicated through the use of both maps and tables. Figure 19: Wellington Urban Growth Strategy b. Sequencing Table 5 shows that only Christchurch, Hamilton City and Waipa communicated sequencing of development in accordance with Policy PC13(a). Figure 20 below provides an example from Hamilton City which gives the user a visual representation of how and where Hamilton City is expected to grow overtime outlining the planned sequencing that is expected to occur rather than providing a static representation of growth. Figures 17 and 18 above from Waipa also show how sequencing can be shown through the use of colour coded mapping and tables. The reasons behind sequencing vary and often reflect infrastructure constraints and/or urban form outcomes. Through interviews, it was apparent that sequencing was not front of mind or prioritised during the development of some growth strategies. This may reflect the level of technical work undertaken to inform the strategy and reliance on subsequent plans/ strategies to identify infrastructure constraints that may in turn, inform sequencing. To enable the effective sequencing of growth necessitates upfront technical assessment of capacity, needs and infrastructure requirements together with consultation on how sequencing of development will occur. If not done properly local authorities could face potential funding and infrastructure constraints that could slow development and frustrate stakeholders. Through the interview phase it was cited that communicating sequencing through the FDS must enable development to be undertaken efficiently without burdening councils through the over allocation of resources and funding. Cases cited included where ad-hoc development was allowed to occur and Council was burdened with having to provide costly infrastructure to support developments that were not taken up // NZ // page 45

64 Figure 20: Excerpt from Hamilton Urban Growth Plan: Part Communicating certainty while being responsive (Policy PC13B) Under Policy 13(b), FDSs must achieve certainty in communicating development capacity while also being responsive to changes in demand. Spatial maps presented at a high-level provide for greater flexibility compared with an approach of illustrating in detail, the extent of areas for growth. An example of a high level plan is provided in Figure 21 from Upper Hutt. This example provides flexibility for implementation through resource management plans on the extent of growth and capacity provided for but conversely, it provides limited certainty. Figure 21: Upper Hutt // NZ // page 46

65 In terms of striking a balance between communicating both certainty and responsiveness, Waipa was found to provide the best example among those growth strategies reviewed. Figure 22 communicates where different growth nodes are located and states when each stage is expected to be released for development. This example provides both the certainty of where and when development is expected and where it is expected in the future. It shows that if demand outstrips supply in a specified timeframe, there are areas that may be brought forward for development, thus communicating how the growth strategy can be responsive to changes in demand, consistent with the intent of Policy PC13B. Figure 22: Excerpt from Waipa 2050: Ohaupo Village Growth Areas How do growth strategies communicate responsibilities of stakeholders to deliver development? (Policies PC13 and 14) Policy PC14 requires that Councils, in developing a strategy, are to undertake a consultation process that complies with either Part 6 of the LGA or Schedule 1 of the RMA. An effective outcome of undertaking a robust upfront consultation process is the ability to consult and communicate with stakeholders to determine how development can be delivered. Through this consultation it can be defined who stakeholders are and their responsibilities in delivery of a strategy, for example, enabling development of a growth area. This information can then be reflected in a growth strategy. Communicating this level of information in a FDS can increase the certainty and feasibility of development occurring in line with Policies PC12 and 13. Table 7 below specifies those strategies that define stakeholders in respect to projects/developments and also outlines where growth strategies delegate responsibilities of delivery to stakeholders // NZ // page 47

66 Table 7: Communication of stakeholders and responsibilities Communication Defined who stakeholders were for projects Assigned responsibilities for delivery to stakeholders Strategies Porirua City Wellington City Future Proof Christchurch City Smart Growth Queenstown Greater Nottingham Vancouver Melbourne West Sussex Greater Golden Horseshoe Adelaide Auckland A common approach taken was for growth strategies to outline in table form who was to lead and assist with development initiatives/ actions for facilitating development. Examples include Porirua City, Queenstown, SmartGrowth and Greater Nottingham where tables were used to communicate who is to lead and assist with delivery of the strategy. Figure 23 provides an example from Porirua City where a table highlights who is to lead and assist in preparation of the Housing Needs Assessment. Although this approach provides a simple graphic of who is to be involved in implementing actions, a limitation across a number of the growth strategies was the lack of detail around specific actions or responsibilities to be undertaken by stakeholders. The exceptions to this were Vancouver and Melbourne, which were found to identify specific actions and responsibilities of stakeholders in the delivery process. Figure 23: Excerpt from Porirua Development Framework Detailed Action Plan Vancouver was found to communicate more specific actions and responsibilities of stakeholders through the use of specific headings under each goal / objective as seen in Figure 24. This approach communicates what the role of Metro Vancouver, municipalities and other governments and agencies was in achieving the goal / objective of the growth strategy. It was conveyed in discussions with representatives for Metro Vancouver that communicating this level of transparency around roles and responsibilities helped build momentum in implementing goals / objectives and also resulted in good buy-in both within agencies and between stakeholders // NZ // page 48

67 Figure 24: Excerpt from Vancouver Melbourne takes a similar approach to Vancouver, however as a more detailed strategy, it defines who will be responsible for specific projects / initiatives and further detail on what is expected from stakeholders in delivery. An example is Figure 25, which outlines that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DLWP) will be responsible for producing metropolitan regional housing plans and will be assisted by Councils, the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR). This example lets the user see who is responsible for delivering metropolitan regional housing plans and what information the parties are expected to provide within the housing plans. Again communicating transparency around responsibility and what detail is expected helps in the understanding of what outcomes the action is seeking to achieve and provides a platform for collaboration between stakeholders // NZ // page 49

68 Figure 25: Plan Melbourne For FDS, communicating who is to be involved with developments and what stakeholder s responsibilities are in the delivery process can help them comply with Policies PC12 and 13. Transparency around who is to be involved in the project / development and what their responsibilities are can increase the certainty surrounding a development occurring and its feasibility, in line with Policies PC12 and 13. To enable this a robust consultation process must occur at the beginning of the development stage of the FDS. Furthermore, having a FDS that facilitates collaboration of stakeholders and provides transparency surrounding roles and responsibilities will allow the FDS to be informed by other plans, documents and strategies (PC14) as having stakeholders engaged at the beginning in a robust manner will allow them to feed the goals and objectives of the FDS into other asset management plans, work programmes and consultation documents What quality of information, evidence and analysis are strategies based on? (Policy PC13 and 14) Policy PC13C requires that FDS shall be informed by Long Term Plans and Infrastructure Strategies required under the Local Government Act 2002, and any other relevant strategies, plans and documents. Table 8 below provides analysis of the common types of evidence and analysis found within growth strategies: // NZ // page 50

69 Table 8: Evidence Base to growth strategies Information / evidence drawn on Evidence of research/ analysis referenced in growths strategy? Infrastructure needs assessment Criteria/ assessment of options for housing Background report on housing Background report on business Data on population projections Auckland Christchurch Wellington Palmerston North Porirua City Hutt City Upper Hutt Nelson Smart Growth Future Proof Hamilton City Waipa Queenstown Vancouver Greater Golden Horseshoe Adelaide Melbourne Greater Nottingham Coastal West Sussex From Table 8 the following trends/themes can be identified: All growth strategies had evidence of research and analysis, the majority using data on populations projections to inform their growth area needs assessments; The majority of growth strategies were informed by background reports on housing, business and/or infrastructure; and The majority of growth strategies did not contain a criteria / options assessment for future growth areas Quality of Evidence Although growth strategies relied on research and evidence, there was a variance in the quality of this information including its age and other limitations. The age of evidence varied, with utilisation of earlier research and analysis sometimes being relied on rather than current and targeted research. Commissioning new reports / analysis to cover the various elements of a growth strategy is potentially a resource intensive and expensive task, a key issue raised by a number of authorities // NZ // page 51

70 Figure 26 presents a snapshot of some of the documents used to inform the 2014 Wellington City Growth Strategy and shows a large disparity in the age of the documents, from the 2001 Waterfront Framework to the 8 Big Idea 2014 source document. This type of variance was found to be common across the growth strategies assessed. Figure 26: Wellington Growth Strategy Through the interview phase, local authorities cited that a limitation to the quality of evidence bases used was the resources and funding available to commission research and analysis specifically for the purpose of the growth strategy. To overcome this there was evidence of local authorities collaborating and pooling resources to commission reports and analysis, such as Wellington City creating a capacity model to measure dwelling capacity, which is also being used for Porirua and surrounding local authorities. Where local authorities utilise existing information, there is the risk that it is not fit for purpose, for example, national or regional demographic data being used to inform projected population growth and dwelling needs at a local level as was the case for a number of growth strategies including Porirua, Hutt City and Palmerston North. The assumptions used for data drawn from a national or regional level can be broad and not appropriate at a localised level. Upper Hutt referenced this particular limitation in their growth strategy and to remedy this, they commissioned BERL economics to undertake population and dwelling projections to ensure it was relevant to an Upper Hutt context. In the context of Policy PC13C, for FDSs to be informed by a quality evidence, they need to be informed by up to date research and analysis, and have adequate resources and funding to enable this to be done at an appropriate level. This can be achieved through good collaboration and pooling of resources // NZ // page 52

71 4.3.5 Analysis of constraints and opportunities In addition to a housing and business capacity assessment, the locations identified for development capacity in a growth strategy can be derived from an evaluation of potential sites and their constraints. A constraints assessment can provide a robust basis to demonstrate that the preferred sites for growth have been considered against other options. Few strategies had such an analysis in the strategy itself of how areas/ sites were identified, including options assessed and their constraints. Those that did not have a constraints analysis to identify the locations/ sites were high level and did not identify capacity beyond a high level plan of the wider metropolitan area e.g. Adelaide, Melbourne, Greater Golden Horseshoe. The strategies that included an evaluation of constraints and that informed the evaluation of locations/ directions for growth are summarised below. Other strategies refer to background reports that also provide a basis for the preferred option but were not reviewed. Palmerston North CC PNCC s growth strategy provides an evaluation of sites (options) against criteria to determine the preferred locations for growth. The criteria are described as objectives and include constraints including flood risk, high class soils, significant habitats, and cultural heritage amongst a range of matters. Hamilton Evaluation of constraints in assessment of options; Hamilton City presents their analysis of growth options by way of comments, including advantages and disadvantages of different locations against themes of Public Transport, Open Space, Employment, Social well-being and Infrastructure. This is supplemented by a map illustrating the growth option. It is a succinct means of conveying the options considered and their benefits/ costs. The following excerpt from the strategy illustrates the approach: // NZ // page 53

72 Future Proof The strategy has an overview of constraints and opportunities including productivity of rural land and versatile soils; water quality and quantity in rivers, lakes and streams; wetlands, biodiversity, natural hazards, landscape and heritage, coastal matters and other matters. Separate from this, criteria were used for evaluating three growth scenarios. While the above is largely focussed on evaluation of sites in the strategies themselves, constraints analysis has occurred in respect of other strategies such as SmartGrowth. While outside the strategy, Nottingham had a background report that provided a comprehensive evaluation of all the sites considered in determining development capacity. For each site, the following table was completed and for which the criteria were defined. In addition, a summary was presented of the evaluation against sustainability criteria and an overall conclusion // NZ // page 54

73 The excerpt above from Nottingham of evaluating sites reflects a requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for Councils to prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. The process of preparing an assessment involves public consultation to enable anyone to identify any site they think should be considered / assessed for future housing development potential. Each local authority then assesses all identified / suggested sites collates an assessment of each site into a database/ system. The assessment then informs each boroughs housing / capacity targets for the next 3-5 years. Those strategies which tell a story of how a preferred option was chosen and the options evaluated provides transparency and an awareness of how decisions have been made regarding the proposed growth pattern. In the Nottingham example (reflecting the broader requirements for England), the involvement of stakeholders and the public in defining the potential capacity adds value and recognises that good consultation should occur throughout the process. Key components to an effective analysis of different options for capacity and their constraints include: Defining the objectives/ criteria against which locations/ sites are to be assessed. This shall have regard to the key drivers and priorities for Councils, drawing on any vision and or outcomes sought by the community through a Council s Long Term Plan. Consistent with the theme of collaboration, agreement should be sought to the evaluation criteria from key stakeholders. The criteria defined will guide what information is collected; A stocktake to capture all potential sites, using a range of sources including: Previous studies; Consultation with stakeholders and the pubic e.g. Nottingham; GIS mapping to identify vacant sites; and Land use surveys. Methods to be used for evaluating and scoring the different options, including any weighting to be applied; A comprehensive scoping exercise to identify all information and/or evidence of relevance. This will include technical reports on such matters as flood risk and other hazards and will consider the source, date of the information and whether it can be relied on; A comprehensive process of capturing the information, using a proforma similar to that undertaken for the Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy; An analysis of the sites against the criteria, using a technique such as a Multi-criteria analysis, with scoring, a traffic light system, and space for brief comments to provide the rationale for the score; Such analysis should involve suitable persons from within and outside Council with sufficient knowledge of the sites and criteria, and who can make an objective assessment; and Reporting of the outcomes and process, including documentation of all participants, risks and assumptions. While there was not a good example identified that captured all of the above, the techniques identified above are not unique nor do they need to be specific to the context of a growth strategy. The ability to assess and identify constraints in a robust manner will help Councils in defining development capacity to meet demand and forms a critical aspect to compliance with Policies PC12 and 13. Also refer to recommendations in section Implementation Having effective implementation and monitoring frameworks will help FDS meet the requirements under Policy PC13(b) to balance certainty regarding development capacity and enable responsiveness to changes in development demand. To provide certainty, there needs to be a clear framework of how development is to be delivered on the ground and a way of measuring that development is being delivered effectively // NZ // page 55

74 Measuring and monitoring outcomes effectively will provide the ability to quickly respond to changes in market demand. A summary of the research and findings regarding Implementation can be found in the Executive Summary How do growth strategies provide certainty for the provision of development? (PC13(b)) Both NZ and international growth strategies primarily used implementation and monitoring frameworks to provide certainty that future urban development would be provided. However, the detail within these implementation and monitoring frameworks varied across the growth strategies assessed. A summary of findings is outlined in Table 9 below and shows at a high level what detail was included within both implementation and monitoring frameworks. Table 9: Implementation and Monitoring Frameworks Implementation / Monitoring Framework Implementation Framework Contain an implementation framework Presented as a separate document to the growth strategy Shows estimated cost of development Outlines both implementation actions and tools Shows partner stakeholders for projects Assigns stakeholders responsibilities for project delivery Shows broad timeframes for development delivery Shows developments linking to other strategies/ plans Growth strategy where the implementation framework is to be defined at a later date Strategy Auckland Wellington City Smart Growth Queenstown Lakes Greater Nottingham Waipa Greater Golden Horseshoe Wellington City Melbourne Porirua City Waipa Wellington City Greater Nottingham Future Proof Christchurch Waipa Auckland Porirua City Wellington City Future Proof Christchurch City Greater Nottingham Vancouver Melbourne West Sussex Smart Growth Queenstown Future Proof Christchurch Porirua City Waipa Future Proof Christchurch Porirua City Nelson Future Proof Adelaide Melbourne Vancouver Christchurch Upper Hutt Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Greater Nottingham Smart Growth Smart Growth Queenstown Auckland Greater Golden Horseshoe Adelaide Auckland Wellington City Upper Hutt Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Greater Nottingham Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Greater Nottingham // NZ // page 56

75 Implementation / Monitoring Framework Monitoring Framework Contain a specified monitoring framework Presented as a separate document to the growth strategy Presents monitoring targets / indicators Presents monitoring actions and tools Show who is responsible for undertaking monitoring actions Show timeframes for monitoring to be undertaken Growth strategy where the implementation framework states that the monitoring framework is to be defined at a later date Strategy Auckland Wellington City Smart Growth Queenstown Lakes Greater Nottingham Waipa Greater Golden Horseshoe Wellington City Melbourne Porirua City Future Proof Queenstown Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Christchurch Waipa Auckland Future Proof Smart Growth Auckland Future Proof Smart Growth Nelson City (2006) Porirua City (2009) Greater Golden Horseshoe Future Proof Adelaide Melbourne Vancouver Christchurch Upper Hutt Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Waipa Greater Nottingham Coastal West Sussex and Greater Brighton Greater Nottingham Adelaide Melbourne Adelaide Melbourne Table 9 shows the variety of detail and information found in growth strategies regarding implementation and monitoring frameworks. Common themes within both implementation and monitoring frameworks that can be drawn from Table 9 include: Implementation Frameworks: The majority of growth strategies contain an implementation framework; The majority of growth strategies show both the actions to be undertaken to achieve implementation and also the tools that will be used; The majority of growth strategies show partner stakeholder responsibilities in the implementation process; The majority of growth strategies showed broad timeframes of development delivery; A small number of growth strategies delegate responsibilities for delivery to partner stakeholders; and A small number of growth strategies show the estimated cost of development. Monitoring Frameworks: The majority of growth strategies contain a monitoring framework; A small number of growth strategies show monitoring targets / indicators; A small number of growth strategies show monitoring actions and tools; A small number of growth strategies specify responsibility for monitoring actions; and A small number of growth strategies define timeframes for monitoring actions to be completed by. The sub-sections below discuss the contents of growth strategy implementation and monitoring frameworks and how the contents will affect the ability of FDS to meet the requirements of Policy PC13(b) // NZ // page 57

76 Implementation While defining the location and nature of development capacity is a core purpose of FDS, the cornerstone of their success in meeting Policy PC13(b) depends on how development will be realised on the ground and the certainty surrounding delivery. The more information provided for how developments will be planned and delivered increases the certainty that they will be delivered on the ground. The primary reason for the difference in detail among growth strategies appeared to result from how much upfront work authorities were willing to do when developing a growth strategy. The more robust consultation and planning that occurred at the front-end allowed for a clearer picture to be developed of what needs to be done, who needs to do it, where funding is coming from and what timeframes can be expected for completion. With this up-front consultation and planning completed, this information can then be feed into giving a clear picture of how a development will be achieved thus giving more certainty surrounding it. Figure 27 provides an excerpt from the Melbourne Implementation Plan which was considered to have an effective implementation framework: Figure 27: Melbourne Implementation Plan From Figure 27 the following information can be determined surrounding how Action 21 is to be implemented: Which Plan Melbourne Direction the Action relates to; An explanation of what the sequencing strategy will contain; An explanation of what tasks will be used to inform the sequencing strategy; The timeframe of delivery; and The lead and supporting agencies responsible for implementation. The detail provided within Figure 27 is representative of a good understanding of what is trying to be achieved and the process behind how this can be done. Through the interview with the Victorian Government, a combination of good robust upfront consultation and collaboration aided their implementation framework. In terms of the consequences of not undertaking the upfront work required to have an informative implementation framework, there can be a number of resulting issues, including: Not understanding the full extent of constraints / opportunities that projects are facing; Confusion around responsibility of who is to deliver different components of the project; Confusion around how projects are to be funded and when they are to be delivered by; and Lack of an understanding of the scope and tools required to deliver a project // NZ // page 58

77 An approach that local authorities used, for example Waipa and Greater Nottingham, to manage implementation of growth strategy actions was to have delivery champions who were responsible for coordinating how developments are delivered. This may involve co-ordinating infrastructure providers, finding funding for developments or driving changes to district plans for example. Overall, in order to provide certainty for stakeholders and the community and to achieve the requirements of Policy PC13B, FDS will need to have an implementation framework that demonstrate and provide confidence of how delivery is to occur and that development capacity will be realised. To achieve this, there needs to be robust upfront work undertaken to understand the requirements of delivering the project and how this can be effectively planned and outlined in a meaningful way in FDS Monitoring An integral and interconnected aspect of having effective implementation is having an effective monitoring framework. Effective monitoring will provide transparency around the success of FDS implementation frameworks and will help provide certainty regarding development and achieving compliance with Policy PC13B. As reflected in the results in Table 9, there were not effective monitoring frameworks observed through all of the growth strategies. In a number of growth strategies, it was found that as part of an action plan, a monitoring framework and performance indicators would be determined. As a consequence, the monitoring framework and indicators sit outside the growth strategy until its next review. Examples of growth strategies that propose to establish a monitoring framework as an action include Porirua (created in 2009) and Nelson (created in 2006). Establishing a framework for monitoring into the strategy can: Provide context against which the outcomes are set; Provide clarity of what success looks like and how it will be achieved; and Demonstrate that the strategy is more than aspirational and has a SMART component to it, particularly around measurability. The growth plan for Adelaide is an example of good practice in conveying in a simple manner, what is sought as a measurable target and how it is to be determined. The image below provides an excerpt from that plan: // NZ // page 59

78 In terms of monitoring and the information collected, the Coastal West Sussex Monitoring and Delivery Framework 2016 provides a good practice example as illustrated in Figure 28 below: Figure 28: West Sussex Monitoring and Delivery Framework // NZ // page 60

79 From Figure 28 the following information can be ascertained: Proposed dwelling supply targets for each area; Year on year progress in terms of dwelling delivery; and Comment on how shortfall of supply is proposed to be met. This information provides certainty on development of the capacity identified in the strategy and how successful implementation and delivery has been on the ground. Furthermore, it provides certainty by outlining how shortfalls are proposed to be tackled. Again through the interview process and research it was found that to have a detailed effective monitoring framework, there needed to be robust upfront work to determine what the monitoring framework is to look like, who is going to undertake it and what performance indicators will be used to measure success. The creation of indicators and monitoring frameworks for FDSs should be done alongside the development of the implementation framework to ensure the two inform and can be seen beside each other. The example above from the UK is in a legislative context that requires monitoring on an annual basis and the setting of targets for housing delivery. In a NZ context, barriers to undertaking effective monitoring that were raised by local authorities included a lack of resources, especially when faced with other statutory obligations that needed to be undertaken. Local authorities expressed that good monitoring involved collecting up to date data that could be assessed and interpreted in an efficient manner and this often meant having a skilled resource able to undertake this, such as economists and modellers. However, there are opportunities for local authorities to utilise existing systems and partner with other local authorities to provide effective monitoring frameworks with one example presented in Figure 29. Figure 29: Live monitoring from Christchurch Figure 29 provides an example of live monitoring that has been undertaken by Christchurch City Council. This option provides an example of how information on supply and availability can be effectively communicated around development delivery. If local authorities are unable to develop their own methods, // NZ // page 61

80 then partnering with agencies that have existing good practices would be an effective way of achieving improvements in practice and certainty of delivery in line with Policy PC13B. In an international context, it was found that the responsibility of monitoring growth strategies was shouldered by state / regional governments, for example Adelaide, Melbourne, Vancouver, who often had a larger resource pool to draw on in order to undertake effective monitoring What are the review timeframes for growth strategies and how are they kept relevant? (PC13(b)) To allow FDS to be responsive to demand they need to be kept relevant in order to provide certainty that there is sufficient and feasible development capacity. Part of being responsive is reflected in how up to date FDS are at any point in time to enable effective management of growth. Table 10 provides analysis of both the time period growth strategies were developed for and the review periods for growth strategies assessed. Note: The year the growth strategy was released / last updated is in brackets next to its name. Table 10: Period and Review timeframes for growth strategies Timeframe for Review Strategy Time Period of growth strategy years Coastal West Sussex (2016) Greater Nottingham (2014) years Wellington City (2014) Palmerston North (2010) Upper Hutt (2016) Hutt City (2012) years Christchurch (2007) Hamilton (2010) Auckland (2012) 40 years + Future Proof (2009) Full Growth Strategy Review Period No timeframe given for next full review Smart Growth (2013) Waipa (2009) Hutt City (2012) Nelson City (2006) Palmerston North (2010) Coastal West Sussex (2016) On-going review process Future Proof (2009) Greater Nottingham (2014) Every 3 years Wellington City (2014) Every 5 years Upper Hutt (2017) Melbourne (2017) Adelaide (2016) Vancouver (2015) Greater Golden Horseshoe (2016) Every 6 years Queenstown (2007) Smart Growth (2013) Every 10 years Waipa (2009) Nelson (2006) Porirua City (2009) Queenstown (2007) Greater Golden Horseshoe (2016) Vancouver (2015) Melbourne (2017) Greater Adelaide (2016) Porirua City (2009) Hamilton City (2010) Christchurch City (2007) Auckland Plan (2012) // NZ // page 62

81 Timeframe for Review Strategy Implementation Framework Review Not specified Porirua City Wellington City Every 5 years Melbourne From Table 10 the following themes can be identified regarding the time and review periods of growth strategies: Time Periods: The majority of growth strategies have time periods of years; and All but two growth strategies have time periods over 19 years. Review Periods: The majority of growth strategies have a specified full review timetable; The majority of growth strategies that have no specified review timetable have not had a full review in the last five years; Of those growth strategies that specified a review timetable, five years was the most common timeframe; and Melbourne was the only growth strategy that specifically reviewed its implementation framework Analysis With the majority of growth strategies having a time period of over 19 years, there is a need to ensure that growth strategies are responsive to inevitable changes in development demand that will occur within the lifetime of the strategies. Table 10 highlights that the majority of growth strategies did have specified timeframes to undertake a full review of the growth strategies, which ensures growth strategies are indeed responsive to changes in demand and able to convey certainty of future development capacity. In a NZ context, there was a tendency for some growth strategies to state that a review was to be undertaken on a need to basis or that a review would be undertaken in line with the Long Term, Regional or District Plan review process, for example Hamilton City, Porirua City, Queenstown and Christchurch City. Through the interview process, a response when asked about updating and reviewing growth strategies was that there was no perceived urgency to review them with limited resources and other statutory responsibilities taking priority. The speed of change was also cited as a contributing factor within highgrowth areas, such as Queenstown for not seeking to keep their strategy up to date. Undertaking a full review of a strategy can be a lengthy and resource intensive process, with some growth strategies being over 300 pages long. Having up to date monitoring data and information to enable reviews to happen quickly and efficiently is going to be a critical factor for FDSs to enable compliance with Policy PC13(b). It has already been outlined in section above how establishing effective monitoring frameworks has been an area of weakness in existing growth strategies. For FDSs to provide certainty of development capacity, they need to remain relevant and therefore need to be reviewed and updated regularly. For an effective review to take place, they must be informed by up to date reporting and monitoring data, which in turn, supports a Council s ability to be responsive to changes in development demand. This is reliant on readily available monitoring data to allow the review process to happen quickly instead of having to undertake a large amount of work to establish how the FDS is tracking // NZ // page 63

82 4.4.3 Do growth strategies have mechanisms to enable additional growth areas to be included? (PC13(b)) Aside from ensuring FDS are able to effectively respond to changes in development demand at the review phase there is a need for FDS to be responsive to changes in development demand in the shorter term in order to satisfy Policy PC13B. This was found to be an area of deficiency within growth strategies assessed and Table 11 outlines the limited responsive mechanisms which were observed. Table 11: Responsive mechanisms Mechanism Used Application taken to a Board of Directors for Approval Enabled through another policy document Strategy Vancouver Waipa Future Proof Hamilton City Figure 30 outlines the process that a municipality can go through to amend either their Regional Context Statement or the overall Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. In a Vancouver context Regional Context Statements contain a municipalities urban growth boundary and therefore amending them can increase a municipality s development capacity. As Vancouver 2040 is a sub-regional strategy it has a governance board that must approve any amendments to municipalities Regional Context Statements which when prepared must be in line with the vision of Vancouver 2040 and each Regional Context Statements must get signed off by the Metro Vancouver governance board. This approach allows changes to be made to both Regional Context Statements and the overall Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy without the need to wait until the review process. Figure 30: Vancouver // NZ // page 64

83 In a NZ context there were no specific mechanisms identified within growth strategies themselves which allowed amendments to be made to the growth strategies without a review. However, mechanisms were observed in other policy instruments which could be used to amend growth areas identified within growth strategies such as within the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS). Figure 31 shows part of Policy 6.14 of the WRPS which effectively allows for the swapping out of constrained future greenfield sites for more feasible greenfield options if specified criteria can be met. There are limited examples in a NZ context of how FDS could enable meaning flexibility to comply with PC13(b). Utilising a mechanism within a higher level policy instrument, such as an RPS, could be an effective means to enable consistent flexibility across regions. In terms of enabling responsiveness of a FDS, there is a need to explore further options that may enable on-going flexibility. Figure 31: Waikato Regional Policy Statement 4.5 Gap analysis and Key questions Having regard to the preceding analysis and research undertaken, the following provides points in respond to some key questions It is noted that some of these questions are also analysed in more detail in sections // NZ // page 65

84 4.5.1 Gaps within existing growth strategies that will impact council s ability to meet Policies PC12-14 Having regard to the preceding analysis, all of the NZ strategies reviewed addressed aspects of PC12 to PC14 at a high level, either in part or to the extent required. Table 12 provides an overview of existing strategies and an indication of whether the strategies themselves address requirements of policies PC12 to PC14. The following limitations apply in making such an assessment: All strategies reviewed have been prepared proactively in advance of any NPS guidance. In that regard, strategy documents may not use the specific language and terminology now presented in PC12 to PC14; As policies, there is a degree of interpretation required and not a black and white answer as would be associated with a standard; Each of policies PC12 to PC14 have multiple components and a strategy may address one component but not another. An example is Policy PC13(b), which requires that an FDS balances certainty with the need to be responsive. As is apparent in the table below, a number of strategies demonstrated a degree of certainty but did not have a mechanism to provide flexibility in delivery; and A judgement is required as to whether each policy is addressed with the potential for different interpretations. For example, the degree of certainty provided by a strategy may differ between different users // NZ // page 66

85 Table 12 Overview of existing growth strategies against policies PC12 to PC14 of the NPS Auckland Plan Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy Future Proof Smart Growth Growth Management Strategy for Queenstown Lakes District Council. PC12 FDS to be produced that demonstrates sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long term. Also, how targets will be met Meets in part Strategy demonstrates sufficient capacity over the medium to long term by settlement over different timeframes. There are strategic targets/directions through the strategy in relation to different topics, including housing and infrastructure. The strategy does not demonstrate how these targets will be met. The Auckland Plan Addendum sets out a broad approach to the Implementation of the Plan, including an indicative process for the identification and measurement of targets over time. Meets in part Strategy demonstrates sufficient capacity over the medium to long term by settlement over different timeframes. However, there is not clarity in the strategy that the capacity defined is plan enabled or infrastructure is programmed. No targets in the strategy although the projected growth provides the basis for a target. Meets in part Description provided of how growth is to be accommodated in the growth areas identified. However, it is not specifically demonstrated that it is feasible, that infrastructure is in place or planned, and enabled by planning documents in the short term. Actions are assigned to specific owners in the implementation table. Meets in part Strategy identifies dwelling yields and capacities compared to the urban growth areas identified. Objectives and policies identify challenges and opportunities to be able to provide capacity to accommodate predicted growth. The timing and methodology for identification of future residential and business land is also articulated. Not Met Does not demonstrate where growth will be accommodated in the medium and long term. No targets identified and the strategy does not clearly articulate whether the capacity is defined as plan enabled or infrastructure is programmed // NZ // page 67

86 Auckland Plan Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy Future Proof Smart Growth Growth Management Strategy for Queenstown Lakes District Council. PC13A. Identifies the broad location, timing and sequencing of future development capacity PC13B. Balances certainty re. provision of future urban development with the need to be responsive to demand Meets Location Identifies locations for intensification and future urban growth at a regional scale (the Development Strategy map). Timing and sequencing not explicitly addressed through the Auckland Plan, though this is addressed through the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. Meets in part. Greater detail on how provision of future urban growth is to be achieved is set out in the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy Meets Location identifies employment and residential areas and whether they are priority 1 or 2. Timing and sequencing- The sequencing and release of land is identified on maps and reflects growth projections identified in the strategy. Meets in part Certainty provided in defining growth areas and sequencing of that growth. Certainty also provided in identification of infrastructure requirements and programming of delivery Meets Location the projected population is assigned to locations. Both business land and residential intensification opportunities are identified. Timing and sequencing- the distribution of growth is assigned over 10 yearsperiods for both business land and residential settlements. Meets in part Certainty provided by the identification of settlement patterns and business land that is required for both local servicing and strategic nodes. The timing and capacity of industrial land also provides a greater Meets Location - Identifies broad locations of residential and industrial land, and commercial centres using a corridor approach, which identifies area near to key transport routes. Timing and sequencing Timing and sequencing of residential land is provided as Generation 1-4. Implementation tables outline when actions should be achieved which includes the implementation of infrastructure and monitoring. Meets in part Certainty defining growth areas and sequencing of that growth. Also, certainty provided in identification of infrastructure requirements and programming of delivery (in the urgent, Meets in part Location- urban growth boundaries are identified Timing and sequencing no timing or sequencing provided except in implementation tables which provide short, medium and long-term actions. Meets in part Growth is defined at a very high level in the urban growth boundaries but this does not provide enough certainty. The strategy is reliant on other resource management planning documents for // NZ // page 68

87 Auckland Plan Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy Future Proof Smart Growth Growth Management Strategy for Queenstown Lakes District Council. PC13C. Informed by Long Term Plans and Infrastructure Strategies and any other relevant strategies/ plans Meets Evidence of statistical analysis, central and local government research andother documents to inform the strategy. The Auckland Plan review currently underway is also strongly linked to and informed by the recent updates in relation to the Unitary Plan, Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and Long Term Plan processes. (and the focus of long term growth). Mechanisms provided through LTCCP (and amendments to it), District Plan review, the Hamilton Sub-Regional Growth Strategy and Waipa2050. Meets Evidence of being informed by lots of local plans and strategies (including Regional and District Plans, LTP etc) level of certainty. Density targets are identified but infrastructure requirements are not articulated (although there are key actions and assumptions which sometimes identify infrastructure requirements). Reliant on implementation tools such as RPS, District Plan and Regional Plans etc. Meets Range of strategies and plans identified as informing the strategy and requirements for implementation including other growth strategies, Long Term Plans and Regional Plan. short, medium and long term ). Recognises that other strategies and resource management planning tools are required to implement the strategy and be responsive to demand (Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement, District Plans and Regional Land Transport Strategy). Meets Significant research undertaken to obtain and understand all of the building blocks of the strategy (community, tangata whenua, environment, integrated planning etc). The research briefs and national and local/regional documents/strategies are identified throughout the strategy. implementation, the District Plan providing the more up to date framework for growth management. Meets Informed by a myriad of documents and projects such as Long term Plans, Structure Plans, Option Study Reports and Economics Strategies // NZ // page 69

88 Auckland Plan Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy Future Proof Smart Growth Growth Management Strategy for Queenstown Lakes District Council. PC14A. Undertake a consultation process that complies with Part 6 of the LGA or Schedule 1 of the RMA. PC14B. Be informed by an assessment under PB1 (Capacity assessment) PC14C. Have particular regard to Policy PA1 (Ensuring there is Meets Significant consultation was undertaken to develop the strategy which was in accordance with the LGA. Meets in part Although both the Auckland Plan and future Urban land Supply Strategy considered different scenarios for growth in Auckland, this did not analyse all of the elements outlined in PA1 of the NPS. Not met Strategy itself does not provide an indication that Meets Consultation process undertaken in accordance with the LGA.Previous consultation at a community level informed some of the inputs, and there is on-going consultation on implementation projects. Meets in part Appendix 1 identifies the growth priority assessment which was undertaken for each of the growth cells. Residential land, open space, infrastructure and transport options were identified in these growth scenarios. Not met Strategy itself does not provide an indication that there is sufficient growth Meets Consultation process undertaken in accordance with the LGA. In particular, public consultation on the three growth scenarios was undertaken. Meets in part Population projections and the allocation and staging of it through to 2061 is provided in terms of residential growth. Provisional location, capacity and staging of industrial land is also provided. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Meets Consultation process undertaken in accordance with the LGA. Extensive ongoing consultation through stakeholder forums on a myriad of different issues. Meets in part Informed by a residential land intensification study and industrial land study. The industrial land research project included the assessment of commercial land based on SmartGrowth population projections. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Meets Consultation process undertaken in accordance with the LGA. Extensive consultation on structure plans that were utilised to inform the strategy.. Not Met Does not appear to be informed by a capacity assessment. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time // NZ // page 70

89 Auckland Plan Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy Future Proof Smart Growth Growth Management Strategy for Queenstown Lakes District Council. sufficient capacity at any one time) there is sufficient growth at any one time. at any one time or that infrastructure is available for short term capacity and infrastructure is programmed or identified for medium and long term capacity. Waipa 2050 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Wellington Urban Growth Strategy Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy PC12 FDS to be produced that demonstrates sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long term. Also, how targets will be met Meets in part Strategy demonstrates sufficient capacity over the medium to long term in each township over different timeframes. Infrastructure requirements are defined and programmed to demonstrate that capacity can be serviced. However, it is not specifically demonstrated that it is commercially feasible. No targets in the strategy although the projected Meets in part Description provided of how growth is to be accommodated between districts and infill/ greenfield areas. However, it is not specifically demonstrated that it is commercially feasible, that infrastructure is in place or planned, and enabled by planning documents in the short term. Actions identified to implement the strategy Meets in part Description provided of how growth is to be accommodated by location including potential capacity. Targets are specified for growth by housing type. No feasibility assessment forms part of the strategy. Meets in part Description that sufficient land will be provided to meet growth rates. However, it is not demonstrated that infrastructure is available or programmed. A target is set of 6,000 homes by 2032 but it is not demonstrated in the strategy that capacity is sufficient to meet this target. Meets in part Potential capacity for additional housing in the existing urban area and new greenfield areas defined by area at a suburban scale for next 20 years. Growth forecasts included and capacity appears to be sufficient to meet future needs but not explicit. No indication that feasibility has been assessed although reference to further // NZ // page 71

90 Waipa 2050 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Wellington Urban Growth Strategy Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy growth provides the basis for a target. including amendments to RMA documents. Assessment made of the commercial feasibility of infill but otherwise no evidence to demonstrate that capacity is feasible. investigation of areas, having regard to affordability of being serviced. Capacity defined for business by sites but not related to growth/ need. PC13A. Identifies the broad location, timing and sequencing of future development capacity Meets in part Location Identifies locations for capacity. Intensification opportunities not identified by location, with subsequent actions to implement. Development capacity not tested as to commercial feasibility. Timing and sequencing Capacity to accommodate growth is sequenced to reflect growth projections and infrastructure requirements. Meets in part Location - Identifies broad locations of capacity. Location of intensification opportunities not identified. Development capacity not tested as to commercial feasibility. Timing and sequencing - Distribution of growth over 3 time periods specified (timing) with allocation by broad categories. Meets in part Location Identifies locations for growth, both greenfield and infill areas for investigation. Development capacity not tested as to commercial feasibility. Timing and Sequencing Timing or sequencing of capacity is not indicated in the strategy. Meets in part Location Capacity defined by location including intensification opportunities. Action in the strategy for further investigative work on areas that may be suitable for targeted infill intensification. Development capacity not tested as to commercial feasibility. Timing and sequencing: Timing or sequencing of capacity is not indicated in the strategy. Meets in part Location The location of capacity for residential is defined by area (Suburban scale) for greenfield and infill development. Also, opportunities are defined for greenfield sites. Capacity defined for business by the identification of sites. Development capacity not tested as to commercial feasibility. Timing and sequencing Timing or sequencing of capacity is not indicated. PC13B. Balances certainty re. Meets in part Meets in part Meets in part Meets in part Meets in part // NZ // page 72

91 Waipa 2050 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Wellington Urban Growth Strategy Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy provision of future urban development with the need to be responsive to demand Certainty provided in defining growth areas and sequencing of that growth. Also, certainty provided in identification of infrastructure requirements and programming of delivery. Mechanism provided through the Waikato RPS and Waipa District Plan to enable development in cells identified for longer term growth (outside strategy). Also a review every 3 years to enable amendments as appropriate. Certainty provided in defining growth to be accommodated by infill, greenfield capacity and by District (by table). No indication of infrastructure requirements by area in strategy itself. Background report has assessed cost of infrastructure to support growth. No indication of responsiveness in the strategy. Certainty provided in defining growth to be accommodated over time (2028, 2043) and the potential capacity by location to meet this. There is no indication of infrastructure requirements by area in the strategy itself. However, the strategy seeks to direct growth to areas where there is sufficient infrastructure already in place. No indication of responsiveness in the strategy. Certainty is provided of where growth is to be accommodated and infrastructure requirements by area (descriptive. There is no indication of how the strategy can be responsive. Certainty is provided of where growth is to be accommodated including estimates of potential capacity by suburb. No indication of infrastructure requirements. No indication of responsiveness in the strategy. PC13C. Informed by Long Term Plans and Infrastructure Strategies and any other relevant strategies/ plans Meets Evidence of infrastructure programming in LTCCP, which has informed strategy. A number of strategies are identified as implementing the strategy including the LTCCP and infrastructure strategies. Meets Range of strategies/ plans identified to inform the strategy. A number of strategies are identified as implementing the strategy including the LTCCP and infrastructure plans. Meets Documents referenced that the strategy draws on including infrastructure strategies and frameworks. A number of strategies are identified as implementing the strategy including the Long Term Plan, Transport Meets Informed by regional documents including Wellington Regional Strategy and locally specific documents including Council s Reserves Strategic directions plan. Meets A number of documents informed the strategy including Wellington Regional Strategy and locally specific documents including the LTCCP. A number of strategies are identified as implementing // NZ // page 73

92 Waipa 2050 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Wellington Urban Growth Strategy Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy and infrastructure, and planning documents. The strategy has also been informed by the LTCCP, which has infrastructure programmed to support growth. the strategy including the RPS, District Plan, and Asset Management Plans. Further work identified as an output including review of the Economic Development Strategy to align with the growth strategy Waipa 2050 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Wellington Urban Growth Strategy Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy PC14A. Undertake a consultation process that complies with Part 6 of the LGA or Schedule 1 of the RMA. Meets Submissions period from mid October to mid November 2008, together with face to face meetings, public open days/ community workshops over this period. Meets Consultation undertaken on options with 3,250 submissions and 22 community meetings. Duration not known. Meets Public consultation undertaken on the draft strategy in 2014 which received 89 submissions. Duration not known. Meets Reference made to consultation and submissions, which informed the decisions at a high level. Duration not known. Meets A 'Discussion Paper' was released for public consultation at the end of Nov 2006 following which there were meetings with the public and stakeholders. Consultation ended in February 2007 with hearings in September // NZ // page 74

93 Waipa 2050 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) Wellington Urban Growth Strategy Hutt City Urban Growth Strategy Upper Hutt Urban Growth Strategy PC14B. Be informed by an assessment under PB1 (Capacity assessment) Meets in part Assessment completed with an indication given for each development node of the estimated dwelling capacity. Meets in part Residential development capacity analysis completed in June No reference to a Business Capacity Assessment. Not met No indication of a capacity assessment Meets in part Not explicit but strategy indicates that a review was undertaken of all rural residential and undeveloped residential land to assess its suitability. Not met No indication of a capacity assessment. PC14C. Have particular regard to Policy PA1 (Ensuring there is sufficient capacity at any one time) Meets Strategy demonstrates sufficient capacity and indication provided of whether infrastructure is programmed in the Long Term Plan and therefore funded. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Porirua Development Framework Nelson Urban Growth Strategy Palmerston North Residential Growth Strategy PC12 FDS to be produced that demonstrates sufficient, feasible development capacity in the medium and long Meets in part Strategy demonstrates how growth is to be accommodated over the median and long term, with an indicative map of areas for intensification and greenfield development. Potential capacity is not provided in the strategy itself, but the Meets in part Demonstrates sufficient capacity to accommodate growth needs at a high level. Indicative of where growth is to be accommodated and the timing of requirements for additional land. Meets in part Demonstrates sufficient greenfield capacity to meet growth over the next 20 years. Clear definition of areas where growth is to be accommodated. Further work outside the strategy // NZ // page 75

94 Porirua Development Framework Nelson Urban Growth Strategy Palmerston North Residential Growth Strategy term. Also, how targets will be met characteristics and constraints of strategic areas for growth is explained. The strategy does not include details of infrastructure requirements or commercial feasibility to development. Development capacity not tested as to commercial feasibility. was to be undertaken to determine development viability through feasibility studies. Development capacity not tested as to feasibility. PC13A. Identifies the broad location, timing and sequencing of future development capacity Meets in part Location Strategy defines broad locations to accommodate growth with a high level map. Timing and Sequencing The timing of release of capacity is not indicated in the strategy but it is made clear that this will need to be managed through future strategic study exercises, structure planning, asset management planning and implementation, urban design work and other associated programmes. Meets in part Location - Strategy defines broad locations to accommodate growth with a high level map. Timing and Sequencing - Indication of when additional land is required to meet growth (2026 in Hira) but not the clarity of the timing of other growth areas. Meets in part Location Strategy defines broad locations to accommodate growth with a high level map. Timing and Sequencing No indication of timing or sequencing to in the preferred greenfield areas. PC13B. Balances certainty re. provision of future urban development with the need to be responsive to demand Meets in part Certainty provided on how growth is to be provided for over 30 years and the actions required to deliver the strategy. No indication of responsiveness in the strategy. Meets in part Certainty provided of how growth is to be accommodated to 2026 and beyond as well as a description of actions required to deliver e.g. structure plans. No indication of responsiveness in the strategy. Meets in part Certainty provided of how growth is to be accommodated over the 20 year horizon and actions required to deliver. Responsiveness in the strategy through assessment of all alternatives, which may come forward at a future date // NZ // page 76

95 Porirua Development Framework Nelson Urban Growth Strategy Palmerston North Residential Growth Strategy PC13C. Informed by Long Term Plans and Infrastructure Strategies and any other relevant strategies/ plans Meets The strategy defines other plans that have informed the strategy including the Wellington Regional Strategy, Regional Policy Statement, Regional Land Transportation Strategy, Community Planning documents and the Porirua City District Plan. Meets Statement describing how the strategy fits in with a number of Council s statutory documents, such as the Asset Management Plans, Regional Policy Statement, Regional Land Transport Strategy and the Resource Management Plan. Meets Strategy identifies other documents that provide a framework and that have informed the Residential Growth Strategy including a Sustainable City Strategy, Transport plans, a Rural Residential strategy, Retail Strategy and Urban Design Strategy. The strategy has defined actions for delivery of the strategy, through other documents including the Long Term Plan. PC14A. Undertake a consultation process that complies with Part 6 of the LGA or Schedule 1 of the RMA. Meets Community consultation with a hearings process undertaken for the development of the strategy. No indication of timeframe. Meets Public submissions were invited in March 2005 with over 900 submissions being received. A series of public meetings were held on the growth options. Also reference to the annual residents survey and submissions on the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) informing the strategy. No indication of timeframe. Meets A discussion document was released with feedback invited over a month in July/ August A range of methods were used including landowner and stakeholder meetings and open days. PC14B. Be informed by an assessment under PB1 (Capacity assessment) Meets in part Evidence of a capacity assessment to understand existing supply and potential capacity. Meets in Part There is evidence in the strategy to suggest that a very high-level capacity assessment was undertaken for growth areas. Meets Strategy has been informed by an assessment of capacity, based on monitoring // NZ // page 77

96 Porirua Development Framework Nelson Urban Growth Strategy Palmerston North Residential Growth Strategy PC14C. Have particular regard to Policy PA1 (Ensuring there is sufficient capacity at any one time) Meets Strategy indicates that the existing land bank provides development potential for between 5 and 15 years supply. Not met No evidence that capacity is sufficient at any one time. Meets Strategy indicates that the existing land bank provides up to 10 years supply, if not more // NZ // page 78

97 Key trends in how strategies address policies PC12 to PC14 are summarised as follows: Growth strategies identify the broad location of future development capacity to accommodate growth (PC13(a)). The growth strategies subject to the research defined the location of capacity provided to meet future needs. In doing so, they identified areas for growth, either by location or the extent of areas. The definition of locations of future development capacity was broad-brush in the majority of strategies, with subsequent planning documents, namely District Plans, defining capacity relative to cadastral boundaries. A strategy that met the requirement of PC13(a) in an effective manner was Waipa 2050, which as discussed earlier, communicates the extent of growth areas and the timing of that capacity. The level of detail is appropriate in the context of a district with smaller urban areas i.e. towns, but in the context of a large city, may not be appropriate, having regard to the number of sites and potential size a document would become. In a large urban area or sub-regional area, subject to a joint FDS, it is anticipated that information will be at a higher level in terms of the scale of maps and depth of information presented. For instance, Smart Growth s approach of managing growth along corridors provides an appropriate balance of certainty and flexibility. There is an understanding of how growth is to be sequenced and infrastructure without going to the site-specific level, which comes through in other strategies and the District Plans. Refer to recommendations on this matter. Providing a degree of certainty of how growth is to be managed over the horizon of the growth strategy (PC13(b). The strategies in a NZ context provide certainty in the provision of future development. This was achieved through definition of the areas anticipated for growth and actions to enable this to occur. There is no doubt that expectations vary in the market place of what level of information provides certainty. Arguably, the high level definition of locations for capacity does not provide certainty to the extent of a small scale plan defining the extent of growth areas as occurs in Waipa Certainty is also provided through understanding what is required to enable development in defined areas, including amendments to RMA documents and infrastructure. The absent of detail as to what is required by area/ site would suggest a lack of certainty in existing growth strategies. As identified above, some strategies in defining requirements for enabling development/ actions by area e.g. Waipa, Nelson, can be interpreted as providing more certainty and therefore confidence as to how growth is to be managed. Being informed by a broader strategic framework of documents While the context/ framework that a strategy was prepared within was communicated, references to other strategies and plans was primarily in the context of how the growth strategy was to be implemented i.e. the documents that were to be prepared or reviewed to support implementation of the strategy. This included Long Term Plans, District Plans (Included plan changes) as the outputs to a strategy, rather than inputs. In defining inputs to the strategy, those strategies subject to this research generally referenced key documents throughout the strategy. Few strategies had a standalone section on what informed the strategy, an example being Greater Christchurch which defined Guiding principles and strategic directions. This provides some context and an understanding of how a path was taken in the strategy // NZ // page 79

98 Wellington used a diagram as a simple but effective means of conveying what strategies/ plans informed the growth strategy. This was the only strategy to communicate the inputs in this manner. As illustrated in the diagram above from the Wellington Urban Growth Plan, growth strategies are informed by other strategies/ plans while also influencing those documents. While strategies may not be reviewed to align with a growth strategy, the practice of implementing those strategies has regard to more up to date directions of Council as expressed through a growth strategy. With a number of Councils already having growth strategies in place and subsequent implementation of those strategies giving rise to a number of other plans/ strategies/ implementation methods, the range of inputs to the FDSs to be prepared will be more extensive. This is on the basis that existing growth strategies provide a foundation of work on which the FDS is being introduced. Consultation having been undertaken on issues, options and/or a proposal to inform the strategy (PC14(a)). The strategies prepared by Councils to date have been under the Local Government Act and therefore, Councils have had a duty to consult in accordance with Part 6 of the Local Government Act. This is discussed in more detail in section 4.1. As is apparent, a range of methods were used by Councils to consult with and obtain input from stakeholders and the community. It was common for either a discussion document or paper to be released for feedback but what is less apparent is the extent to which input was obtained from stakeholders in preparation of the strategy. In building on the work to date, Councils should take a collaborate approach of involving stakeholders and the community throughout the process. Given the requirements that exist now, it is considered a necessary component to demonstrating feasible development capacity of involving stakeholders that will be primarily responsible for implementing the strategy early. As stated above, existing strategies were prepared in a policy context, absent of the NPS and therefore, existing strategies do not address all components of policies PC12 to PC14 of the NPS. Those areas // NZ // page 80